Ingram Guideline Cam Prunus Mgt Plan 2009

Table of contents

List of figures, tables and photos vUnits of measure viPreface viiAcknowledgements ixExecutive summary xAbbreviations xii

1. Objective 1

2. Context 5 2.1 Policy background 5 2.2 Legal context 9 2.3 Trade 9 2.4 Development context 11 2.5 Ecological context 16 2.6 Ecology, forest type and national distribution 19

3. Prunus africana populations and inventories in Cameroon 29 3.1 Mount Cameroon 29 3.2 Adamaoua 32 3.3 North West 33 3.4 Littoral-Bakossi Mountains 36 3.5 Lessons from past inventories 36

4. Prunus africana harvest units 41 4.1 Current permit allocation system and zones 41 4.2 Recommendations for Prunus allocation units 43 4.3 PAU allocation procedure 45

5. Inventory norm 51 5.1 Current practice 51 5.2 Recommendations for the inventory norm 52 5.3 Principles 54 5.4 Research and capacity building needs 54

6. Bark yield calculations 57 6.1 Bark yield studies 57 6.2 Sustainable yield equation 58

7. National quota 65 7.1 Available stocks of Prunus africana 65

8. Harvest norm 67 8.1 Current harvest practices 67 8.2 Recommended harvest norms 69 8.3 Principles 70 8.4 Research needs 70

9. Roles of management and scientific authorities 71 9.1 Management authority: MINFOF 71 9.2 Scientific Authority: ANAFOR 72 9.3 Other actors in the Prunus chain 74 9.4 Institutional recommendations 74

Guidance for national Prunus africana management plan, Camerooniv

10. Transboundary management 77

11. Control, traceability and monitoring system 79 11.1 Appraisal of current monitoring and traceability system 79 11.2 Monitoring procedures 86 11.3 Traceability 86 11.4 Community or Council Forest participatory monitoring 87 11.5 Long term-monitoring 87 11.6 Sanctions 87

12. Production facilities 89 12.1 Terminology 89

13. Regeneration and domestication 91 13.1 State of knowledge 91 13.2 Genetic diversity 91 13.3 Domestication 92 13.4 Regeneration 95 13.5 Domestication and regeneration recommendations 95

14. Recommendations 101

15. Bibliography 103

16. Annexes 1. Prunus africana action plan 111 2. Relevant legislation 113 3. Authors 114 4. Road map for implementing the Prunus management plan 115 5. Maps of PAU landscapes 116 6. Bark regeneration and crown health definitions 119 7. Minutes of drafting meeting 26 February 2009 120 8. Minutes of Prunus management plan meeting 20 February 2009 131 9. Minutes of Prunus management plan importers-exporters meeting 15 April 2009 133 10. Overview of research gaps 136 11. Plantations 138

List of figures, tables and photos

Figures 1. Gross exports Prunus africana bark per country 1995-2007 102. Prunus africana production in Cameroon 113. Prunus africana production and export figures 124. Major Prunus africana holders Cameroon 125. Source of Prunus per region in tons (2003-2008) 146. Evolution of male population aged 65+ years in developed countries 177. Prevalence of BPH symptoms in developed countries 178. Tree mortality and unsustainable harvest 199. Size class structure of Prunus africana Mt Manengouba 1910. Diameter class structure of Prunus africana on Kilum Ijim 2011. Size class structure of Prunus africana on Kilum Ijum 2012. Size class structure changes of Prunus africana on Kilim Ijim 2113. Size class structure of Prunus africana BIHKOV CF 2114. Diameter class structure of Prunus africana on Mt Cameroon 2115. Size class structure of Prunus africana on Mt Cameroon 2116. Size class distribution of unexploited Prunus africana on Mount Cameroon 2117. Size class structure of Prunus africana Adamaoua 2118. Age and diameter classes Kilum Ijim 2219. Map of Tchabal Gangdaba, Cameroon 2320. Ecological map of Cameroon 2721. Montane range of Prunus africana in Cameroon 2822. Land cover montane zones Cameroon 2823. Distribution of Prunus africana on Mt Cameroon 1999-2000 3124. Inventory Mt Cameroon 2000 3225. CIFOR 2008 Inventory Mt Cameroon 3326. ONADEF Tchabal Gangdaba inventory 2001 3427. ONADEF Tchabal Mbabo inventory 2001 3528. Mt Oku, Kilum Ijim Inventory 3529. Mt Manengouba inventory 3630. Prunus africana inventory sites in Cameroon 3731. Prunus allocation units 4732. Indicative map of landscapes and PAUs in Cameroon 4733. Comparison of transect and ACS methodologies 5134. Comparative analysis of transect and ACS methods 5335. Bark yields per diameter class 5836. Available Prunus africana (wet weight) stocks based on current data 6637. Location of Prunus africana in Nigeria-Cameroon transboundary zone 7838. Monitoring scheme 8039. Prunus africana monitoring system 8140. Monitoring research needs 8841. Prunus planted in Cameroon 1988-2008 9442. Numbers of Prunus plantations started in Cameroon 1988-2008 94

Guidance for national Prunus africana management plan, Cameroonvi

Tables 1. Prunus permit holders in Cameroon 132. Forest stratification and Prunus distribution in Cameroon 243. Summary of Prunus africana inventories in Cameroon 1992-2008 384. Prunus allocation units in Cameroon 485. Inventory research and capacity needs 556. Bark mass comparisons Acacia mearnsii and Prunus africana 577. Data to support sustainable yield quotas of Prunus africana 608. Harvest research gaps 709. Matrix of Prunus stakeholder responsibilities roles and actions 7610. Strength and weaknesses of current monitoring and traceability system 7911. Nurseries in Cameroon 2009 9612. Domestication in Cameroon 97

Photos 1. Measuring DBH, Mt Cameroon 222. Measuring DBH, Oku 223. Prunus africana montane escarpment forest north of Yangare, Tchbalal Gangdaba 224. Prunus africana forest, Emfevh Mii, North West 225. Felled Prunus, Mt Cameroon 2006 and Kilum Ijim Forest 376. Sustainably harvested Prunus africana, Mbi CF 467. Old, thick Prunus africana bark, Mt Cameroon 468. MOCAP training ASSOFOMI and ASSOKOFOMI members on harvesting techniques, March 2007 659. Unsustainably exploited Prunus, Mt Cameroon, 2006 6910. ANAFOR Nursery, Bamend 95

Units of measure

Exchange rates as of September 2009 1.00 Euro = 655.957 CFA Franc / 1 CFA Franc Francs = 0.00152449 EUR1.00 USD = 441.192 CFA Franc / 1 CFA Franc Francs = 0.00226658 USD

CFA = Coopération financière en Afrique centrale/Financial Cooperation in Central Africa Banque des États de l’Afrique Centrale/Bank of the Central African States

The management of non-timber forest products (NTFP) has long been a major concern for the officials in different institutions in charge of forests in Cameroon. While ‘timber’ management was addressed in the new and improved forest regulatory framework of the 1990s, notably with the creation of Forest Management Units (FMU), NTFPs have not really found a suitable field of expression. Neither the institutional framework in place, nor the reforms, nor even practices in NTFP chains, have permitted all the significant gaps to be filled, compared to other domains in the forest sector.

Notwithstanding the government’s commitment to the sustainable management of all forests in Cameroon, the results obtained in the NTFP sector have not been able to meet all expectations. Significant efforts based on knowledge of the resource throughout the country and the progressive organisation of the NTFP sector have been achieved over the last two decades. Encouraging results have been obtained with the support of partners and are in the process of being consolidated. Among the identified major NTFPs identified in Cameroon, Prunus africana has been subject to special attention because of its inclusion in Annex II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Indeed, the ‘Significant Trade Review’ conducted as part of the monitoring mechanisms of species listed in the CITES appendices has led to the conclusion that Cameroon is a country where Prunus africana faced a situation of ‘urgent concern’. This situation is economically based, which has been criticised by the Scientific Review Group (SRG) of the European Commission, and which has unfortunately been aggravated by the suspension of Prunus africana exports to European Union member countries, further disrupting the consolidation of achievements in the sector. We have been seeking solutions to problems specific to the management of Prunus africana, with the assistance of our traditional partners, in which we have had mixed fortunes during the last 3 years. This document, baptised ‘Guidance for a National Prunus africana Management Plan, Cameroon’, is one of the most convincing results. This is the place to thank the CIFOR, FAO, GTZ, SNV and ICRAF, whose staff have performed immeasurable work, and through these organisations, the European Commission whose funding made available the project entitled ‘Mobilising and capacity building of small and medium enterprises in NTFP market chains in Central Africa (GCP/RAF/408/EC)’, of which this document is one of the outputs. My thanks also go to all those who near and far have contributed to the development of this policy document from which the foundations of a new management of Prunus africana in Cameroon have emerged. The new concepts introduced, such as the Prunus Allocation Units (PAU), to ensure their management, are innovations that will require adjustments of both institutions and actors in the sector. I therefore call on all actors in the Prunus africana chain to take ownership of this Guidance document and work towards its implementation, to reach the goal of sustainable management of Prunus africana in Cameroon. The route is all clear and it needs to be followed to ensure the survival of this species, upon whom the livelihoods of many people in Cameroon and the health of prostate patients scattered around the world depend. Therefore, I urge the relevant technical services of the Ministry responsible for forests to adopt these guidelines for Prunus africana as an example that can be replicated for the management of the many other NTFPs abundant in our forest ecosystems.

The minister of forestry and wildlife

Preface

We would like to thank the many individuals and organisations who contributed to this plan, especially the following people for their valuable input:

The staff of the Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife in Cameroon, particularly Samuel Ebia Ndongo,• Henri Charles Akagou, Janvier S. Belinga at MINFOF and all the regional delegates, and Narcisse Lambert Mbarga and Bruno Njombi Ewusi of ANAFORProf Dr Margarita África Clemente Muñoz and Prof Dr Rafael María Navarro Cerrillo of the University of •Cordoba in Spain for their commentsYanek Decleire, Kirsten Hegner and Mambo Okenye of GTZ and Frank Stenmans of KFW for their •excellent collaborationThomas Machler and Boris Krause of GTZ for map data, and Paolo Cerutti of CIFOR for providing the •final mapsTony Cunningham, James Acworth and Kristine Stewart for technical comments and data provision•The support of the FAO, particularly Ousseynou Ndoye, Irine Ako and Elvis Tangem in the regions•The support and openness from the private sector and community forests•All the participants in the drafting meetings.•

Acknowledgements

Cameroon supports some of the largest populations of Prunus africana, an Afromontane hardwood tree. Known commonly as pygeum, its Fulfulde name of dalehi (‘plant that has many uses’) reflects its traditional multiple-uses for timber, fuelwood and medicine. A local, low volume trade in its bark for medicinal use exists. Its bark is also the raw material in health supplements and drugs used treat prostate problems. It is a major income source for forest-based communities and enterprises. Prunus africana is a key species in high altitude, montane mixed forest, vital to the biological diversity in a shrinking and increasingly degraded montane ecosystem ‘hotspot’. However, it is also an endangered species and fears of unsustainable exploitation have lead to international trade being restricted since 1995.

This report presents a pragmatic management plan to guide the sustainable exploitation of Prunus africana in the short and long term, following guidelines from the University of Cordoba for Prunus management plans, the International Standard for Sustainable Wild Collection of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants and COMIFAC’s Sub-Regional Directive for the Sustainable Management of plant-based NTFPs in Central Africa. This plan is innovative for Cameroon. It is also relevant for all countries in Africa where Prunus potentially could be exploited. It has been developed over the last 2 years by taking a scientific, evidence-based approach (literature review, a baseline study and current inventories), a negotiated policy approach (a regulatory and policy study and ongoing consultations with the Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife), and using indigenous knowledge and the participation of actors from all stages of the Prunus africana sector in Cameroon (harvesters, community forests, nurseries, tree and plantation owners, small and medium exploiter and exporting companies, associations of non-timber product traders, conservation and forestry non-government organisations, traditional authorities, national and regional level government, research organisations and international development organisations, as well as international pharmaceutical companies and CITES authorities). The resulting plan has the general onsensus of the majority of stakeholders.

A major change in the management of Prunus africana in Cameroon is proposed. The current annual, non-quota, multiple permit-based system for largely non-

specific geographic areas will be transformed to a more sustainable system. The key elements are:

The national quota for commercial, large-scale •exploitation of any part of Prunus africana in any given year consists of the total of the amount calculated as available in inventories and management plan for specific ‘Prunus Allocation Units’ and the total of all registered planted Prunus africana. Given the very different usage of the tree, a •differentiation is made between commercial, large-scale bark exploitation and small-scale, traditional use of the tree and its bark.Planted Pygeum (on private land or in plantations) is •recognised as different from ‘wild’ Prunus, (found in natural forest) and is only harvestable by the owner, upon registration of the trees. Exploitable quantities in any given year will depend upon data provided by the owners on the quantity available. The major landscapes of Cameroon containing • Prunus africana have been agreed, defined and consolidated into 15 Prunus Allocation Units that cover six montane areas. Similar to timber concessions, units can be leased, •after an open bidding process, to a single exploiter in the long term, but solely for the exploitation of Prunus africana. A unit will be zoned and comprise:

Permanent forest domain − exploitable by »enterprises or appropriate local community organisations, or relevant council. Protected areas are excluded. The sole exception among protected areas is the (proposed) Mount Cameroon National Park. Non-permanent forest domain (communal, »community or private forests) – only exploitable by the governing CBO or Forest Management Institution or owner respectively.

In PAUs, exploitable quantities over a 10-year period •are strictly related to the quantity determined by a PAU inventory (approved the Cameroon CITES authorities), to be commissioned and paid for by the holder of the Prunus Allocation Unit. All inventories will be conducted using a ‘• Prunus africana inventory norm’ (to be clarified by law) with standard methods and equations for calculating harvestable yield quotas for PAUs in permanent forests, communal or community forests and planted prunus.

Executive summary

Guidance for national Prunus africana management plan, Cameroon xi

Acceptable, sustainable harvesting techniques will •be clarified – with monitoring and ongoing research used to verify sustainability. Techniques will differ according to whether Prunus is owned or wild. This will also be formalised and legally binding. The use of trained and certified harvesters ensures the techniques are implemented in practice.A regeneration obligation is part of the PAU. •Controls and monitoring are strengthened to •enable authorities to monitor from the forest edge, on transport routes and at ports. Traceability is enhanced by using regional level authorities. Coordination procedures and mechanisms between •the Cameroon Management and Scientific Authorities have been clarified, and coordination between regional, central and port-based agents of the Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife has been improved. Monitoring activities include any potential cross-•border trade with Nigeria.

In the short term (2009-10), actors in the chain are convinced that the sustainability of Prunus africana harvesting can be assured by this combination of measures, that jointly address the following issues.

CITES 2006 Lima meeting concerns are addressed •by the production of this management plan. The location of • Prunus africana stock harvested in 2007 was traced, enabling the concerns of the European Union that led to its suspension of imports in November 2007, to be addressed. An estimated 1078 tons of wet weight bark is •known to be available annually. Estimates of current available stocks from inventories in natural forests, adjusted for prior and unsustainable harvesting, indicate that some 735 tons wet weight of bark may be available annually from the main prunus producing areas of Mt Cameroon, Kilum Ijum, Mount Manengouba and the Adamaoua Tchabals. Approximately 343 tons of wet weight bark may be present in private and community-based plantations (based on current data, assumptions and extrapolations). The actual quantity available for exploitation will •only be known once inventories and management plans for PAUs are conducted and approved, and the quantity of Prunus africana on private land is registered. No harvesting in protected areas ensures the •conservation of genetic resources for regeneration.

The distinction between natural ‘wild’ and •domesticated ‘on-farm’ Prunus has been embedded into the exploitation regime using a certificate of origin. A new permit system has been devised and broadly •agreed by stakeholders as a sustainable alternative to the current system.A consensus on an appropriate scientific and •practical inventory method has been reached and will be formalised. A conservative harvesting technique and harvester •certification has been agreed to address previous unsustainable practices.Revised monitoring and control procedures by the •Government and communities are agreed which address past failures. Necessary ongoing research needs have been •consolidated, agreed and are being addressed. ANAFOR will coordinate this and disseminate results. Enabling coordinating mechanisms are being set up •between ongoing projects and initiatives on Prunus africana, via the Prunus Platform. ANAFOR plays a critical role here.Awareness raising, education and involvement of •actors in the chain on the meaning and requirements of CITES and national regulations is agreed.The promotion of domestication and planting by •private, community and communes to increase stocks, coupled with a regeneration program for stock in the wild, particularly in protected area and private sector incentives to plant in natural forest is supported by the sector.

For the long term (the next 3 to 30 years), further exploitation will continue to be based on quotas. These will emerge in response to market demand as exploiters bid for exploitation units and gradually undertake inventories and present PAU management plans to the Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife for approval. In this period, the ongoing work to build the capacity of CITES scientific authority (ANAFOR) should also bear fruit. The results of ongoing projects which further support the Prunus africana sector domestication (support to small enterprises, changes in the legal framework of non-timber forest products, domestication activities, ongoing research) will also show results and become gradually incorporated into national policy as appropriate.

ACS Adaptive cluster sampling AFRIMED Societé Africaine des MedicamentsANAFOR Agence National d’Appui au Développement Forestier/National Forestry Development AgencyASL Above sea level (elevation in metres)ASSOFOMI Association of Oku Forest Management InstitutionsASSOKOFOMI Association of Kom Forest Management InstitutionsBfW Austrian Development ServiceBHFP Bamenda Highlands Forest ProjectBONOFMACIG An NGOCAMEP An enterprise based in Kumbo CBO Community based organisationCBD Convention on Biological Diversity CDC Cameroon Development CorporationCEXPRO Compagnie Commerciale pour l’exportation des Produits ForestiersCENDEP Centre for Nursery Development and Eru PropagationCFA Central African CFA franc BEAC (ISO 4217 code: XAF) CF Community ForestCIRAF Cercle des Agroforestiers du CameroonCIAT International Centre for Tropical Agriculture CIFOR Center for International Forestry ResearchCIG Common Initiative GroupCITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild FaunaCOMIFAC Conférence des Ministres sur les Forets de l’Afrique CentraleDBH Diameter at Breast HeightDF Department of Forestry, MINFOFDFID Department for International DevelopmentDGA Directeur General AdjointDHP Diamètre à Hauteur de PoitrineDPT Department of Promotion and Transformation of Forest Products, MINFOFEU European UnionERUDEF Environment and Rural Development FoundationFAO Food and Agricultural OrganisationFMI Forest Management Institution/Institution du Gestion du ForetFMO Forest Management OfficerFMU Forest Management UnitFORUDEF Food and Rural Development FoundationGFA German Consulting FirmGIC Groupe d’Initiative Commune/Common Initiative GroupGTZ German Technical CooperationICRAF World Agroforestry CentreIER Integrated Ecological ReserveIITO International Tropical Timber Organisation IRAD Institut de Recherche Agricole pour le Développement/Agricultural Research for Development ISSC-MAP International Standard for Sustainable wild Collection of Medicinal and Aromatic PlantsKFW German Development BankLBG Limbe Botanic GardenMCBCC Mount Cameroon Biodiversity Conservation CentreMCP Mount Cameroon Project

Abbreviations

Guidance for national Prunus africana management plan, Cameroon xiii

MINEF Ministry of the Environment and Forestry/Ministère de l’environnement et Forêt (now MINFOF)

MINFOF Ministère des Forêts et de la Faune/Ministry of Forestry and WildlifeMOCAP Mount Cameroon Prunus Management Common Initiative GroupMoU Memorandum of UnderstandingNGO Non-Governmental OrganisationNTFP Non-Timber Forest ProductNW North West regionNWFP Non-Wood Forest ProductONADEF Office National de Développement des Forêts (now ANAFOR)PAFRA Rural Forestry and Agroforestry projectPAU Prunus Allocation UnitPC Plants Committee, CITESPD Provincial Delegate, now called Regional DelegatePFNL Produits forestiers non ligneuxPLANTECAM Compagnie pharmaceutique Française du Groupe FournierPMP Prunus Management PlanPSFE Forest Environment Sector Programme RIBA Riba Agroforestry Resource Centre RIGC Projet Renforcement des Initiatives de Gestion Communautaire des ressources forestièrres et

fauniques/capacity building for community managed forest and fauna resources initiatives RECODEV An NGO based in NyasasosoSC Standing committee, CITESSHUMAS Strategic Humanitarian Services SIBADEF An NGO based in BamendaSIRDEP Society for Initiatives in Rural Development & EnvironmentSME Small and Medium size EnterprisesSMP Simple Management Plan, community forestsSNV Netherlands Development OrganisationSOPHEA Sophea Herigate FoundationSRG Scientific Review Group, CITESSTR Significant Trade Review SW South West regionTRAFFIC Wildlife Trade Monitoring Programme (IUCN and WWF joint program)WHINCONET Western Highlands Nature Conservation NetworkWCMC World Conservation Monitoring Centre

The objective of this document is to set out a pragmatic plan for the sustainable exploitation and use of Prunus africana in Cameroon. It proposes institutional, technical, legal and operational procedures for the sustainable management and harvesting and monitoring of Prunus africana in the short and long term. It identifies priority issues and the appropriate management scale.

The plan was conceived and developed participatively, drawing on meetings and discussions from 2007 to date, to ensure a broad consensus on the problems and solutions of the multiple stakeholders involved in the Prunus africana chain, both nationally and internationally. This includes the Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife (MINFOF), the National Forestry Development Agency (ANAFOR), economic operators and the private sector, community forest institutions, nature and conservation organisations, development agencies, research and scientific institutions.

The process of developing this management plan also enables stakeholders to communicate their planned management approach to organisations such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) and the European Union.

1.1 Approach and methodologyDiscussions on how to address the CITES recommendations for sustainable Prunus africana trade in Cameroon resulted in CIFOR providing MINFOF and ANAFOR with an outline for a management plan for Prunus africana in June 2008. The CITES Review of Significant Trade Recommendations meeting, held

from 8-11 September in Kenya, was attended by the Cameroon CITES management and scientific authorities and a CIFOR representative. An outcome was a ‘Prunus africana Action Plan for Cameroon’ (see Annex 1) which outlined the steps needed meet the CITES recommendations1. Guidance for a national Prunus africana Management Plan is one of these steps. The Minister of Forestry and Wildlife made a specific request in October 2008 to the FAO as leader of the GCP/RAF/408/EC Project ‘Mobilisation et renforcement des capacités des PME impliquées dans les filières PFNL en Afrique Centrale’, to support the development of this management plan. The FAO then commissioned CIFOR to elaborate a draft management plan. The partners in this project − FAO, CIFOR, SNV and ICRAF − have been collaborating with the Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife, private sector, research and community-based organisations in the Prunus africana market chain in the North West and South West of Cameroon since the project started in 2007. For more details, see http://www.fao.org/forestry/43055/en/. CIFOR cooperated extensively with the German Technical Service (GTZ) in the preparation of this plan. GTZ supported MINFOF through itsr Pro-PSFE program that provides support to the Cameroon Forest Environment Sector Program. GTZ also assisted the Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife to implement activities set out in the Prunus africana Action Plan, by commissioning a study in December 2008: ‘Setting up of a sustainable management system for Prunus africana in Cameroon’ (Ndam 2008). GTZ also cooperated on data collection and facilitation during and after the drafting meeting. Prior to these projects, CIFOR, SNV, ICRAF and GTZ have all been working on Prunus africana in Cameroon.

1 ‘Insuring sustainable Management and trade of Prunus africana in Cameroon’, Proposal to CITES, September 2008, ANAFOR and MINFOF.

Objective

1

Guidance for national Prunus africana management plan, Cameroon2

This methodology of this plan has been inspired by three main documents:

The ‘Guidelines for a Management Plan’ which were 1. developed as part of an evaluation of the harvest of Prunus africana bark on Bioko Island, Equatorial Guinea (Clemente Muñoz 2006). These Guidelines were provided specifically to CITES at the ‘Sixteenth meeting of the Plants Committee’ in Lima (CITES Secretariat 2006) and again at the ‘Implementation of Review of Significant Trade Recommendations for Prunus africana’ meeting in Naivasha (Navarro-Cerrillo 2008), to serve as a model for other countries to apply and develop their management plans, according to available funding. The Guidelines present the stages in developing a management strategy that moves from preliminary studies to fieldwork, statistical analysis, selection and harvest, on-site control and evaluation and adjustment.

The Guidelines and model were deemed extremely useful for Cameroon. As Cameroon has a richer and longer history of studies on Prunus africana, with a significant amount of work already carried out on several of these stages, a pragmatic approach was taken, such that existing work was validated and incorporated into the plan, and additional studies initiated where gaps were found.

This management plan also followed the same broad reporting structure proposed by the Guidelines. Methods and materials were adjusted to the context in Cameroon, the budgets available by the Government, the FAO project, GTZ and other partners and existing data. Where data from the results of the ‘Evaluation of the Harvest of Prunus africana Bark on Bioko’ were transferable to the Cameroonian ecological situation, these were also used as references.

The International Standard for Sustainable Wild 2. Collection of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants(ISSC-MAP) (Medicinal Plants Specialist Group, 2007) presents a series of indicators to develop sustainable collection and resource management operations for plants. A questionnaire using the methodology proposed by ISSC-MAP was filled in by the Cameroonian delegates as part of the CITES meeting in Naivasha, September 2008. The results were then used to analyse the situation in Cameroon and identify major gaps of non-compliance with CITES and ISSC standards and also highlight priorities for action and attention in the management plan. The questionnaire and preliminary report for Cameroon that had been presented during the Naivasha meeting (Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife 2008) were then incorporated

into a draft plan for Cameroon, the structure of which was based on that used in the Bioko Guidelines (Clemente Muñoz 2006).

The report on the ‘Sub-Regional Directive for the 3. Sustainable Management of plant-based NTFPs in Central Africa’ (FAO 2008) guided the methodology used to revise the institutional and regulatory aspects of Prunus africana in Cameroon. It was used as a practical and regionally relevant guide to ensure that the regulatory aspects around Prunus africana were harmonised with regional frameworks. Where necessary, control and monitoring has been adapted to existing Cameroonian institutions and regulations, and the proposed new regulatory system has been harmonised with the regional context in conformance with COMIFAC (sub-Regional Directive for the sustainable management of plant-based NTFPs in Central Africa).

Additional data to support the management plan has been sourced from a review of a wide range of published literature, reports and unpublished data (mainly from NGOs and two projects: the Mount Cameroon Project and the Bamenda Highlands Forest Project), as well as baseline and inventory data on Prunus africana in Cameroon undertaken by CIFOR.

Contacts were made with researchers who have or had worked on Prunus africana in Cameroon from research and academic institutions in Cameroon, the UK, Germany, France, Italy and the USA. As part of the consultations detailed below, a number of researchers provided additional clarification on the results of their work, particularly where these reports were part of unpublished project reports.

The approach taken in developing this plan was based on Participatory Action Research. This is a recognised experimental research that focuses on the effects of researchers’ direct practices within a participatory community with the goal of improving the performance quality of the community or an area of concern (Reason 2001). Action research involves using a systematic cyclical method of planning, taking action, observing, evaluating (including self-evaluation) and critical reflecting prior to planning the next cycle. As well as numerous grey literature and scientific articles, the unsustainable exploitation of Prunus africana in Kilum Ijum had already been reported in 2005 (WHINCONET, 2005; Ingram 2008) and documented in the South West (Ekatie 2006), with recommendations for improved management. Because of this high level of interest from stakeholders already involved in, and concerned about Prunus africana in Cameroon, a participatory approach was seen as particularly suited and necessary for developing a management plan.

1. Objective 3

The PAR approach has an additional benefit in that it also served as a communication and awareness raising vehicle so that actors could understand why a management plan was needed, understand the CITES 2006 recommendations. Because actors from all along the chain were involved in developing the plan, it is hoped that they will have more incentive and allocate sufficient means and knowledge to implement it. Extensive use was therefore made of consultations and meetings with stakeholders in the Prunus africana chain, particularly under the framework of the FAO project activities from 2007 to 2009. Activities included:

Field visit, Rapid Prunus inventory & Prunus •workshop, Oku, 30-31 March 2007 (SNV, MOCAP, ASSOFOMI, ASSOKOFOMI)MINFOF status of • Prunus africana consultation and observation mission to NW, SW and Adamaoua September- October 2007 (MINFOF)Prunus stakeholders meeting, Oku, 27-29 June 2007 •(ASSOFOMI, ASSOKOFOMI, WHINCONET, Cameroon Biodiversity Conservation Society, SNV)Field visit on the situation of • Prunus africana, Kupe Manengouba Division, June 2007 (SNV)Prunus stakeholders meetings, 12 July 2007, •Fundong (ASSOKOFOMI, WHINCONET)Prunus stakeholders meetings, 17-18 July 2007, •Kumbo, Oku (ASSOFOMI, WHINCONET)Prunus platform meeting, 12 October 2007, •Yaoundé (MINFOF, ANAFOR, IRAD, SNV, FAO, CIFOR)Prunus Platform follow up, 13 November 2007, •Fundong (ASSOKOFOMI, Whinconet, SNV)Prunus baseline study field research, North West and •South West Cameroon, November 2007–January 2008 (CIFOR)

Prunus problem analysis & state of chain »workshop, Bamenda, 22-23 November 2007 (50+ actors including MINFOF & ANAFOR)Prunus platform meeting, Yaounde, 16 January »2008 (50+ actors)

Mission to Mbi FMI Traditional harvesting »of Prunus africana, Bolem Ilim, 5 January 2008 (SNV)

Training Workshop on Domestication of • Prunus africana and other Agroforestry Tree Species, Belo, 29-31 May 2008 (ICRAF) Prunus platform inventory meeting of scientific •advisers, Yaoundé, 27 August 2008 (CIFOR, SNV, IRAD, ICRAF, University Yaoundé, University of Dschang, MINFOF, ANAFOR)

CITES Workshop on Implementation of »Review of Significant Trade Recommendations for Prunus africana, Naivsaha Kenya, 8-11 September 2008 (MINFOF, ANAFOR, CIFOR)Presentation to stakeholders, PROMOTE, »Yaounde, 9 December 2008 (SNV, CIFOR, FAO, MOCAP)Prunus Management Plan meeting, Yaounde, »20 February 2009 (MINFOF, ANAFOR, GTZ, CIFOR)

Prunus platform inventory meeting, Yaounde, •11 April 2008 (ANAFOR, SNV, FAO, CIFOR, MINFOF, GTZ) Prunus Management Plan drafting meeting, •Yaounde, 26 February 2009 (40+ actors)

Importers-exporters meeting on the Prunus »Management Plan , Yaounde, 15 April 2009 (MINFOF, Synkem, AFRIMED, CEXPRO, Africapyhto, ANAFOR, CIFOR, ICRAF, Solvay)

These data sources were combined to guide the management plan, which proposes a quota system on the basis of inventories, verifies harvesting techniques and contains realistic control and monitoring regulations. The maps were created from CIAT-CSI SRTM PROCESSED SRTM DATA (Version 4.1 in decimal degrees and datum WGS84, derived from USGS/NASA SRTM data) (Jarvis .2008). A first version of the plan was presented in a drafting and validation workshop with stakeholders on 26 February 2009 and a subsequent workshop on 15 April 2009, with further feedback and data added until June 2009.

Cameroon supports some of the largest populations of the Afromontane hardwood pygeum (Prunus africana), a multiple-use tree used traditionally for timber, fuelwood and medicine. Its bark is also the raw material for the pharmaceutical industry producing drugs to treat prostate problems and health supplements. It is a major income source for forest-based communities and enterprises. Also known as ‘Pygeum’, it is a key species in high altitude, montane mixed forest, vital to the biological diversity in a shrinking and increasingly degraded montane ecosystem ‘hotspot’. However, it is also an endangered species and fears of unsustainable exploitation have lead to its international trade being restricted since 1995.

This section provides background on Prunus africana to understand how policies and legislation have regulated and promoted Prunus africana. Knowing the trade circuits and uses helps to assess demand, while knowledge of the ecology of how and where Prunus africana grows allows demand to be matched with supply. Understanding the economic and social significance of Prunus africana is important in determining how it is and can be managed.

2.1 Policy background Cameroon became a party to the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) in 1981. The Convention was enacted into Cameroonian law by Decree No. 2005/2869/PM of 29 July 2005, “Fixing the modalities of the application of certain dispositions of the CITES Convention in Cameroon’’, and Decision No. 0104/D/MINFOF/SG/DF/SDAFF/SN of 2 March 2006, designating ANAFOR as the CITES Scientific Authority for plants, and Arrêté No. 067/PM of 27 June 2006, prescribing the organisation and functioning of the Inter-Ministerial Committee of Coordination and Monitoring of the implementation of CITES.

CITES is an international agreement to ensure that international trade in specimens of wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival. Prunus africana was listed as a CITES Appendix-II species in 1995. This listing means Prunus africana is not threatened by extinction, but may be so if trade is not regulated, as there were concerns that bark entering the international market all comes from wild harvest. Recent studies have since shown that the species is domesticated to a greater extent in Cameroon than previously thought (Foaham 2009; Awono et al. 2008).

At the 12th CITES meeting (Leiden May 2002), the Plants Committee selected Prunus africana for a Significant Trade Review (STR). The review process aims to identify problems and solutions in implementing the Convention and should act as a safety net by ensuring that species do not decline because of international trade while they are listed in Appendix II. The review process can result in individual exporting countries being assisted to undertake field studies as well as to develop the technical and administrative capacity necessary to implement the requirements of Article IV, if these are lacking. Without this process, species would simply be transferred to Appendix I where no commercial trade is allowed. CITES prepared a guidance manual to aid the determination of scientific non-detriment findings in 2002.

The European Union (EU) has its own CITES Regulation, which is legally binding on its 27 Member States [Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein]. Annex B, Article 4 of this regulation covers imports of Prunus africana into the EU. Bark imported into the EU is presumed not to have a harmful effect on the species’ conservation status. This must be determined by the Scientific Authority of the importing member country, and by the Scientific Review Group (SRG), made up of scientific experts in the member countries. In July

Context

2


2004, the SRG suspended trade with the Democratic Republic of Congo, due to unsustainable quantities harvested, and requested information from other States − Equatorial Guinea, Tanzania, Cameroon, and Madagascar − on how they were managing the resource. Failure to provide these data could lead to suspension of trade with the EU. In December 2004, the SRG analysed the information received and agreed to allow imports from Equatorial Guinea and Tanzania, lift the trade ban on imports from the Democratic Republic of Congo, and to analyse any application for exports from Cameroon, Madagascar, Kenya, or Uganda. The SRG decided in March 2005 to provisionally allow imports from Cameroon and Madagascar. In June 2005, further data was requested from Cameroon on how the quota presented was calculated.

At the 16th meeting of the CITES Plants Committee (Lima, 3-8 July 2006), the Significant Trade Review was presented. It contained five main recommendations. Firstly, that Prunus africana is maintained under the CITES Appendix II listing. Secondly, that the terms “extract” and “powder” are clarified for reporting purposes. Thirdly, that independent, peer-reviewed ecological studies and matrix population modelling be conducted in Kenya, Tanzania, Madagascar, Equatorial Guinea and Uganda, and that political instability meant neither research nor managed, sustainable harvests were likely in Burundi and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Fourthly, that when a bark harvest quota is set by exporting countries (such as Cameroon and Equatorial Guinea), that EU importing countries adopt the quota level set by the exporting State. To date, no EU importing country has implemented this measure. Fifthly, that Prunus range States and international agencies support and monitor cultivation of Prunus africana as wild harvest is regarded as a short-term measure and a transition into agroforestry or plantation production is necessary. A Prunus africana Working Group was established at the CITES 2006 Lima meeting to guide the relevant countries on implementing the review recommendations. Prunus africana trade from Cameroon was subsequently classified as being of ‘urgent concern’. The CITES Plants Committee adopted the following general recommendations at international level to be implemented by the range States (with no time limit specified):

Effectively foster implementation of management •plans in range States; Coordinate complete studies of • Prunus africana population across its whole range; Coordinate the future studies in the range area •with methods used on Bioko for evaluating Prunus africana production in natural ecosystems; Ensure the quality of studies and follow-up of •management plans for the species; and,Encourage international cooperation projects that •

promote the use of Prunus africana in agroforestry systems and plantations, using proper genetic diversity and optimising propagation and agroforestry cultivation techniques. A management model for Non-Timber Forest Products formed the basis for the methodology, designed to prepare the necessary guidelines to implement a management plan for the species on Bioko (Equatorial Guinea). The integral methodology aims to aid evaluation of national situations, to know whether bark harvest is suitable or whether it is affecting the species’ conservation status, and to propose corrective measures, as needed, to achieve sustainable use. The study was devised as a pilot project, covering a preselected area under 150,000 ha in Equatorial Guinea; it could give rise to a survey model and be applicable to other countries.

At the same meeting, a report of a pilot study in Bioko, Equatorial Guinea was presented (CITES reference PC16 Doc. 10.2.10). The study developed a survey and management plan as a model that could be applied to other countries and areas. The ‘Evaluation of the harvest of “Prunus Africana” bark on Bioko (Equatorial Guinea): Guidelines for a management plan’’ (Clemente Muñoz 2006) was accompanied by recommendations to the Plants Committee. The recommendations suggested that, at an international level, measures be directed to international organisations, countries and industries with a stake in imports, exports and trade in products derived from Prunus africana bark, and that CITES should effectively foster implementation of management plans in range countries. It was also recommended that CITES should coordinate the promotion of Prunus africana population surveys; encourage international cooperation to advance the use of Prunus africana in agroforestry systems and plantations, including proper genetic diversity and optimising propagation and agroforestry cultivation techniques; coordinate the methods used on Bioko Island to evaluate Prunus africana production in natural ecosystems with other methodological proposals in CITES; and, ensure the quality of studies and follow-up management plans for the species.

The STR also made the following recommendations in July 2006, specifically that Cameroon should:

Within three months:In consultation with the CITES Secretariat and the •Chair of the Plants Committee, review current export quotas and establish a conservative reduced export quota for Prunus africana parts and derivatives.Clarify the presence of a working facility to process •and export extracts, in addition to bark and powder and inform the Secretariat of what parts and derivatives Cameroon plans to export (bark, powder, extract).

2. Context 7

Within one year:Complement work already carried out on Mount •Cameroon, in other areas subject to harvest, by carrying out a inventory of standing stock, estimating sustainable off-take, taking into account the need to conserve large, seed-producing trees, and establishing a scientific monitoring system of the harvested and unharvested Prunus africana populations.Establish a revised conservative export quota •based on the inventory of standing stock and the sustainable off-take estimates.The Management Authority should collaborate •with the Nigerian Management Authority to enhance the monitoring of trade in Prunus between Cameroon and Nigeria.Provide a timetable to carry out peer-reviewed •ecological studies and appropriate population modelling of Prunus africana in order to establish a long-term management plan for the sustainable use of this species.

Within 2 years:The management and scientific authorities •should report the final version of the long-term management plan, and progress made against that plan, to the Secretariat.

Since the CITES Lima meeting in 2006, actors in the Cameroonian sector have expressed a broad wish to continue harvesting and exporting. Many actors participated in activities, research and programmes that have directly or indirectly contributed towards meeting the CITES Lima recommendations. These include:

A mission to research the current status of the •main Prunus production regions by MINFOF and ANAFOR in September 2007 and the preparation of the terms of reference for a national inventory. An Austrian-financed project by the universities •of Dschang and Yaoundé, IRAD and Biodiversity International, studying the genetic diversity of Prunus africana.ANAFOR support from the International Tropical •Timber Organisation (IITO) for capacity building of the Cameroon CITES scientific authority. FAO-SNV-CIFOR-ICRAF, EU-financed project •to support small and medium enterprises in the non-timber forest sector, which includes the Prunus africana market chain in the North West and South West of Cameroon. Forest Governance Facility and SNV support for •Prunus harvesting training with community forest associations in Kilum Ijum in the North West. The Netherlands Development Organisation’s •(SNV) capacity building support to community forests associations in Kilum Ijum.

Project RIG supporting the development and •implementation of community forests Simple Management Plans. Participation of a Cameroonian delegation at the •meeting of the CITES Plants Committee in July 2008.Dr Kristine Stewart’s long-term research on • Prunus africana regeneration in Kilum Ijum, from 1998 to 2008.The Western Highlands Conservation Network •(WHINCONET) project for World Bank Marketplace Development, to improve the functioning of the Prunus chain.The participation of a Cameroonian delegation •at the workshop organised by the CITES Plants Committee in Kenya in September 2008.GTZ supporting MINFOF through the Forest •Environment Sector Program (PSFE), to set up a sustainable management system for Prunus africana and as part of the SW Environmental Program, which includes setting up national parks on Mount Cameroon and Takamanda, both Prunus production areas.

Despite these activities, the ‘reasoned recommendation’ and ‘scientific non-detriment finding’ have been difficult to establish, due to a lack of basic information and absence of a system to collect and analyse information that is accurate and sufficiently robust to make informed decisions. Cameroon was unable to fully meet the requirements of Lima or convince the SRG. The European Commission SRG subsequently informed Cameroon in October 2007 of its negative advice on the import of Prunus africana to EU member states. The Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife of Cameroon responded by creating two Ministerial Circulars (see Annex 2: Relevant legislation) in November 2007, outlining management measures, setting procedures for gathering statistics and stating administrative requirements. As the recommendations of Lima 2006 were not met, trade to the EU remained suspended in 2008, including 646.5 tons in stocks from the 2007 harvest.

Other range States also had problems meeting the Lima recommendations, despite the deadline being extended to December 2008. The CITES Working Group therefore organised a workshop (in Naivasha, Kenya, 8-11 September 2008) to enhance the skills of CITES management and scientific authorities in the seven priority countries, including Cameroon as one of the biggest exporters. The workshop included sessions on how to conduct non-detriment findings, collect baseline data, formulate quotas and develop management techniques. It also assisted in developing communication channels and collaborative mechanisms between the CITES implementation authorities of


the priority range States, the importing countries, the CITES Plants Committee and the CITES Secretariat. During this meeting, Cameroon provided a report on the management of Prunus africana in Cameroon. An action plan was developed in September 2008 to meet CITES recommendations, entitled ‘Ensuring Sustainable Management and Trade of Prunus africana in Cameroon’.

2.1.1 International standardsThe International Standard for Sustainable Wild Collection of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants (ISSC-MAP) was developed by the Medicinal Plant Specialist Group of the Species Survival Commission, IUCN, the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation/Bundesamt für Naturschutz (BfN), WWF Germany, and TRAFFIC (Medicinal-Plants-Specialist-Group 2007). It aims to meet the needs of industry, governments, certifiers, resource managers and collectors to understand whether wild collection activities for medicinal and aromatic plants are sustainable, and how to improve collection and resource management operations that are detrimental to the long-term survival of these resources. Implementation of the ecological elements of ISSC-MAP in CITES and the Convention on Biological Biodiversity (CBD) is among the priority implementation scenarios identified for ISSC-MAP. Thus, the ISSC-MAP provides NTFP best practices (Leaman 2008) and it aims to provide information for national regulations on the management of NTFPs. The objectives of this standard are:

to provide a framework of principles and criteria that •can be applied to the management of MAP species and their ecosystems;to provide guidance for management planning;•to serve as a basis for monitoring and reporting; and,•to recommend requirements for certification of •sustainable wild collection of MAP resources.

The FAO has produced a regional guideline based on the ISSC-MAP ‘Guidelines on Sustainable Management of NTFPs in the Central African Region’ (2008), which provides practical guidance for allocating NTFP permits. It recommends that the national authority in charge of NTFPs bases its planning on the evaluation of resources, and grants exploitation permits in accordance with a transparent and participatory procedure. In the case of threatened NTFPs, the national authority should grant an exploitation permit based on the results of an appropriate inventory and consequently fixed quotas. The inventory of NTFPs is the prerogative of the State. However, the State can sub-contract this activity and take charge of controlling its implementation and results.

The granting of NTFP exploitation permits should be subject to the following minimum norms and procedures:a. requirement of prior accreditation as a professional

exploiter of NTFPs, subject to conditions that are more flexible than in the case of timber exploitation;

b. their attribution by the competent authorities;c. simple definition of affordable cost with minimum

provision for an application dossier. This dossier shall consist notably of the following elements:

an application;•a certified copy of the certificate of professional •accreditation;a tax certificate;•an attestation of payment of taxes on previously •granted permits;a note of information on modalities of collection, •storage and transportation of the produce concerned;definition of reasonable deadline for the •treatment of applications, stating the legal consequences of silence from the competent administration and recourse;attribution methods guaranteeing transparency •and profitability of the practice;the possibility of attribution of non-threatened •NTFPs;promotion of professionalisation of the trade and •of investment;promotion of involvement of local communities •and indigenous people; and,in respect of the principles established by the •Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), prior consent given by the local communities and indigenous people is required because use of their knowledge and traditional practices is envisaged.

The competent authority indicates in the NTFP exploitation permit:a. the identity of the permit holder;b. the date of issue and expiration. The duration should

vary as a function of the type of produce and the segment of the activity considered;

c. the exploitation zone, described in as much detail as possible;

d. the authorised products, and in the case of threatened NTFPs, the attributed quotas;

e. the right or prohibition of the holder to surrender the permit or give it on rent.

Within these conditions and in accordance with modalities to be laid down by each State, the competent authority ensures that each exploitation permit is accompanied by a ‘Cahier des Charges’ containing general clauses and specific clauses.

2. Context 9

2.2 Legal context Commercial exploitation of Prunus africana in Cameroon began in 1972, and regulation started in 1974 (Decree No. 74/357 of 17 April 1974). Plantecam, a private company (formerly SODEXMEDI) received a permit to exploit Prunus on Mount Cameroon in October 1976, following three failures. Plantecam then obtained yearly permits to exploit at least 500 tons of Prunus per year from 1976 to 1983, and obtained five-year permits to exploit 1300 tons a year for 1986 to 1991 and 1991 to 1996. Additionally, three permits were issued to Cameroonian companies, but were not exercised. Other legal measures included the prescription of technical debarking rules in 1986; the requirement to plant 3 hectares of Prunus per year from 1986 and 5 hectares per year from 1992; and, the amendment in 1994 of the Forestry law of 1981. The 1981 regulation (Law No. 81/13 of 27 November 1981) for obtaining a permit from the Minister of Agriculture was introduced following comments on the technical and financial details of the exploitation by the Provincial Chief of Forestry. The Law of 1994 (Republic of Cameroon 1994 and its decree of application, Decree No. 95/531/PM of 23 August 1995) refined this procedure by requiring the Provincial Chief of Forestry to attach a technical report specifying the method of harvesting and the quantities of each species to be exploited.

Prunus harvesting and export have been regulated2 as a ‘Special Forestry Product’ since 1994, through a system of annual, non-renewable, tonnage based exploitation permits for dried bark harvested nationwide and/or from specific regions zones allocated by auction. Qualifications are described in the Forest, Faunal and Fisheries Regime (Law No 94/01 of 20 January 1994) and in the use of this regime (Decree No 94/436 of 23 August 1994). Permits are granted by an Inter-Ministerial Committee, based on technical reports from Provincial Chiefs of Forestry, which should provide a ‘reasoned recommendation’ of the species, quantities, exploitation areas and harvesting modalities. A ‘Regeneration Tax’ of 2% of the quota value is payable to the Government, by permit holders, in two or three instalments, one of which is an advance. Since 2006, support and promotion of regeneration activities is the responsibility of the National Forestry Development Agency (ANAFOR). Felling of trees, without special permission, is illegal. The delivery of a licence is accompanied by a report book describing clearly the harvesting practices according to the vegetative structure to be extracted. Prunus seized after having been illegally harvested (without a simple management plan or sold to

a person without a permit) is auctioned at a public sale. The buying price is usually below the current market price. The buyer, who does not need a permit, pays the Treasury and an additional 12% of the buying price goes to the MINFOF delegation making the seizure.

A number of bans have been imposed on Prunus harvesting due to unsustainable exploitation. In 1991-92 there was a temporary national partial ban. In November 1999, the Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife of Cameroon issued an ‘Arrete’ which specified control systems, and the Governor of the South West Province imposed a complete ban on harvesting. In May 2005, the Divisional Delegate of Bui (Ref E26/PS/126 Prefectural Order No. 17/2005) suspended all exploitation of Prunus from the ‘Oku forest’ until further notice. In May 2006, the Sub Divisional Delegate of Oku (Ref E26.03/GSB/19/S.1/288 Sub-Prefectural Decision No. 3) suspended all exploitation of Prunus from Oku subdivision until sustainable harvesting provisions were put in place. In December 2006, the Fon (traditional chief ) of Oku suspended all Prunus exploitation from Oku subdivision until further notice. This resulted in a reduction in the quantity of Prunus reported as being ‘illegally’ exploited; for example, unplanned exploitation from community forests.

2.3 Trade Over the past 40 years, the trade in Prunus africana bark from Cameroon has changed from subsistence, low volume use as a local medicine and for timber and fuelwood, to a high volume, international trade predominantly driven by the European and American pharmaceutical industry and the ‘botanicals’ health product sector. Comprehending the past and predicted requirements of consumers is a critical factor in creating a sustainable match between demand and supply.

2.3.1 International trade International interest in the species began in the 1700s when European travellers learned from South African tribes how to soothe bladder discomfort and treat ‘old man’s disease’ with Prunus bark. Bark extract has been used in Europe since the mid-1960s to treat men suffering from benign prostatic hyperplasia or hypertrophy (BPH); currently, Prunus africana is the most commonly used medicine in France for BPH. Trade has grown as Prunus has emerged as the main raw material for the international pharmaceutical

2 Decree No. 74/357 of 17 April 1974; Law No. 81/13 of 27 November 1981; Decree No. 83/169 of 12 April 1983; Law No. 94/01 of 20 January 1994 and its decree of application, Decree No. 95/531/PM of 23 August 1995.


trade in BPH treatments. At least 40 brand name products currently use Prunus africana bark extract; the products are marketed directly in 10 countries and globally through the internet (George Wittemyer 2008; Pomatto 2001). Its economic importance is indicated by Cameroon’s annual export of some 7300 tons since 2005, providing annual export revenues of about CFA Franc 1320 million (US$2,738,027). It is also one of the major income sources for forest-based communities in Cameroon’s Highlands (Ewusi 2001; Ntsama 2008).

Nearly half of the world’s bark supply to date has come from Cameroon. Cameroon was the world’s largest exporter of Prunus with 38% of the market share from 1995 (when WCMC trade records commenced) to 2004 and 48% since 2004, when Kenya stopped exporting (see Figure 1). Cameroon is one of the major sources of all parts of Prunus africana (bark 29%, 31% extract, 34% powder and six derivatives and 1% dried plants from 2000-07). The main countries importing Cameroonian Prunus since 2000 have been France (53% of imports), Spain (31%), and Madagascar (11%), with India, USA, Belgium and China all at 1% (see Figure 1).

Data on the extent of Prunus Africana production and export has been collated from the UNEP WCMC database (UNEP-WCMC 2009), MINFOF national database COMCAM (MINFOF 2008), interviews with

Figure 1. Gross exports Prunus africana bark per country 1995-2007

community forests and MINFOF regional delegates and the annual MINFOF Decisions on Special Forestry Product quotas. The data are presented in Figure 2 and Figure 3. The data is not complete for all years and there are some inconsistencies between amounts in some years.

In 1972, Plantecam, a subsidiary of the French company Laboratoires Debat, obtained a trade monopoly in Prunus africana bark and dominated the market from 1974 to 2000. In 1985, the Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife of Cameroon issued additional licences for Prunus africana bark exploitation to 50 entrepreneurs (Cunningham and Mbenkum 1993). In the five–year permits of 1986 and 1992, Plantecam was permitted to fell 10 000 and 12 000 trees, respectively. Only the bark was taken from the felled trees. This practice was later banned in 1993 (Ndibi 1997). By 1994, there were 70 permit holders in the North West Region; each allowed 100 tons of bark. In 2000, up to 50 companies obtained licences. Since 2003, more than 20 companies have been active in the sector, with intermediary ‘buyam sellams’ (Awono and Ingram 2008) selling to permit-holding enterprises. From 1985 to 1992, the majority of bark sold to Plantecam was from the Bamenda Highlands in the North West (Cunningham and Mbenkum 1993). On average over the last 5 years, five companies a year have been permit holders. The major players are indicated in Figure 4.

MadagascarPrunus africana exports in tonnes

% Worldwide exports 1995-2007

Belgium

Burundi

Congo Dem.

Cameroon

Germany

Spain

France

Equatorial Guinea

Italy

Kenya

Madagascar

Tanzania

Uganda

0%

0%

1%

20%

48%

0%

0%

0%

4%

0%

16%

7%

1%

1%

South Africa0%

Source: UNEP WCMC

2. Context 11

Figure 2. Prunus africana production in Cameroon

Although incomplete data is available to show the proportion of Prunus coming from each province, records in some regions provide an indication of sources and corroborate data from the North West community forests and Mount Cameroon in the South West, showing that these are two of the most important sources of Prunus africana. Collection of this data on a regional level was not a MINFOF requirement.

2.3.2 National trade In Cameroon, Prunus africana has multiple uses, ranging from its timber used for tool handles and poles for construction and fencing (Tangem 2008), to a fuelwood, particularly for charcoal (Stewart 2003; Ingram 2007). Prior to 1972, Prunus africana bark was harvested on a small-scale for local medicinal use in the North West and South West, in much the same method still used today, taking small, approximately 10 x 10 cm patches from living trees (Ingram 2007). The most reported trade is the bark, used as a traditional medicine. Increasing scarcity in natural forests appears to have changed usage such that it is used less often as timber or charcoal, and more for its higher value, local medicinal use, than two decades ago (personal communication ASSOKOFOMI and ASSOFOMI delegates June 2007). Prunus harvested for use as fuel or charcoal tends to be sourced directly by individuals from forests or privately owned stands and is not traded commercially any more (personal communication ASSOKOFOMI and ASSOFOMI delegates June 2007).

The commercial trade in Prunus africana for cash at a national level is generally in its bark. This national,

internal trade was the main trade in Prunus africana for medicinal use in Cameroon until the Plantecam factory opened in 1972 (Cunningham et al. 2002). Although no official figures are available, research (Awono et al. 2008a; Ingram 2008a) indicates that the trade is small scale and low volume. A rapid assessment of markets in Bafoussam, Bamenda, Kumbo and Dschang in December 2007 indicated that an average 1kg of dried Prunus africana bark was available for sale by vendors of traditional herbs and spices in each market. Between two to five vendors had permanent stalls. The main sources of Prunus africana were cited as the North West ‘Oku’ and South West ‘Mount Cameroon’, if sources were known at all. Turnover was reported as low (up to 6 months to sell stocks). In villages with a reputation as centres of traditional medicine, such as Oku, Fundong and Belo in the North West, Wonya Mavio and Lebialem in the South West, higher turnover was reported by traditional medicine practitioners with all the product sourced locally, often from trees in or near villages or at the edge of the forest. About 80% of herbalists in the South West are reported to use Prunus africana as one of 24 commercialised plants, out of a cornucopia of more than 177 plants used (Nfi, 2008). Bark is also traded for veterinary use; this trade also appears to be mainly local and small scale (Stewart 2003; Nfi 2001).

2.4 Development contextThis section presents the economic importance of the trade in Prunus africana to the livelihoods of those involved in Cameroon.

200000

0

400000

2003 2004 2005

Year

2006 2007 2008

600000

800000

Expo

rts

in k

gs

(Source: COMCAM 2003-2008)

Prunus africana exports from Cameroon

1000000

1200000

1400000

1600000

200000

0

400000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Year

200620052004200320022001 2007

600000

800000

Expo

rts

in k

gs

(Source: UNEP WCMC 2009)

Prunus africana exports from Cameroon

1000000

1200000

1400000

1600000

1800000

2000000


2.4.1 Income and employment The contribution of Prunus africana to local communities and individual households in the main producing areas of the North West and South West of Cameroon has been significant over the last three decades. Figures are available mainly for community-based exploitation since the liberalisation of the market in 2000.

Cunningham and Mbenkum carried out a study in 1993 of the trade in Prunus africana, taking into consideration legal and illegal exploiters and destruction of the wild stock by unsustainable practices. Ewusi in

1998 reported conflicts between members of the Mount Cameroon communities (local Prunus harvesters) and the workers of the forestry services, Mount Cameroon Project (MCP) and Plantecam Medicam, because of the scramble to maximise benefits from the Prunus africana trade. These conflicts led to continued illegal activities until November 1996. The then Mount Cameroon Project facilitated a process of conflict management in an attempt to solve these problems by developing partnerships between local communities, Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife and business. The partnerships were based on sustainable harvesting and the premise that long-term resolution required an increased benefit to local communities. After the MCP’s intervention,

500000

0

1000000

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2007

2008

1500000

Source: UNEP WCMC

Gross export Prunus africana bark per country (kgs)1995-2007

2000000

2500000

3000000

3500000

South Africa

Uganda

Tanzania

Madagascar

Kenya

Italy

Equatorial Guinea

France

Spain

Germany

Cameroon

Figure 3. Prunus africana production and export figures

Ets Fongang et �ls

Market shares Prunus africana in Cameroon 2003-2008

57%

14%

19%

5%1%1%

1%1%

0.21%0.16%

Ets Poylcarp (Nah & Sons)

Ets Erimon, Bamenda

Agrodenre

Societe Afriphyto, Douala

Societe ik Ndi & Bros enterprise

Societe Pharmafric

CEXPRO Sarl, Douala

Ste Generale des Produits

Societe Afrimed, Yaounde

Source: UNEP WCMC

Figure 4. Major africana holders Cameroon

2. Context 13 Ta

ble

1. P

runu

s pe

rmit

hol

ders

in C

amer

oon

Ent

erpr

ise

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2002

-200

8

Quo

taEx

ploi

ted

Mar

ket

Quo

taEx

ploi

ted

Mar

ket

Quo

taEx

ploi

ted

Are

aa

Mar

ket

Quo

taEx

ploi

ted

Are

aM

arke

tTo

tal

Qty

Tota

l M

kt

Shar

e %

To

nsTo

ns%

Tons

%To

nsTo

ns%

Tons

Tons

%

Agro

denr

e

15.1

1

All

403

All

55

1CE

XPRO

Sar

l52

213

34

0SW

019

180

NW SW

15 341

200

162

13

782

14

A

ll28

519

28

55

Ets

Effa

JBP

& C

ie

X

x

√

00

Ets

Erim

on

X

x

50N

W35

2

xL

x

35

1Et

s Fo

ngan

g et

fils

x

50

NW

91

50

L, S

, W,

NW

, SW

, A

, C

3

9

0

ETS

Kogu

ep G

.

44

3

00

Ets

Ngu

enna

g Em

man

uel

20

0

0

ETS

Poyl

carp

NW

121

120

Ets T

ay &

Fre

res

√

0

0M

edou

Nje

mbe

et F

ils

40

NW

, SW

0

0N

ah &

Son

s En

terp

rise

√

x

0

0

Nga

dem

a D

anie

l

√

A, S

W

0

0St

e A

frim

ed

553

553

1169

SW 2

74

6652

0N

W SW10 43

155

012

5L,

W, N

W,

W, A

, C35

150

0 TM

3025

0645

A

ll 70

947

70

913

Soci

ete

Afr

icap

hyto

50

3√

NW

14

116

0

10

100

0 TM

2064

1St

e Bo

is e

t Met

al

50

x

0

0So

ciet

e Ca

trac

o

10

x

x

5046

TM

100

0So

ciet

e EN

EC

√

00

Soci

ete

Equa

to B

ois

√

0

0So

ciet

e Ik

Ndi

& B

ros

Ente

rpris

e14

38

2√

All

91

9

All

70

1

Soci

ete

ITTC

√

50

L

3

0

0So

ciet

e M

argo

√

20

1

0

0St

e M

uket

e Pl

anta

tion

10

L,

NW

,A,

C

00

Soci

ete

Phar

maf

ric

170

All

120

817

080

All

1110

080

?TM

2028

05

Soci

ete

Prod

egon

GIE

√

20

1

0

0So

ciet

e Sa

co

√

A, S

W

00

Ste

Gen

eral

e de

s Pr

odui

ts

15

0

150

SW 1

49

340

All

SW33

5 1422

300

150

19

100

o

2078

514

MO

CAP

100b

8770

040

3To

tal

605

930

17

62N

W 8

63SW

228

100

2000

N

W SW

1497 796 91

100

1604

525

97

NW

10

0 50

012

6? 6N

W

100

5591

100

No

perm

it ho

lder

s2

46

1010

115

51

a R

egio

ns; A

ll =

all p

rovi

nces

, NW

= N

orth

Wes

t, SW

= S

outh

Wes

t, A

= A

dam

aoua

, L =

Litt

oral

, W =

Wes

t, TM

= Tc

haba

l Mba

bo, x

= u

nkno

wn

quan

tity.

Fi

gure

s in

bla

ck a

re n

atio

nal t

otal

s of

Pru

nus

afric

ana,

figu

res

in it

alic

indi

cate

tons

of P

runu

s afri

cana

and

pro

vinc

e - w

here

dat

a av

aila

ble.

b F

igur

e fr

om M

inFo

F Bu

ea –

repo

rted

in N

tsam

a 20

08 (D

ata

from

Min

FoF

Nor

th W

est R

egio

nal D

eleg

atio

n, F

ebru

ary

2009

).


source of income; although all harvesters had at least two other sources of income, mainly agricultural, their dependence on this source of revenue was substantial. Prunus incomes are used for a range of basic needs, from educating children (71% of harvesters), to building sanitation facilities (51%) to foods and medicines (40%) (Chupzei 2008).

MOCAP’s benefit-sharing mechanism resulted in an annual average income for nine villages ranging from CFA Franc 142,330 (Woteva) to CFA Franc 776,842 (Mapanja), being influenced by the number of harvesters in each village (Ntsama 2008). Revenues from Prunus harvesting are shared by the nine active MOCAP member villages, with 15.4% of revenue (CFA Franc 260/kg for prunus sold through the MOCAP group) going into a village development fund, financing mainly sanitation and community buildings in the villages. Of this, 90% is equally shared among member villages, 7.5% among resource custodians (chiefs) and 2.5% given as compensation to the host village (Tieguhong et al. 2008). Non-member villages get 31% less, and prunus is sold by individuals, not by the community (Tieguhong 2008).

The exploitation of Prunus has had a positive and significant effect on poverty alleviation for harvesters in villages around Mount Cameroon, but at the same time, it does cause significant environmental damage such that in the long term, if sustainable management is not practised, the exploitation of Prunus in the wild will provide decreasing revenues and therefore not contribute to alleviating rural poverty in the long term (Ntsama 2008).

From 1985 to 1992, most bark sold to Plantecam originated from the Bamenda Highlands. By 1994, 70 permit holders were each transporting 100 tons of Prunus africana bark. Special permit holders were supposed to have a monopoly over bark harvesting in a designated area, but these boundaries were ignored. This benefited the farmers, who could negotiate higher prices, but allowed an open-access situation where it was in the interests of each permittee to fell trees because if he did not, someone else would. In the North West Province, there was a big increase in bark exploitation, including the theft of bark from trees on private land. In rural areas, farmers were paid CFA Franc 30-70 per kg of bark. Plantecam paid from CFA Franc 104/kg for poor quality, high-moisture content bark up to CFA Franc 270/kg for dry, high quality bark. In the North West Province in 2005, at least 500 tons was exploited, more than 250 tons of which was ‘illegal’; in 2006, an estimated 1000 tons and in 2007, an estimated 500 tons were exploited. Although the Associations of Community Forests in Kilum Ijum, Bihkov, ASSOFOMI and ASSOKOFOMI have a mechanism to share benefits from Prunus sales income (50% for village

100%

2003 2004

NW

2005 2006 2007 2008

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

SW Unknown

605 605

288

611 610

863 796

428

97

120

6

91

Figure 5. Source of Prunus per region in tons (2003-2008)

local Prunus harvesters in Mapanja who had been involved in illegal harvesting decided to form a union with the authorisation and support of their chief. This example was followed by the Bokwoango harvesters. The chiefs of these two communities realised that the scramble for P. africana bark and frequent conflicts in their communities posed a problem that required timely intervention. The local harvesters elected an executive and drew up rules and regulations to bind the union. A mixed team was also formed with representatives from the harvesters’ union and community elders, including women. This study indicated that since the Bokwoango union existed; the socio-economic changes in this community were encouraging compared to the situation beforehand.

These unions merged to become the Mount Cameroon Prunus Management Common Initiative Group (MOCAP), which in 2007 employed more than 150 young men and women directly in field bark harvesting activities, with some 50 women involved in related petty-trading activities (Ekatie 2006). As an average harvester is young, male and married, and supports on average seven others in a household, the indirect effects of this income are significant. For example, in nine of the 14 villages associated with MOCAP around Mount Cameroon, revenues from Prunus harvesting for 125 harvesters were significant, on average CFA Franc 5500 a day, with CFA Franc 3100 a day as profit. This is despite price fluctuations ranging between CFA Franc 60 to 215 per kg per year, with an average price of CFA Franc 167 per kg over this period. Prunus africana accounted for 70-90%, with an average of 80%, of household income for these harvesters in two villages and was the highest

2. Context 15

development projects, 35% for forest regeneration and 15% for FMI sustenance) (WHINCONET 2005), none of the community forests harvesting Prunus in the period 2004-8 paid their dues to the associations. Only one community forest association (Bihkov) has produced a report and accounts with details of benefit sharing. Out of the 18 community forests harvesting Prunus, more than six failed to renew their SMPs when the majority expired in 2006 and 2007 and at least four exploited Prunus ‘illegally’ when it was not specified in their management plans. At least CFA Franc 117,145,000 was reported as income for the community forests (Ingram 2008b). At least three of the community forests had major internal conflicts in the period 2004-8 due to mismanagement of funds, and no less than five failed to produce their annual reports in this period. Thus, while it is uncountable that income was generated, its sustainability in some CFs is very questionable (Stewart 2007; Nsom 2007; WHINCONET 2005). It is also arguable if the benefit sharing mechanisms outlined in all the 18 North West CF management plans, where the majority of Prunus harvesting occurred, were put in place and the communities actually benefited from this massive generation of revenue as foreseen.

The trade circuit flows from the main production areas of the North West Highlands, Mount Cameroon and Adamaoua, through stores in towns such as Bamenda and Buea to drying sheds and factories in Douala and Bafoussam, where basic processing, drying and cutting are performed, prior to exporting. The powder or extract is then re-exported to other European countries, the USA, India and China. The average price per kilogram at harvester level was CFA Franc 180 in 2007, although this varied from an average of CFA Franc 50/kg outside of community forests, to CFA Franc 80 in community forests and up to CFA Franc 160 in the SW with MOCAP. Harvesters receive on average 67% of the total forest-edge price. The price at export (Free on Board) varies between CFA Franc 750/kg to around CFA Franc 1050/kg. The trade value of the chain in Cameroon in 2007 was estimated at CFA Franc 315 million (US$630 million3) for 646.5 tones.

The market chain in Cameroon benefits about 60,000 people indirectly, including community forests and associated communities of the Mount Cameroon harvesting company (MOCAP). Prunus provides employment for up to 700 people; comprising some 500-plus harvesters on a seasonal basis, more than 28 exploitation permit-holding smallscale enterprises and about five small and medium-sized exporting enterprises (Ingram 2007 ). It also provides sporadic income for at least 400 individuals with planted Prunus and at least 51

community organisations, including councils, with small plantations.

2.4.2 UseIn Cameroon, Prunus has been traditionally used as a versatile, multi-use tree with both cash income and subsistence uses. It is used for axe, hoe and tool handles. The Nso clan use its timber for ceremonial spear shafts. It is used as the center pole to support roofs or for bridges and was long used as fuelwood for heating and cooking; a preferred species because it burns hot with little smoke (Stewart 2003). Evidence of the fungicidal and termicidal properties of Prunus africana heartwood extractives has been found that supports this traditional use (Mburu 2007).

2.4.3 Health value The presence of the cyanogenic glycoside amygdalin in the bark, leaf and fruit of this species was first documented in 1962. Since then, a growing interest in the use of bark extracts to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) has prompted numerous studies of the bark’s secondary chemistry. Many double-blind clinical studies point to its efficacy for reducing symptoms of benign prostatic hypertrophy, chronic prostatitis, sexual/reproductive dysfunction and obstruction-induced contractile dysfunction (Cunningham 2006; 2002; Dawson 2001; Cunningham 1993; Hall 2000; Laird 1996; Anon 2002). Pygeum extract has been approved in Germany, France, and Italy as a remedy for BPH. The active constituents of Prunus africana bark extract include phytosterols (e.g., beta-sitosterol) that have anti-inflammatory effects by inhibiting production of pro-inflammatory prostaglandins in the prostate. It also contains docosanol, which reduces levels of testosterone and leutinising hormones, pentacyclic triterpenes (ursolic and oleanic acids) that have anti-edema properties, and ferulic acid esters (n-docosanol and tetracosanol), which has effects on the endocrine system, reduces prolactin levels and blocks the accumulation of cholesterol in the prostate. Prolactin is purported to increase the uptake of testosterone by the prostate, and cholesterol increases binding sites for dihydrotestosterone (DHT) (Anon., 2002; Altavahealth 2008). The fatty acids of the extract have similar properties to those of saw palmetto.

Botanic alternatives to Prunus africana extract, that are often also used in combination, include extracts from the berry of the Saw palmetto Serenoa repens, stinging nettle roots Urtica dioica and Pumpkin L. spp. Cucurbita pepo seed oil.

3 Exchange rate US$1 = CFA Franc 500.


The medicinal value of Prunus africana used in pharmaceutical products in Europe is underlined by the fact that in France it has been the active ingredient in the major registered medicine to treat BPH for more than 30 years. It is also sold in Switzerland, Austria, Spain and Italy. In the US market, it is sold mainly as a botanic health product. The Prunus africana market was worth US$200 million to European and American pharmaceutical companies in 1999. In 2001, 19 different medications included Prunus africana extract in Europe and at least eight products in the USA (Pomatto 2001). There is a growing need for the medication with the number of patients increasing from about 85,000 in 2000 to around 102,000 patients by 2007; continued growth is foreseen (CITES 2008; Pomatto 2001); see Figure 5 and Figure 6.

The use of Prunus africana bark, leaves, berries and roots in traditional medicine in the North West and South West of Cameroon has also been recorded, with more than 45 human medicinal uses and 11 veterinary uses (Jiofack 2008; Cunningham 2002; Cunningham 1993; Cunningham 2006; Stewart 2003; Nfi 2008; Nfi 2001). Reports from staff of the Bioversity Project indicate that the populations adjacent to forests in Adamaoua. do not use or even know Prunus for its traditional medicinal or commercial uses.

This data indicates that Prunus africana has significant medicinal importance in Cameroon both for humans and, to a more limited extent, for animals. Its international importance as a medicine is also clear. Although there are both botanical and synthetic chemical substitutes, Prunus africana has for the last 30 years been one of the most preferred treatments for BPH in Europe, with steady to increasing consumer demand as a botanic health product as the target population ages.

2.5 Ecological context This section illustrates the ecological environment in which Prunus africana is found in Cameroon. Understanding where, why and how Prunus africana grows is the first step in its management.

2.5.1 Biology The reproductive biology of Prunus africana is known mostly from central Kenya (Munjuga et al. (1999 in Hall et al. 2000). Experiences in Cameroon, however, confirm the majority of this biological data. The flowers are white and hermaphrodite, with 17 flowers on average per raceme. Wilting starts with petals, anthers, then pistil and lastly sepals. The presence of two styles in the same flower has been observed and some flowers have none (Tonye 1999). The anthers are cream-coloured and their number per flower is varied with a mean of

32 anthers, arranged in three circular rows attached to the base petalous tube. The pollen is sticky, light, spherical and elongated, measuring 35µm in diameter. At anthesis, anthers dehisce by longitudinal slits. After anthesis, the pollen’s viability can be above 90%. The stigma is raised above the anthers, notched on one side and yellow in colour, with a mean diameter of 0.76 mm. The style is greenish in colour, with a mean length of 4.02 mm. There are two ovules in the ovary but only one notched stigma. The stigma appears to be receptive one day before and two days after anthesis. Although having a short flowering time, the flowering period has been observed continuously throughout the year (Stewart 2001). Many pollinators visit the inflorescence, the most frequent being hymenopteras (Apidae and Anthophoridae), bees (21% to flower pollination), hoverflys 6%, ants 2% and sunbird Nectarinia spp. 11.2%. The majority of visits were from 7-11am and 3-5pm for bees and for birds from 9am to noon. Flies do not have a distinct time for visits (Munjuga et al. 1999). Prunus africana is reported as both self-fertile and out-crossing, with out-crossing being proportionally higher than self-pollination. Ndam (1998) indicated that seedlings from clustered parent trees were more vigorous than those from isolated parents, justifying cross-pollination as the normal breeding system.

2.5.2 Ecology in Cameroon Prunus africana (Hook f ) Kalkman (Rosaceae) is often referred to by its former name, Pygeum africanum or Pygeum. It is an indigenous species to Africa where it is endemic to many high conservation and catchment-value mountain forests. Prunus africana is classified as a ‘vulnerable’ species (IUCN, 2006) due to low densities, its shrinking and increasingly degraded montane ecosystem and the high levels of trade.

The ecology of Prunus africana in Cameroon and across Africa is well studied (Cunningham and Mbenkum 1993, Acworth et al. 1998, Dawson and Powell 1999, Hall et al. 2000, Maisels et al. 1999). It is a tall (6-40m for the largest specimens in Mount Cameroon and Adamaoua), long-lived, dense-wooded evergreen tree patchily distributed in montane forests, forest remnants or forest margins, found between 600-3000m above sea level. Further south, where cooler latitudes compensate for altitude, it occurs at lower elevations (Hall et al. 2000, Letouzey 1968). In Cameroon, inventories indicate that Prunus occurs between 600 and 3000m, but the highest densities were found from 1700 and especially above 2000m in Adamaoua (Belinga, 2001; Chapman, 2004), from 2400-3000m in Kilum Ijum (Maisels, 1999; Foaham, 2009), on Mount Cameroon from 900-2500m, with highest densities from 1800-2400m (Foaham et al. 2009, (Ndam, 2000) and Mount Manengouba, also from 1600-2400m. Similar to experience in other African countries (Hall et al. 2000),

2. Context 17

it is most abundant in natural forests in Cameroon in afromontane upper forests (broadleaved mixed, montane forest belts and Prunus moist montane, gallery forests) and near grassland borders. Local knowledge indicates that it has some fire resistance as it is found close to forest edges, but not in savannah grasslands and scrub where bushfires are common. A light-demanding species, under good conditions it can grow to 14 m high and 37 cm diameter at breast height in 18 years. In Adamaoua, massive specimens of almost 2000 cm DBH have been noted (personal communication, Dr Avana, University of Dschang, December 2008). This characteristic means that natural forest disturbance,

coupled with fruit dispersal into canopy gaps or on forest margins, is important in the landscape-level population biology of Prunus africana and accounts for the scattered distribution of this species in afromontane forests.

It reproduces primarily from seed and is generally single stemmed, developing multi-stems when saplings are browsed or cut. Although young trees resprout, for example if browsed by forest antelope or goats, large trees have weak resprouting capability. In 1993, Iverson (quoted in Ndibi and Kay 1997) was unable to say if Prunus africana grows from stumps and coppices. Early in 1996, when examining 10 trees felled on the eastern

Figure 6. Evolution of male population aged 65+ years in developed countries

Source : Kaplan SA et al., American Urological Association Congress 2007, abstract 1508

Figure 7. Prevalence of BPH symptoms in developed countries

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

Mill

ion

peo

ple

25.00

30.001998

US Germany France Italy UK

2025

The evolution of the male population aged 65 and above from 1998 to 2025

C. Chapple Eur Urol 1999

Because the population affected by BHP is growing

Why should we be interested in BHP?

Les

0102030405060

0102030405060

0102030405060

50 - 59 ans 60 - 69 ans 70 - 79 ans

The prevalence of BPH symptoms is particularly low in France

France Canada Chine The Netherlands Asia USA Australia

Oishi, K. et al. Epidemiology and Natural history of benign prostatic hyperplasia 4th International consultation on BPH, Paris 2 - 5 July, 1997, Edited by Denis, L. et al. 1998 : 25-59

Les


slope of Mount Cameroon (Bova area) about 20 years earlier, Ndibi and Kay (1997) found no regrowth. Some coppice production (resprouting) has been noted to occur when surface roots are damaged and has been observed occasionally after felling or harvesting during inventories (Cunningham 2002; Ingram 2007a). Fruit production starts when trees are around 15 years old and increases with tree age, with high fruit production years alternating with low fruit production years (Stewart 2001). The fruit is a bitter, almond tasting drupe <10mm in diameter, eaten by a wide range of animals, including many endemic species to the montane highlands (Stewart 2003, Maisels & Forboseh 1999, (Fossey 1983). Seeds are semi-recalcitrant and germinate when up to four months old, losing viability quickly if not stored in a moist atmosphere, such that few seeds older than six months are viable. Germination rates of 60-80% can be attained if planted within 50 days (Mbuya et al. 1994). Ripe fruits germinate well in partial sunlight after a short (4 hr) drying period in an airy, shaded place. The seeds are most probably dispersed by birds and primates and their leaves are a preferred food source for a range of endemic birds, frugivores (Farwig, 2006), red colobus monkeys (Chapman et al. 2003, (Maisels 1999), gorillas (Fossey 1983) and black and white colobus monkeys (Fashing 2004), despite containing high levels of cyanogenic glycosides. Wubet et al. (2003) note the presence of arbuscular mycorrhizae in the roots of Prunus africana. This has important implications for reforestation as mycorrhizal association is important for mineral nutrition and optimal growth of Prunus africana and the potential of this species for reforestation, land rehabilitation and agroforestry or forestry production (Haselwandter 1997).

The annual mortality of adult-sized Prunus africana trees in natural populations is 1.5% per year (Stewart 2001). Based on a 15-year study of tree growth and mortality in afromontane forest in South Africa (van Daalen 1991), mortality rates of trees >10 cm diameter at breast height (DBH) averaged 0.71% per year. The mortality of Prunus africana trees ranges from 0 to 50%, with an average of 17%, in commercially harvested wild populations inventoried in Cameroon, where on average 48% have been harvested. This is significantly higher than assumed natural mortality rates, which has implications for sustainable harvesting. The link between mortality rates and unsustainable harvest practices, with several years lag, was also highlighted by Meuer (2007) and Stewart (2007) and is substantiated (although data is incomplete) in Figure 8. Recent research (Stewart 2009) shows that the largest trees suffer the most mortalities and crown size reduction after harvest, and that they contribute the most to the population growth rate because they produce the most seeds. Mortalities of these trees and the reduction of their crowns have important implications for future regeneration.

A reverse J shaped curve could be expected for tropical forest tree populations, where the smallest size classes would have the most individuals and their number decreases with DBH (Peters 1996). The unbalanced size distribution noted in Cameroon (Cunningham 1993) may be due to the majority of Cameroon populations inventoried already having been harvested. In particular, on Mount Cameroon, the large scale felling of 22,000 trees in 1986 and 1992 has produced an unusual shaped curve for the most intensively harvested areas. Of data sets available, shown in Figure 9 to Figure 17, only one study shows the class distribution of purely unexploited Prunus, which does follow a more classical distribution curve (Sunderland 1997). Common findings are the larger number of smaller individuals, and in 50% of the cases a peak of classes between 30 and 50 cm DBH. Where a high number of trees is lacking in the smallest size classes up to 30 DBH, and the percentage of trees in the largest classes are unusually high, this deviation may be due to the species attribute of producing mast years, or because of reduced regeneration and increased mortality due to excessive harvesting (Stewart 2001). It can, however, equally be biased by the methodology, as trees of smaller size classes are not as obvious as bigger ones and may therefore be overlooked.

Studies of bark harvest and regeneration rates, mainly from Cameroon, indicate that bark thickness varies with age, ecology and size. Thicknesses of bark in Cameroon vary significantly for trees above 30 cm DBH with an average of 1.1 cm in Tchabal Mbabo and 7.6 cm Tchabal Gang Daba (Belinga 2001). On Mount Cameroon the average bark is thinner at 1.5 cm, ranging from 1.1 cm to 1.7 cm across size classes (Tonye 2001; Acworth 1997). This may be related to repeated harvesting. In general this data is consistent with results from Guinea Equatorial (0.6 to 1.6 cm and 0.8 to 1.5 cm across diameter class respectively, (Navarro-Cerrillo, 2008a; Sunderland and Tako 1999). Tree height to first branch, as to be expected, also varies with diameter and age and location, with gallery and savannah edge gallery producing smaller average sizes, ranging from 8 to 15 metres in Mount Cameroon and in Adamaoua from 9 to 18 m (Acworth 1997; Belinga 2001).

Hall et al’s work (2000) indicates annual growth rates of 1 to 1.9 m annually, with flowering individuals approximately 10 years old of 4 metres, but of decreasing increments beyond 30 cm dhb, such that very large trees of 300 cm DBH may be hundreds of years old. Data on growth rates specific to Cameroon with large sample sizes is scarce. The variation in diameter and height of Prunus africana trees of the same age in the same locality is high, with the largest 18-year-old trees being 37.6 cm DBH and 13.5 m high with bark 14 mm thick (Cunningham 2002). Seedlings will grow to 30 cm in height (about six months after sowing or rooting

2. Context 19

(Tsobeng 2008). The minimum age for harvesting (30 cm DBH) has been reported as 13 years (Franzel 2009). The Whinconet inventory (Nsom et al. 2007) made a link between approximate age classifications and diameter classes, based on the indigenous knowledge of forest users and harvesters, shown in Figure 18. These data tally approximately with Cunningham’s data (1993).

The range in genetic diversity between West and East African Prunus is well known (Dawson and Powell 1999, Muchugi et al. 2006), which is reflected in chemical differences in bark extract from Cameroon, Kenya, Madagascar and the DRC (Martinelli et al. 1986).

2.6 Ecology, forest type and national distribution Given the long history of exploitation for traditional and commercial use in Cameroon, there is a substantial amount of indigenous knowledge of the locations

Figure 8. Tree mortality and unsustainable harvest

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Mt C

am 1

992

Mt C

am 1

996

Etin

de 1

992

Mt C

am 2

000

KI M

fev

2007

KI Ij

im 2

007

Stew

art 2

007

Meu

er 2

007

Aver

age

n/a

n/a

Tree mortality rate % totalpopulation inventoried

Trees harvested unsustainably %

Trees harvested sustainably %

Inventory

n/a

17%

48%

and ecology in which Prunus africana is found. Such knowledge is held typically by members of local communities, particularly traditional medicine practitioners, forest users such as hunters and beekeepers, community forest managers and patrols, and by commercial exploiters. However, there are regions in Cameroon, notably in Adamaoua, where Prunus is not used traditionally and harvesting takes place by agents external to the region. Information on distribution was obtained from meetings held with stakeholders in 2007 and 2008 (Ingram 2007a, 2007b; Ingam and Awono 2008).

There is also a substantial amount of data on the species distribution from scientific research. In 1995, MINFOF identified 64 sites nationally where Prunus africana is distributed. This resulted in reconnaissance field trips in 1999 and 2000 by the Nationale de Développement des Forêts (ONADEF) (ONADEF 2000a & 2000b) and eventually in the inventory in Adamaoua in 2001. Cartography based on remote sensing and subsequent

Figure 9. Size class structure of Prunus africana Mt Manengouba (Foaham et al. 2009)

0

DME adm

Gaulis

1000

2000

3000

4000

Num

ber o

f ste

ms

5000

6000

Diameter distribution

Diameter class

10-2

0

20-3

0

30-4

0

40-5

0

50-6

0

60-7

0

70-8

0

80-9

0

90-1

00

100-

110

110-

120

120-

130

130-

140

140-

150

> 15

0


0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

DME adm

Gaulis

Num

ber o

f ste

ms


Diameter class

10-2

0

20-3

0

30-4

0

40-5

0

50-6

0

60-7

0

70-8

0

80-9

0

90-1

00

100-

110

110-

120

120-

130

130-

140

140-

150

> 15

0

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

DME adm

Gaulis

Num

ber o

f ste

ms


Diameter class

10-2

0

20-3

0

30-4

0

40-5

0

50-6

0

60-7

0

70-8

0

80-9

0

90-1

00

100-

110

110-

120

120-

130

130-

140

140-

150

> 15

0

Figure 11. Size class structure of Prunus africana on Kilum Ijum (Nsom et al. 2007)

field surveys prior to 1995 by ONADEF has provided a national distribution map of dominant vegetation types (Figure 20). This map is based on national land cover maps created from 1999 to 2008 at a scale of 1:150,000, from which can be inferred the regions in which Prunus africana is potentially distributed. Figure 21 and Figure 22 highlight Cameroon’s montane ranges, accentuating the elevation in which Prunus is commonly found, i.e. over 900m altitude and typically between 1500-3100 m, and areas with over 900 mm mean annual rainfall, these are superimposed with the typical vegetation cover where Prunus is known to occur (Hall, 2000). The original 64 sites can therefore be classified into six major montane landscapes: Mount Cameroon, Adamaoua, the Bamenda Highlands in the North West region, the Littoral and Bakossi Mountains, the Western Highlands, and the Central Highlands region.

The vegetation of Cameroon is well mapped (see Figure 20); in particular the montane areas have been well described (see Maisels and Forboseh 1999, Cheek et al. 2000, Cabel and Cheek 1998, ENGREF 1987, Letouzey 1985, Nsom and Dick 1992, Jones 1994, McKay 1995, McKay & Coulthard 1995, McKay & Young 1995, Tame & Asonganyi 1995, Thomas 1986, 1987, 1989, White 1983).

Detailed forest stratification maps are also available for the three regions inventoried from 2007-2008 by CIFOR and are based on aerial photos from 1991 to 1998, at a scale of 1/20000 to 1/500000 and landsat images at a resolution of 90m. Field survey results were matched with interpretations of images based on Letouzey’s (1968 and 1985) phyto-geographical studies (Foaham, 2009). For the entire South West region, similar data is also available from the Forest

Figure 10. Diameter class structure of Prunus africana on Kilum Ijim (Foaham et al. 2009)

Num

ber o

f tre

es

00-5 5-10 10-20 20-35 35-50 50-100 > 100

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Size class

Mfveh-Mii

Ijim

2. Context 21

Num

ber o

f Ind

ivid

uals

011-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 >90

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Size Class (cm)

1998-1999

2007

Figure 12. Size class structure changes of Prunus africana on Kilim Ijim (Stewart 2007)

Figure 13. Size class structure of Prunus africana BIHKOV CF (Tah 2009)

0DME admGaulis100000

200000

300000

400000

Num

ber o

f ste

ms

500000

600000

700000

800000


Diameter class

10-2

0

20-3

030

-40

40-5

050

-60

60-7

070

-80

80-9

090

-100

100-

110

110-

120

120-

130

130-

140

140-

150

> 15

0

0DME admGaulis100000

200000

300000

400000

Num

ber o

f ste

ms

500000

600000

700000

800000


Diameter class

10-2

0

20-3

030

-40

40-5

050

-60

60-7

070

-80

80-9

090

-100

100-

110

110-

120

120-

130

130-

140

140-

150

> 15

0

Figure 14. Diameter class structure of Prunus africana on Mt Cameroon (Foaham et al. 2008)

0

100

200

300

400

Num

ber o

f tre

es

500

600

Size class

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

100

200

300

400

Num

ber o

f tre

es

500

600

Size class

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Figure 15. Size class structure of Prunus africana on Mt Cameroon (Meuer 2007)

0

15

10

5

20

25

30

No

of tr

ees

(n=2

29)

35

40

Size class - dbh

10-2

020

-30

30-4

040

-50

50-6

060

-70

70-8

080

-90

90-1

0010

0-11

011

0-12

012

0-13

013

0-14

014

0-15

0

Figure 16. Size-class distribution of unexploited Prunus africana on Mount Cameroon (Sunderland and Nkefor 1997)

0

20

40

80

60

100

120

140Tchabal Gang

Size class

Num

ber o

f tre

es

Tchabal Mbabo

10-2

0

20-3

0

30-4

0

40-5

0

50-6

0

60-7

0

70-8

0

80-9

0

90-1

00

100-

110

110-

120

> 10

Figure 17. Size class structure of Prunus africana Adamaoua (adapted from Belinga 2001)

Num

ber o

f tre

es

0100200300400500600700800900

21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90

DBH Size Class

Bihkov CV


Environment Sector Programme (PSFE) website. Distribution in the Tchabal area of Adamaoua was confirmed in the MINFOF inventories (Belinga 2001), through botanic surveys indicating extensive stands (Chapman, 2004) as well as reports on distribution in the neighbouring Mambilla Plateau (Chapman 2004) and during research work by the IRAD/University Dschang/Bioversity project (Tientcheu 2007).

Table 2 and Figure 20 combine the scientific and indigenous knowledge to show the forest types and ecology in areas where Prunus africana is commonly found in Cameroon.

In the South West and North West, it occurs in the wild, mainly in dense tropical sub-montane and montane

Figure 18. Age and Diameter Classes Kilum Ijim

Diameter class size DBH 0-5 5-10 10-20 20-35 35-50 50-100 >100

Nomination/Use seedling sapling Pole small tree medium tree large tree very large

Age (years) 2-5 5-10 10-15 15-35 35-50 50-65 70+

mixed forests (Ndam and Ewusi 2000b, Foaham et al. 2009). Highest densities are found in forest savannah transition zones and in secondary forests (Maisels 1999). In the North West around Bamenda, Fundong, Kumbo, Ndu and Oku, and in the South West around Buea, it is also found on mixed farm/agroforest, mosaics and in small plantations (Foaham et al. 2009). In Adamaoua, Prunus occurs in mainly in montane gallery forests (Pouna & Belinga 2001). The Gotel Mountains in Nigeria are in the same Adamaoua montane range as the Tchbals and border onto the approximately 21 km2 of plateau that includes Chappal Wade (1525-1830 m) and Gangirwal (1830-2400 m), the highest point in Nigeria. The most extensive forests there are on the west-facing slopes, extending from about 1300-1800 m covering approximately 46 km2. Forest vegetation persists upwards

Photo 1 Measuring DBH, Mt Cameroon Photo 2. Measuring DBH, Oku

Photo 3. Prunus africana montane escarpment forest north of Yangare, Tchbalal Gangdaba

Photo 4. Prunus africana forest, Emfevh Mii, North West

2. Context 23

into the plateau grassland along the banks of streams, the highest patch is at 2300m (Chapman 2004).

Physical threats in all the forest areas where Prunus africana is found, apart from overharvesting, include encroachment by agriculture, cattle and goat grazing and fire damage. The latter two are particularly prevalent

at Mount Oku (Cheek 2000; WHINCONET 2005; Cunningham 2002) and in Tchabal Mbabo (Chapman 2003; Chapman 2004). A more subtle threat to forest ecology may be reduced seedling dispersion due to declining frugivore numbers, many of which have been noted are less common in the montane forests than previously.

Figure 19. Map of Tchabal Gangdaba, Cameroon Source: Chapman et al. 2003 and Chapman et al. 2004


Tabl

e 2.

For

est s

trat

ifica

tion

and

Pru

nus

dist

ribu

tion

in C

amer

oon

Regi

onTy

peA

ltit

ude

Des

crip

tion

Com

mon

spe

cies

Nor

th W

est

Dom

, Nko

r, M

t O

ku, K

ilum

Ijum

Fo

rest

Hig

h al

titud

e fo

rest

afro

-sub

alpi

ne

prai

ries

high

alti

tude

sw

amps

3011

2700

Podo

carp

us la

tifol

ius/

Pru

nus a

frica

na/ R

apan

ea

mel

anop

hloe

os fo

rest

, in

thin

ner s

oils

Alc

hem

illa

fishe

ri ss

p ca

mer

oone

nsis

. Rar

e en

dem

ics

in w

ater

logg

ed

area

s. In

bur

nt a

reas

, Ade

noca

rpus

man

nii,

Hyp

eric

um

lanc

eola

tum

; nea

r for

est e

dge,

Gni

dia

glau

ca s

ucce

ssio

n or

Pe

nnis

etum

cla

ndes

tinum

dom

inat

ed tu

rf.

Prun

us a

frica

na, M

aesa

lanc

eola

ta, P

odoc

arpu

s la

tifol

ius,

Gni

dia

glau

ca, R

apan

ea m

elan

ophl

oeos

, Sol

anec

io m

anni

i, Kn

ipho

fia

refle

xa, S

ucci

sa ri

chot

ocep

hala

, Jun

cus

sp. n

ov, a

nd E

rioca

ulon

sp

. nov

Hig

h al

titud

e m

onta

ne m

ixed

fo

rest

3000

2400

Two

fore

st ty

pes

in s

ucce

ssio

n to

mat

ure

fore

st: G

nidi

a/M

aesa

lanc

eola

ta w

oodl

and,

by

Eric

a m

anni

i and

Gni

dia

glau

ca.

Mae

sa la

nceo

lata

Pitt

ospo

rum

viri

diflo

rum

, Sol

anec

io m

anni

i, Ra

pane

a m

elan

ophl

oeos

, Pru

nus a

frica

na

Low

er a

ltitu

de

mon

tane

mix

ed

fore

st

2400

2100

Fairl

y op

en fo

rest

maj

or u

nder

stor

ey s

hrub

, her

b la

yer

Cara

pa g

rand

ifolia

, Syz

ygiu

m g

uine

ense

, Mae

sa la

nceo

lata

; Pr

unus

afri

cana

, Pav

etta

sp

Acan

thac

eae

and

Labi

atae

Mon

tane

woo

dlan

d24

0018

00Er

icac

eous

woo

dlan

d do

min

ated

by

Eric

a m

anni

i and

w

ides

prea

d op

en w

oodl

and

dom

inat

ed b

y G

nidi

a gl

auca

, w

ith h

erb

laye

r of b

rack

en a

nd g

rass

es, f

ringe

bet

wee

n gr

assl

and

and

mon

tane

fore

sts.

Eric

a (P

hilli

pia)

man

nii,

Gni

dia

glau

ca, M

aesa

lanc

eola

ta,

Hyp

eric

um re

volu

tum

. Pte

ridiu

m a

quili

num

Mat

ure

alpi

ne

bam

boo

2700

2400

Den

se m

onos

peci

fic a

lpin

e ba

mbo

o A

rund

inar

ia a

lpin

a th

icke

ts, a

lso

in a

ssoc

iatio

n w

ith m

ixed

mon

tane

fore

st,

form

ing

a di

stin

ct v

eget

atio

n ty

pe

Mae

sa la

nceo

lata

, Gni

dia

glau

ca, P

ittos

poru

m v

iridi

floru

m

Ope

n w

oodl

and/

sc

rubl

and

and

degr

aded

gra

ssla

nds

2800

1800

D

egra

ded

gras

slan

d be

twee

n w

hich

is s

crub

. At t

he v

ery

low

est a

ltitu

des,

Hyp

arrh

enia

spp

. are

as a

re re

gula

rly

burn

ed b

y gr

azie

rs to

pre

vent

the

scru

b- w

oodl

and-

mon

tane

fore

st s

ucce

ssio

n.

Gni

dia

glau

ca, M

aesa

lanc

eola

ta, H

yper

icum

revo

lutu

m.

scru

b do

min

ated

by

Spor

obol

us a

fric

anus

and

Pen

nise

tum

cl

ande

stin

um.

2. Context 25

Regi

onTy

peA

ltit

ude

Des

crip

tion

Com

mon

spe

cies

Souh

Wes

tM

t Cam

eroo

n,

Mt M

uaen

goub

a

Suba

lpin

e gr

assl

and

4095

3000

Spec

ies

poor

, tus

sock

gra

sses

and

dw

arf/

knar

led

tree

s Tu

ssoc

k gr

asse

s, lic

hens

and

folio

se

Mon

tane

gra

ssla

nd30

00

2000

Spec

ies

poor

, ric

h te

mpe

rate

gen

ers,

tall

tuss

ock

gras

s do

min

ates

, sca

tter

ed fi

re re

sist

ant t

rees

Suba

lpin

e ra

in fo

rest

/m

onta

ne s

crub

2400

1800

Sp

ecie

s po

or, o

pen

fore

st, d

isco

ntin

uous

can

opy,

tr

ees

1-15

m, o

pen

shru

bs, h

erbs

, clo

mer

s, fe

rns

in fi

re

prot

ecte

d ho

llow

s, st

rang

lers

, den

se e

piph

ytes

, few

cl

imbe

rs

Prun

us a

frica

na

Upp

er m

onta

ne

rain

fore

st18

0016

00Sp

ecie

s po

or, o

pen

fore

st, d

isco

ntin

uous

can

opy,

sm

all

tree

s 20

m, s

tran

gler

s de

nse

epip

hyte

s, co

ver,

few

cl

imbe

rs.

Prun

us a

frica

na

Low

er m

onta

ne

rain

fore

st16

00 800

Spec

ies

rich,

eve

rgre

en, c

lose

d or

dis

cont

inuo

us c

anop

y 25

-35m

, clo

ud c

over

, ver

y ric

h in

fern

s ep

iphy

tes,

patc

hy

mea

dow

s an

d sh

rub

land

s, lia

nas,

butt

ress

ing

and

caul

iflor

y le

ss c

omm

on.

Acan

thae

cae,

tree

fern

s, Pr

unus

afri

cana

Low

land

rain

fore

st80

0 >0Sp

ecie

s ric

h, e

verg

reen

, tal

l con

tinuo

us c

anop

y 25

-35m

, la

rge

emer

ged

tree

s, ric

h in

lian

as &

woo

d cl

imbe

rs,

butt

ress

ing

and

caul

iflor

y co

mm

on.


Regi

onTy

peA

ltit

ude

Des

crip

tion

Com

mon

spe

cies

Ada

mou

a Pl

atea

uTc

hbal

s &

Mts

G

otel

Mon

tane

str

eam

fr

ingi

ng21

0020

00

Stre

am s

ourc

e fo

rest

s, le

ss d

iver

se th

an lo

wer

fore

sts

low

er, t

alle

st tr

ees

reac

hing

onl

y 20

m in

hei

ght a

t 200

0m

elev

atio

n, a

nd o

nly

9m a

t 230

0m.

Prun

us a

frica

na, S

. gui

neen

se s

ubsp

. bam

enda

e-

Hig

h dr

y fo

rest

/mon

tane

es

carp

men

t for

ests

2000

1700

Two

type

s. 2.

A.g

umm

ifera

- Nux

ia c

onge

sta

fore

st a

nd

3. P

oute

ria a

ltiss

ima

dom

inat

ed fo

rest

. Tch

abal

Mba

bo

repr

esen

ts u

nspo

ilt e

xam

ples

of W

est A

fric

an m

onta

ne/

subm

onta

ne a

nd tr

ansi

tion

fore

st. N

ot ri

ch in

spe

cies

nu

mbe

rs, b

ut ri

ch e

cosy

stem

s in

bio

dive

rsity

val

ue. M

babo

ha

s m

ore

exte

nsiv

e st

ands

of P

runu

s afri

cana

and

mor

e de

velo

ped

fore

st e

coto

ne th

an G

GN

P.

Prun

us a

frica

na, E

ntan

drop

hrag

ma

ango

lens

e, E

ugen

ia g

ilgii,

M

illet

tia c

onra

ui, S

yzyg

ium

gui

neen

se, P

odoc

arpu

s la

tifol

ius

fore

st

Subm

onta

ne

esca

rpm

ent/

ga

llery

fore

sts

and

Hyp

arrh

enia

sava

nna

2100

1500

Es

carp

men

t and

gal

lery

fore

sts

valu

able

con

tinuu

m fr

om

low

land

to m

onta

ne e

cosy

stem

s, an

d as

a re

serv

oir o

f ra

re s

peci

es s

uch

as th

e IU

CN th

reat

ned

Dom

beya

cf

lede

rman

nii.

Prun

us a

frica

na, P

. alti

ssim

, Dom

beya

lede

rman

nii a

., H

ypar

rhen

ia

Hig

h dr

y fo

rest

800 +

Typi

cal h

igh

fore

st w

ith K

haya

sen

egal

ensi

s, D

anie

lla

oliv

eri,

Isob

erlim

a do

ka, C

edre

la o

dora

ta, C

ombr

etum

sp,

Bu

rkea

afr

ican

a, L

ophi

ra la

nceo

lata

, Pro

sopi

s sp

, Syz

ygiu

m

guin

ense

, Ter

min

alia

lavi

flora

and

T.m

acro

pter

a

Prun

us a

frica

na

Subm

onta

ne g

alle

ry

fore

st20

0015

00Su

bmon

tane

gal

lery

fore

st, s

peci

es ri

ch, w

ith ta

ller t

rees

th

an m

onta

ne g

alle

ries.

Dom

inat

ed b

y Po

uter

ia c

f alti

ssim

a, P

tery

gota

cf m

ildbr

aedi

i, Fi

cus

spp.

, Alb

izia

gum

mife

ra, B

ersa

ma

abys

sini

ca, C

roto

n,

mac

rost

achy

us, S

cheffl

era

abys

inic

a. M

illet

tia c

onra

ui, N

uxia

co

nges

ta, C

ola

sp.,

Phoe

nix

recl

inat

a, P

runu

s afri

cana

, Rau

volfi

a vo

mito

ria, P

alis

ota

cf h

irsut

a Ac

anth

us

Woo

dy s

avan

na

tran

sitio

n fo

rest

s17

00

1500

Tran

sitio

n zo

ne b

etw

een

low

land

and

mon

tane

fore

st is

ve

ry ra

re in

Wes

t Afr

ica.

Tcha

bal M

babo

tran

sitio

n fo

rest

is

best

exa

mpl

e in

are

a.

Dom

inat

ed b

y hy

parh

enia

sp,

And

ropa

gon

Upp

er &

low

er

mon

tane

gal

lery

fo

rest

s

+/-

1500 80

0

Bare

rock

with

gal

lery

fore

sts

in d

epre

ssio

ns a

nd b

etw

een

mou

ntai

ns c

onta

inin

g Pr

unus

afri

cana

, and

som

e he

rbac

eous

sav

anna

Prun

us a

frica

na, A

lbiz

ia g

umm

ifera

– N

uxia

con

gest

a

Plai

ns80

040

0Fo

rest

sav

anna

h an

d sh

rub

spec

ies

and

few

, if a

ny,

inci

denc

es o

f Pru

nus.

Isob

erlin

ia to

mem

tosa

, Iso

berli

nia

doka

Sam

lekt

i val

ley

700 >0

Fore

st a

nd s

ome

past

ures

.D

omin

ated

by

Isob

erlin

ia to

mem

tosa

, Iso

berli

nia

doka

Ada

pted

from

Mai

sels

and

For

bose

h 19

99 E

wus

i and

Nda

m 2

004

(Cha

pman

et a

l. 20

04; C

hapm

an 2

007;

Bel

inga

200

1)

2. Context 27

Figure 20. Ecological map of Cameroon


Figure 21. Montane range of Prunus africana in CameroonSource: Foaham et al. 2009

Figure 22. Land cover montane zones Cameroon Source: Letouzy 1985

At least 14 bodies of work have been carried out on populations of Prunus africana in Cameroon, comprising inventories, plot monitoring, rapid assessments, regeneration studies and surveys. This research has been carried out in four of the six major montane landscapes. To date, only the CIFOR 2008 study (Foaham 2009) has used the same inventory methodology for more than one location (Kilum Ijum site in the North West and Mount Cameroon and Mount Manengouba sites in the South West region). The lack of a common methodology, both in Cameroon and internationally for this species, highlights the need for a common inventory methodology, which is addressed in Section 11.

This section describes these studies and their results, which are summarised in Table 3 and Figure 30. While the lack of consistency means that studies cannot be compared, these studies do provide critical data on the local quantities and status of Prunus africana populations in Cameroon, including density, tree size, stocking levels, phrenology, post-harvest regeneration and mortality rates of Prunus africana trees in the distribution area. This data forms the basis for developing zones for permitted harvesting.

3.1 Mount Cameroon The Mount Cameroon area has been the most intensively studied area since 1992, reflected in the five inventories and studies conducted. Mount Cameroon is an active volcano 45 km long and 30 km wide, on a SW–NE axis on the coast of the Bight of Biafra, situated 3°57’ and 3°47’ north and 8°58’ and 9°24’ east. Situated in the South West region of Cameroon, it is the highest peak in West and Central Africa, culminating at 4097 m above sea level. It is the only place in Africa where forest extends unbroken from sea level up to the tree line at 2500m altitude. Its slopes are covered with lowland evergreen forest, submontane and montane forest,

montane scrub and high altitude grassland, all of which are characterised by a high level of plant endemism, with 45 endemic plants occurring only in the Mount Cameroon area (Cable and Cheek 1998) and an equally rich wildlife.

Prunus inventory, South West Regional Forest •Service (SWRSF), 1992. This study was the first to raise concerns about sustainable exploitation of the species. It was commissioned by the Ministry of Forests, and Plantecam (major exploiting company). A transect method was used with 18 blocks of ¼ ha each sampled in seven transects. Each transect ran from the savannah-forest boundary to each of the seven selected upper villages around the mountain. The number of Prunus trees was counted, their diameters measured, height estimated, bark thickness measured, bark recovery following past exploitation assessed, and natural regeneration assessed. The results raised awareness of the ecology and revealed that Prunus was patchily distributed with a high concentration (63%) in the savannah-forest zone, and considerable reduction going down the mountain: 24% between 900 and 1200m altitude and 13% further below (Ewusi et al. 1992). The density was estimated at 5.5 stem/ha with 3.5 being exploitable. The placement of transects was guided by the knowledge of Plantecam harvesters weakening the sampling due to lack of randomisation (Cunningham and Mbenkum 1993). The number of Prunus trees, their sizes and bark thickness reduced with altitude. Tree bark recovery was noted and regeneration processes were encouraging in open areas. Neither the inventory data nor the data analysis resulted in a quota for harvesting.

Systematic inventory of Prunus on Mount Etinde, •Limbe Botanic Garden (LBG), 1992. The area covered was 5 ha distributed in two plots of 1 ha located at five different altitudes. This study revealed

Prunus africana populations and inventories in Cameroon

3


the patchy characteristic of the species with 88% concentration at 1800-2400m altitudinal band, and a density of 17 stems/ha. Below this range, the density drastically dropped to 3.5 stems/ha and became negligible below 900m altitude (MCP 1996). This method, guided by existing knowledge on Prunus distribution, made the sampling weak as it excluded a statistically randomised approach. No sustainable quota was made. The quality of harvested trees was not noted.

Prunus regeneration assessment LBG-MCP and •University of Wales Bangor, UK, 1994-5. Although not an inventory, it assessed the regeneration of Prunus africana on Mount Cameroon and noted the conversion of primary forest into secondary forest and farmland, the fragmentation of Prunus parent tree populations and differences in vegetation cover with proximity to Prunus trees associated with trampling. The plot covered two sets of six 1m x 2m subplots established in 18 sites in the Mapanja forest. One set of subplots was established under the crown of Prunus parent trees and another set away from the crown. Parent trees were either single or clustered and were found in three different habitats: agricultural fallows, secondary forest and primary forest. Regeneration and population dynamics of Prunus seedlings in the subplots were monitored in 1994 and 1995. Prunus regeneration was very patchy throughout (occurring in 30% of the studied sites). The mean numbers of seedlings per m2 increased with disturbance: 1.31 ± 0.72, 0.32 ± 0.17 and 0.17 ± 0.08 in 1994 and 1.45 ± 0.67, 0.70 ± 0.20 and 0.52 ± 0.20 in 1995 for fallow, secondary and primary forest respectively. One-year-old regenerated Prunus seedlings rarely exceeded a height of 30 cm. Recruitment often exceeded 100% and mortality was more than 90%. The high density of regeneration found in fallows was limited by high herbaceous competition. In primary forest, the density of regeneration was low and further limited by insect attack. The zone under the crown of clustered Prunus parents in the secondary forest constituted the most suitable environment for natural regeneration. Recommendations included the development of a participatory Prunus management committee composed of villagers, exploiters and forestry staff to ensure sustainable harvesting, development of agroforestry systems using Prunus and study of regeneration-related issues (Ndam 1998).

Office National de Développement des Forêts •(ONADEF) inventory, 1996. This study was commissioned by Plantecam in the framework of growing awareness in the Mount Cameroon Project (DFID/GTZ-financed) of the requirements of the

Plantecam factory for 1500 tons of Prunus bark for its yearly operations, much of which was expected to come from Mount Cameroon. A stratified sampling, with a 1% sample size, covering 48,603 ha with 2 km distance transects, was used. Results showed a density of 0.76 stems/ha and 66% rate of destructive harvesting with 22% mortality rate. Further analysis led to the calculation of the sustainable exploitable quota which was 298 tons/year. The survey, which was carried out by ONADEF, a Government parastatal agency, (and with the involvement of the local population) was jointly sponsored by Plantecam and MCP, and closely monitored by joint teams of Plantecam, Ministry of the Environment and Forestry (MINEF), and MCP staff who independently crosschecked a sample of the field work and confirmed the results to be sufficiently accurate. To prepare the local inhabitants for their eventual legal involvement in the harvesting of Prunus bark, MCP also assisted Plantecam to organise a training course for villagers on proper harvesting techniques (ONADEF 1996, Ewusi 1998).

Prunus inventory and management plan for •Prunus africana harvesting on Mount Cameroon, ONADEF and University of Reading, 1999-2000. This study was commissioned by MCP-GTZ after Plantecam rejected the findings of the 1996 inventory. The need to identify the best sampling methods was the key issue despite the existence of inventory norms (ONADEF 1991, MINEF 1993) and protocols proposed by MCP team (Acworth 1997 and 2000). Villagers, MINEF and LBG-MCP staff participated in designing and implementing the inventory with the support of MCP and Plantecam. Based on the patchily distributed nature of Prunus as revealed in the previous inventories (Ewusi et al. 1992, MCP 1996, ONADEF 1996 and Ndam 1998), an Adaptive Cluster Sample method (ACS) was used, seen as the best method for sampling plant species with an even distribution nature such as Prunus (Roesh 1993, Underwood and Burn 2000). The results are shown in Figure 23 and Figure 24. The inventory indicated 35% of all trees had been harvested according to norms, 36% were harvested destructively, 26% were not harvested and 3% were unknown. A yearly exploitable quota of 209 tons was proposed was for the next 5 years of exploitation (2001-6). MINEF adopted the recommended quota for Mount Cameroon. The reduction of Plantecam’s quota from 1500 tons per year to 300 tons per year caused the company to shut down in 2000 due the higher operating costs arising from the loss of its monopoly permit and access to authorities (Ondigui 2001, Ndam and Ewusi 2000b). The prunus yield studies (MCP 2000) that supported the inventory showed the impact of unsustainable harvesting with

3. Prunus africana populations and inventories in Cameroon 31

86% of tree mortalities caused by human activity (6% by fire, 35% by poor exploitation and 44% felled). Bark thickness varied from 1.1 to 1.7 cm across size classes. Height to first branch varied from 8.2 m to 15.2 m.

State of exploitation Bokwango Mapanja, Benoit - •GTZ, 2006. This short monitoring study as part of a MSc thesis focused on exploitation in the Bokwango Mapanga area of Mount Cameroon and concluded from 62 trees monitored that 81,4%, were trees unsustainably harvested and 64% over-exploited, and that the unsustainable methods were used for trees with under normal DBH.

Prunus monitoring on Mount Cameroon, •Meuer-GTZ, 2007. This monitoring study was commissioned by GTZ to gauge the effects of harvesting as the validity of the 1999 inventory came to an end. It used transects based on key harvest areas and looked at tree size, health and harvesting rates to gauge the state of the resource basis and effects of exploitation in 9324 ha and the exploitable density was 4.4 stems/ha. Of 2679

trees observed, 85% had been harvested, of which 42% destructively—the majority of which occurred within the last 5 years (94%). Of the 1789 debarked trees, 22% were dead and 39% showed degrees of dieback, 39% were healthy. Thirty per cent of recently harvested trees were completely dead and mortality following the destructive exploitation was expected to rise further to 50%. The widespread unsustainable harvesting suggests that the depleted resource base can no longer sustain the quota of 209 tons determined after the last inventory (Meuer 2007)

Prunus inventory on Mount Cameroon, CIFOR, •2007-8. This study was commissioned prior to the EU suspension, within the framework of the FAO-CIFOR-SNV-ICRAF project to support small and medium enterprises in the NTFP sector in Central Africa. Conducted in 2007 and 2008, the objective was to increase the knowledge of availability of Prunus africana in the North West and South West Provinces of Cameroon, to provide the competent authorities with the tools necessary for sustainable management of the resource, taking

Figure 23. Distribution of Prunus africana on Mt Cameroon 1999-2000


into account both an improvement in the living standard of stakeholders dependent on this species and its conservation. ACS transects covered 73,128 ha, see Figure 25. The density of 11.4 exploitable stems/ha was found and a quota of 528 tons was calculated over 10 years taking into account prior harvesting based on the percentage in the GTZ 2007 monitoring report. A total of 2355 trees, averaging 13 years old, were noted in 13 plantations in the North West. (Foaham et al. 2009).

3.2 Adamaoua The mountain chains and plateaus in Mayo, Faro, Déo and the Mayo–Baléo area on the border with Nigeria have been subject to two inventories and one botanic survey, that also surveyed the neighbouring Nigerian forest. Tchabal Gang Daba is in Department Faro et Déo, Tignère Council. Tchabal Mbabo is situated 90 km from Banyo at 2240 metres altitude. The Mbabo plateau borders the Dodéo plain. Tchabal Gang Daba is 1960 metres altitude with gallery forests, about 10km from Tignère between the villages of Gadjiwan and Samlekti. The region has a subtropical transition climate characterised by two almost equal seasons. Annual rainfall varies from 1000 mm to 2000 mm, most falling in August and September. Annual temperatures are around 23°C, with maximum of 30°C, and a minimum between 15°C and 18°C.

Prunus inventory in Adamaoua, ONADEF, •2001. During a survey of the Adamaoua region,

three Prunus sites were determined (ONADEF 1999): Tchabal Mbabo (Banyo), Tchabal Gang Daba (Tignere) and Tchabal Bong Bong (Banyo). A total of 145,500 ha were sampled (0.37%), in 49 gallery forests and three montane forests using 94 transects over 29.1 km. The ACS method was intended but not used due to lack of previous knowledge of Prunus distribution, the time required to carry out a preliminary survey and a lack of trained staff (personal communication, Belinga). Densities of 8.22 stems/ha and 0.99 stems/ha were found for Tchabal Mbabo and Tchabal Gang Daba respectively. Eighty-five per cent of trees had not been previously exploited, and 11.3% had been either felled or unsustainably exploited. Average height to the first branch in Gang Daba was 4.5 m and in Mbabo between 18 m in the forest to 9 m in gallery forests. Bark thickness was on average 11mm in Mbabo and 7.6mm in Gang Daba. Quotas of 493.6 tons/year and 8.8 tons/year were recommended for these respective areas for the 10 years of exploitation (2002-11) following the inventory (Pouna & Belinga 2001). The quota was not given per block and exploitation has not since been monitored.

Prunus Rapid Assessment in the gallery forests of •Samba Pelmali Boudanga near Nyamsoure, 2008. Quadrants were used to observe 261 Prunus trees. The exploitable trees were at the density of 21.8 stems/ha, with a simplistic yield calculation used to determine a quota of 28.8 tons/year for the next 10 years (MINFOF 2008).

Figure 24. Inventory Mt Cameroon 2000

%U

%U

%U

%U

%U

%U

%U

%U

%U

%U%U

%U

%U

%U

%U

%U

%U

%U

%U

%U

%U

%U

%U

%U

%U

%U

%U

%U

%U

%U

%U

%U

%U

%U

%U

%U

%U

%U

%U

%U

%U

%U

%U

%U

%U

%U %U

%U

%U

%U

7

6

5

1

3

2

BUEA

Bomana

Bavenga

Mapanja

Ekona Lelu

Bokwaongo

Bonakanda

Bakingili

C2

D2

D3

E1

E3

E2A1

B4

C1

B1

B3

D1

C3

B2

4

8

SHF Radio StnBambuk

o Fore

st Rese

rve

10 0 10 20 Kilometers

Revised Inventory Blocksabcde

Blocks used for Statistical AnalysisRoads

%U SettlementsBambuko Forest ReserveReserves N

EW

S

1999-2000 Prunus Inventory Layout on Mt. Cameroon


Figure 25. CIFOR 2008 Inventory Mt Cameroon

Botanical survey of Tchabal Mbabo, Adamawa, •2004. A botanical survey with ground truthing, GPS coordinates and specimen collection was performed to inventory the actual vegetation in the Tchabal Mbabo area, taking into account differentiation according to habitat. The focus was on key species (abundance, spatial distribution and value) that support the global importance of conserving Tchabal Mbabo. Special attention was paid to the state of the forests and the spatial distribution of habitats. The survey identified 10 IUCN globally threatened montane plant species including Prunus africana and highlighted the forests importance as water catchment area, for its high biodiversity value and as good representation of West African montane vegetation to 2400 m. Extensive Prunus africana escarpment forests were noted. Threats from overgrazing by cattle, burning and wood collection were noted, equally the unsustainable harvest of Prunus africana by contractors from Bamenda and apparent lack of monitoring of quotas. An education program on how to remove bark in a sustainable manner was recommended as was the setting up of replenishment nurseries (Chapman 2004).

3.3 North WestThe Bamenda Highlands or ‘grassfields’, contain the peaks of Kilum (3010 m) and was until the mid-20th century heavily clad by a moist montane ecosystem containing very high levels of endemism. A steady and systematic degradation and fragmentation of the montane biome has resulted in an erosion of biodiversity, with a tiny fraction (98 km2) of the original forest persisting and in constant threat from farming, grazing and bushfires. In the remnants, found mostly in the most inaccessible places, high levels of biodiversity in all taxa are still found.

Rapid assessment survey, Emfveh Mii and Ijim •Community forests, Whinconet/SNV, 2007. A rapid assessment was made (Nsom et al. 2007) of the density, health and state of harvesting of all Prunus africana trees along two linear transects totalling 2.5 ha. This was conducted to support a workshop on sustainable harvesting with Prunus actors including CFs in Oku. Densities of exploitable Prunus in Emfveh Mii and Ijim community forests were 15.6 stems/ha, based on a total of 350 trees counted, with the following results:


159 trees (62%) were more than 30 DBH. »81% of all trees in Emfveh-Mii CF had been »harvested, 98% of which were harvested unsustainably. 47% had good or fair bark regeneration and 37% »had good or fair crown health after harvesting; 13% died.Next sustainable harvesting only feasible from 5 »to 10 years.Very little regeneration and fruiting recorded. »28 trees (34%) more than 30 DBH in Ijim CF »21% of all trees in Ijim had been harvested, 62% »of which were harvested unsustainably. 100% had good or fair bark regeneration »and 98% had good or fair crown health after harvesting.

Prunus inventory Kilum-Ijim, CIFOR, 2007-8. •Part of the FAO-CIFOR-SNV-ICRAF project, ACS and transects were used in 480 ha to observe 8743 Prunus trees in the wild. Exploitable stems in Kilum Ijum forest, see Figure 28, were at a density of 3.5 stems/ha and a quota of 31.5 tons was recommended for the next 10 years, taking into account the percentage exploited found in the Meuer 2007 and WHINCONET reports. A total of 2962 trees, averaging 13 years old, were noted in 18 plantations across the North West. Numerous large and small-cale regeneration and planting activities over the last 20 years were noted, with an average survival rate of about 32%. An estimated 486,400 trees currently exist, with an average age of about 10 years. An accurate estimate of exploitable stock from this data is not available, but it represents an

important genetic source and stock for regeneration and demonstrates the previously unrecognised scale of domestication and planting outside of natural forests (Foaham et al. 2009).

Simple Management Plan and Management •Agreement of BIHKOV FMI, 2009. An NGO, Apiary and Nature Conservation Organisation(ANCO), assisted the Forest Management Institution (FMI) to revise its Simple Management Plan (SMP) and inventory the 2040 hectares of forest, divided into 12 management compartments. Eight were earmarked for harvest in 3 years. In all, 77% of the 1705 trees counted were young, in size classes up to 40 cm DBH. Density was 1.15 in general, but only 0.6 for trees over 30 cm DBH. Forest destruction has been caused by wild fires and goat grazing, affecting nine of the compartments, two are recovering from fallow periods and Nkarkov compartment 10 is severely affected by poor exploitation resulting in die-off of many trees over 60 cm DBH. The FMI tried to use different strategies to stop theses two activities but failed. Illegal and unsustainable Prunus harvesting became rampant in Bihkov from 2004 to 2006. Taking into account prior harvesting, an estimated quantity of 41.819 tons is available from he community forest over the next 5 years (Tah 2009)

Prunus plot inventories and monitoring to •assess the effect of bark harvest on populations in Kilum, (Stewart 2009). This is the long-term ecological monitoring assessment during visits 1998, 1999 and 2007in Cameroon, following plots

Figure 26. ONADEF Tchabal Gangdaba inventory 2001


Figure 27. ONADEF Tchabal Mbabo inventory 2001

Figure 28. Mt Oku, Kilum Ijim Inventory (Foaham 2009)

totalling 2.5 ha with high densities (37 and 48 stems per hectare) over 9 years. A decrease in populations of all sizes, and especially a decrease in size classes of young trees, was noted, Harvest and fire have significantly reduced the crown area since the 1998,

with mostly the largest trees being affected. Grazing animals have reduced the estimated number of seedlings in all plots. After harvest, 50% of medium and large trees died.


Figure 29. Mt Manengouba inventory (CIFOR 2008)

3.4 Littoral-Bakossi Mountains The Western Highlands chain extends through the South West with the montane peaks of Kupe-Manengouba (2396m) and Bambotous (2100m) approximately midway along the Cameroon mountain axis. Situated in the Littoral region, they fall in the South West region (an Anglophone region) and extend into Littoral (a Francophone region). They are also a recognised biodiversity hotspot with unique endemic bird and plant species.

Prunus inventory on Mount Manengouba, •CIFOR, 2007-8. Part of the FAO-CIFOR-SNV-ICRAF project, forest stratification, ACS and four main transects were used in 6237 ha to observe 11,783 Prunus trees in the wild. Exploitable trees were found at a low density of 1.9 stems/ha, with 53% of the stock being exploitable. A quota of 29.6 tons/year was recommended for the next 10 years. Few plantations were found in the area. (Foaham et al. 2009).

The inventories are summarised in Table 3 and can be seen in the map in Figure 30.

3.5 Lessons from past inventories While impossible to compare the 18 different surveys and inventories due to the different methods and objectives used, a number of useful lessons can be drawn:

Transects need to be random and the total • Prunus africana habitat must be known (for example, grasslands should be eliminated) to provide robust information and allow extrapolation to the entire forest habitat or community forest. Inventories need to take account of prior harvesting •to allow sustainable quota setting.Studies such as Stewart (2007) and Meuer (2007) •cannot be used to estimate densities but do provide critical data on seedling and bark regeneration and the impacts of harvesting on populations. CIFOR’s 2008 study is the only assessment of •plantations to date and indicates the previously unknown scale of planting. This was unrecognised in the 2006 Significant Trade Review (Cunningham 2006). Given the small sizes and surface area, a total tree count or aerial photo using a plantation sample are feasible inventory options.Population distribution and densities vary widely •


Note the clear forest-farm boundary visible since 2004 – degradation rates of up to 30 % in the eight years up to 1995 have been recorded (Cheek, 2000)

Photo 5. Felled Prunus, Mt Cameroon 2006 and Kilum Ijim Forest

Figure 30. Prunus africana inventory sites in Cameroon

Cameroon (inventory sites)

across the three regions inventoried and within forest areas in the same region, notably the North West and Mount Cameroon, as a function of previous harvesting. Trees in larger age and class sizes do exist, contrary to the data provided in the 2006 Significant Trade Review (STR) and appear strongly correlated to previous exploitation.Average densities appear to reflect the typical •clumped distribution of Prunus and may reflect past harvesting practices. Never harvested populations may have a different density than in the Kilum Ijum area, which had high mortalities in the 1980s and 1990s. Past inventories confirm the patchy nature of •Prunus. This reinforces the necessity of using a methodology such as ACS to capture the Prunus clustering characteristic.

The 1992 and 1996 inventories on Mount •Cameroon used transects only while the 1999-2000 and 2007-8 studies used ACS. Human factors affecting natural regeneration of •Prunus africana in forests are one of the most critical to its regeneration. They include unsustainable harvesting (i.e. not according to norms) and “illegal” harvesting in community forests (i.e. harvesting without the permission of the community forest or outside the simple management plan), as well indirect activities such as bushfires, grazing by goats and degradation of forest environments by encroaching agriculture. Ecological factors affecting regeneration include decreasing numbers of frugivores (fruit-eating animals such as birds, squirrels and monkeys) dispersing Prunus seeds.


Tabl

e 3.

Sum

mar

y of

Pru

nus a

fric

ana

inve

ntor

ies

in C

amer

oon

1992

-200

8

Div

isio

nLo

catio

nIn

vent

ory

met

hodo

logy

Inve

ntor

ied

by

Fina

nced

by

Dat

e of

in

vent

ory

Map

ping

A

rea

sam

pled

H

ecta

re

% S

ize

of

sam

ple

Tota

l No

tree

s

> 10

DBH

NO o

f tr

ees

>

30 D

BH

Tota

l H

ecta

re

of a

rea

sam

pled

Den

sity

pe

r he

ctar

e

Den

sity

ex

ploi

tabl

e pe

r hec

tare

>

30 c

m

Estim

ated

qt

y to

ns

per y

ear

Tim

esca

le

valid

ity

inve

ntor

y

Ada

mao

ua

May

o Ba

nyo

Sam

ba

Pelm

ali

Boud

oung

a

2 pl

ots

35 H

a Q

uadr

ants

MIN

FOF

Adam

aoua

Priv

ate

com

pany

2008

GO

120.

3426

1

12.0

21.7

50.

0028

.2

Tchb

al

Gan

gdab

aTc

haba

l M

babo

GO

, GIS

, sp

ecim

en

colle

ctio

n Ch

apm

anBi

rdlif

e In

t’l20

04G

O, G

IS16

ap

prox

--

--

--

-

May

o Ba

nyo

Tcha

bal

Mba

boTr

anse

cts,

53

layo

nsA

NA

FOR

GTZ

2001

AP

Map

G

IS G

O10

1.4

12

4695

110

1.4

12.2

99.

3849

3.0

2011

May

o Ba

nyo

Tcha

bal

Gan

g D

aba

Tran

sect

s, 33

la

yons

AN

AFO

RG

TZ20

01A

P, m

ap

GIS

GO

29.3

63

2829

.32.

150.

968.

820

11

Nor

th W

est

Bui

Bihk

ov C

FA

ll co

unte

dA

NCO

/FM

IFG

F/FM

I20

09G

O20

4010

017

0591

814

801.

150.

6241

.820

14Bu

i & B

oyo

Kilu

m Ij

umAC

S Tr

anse

cts

4

grid

s 15

00m

41

layo

ns 2

50

to 5

00m

CIFO

R FA

O (E

U)

2008

AP

map

G

IS G

O42

0.37

8743

8316

2480

3.53

3.35

20

18

Bui

Emfv

eh M

ii CF

2 lin

ear

Tran

sect

- 32

00 m

X 3

m,

all t

rees

Whi

ncon

etW

hinc

onet

&

SN

V20

07G

O1.

7

328

159

17.1

11.8

79.

30

Bui

Ijum

CF

1 lin

ear

Tran

sect

- 23

00 m

X 3

m,

all t

rees

Whi

ncon

etW

hinc

onet

&

SN

V20

07G

O0.

6

122

289.

612

.71

2.92

Bui

Lum

utu

&

Emfe

h M

ii5

plot

s, ea

ch

tree

cou

nted

in

50X

50m

qu

adra

nts

Stew

art

self

1998

-199

9G

O1.

25

47?

1.3

37.6

0

N

/a

Bui

Lum

utu

&

Emfe

h M

ii5

plot

s, ea

ch

tree

50X

50m

qu

adra

nts

Stew

art

Expl

orer

Cl

ub G

rant

2007

GO

1.25

61

?1.

348

.80

N/a


GO

: Gro

und

obse

rvat

ions

, AP:

Arie

l pho

tos,

GIS

: Geo

grap

hic

info

rmat

ion

syst

ems

Div

isio

nLo

catio

nIn

vent

ory

met

hodo

logy

Inve

ntor

ied

by

Fina

nced

by

Dat

e of

in

vent

ory

Map

ping

A

rea

sam

pled

H

ecta

re

% S

ize

of

sam

ple

Tota

l No

tree

s

> 10

DBH

NO o

f tr

ees

>

30 D

BH

Tota

l H

ecta

re

of a

rea

sam

pled

Den

sity

pe

r he

ctar

e

Den

sity

ex

ploi

tabl

e pe

r hec

tare

>

30 c

m

Estim

ated

qt

y to

ns

per y

ear

Tim

esca

le

valid

ity

inve

ntor

y

Sout

h W

est

Fako

Mt

Cam

eroo

n18

X 0

.25

hec

plot

s in

7

tran

sect

sM

INFO

F SW

Plan

teca

m19

92G

O31

.5

249

179

31.5

5.50

3.50

Fako

Etin

de20

X 0

.25h

a pl

ots

LBG

Rain

fore

st

Gen

etic

Pr

ogra

m19

92G

O5

59

355.

011

.80

7.00

Fako

Map

anja

, M

t Ca

mer

oon

18 p

lots

, 12

1X2m

plo

tsLB

G M

CP U

ni

Bang

orM

CP19

9419

95G

O0.

04

?

Fako

Mt

Cam

eroo

n5

bloc

ks,

20m

X 2

00m

tr

anse

cts

ON

AD

EFPl

ante

cam

1996

GO

0.2

0.7

6942

339

4984

9. 0

0.

8529

8.0

Fako

Mt

Cam

eroo

n20

X0.5

ha

plot

s to

10h

a pl

ots

MCP

MCP

1997

GO

- M

onito

ring

?

0.

76

140.

020

00

Fako

Mt

Cam

eroo

nAC

S Tr

anse

cts

LBG

GTZ

1999

2000

GO

2279

1233

not

know

n0.

100.

0520

9.0

2005

Fako

Mt

Cam

eroo

ntr

anse

cts

Meu

er

Kirs

ten

GTZ

2007

GO

2679

2097

9324

.00.

290.

22

Kupe

M

uane

ngou

baM

t Kup

eAC

S Tr

anse

cts

3

1500

m, 5

3 la

yons

400

to

600m

CIFO

R FA

O (E

U)

2008

AP,

map

GIS

1G

O66

1.6

1178

362

6562

37.9

1.89

1.00

29.6

2018

Fako

Mt

Cam

eroo

nAC

S Tr

anse

cts

4 g

rids,

1500

m 1

27

layo

ns 4

00 to

10

00m

CIFO

R FA

O (E

U)

2008

AP

map

G

IS G

O27

11.

783

3762

1217

5873

128.

011

.40

1.66

528.

420

18

This section introduces a practical permit system with sustainable quotas in defined harvesting zones, based on the ecological distribution presented in Section 6, with the procedural and technical steps outlined and the roles and responsibilities of all the stakeholders clearly specified. The Prunus africana harvest units are proposed based on knowledge gained from previous inventories and surveys (described in Section 6) and the policy, regulatory, trade and ecological context in Cameroon (in Section 5).

4.1 Current permit allocation system and zones Prunus africana is classed as a ‘Special Forest Product’ and, as such, is regulated according to Article 56 of Cameroon’s 1994 Forest Law. Its ‘vulnerable’ status on the Red list of threatened species (IUCN 2006) and as a CITES Annex II list species, has not been translated into any differential status in Cameroon. For example, other Special Forest Products include Eucalyptus, rattans and fuelwood. The other CITES Annex II listed plant species in Cameroon, Pericopsis elata (known locally as Assamela), is a timber species and is not classified as a Special Product. Exploitation permits for Special Forest Products are granted annually by a quota system whereby an exploiter is allowed to exploit a quantity of product (in tons) within an area—usually a whole region and sometimes within several regions or throughout the national territory. The quota is not inventory based. If a locality is specified, it is usually on a regional or national level and several exploiters are granted permits for the same area. For example, in 2006-7, the Inter-Ministerial Commission allocated five permits for a total of 555.5 tons and in June 2008 five organisations were granted exploitation permits for Prunus africana in Tchabal Mbabo in the Adamaoua Region, three of them for 100 tons, one for 150 tons and one for 50 tons. Permits are awarded for one year, nonrenewable by Ministerial Decision. The permit is awarded after the deliberation

of an inter-ministerial commission to grant special permits. Regional delegates of MINFOF are responsible for monitoring the special products quotas. Information on exports of special products is processed centrally by MINFOF in the Port of Douala and recorded in the ‘COMCAM’ database. The export of unprocessed special forestry products is regulated annually through an authorisation from MINFOF, provided upon payment of a fixed, volume-based tax. MINFOF sends the CITES Secretariat an annual report of the exports for the previous year and quotas set for the following in Cameroon.

The key stakeholders in the permit/monitoring system are: the MINFOF central and decentralised services (as the CITES Management Authority); the National Forestry Development Agency (ANAFOR) (as the CITES Scientific Authority); a proposed affiliated ‘Scientific Committee’; the permit holders (enterprises or community forest management institutions); harvesters; the owners of Prunus africana on private land or managers on communal land; the communities which are adjacent to natural sources of Prunus Africana; and, small-scale or subsistence users.

4.1.1 Strengths and weaknesses of current permit systemThe main strength of the current system lies in its statement of intent, its open competitive nature in theory and the fact that a regulatory permit framework exists for forest products. The 1994 Forestry Law and its decree of application clearly prescribe an inventory before a permit is granted for that area. The Inter-Ministerial Commission in theory ensures scrutiny and regional monitoring is provided for.

The current permit system for Prunus africana and NTFPs in general, has, however, several major weaknesses:

Prunus africana harvest units

4


Permits are based on an assumption that • Prunus africana occurs in natural forests, whereas information dating back to 1992 shows an increasing number of planted sources. Currently, there is no way of tracing the origin of bark. Granting permits without conducting prior •inventories, yet prescribing the quantity to exploit, defies forest management and sustainability principles and leads to depletion of a resource base without knowing its potential. Even though a number of inventories have been conducted in different parts of the country, permits are not granted based on these inventories.Projects in zones of Prunus harvesting (MCP, •Bamenda HighlandsForest Project, South West Environment Project) explicitly assume that community participation in the management and protection of community forest resources and protected areas will deliver the dual objectives of income generation and nature/ecosystem conservation. To date, areas where community-based harvesting has predominated have not demonstrated an improved track record, compared to non-project areas. These areas do, however, coincide with the higher densities of Prunus and have been exploited by both communities and permit holders at the same time. However, even in zones designated purely for community use (Meuer 2007), unsustainable exploitation has occurred. Monitoring data on the exploitation rates in areas not exploited by community-based organisations in Adamaoua are also not available. The system of granting permits for regions or •nationally and a lack of coordination mechanisms between MINFOF regions, does not allow Prunus to be traced back to its source.Granting permits to multiple organisations for •the same area creates unsustainable exploitation by allowing harvesting in the same area, even from the same tree, within the same period. It is difficult for forestry services effectively to monitor the activities of multiple exploiters in the same area and no person bears responsibility for destructive practices.The short-term nature of permits and the •unspecified locality means there is no ownership of any particular site. There is thus no incentive for a permit holder to protect a site or its Prunus resources in the long term. The permit system instead acts to stimulate short-term economic gain above long-term resource management. The current system does not enhance good •governance processes; the permit procedure is not transparent, as exploiters in the field often do not correspond with permit holders and the links are unclear. The process is also not equitable in allowing small-scale, local organisations

access to exploit the resource commercially, due to the expensive, bureaucratic and complex permit procedure.The permit system does not specify the level of •control required by MINFOF of exploiters in the field or the harvesting technique. Although the 2007 Circular introduced the “Cahier de Charge”, this has not been implemented in practice since the EU suspension of trade. Although permits require a “Certificate of Origin” •issued by the Minister in charge of forests prior to exportation (see MINFOF Circular letter n° 0958 of 15 November 2007), the term ‘origin’ is not defined. Certificates of origin reviewed at the MINFOF Douala Port Post I state only that the produce originates from Cameroon, but not its actual geographic location or source (e.g. planted or wild Prunus africana). Permits are in practice costly and difficult to obtain, •especially for smaller and new companies wishing to enter the market. Some companies report that it has taken more than 2 years to obtain a permit, the quota of which is often very different from the quantity requested—making business planning very difficult. Companies in the international pharmaceutical sector also report that the short-term nature of the permits strongly discourages long-term investment in a factory or processing unit in Cameroon.

Examples of the permit allocation system’s unsustainable effects can be seen on Mount Cameroon and in the Kilum-Ijum Forest and are well documented (Ingram 2007b; Ingram 2008a, 2008b; WHINCONET 2005; Meuer 2007; Stewart 2007). At Kilum-Ijum, the 18 community forests all developed five-year Simple Management Plans (SMPs) with external support. However, none included inventories or quotas of Prunus africana. Widespread exploitation occurred between 2005 and 2007, even in CFs that did not yet have approved SMPs. This exploitation extended into the Plantlife Sanctuary and the Oku sacred forest, with traditional rulers implicated. Similarly, despite the management plan established for Mount Cameroon, by 2006, three of the five blocks were almost totally depleted of exploitable Prunus, despite the presence of a trained, local community-based organisation with a remit to harvest sustainably. Meuer (2007) points out that even in MOCAP-controlled zones, there were also infringements. Most areas affected now fall within the proposed Mount Cameroon National Park. Even though traditional rulers have had some clout in restricting access to Prunus africana (notably in Bakingili, due to Chief Ephraim Inoni, the incumbent Prime Minister, the Fon (chief ) of Oku in the Kilum Forests during the Bamenda Highlands Forest Project period and in some areas of Mount Manengouba),

4. Prunus africana harvest units 43

community-managed Prunus africana harvests have generally not been any more sustainable than in private sector areas, and traditional authorities have not been able to stop destructive harvesting practices. Both conflicts and collusions between communities and permit holders have been noted.

4.2 Recommendations for Prunus allocation unitsGiven these challenges, a new permit system is proposed. The Permit Allocation Units (PAUs) have been participatively defined and developed with input from stakeholders, particularly during Prunus Platform meetings involving community forests, SNV and the Forest Governance Facility from 2007 to 2009 (Ingram 2007a, (Ingram 2008; MOCAP-CIG 2007), consultations by GTZ in November 2008 (Ndam 2008) and at a meeting with more than 60 stakeholders in the Prunus africana chain in February 2009 (see Annex 7: Minutes of Drafting meeting 26 February 2009).

This revised system outlined below was accepted in principal by the Scientific and Management Authorities during a meeting between MINFOF, ANAFOR, GTZ and CIFOR (see Annex 9: Minutes of Prunus management plan Importers-Exporters meeting 15 April 2009).

Of the 64 areas where 1. Prunus africana occurs in Cameroon, identified in 2000, only a few of these zones comprise a sufficient surface area or densities of Prunus africana to suffice as an economically interesting exploitation unit for a permit holder. The sites are therefore grouped into six landscape regions (see Annex 6) with 15 harvesting zones known as Prunus Allocation Units (PAUs) (see Figure 32 and Table 4). The PAU is inspired by the Forest Management Unit model used in Cameroon for timber concessions. However, the granting procedure is different. The procedure proposed is for the PAU to grant long-term exploitation rights for the exploitation of Prunus africana only within the territory specified, according to an inventory and subsequent management plan for the Unit. The operator of the PAU, also known as the ‘permit holder’ or ‘concessionaire’, is then given an annual authorisation to exploit a given quantity of Prunus africana based on compliance with the management

plan, as demonstrated by annual reports provided by the operator and monitoring by MINFOF.

The competent authority (MINFOF) prepares a 2. text for the Minister’s signature, creating Prunus Allocation Units (PAU) as the main regulatory implementation tool for the national Prunus Management Plan in Cameroon.

The PAUs have been defined based on the 3. following criteria:

The areas allocated as PAUs for a. Prunus africana harvesting include Permanent Forests. The following types of Permanent Forest domains are excluded from the PAU: protected areas such as national parks, forest reserves, plant and fauna sanctuaries and botanic gardens4. Therefore, protected areas that are located in a PAU such as the Oku Plantlife Sanctuary, Mount Manengouba, Santchou and Takamanda National Park5, will not be open to Prunus africana exploitation. This is a conservation measure and essential to protect short and long-term genetic diversity. Where a Council Forests exists, the relevant council is the appropriate entity to manage a PAU. The only exception among protected areas is the b. proposed Mount Cameroon National Park due to the livelihood and cultural aspects associated with Prunus africana exploitation. Here, the PAU seeks to boost community participation in the management and protection of the resources of the park, as well as generate income. Exploitation in the proposed Mount Cameroon National Park will be included in the Park Management Plan following a reinventory (redefinition of the current CIFOR 2008 inventory on Mount Cameroon, to define precisely PAUs SW1 and SW2 and to ensure that the park boundary, buffer zones and harvest areas outside the boundary are transposed onto the current inventory). Considering field experiences since the last monitoring exercise in 2007, the reinventory may mean that in some over-exploited zones, harvesting would be prohibited to allow for regeneration. Where harvesting is possible, it is recommended that the Park Management Plan incorporate exclusive user rights to supervised community groups under customary use rights. Any authorised harvesting

4 Law 1994 Article 24.5 None of these protected areas currently have management plans. A management plan would clarify if normal user rights were applicable or if rights to harvest Prunus africana for personal use were prohibited. Therefore the strictest sense of the law, the CITES status of Prunus africana, is extended to Protected Areas.


activities would be monitored by the Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife and trained park rangers. Where a PAU includes Non-Permanent Forests c. (Community Forests or Communal Forests) and private plantations, farmland/agroforestry systems, homesteads etc.) all entities with defacto exploitation rights need to apply for an entitlement to harvest Prunus africana for commercial exploitation. Customary community ‘droit d’usage’ (user d. rights) are not permitted for Prunus africana in protected areas (except point b above) due to its status as a protected species (IUCN Red List and CITES), which supersedes normal user rights. The PAUs largely coincide with administrative e. boundaries. However, they take into account natural boundaries, access routes, regional cross-border administration, and all areas over 900m above sea level, the average elevation above which Prunus africana is found in Cameroon.

4. As noted in Section 5.5 on the ecology and national distribution of Prunus africana, the majority of Prunus africana in Cameroon is found in six zones totalling an estimated 9 million hectares in areas above 800m asl. Prunus africana is normally found in the wild in or at the edges of natural forests. The PAU maps therefore highlight such areas of forest and vegetative cover and provide details of the approximate area but not the exploitable quantity of Prunus africana. This must be determined (and financed) by the PAU operator.

5. For PAUs where current inventories already exist (CIFOR 2008 inventory of the North West and South West – which corresponds with PAU NW1, SW1 and possibly SW2, and LBM1; and ANAFOR’s Tchabal Gang Daba and Tchabal Mbabo 2001 inventory– covering Adamaoua PAUs 1 to 5), the following amendments are proposed to be incorporated into their PAU Management Plans:

For the individual Community Forests in the a. North West (PAU NW1) with existing simple management plans or those under revision, these SMPs need to be revised to include a quantitative inventory. The CIFOR 2008 inventory of 31 t per annum for the total Kilum Ijum forest for 2008-13 should be seen as an approximate guide to the potential in the area and is not suitable for application to individual community forests. This is due to large differences between individual community forests in the previous exploitation rates and management regimes for Prunus (Nsom, 2007, Stewart, 2007). For Mount Cameroon (PAU SW1 and SW2), b. the continued relevance of CIFOR’s inventory in 2008 (Foaham et al. 2009) depends on two

factors: i) the correspondence between the zones inventoried in 2007-8 with the final boundary of the Mount Cameroon National Park (defining the exact boundaries of SW1 and SW2); and, ii) the need to reduce the quota to take into account prior harvesting of exploitable stock. Correspondence from organisations active on Mount Cameroon (MOCAP, GTZ and the Wildlife Conservation Society) and monitoring studies (Meuer 2007) indicate that on average, 85% of trees had previously been harvested (of which 57% were not harvested sustainably) and 15% had never been harvested. This figure can be used to recalculate the amount of stock on Mount Cameroon inventoried in 2007-8 by CIFOR as 528 tons annually. A conservative quota based only on stock never exploited would be 793 tons (79.3 tons per year over 10 years). A less conservative quota based only on the 43% of stock that had been previously sustainably exploited would amount to 1931 tons (i.e. 193 tons a year over 10 years). A ‘compromise’ quota based on the total stock that was never exploited, plus that which has been exploited sustainably, would amount to 2724 tons (ie 272 tons a year over 10 years). For plantations (in SW2 and NW2, NW3, c. NW4), the figures provided in the CIFOR 2008 inventory need to be confirmed and registered by the owners. For Adamaoua, the ANAFOR 2001 inventory d. needs to be verified given the lack of detailed data on actual quantities exploited since 2001. A ground truthing, rapid assessment of at least 10% of the area inventories, across in five random plots, should be undertaken to confirm exploitation levels, techniques, mortality and density and how this compares to the stock inventoried in 2001. Field work should be conducted in conjunction with a verification of the Adamaoua MINFOF regional delegation records of quantities exploited since 2001. This will enable a revision, if necessary, of the current quota for Tchabal Mbabo of 493 tons per annum (2001-11) and Tchabal Gang Daba of 8.8 t. pa (2001-11).

6. Where a zone in a PAU covers mixed Permanent and Non-Permanent forest domain and protected areas, the following rules will govern exploitation arrangements:

Where the PAU includes Council Forests, only a. the concerned Council has the right to exploit Council Forests for Prunus africana and the PAUs can be granted only to the Council. The Council may subsequently subcontract the exploitation to a private entity or community-based enterprise (where qualified).


Where the PAU covers Community Forests, b. to ensure that local communities participate fully in managing their natural resources and derive benefits, PAUs can be granted only to community-based organisations (Community Forest Management Institutions) where such organisations exist or are in the process of being set up, and where they show a clear interest and capacity for sustainable Prunus africana management (i.e. a current Simple Management Plan exists or is in the process of being attributed). The CF Simple Management Plan (SMP) should incorporate an inventory of Prunus africana and subsequently incorporate this quota into the SMP. This is an additional requirement for approval by the Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife prior to harvesting, over and above the community forest procedure of attribution (Government of Cameroon 2008). For all c. Prunus africana situated on plantations or privately owned smallholdings, only the legal owner of the land can exploit this Prunus africana. Prunus may only be harvested and sold commercially once owners confirm their ownership by obtaining an attestation from the nearest MINFOF office every 2 years. This will indicate the site owner and site identification, the site location and area, the number of Prunus trees, the approximate DBH of trees (of different ages/sizes), the date of planting and the date of previous harvesting and harvesting technique (see monitoring forms in Figure 39 and Chapter 14).Private owners are not obliged to sell their stock d. to the PAU holder in their region.

4.3 PAU allocation procedure The allocation should take place through an 1. advertised, open competition. This should state a reasonable deadline for processing applications and allocating units, stating the legal consequences of silence from the competent administration and open recourse for the applicants. The advertisement of the PAU allocation procedure and rules should take into account the often remote nature of the PAUs and often low levels of literacy and access to information by (approved or in process) community forests, Community Based Organisations (CBOs) and councils in these areas. The allocation procedure should be well advertised using local information and with sufficient timeframes to allow local organisations to apply. The cost of the PAU should not be extortionate so as to effectively prohibit smaller and community-based entities from applying. Payments for the PAU licence should be spread over the number of years of the life of the

PAU. MINFOF local services and regional delegations should be equally well informed of the procedure.

2. Qualifying entities to compete in the open bid (following the guidelines in section 5.1.1) are defined as: a. A legal, registered enterprise or a Community

Forest (Forest Management Institution), CBO or a Council.

b. An entity with no outstanding taxes, debts, fines or legal cases.

3. The interested entities in a PAU should submit an application dossier, which consists of the following elements:

An application for a stated PAU.a. A certified copy of the certificate of legal b. accreditation.A tax certificate.c. An attestation of payment of taxes on previously d. granted permits.Information on the modalities of collection, storage e. and transportation of the produce concerned.Procedures guaranteeing transparency and f. profitability of the practice.Methods to promote the involvement of local g. communities and indigenous people.A commitment that PAU operators will use only h. certified, trained harvesters.

4. Upon fulfilment of the application criteria and a complete dossier, a PAU may be allocated by MINFOF to a single permit holder (also referred to as concession holder or operator) for exploitation solely of Prunus africana. PAUs may be subdivided depending on the state and richness of resources. The PAU entity must then prepare a PAU Prunus africana management plan that includes an inventory for the PAU and submit this for approval prior to any exploitation. A new PAU management plan should be prepared every 10 years, up to the maximum 30-year duration of the PAU. The maxium may change depedent upon sepcifc circumstances.

5. Inventories, based on the Prunus africana Inventory Norm (to be legalised as a Ministerial Decision – see Section 8 on the Inventory Norm for guidelines) are paid for by the PAU operator and may be executed either by:

MINFOF;a. the local communities (or their consultants); or,b. the PAU operator (or its consultants) c.

Inventories will be approved by the CITES Scientific and Management Authorities. ANAFOR may use a Scientific Committee to provide expertise when needed.


The inventory for each PAU should result in a report, known as the Prunus africana Management Plan. The 10-year plan aims to guide the exploitation of the PAU by the private operator, Council or Community Forest Management Institution. The Management Plan specifies the annual harvestable quota over 10 years, from different Forest Management Units (FMUs), within the PAU, based on the inventory. The plan includes the following:

Inventory methodology and approach (including a. participation of local communities).Description of PAU area inventoried, with maps b. and ecological stratification. Results of the inventory. c. Sustainable quota.d. PAU Management Plan. e. Details of organisation conducting inventory.f.

6. The PAU Management Plan will be approved by the CITES Scientific and Management Authorities upon receipt. A reasonable fee may be charged to cover the administrative costs for the Management and Scientific Authorities to review the PAU Management Plan. The Management Authority (MINFOF) will subsequently issue a PAU Management Plan Approval. This document approves the harvestable quota for Prunus africana from each PAU for each operator (see Section 14.2) and indicates:

The identity of the permit holder (‘operator’).a. The date of issue and expiration (nominally up b. to a maximum of 30 years, dependent upon the quantity indicated by the inventory). The duration may vary for specific PAUs.The exploitation zone, with accompanying c. map showing annual harvest zones and any

excluded zones, e.g. private land, protected areas, community forests etc. The authorised product; d. Prunus Africana. The annual quotas may be attributed on a 10-e. year basis, dependent upon f, g, h, and i (below). The harvesting technique(s) to be used.f. The annual regeneration obligation defined as a g. number of surviving and planted out saplings) and location (natural forest, privately owned or via community or council forests).The annual monitoring and reporting h. requirements. The right or prohibition of the holder to i. surrender or give it on rent.

7. The Management Authority (MINFOF) will

subsequently issue an Annual Exploitation Permit specifying the harvestable quota for Prunus africana from each PAU and the zone.

8. For private owners, the Management Authority (MINFOF) will issue an Annual Exploitation Permit specifying the maximum harvestable quota for Prunus africana from each private owner.

9. PAU operators will report annually, with a PAU Annual Report, to the Management Authority (MINFOF), which will provide a copy to the Scientific Authority. This report will summarise briefly the information contained in the monitoring forms for each batch of Prunus africana exploited (see Section 14.2 Monitoring procedures) and include:

Total quantity in fresh (wet) weight of a. Prunus africana harvested that year in the PAU and per zone.

Photo 6. Sustainably harvested Prunus africana, Mbi CF

Photo 7. Old, thick Prunus africana bark, Mt Cameroon


List of certified harvesters used. b. List of tagged trees.c.

10. The Scientific and Management Authorities will,

on at least an annual basis, monitor and control the operation of the PAU using the following documentation (see Section 14 for more details):

Review the PAU annual reports and monitoring a. forms A, B, C and D from PAU operators, comparing the amounts harvested from each PAU to the quota allocated, and that the method of harvesting conforms to the norms. Review the amounts deemed available by private b. owners in the Annual Exploitation Permit with actual quantities harvest as recorded in the monitoring form. Review the amounts reported as exported c. (Monitoring Form E) by buyers and compare

with the total amount reported as harvested from all PAUs and private owners.Where necessary, infield monitoring by field trips d. and verification by MINFOF regional delegation will be performed.

The authorities may, upon analysis of the data:Revise or cancel any quotas judged as a. unsustainable.Refuse PAU or private owner permits for b. subsequent years and/or for specific zones if quotas are judged to be unsustainable or over-exploitation has taken place in previous years. Suspend or sanction any entities not employing c. certified harvesters.Suspend or sanction any harvesters not operating d. according to the harvest norms.

Adamoua

Prunus allocation units (hectares above 800m asl)

60%

14%

4% 2%11%

9%

NW

Mt Cameroon

Littoral & Bakossi

Western Highlands

Central Highlands

5,563,434

1,306,236

335,422

159,707

1,016,975

841,884

Figure 31. Prunus allocation units

Figure 32. Indicative map of landscapes and PAUs in Cameroon

Landscapes & PAUs Cameroon (Altitude > 800m)


Tabl

e 4.

Pru

nus

allo

cati

on u

nits

in C

amer

oon

Maj

or P

runu

s La

ndsc

apes

in

Cam

eroo

nD

ivis

ion

Loca

tion

Prop

osed

15

PAU

sCo

mm

ents

Adam

aoua

Land

scap

e (d

ivid

ed in

to fi

ve p

erm

it ho

lder

s fo

r an

agre

ed t/

yr

depe

ndin

g on

ver

ifica

tion

of

quan

tity

cont

aine

d cu

rren

t in

vent

ory)

5,

563,

434

ha>8

00m

asl

May

o Ba

nyo

Faro

& D

eo

Faro

et D

ero

Sam

ba P

elm

ali B

oudo

unga

Adam

aoua

1

Adam

aoua

2

Adam

aoua

3

Adam

aoua

4

Adam

aoua

5

PAU

ext

ends

to N

iger

ian

bord

er—

due

to c

once

rns

of c

ross

-bor

der

trad

e, N

iger

ia-C

amer

oon

colla

bora

tive

mon

itorin

g ne

cess

ary.

Perm

its g

rant

ed to

five

org

anis

atio

ns to

exp

loit

in a

rea

with

quo

ta

tota

lly 5

00t b

ut n

o FM

Us

defin

ed fo

r per

mit

hold

ers.

Nee

ds ra

pid

asse

ssm

ent o

f val

idity

of 2

001

inve

ntor

y.Ac

cess

ibili

ty to

Far

o et

Dar

o ga

llery

fore

sts

mai

nly

from

Ban

yo.

Logi

stic

ally

pre

fera

ble

for B

anyo

to c

ontr

ol b

ut li

aise

with

Tig

nere

.

Tcha

bal M

babo

in th

e pr

oces

s of

bec

omin

g N

atio

nal P

ark—

the

boun

dary

is d

elin

eate

d an

d pa

rt o

f the

PAU

may

be

prop

osed

as

a Co

mm

unity

Hun

ting

Zone

.

Tcha

bal M

babo

Tcha

bal B

ong

Bong

Gan

doua

Waw

a

Tcha

bal G

ang

Dab

a

Tign

ere

envi

rons

Nor

th W

est

Land

scap

e (d

ivid

ed i

nto

four

per

mit

hold

ers,

each

for a

gree

d t /

yr to

be

confi

rmed

by

an

inve

ntor

y 1,

306,

236

ha>8

00m

asl

Bui

Jaki

ri, L

aiko

m a

nd O

kuN

orth

Wes

t Re

gion

1(K

ilum

-Ijum

18

Com

mun

ity F

ores

ts)

All

CFs

need

indi

vidu

al in

vent

ory

to b

e in

corp

orat

ed in

to S

MPs

. CI

FOR

inve

ntor

y is

gui

delin

e on

ly fo

r tot

al a

rea.

Bui &

Boy

oKu

mbo

, Fun

dong

and

Oku

Nor

th W

est

Regi

on 2

(out

side

regi

on 1

& w

ith p

rivat

e pl

anta

tions

)

Wild

sto

ck in

gal

lery

fore

sts

but d

eple

ted

by d

estr

uctiv

e ha

rves

ting,

Pr

ivat

e pl

antin

gs o

f a ra

nge

of a

ges

exis

ts, i

nven

tory

ong

oing

in B

ui

(CA

MEP

200

8).

Don

ga M

antu

ngN

kam

be a

nd w

hole

Div

isio

nN

orth

Wes

t 3

(Zon

e w

ith p

rivat

e pl

anta

tions

and

Co

mm

unity

For

ests

)

Incl

udes

sub

stan

tial p

lant

ed P

runu

s an

d em

ergi

ng C

Fs—

a si

ngle

PA

U s

houl

d be

wai

ved

in fa

vour

of a

mix

of c

omm

unity

-bas

ed a

nd

indi

vidu

al p

lant

atio

n re

gist

ratio

n.

Ngo

gket

unjia

,M

omo,

Mez

am &

Men

chum

+

Akw

aya

(Man

yu)

Bam

enda

, Ndo

p, M

beng

wi,

Wum

and

env

irons

Nor

th W

est

4(Z

one

with

priv

ate

plan

tatio

ns a

nd

Com

mun

ity F

ores

ts)

Akw

ya a

cces

sibl

e fr

om th

e N

W, a

nd th

eref

ore

logi

stic

ally

bet

ter

adm

inis

tere

d fr

om th

e N

W—

in li

aiso

n w

ith th

e SW

Del

egat

e.Zo

ne in

clud

es P

runu

s in

the

wild

and

pla

ntin

gs b

ut s

ketc

hy

stat

istic

s. Em

ergi

ng C

Fs a

nd p

lant

atio

ns, t

here

fore

a P

AU s

houl

d be

w

aive

d in

pre

fere

nce

for c

omm

unity

or p

rivat

e re

gist

ratio

n.

Mt C

amer

oon

Land

scap

edi

vide

d in

to tw

o p

erm

it al

loca

tions

, eac

h w

ith a

gree

d t/

yr to

be

confi

rmed

by

an

inve

ntor

y 33

5,42

2 ha

>800

m a

sl

Fako

, M

eme

Baki

ngili

Bokw

ago,

Bo

man

aBw

assa

Map

anja

Ru

mpi

Hill

sBo

naka

nda

Koto

II

Mt C

amer

oon

1(in

gaz

ette

men

t pro

cess

for

M

t Cam

eroo

n N

atio

nal P

ark

– bo

unda

ries

not y

et fi

nalis

ed

Zone

1 (F

ako

& M

eme

- Bak

ingu

ili, B

okw

ango

, Bon

akan

da e

tc.)

all

fore

sts

outs

ide

CFs

have

bee

n he

avily

exp

loite

d.D

iffer

ing

opin

ions

NG

Os

(WW

F an

d Kf

W) a

bout

har

vest

su

stai

nabi

lity.

MO

CAP

pref

eren

ce to

rest

rict P

AU p

erm

it to

loca

l or

gani

satio

n an

d lo

cal u

ser r

ight

s.

Mt C

amer

oon

2(o

utsi

de th

e M

t Cam

eroo

n N

atio

nal

Park

)

Prob

ably

in p

ark

buffe

r zon

e. S

till s

ome

Prun

us a

vaila

ble.

M

OCA

P pr

efer

ence

to re

stric

t PAU

per

mit

to lo

cal o

rgan

isat

ion

and/

or lo

cal u

ser r

ight

s.


Maj

or P

runu

s La

ndsc

apes

in

Cam

eroo

nD

ivis

ion

Loca

tion

Prop

osed

15

PAU

sCo

mm

ents

Litt

oral

& B

akos

si M

ount

ains

La

ndsc

ape

divi

ded

into

two

perm

it al

loca

tions

, eac

h w

ith

agre

ed t

/yr t

o be

con

firm

ed

by a

n in

vent

ory

159,

707

ha>8

00m

asl

Mou

ngo

Kupe

- Man

egou

ba

Sant

chou

Litt

oral

& B

akos

si M

ount

ains

1

Litt

oral

& B

akos

si M

ount

ains

2

(Are

as o

utsi

de In

tegr

ated

Eco

logi

cal

Rese

rves

)

Onl

y fo

r are

as o

utsi

de In

tegr

ated

Eco

logi

cal R

eser

ves.

Bour

ouko

u (n

ear M

elon

g)

Nko

ngsa

mba

env

irons

Nso

ung

envi

rons

Mou

nt K

upe

(Lou

m)

Pote

ntia

l CBO

inte

rest

in P

AU. O

nly

for a

reas

out

side

Inte

grat

ed

Ecol

ogic

al R

eser

ves.

Mou

nt L

onak

o (N

kong

sam

ba)

Mou

nt M

anen

goub

a (N

kong

sam

ba)

Wes

t La

ndsc

ape

grou

ped

into

one

per

mit

hold

er o

f ≤ X

t /y

r to

be

confi

rmed

by

an in

vent

ory

1,01

6,97

5 ha

>800

m a

sl

Hau

t-Ka

mBa

fang

env

irons

Wes

tern

Hig

hlan

ds 1

Clus

tere

d in

to o

ne s

ite b

ecau

se o

f pro

xim

ity, e

asie

r acc

ess

and

smal

l qu

antit

ies.

Lebi

elem

is a

long

the

Bam

buto

us ra

nge.

Som

e pl

anta

tions

kno

wn

but d

ata

defic

ient

.

Band

ekum

Mbo

ebo-

Fole

ntch

a (B

afan

g)

Nde

Bang

ante

env

irons

(B

atch

ingo

u), T

ombe

l

Nou

n

Mou

nt M

bapi

t (Ba

igom

-Fo

umbo

t)

Mon

t Kou

bam

Ban

gour

aim

Mon

t Yaw

ou (M

akam

-Fou

mba

n)

Men

oua

Dsc

hang

Env

irons

Foré

ke (D

scha

ng)

Bam

bout

osM

ount

Bam

bout

os (M

boud

a)

Lebi

alem

Bang

em, B

ameb

ou

Cent

ral H

ighl

ands

La

ndsc

ape

grou

ped

into

one

per

mit

hold

er o

f ≤ X

t /y

r to

be

confi

rmed

by

an in

vent

ory

841,

884

ha>8

00m

asl

Mba

m e

t Kim

Mef

ou e

t Ako

no

Mt.

Ngo

ra,

Mt.

Yang

baM

t. G

olep

Mt.

Elou

mde

m

Cent

ral H

ighl

and

1

Reco

mm

enda

tion

only

aft

er v

erifi

catio

n of

exi

sten

ce o

f an

econ

omic

ally

inte

rest

ing

quan

tity

e.g.

100

tons

.

This section summarises the current state of knowledge and practice relating to inventories. It provides the basis for developing an inventory norm, which is essential to clarify and revise the current regulatory framework.

5.1 Current practiceA small number of specialist forestry studies have looked at how to inventory unevenly distributed species such as Prunus africana. Thompson (1990, 1991a, 1991b) and Roesh (Roesch 1993) combined the probability-proportional-to-size sampling schemes that are commonly used in forestry with an adaptive cluster sampling (ACS) scheme to develop a system that could be applied to inventories. Acharya et al. (2000) sampled rare tree species using systematic ACS and found that for clustered species the efficiency for density estimation increased by as much as 500%. However, for unclustered species it decreased by 40%. They suggested that an optimal group size is related to design efficiency, because when groups become too large, ACS becomes comparable to complete enumeration. The most pertinent of these studies, concentrating solely on Cameroonian Prunus africana, were conducted as part of the MCP (Acworth 1997; Underwood 2000).

Field trials of ACS were conducted as part of the 2000 Mount Cameroon inventory and provide an excellent guide to inventory techniques and how to conduct an inventory in the field, the underlying sampling theory and methods of estimation. The study found that ACS was more efficient compared with conventional strip sampling (for trees with DBH of at least 10 cm); the equivalent sampling effort to obtain the same precision with conventional sampling compared with ACS was estimated to cost 70% more. It was also shown that ACS yields significantly more information about the number of trees sampled.

Inventory methods for non-timber forest products (Lynch 2004; Ehlers 2003; Reforesting Scotland; URS 2005; Lynch 2004; Wong 2003; Wong 2001) all specify that inventories should involve a combination of quantitative surveying (i.e. species presence, quality and density per unit area), habitat definition and mapping, actual cultivation levels and potential, social considerations (e.g. current activities in forests and ease of access), demand for the product, harvesting impact and extrapolation based on a combination of these data. Local knowledge should also play an important part in the inventory process where possible. The most appropriate method, however, should be needs-based

Inventory norm

5

Figure 33. Comparison of transect and ACS methodologies

Transect ACS


and depend on local circumstances, including forest area, habitat complexity, local needs and the nature of the ‘target species’. When inventories are used to produce harvest quotas, the choice of inventory methodology needs to consider the level of precision needed, appropriate sample methods and methods of calculation.

A meeting of scientific advisers (Prunus Platform, held at CIFOR Yaoundé on 27 August 2008) reviewed the methodologies used by past inventories and confirmed that future inventories need a standardised method. A consensus was not reached about the most suitable method, given the difficult balance between scientific rigour, costs, time and capacities. However, the value of the ACS method was accepted.

The CITES Review of Significant Trade recommendations for Prunus africana workshop (CITES 2008) highlighted that although inventories have been done in Madagascar, Cameroon and Equatorial Guinea and are required for all countries as part of the Lima 2006 recommendations (CITES 2006; Cunningham 2006), there is not yet an accepted methodology for these inventories. The ISSC-MAP provides some guidance. Key requirements for inventories were presented, including the need for vegetation mapping, a sampling methodology, data on tree size and density, bark thickness, bark damage and crown health. The University of Cordoba Management Plan for Equatorial Guinea (Navarro-Cerrillo 2008b) was also hailed as a valuable guide for inventory methodology. This plan uses a systematic inventory with a random starting point and data collection every 100 metres along existing harvest lanes. CITES has not, however, proposed a specific, accepted methodology.

As described in section 6, the 14 studies of Prunus africana in Cameroon include inventories, plot monitoring, rapid assessments, regeneration studies and surveys. They vary in the methodology used, with only the CIFOR 2008 study (Foaham et al. 2009) using the same inventory methodology for more than one location. Experience indicates that ACS is the most rigorous method. Recommendations based on these practical experiences were made by Acworth et al. (1988), Hall et al. (2000), MCP (2000), Belinga (2001), Cunningham (2006), Betti (2008), Ndam and Asanga (2008) and Foaham et al. (2009). Also relevant is the work on Prunus africana in Bioko in Equatorial Guinea, which is considered as very comparable to Cameroon (Navarro-Cerrillo 2008; Sunderland 1999; Navarro-Cerrillo 2008).

This lack of a common methodology, both in Cameroon and internationally for this species,

underlines the need for a common inventory methodology.

Given that the majority of experience worldwide in inventorying Prunus africana has been in Cameroon, we are in a good position to assess which inventory methodology is most appropriate to provide accurate, pragmatic and sustainable quotas for exploitation. This requires a detailed study beyond the scope of this management plan. Therefore, recommendations based on experiences are presented to enable the development of a specific Prunus africana inventory norm, which will be become a regulatory binding document.

5.2 Recommendations for the inventory norm Drawing on the experiences with Prunus africana inventories outlined above, the following recommendations are made for inclusion in the inventory norm:

The past inventories have confirmed the patchy 1. nature of Prunus and low densities in the wild. This substantiates the necessity of using ACS to capture such clustering behaviour. The past Prunus inventories in Cameroon have used either classic transect methods or the Adaptive Cluster Sampling method (ACS) as shown in Table 3. Many reasons motivated the choice of the methods. The 1992 and 1996 inventories on Mount Cameroon used transects only while the 1999-2000 and 2007-8 ones used ACS. ACS transects and quadrants are most appropriate, despite their higher cost and complexity, as they combine randomness (to eliminate field bias) with systematic sampling (to eliminate methodology bias). A summary of the advantages and disadvantages is presented in Figure 34. In conclusion, the ACS method is more difficult to execute and analyse, but is more efficient and reliable.

A clear distinction needs to be made between dry 2. and wet weight bark in the inventory norm, the yield calculation and subsequent quotas and permits. The 50% ratio has been confirmed by exporters and importers (see Annex 9: Minutes of Prunus management plan Importers-Exporters meeting 15 April 2009) and is substantiated by literature (Fauron 1984).

For Community Forests that have much smaller 3. surface areas (a maximum 5000 ha) and are then partitioned into different compartments, the inventory sample method should be based on a head count of 65% of the surface area in compartments where Prunus can potentially to be harvested.

5. Inventory norm 53

For plantations, the inventory sample should be 4. based on a 100% head count (using marking and controllers). FMIs can provide labour, hence reducing the cost of the inventory.

The method of forest type classification should 5. combine ecological type and altitudinal range

Figure 34. Comparative analysis of transect and ACS methods

Transect method ACS Method

Familiar and easy to use. Unfamiliar and difficult to use.

Parallel transects of 0,5 ha (250 x 20m) contiguous plots (strip) often used.

In addition to parallel transects of 0,5 ha (250 x 20m) contiguous plots (strip) often used, location of plots between main transects based on Prunus clustering nature.

Perceived by Cameroonian field scientist (e.g. Belinga) as underestimating the stock therefore good for conservation measure .

Perceived by Cameroonian field scientist (e.g. Belinga) as overestimating the stock therefore dangerous for conservation measure.

Sampling level can be determined in advance based on fixed precision, means available and size of survey area

Sampling level not easy to be determined in advance based on fixed precision, means available and size of survey area

Wider range in average number of trees per hectare, e.g. 2.92-6.65 trees/ha on Mount Cameroon in 1996

Smaller range of average number of trees per hectare e.g. 3.4- 5.63 trees/ha for Mount Cameroon in 1999

Higher Standard Error Lower Standard Error

Relatively easy to analyse Relatively difficult to analyse

Frustrating for field staff as Prunus are scarcely measured

Motivating for field staff as Prunus are abundantly measured

Amount of work approximately known in advance, therefore easy planning

Amount of work unknown in advance, therefore difficult planning

Relatively cheap and less time consuming Relatively costly and more time consuming

With very low concentrations, much could be left uncounted

With very high concentrations, much could be double counted

Can be worst if transect is not along the altitudinal range

The altitudinal range is integrated with principal and secondary transect

Tendency to limit parameters of observation (e.g. health)

Tendency to widen parameters of observation (e.g. health)

Worst if starting down up to summit with risk of fatigue when reaching the rich higher strata

Worst if starting down up to summit with risk of fatigue when reaching the rich higher strata

NA No clear stand of the minimum number to be seen in the main transect before deciding to add secondary plots

Needs full participation of stakeholders if ownership and wider application is needed

Need full participation of stakeholders if ownership and wider application is needed

Seems to be less and less recommended in Cameroon for Prunus

Seem to be validated as method in Cameroon and approved by CITES (CIFOR 2008)

Tiama, the Canadian forest analytic package, could be adapted for Prunus analysis (CIFOR 2008)

Tiama, the Canadian forest analytic package could be adapted for Prunus analysis (CIFOR 2008)

Use of mid-confidence limits of the mean Reliable Minimum Estimate of Density for calculations of populations leading to overestimation damaging to the species

Use of lower confidence limits of the mean Reliable Minimum Estimate of Density for calculations of populations leading to underestimation necessary for conservation measure

Source: Ndam and Asanga 2008

and perturbation (same ratings as CIFOR and ONADEF—shown in Section 5.5.2)

A brief description of the socio-economic/ethno-6. botanic situation in the inventory area relating to Prunus africana and its use. For example, describing whether Prunus is harvested locally or not; if there


are experienced harvesters and whether they are organised into groups; whether Prunus is harvested for local medicinal or other uses and by whom; whether prior problems have been experienced with overexploitation or illegal exploitation and other anthropogenic threats to Prunus Africana, e.g. grazing, bushfire, forest clearance for pasture or agriculture.

Although full participation of local communities 7. in inventories is not always realistic, it is important because of the potential benefits that can be gained. Participatory inventories such as WHINCONET and ANCO’s inventories in Mount Cameroon vary dramatically from those with some local consultation, such as CIFOR’s, and those with none, such as ONADEF’s. There is a need to balance possibilities for bias in transect site selection with local understanding and implementation of the results. Especially for Community Forests, the community labour in counting trees can reduce costs dramatically, as long as supervision is maintained to ensure scientific rigour and objective data collection.

Inventories need to measure: 8. Density of prunus per hectare.a. DBH per individual tree (using standard b. classifications, e.g. those presented in CIFOR’s work). State of tree health (using crown foliation cover) c. and extent of debarking (see Annex 6: Bark regeneration and crown health definitions).Average bark thickness in cm per class diameter.d. Average volume bark per tree DBH (bark e. thickness/tree height).

9. The inventory should be explicit about any peculiarities in the PAU such as access to the terrain, monitoring or control, and threats to natural regeneration (e.g. grazing areas, fire, honey hunters, etc) and harvesting season (rainy or dry or none)

5.3 Principles Given the recommendations above, the following elements should be included in an inventory norm, which should be a regulatory binding standard:

Exact coordinates, brief geographical and biophysical 1. description and map of the PAU or community/communal forest to be inventoried.Description of the ACS methodology and its function 2. (to produce a sustainable harvest quota);Description of the result of the norm, e.g. a figure in 3. wet weight and dry weight converted tons of Prunus africana bark for a given area.

Description of how the inventory should be executed 4. in the field.Methodology for sampling of transects and plots. 5. Methods and equations for calculations and estimates 6. including Reliable Minimum Estimate (RME) and confidence limits (90%) and extrapolation from the sample transects to total area.Suitable methods for data treatment and tools. 7.

Tools and equipment required to conduct the »inventory Global Positioning System (GPS) with compass »and altimeter Geographic Information System (GIS) »Clinometer/Clisimetre/relaskop/hypsometer or »enbeeco (measuring tree height and height to first branch, hypsometer can be used, although not essential, for measuring tree canopy) Bark thickness gauge, e.g. Priestler’s bark gauge »Scales (for weighing actual bark yield) »Drum and water (measuring density of bark by »weighing bundles immersed in drum full of water)Moisture content analyser for moisture content of »bark measureRelascope (basal area measurements of stands of »trees); not essentialCalipers, measuring tape or rope to measure DBH »Tape or string 25 m to measure distance of plots »Binoculars »Machete »Waterproof writing or recording materials »

The level of detail of satellite images and maps (Ariel 8. photos 1/20,000 and topographic maps 1/50,000).Minimum level of qualifications and experience 9. required for those conducting the inventory.Notification requirements to local MINFOF 10. authorities and any other relevant authorities and obligations of MINFOF to accompany or monitor the inventory. The role of local knowledge and participation of local 11. communities/experts/forest user.Method of reporting and presenting the data, 12. including a map of Prunus distribution that indicates sample plots. This will be incorporated into a PAU management plan or a registration form. The process of evaluation and approval by the 13. Scientific and Management Authority and the Scientific Review Commission.

5.4 Research and capacity building needs

The studies below are needed to fill in data gaps and develop a scientifically robust inventory standard.

5. Inventory norm 55

Table 5. Inventory research and capacity needs

Need Output

Capacity building of MINFOF and actors in civil society and research to conduct inventories.

Practical experience of using the standard in the ‘field’, conducting analysis and interpretation of results.

Extensions to the Strip Adaptive Sampling MethodA limitation of the method used in the Mount Cameroon 2000 inventory is that a block, or stratum, must consist of a rectangle (although possibly deformed as described in Section 2.3) with parallel transects of the same length. This is a practical difficulty when strata need to follow irregularly shaped topographic or other features, and such features are common. A more flexible design would allow strata of arbitrary shape with transects of varying length. Although designs have been attempted in other fields and some theoretical results exist (Pontius 1997), they have not yet been tried on P. africana.

Primary sampling units should be selected (the transects), with a probability proportional to size (PPS). A trial of PPS adaptive sampling should be carried out. This study would have two main components. First, using information gained from the Cameroon data, a computer model could be designed to represent the spatial distribution of P. africana. This model should allow for variation in features of the distribution such as density and degree of aggregation (or clustering). The other component is a mechanism for simulating various adaptive sample designs, allowing variation in not only the four parameters above, but also basic design features such as number and length of transects.

Simulation study—resulting in a better understanding of the relationships between sample design parameters and also indicate combinations that are optimal in terms of both statistical efficiency and cost. It is quite possible that some results on the tricky issue of expected size, and therefore cost, of the final sample would also become available. Furthermore, it should be possible to use the simulation model to explore extensions of the strip adaptive sampling method, in particular two-stage sampling and designs with transects of variable length (see below).

Optimising Sample Design ParametersThere are four features of an adaptive sampling plan that need to be decided as part of the design process. These are:

the criterion used for adding plots;•the shape of the plots;•the plot size; and,•the distance between plots. •

The effects of these parameters on the efficiency of the sampling interact with each other in complex ways. There are as yet few theoretical results, and even fewer previous practical case studies, to draw from that may assist in deciding these aspects of a sampling plan. The Mount Cameroon inventory, with little previous work for guidance, chose these based on a commonsense, but nevertheless ad hoc way, practical convenience being a major consideration.

It is not clear how much research effort will be required before theoretical results on these issues become available. In the meantime, a computer simulation study could explore the inter-relationships between these design parameters with a view to identifying optimal combinations of parameter values. Simulation studies of this kind have been successfully applied to adaptive sampling in areas other than forestry (Smith et al. 1995, in Underwood and Burns 2000).

Simulation studies—resulting in improved design parameters


Need Output

Two-Stage Adaptive SamplingGiven that a serious drawback of adaptive sampling is the size and potential cost, it is difficult to know precisely how big the final sample will be, and there is therefore a resource allocation problem at the planning stage. This problem is exacerbated by having to choose the adding rule before any data has been collected, hence a feast or famine situation with additional plots can arise. Currently some theoretical results exist that shed some light on expected sample size, but these have not been used in practical situations as they rely on being able to model the population distribution.

One method to overcome these problems is to use a two-stage adaptive sampling process (Salehi & Seber 1997, in Underwood and Burns 2000).) The first stage consists of sampling the plots on the main transect, for all transects in a stratum. This is equivalent to the standard current ONADEF method. The time taken can be estimated as the length of each transect is known prior to going into the field. The aim is to then use the data collected from this stage to assist in the choice of an appropriate adding rule. It would also be hoped that a better idea of the expected sample size can be obtained. As yet, however, two-stage adaptive sampling has not been used in the field and it is not known whether expected final sample sizes can be estimated following the first stage. Some simulation work and theoretical work is required to do this.

A two-stage adaptive sampling process design.

Sources: Adapted from ETFRN 2000; Underwood 2000

An accurate calculation of bark yield is an essential part of each inventory and the subsequent management plan for PAUs; also for estimating yields from private owners. This section provides answers to questions such as ‘How much of the desired raw material (quality & quantity) does the species produce under natural conditions?’ and ‘What is the regeneration rate of harvested populations and individuals?’. These calculations and figures form the basis for the harvest and inventory norms.

6.1 Bark yield studiesSeven studies have been conducted on bark collected in Cameroon from different classes of tree size; these provide a good basis for yield calculations. Five were performed by Plantecam and the Mapanja Prunus Exploiters’ Union for yields from Mount Cameroon, conducted by Tako (Mundongo, January 1997), Dibobe (Mapanja, September 1997 and Mapanja, July 1997), Ekonjo (a joint study in December 1997) and by the MCP in 2000. A Forestry Department study of 7717 trees harvested in Bui Division, North West Province,

also produced yield data. Cunningham et al. (2002) calculated bark yields from seven felled trees in Ntingue in Menoua Division, West Region, the using work done on black wattle (Acacia mearnsii), a tree used in South Africa for tannin production. Bark mass data from these trees was similar to Schönau’s tables for Acacia mearnsii, with bark 8 mm thick at breast height bark (see Table 6) showing similarities between predictions from Acacia mearnsii bark mass tables and medium-sized (>13 cm DBH), but not the smaller Prunus africana trees (Cunningham et al. 2002). In contrast to their small sample size, Schönau determined bark mass tables from a sample of 1379, 12-year-old trees with a mean density of 1363 trees/ha (551.7 trees/acre), amounting to 28.1 tons/ha (11.37 tons/acre). Mean bark thickness at breast height in these Acacia mearnsii trees was 5.46 mm, with a mean DBH of 14.4 cm and a mean height of 16.4 m at 12 years (Schönau 1973, 1974).

Similar tables for Prunus africana can be used as guide the quantity of bark harvested per diameter class, see Figure 35.

Bark yield calculations

6

Table 6. Bark mass comparisons Acacia mearnsii and Prunus africana

Acacia mearnsii Prunus africana

height (m)

DBH (cm)

wet bark mass (kg)

height (m)

DBH (cm)

wet bark mass (kg)

18.5 25.0 59.6 18.3 26.0 60.6

18.0 19.0 44.9 18.0 19.1 40.2

13.5 22.5 39.2 13.6 22.6 38.3

13.0 17.0 29.0 13.0 17.1 26.4

10.5 13.0 18.5 10.6 13.2 18.8

7.5 11.0 11.4 7.6 11.0 6.1

5.5 7.0 n/a 5.8 7.1 3.4

Source: Cunningham et al. 2002


Millettia conraui, a montane forest tree whose bark is used traditionally in Oku to make oil containers demonstrates the practicability of sustainable bark harvest in montane forests. From the trunk of a standing tree, a quantity of bark is taken that is just enough for one to a few containers depending on tree size, and the tree left to fully recover before bark is taken from another area of the trunk. Debarking is usually commenced well above ground level (often above breast height) for half of the trunk, but rarely up to the first branch. The bark fully recovers within 3 years and the tree is ready for another round of harvesting. The Netherlands Development Organisation (SNV) study on traditional harvesting (Ingram and Fon 2007) shows that small patches taken for traditional medicine also have little impact on health.

Overall, the yield results are show that yields are variable, due to differences in the exploitable height (from breast height to the first branch), the technical ability of the exploiter to climb and peel bark from the tree, the

technique of harvest, tools used and care taken during harvest), and the rotation and recovery periods left between exploitation passes.

6.2 Sustainable yield equation The basic assumption for calculating bark yield is that there is a sufficient correlation between tree size, tree health and growth rates, despite differences in soils, rainfall and genotypes. Tree health and harvests are therefore critical factors affecting growth rates.

The sustainable yield of Prunus africana bark from an inventoried site can be predicted based on estimates of the natural population, the average yield per tree and the length of time between successive debarking to allow total recovery of the bark and maintain tree health (Acworth et al. 1999, Underwood & Burn 2000). The basic sustainable yield of bark per annum calculation therefore is expressed by:

Figure 35. Bark yields per diameter class

Source: Acworth 1997

0

50

100

150

200

Yiel

d ov

er �

ve y

ears

(ton

es)

Diameter class (cm)

Total freshweight of bark exploitable over next 5 years by size class (tonnes)

250

10-1

9

20-2

9

30-3

9

40-4

9

50-5

9

60-6

9

70-7

9

80-8

9

90-9

9

100-

109

110-

119

120-

129

130-

139

140-

149

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

No.

of h

ealth

y st

ems

Yiel

d pe

r tre

e (k

g)

Diameter class (cm)

5000

6000

7000

0

40

20

60

80

100

120

140

160

10-1

9

20-2

9

30-3

9

40-4

9

50-5

9

60-6

9

70-7

9

80-8

9

90-9

9

100-

109

110-

119

120-

129

130-

139

140-

149

Average weight of exploitable bark availabe from each size class (fresh weight)

Stems Exploitable in 5 year period

Healthy stems and bark yields per diameter class

0

50

100

150

200

Yiel

d ov

er �

ve y

ears

(ton

es)

Diameter class (cm)

Total freshweight of bark exploitable over next 5 years by size class (tonnes)

250

10-1

9

20-2

9

30-3

9

40-4

9

50-5

9

60-6

9

70-7

9

80-8

9

90-9

9

100-

109

110-

119

120-

129

130-

139

140-

149

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

No.

of h

ealth

y st

ems

Yiel

d pe

r tre

e (k

g)

Diameter class (cm)

5000

6000

7000

0

40

20

60

80

100

120

140

160

10-1

9

20-2

9

30-3

9

40-4

9

50-5

9

60-6

9

70-7

9

80-8

9

90-9

9

100-

109

110-

119

120-

129

130-

139

140-

149

Average weight of exploitable bark availabe from each size class (fresh weight)

Stems Exploitable in 5 year period

Healthy stems and bark yields per diameter class

6. Bark yield calculations 59

SY = (D x A x Yt) \ R

where: SY = Sustainable Yield of Prunus bark per annum

per unitD = Population density of exploitable trees

(stems/ha)A = Area of exploitable forest containing Prunus

africanaYt = Average sustainable yield of bark per trees (kg

fresh weight/trees/harvest) (area X thickness)

R = Rate of total recovery of the bark (in years)

This formula requires concrete data rather than estimates of each of the parameters (D, A, and R), as the best and worst possible estimates may impact on sustained yield dramatically. An inventory of the absolute number of trees (D) in each exploitation zone (A) is only one factor. Other factors can be estimated during a static (at a single point in time) inventory, such as the average sustainable yield of bark per tree (Y). A factor of this yield is the degree of historical debarking of Prunus, tree growth rates, mortality rates, and tree health. A dynamic inventory, involving regular remeasurement of some sample trees over time is also needed to determine the long-term impacts of exploitation on the rate of recovery of bark per tree (R) (Acworth et al. 1999). To calculate the sustained yield for an 8-year period, the PAU Sustained Yield calculation below is proposed:

Qn = ∑ Q Kg dry weight equivalent

Qpau = Apau x Pae x RMEd x Yt x Pte Kg dry weight equivalent Fh

where:

Qn = Annual Quota Kg dry weight equivalentQpau = Annual Quota per PAU Kg dry weight

equivalentApau = Area of PAU HectaresPae = Proportion of Area Exploitable in PAU

PercentRMEd = Reliable minimum estimate of density in PAU

Stems per hectareYt = Average yield per tree in one harvest

Kg dry weight equivalent

Pte = Proportion exploitable trees (alive & not overexploited) Percent

Fh = Number of years between harvests (8 Years) Years

This estimate is expected to be valid for an 8-year period. Due to natural mortality and the impact of exploitation on tree survival, the long-term rate of mortality, recruitment and growth of Prunus must be estimated to determine the sustainability of the harvesting cycle. At the beginning of the inventory, growth rates can be calculated by looking at the Size Class Distribution (diameter size according to ranges) in the PAU. This should take account of the level of previous harvesting as size class distribution varies significantly in Cameroon. At least a higher number of the smallest two size classes should be present and a large number of the oldest classes to assure regeneration.

Given mortality rates averaging 17% in Cameroon (see section 5.5.1), it is essential to verify tree health and the recovery rate of sustainable and unsustainably harvested trees to determine mortality rates after 1st and more importantly 2nd harvest (i.e. when the entire circumference of the tree has been stripped). Thus, even before a 2nd harvest (i.e. 5 years after first harvest) is carried out, a verification of the health is necessary to verify growth using the Mortality, Recruitment and Growth equation;

Np = Ni - Nm + Nr Yt per size class

where:

Np = Number of Prunus trees standing at the end of 8-year harvesting cycle

Ni = Initial number of Prunus trees at beginning of 8-year harvesting cycle

Nm = Number of tree mortalities during 8-year harvesting cycle

Nr = Number of tree recruitments during 8-year harvesting cycle.

Yt = Average yield of bark per tree (kg fresh weight/trees/harvest) (by size class)

A significant amount of data is available in Cameroon from three regions supporting the majority of these calculations, shown in Table 7.


Tabl

e 7.

Dat

a to

sup

port

sus

tain

able

yie

ld q

uota

s of

Pru

nus a

fric

ana

Para

met

erIn

form

atio

n re

quir

ed

Info

rmat

ion

avai

labl

e

Expl

oita

ble

area

(A)

and

man

agem

ent

stra

ta

The

area

in w

hich

P. a

frica

na in

Cam

eroo

n is

foun

d m

ust b

e es

timat

ed, a

nd s

trat

ified

into

thos

e ar

eas

that

are

acc

essi

ble

to h

arve

st a

nd th

ose

that

are

not

. Str

atifi

ed m

ap c

an b

e us

ed.

The

quot

a sh

ould

app

ly o

nly

to th

e zo

nes

and

stra

ta th

at a

re

(eco

nom

ical

ly) a

cces

sibl

e an

d ad

equa

tely

sam

pled

dur

ing

the

inve

ntor

y an

d no

thin

g m

ore.

The

re is

no

need

/poi

nt in

sam

plin

g in

acce

ssib

le a

reas

to a

ny le

vel o

f acc

urac

y.

The

acce

ssib

le a

reas

mus

t be

stra

tified

on

the

basi

s of

fore

st

type

or o

ther

app

ropr

iate

cla

ssifi

catio

n w

hich

may

influ

ence

th

e de

nsity

of P

runu

s, an

d ea

ch s

trat

um a

dequ

atel

y sa

mpl

ed to

pr

ovid

e a

relia

ble

mea

n fo

r the

str

atum

(str

atifi

ed m

ap).

Stra

tified

map

s av

aila

ble

for M

ount

Cam

eroo

n, M

uane

goub

a an

d Ki

lum

Ijum

, Tch

bal G

angd

aba

and

Mba

bo (s

ee A

nnex

4 a

nd C

IFO

R 20

08).

Den

sity

(D) o

f pr

oduc

tive

tree

s (e

xclu

ding

dea

d or

ov

erex

ploi

ted

tree

s)

For t

he p

urpo

se o

f cal

cula

ting

the

sust

aine

d yi

elds

for 5

to 1

0-ye

ar p

erio

ds, t

he d

ensi

ty p

er h

ecta

re o

f pro

duct

ive

tree

s ov

er

the

min

imum

exp

loita

ble

diam

eter

mus

t be

calc

ulat

ed fo

r eac

h st

ratu

m. T

hus,

all d

ead

or c

ompl

etel

y st

rippe

d tr

ees,

whi

ch

cann

ot b

e ex

pect

ed to

pro

duce

aga

in d

urin

g th

is 8

-yea

r per

iod,

w

ill b

e ex

clud

ed.

Usi

ng th

e H

arve

stin

g N

orm

whe

re a

tree

is s

trip

ped

from

al

tern

ate

side

s ev

ery

8 ye

ars,

any

part

of t

he tr

unk

is n

orm

ally

gi

ven

16 y

ears

to re

gene

rate

its

bark

aft

er h

arve

st. T

his

rule

sh

ould

app

ly e

ven

mor

e st

rictly

to a

com

plet

ely

strip

ped

tree

. Th

us, s

uch

tree

s sh

ould

not

be

incl

uded

in th

e es

timat

e of

8

year

ly q

uota

s. O

nly

whe

n ev

iden

ce is

ava

ilabl

e th

at to

tally

st

rippe

d tr

ees

have

reco

vere

d w

ill th

ey b

e in

clud

ed in

futu

re

estim

ates

of s

usta

ined

yie

ld.

Den

sity

per

hec

tare

ava

ilabl

e fo

r Mou

nt C

amer

oon,

Mua

nego

uba

and

Kilu

m Ij

um, T

chba

l G

angd

aba

and

Mba

bo (s

ee A

nnex

4 a

nd C

IFO

R 20

08).

The

degr

ee o

f pre

viou

s ex

ploi

tatio

n ha

s al

so b

een

inco

rpor

ated

, bas

ed o

n av

erag

es fr

om

mon

itorin

g st

udie

s on

Mou

nt C

amer

oon

and

Kilu

m Ij

im.

Freq

uenc

y of

ex

ploi

tatio

n (F

h)A

nor

m o

f har

vest

ing

ever

y 5

year

s w

as p

ropo

sed

by th

e M

CP

and

also

use

d in

the

Adam

aoua

inve

ntor

y as

the

then

bes

t in

form

ed fi

gure

, alth

ough

the

scie

ntifi

c ba

sis

for t

his

norm

was

la

ckin

g.

Har

vest

ing

rota

tion

norm

is n

ow p

ropo

sed

for a

con

serv

ativ

e pe

riod

of 8

yea

rs, i

n re

spon

se

to c

once

rns

(see

Sec

tion

11.1

), an

d pe

ndin

g on

goin

g re

sear

ch a

nd fu

rthe

r stu

dies

to

confi

rm

if th

e lim

it ca

n be

saf

ely

low

ered

to 5

yea

rs (s

ee A

nnex

7: M

inut

es o

f Dra

ftin

g m

eetin

g 26

Fe

brua

ry 2

009)

The

harv

estin

g cy

cle

shou

ld b

e ad

just

ed a

ccor

ding

ly w

hen

bett

er in

form

atio

n on

bar

k re

gene

ratio

n ra

tes

and

impa

ct o

f har

vest

ing

on tr

ee p

hysi

olog

y is

ava

ilabl

e.a

a Th

e N

atur

al H

isto

ry M

useu

m o

f Par

is e

xpre

ssed

inte

rest

in c

olla

bora

ting

on s

tudi

es o

f the

impa

ct o

f bar

k re

mov

al o

n th

e ph

ysio

logi

cal f

unct

ioni

ng a

nd h

ealth

of P

runu

s af

rican

a. T

he M

useu

m is

the

Fren

ch

Sc

ient

ific

Auth

ority

for C

ITES

.


Para

met

erIn

form

atio

n re

quir

ed

Info

rmat

ion

avai

labl

e

Rate

of r

ecov

ery

(R)

and

tree

hea

lth1

Cano

py m

orta

lity

is a

n in

dica

tor o

f tre

e he

alth

and

reco

very

ra

tes

from

har

vest

or s

tres

s, an

d sh

ould

be

reco

rded

. Man

y pr

evio

usly

exp

loite

d tr

ees

clea

rly s

how

sig

ns o

f str

ess,

and

if th

ese

tree

s ne

ed to

be

excl

uded

from

the

imm

edia

te h

arve

st

cycl

e, th

en th

e yi

eld

shou

ld b

e re

duce

d ac

cord

ingl

y. C

anop

y co

ver p

rovi

des

a go

od in

dica

tor a

nd s

tand

ards

can

be

used

. Se

e A

nnex

6: B

ark

rege

nera

tion

and

crow

n he

alth

defi

nitio

ns

(Whi

ncon

et 2

007,

Ste

war

t 200

7).

Dat

a fr

om M

ount

Cam

eroo

n (M

euer

200

7) a

nd K

ilum

Ijum

(WH

INCO

NET

200

7, S

tew

art 2

007)

av

aila

ble,

but

not

inco

rpor

ated

into

cur

rent

inve

ntor

ies.

Reco

very

of P

runu

s afri

cana

tree

s af

ter h

arve

st v

arie

s a

lot o

n M

ount

Cam

eroo

n. T

he 1

996

and

2000

inve

ntor

ies

note

d th

at p

rope

rly h

arve

sted

tree

s ge

nera

lly re

cove

red

wel

l, bu

t app

eare

d to

hav

e a

high

er p

erce

ntag

e of

sur

viva

l on

the

wet

ter s

outh

ern/

wes

tern

flan

ks o

f the

mou

ntai

n ─

prob

ably

bec

ause

hig

her h

umid

ity re

duce

d st

ress

/dam

age

to th

e st

rippe

d ca

mbi

al la

yer.

On

the

muc

h dr

ier n

orth

ern

and

east

ern

flank

s, a

high

er p

erce

ntag

e tr

ees

wer

e dy

ing,

eve

n af

ter

‘nor

mal

’ deb

arki

ng.

Tre

e m

orta

lity

mig

ht a

lso

be h

ighe

r in

the

drie

r Nor

th (A

dam

aoua

etc

), an

d ev

en th

e N

orth

Wes

t.

The

Adam

aoua

inve

ntor

y in

dica

ted

expl

oita

tion

in Tc

haba

l Mba

bo o

f 24%

of t

rees

und

er 3

0 cm

D

BH a

nd 1

1% w

ere

unsu

stai

nabl

y ha

rves

ted

(incl

udin

g fe

lled)

.CI

FOR

is c

ondu

ctin

g a

rate

of r

ecov

ery

stud

y M

ay–S

epte

mbe

r 200

9 to

ass

ess

thic

knes

s of

bar

ks

afte

r har

vest

in M

ount

Cam

eroo

n, M

ount

Man

engo

uba,

Kilu

m Ij

um a

nd A

dam

aoua

.

Mor

talit

y (N

m),

recr

uitm

ent (

Nr)

and

gr

owth

rat

es

Mor

talit

y of

Pru

nus

from

nat

ural

cau

ses

and

as a

resu

lt of

ex

ploi

tatio

n ca

n re

duce

the

expl

oita

ble

popu

latio

n ov

er ti

me.

It

is th

eref

ore

impo

rtan

t to

estim

ate

the

heal

th a

nd s

ize

of

the

juve

nile

pop

ulat

ion

(bel

ow 3

0 cm

dia

met

er) a

nd to

kno

w

the

rate

of ‘

recr

uitm

ent’

of P

runu

s tr

ees

from

sm

alle

r dia

met

er

clas

ses

to e

xplo

itabl

e si

ze. I

n ty

pica

l for

estr

y si

tuat

ions

(whe

re

tree

s ar

e be

ing

felle

d), t

his

is th

e ke

y fa

ctor

that

det

erm

ines

th

e su

stai

nabl

e yi

eld

of a

spe

cies

. It

als

o pl

ays

a ro

le in

the

long

-ter

m m

anag

emen

t of P

runu

s afri

cana

, in

dete

rmin

ing

the

freq

uenc

y of

exp

loita

tion.

Thi

s co

ncep

t is

easi

er to

und

erst

and

by s

ettin

g th

e tw

o cl

asse

s: a

recr

uitm

ent c

lass

und

er 3

0 D

BH a

nd

an e

xplo

itatio

n cl

ass

over

30

DBH

.

All

prev

ious

pop

ulat

ions

inve

ntor

ied

have

sho

wn

diffe

rent

siz

e cl

ass

stru

ctur

es, m

akin

g it

very

diffi

cult

to g

auge

a ‘n

orm

al’ s

ize

clas

s di

strib

utio

n.

Mor

talit

y ra

tes

in th

e Ca

mer

oon

inve

ntor

ies

rang

e fr

om 0

% to

50%

for h

arve

sted

tree

s, w

ith a

n av

erag

e of

17%

. Thi

s is

sig

nific

antly

hig

her t

han

the

natu

ral a

vera

ge o

f 1.5

% y

ear.

Recr

uitm

ents

rate

s ar

e kn

own

from

the

two

clas

ses

(‘rec

ruitm

ent’

<30

cm D

BH) a

nd ‘e

xplo

itabl

e’ >3

0 cm

DBH

) ide

ntifi

ed fo

r Pru

nus

on M

ount

Cam

eroo

n, M

anen

goub

a an

d Ki

lum

Ijum

. In

Tchb

al G

angd

aba

and

Mba

bo 2

cla

sses

wer

e di

stin

guis

hed

(‘rec

ruitm

ent:

<10

cm D

BH a

nd

‘exp

loita

ble’

>10

cm D

BH. D

ata

is in

clud

ed in

inve

ntor

ies

(see

Ann

ex 4

and

CIF

OR

2008

).

Initi

al n

umbe

rs o

f tr

ees

(Ni)

Base

line

num

bers

of t

rees

inve

ntor

ied

in re

pres

enta

tive

ecol

ogic

al s

trat

a.In

vent

orie

s fo

r Mou

nt C

amer

oon,

Mou

nt M

anen

goub

a, K

ilum

Ijum

, Em

feh

and

Ijim

CFs

, Tch

bal

Gan

gdab

a an

d M

babo

(see

Ann

ex 4

and

CIF

OR

2008

).


Para

met

erIn

form

atio

n re

quir

ed

Info

rmat

ion

avai

labl

e

Tree

yie

ld

(Yt)

Aver

age

bark

thic

knes

s ne

eds

to b

e kn

own

to c

alcu

late

the

aver

age

yiel

d of

bar

k pe

r tre

e. T

his

depe

nds

on th

e th

ickn

ess

of

the

bark

, the

siz

e cl

ass

of th

e tr

ee a

nd th

e he

ight

of t

he tr

ee.

Inve

ntor

ies

in Tc

hbal

Gan

gdab

a an

d M

babo

sho

w a

vera

ge th

ickn

ess

for t

rees

abo

ve 3

0 cm

D

BH a

s 1.

1 cm

Tcha

bal M

babo

and

7.6

cm

Tcha

bal G

ang

Dab

a. F

or M

ount

Cam

eroo

n, th

ickn

ess

varie

s fr

om 1

.1 c

m to

1.7

cm

acr

oss

size

cla

sses

, with

an

aver

age

of 1

.5 c

m.

Abo

ut 1

0% o

f tre

es n

ot e

xplo

itabl

e, u

sual

ly la

rger

tree

s >1

00cm

DBH

, due

to d

ifficu

lty o

f cl

imbi

ng, o

r kno

ts o

r tw

ists

in th

e st

em, w

hich

mak

e it

diffi

cult

or im

poss

ible

to p

eel t

he b

ark.

In

con

tras

t, sm

all t

rees

are

eas

ily e

xplo

ited,

and

are

oft

en e

xplo

ited

abov

e th

e fir

st b

ranc

h:

33 o

ut o

f 119

ste

ms

(28%

) exp

loite

d ab

ove

first

bra

nch,

mos

t of t

hem

bel

ow 6

0 cm

DBH

. On

aver

age,

exp

loita

tion

reac

hed

to 8

0% o

f ste

m le

ngth

(Dib

obe,

199

7).

Bark

dry

wei

ght

equi

vale

ntFr

esh

bark

mas

s is

on

aver

age

twic

e th

at o

f drie

d ba

rk: 1

000

kg

of w

et b

ark

from

mat

ure

tree

s w

ill p

rodu

ce 5

00 k

g of

dry

bar

k at

50

% h

umid

ity, w

hich

will

pro

duce

5 k

g of

ext

ract

.

Thes

e fig

ures

wer

e co

nfirm

ed b

y ex

port

ers

and

impo

rter

s as

stil

l bei

ng re

leva

nt fo

r Cam

eroo

n Pr

unus

bar

k (s

ee A

nnex

9: M

inut

es o

f Pru

nus

man

agem

ent p

lan

Impo

rter

s-Ex

port

ers

mee

ting

15 A

pril

2009

).

Yiel

d pe

r tre

e (Y

t)Yi

eld

data

from

the

field

is n

eede

d to

est

imat

e th

e av

erag

e yi

eld

by s

ize

clas

s of

tree

. Thi

s ca

n be

sta

ndar

dise

d by

defi

ning

th

e tr

ee s

ize

clas

ses.

How

ever

, pas

t inv

ento

ries

and

mon

itorin

g st

udie

s ha

ve u

sed

slig

htly

diff

eren

t app

roac

hes,

whi

ch m

eans

it

is d

ifficu

lt to

com

para

tivel

y in

terp

ret d

ata.

The

ava

ilabl

e da

ta

sugg

ests

that

an

aver

age

yiel

d is

aro

und

65 k

g ba

rk (f

resh

-w

eigh

t) p

er tr

ee fo

r all

size

cla

sses

(wei

ghte

d by

siz

e cl

ass

dist

ribut

ion)

. Yie

ld s

tudi

es h

ave

been

con

duct

ed o

n M

ount

Ca

mer

oon

by P

lant

ecam

, in

part

with

the

colla

bora

tion

of M

INEF

, M

CP a

nd lo

cal c

omm

uniti

es.

Yiel

d da

ta a

vaila

ble

for b

ark

thic

knes

s on

Mou

nt C

amer

oon

(MCP

, 200

0; D

ibob

e, 1

997)

ave

rage

1.

5 cm

and

for A

dam

aoua

11

mm

at M

babo

and

7.6

mm

Gan

g D

aba

(Bel

inga

, 200

1)Fr

om th

ese

stud

ies,

an a

vera

ge m

atur

e tr

ee m

ay y

ield

75

kg (C

unni

ngha

m, 1

993;

Hal

l, 20

00)

with

bet

wee

n 69

kg

and

43 k

g (w

ith a

n av

erag

e of

68

kg) b

eing

repo

rted

in M

ount

Cam

eroo

n (M

CP, 2

000)

and

55

kg p

er tr

ee in

the

Nor

th W

est (

Fore

stry

Dep

artm

ent)

(Cun

ning

ham

and

M

benk

um 1

993)

Tak

ing

the

calc

ulat

ions

of y

ield

s pe

r tre

e fr

om th

e da

ta a

vaila

ble,

an

aver

age

of 6

8 kg

bar

k ca

n be

har

vest

ed p

er tr

ee o

nly

if tr

ees

are

expl

oite

d pr

oper

ly, a

ccor

ding

to th

e 2/

4 ex

ploi

tatio

n no

rm.

Not

e th

at in

Ada

mao

ua, t

he in

vent

ory

prop

osed

500

t pe

r ann

um (‘

optim

istic

’ giv

en th

at th

e tr

ees

occu

rred

onl

y in

gal

lerie

s w

ith s

mal

l geo

grap

hic

exte

nt);

it w

as p

ossi

ble

to a

ssum

e th

at

all t

rees

wer

e he

alth

y an

d co

uld

prod

uce

thei

r ful

l pot

entia

l yie

ld b

ecau

se th

ey h

ad n

ot b

een

expl

oite

d be

fore

. N

early

10

year

s ha

ve p

asse

d si

nce

harv

estin

g be

gan,

and

it s

houl

d no

w b

e po

ssib

le to

reas

sess

the

heal

th o

f tho

se tr

ees

that

hav

e be

en h

arve

sted

onc

e or

twic

e an

d de

term

ine

whe

ther

or n

ot th

ey a

re s

urvi

ving

‘nor

mal

’ har

vest

ing

in th

e sa

me

way

as

they

do

on, f

or e

xam

ple,

the

wet

ter fl

anks

of M

ount

Cam

eroo

n.


Para

met

erIn

form

atio

n re

quir

ed

Info

rmat

ion

avai

labl

e

Relia

ble

min

imum

es

timat

e of

den

sity

in

PAU

(RM

E d)

Prun

us is

ver

y un

even

ly d

istr

ibut

ed in

all

PAU

s, an

d th

e m

ajor

ity

of 0

.5 h

a pl

ots

have

no

Prun

us in

them

. Inc

reas

ed c

onfid

ence

lim

its o

f the

acc

urac

y of

pop

ulat

ion

estim

ates

can

be

achi

eved

by

am

alga

mat

ing

20 x

0.5

ha

plot

s to

form

10

ha p

lots

, mos

t of

whi

ch c

onta

in s

ome

Prun

us.

A te

mpt

atio

n fo

r exp

loite

rs is

to m

inim

ise

the

inve

stm

ent i

n in

vent

ory,

whi

ch c

an re

sult

in e

stim

ates

bas

ed o

n ve

ry lo

w

sam

plin

g ra

tes,

with

ver

y hi

gh s

tand

ard

Eero

rs. T

he “m

ean”

po

pula

tion

of P

runu

s ca

lcul

ated

from

suc

h su

rvey

s ca

n be

hig

hly

mis

lead

ing

beca

use

it is

kno

wn

with

suc

h lim

ited

accu

racy

.

Plot

s w

ith a

vera

ge o

f 0.8

8 ha

, tot

allin

g 29

ha

and

101

ha u

sed

in A

dam

aoua

(Bel

inga

200

1) a

nd

for t

he C

IFO

R in

vent

orie

s, 50

00 m

² (0.

5 ha

) eac

h. In

the

thre

e si

tes,

379

ha (7

58 p

lots

: 542

Mou

nt

Cam

eroo

n, 1

32 M

anen

goub

a an

d 84

in O

ku).

To m

inim

ise

the

risks

of o

vere

xplo

itatio

n, th

e lo

wer

con

fiden

ce li

mit

of th

e m

ean

(at 9

0%

confi

denc

e lim

it ra

ther

than

95%

) sho

uld

be u

sed.

Eve

n th

en, t

here

is a

(sm

all)

risk

that

es

timat

es o

f pop

ulat

ions

are

gre

ater

than

mea

sure

d. U

sing

RM

E en

cour

ages

con

serv

ativ

e es

timat

es o

f yie

ld, w

hich

is n

eces

sary

, giv

en h

isto

rical

wea

k co

ntro

l ove

r har

vest

ing

vis-

a-vi

s qu

ota

allo

catio

ns, a

nd it

pro

vide

s a

valu

able

ince

ntiv

e to

the

Man

agem

ent A

utho

rity

and

the

perm

it ho

lder

to in

vest

in m

ore

acc

urat

e in

vent

orie

s to

ens

ure

quot

as a

re a

s hi

gh a

s po

ssib

le

(i.e.

with

low

er s

tand

ard

erro

rs, t

he R

ME,

and

ther

efor

e qu

ota,

goe

s up

).

Dry

wei

ght

equi

vale

nt

Evid

ence

of t

he s

peci

fic w

eigh

t of w

et b

ark

and

the

ratio

with

va

ryin

g m

oist

ure

cont

ent i

s im

port

ant t

o ca

lcul

ate

the

diffe

renc

e be

twee

n fr

eshl

y ha

rves

ted

bark

at t

he fo

rest

edg

e an

d dr

ied

Prun

us, t

he s

tage

at w

hich

it is

exp

orte

d.

Pers

onal

com

mun

icat

ions

(see

Ann

ex 9

: Min

utes

of P

runu

s m

anag

emen

t pla

n Im

port

ers-

Expo

rter

s m

eetin

g 15

Apr

il 20

09) c

onfir

med

that

a w

et b

ark

has

a m

oist

ure

cont

ent o

f 75-

90%

; to

be

clas

sifie

d as

drie

d th

is h

as to

be

from

10-

15%

. Nor

ally

‘ort

hodo

x’ s

eeds

suc

h as

Pru

nus

are

from

5-7

% (S

chm

idt,

2007

; Sch

mid

t, 20

07).

In C

amer

oon,

exp

orte

rs a

re re

quire

d to

sel

l at

belo

w 3

0% o

r the

pro

duct

is re

ject

ed. F

or e

xtra

ctio

n pu

rpos

es, m

oist

ure

cont

ent h

as to

be

belo

w 1

0%. T

he a

vera

ge d

ry b

ark

wei

ght h

as a

50%

wei

ght l

oss

in th

e dr

ying

pro

cess

. Thi

s is

co

nfirm

ed b

y (F

auro

n, 1

984)

.

The national annual quota for commercial, large-scale exploitation of any part of Prunus africana in any given year will be the sum of all quotas from the approved PAU management plans for specific Prunus Allocation Units and the addition of all registered planted Prunus. A national quota for bark can be calculated with the following equation:

Annual TQ = ∑PAUq + ∑RPPq Kg dry weight equivalent

where:

TQ = Total national Quota for Prunus bark dry weight equivalent

PAUq = Sum of all Prunus Allocation Unit annual quotas kg dry weight equivalent in approved management plans

PRRq = Sum of all registered planted Prunus annually kg dry weight equivalent

This equation does not include small-scale traditional, subsistence and own use exploitation of Prunus africana bark. The scale of harvesting for own use is on such a

different and smaller scale: on average 10 cm wide by 10 or 20 cm long is stripped from the lower bole of a healthy, mature tree. Despite Prunus’ CITES and Red-listed protected status, it is proposed that user rights6 are specifically allowed for this species, due to its significant health and socio-economic values (see Section 5.4.3).

The calculation above is for bark only as currently this is the only part of the tree harvested. If other parts are to be harvested (leaves, fruits or roots), calculations need to be devised.

7.1 Available stocks of Prunus africana The inventories currently valid for Tchabal Gang Daba and Tchabal Mbabo in Adamaoua, Mount Cameroon, Mount Manengouba and Kilum Ijum (Foaham 2009; Belinga 2001), once adjusted for prior and unsustainable harvesting, provide an indication of the available stock. An estimated 735 tons wet weight Prunus bark is available from these main Prunus africana bark production zones in Cameroon. Approximately 343 tons of wet weight bark may be present in privately owned and community-based plantations, using available data with a number of assumptions and extrapolations. Figure 32 shows how the 1078-tonne total was calculated.

These inventories and the calculations of available stocks do not represent either a national quota, or individual PAU quotas or a quota for stocks of private Prunus. The quotas given for inventory sites are not transferable to management plans for the corresponding PAUs, due to the large number of qualifications and conditions that are necessary, which are detailed in Section 7.2 and in Figure 32.

National quota

7

6 User rights as enshrined in 1994 Forest Law Article 8 and in Section 1 Articles 26 and 29.

Photo 8. MOCAP training ASSOFOMI and ASSOKOFOMI members on harvesting techniques, March 2007


Figu

re 3

6. A

vaila

ble

Prun

us a

fric

ana

(wet

wei

ght)

sto

cks

base

d on

cur

rent

dat

a

Inve

ntor

y si

teCo

rres

pond

ing

PAU

A

rea

in

hect

ares

Aver

age

Den

sity

/ha

Tota

l nu

mbe

r of

Prun

us tr

ees

Num

ber o

f ex

ploi

tabl

e

tree

s >3

0 D

BH

%

Expl

oita

ble

tree

s of

to

tal s

tock

Tota

ls

stoc

k of

ex

ploi

tabl

e

Aver

age

expl

oita

ble

stoc

k to

ns/1

0-ye

ar

rota

tion

Stoc

k ne

ver

harv

este

d %

Stoc

k no

t

harv

este

d to

ns

Tot

al

stoc

k al

read

y

expl

oite

d %

Prev

ious

ly

expl

oite

d to

ns

Tota

l sto

ck

prev

ious

ly

sust

aina

bly

expl

oite

d %

Sust

aina

ble

stoc

k

avai

labi

lity

tons

3

Tota

l av

aila

ble

for

expl

oita

tion

tons

Aver

age

expl

oita

ble

stoc

k to

ns

annu

m

/10-

year

ro

tatio

n

PAU

Tcha

bal G

ang

Dab

aAd

am 4

1006

02.

166

4141

2539

%88

910

0%88

0%0

0%0

889

Tcha

bal

Mba

boAd

am 2

2744

512

.320

9405

1495

7560

%49

3649

485

%41

9615

%74

03%

1742

1242

14

Mt C

amer

oon

Mt C

am1

7312

811

,483

3762

1217

5815

%52

8452

815

792

8544

9143

1931

2724

2724

Mt

Man

engo

uba

LB M

t 262

381.

911

783

6265

53%

296

2950

%8

148

50%

814

850

%74

222

22

Kilu

m Ij

umN

W1

2481

3.5

8743

8316

95%

315

3132

%10

0.8

6821

42

410

511

Sub

tota

l11

9352

610

7033

429

0039

52%

1091

910

9058

%51

7742

%54

4612

%19

5271

3073

5

Priv

ate

pru

nus

13 S

W

plan

tatio

ns4

LB M

t 1M

t Cam

2≥1

121

223

5516

4970

%63

685

%54

15%

10

54

5

18 N

Wpl

anta

tions

4 N

W2,

NW

3,

NW

4≥1

8598

2962

1659

56%

515

70%

3630

%15

364

Oth

er p

lant

ed

Prun

us5

WH

1, W

2,

NW

3, N

W4

n/a

n/a

1,61

1,49

821

1,42

9541

%6

1865

718

770

%13

0630

%56

0

86

486

Sub

tota

l≥

196

16

1681

521

4736

56%

4882

488

75%

3427

25%

1455

3427

343

Tota

l11

9548

26

8714

950

4775

54%

1580

215

7967

%86

0534

%69

0112

%19

5210

557

1078

2 Tr

ees

neve

r exp

loite

d +

tree

s ex

ploi

ted

sust

aina

bly

as %

of t

otal

inve

ntor

ied

3 T

rees

nev

er e

xplo

ited

+ tr

ees

expl

oite

d su

stai

nabl

y in

tons

4

Inve

ntor

y qu

ota

adju

sted

to ta

ke a

ccou

nt o

f pre

viou

s un

sust

aina

ble

harv

estin

g

4

Bas

ed o

n CI

FOR

2008

inve

ntor

y an

d fig

ures

in S

ectio

n 16

. 5

Ass

umpt

ion

base

d on

32%

sur

viva

l rat

e of

orig

inal

pop

ulat

ion

6 E

xtra

pola

ted

aver

age

for t

rees

old

er th

an 1

3 ye

ars

with

a 3

0 cm

DBH

7 A

ssum

ptio

n ba

sed

on 5

5 kg

ave

rage

bar

k ha

rves

t fro

m e

ach

tree

.

8

Con

serv

ativ

e as

sum

ptio

n ba

sed

on a

vera

ge o

f all

prio

r har

vest

ing

rate

s

Sour

ce: A

dapt

ed fr

om B

elin

ga, 2

001;

Foa

ham

, 200

9

A

ll fig

ures

are

to n

eare

st d

ecim

al p

oint

This section summarises the current state of knowledge and practice on harvesting and its effects on tree health and mortality. This provides a basis for developing harvesting standards, which are essential to clarify and revise the current regulatory framework.

8.1 Current harvest practices A controlled, sustainable harvest of Prunus africana bark was attempted by Plantecam in Cameroon between 1972 and 1987. This was based on a system of bark removal from opposing quarters of the tree trunk, by teams of Plantecam workers. This worked relatively well until the 1985 licences were issued to 50 entrepreneurs. The harvest quotas were demand-based and not grounded in any inventories or assessments of sustainable harvest techniques.

The Forestry Administration is reported as prescribing the following rules for sustainable bark harvesting of medicinal plants in general, and of Prunus africana in particular in 1986 and 19927 (Ndibi 1997; Ondigui 2001; Ministry of Agriculture 1992; 1986; Ministry of Agriculture 1986):

Bark should be removed from the trunk in strips •from 1.30 m above ground level to the 1st branch.Only trees with DBH >30 cm can be debarked. •Trees with DBH <50 cm should be debarked on two •strips in opposite sides, each strip no wider than 1/4 of the circumference of the tree. Trees with DBH³ 50 cm should be debarked in four •strips regularly distributed around the circumference, each no wider than one eighth of the circumference.

Lateral roots with a minimum diameter of 20 cm on trees with DBH³ 50 cm trees can also be debarked. The debarking should then be done prior to clearing •the root rhizosphere and should not exceed 1/4 of the root’s circumference.After debarking, the root should be covered over •by soil to avoid dessication and to enable a rapid reconstitution of the bark. All trees with debarked roots and trunks should be •marked with numbers.

Trees harvested by Plantecam staff using this method appeared to have fully recovered their bark after some time. Local people, especially those that had worked for Plantecam, indicated a recovery time of about 5 years. However, a significant number of these trees suffered from crown dieback and also stem borer attacks, which implies that their lifespan could have been shortened due to harvesting. Mortality among trees sustainably harvested was also lower compared to those whose bark had been poorly harvested. The trees continued to increase in diameter and produce seed. In contrast, more than 90% of the trees that had been completely stripped of bark died (Nouhou 2008).

The Mount Cameroon Project (Hall et al. 2000) popularised this ‘two-quarters technique’, in the “Harvest Prunus, No Kill’am’’ posters and extension booklets. These specified a four-stage process where debarking concerns only Prunus trees with DBH of more than 30 cm, and harvesting is carried out by debarking opposite quarters of the tree, at 1.30 m height from ground level and not above the first branch. Each tree debarked should completely recover before being subjected to another debarking.

Harvest norm

8

7 MINFOF has not been able to find any reference to these rules by the Forestry Administration (then with the Ministry of Agriculture). These rules are not referred to in Special Products Licences since 2004. We conclude that techniques for harvesting referred to in 1992, and those proposed by the MCP, are therefore ‘best practice’ rather than legal standards.


The Law of 1994 (Republic of Cameroon, 1994) requires the Provincial Chief of Forestry to attach a technical report for Special Forest Products specifying the method of harvesting and the quantities of each species to be exploited. The technique for exploitating Prunus is not specified.

Unfortunately, these harvesting ‘norms’ have in reality been the exception rather than the rule in Cameroon, shown clearly in Photo 9. Meuer’s (2007) survey on Mount Cameroon indicated that 43% of trees harvested were unsustainably debarked, the majority of which occurred since 2000. The 2000 inventory also found the majority of trees were harvested unsustainably (36%). Nsom et al. (2007) showed that 98% of trees in Emfveh Mii and 62% in Ijim Community Forest were also harvested unsustainably.

The recovery of Prunus africana trees after harvest varies substantially. On Mount Cameroon, the 1996 and 2000 inventories indicated that properly harvested trees generally recovered well, but appeared to have a higher percentage of survival on the wetter southern/western flanks of the mountain—probably because higher humidity reduced stress/damage to the stripped cambial layer. On the much drier northern and eastern flanks, a higher percentage of trees were dying, even after ‘normal’ debarking. This suggests that tree mortality might also be higher in the drier areas such as North West, West and Adamaoua regions (Ndam and Asanga 2008). In moist sites, bark regrowth is better, but crown death of Prunus africana trees still occurs (Cunningham, 2002). Stewart’s quantitative study (Stewart 2009) show that unsustainable harvesting frequently causes crown death. Poor bark regrowth in dry sites can also lead to wood-borer and fungal attack. In Adamaoua, when the first inventory was done, the majority of trees were healthy and could produce their full potential yield because only 11% had previously been exploited. Nearly 10 years have passed since harvesting began and the health and survival of those trees harvested once or twice with ‘sustainable’ harvesting is not yet known.

Findings from two areas on Pico de Basilé (harvested once in 1998) and Maco (harvested two or three times between 1998 and 2005) on Bioko Island, Equatorial Guinea—a comparable montane ecosystems to Mount Cameroon and Kilum Ijum—indicate that repeated harvesting does appear to be linked to decrease in crown size and higher mortality. It was concluded that judging by the defoliation rates, Prunus africana shows good recovery capacity following bark removal, as long as the proper techniques are used and the tree is left long enough for the bark to regenerate.

Under these circumstances, the stress of harvest seems to cause a reversible loss of vigour, visible in partial defoliation of the crown, which later recovers as the bark regenerates. This explains the differences found in 2005 by Sunderland and Tako (1999). Differences in harvesters’ skills appear to be a critical factor as known, experienced personnel were harvesting in Pico de Basilé, while considerable damage was done to the cambium of recently harvested trees in Moca where more destructive techniques were used. A rate of 40% crown defoliation was seen as a critical level at which not to reharvest (Navarro-Cerrillo 2008b).

In two of the main harvest areas of Cameroon, more links have been found between unsustainable harvesting and high mortality rates8. On Mount Cameroon, crown health, dieback and mortality rates were almost identical for all methods of debarking, from underexploited to totally debarked, with approximately 50% of trees remaining healthy. Only zero debarking (>75% healthy), felling and trees and ‘unknown methods of debarking’ produced significant deviations. The latter were often trees that were already dead (>70% size class 9 and 10) but still standing, where the type of debarking could not be determined. Among the sustainably debarked trees, 30% were old individuals more than 90 cm DBH, which probably died naturally and account for the high percentage of unhealthy individuals. The high number of overexploited trees with a high percentage of healthy crowns is possibly due to the recent exploitation activity within one year of monitoring. It was concluded that totally and bole-debarked trees only show the effects of destructive debarking after one year, as sites where exploitation had occurred 2-3 years previously had higher levels of dead, destructively debarked trees dead (Meuer 2007). This observation is supported by the work on Bioko, where recently unsustainably exploited trees did not exhibit the effects of harvesting, but after 7 years the effects of using different removal techniques and repeated harvesting were more obvious (Sunderland and Tako 1999, (Navarro-Cerrillo 2008). Recent work in Bihkov CF in the North West also indicates that older trees over 60 cm DBH die when poorly or overexploited (Tah 2009). The percentage of trees with high crown dieback rises with the intensity of exploitation from ~17% for normal debarking to more than 30% for total debarking. Mortality rates following destructive exploitation are therefore expected to rise further, from 30% to maybe 50%, as documented by Ewusi et al. (1996) and Stewart (2001). The effect of bark harvesting on populations at Mount Oku showed that a loss of 50% does not allow recovery from debarking and leads to population decline.

8 No studies of harvesting effects in Adamaoua have been conducted to date.

8. Harvest norm 69

Consultations with stakeholders during Prunus Platform meetings (see Section 4.1) indicated that the major problems to be redressed by harvest norms were:

The nonexistence or unsure status of a legal 1. harvesting norm.The non-respect of harvesting best practice.2. Climbing the tree and physically removing the bark 3. poses practical problems and can damage trees. Inexperienced and untrained harvesters can damage 4. trees using ‘steps’ and aggressive use of machetes. Bark ‘stealing’ in Community Forests. 5. Removal of bark sections left by the previous 6. harvester.Lack of ‘ownership’ of Prunus, multiple permit 7. holder, unspecified zone system—creating competition and lack of management or responsibility for resources.Inadequate or no monitoring and control systems to 8. track or penalise poor harvest techniques. No concrete experience or results with alternative, 9. managed harvest techniques

Concurrently, the majority of actors consulted also indicated that:

About 75% had received training and written •explanation of the 2/4 Quarters ‘best practice’ harvest techniques. All exploiters indicated that they were aware of the •techniques.All government services were aware of the techniques.•A number of well-trained, expert harvesters exists. •Trainers exist and recent harvest training has taken •place (MOCAP-CIG 2007)

These data underpin the need for a careful reconsideration of harvesting norms within a more rigourous management regime.

8.2 Recommended harvest normsTwo revised standards are therefore proposed, at least for the present, until thorough scientific research can establish an evidence-based norm.

8.2.1 Method 1: 2/4 Quarters A fundamental problem with the current ‘best practice’ 2/4 Quarters system of debarking from breast height up to the first branch, is that it has not been proved in the field. Reports from MOCAP and community forests in the North West, combined with monitoring surveys, demonstrate that if and when the norm has been applied, other harvesters later debark the remaining quarters or totally debark.

Actors in the Prunus chain are, however, convinced that a combination of sole exploitation rights, certified harvesters, well publicised techniques and a revised, conservative norm, based on research where possible, can be sustainable (see (Ingram 2007b; Ingram 2008a.

The following revisions to the norm and practices are therefore recommended:

The minimum exploitable DBH should increase to •40 cm (Cunningham and Mbenlkum 1993, Stewart 2007, (Navarro-Cerrillo 2008b). The period of rotation should increase to 8 years (see •Annex 7: Minutes of Drafting meeting 26 February 2009, Annex 8: Minutes of Prunus management plan meeting 20 February 2009 and (Navarro-Cerrillo 2008b, with the two remaining quarters harvested in a similar way. After the second 8-year period i.e. after 16 years, the previously harvested portion is harvested again. This means that there is an 8-year cycle for harvesting from the same tree and a 16-year cycle for harvesting from the same portion of a tree. Before the second harvest is carried out, a verification •of tree health should be done. Quotas for second (8-year) harvesting should be based on monitoring results of healthy trees only. Trees with mere than 40% defoliation (crown cover) should not be harvested.Prunus more than 80 cm DBH should not be •harvested due to suspected increased levels of mortality for older, larger trees (Stewart 2007)The exploitation system should use tags to trace each •tree and traced harvesters (see Section 14.2, Tree Tagging Form). Photo 9. Unsustainably exploited Prunus,

Mt Cameroon, 2006


Pegs or ‘steps’ can wound trees and only ropes should •be used for climbing. All harvesters should be trained and certified (see •Harvester Certification, Section 14) with sanctions for noncompliance with the norms. Bark removal from the designated portion should be •done gently with a stick or blunt side of a machete, by peeling and not scraping the cambium.Harvesting preferably during the rainy period (June, •July, August) and not at the height of the dry season (December-January), to minimise mortalities. Leave some trees in the harvest areas for seed. One •sole harvest of one tree in every 10 (≥60 cm) is recommended, not harvesting one tree in every 20 (≥60 cm).

8.2.2 Method 2: Felling For planted trees a similar system is proposed to that used for Acacia mearnsii bark production, where successive plantings of trees are either coppiced or felled and then totally stripped of their bark (Cunningham et al. 2002). The timber can then be sold, for fuelwood, poles, handles or other uses. All studies of Prunus africana so far show that the high quality hardwood and considerable growth rates make it at least as attractive to small scale farmers as fast growing species such as Eucalyptus, and provide good economic returns (Franzel 2009).

The management authorities in Madagascar and Kenya had also opted for this harvest method. Felling may be an easier harvest system for privately owned, domesticated Prunus where the onus on replacement is different than for Prunus in natural forest, provided that felling of owned Prunus africana is based on registration and controls. National and individual regeneration plans and actions that ensure and at least maintain or increase

Table 8. Harvest research gaps

Need Output

In the ‘field’ tests of alternative harvest methods and monitoring the effects over a period of at least 3 years

Demonstrate if and which method of harvest to maintain living trees and sustain repeated harvests, and the period in between harvests

Assessment of replicability of harvest standards in different climatic zones and altitudes of Cameroon (especially drier areas of North West, West and Adamaoua regions)

Effect of climate and altitude on tree mortality and bark regeneration

Costs and financial returns of different harvest methods (periodical debarking, felling, coppicing)

Most cost efficient harvest method

Levels of extract from different Prunus tree parts and from genetically different Prunus (Mt Cameroon/Oku and Adama-oua)

Knowledge of which plant parts contain highest levels of active ingredient (extract)

Knowledge of which genetic varieties of Prunus contain extract favoured by buyers

Bark regeneration and growth rates Rotation time if practising periodic debarking

stocks of felled trees are important. This is also practical way of avoiding labourious bark harvests and high mortality rates even with ‘normal’ harvest techniques.

8.3 PrinciplesThe following elements should be included in a Harvest Norm, which should have regulated binding standards as follows:

Description of the • Prunus africana tree. Description of trees suitable for harvesting (age/size/•diameter and tree health).Definition and description of the process of •harvesting

in natural forests. »privately owned Prunus. »

Result or output of harvesting process (description •of the parts of tree and products of harvesting and terminology (wet weight, dry weight, extract, powder).Obligation of the tree owner/PAU holder to replace •Prunus in event of felling or mortality. Tools and equipment permitted for harvesting. •Techniques and tools not permitted. •Description of monitoring and controls procedure. •Description of entities permitted to harvest Prunus •and qualifications/certification and training required.Description of the permit procedure to harvest and •permit costs.

8.4 Research needsThe studies below are needed due to data gaps, to develop a scientifically robust harvest standard.

The authorities responsible for Prunus africana in Cameroon are the Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife (MINFOF) and the National Agency for Forestry Development Support (ANAFOR). This section outlines their current roles and organisational structures, and sets out a plan for improving their roles. Other actors and their role in the management plan are also highlighted.

9.1 Management authority: MINFOFMinistry of Forests and Wildlife (MINFOF)Contact person for plant issues: Ebia Ndongo Samuel EbesExpertise: Director of Forests; Coordinator of the office in charge of plants managementTel.: 00(237)22239231 (office)Cel.: 00(237)99624189/74362567Fax: 00(237)22239231Email: [email protected]

The Decree No. 2005/099 of 6 April 2005 on the organisation of the Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife (MINFOF) states that the Ministry is located under the authority of a Minister who is charged with the responsibility of elaborating, implementing and evaluating Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife’s forestry and wildlife policy. The Minister is responsible for:

Management and protection of forests of the •national estate.Focus on and control of implementation of program •of regeneration, inventories and management of forests.Control of respect for regulations in the domain of •forest exploitation by the various actors.The application of administrative sanctions when •need arises.Liaison with professional bodies within the •forestry sector.Management and control of botanic gardens.•

The application of international conventions ratified •by Cameroon in relation to wildlife and hunting.

To accomplish the above mission MINFOF has:

A private secretariat•Two technical advisers•An inspector-general•A national brigade for forestry control and fight •against poachingA central administration•Decentralised services•Linked services•

MINFOF supervises ANAFOR, the National Forestry School at Mbalmayo, the Wildlife School at Garoua and acts as liaison with the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UN on Forestry matters. Structures for management forests and NTFPs are situated within the central administration and the Decentralised services. The central administration is made up of:

Secretariat General (SG)•Department of Forestry (DF)*•Department of Promotion and Transformation of •Forest Products (DPT)*Department of Wildlife •Department of General Affairs (DAG)•

*These departments are directly concerned with Prunus management

The Department of Forestry is comprised of four sub-directorates:

Sub-Directorate of Agreements and Forestry Finances•Sub-Directorate of Inventories and Forest •ManagementSub-Directorate of Community Forests•Unit of Regeneration Monitoring, Reforestation and •Silvicultural Extension

Roles of management and scientific authorities

9


The Department of Promotion and Transformation of Forest Products is made up of three sub-directorates:

Sub-Directorate of Promotion of Wood•Sub-Directorate of Wood Transformation•Sub-Directorate of Promotion and Transformation of •Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFPs).

The Department of Forestry (Sub-Directorate of Agreements and Forestry Finances) is charged with processing permits for both wood and non-wood products. Our observation is that this department pays more attention on processing the licences for the timber concessions as this constitutes a major state revenue earner. They pay very little attention to scrutinising applications for special permits under which NTFPs fall, thus the flawed system in issuing Prunus permits has led to chaos and wanton destruction. Further investigation revealed that the Sub-Directorate of Promotion and Transformation of NTFPs is rather powerless as it has no control of the process of granting special permits. There is, thus, a functional problem within the management authority, which means no one is paying proper attention to the system of issuing Prunus permits. A way out should be to transfer the responsibility for processing NTFP (special) permits to the Sub-Directorate of Promotion and Transformation of NTFPs. This department should have an interest in sustainable management of NTFPs in order to keep it active. This recommendation is in line with the FAO guidelines for the management of NTFPs.

The Decentralised Services of MINFOF comprise:

Provincial Delegations of Forestry and Wildlife•Divisional Delegations of Forestry and Wildlife•Control Posts for Forestry and Wildlife•Technical Operational Units •

9.1.1 MINFOF responsibilities for Prunus africana Given these departments and operational responsibilities as the CITES Management Authority, MINFOF should be responsible for:

Introducing the inventory norm and harvesting 1. norm as ministerial decisions.The PAU procedure and allocation of PAUs. Note 2. that coordination between national and regional levels is necessary to ensure dissemination of information on the PAU allocation procedure to local organisations and Community Forest Management Institutions, which otherwise may remain unaware of the PAU procedure.Issuing PAU approvals, registering private owners 3. and issuing annual permits.

Monitoring exploitation (monitoring forms, annual 4. reports, exploitation permits). Controlling Prunus − monitoring forms and physically 5. monitoring the transport and export at critical points (airports, ports and international boundary crossings) and in the field/forest in exploitation zones.Impsoing sanctions for infringements.6. Maintaining the COMCAM database with Prunus 7. data from monitoring forms.Annual Special Forestry Product reporting. 8. Annual Reporting to CITES − prepared jointly with 9. ANAFOR − to CITES.Preparation of a Ministerial Decision elaborating 10. the procedural collaboration between MINFOF and ANAFOR during permit allocation and monitoring. Assistance from MINFOF local services to 11. Community and Council Forests applying for PAUs for inventory, control and monitoring.

9.2 Scientific Authority: ANAFORAddress: Forest Department Development Support National Agency (ANAFOR), PO Box 1341,Yaoundé, CameroonContact person for Plants: Mbarga Narcisse LambertExpertise: Forestry Ing. Cameroon Flora Authority Activities CoordinatorAddress: PO Box 1341, Yaoundé, CameroonTel.: 00(237)22210393/999097/75249955 (office)Fax: 00(237)22215350Email: [email protected]

ANAFOR’S responsibilities concerning CITES are outlined in Article 3 of its Statute, granted by the Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife (MINFOF). Decision No. 0104/D/MINFOF/SG/DF/SDAFF/SN of 2 March 2006 appointed ANAFOR to the role of the Scientific Authority in Cameroon for questions concerning threatened species of wild flora. Articles 3, 4 and 5 of the Decision invoke the Scientific Authority as the body responsible for delivering an opinion at each stage of the management of a registered species under Appendices 1, 2 and 3 of CITES. ANAFOR as the Scientific Authority therefore has to:

Carry out continuous monitoring and estimate the 1. situation of registered indigenous species to Annex II and assure relative data on the exploitation and, if necessary, to recommend the corrective measures to be taken to limit the export of specimens to preserve a species distribution and ecosystems function. Carry out the necessary checking of registered 2. Appendix I species imported or introduced, or to make recommendations on controls and issuing of licences or certificates.

9. Roles of Management and Scientific Authorities 73

Annually propose, with the Management Authority, 3. the permits for exploitation, quotas (number and volume of each species of flora).Monitor population dynamics of the species, in 4. collaboration with the research institutions (IRAD, ICRAF, etc), economic operators and NGOs. The activities arising from this mandate will have support on organisational, technical and financial levels in the current operation of ANAFOR.

Since its creation, ANAFOR has realised the following activities:

A 4-year action plan approved the Minister of 1. Forestry and Wildlife. This has yet to receive financing. A project proposal to build the institutional and 2. staff capacity for the management of CITES species submitted to the International Organisation for Tropical Timber (OIBT/ITTO). The Focal Point has participated in a number of 3. meetings: the 2006 Conference of Parties at Lima, and at Den Haag in 2007; a regional workshop on sustainable Periscopsis elata (known as Aformosia or Assamela) in Kribi from 2-4 April 2008); and, in the Scientific Review Group (SRG), CITES, at Naivasha in September 2008.

Taking into account its inexperience as a Scientific Authority, its technical and institutional weakness, inadequate budget, insufficient staff and its low capacity and skills relevant to CITES and Appendix II plants, it is currently difficult for ANAFOR to be effective as the Scientific Authority. As ANAFOR is under the supervision of MINFOF, this also takes away its independence. Formerly, the National Herbarium was the Scientific Authority but this was seen as inadequate. The Agricultural Research for Development (IRAD) institution is seen as too independent of the Management Authority and it has a low staff capacity. To address these weaknesses, ANAFOR has requested ITTO to strengthen its role as a Scientific Authority, which should fill a major capacity gap. The accepted technical proposal is now in the pipeline for funding. The application of knowledge and skills from CITES MSc and institutionalising this within ANAFOR should go a long way to addressing the problems. Potential funding for the CITES work described above is from three sources:

Annual budget, e.g. CFA Franc 30 million was •allocated to ANAFOR to support its CITES work during 2009 (Annual Plan of Work). Administrative fees from PAUs. •Continued fundraising from other grants/projects •and private sector.

The Scientific Group of Examination (GES) and the Committee for Plants in Geneva, Switzerland, recommended to the Permanent Committee in April 2007 to inform Cameroon to respect the terms of the Convention, particularly the strict application of article IV subparagraph 2a and 3. This article relates to the operation of the Scientific Authority which must validate the export quotas on the basis of scientific information relating to the management of this species to guarantee its survival. This situation has been problematic for the Scientific Authority which needed to set up emergency actions in response to the pressures caused by the Prunus trade suspension. ANAFOR has indicated that it is in the process of determining a long-term action plan for managing Prunus africana and also for how the Authority coordinates scientific activity on Prunus africana.

ANAFOR has yet to provide scientific data and present a comprehensive strategy of information collection on Prunus africana. ANAFOR has only been able to make ‘snapshot’ assessments of the current status (Ackagou Zedong 2007) and a summary scientific research on Prunus in Cameroun (ANAFOR, 2008; Betti, 2008), which were insufficient to deal with the international pressure on the authority in the last 2 years to produce a response to the recommendations made at the CITES meeting in Lima in 2006.

ANAFOR has a support role rather than a direct implementation role in CITES. The national forestry plantation program is a long-term program that is still being developed. However, they are involved in short-term program such as the Programme de Réboisement pending the completion of the forestry plantation program (personal communication, DGA ANAFOR) and are no longer directly carrying out reforestation on behalf of the Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife but are mandated to support other initiatives i.e. community-based programs, Municipal Councils, individuals and forest concessionaires.

In addition, a practical approach would be to co-opt the national herbarium, the Cameroon Insisute for Agricultural Research (IRAD) and the universities into a scientific committee, led by ANAFOR, to become the Scientific Authority. The University of Maroua (or Ngaoundere) covers the Dry Savanna, Dschang covers the Humid Savanna while Yaoundé I and University of Buea cover the Forest Zone. Experts from these bodies plus national institutions such as IRAD and international organisations such as TRAFFIC, CIFOR and ICRAF can support ANAFOR.


9.2.1 ANAFOR responsibilities for Prunus africana Given these organisations and operational responsibilities, as the CITES Scientific Authority, ANAFOR should be responsible for:

Scientific advice on PAU management plan 1. approvals.Scientific verification of calculations used for 2. quantities available from registered private owners. Scientific advice on monitoring of annual PAU 3. reports and registered owners monitoring forms − comparing reported quantities exploited against quotas and checking use of monitoring sheets at field, roads and export levels.Allocation of means via its annual budget for annual 4. field visit monitoring of quotas, bark harvesting and trend in supply. Preparation of the harvesting norm and inventory 5. norm for ministerial decisions. Annual reporting to CITES—prepared jointly with 6. ANAFOR—to CITES.Coordinate the Prunus Platform and disseminate 7. information. Prepare a Ministerial Decision putting in place the 8. scientific committee, its members and mechanisms to provide for its funding and functioning.Coordinate the scientific committee and ensure 9. capacity building of the members and dissemination of appropriate information at research institutions (e.g. universities, IRAD, CIFOR, ICRAF).Remain up to date on current scientific studies, 10. research and projects on Prunus africana relevant to the PAUs, evaluate research and its application to the national Prunus africana Management Plan.Draw up a long-term research program on key areas 11. of research and long-term monitoring needs and encourage the members of the scientific committee, also NGOs, CBOs and international organisations to participate in this research. Links can be made with the MINFOF Program Sectoral Forest and Environment Research Program. Act as coordinator of a network of CITES-related 12. plant specialists. Contact should be made with research institutions (e.g. national herbarium, IRAD)

and universities. Key people should be identified in those organisations. Focus should be on species in Appendix II such as Prunus africana and Pericopsis elata (Assamela).Stimulation of specific program on agroforestry and 13. regeneration of Prunus Africana.

9. 3 Other actors in the Prunus chain The CIFOR baseline study (Awono 2008a) analysed the market chain for Prunus from the North West and South West regions, from harvesting to production, commercialisation, use and consumption. It classifies the different actors involved in the chain (type, number and activities), whom can be placed into six groups, namely: regulatory authority, pharmaceutical/food supplement companies, Government/Ministry, development agencies and NGOs, permit holders/economic operators and communities/community-based organisations.

It has been argued that one reason for the failure to manage Prunus sustainably in Cameroon is the fact that there has been very poor coordination and linkages between the actors in the chain and a lack of access to relevant information on the state of Prunus africana in both Cameroon and the international market (Ingram 2008b; Whinconet 2005; Nsom 2007). As part of a participatory process, WHINCONET, Forest Governance Facility, SNV and CIFOR facilitated actors to meet and discuss problems and jointly develop solutions under the name of a ‘Prunus Platform’. The matrix below (Table 9) is a result of the more than seven meetings from 2005 to 2008 and proposes linkages, roles and responsibilities for the different actors in the chain that should lead to sustainable management of Prunus africana.

9.4 Institutional recommendationsThe following recommendations to improve the institutional arrangements of Prunus africana, within the context of the National Management Plan are proposed:

9. Roles of Management and Scientific Authorities 75

Action Responsibility

Training MINFOF and ANAFOR staff on implementation of CITES in Cameroon. 1. ANAFOR and MINFOF CITES MSc trained staff

Prunus Platform maintained as an informal network, information disseminated with ad hoc 2. meetings as necessary.

ANAFOR and national and regional MINFOF

Prepare Scientific Committee Decision for Minister.3. ANAFOR

A text prepared to formalise collaboration between MINFOF and ANAFOR during permit 4. allocation and monitoring. This text should further be developed to become part of the forestry law.

MINFOF

Focal points created in universities and research institutes to ensure functioning of scientific 5. committee, with responsibilities and roles, dissemination and feedback mechanisms and appropriate financial support for participants where necessary.

ANAFOR

Develop a long-term research program and long-term monitoring on key areas for 6. Prunus africana and encourage uptake by institutes, projects, NGOs, etc.

ANAFOR

Set up procedure to approve the PAU Management Plan and exploitation inventories − with 7. support of scientific committee if necessary.

ANAFOR

Monitor the sustainable use of CITES plant species (including 8. Prunus africana). This necessitates the following:

Capacity building of ANAFOR CITES staff and associates at research institutes (e.g. »universities, IRAD, CIFOR, ICRAF.).Allocation of means for field visits to discuss monitoring of quotas, bark harvesting and »trend in supply. Collect and update fair and relevant information. »Get opinion of local experts (as they may have the most recent information) before »advising MINFOF.Check use of monitoring sheets at field, roads and export levels. »

ANAFOR

Set up a register of private owners at divisional and provincial level, with data flowing at 9. least 6-monthly to MINFOF CITES authority and ANAFOR. Publicise the presence of the register and the procedure.

MINFOF

Fix regeneration level for prunus in PAUs, e.g. three trees for every tree harvested/or every 10. 55kg.a

ANAFOR

Community Forests with Prunus proposed in their SMP liaise with local MINFOF services on 11. harvesting techniques control and monitoring.

MINFOF Sous Director of Community Forests/Regional services

MINFOF regional and divisional services and ANAFOR office closest to proposed PAU, should 12. be consulted when permit holders apply for a PAU permit.

ANAFOR & MINFOF

a Based on survival rates of 32-60%—see Section 16 on Regeneration and domestication


Tabl

e 9.

Mat

rix

of P

runu

s st

akeh

olde

r res

pons

ibili

ties

role

s an

d ac

tion

s

Regu

lato

ry

auth

oriti

esPh

arm

aceu

tical

co

mpa

nies

Gov

ernm

ent

Proj

ects

/ N

GO

sPe

rmit

Hol

ders

Ow

ners

of t

rees

/ Pl

anta

tions

Com

mun

ities

/ CB

Os

CITE

SAd

apt r

egio

nal

regu

latio

nsN

eeds

to re

gula

te

trad

e th

roug

h ce

rtifi

catio

n

Coun

try

impl

emen

tatio

n of

CIT

ES

reco

mm

enda

tions

Feed

back

on

scie

ntifi

c in

form

atio

n on

CIT

ES

spec

ies

Crea

te a

nd s

usta

in

awar

enes

s on

CIT

ES

issu

es

Mot

ivat

ion

for m

ore

plan

ting.

Crea

te a

nd s

usta

in

awar

enes

s on

CIT

ES

issu

es

Phar

mac

eutic

al

com

pani

esSu

ppor

t su

stai

nabl

e fo

rest

m

anag

emen

t

Agre

e to

sup

port

and

ch

ampi

on s

usta

inab

le

man

agem

ent

Supp

ort p

olic

y de

velo

pmen

tFu

nd d

evel

opm

ent

proj

ects

Buy

only

from

re

spon

sibl

e pe

rmit

hold

ers

(cer

tifica

tion)

Long

-ter

m li

nk fo

r di

rect

sup

ply.

Supp

ort l

ong-

term

pa

rtne

rshi

p

Gov

ernm

ent

Supp

ort

part

icip

atio

n in

inte

rnat

iona

l fo

ra

Prov

ide

fram

ewor

k fo

r ce

rtifi

catio

nD

evel

op re

gion

al

stra

tegi

esFe

ed b

ack

on

rele

vant

fiel

d da

ta

and

info

rmat

ion

in e

xcha

nge

for

resp

ectin

g pr

ojec

t re

com

men

datio

ns

Issu

e pe

rmit

afte

r agr

eed

inve

ntor

y &

Pru

nus

Man

agem

ent P

lan.

Prov

ide

plan

ting/

re

gene

ratio

n in

cent

ives

Ince

ntiv

e fo

r cu

ltiva

tion

Prov

ide

plan

ting/

rege

nera

tion

ince

ntiv

es

Esta

blis

h a

favo

urab

le

polic

y an

d pr

ovid

e te

chni

cal s

uppo

rt fo

r su

stai

nabl

e m

anag

emen

t

Dev

elop

men

t pr

ojec

ts /

NG

Os

Prom

ote

proj

ect

achi

evem

ents

na

tiona

lly a

nd

inte

rnat

iona

lly

Cont

inuo

us a

war

enes

s ra

isin

gSe

t ena

blin

g en

viro

nmen

t for

pr

ojec

ts to

sup

port

Pr

unus

sus

tain

able

m

anag

emen

t

Supp

ort P

runu

s re

late

d w

orks

hops

and

ne

twor

king

Colla

bora

te fo

r su

stai

nabl

e m

anag

emen

tSu

ppor

t tre

e pl

antin

gAd

voca

cy fo

r bes

t pr

actic

es (e

.g. s

usta

inab

le

man

agem

ent,

fair

pric

e,

rege

nera

tion)

Perm

it ho

lder

sRa

ise

awar

enes

s to

resp

ect C

ITES

Fa

ir pr

ices

to fi

ght

pove

rty

Is

sue

a si

ngle

long

-te

rm p

erm

it pe

r pe

rmit

allo

catio

n si

te

Org

anis

e an

d tr

ain

com

mun

ity-b

ased

ha

rves

ters

, fun

d re

gene

ratio

n

Supp

ort s

usta

inab

le

Prun

us m

anag

emen

t and

re

gene

ratio

n

Fair

pric

eBu

y fr

om o

rgan

ised

vi

llage

rs w

ith tr

aini

ng in

ha

rves

ting

skill

s

Ow

ners

of

tree

s/

plan

tatio

ns

Prom

ote

dom

estic

atio

n

Regi

stra

tion

of

tree

s

Prom

ote

larg

e sc

ale

prod

uctio

nSe

t ena

blin

g en

viro

nmen

t for

pr

ivat

e pl

antin

g

Capa

city

bui

ldin

g fo

r pr

opag

atio

nO

ffer f

air p

rices

to

enco

urag

e la

rge

scal

e pr

oduc

tion

Net

wor

king

, se

ttin

g co

mm

on

pric

e, e

xcha

nge

of

info

rmat

ion

Colla

bora

te in

re

gene

ratio

n an

d m

arke

ting

of P

runu

s

Com

mun

ities

/ CB

Os

Rais

e aw

aren

ess

to re

spec

t CIT

ESSu

ppor

t sus

tain

able

fo

rest

man

agem

ent

Issu

e pe

rmit

to o

rgan

ised

co

mm

uniti

es (e

.g.

MO

CAP,

FMIs

)

Supp

ort c

apac

ity

build

ing

and

sust

aina

ble

Prun

us

man

agem

ent

Esta

blis

h a

fair

pric

e fo

r eq

uita

ble

bene

fit s

harin

gCo

llabo

rate

for

inve

ntor

y a

nd

prot

ectio

n.

Net

wor

king

, set

ting

com

mon

pric

e, e

xcha

nge

of in

form

atio

n

Ada

pted

from

Nda

m e

t al.

2008

This section responds to the concerns of CITES about transboundary trade in Prunus africana between Cameroon and Nigeria. The CITES Significant Trade Review highlighted that it was likely that the range of Prunus africana extends across the border from north western Cameroon to north eastern Nigeria in the Mambila Plateau/Cameroon Highlands area, see Figure 37 Location of Prunus africana in Nigeria, but that this needs further investigation and that no data exist. It was believed that this population may be harvested and incorporated into the commercial export trade from Cameroon (CITES 2006; Cunningham 2006; Cunningham 2006). The CITES Secretariat therefore recommended that the Management Authority of Cameroon collaborate with the Management Authority of Nigeria to enhance the monitoring of trade in P. africana between Cameroon and Nigeria.

In September 2008, the Minister of Forestry and Wildlife sent a letter (Reference: No. 2154/L/MINFOF/SG/DF/SDAFF/SN of 17 September 2008) to the CITES Management Authority, in Nigeria, requesting collaboration. This request was copied to the CITES Secretariat. The Cameroon authorities await an official response.

Contacts were also made with conservation and research organisations active in the transboundary montane areas to establish the extent of data on Prunus africana in Nigeria and any transboundary trade.

In Kagwene and Takamanda forest reserves, WWF and WCS had no reports of either recent or large scale commercial trade confirmed in these areas.9

Prunus was signalled as present in Mambilla plateau in 2001 (Chapman 2001). The Nigerian Montane Forest Project, a collaborative project between the University of

Canterbury, New Zealand, the Nigerian Conservation Foundation and Nigerian National Parks, resurveyed the montane forests of the Mambilla plateau in Taraba State, Nigeria (Figure 37), repeating the 1970s surveys by J. D. Chapman of the Nigerian Government Forest Service. The 2001 survey reported Prunus in the Ngel Nyaki Forest Reserve (Chapman 2008; Chapman 2004) and in the Gasjaka Gumti National Park (Chapman 2007). This park is the largest national park in Nigeria with a transfrontier conservation agreement signed 2003 (US$3.5 million through UNDP) and borders onto the Tchabal Mbabao area in Cameroon. Chappal Waddi (Tchabal Ouadè) is the highest point in Nigeria (Taraba State). Prunus africana is still common in the park, despite the park being largely unprotected and under threat from harvesting, grazing and fire (Chapman, 2007). It was reported that Nigerians had been known to work in Prunus camps in Tchabal Mbabo in 2002, but no trade from Nigeria to Cameroon was witnessed (personal communication, Hazel Chapman 2008). Reports of crossborder trade were, however, noted (personal communications, Tony Cunningham and Sarah Laird 2008).

Discussions with exporters and exploiters at each of the Prunus Platform meetings in 2007 and 2008, and during the meeting with exporters and importers on 20 April 2009, indicated that they had not exploited Prunus africana from Nigeria nor was there any knowledge of Prunus africana obtained from Nigeria. It was noted that the terrain in the Mambilla plateau/Tchabal Mbabo area is very difficult to access, making exploitation costly, which acts as a disincentive for any crossborder trade. They noted also that any commercial trade in Prunus to Nigeria was unlikely as Nigeria is not listed by CITES as being an exporting country. Therefore, if there was any trade, it was likely that Prunus is exploited locally in Nigeria for medical use.

Transboundary management

10

9 Personal communication, Aaron Nicholas and Anthony Nchanji (WCS).


Figure 37. Location of Prunus africana in Nigeria-Cameroon transboundary zone

Nigeria - Gashaka Gumti National Park

This data confirms that existence of Prunus in Nigeria but does not confirm transboundary trade into Cameroon.

The following steps are proposed (see Annex 1: Prunus africana Action Plan) to confirm that Prunus is not exploited from Nigeria and traded in Cameroon:

Field mission of MINFOF services to Nigeria border 1. at Mamfe and Tchabal Gandgaba area to identify possible routes, volumes of trade, actors and actions.

Set up information circuit of communities and 2. conservation organisations to feed any reports of trade to Management Authority. Annual correspondence from the Cameroon 3. Management Authority and the Management Authority of Nigeria track any trade in Prunus between Cameroon and Nigeria.At least annual correspondence between the 4. Cameroon CITES authorities with research and conservation organisations active in the border zone.

This section sets out how to trace, monitor and control the exploitation of Prunus africana.

The aim is to provide a workable, robust and transparent adaptive monitoring system that follows all Prunus africana exploited from the tree to export. It allows a periodic assessment of the impacts of harvesting to determine the impact of the current harvest protocols on the species and ecosystem, and if the management plan is successful. The system should ensure sustainability by providing information that supports timely corrective action to ensure that the resource is not over-exploited.

11.1 Appraisal of current monitoring and traceability system As concerns have grown over the last decade about the unsustainable exploitation of Prunus africana bark, to the extent that MINFOF admits that ‘the exploitation of Pygeum has not been monitored and controlled well by its local services’ (MINFOF 2007), a number of proposals have been made to improve monitoring and traceability (Ingram 2007; WHINCONET 2005; Meuer 2007; MCP 2000; WHINCONET 2005). Unsustainable exploitation has very rarely attracted

Control, traceability and monitoring system

11

Table 10. Strength and weaknesses of current monitoring and traceability system

Strengths Weakness

Existence of a department that allocates permits Permits allocated and monitored at central level in Yaoundé

No inventory-based quota Often no inventory check before issuing permit

Willingness of Prunus actors and permit holders to inventory stocks

No proper description of the site where a permit allocated

Willingness of Prunus harvesters and permit holders to respect harvesting norms if each site is allocated to one permit holder alone for a longer period

Many permit holders in the same area for Prunus harvesting, leading to unsustainable harvesting and no accountability

Willingness of Cameroon CITES Plant Scientific Authority (ANAFOR) to work/collaborate with MINFOF and other CITES organs

No formalised procedure for collaboration on daily basis with MINFOF and ANAFOR

Willingness of the focal person at CITES Plant Scientific Authority (ANAFOR) to set up a Scientific Advisory Committee, develop an annual work plan and search for funding within MINFOF and Prunus actors and undertake additional study to understand CITES

Limited expertise at Cameroon CITES Plant Scientific Authority (ANAFOR)

Willingness of relevant actors to discuss the issue and link inventory to agreeable Prunus Management Plan

The Prunus Platform initiative is largely led by international organisations. Although these are based in Cameroon (SNV and CIFOR), the Prunus Platform is not yet internalised or in ‘Cameroonian’ ownership

Adapted from Ndam et al. 2008.


Figure 38. Monitoring Scheme

ECCites Secretariat

CITESSecretariat

Scienti�c CommitteeResearch institute & NGOs

PAU permitholder

Private owner

Importers

Monitoring Form E

MonitoringForm C

Approved PAUMgt Plan

Advice on PAUMgt Plan

Advice on Harvest & inventory norms

PAU Management Plan Approval

MonitoringForm D

MonitoringForm B

Annual Dexploitation

Monitoring Checklist


Inter-MinisterialCommittee


MINFOFRDs

Exporters

Transporters

Harvesters

MINFOFMgt Authority ANAFOR

Sci. Authority

Annual reportCITES species

Registration prunus

MonitoringForm A

PAUAnnual report

sanctions, prohibitions have been short-lived and often harvesting has continued and fines have been very small compared to profit from illegal harvesting, with experience indicating that both traditional and administrative sanctions and controls have always not acted as barrier to illegal or unsustainable harvesting (Whinconet 2005). The current situation of monitoring and traceability in Prunus sector is analysed in Table 10.

MINFOF introduced a circular letter no. 0958 of 15 November 2007. This was in the same period as the EU

introduced its suspension of imports, effectively halting trade and exploitation, so the circular has never been put into practice. It does appear to provide a good basis for a more effective monitoring and control system.

Taking into account these strengths and weaknesses and the provisions made in the 2007 MINFOF circular, plus considerable input from actors during Prunus Platform meetings and during drafting of the management plan (see Annex 7: Minutes of Drafting meeting 26 February 2009), the monitoring procedures below are proposed.

11. Control, traceability and monitoring system 81

Figu

re 3

9. P

runu

s afr

ican

a m

onit

orin

g sy

stem

Mon

itori

ng P

aram

eter

In

dica

tor

Resp

onsi

bilit

y M

onito

ring

Loc

atio

n Fo

rm/T

ools

Tree

s ha

rves

ted

in n

atur

al fo

rest

iden

tied

& a

ctua

l 1.

ro

tatio

n pe

riod

know

nTr

ee ta

ggin

g an

d re

cord

kee

ping

Har

vest

er a

nd P

AU p

erm

it ho

lder

, M

INFO

F m

onito

ring

PAU

- na

tura

l for

est

Form

A B

ark

harv

estin

g &

tagg

ing

form

Prun

us a

frica

na2.

tr

ees

and

appr

ox. q

uant

ity o

f bar

k to

be

expl

oite

d fr

om fa

rms

or p

lant

atio

ns in

any

gi

ven

year

is k

now

n.

Num

ber o

f ste

ms

App

rox

annu

al q

uant

ity h

arve

stab

le p

er

regi

on

Priv

ate

owne

rs

Priv

atel

y ow

ned

on fi

eld/

plan

tatio

n Fo

rm D

Reg

istr

atio

n

All

PAU

s gr

ante

d ar

e kn

own,

leng

th o

f per

mit

&

3.

perm

it ho

ldin

g en

tity

is k

now

n.

Perm

it fo

r PAU

for a

qua

lifyi

ng e

ntity

M

INFO

F (in

ter-

min

iste

rial c

omm

ittee

)PA

UM

INFO

F/In

ter-

Min

iste

rial C

omm

ittee

D

ecis

ion

on P

AU P

erm

its g

rant

ed

MIN

FOF

and

regi

onal

aut

horit

y ca

n ve

rify

that

4.

al

l PAU

s to

be

expl

oite

d in

any

giv

en y

ear h

ave

a m

anag

emen

t pla

n an

d in

vent

ory

and

quot

a.

Sust

aina

ble

quot

a in

tons

wet

wei

ght i

n ap

prov

ed P

AU M

anag

emen

t Pla

nA

NA

FOR

PAU

re

gion

Inve

ntor

y N

orm

Fo

rm F

PA

U M

anag

emen

t Pla

n A

ppro

val

The

quan

tity

of

5.

Prun

us a

frica

na e

xplo

itabl

e fr

om

PAU

s, th

e pe

rmit

hold

er a

nd a

utho

rised

har

vest

ers

in a

ny g

iven

yea

r is

know

n

Quo

ta w

et w

eigh

t pru

nus

bark

per

PAU

zo

ne p

er a

nnum

PAU

per

mit

hold

er (e

nter

pris

e//

com

mun

ity fo

rest

/cou

ncil)

PA

U

regi

onPA

U p

erm

it PA

U M

anag

emen

t Pla

n A

ppro

val/

App

rove

d CF

SM

Pa

Form

F

The

quan

tity

of P

runu

s ex

ploi

ted

in a

ny g

iven

yea

r 6.

fr

om e

ach

regi

on a

nd b

y ea

ch p

erm

it ho

lder

is

know

n.

Qua

ntity

and

sou

rce

of w

et w

eigh

t Pru

nus

per R

egio

n an

d pe

r per

mit

hold

er

Perm

it ho

lder

, MIN

FOF

Regi

onal

de

lega

tions

/con

trol

sPA

Ure

gion

al le

vel

natio

nal

Form

E O

rigin

Fo

rm F

PAU

App

rova

l M

INFO

F Co

mCa

m/S

GFI

F D

atab

ase

The

wet

wei

ght q

uant

ity o

f bar

k ha

rves

ted

at a

ny

7.

one

PAU

in a

ny g

iven

yea

r is

know

n.

Rand

om te

st o

f nor

m o

n 10

% o

f tre

es in

an

y on

e PA

U z

one

MIN

FOF

regi

onal

del

egat

ion

+

harv

este

r PA

Ure

gion

al le

vel

Form

A H

arve

st

The

harv

est t

echn

ique

use

d co

nfor

ms

to n

orm

s. 8.

Ra

ndom

test

of n

orm

on

10%

of t

rees

in

any

one

PAU

zon

e M

INFO

F re

gion

al d

eleg

atio

n +

ha

rves

ter

PAU

regi

onal

leve

lH

arve

st N

orm

Fo

rm A

Bar

k ha

rves

ting

Prun

us is

onl

y ha

rves

ted

by tr

aine

d, c

ertifi

ed

9.

harv

este

rs

Tagg

ed tr

ees,

regi

ster

ed h

arve

ster

, tra

inin

g m

odul

es

MIN

FOF

PA

Ure

gion

al le

vel

Form

A B

ark

harv

estin

gFo

rm G

Cer

tifica

tion

All

Prun

us o

n ro

ute

from

fore

st/p

lant

atio

n to

10

. pr

oces

sing

and

exp

ort l

ocat

ions

can

be

trac

ed to

a

PAU

or r

egis

tere

d pr

ivat

e ho

lder

Rand

om c

ontr

ols

by M

INFO

F Br

igad

e du

Co

ntro

l, M

INFO

F at

Por

t of D

oual

a an

d an

y co

ntro

ls a

t Cou

ncil

chec

kpoi

nts

Perm

it ho

lder

, MIN

FOF

Regi

onal

de

lega

tion

and

cont

rol b

rigad

e,PA

Ure

gion

al le

vel

Form

B T

rans

port

Qua

ntity

of P

runu

s ha

rves

ted

is tr

acea

ble

from

the

11.

tree

to e

xpor

ter t

o po

int o

f exp

ort a

nd im

port

er.

Qua

ntity

, tra

nspo

rter

and

met

hod

of

tran

spor

t for

wet

wei

ght P

runu

s Pe

rmit

hold

er, M

INFO

F re

gion

al

dele

gatio

ns/c

ontr

ols

PAU

regi

onal

leve

lna

tiona

l

Form

A H

arve

stFo

rm B

Tra

nspo

rtFo

rm C

Exp

ort

Ann

ual P

AU R

epor

t

The

orig

in a

nd le

galit

y of

all

Prun

us e

xpor

ted

from

12

. Ca

mer

oon

is k

now

n.

Qua

ntity

and

type

of d

ry w

eigh

t Pru

nus

expo

rted

Pe

rmit

hold

er, M

INFO

F re

gion

al

dele

gatio

n an

d co

ntro

l brig

ade,

PAU

regi

onal

leve

lna

tiona

l

Form

E O

rigin

Form

C E

xpor

t M

INFO

F Co

mCa

m/S

GFI

F D

atab

ase

MIN

FOF

CITE

S an

nual

repo

rtW

CMC

CITE

S D

atab

ase

a W

here

the

PAU

hol

der i

s a

Com

mun

ity o

r Cou

ncil

fore

st -

the

prun

us In

vent

ory

and

quot

a sh

ould

be

incl

uded

in th

eir S

MPs

.


Monitoring Form A: Harvester Certification

Harvester certification

Harvester name :

Address:

Identity Card number:

Date trained:

Training organisation Signed – Trainer

I certify that I know and am capable of harvesting Prunus africana according to the Harvest Norm

Signed- Harvester

Monitoring Form B: Prunus africana bark harvesting

Monitoring Prunus africana bark harvesting in the field/forest by MINFOF

Year:

Date:

Controller’s name: Region: Tel: Matricule:

Site of the Prunus Allocation Unit : Name of PAU permit holder:

Has the site inventory been done? Has the Prunus Management Plan been approved?

What is the annual harvestable quota for the current year?

Have harvestable trees over 30 cm DBH been tagged?

Name of harvesters(s)/organisation: Has the harvester been authorised by the PAU concession holder?

Does the harvester have a training certificate? Have harvesting norms been respected?

Type of document Documents to control

Existence of document Yes or No

Delivery date Remarks

Notification Permit reference

Locality(ies) concerned

Quantity of wet weight bark harvestable per zone

Provincial delegate notification reference

“Carnet de chantier”

Company name

Locality of harvesting

Harvesters names

Daily number of stems harvested

Daily quantity of product harvested


Prunus africana tree Tagging Form

PAU Site Name:

PAU permit holder name: Location: Date: Name Manager

Tree number Tree size >30 cm DBH Tree health Date harvested

Tagging instructions: Methods of tagging or marking a tree include paint, metal or waterproof plastic labels nailed on the tree. Each tree 1. has a unique identification number. This may be a combination of codes for the PAU and the zone.During inventory and during harvest, the number, size and health of every tree exploited, using a diameter tape, 2. should be noted. Only trees over 30 cm DBH should be tagged.Harvesters should only exploit trees that have been tagged. Each harvester should note the tree number before 3. harvesting and return the tag to the tree afterwards.During harvest the number of the tree harvested should be noted, the name of the harvester and the yield 4. exploited. This improves records of yields per tree and will provide accurate data on growth rates and mortality.This allows monitoring of precisely who exploited which tree and when.5.

Monitoring Form C: Prunus africana transport

Monitoring of Prunus africana bark transport /Lettre de vehiclule MINFOF

Year: Controller’s name: Location: Tel: Matricule:

Site of the permit allocation: Tonnage:


Have other Prunus actors been involved?

Has Prunus been harvested by trained local people? Have harvesting norms been respected?

The forester on road to check the respect of the MINFOF Circular no. 0958 of 15 November 2007

Type of document Documents to control

Existence of document Yes or No (Y/N)

Delivery date Remarks

Attestation of harvest

Permit reference

Notification reference (start of activity)

Exact place of harvest

Exact quantity harvested wet weight

Vehicle letter SEGIF letter

Signature of nearest forest officer


Monitoring Form D: Prunus africana export

Monitoring export Prunus africana bark/chips/powder at the national exit export points by MINFOF

Year:

Date:

Controller’s name: Location: Tel: Ref:

Site of the Permit Allocation Unit: Tonnage Dry weight:Conversion from wet weight:Ratio used:


Form of export: BarkChipsPowderExtract

Have other Prunus actors been involved?

Date of registration at Port: Form A Bark harvested norms?

The forester on road to check the respect of the MINFOF Circular no. 0958 of 15 November 2007

Type of document Documents to control Existence of document

Yes or No (Y/N)Delivery

date Remarks

Certificate of origin

Vehicle letter

Receipt of regeneration tax payment

Copy of valid permit stating harvest zone and PAU

Attestation of harvest

Export registration

CITES permit Vehicle letter

Receipt of regeneration tax payment

Copy of valid permit

Attestation of conversion from harvest wet weight to exported dry weight

Export registration

Monitoring Form E: PAU Certificate of Origin

Pau certificate of originSite name:PAU Site reference: Tonnage:Dry weight (Chips/Bark/Power/Extract)Wet weight Date of harvest: Has the site inventory been done? Has the Prunus Management Plan been approved? Has Prunus been harvested by certified harvester? Have harvesting norms been respected?




Prunus Allocation Unit:Name: Reference Number: Region:

Responsible MINFOF Regional Delegation

Name of Permit holder:

Date PAU permit issued:

Date of inventory:

Conformance to Inventory Norms? Y N

Annual Quota per zone

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

Year 6

Year 7

Year 8

Year 9

Year 10

Date of Management Plan Date valid till:

Comments:

Approval by ANAFOR

Approval by MINFOF

Annual Registration Form for small holder/on-farm Prunus africana

Registration of Prunus africana trees on privately owned land by MINFOF services

Year: Controller’s name: Location: Owners Tel: Matricule:

RegistrationSite name:Owners name: Owner ID Number:Number of trees: Date of planting: Annual monitoring Date Control Remarks

Date

Number of trees remaining Number of trees Harvested Type of harvestingNumber of trees planted

Signed:MINFOF

Date:Owner:


11.2 Monitoring procedures The main elements of the system are shown in Figure 38. The monitoring procedure operates each time Prunus is harvested at any PAU or by any registered owner. There are also long-term procedures annually and every 5 years.

The procedure is based upon and traceable though a set of Monitoring Forms in duplicate (one for permit holder, one for regional MINFOF delegation and one for MINFOF CITES Management Authority which accompany the Prunus harvested from the field or forest to the point of export).

A copy of the Monitoring Checklist can subsequently be provided to CITES and to the importer. The annual

Annual Exploitation Permit Prunus africana

Annual Prunus africana Exploitation Permit

Prunus Allocation Unit or Registered Owner:

Location & Region:

Reference Number:

Responsible MINFOF Regional Delegation:

Name of Permit holder:

Date PAU Management Plan issued/or Date of Private Registration:

Date of PAU Management Plan Date valid till:

Annual exploitable Prunus africana (wet weight) in tons

Year:

Approval by MINFOF Signed ......................... Date

report produced for CITES by the Management and Scientific Authorities can be based on an aggregation of data from all monitoring forms.

11.3 Traceability These monitoring forms and checklist, together with the Annual Exploitation Permit, provide a traceable document that can be sent with the Prunus africana to the importers, monitoring agencies such as TRAFFIC, as well as CITES and the EU CITES Authority. It demonstrates the legality of the product and its source of origin (from either an inventoried site with a quota or a privately registered source), the link with the PAU and Prunus Management Plan, the exploitation quota

Monitoring Checklist For each quantity of Prunus africana exploited


Date Source PAUPrivate owner

Site Name/Reference;

Monitoring forms: Tick if monitoring form is completed and signed

A. Harvester certification

B. Bark harvesting

C. Transport

D. Export

E. Certificate of origin

Either: PAU Management Plan approved?Registration of private ownership?

Annual Prunus exploitation permit


therein and that it has been harvested according to the harvesting norm.

The data contained in these documents should be incorporated into the national COMCAM database for forest products, as part of national monitoring for Special Forestry Products and for CITES.

11.4 Community or Council Forest participatory monitoring A participatory monitoring system is recommended for all Prunus africana from PAUs sourced from a Community or Council forest. This is outside the scope of this National Prunus Management Plan, but is an issue for incorporation in the Community forest or Council forest management plans. It is recognised that participatory monitoring of tagged trees for harvesting techniques and respecting an exploitation quota can contribute to the stability of the institutions responsible that manage Prunus (normally the Forest Management Institution or council), the accrual and distribution of benefits, and combating illegal exploitation.

Assuming that the inventory was conducted with input from local beneficiaries and CF managers, monitoring that includes these stakeholders can also be more time effective and reinforce the official controls by MINFOF. The tagging system proposed has an added advantage of involving users and beneficiaries, and is simple to understand for actors who may have low literacy and numeracy.

Monitoring should be during harvest periods. Transparency and accountability should be enhanced as one copy of the monitoring form is kept by the harvesting and PAU permit holder.

11.5 Long term-monitoring Long-term monitoring is necessary to ensure any periodic adjustments in harvest norms, quotas or inventories. This may be based on the results of ongoing monitoring of PAUs, of research programs conducted by academic institutes and international organisations, from any decisions or information originating from the CITES Secretariat or other countries with Prunus africana. Long-term monitoring is therefore proposed annually and on a 5-year basis.

11.5.1 Annually Annual reviews of the PAUs (PAU Management Plan Approval, Monitoring Forms A, B, C and D and PAU

annual reports) and comparison of privately owned, registered Prunus annual permit with the quantities exploited (Form A) and exported (Form E) will be performed by MINFOF to ensure that quantities harvested are within the annual quotas.

The national quota for Cameroon for Prunus africana harvest requested annually to CITES will be based on the sum of all PAU quotas plus the total sum of Prunus from registered private owners. This will be revised annually and actual harvested volumes will be monitored against exports.

Periodic adjustments in PAU or privately owned permits may be made by MINFOF, in consultation with ANAFOR, in the following cases:

Where the results of any monitoring surveys (by •MINFOF or ANAFOR) or independent studies indicate unsustainable exploitation of Prunus africana. Where PAU operators or private owners are unable •to counter illegal harvesting in their zone of operation. Due to exceptional circumstances, e.g. droughts, •pests, fires, etc. which damage significant quantities of Prunus africana in Cameroon.

11.5.2 Five years A review of all the PAUs will be made by MINFOF and ANAFOR every 5 years (i.e. at mid-term) to assess if they are still valid given results of any new research (e.g. inventory norms, harvest norms, new practices etc).

11.6 Sanctions Using the proposed monitoring scheme, controls can be imposed. When infringements are found, strict sanctions are necessary given the long and repeated history of unsustainable harvesting over the last 2 decades across Cameroon. The following sanctions are recommended: 11.6.1 Long-term monitoring researchResearch over the long-term is needed to respond to questions raised by stakeholders and which remain unanswered (Acworth 1998; Cunningham et al. 2002; Ndam & Ewusi 2000; Ingram 2007a; Ndam 2000). It is recommended that ANAFOR monitor the outputs of research as well as actively encourage research partners to address the topics in Figure 40. The research results can be incorporated into annual reviews of PAUs and the national annual quota as appropriate.


Infringement Sanction

Harvesting from protected areas Confiscation and fine plus suspension of annual permit

Unsustainable harvesting (ie noncompliance with harvest norms) for up to 10% of trees monitored

Fine

Unsustainable harvesting of more than 10% of trees monitored

Suspension of annual permit

Prunus harvested is not accompanied by signed forms Confiscation and fine

Use of untrained harvesters Fine

Harvesting outside of PAU or registered privately owned Prunus permit

Fine

Harvesting more than annual quota Fine

Harvesting of nonregistered private Prunus Confiscation and fine

Figure 40. Monitoring research needs

Topic Result

Set up permanent monitoring plots measuring tree 1. growth, bark regeneration rates, tree health and population dynamics and trial different harvesting techniques and rotations.

Long-term effect of harvesting and different harvesting techniques.

Population modelling (health and size of juvenile 2. populations) and rate of recruitment of Prunus africana (in PAUs and plantations) and adaptation of PAU Management Plans for sustainable use (CITES Lima requirement)

Monitor long-term effects of harvesting on Prunus populations and ecosystems (follow up Stewart’s work in Kilum Ijum, Meuer’s work in Mt Cameroon and Whinconet in Oku)

Monitoring spending of regeneration tax3. Adjust regeneration tax to adequately compensate for regeneration

Harvesting trials of trees less than 30 cm DBH4. Long-term effect of harvesting techniques

Trials of alternative harvesting techniques and alternative 5. tree parts

Increase available product, revise norms on sustainable harvesting techniques

Techniques to improve the production of bark and 6. biomass, as well as speeding up growth

Follow up of Russel Grant’s current PhD work at University of Lancaster

Market studies to link international buyers more directly to 7. Cameroonian sellers.

Improve links between producers and buyers, increase prices at forest-edge/farmgate. Ensure better forest-to-consumer traceability and involvement of the industry in conservation, management and long-term demand forecasting.

Characterisation and identification of high yielding 8. variants, propagation of improved germplasm, and dissemination of best nursery, management and silviculture techniques

Improve quality and quantity of Prunus africana products (follow up ICRAF’s Nairobi and Yaounde work on propagation and cultivation)

Investigation of in-situ and circa-situ regeneration 9. Promote faster growth techniques (follow up Germo Tatto’s current PhD work, University of Yaounde)

Cameroon currently has the following facilities for treating and exporting Prunus africana (Ntsama 2008; Awono 2008).

Bark – first stage drying In the North West, some Community Forests practice first-stage drying. This involves cleaning (excess mud, mosses, leaves, etc.) and sundrying Prunus barks. The ASSOFOMI office in Oku and ASSOKOFOMI office in Fundong have been used for drying. Private individuals have used their own houses or sheds. This does not appear to happen on a regular basis and the norm is that bark in strips of approx 30 cm x 1 m are sold at wet weight direct from the forest. There is a 50% reduction in weight from wet or humid bark when dried.

Community forests•Some private individuals •

Bark treatment This stage involves drying to a moisture content of 50% or less, by cutting the bark into chips of about 10-20 cm, spreading on plastic mats and sundrying, or spreading on racks in warehouses. The chips may then be packed into jute bags for shipping.

MOCAP, Buea •Africaphyto, Douala•Agrodenree, Douala•Afrimed, Bafoussam and Douala•

Bark powder (powder at less than 10% moisture content)This stage involves processing the bark by machine into a powder.

CEXPRO, Douala •AFRIMED, Yaoundé and Bafoussam)•

Chemical extraction Although Africapyhto has the capacity to extract, since 2007 the company has only exported bark and not extract. The extraction capability is used for small-scale tests and not for export.

Africaphyto International, Douala •

Extract processing There are currently no processing facilities in Cameroon, since the closure of Plantecam in 2000.

12.1 Terminology The terms “extract” and “powder” are clarified as:

Powder = dried and ground plant material from the bark, leaves, fruit or roots − normally not less than 10% moisture content.

Extract = extract prepared using a non-crystalline extract red transparent paste in a solvent base methanol, water, chloroform, methylene chloride, benzene, cyclohexane, petroleum ether, diethyl ether, acetone, methylethlketone and mixture thereof. The extract is characterised by 1 part plant material and 2 parts liquid solvent. A second stage uses non-crystalline extract to produce a fine white crystalline extract ranging from about 5% to 0.05% weight o the initial dry plant powder (Hall et al., 2000).

Production facilities

12

This section summarises the status of initiatives to domesticate Prunus africana and the status of regeneration in natural forests, and subsequently makes recommendations for local and national level actions.

13.1 State of knowledge The CIFOR inventory and baseline study highlighted the hitherto unreported, large scale of domestication and reforestation activities. This was unrecognised in the CITES STR. Data provided by stakeholders in 2008 and 2009 indicates that more than 1.6 million Prunus africana trees have been planted since 1976 in Cameroon (Table 12). This highlights the importance of domestication and regeneration activities that have taken place and are ongoing (Foaham 2009; Awono 2008). The scale also reinforces comments from a wide range of actors that domestication is one of the most critical pathways for continued and sustainable exploitation of Prunus africana (SNV 2007; Ndam, 2000; Cunningham and Mbenkum 1993; Nkuinkeu 1999; Tientcheu 2007).

Prunus africana seeds have been considered as having a short life and being recalcitrant. However, (Schmidt 2007; Sacandé 2004; Schmidt 2007) showed that methods for airtight seed storage and a controlled drying rate can extend storage over a year. Prunus propagation and domestication techniques are known both to indigenous farmers and to science (Tchoundjeu 2004; Tsobeng 2008; Tchoundjeu 2002). In areas such as Fundong, Oku and Buea, many of the simpler propagative techniques are also well mastered and disseminated, due to the work of a number of projects, research institutes and onfarm extension organisations. It is estimated that 94% of the population in the main areas of Kilum Ijum and Mount Cameroon are involved in some way in domestication, but 90% of Prunus africana bark is still exploited from the forest. For the 10% domesticated, 45% of planting material for domestication are “wildings” collected from the

neighbouring forest, with only 26% coming from nurseries (Tientcheu 2007).

The reason for this paradox may be because although many actors indicate that the resource is becoming scarcer, it is still available in the wild, despite dire warnings of unsustainable exploitation and programs to promote Prunus africana domestication and planting. There is as yet a low incentive for domestication on a large enough scale to match exploitation rates, especially the larger volumes exploited in the last decade (see Section 5.3), as the method of purchase and pricing is haphazard, prices are strongly differentiated by geographic locality and are a buyer-led, rather than supplier- controlled (Ntsama 2008). This combined with the lack of controls or sanctions on illegally harvested Prunus, means there is a low incentive for domestication. The EU suspension of Prunus africana imports in November 2007 and this management plan are expected to change the attitude of actors to create a more favourable climate to invest in domestication and regeneration on PAUs and on private land.

13.2 Genetic diversityThe genetic diversity of Prunus africana is important given that the major medicinal extract is known to vary according to geographical source and that genetic similarity corresponds to geographical distribution. Studies have shown that there is considerable phenotypic, genotypic, and chemical variation among and possibly within Prunus africana populations both across countries and within countries, and that extracts vary with this variation (Hall 2000; Muchugi et al. 2006; Dawson 2001; Avana 2004). Cameroon’s position as the largest exporter of Prunus worldwide has always been underpinned by the fact that its Prunus is used in combination with that from other countries to create the most efficient pharmaceutical

Regeneration and domestication

13


treatment. Until the EU and CITES suspensions in 2007 and 2008, blending was possible. If exports are to continue, possible only from Cameroon until other countries also obtain their management plans, a better understanding of the link between genetic diversity, geographic location and extract is essential for continued trade, and for domestication based on genetic management of the most commercially valuable cultivars, and not only morphology as has been the case to date. This variation offers scope for selecting improved cultivars superior to the ones currently being planted. The advantage of practices to date is that a wide range of genetic material has been planted, usually often extending genetic resources from nearby forest-based sources. The disadvantage is that no superior planting material is available. Critical selection criteria includes fast growth, resistance to disease, particularly at lower altitudes, ease of bark removal, and the concentration of 12 active ingredients for treating BPH. Experienced farmers, research organisations such as ICRAF and extension agents such as MIFACIG, bark harvesters and particularly the pharmaceutical industry, need to be consulted on desirable selection criteria and the degree of likely variation in tree populations.

Dawson and Powell (1999) assessed the genetic variation of P. africana in Cameroon from four sites: Mount Cameroon, Mount Kilum, Mendakwe and Ntingue using Random Amplified Polymorphic DNA (RAPD) analysis. The aim was to assess genetic variation within and among populations of Prunus africana in the areas where the species is most heavily exploited in Cameroon. They collected leaf material from all these sites and used silica gel to dry and preserve the samples before taking them in for analysis. Results from the study revealed that differentiation among stands was considerably less (approximately 23% of variation among the populations), but genetic difference was still highly significant when the other three populations were compared with Mount Cameroon. They concluded that the differences may reflect the geographical and ecological isolation of Mount Cameroon and show a direct relationship between genetic and geographical distance.

Further work on the genetic variation in Cameroon, compared to Kenyan Prunus, using RAPD analysis revealed that significantly more variation among Kenyan populations than in Cameroon, with a clear genetic disjunction showing between Kenyan stands. This data suggests both opportunities and concerns for genetic management (Muchugi et al. 2006).

Bioversity International is currently working in collaboration with IRAD in Cameroon and the Department of Genetics of the Austrian Federal Research and Training Centre for Forests, Natural

Hazards and Landscape (BFW) to measure and conserve the genetic diversity of Prunus africana and improve its adaptability in plantation forestry. The first phase collected and shipped small samples of leaves and bark for analysis at the Federal Research and Training Centre in Austria, with analysis carried for 60 samples from Mount Cameroon, Mount Oku and Mount Danoua in Thcabal Gangdaba to know the concentrations of the active ingredients and genetic variation. A greater genetic variation was found between the Adamaoua Prunus compared to Mount Cameroon and Mount Oku Prunus. Biodiversity International also organised a two-week workshop in June 2008 on forest fragmentation and genetic diversity where three scientists from Cameroon participated (Tientcheu 2007; BioversityInternational 2009).

13.3 Domestication Tree domestication is the process whereby species are adapted from their natural state for wider cultivation. The procedure involves the identification, production, management and adoption of high quality germplasm. Participatory tree domestication focuses on low technology and local knowledge. It depends on market trends and the preferences of farmers. Participatory tree domestication needs to be supported by research, extension and community organisations to ensure understanding and uptake.

Planting activities have resulted at least 1,610,000 Prunus africana trees being planted in multiple sites across the North West and South West between 1976 and 2008, in an area of at least 625 hectares (Ingram, 2008b), see Table 12, Figure 41 and Figure 42. In 1995, 6 years after two of the major projects and NGOs had started promoting the tree in the North West, at least 4250 farmers had planted Prunus africana trees, about 50% of which were associated with projects (Franzel 2009). The majority of trees supported by projects were planted in Community Forests communal spaces (e.g. watersheds), with non-project supported trees mainly being planted on farms and in family compounds. Given an average survival rate of about 32% in the plantations studied, it is estimated that 515,200 of these trees currently exist. This stock represents both an important genetic source and a critical stock for regeneration and demonstrates the previously unrecognised scale of domestication and planting outside of natural forests. (Foaham et al. 2009).

A number of project-based initiatives have promoted domestication and include:

The Mount Cameroon Project (MCP) and •International Centre for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF) set up a gene-bank in June 1995, collecting

13. Regeneration and domestication 93

seeds from 80 randomly selected trees in three sites: Mendakwe, Kilum forest reserves and Mount Cameroon. These seeds were sown in two nurseries: Limbe Botanic garden and ICRAF Mbalmayo. Results from the gene-banks in Limbe showed that the survival rates of all provenances varied from 60% to 100% for some accessions. There was statistically significant variation in early growth among the various accessions in terms of the height attained after 5 months. Thus, regardless of seed source, the existence of such variation is a good indication that Prunus africana has a great potential for genetic improvement if carefully selected (Tchoundjeu et al. 2002; Sunderland and Nkefor 1997).

The Limbe Botanic Garden, via the Darwin •Initiative, conducted nursery practices for seedling identification in the forest. The fundamental issue of the study was to provide a tool to facilitate field identification of P. africana seedlings and to increase seedling identification skills. To do this, they collected fruits and seeds from the forest floor, then recorded their gross characters and cleaned off fleshy and fibrous parts. The objective was to use two shade levels 0–20% and 30–60% to describe the germination type, seedling morphological characters and other changes that occurred as they grew under the two shades, so as to easily identify seedlings growing in the forest. More than 200 morphological characters were recorded such as the number of nodes, the first true leaves, leaf shape, venation and other morphological details were made throughout. The Conservation Technology Department of the Limbe Botanic Garden in collaboration with ICRAF and Cameroon Development Corporation conducted experiments with the best conditions for germinating P. africana seeds and has used this research to initiate several plantation trials, in collaboration with the International Centre for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF) and Cameroon Development Corporation (Nkefor et al. 1998, Nkuinkeu 1999).

ICRAF has carried out domestication of • Prunus africana using generative and vegetative techniques. For the vegetative technique, ICRAF examined which key factors which could influence rooting ability of juvenile cuttings using rooting media, auxin concentration and leaf area. Through this, researchers were able to have a batch of many seedlings issued from cuttings and this can be provided to farmers for private forest plantation. ICRAF has produced a Technical Note that provides practical guidance for domestication, propagation and planting, which was supplemented by training in nursery techniques (Tsobeng 2008). ICRAF studies have also shown that while Prunus africana is not as

profitable as Eucalyptus spp, farmers do want to grow Prunus africana because it is compatible with many crops and has multiple uses (Franzel 2009). It can also be cost effective and interesting on a small scale for this reason.

HELVETAS, the Swiss Association for International •Cooperation, assisted local communities to improve water supplies and management of watersheds in several areas in the North West from the mid-1990s to 2007, including Bambui, Guzang, Belo, Nso and Mbiame. One component of these projects was the provision of P. africana seedlings to farmers for planting, mainly on communal areas. In Bambui, the project supported nine nurseries and trained 120 farmers in nursery management.

The Fonta Rural Training Centre, Bambui, provides •training to farmers from all over the province. The centre collects P. africana seed and distributes them to trainees (about 200 per year) and sells to NGOs and development projects. The Centre has collected about 10 kg of seed per year and reported that demand far outstripped supply in 2005.

Trees for the Future, based in Kumbo, Bui division •up to 2006 and now in Buea in the South West, has worked with up to 63 different groups with about 1950 members. By 1994, 275,000 trees were reported planted by these groups, and P. africana was the third most commonly planted tree, accounting for about 25,000. Up to 2000 trees were planted in 2008.

Other groups in North West Province reported to •be assisting farmers in planting P. africana include MESG, Shishong; VCP, Bafut; PAPSEC, Bamenda; and, in South West Province: Greenfield Common Initiative Group, the Bova CIG, and Mosake Common Initiative Group, Buea.

The World Agroforestry Centre has identified the •best conditions for rooting of cuttings, including rooting medium, leaf area of cuttings, and optimum applications of auxin for promoting rooting for the vegetative propagation of P. Africana (Tchoundjeu et al. 2002). This has enabled a reduction in the age of seed production to 3 years through marcotting, that is, inducing roots to grow on a small branch while it is still attached to the larger tree.

Two Government-supported agroforestry initiatives have also been instrumental in planting Prunus africana. The ONADEF program had extensive plantations in the West and NW between 1991 and 2007, with 504,000 seedlings sold for planting in private plantations in the NW. The peak years were 1999 (19,452), 1996


(217,584) and 1995 (133,254). ONADEF is currently compiling data on the success rate of out-planting and exact location of the seedlings10 . ANAFOR, the successor of ONADEF, planted extensively in the NW and Adamaoua from 2007 onwards but no data of actual planting since 2004 have been made available to date. The ‘’PAFRA’’ project also sold a significant number of Prunus seedlings at lower rates, subject to requests from 2001 to 2007. This resulted in at least 92,000 Prunus planted mainly by individuals. Where data is available, this is summarised in Table 12.

The interest in planting prunus, as shown by the numbers of Prunus trees planted by individuals, projects, communes and the number of plantations set up (shown in Figures Figure 41 and Figure 42), correlates with peaks in annual export and production figures around 1995, and again a major peak in 2005.

More than 4200 farmers were reported as planting in 1995 (Franzel 2009). More recent data on planted Prunus in the North West and South West (Foaham et al. 2009; Tangem 2008; MinFoF 2008; Awono 2008)

indicates that there are at least 433 farmers (individuals and/or groups) who in 2008 owned at least 143,290 planted Prunus africana trees. Where data exists on dates planted (n=54), the average age of tree is 14 years old and 41% of the trees (115,490 trees) were over this median age; approximately 70% (n=23) of trees planted recorded by CIFOR had never been harvested. Some 25% (n=33) were located in pure strands, the rest mixed with other agroforestry species. The owner-farmers can be divided into several groups:

A small group of pioneer farmers planted • Prunus africana from the early 1970s onwards, planting with varying motives (for firewood, traditional medicinal or commercial use). Relatively high-income, progressive farmers who •have become aware of the market for Prunus africana bark. These farmers, including traditional ‘notables’ (6% of total farmers), have bought seed, often from nurseries or individual collectors in Buea, Fundong, Kumbo or Oku, and have planted on a fairly large scale of up to 100 trees or more (Franzel 2009; Nkembi 2008; Tangem 2008). Nineteen percent

Figure 41. Prunus planted in Cameroon 1988-2008

10 Situation of Prunus africana in private plantations in NW 1991-2003, ANAFOR, Nov 2007.

Figure 42. Numbers of Prunus plantations started in Cameroon 1988-2008

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

0

42

68

10121416

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

0

42

68

10121416

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008


Photo 10. ANAFOR Nursery, Bamenda

of owners (n=84) had more than 100 Prunus ‘plantations’ with more than 100 trees, ranging up to 8000, with an average of 993 each.Small scale ‘opportunistic’ farmers, forming the •majority of owners, operating on a small scale, with 81% having less than 100 trees; on average, 15 trees each. The majority of the plantations (n=9) have an average of 3 hectares per plantation. Twelve percent of the farmers are organised into •community groups (n=51), ranging from one of the largest, the Kumbo Council, with up to 52,000 trees, the Banso Baptist Hospital, Toga Community Group, and various water catchments such as Kiko Roh Vitangtaa. Small companies and the CDC constitute 3% of •owners of planted Prunus.

Although the data summarised in Table 12 is incomplete, the long history and scale of domestication activities is clear. The majority of up-to-date, detailed, and verifiable data originates from the North West (Mezam, Bui and Donga Mantung divisions). The data gaps demonstrate the need for registration of privately owned Prunus africana. Nurseries appear more common in the North West than in other regions and are often run by enterprises, but also by Community Forest based nurseries (also selling to the public) and NGOs. The current known nurseries and suppliers of Prunus africana are listed in Table 11.

13.4 RegenerationRegeneration, reforestation or enrichment planting refers to the replacement and replanting of trees that have been lost (due to natural or human causes) in natural forests.

The main regeneration activities have occurred in the North West in response to concerns about over-exploitation in Kilum-Ijim (Parrott 1989; Cunningham 1993) and the resulting loss of highly

important biodiversity and forest-based livelihoods. Regeneration has occurred as part of the Kilum Ijim Project and subsequent Bamenda Highlands Forest Project from 1987 to 2004, often in combination with encouragement for domestication of both fruit trees, timber and non-timber trees (Abott 2001; Franzel 2009). This has resulted in approximately 15,000 Prunus africana trees being planted within Community Forests and as boundary markers.

The PAFRA project planted out 35,000 Prunus saplings, along with other species, as part of its reforestation program in forest reserves, communal spaces and council forests in an area of some 105 hectares between 2001 and 2007. Where data is available, this is summarised in Table 12.

13.5 Domestication and regeneration recommendations The easiest route to building a sustainable, long-term trade in Prunus africana that does not threaten wild stocks is by encouraging domestication on a scale greater than that already in place in Cameroon. While the scale of current regeneration is considerable, it is not sufficient to fulfil the current levels of demand from the international pharmaceutical and health products industry. Regeneration by enrichment planting and reforestation in managed natural forests (for example, Council and Community Forests), is also an important option for sustainable management.

ANAFOR as the Government authority responsible for reforestation and agroforestry needs to incorporate Prunus africana, as a nationally protected Special Forestry Product, an international IUCN Red-listed protected species and a CITES Annex II classified species, specifically into a national plan. A national program to develop forest plantations for Cameroon is currently being developed by ANAFOR. This program integrates components of regeneration of forest resources, protection of water catchments, fuelwood production, forests and climate change and a fight against desertification. Within the framework of this emerging program and the context of enhancing biodiversity, it is foreseen that there will be a focus on the regeneration of specific species such as Prunus africana.

Individuals and managers of community and communal forests also have an important role as suppliers, as do importers, exporters and traders, buyers and owners of land. Research institutes such as IRAD, ICRAF and universities have a role in disseminating information on propagation and cultivation techniques and making available improved germplasm and seeds.


Table 11. Nurseries in Cameroon 2009

Region Name Location SeedlingsNorth West ANAFOR Kumbo, Bui 4300

Kumbo Cooperative Union Kumbo, Bui 18000Kumbo Council Kumbo, Bui 1650Laval Levia Bui 22500Pa Elias Bui 10200Ndzemo Group Bui 6325Meta King Fonta Group Bui 8450Bihkov CF Bui 2600Emfeh Mih CF Bui 4800Upper Shinga CF Bui 3200Nformi Joesph Bui 4000Nformi Aaron Bui 1625Mih Henry Bui 2685MIFACIG Belo 30863RIBA KumboFAP NdopARIFACIG Fundong 8749Bamonti (Noni) 50Joesph Chiph Aboh, Belo 300CIRDEN Bamenda, MezamGoodwill Ngong Aaron Belo Sylvester Ngeh Bandjong (Fundong

centre)100

Total 9534West PROAGRO Blaise Kom Nkoung-khi, Bayangam

APADER Roger Kwidja Bangangte, FeutapTotal ?

South West MOCAP Buea 75000 CAD BangemRUDEC BueaBRCF Kumba KumbaEruDeF BueaPFPF BangemCENDEP Limbe 320Limbe Botanic Garden BueaTotal >75,320

TotalSources: Foaham 2009; Tangem 2008; MinFoF 2008; Awono 2008; Nkembi 2008; Tsobeng 2008Personal communications, ARIFACIG, ERUDEF, CENDEP, MIFACIG and MOCAP, May 2009


Table 12. Domestication in Cameroon

Region Location Type of location Organisation No farmers/groups

Approx No Prunus planted

Approx area (ha)

Date planted

West Bangangete Individual plantations PAFRA 2001-2007

Ntingue, Sanctou, Menoue,

Plantation ONADEF/Fonds Forestierea

60 1976-1981

Menoue Forest reserve ONADEF 2003

Ndé divisionb Plantations & natural forest

Individuals 4.5 2000-2005

Littoral Moungo Délégation départementale

MINFOF 2007

Adamaoua Individual plantations PAFRA 2001-2007

SW Bangem, Kupe Muanenguba

Nursery RECODEV 800 2006-2007

Mamfe 36 people, 3 groups FORUDEF/Erudefc 5000? 2008

Bangemd Individual plantations/farms

ERUDEF/ TFTFe 2000 2008

Individual plantations/farms

Individuals 17 11,612 1999-2005

Buea Individual plantations/farms

ERUDEF/ TFTFf 7500 2007

? MOCAPu 2008

Mt Cameroon Government land CDCg 6.8 1998?

Government land Plantecam-ONADEF 800 2 1992?

CFs, Mt Cameroon CEXPRO - MOCAP 1,000 2006

NW CFs, individuals farms & plantations

PAFRAh 3,250 92,329 198 2005

ONADEFi 504,800 1991-2003

ANAFORj 15,000 2007

Across NW individuals farms & plantations

ANAFORk 9,000 1991

20,000 1992

24,010 1993

62,162 1994

133,254 1995

217,584 1996

7,445 1997

Bui & Donga Mantung

Individuals, councils, plantations

CAMEPk

MINFOF Buil373

3375,176 Present in

2008

Farmers & CIGs 17,494 1992

Bikhov 1,000 2003m

Individual plantations PAFRAq 15,5401,500

38.6 2007

7 communities CENDEPt 7 groups 233 11.5 2008

nursery MINFOF Buin 33 90,235 Present in 2008




Approx area (ha)

Date planted

NW Bui, Kumbo Rohkimbo quarter

Nursery SHUMASo 40,000 2007

Mbiame, Bui Community forest CENDEPt 1 CF 750 30 2009

Kumbo, Bui CIGs TFTFn 63 groups 25,000 1994

225 individuals Bamenda

RIBA/Erudefc 8 groups 20,000 2009

Nursery Kumbo Urban Councilp

1 15,000 1997-2007

Nursery Himalayan Institute 1

Ngogketunia subdivision


27.7 2007

Momo Sub Division


41.4 2007

Boyo, Jinkfuinr Farm Individual 1000 ?

Boyo Nursery/farmers Individual (Ijum Tree Farmers Union)

4,000 2004 to date

Oku subdivisionKilim

Farmers 3,300 1997

CFs BHFP/KIFPn 600 5,348 1995

Donga Mantung subdivisionNjila, Ndus

CF BONOFOMACIGt 1 CF 1,000 2006

CF CF 1,000 2007

Menchum subdivision

Individual plantations PAFRAq 3601,500

1 2007

Ako Individual plantations 5 1994

116 individuals SIRDEP/Erudefc 4 nurseries 20,000 2009

Mezam subdivision

BamendaNkwenBabankiSantaSanta,MankonMankon

Individual plantations ANAFORi 19,542 1999

59 individuals Bamenda

SIBADEF/Erudefc 7 nurseries 20,000 2009

1 water catchment Santa

SOPHEA/Erudefc 1 nurseries 5,000 2009

Individual plantationsBafut Ngema Forest Reserve & Bambui

PAFRAq 47,7425,000

119.4 2007

Individual plantations 1

Individual plantations 5 ?



Individual plantationLuta Albert in Santa

n 1 5,000 2006

Individual plantations Mendankwe

u > 2006

Individual plantations 4 ?


a Cunningham and Mbenkum 1993b Pers.comm R. Kwidja, ONG APADER, Nov 2007c Louis Nkem,be, ERUDEF, TFTF Annual report May 2008d Pers.comm, A. Harrison, CERUT, Feb 2008e Louis Nkembe, ERUDEF, TFTF Annual report May 2008f Louis Nkembe, ERUDEF, TFTF Quarterly report April 2009g Hall et al. 2000h Pers.comm PAFRA Manager, Sept 2007i Report Situation of Prunus in Private Plantations (ONADEF), 1997-2003, Nganteh Martin ANAFOR, November 2007j Pers.comm, Nganteh Martin, Bamenda annex Manager, 2007k Pers. comm., CAMEP, 2008l MINFOF Bui 2008m Pers.comm, Bihkov Board, Sept 2007n MINFOF Bui 2008o Pers.comm, Stephen Ndzerem, SHUMAS, 2008p Etude De Base De Prunus Africana Dans Le Nord Ouest Et Le Sud Ouest Du Cameroun, CIFOR, Deb 2007q Situation de reboisment dans le Nord Ouest, Ref No 260/MINFOF :PDFWL/NWP/2 3 Oct 2007, MINFOF NW/PAFRAr Pers.Comm Nsom Alfred Jam, 2008s Pers.Comm Njila FMO, August 2007t Pers.Comm BONFOMACIG Delegate & Secretary General, Sept 2007 & Pers.Comm CENDEP, Wirsiy Eric Fondzenyuy, May 2009u Franzel, Ayuk et al. 2009v Report of Activities for Laikom CF July–Sept, September 16 2007w Pers.Comm John & Constance FMOs, Baba II, March 2007



Approx area (ha)

Date planted

NW ASSOKOFOMILaikomv?/ Fundong, Boyo


117.4 2007

101 individuals, 6 nurseries

CIRDAF/Erudefc 6 10,000? 2008

CFs BHFP/IFPn 600 9,000 1995

CFs CFs 1,000 Not yet planted

CF Laikom CF 1 CF 1,500 2007

Ijim CFs BHFP 5,000 ?

Baba IIw CF BHFP 1 CF 1,600/600

survive

2004

Total 1,698,481 673.3 1976-2009

Sources: Ingram 2008 and Ndam & Asgana 2008

The following recommendations are therefore made:ANAFOR and MINFOF

Develop and implement a national forestation plan, 1. paying special attention to include Prunus africana and Pericopsis elata. Disseminate information on procedures for 2. registering Prunus africana plantations.Collaboration between ANAFOR, individuals, 3. nurseries, and resrarch institutes on planting prunus. Provide incentives, e.g. zero regeneration tax 4. payment for replacement regeneration planting for each PAU.ANAFOR to coordinate and disseminate 5. information on domestication and cultivation techniques and monitor annually trends in quantities planted, pests and diseases and growth rates. Obligation for PAU holders to plant equivalent 6. Prunus africana trees every 5 years, to compensate for their quota of Prunus harvested.

ANAFOR together with National Herbarium to set 7. up provenance seed banks from the six main PAU areas to ensure genetic diversity. Enrichment planting in protected areas affected by 8. overexploitation and inclusion in their management plan:

Mount Cameroon National Park (in process) »Mount Bakossi Ecological Reserve »Mount Oku Plant life Sanctuary »Mount Tchabal Mbabo National Park (in »process)

Private sector (Importers, exporters, nurseries) Exporters and importers set up collaborations with 9. private owners, community forests, councils to plant Prunus and make long-term arrangements for supply. Establishment of new plantations by private sector.10. Set up incentive programs for regeneration and 11. domestication, e.g. paying higher preferential prices for planted Prunus africana or for planting schemes.


Forest and agroforestry research organisations (ICRAF, CIFOR, IRAD, Universities)

Provide information to ANAFOR regional 12. delegations, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development extension agents and nurseries on cultivation techniques and seed selection.Provision of improved planting material to nurseries 13. with link between genetic source and levels of extract.Extension support to small holders and nurseries. 14. Build capacities of nurseries, extension agents and 15. NGOs on vegetative propagation techniques.Research carbon sequestration potential of 16. Prunus africana plantations as an additional source of funding to farmers..Advice on optimum seed selection from wild vs. 17. planted Prunus Africana.

Community forests, Council forests and councils Enrichment planting in natural forests and 18. vulnerable areas, e.g. water catchments.

Encourage plantations and provide incentives to 19. planting, e.g. Kumbo tree for child scheme.Community involvement in wild seed collection. 20. Encourage individuals to plant 21. Prunus africana on private land.

13.5.1 Research needs The following research needs have been mentioned in the Prunus Platforms, meetings and consultations and in literature (Ndam and Asanga 2008; Cunningham 2002):

Selection of fast growing, high active ingredient 1. yielding varieties for domestication, taking into account pharmaceutical and health product industry requirements. Research into alternatives to bark harvest, e.g. 2. berries, roots, leaves and yields.Research into how to differentiate planted from wild 3. Prunus (e.g. genetic markers).

Implementing a new regime to manage and exploit Prunus africana sustainably is a challenge for all actors involved in the chain: communities, community forest institutions, traditional authorities, harvesters, nurseries, tree and plantation owners, permit holders, processing and export enterprises, the pharmaceutical and health industry, the Government and regulators such as CITES and the EU, research and support organisations. To make it work, a coordinated effort and communication between all is necessary. The 3-year-long process leading to this plan has shown that such collaboration, trust and comprehension between actors is possible and emerging. Given the 30-year history of both exploitation and unsustainable harvests in Cameroon, the country has much to learn and to offer to other African states embarking on similar management plans. The plan aims to have a positive economic, social and health impact on thousands of livelihoods in Cameroon and worldwide that depend on Cameroonian Prunus africana. Specific recommendations to ensure successful implementation of this plan include:

This management plan presents recommendations for 1. technical aspects and institutional and regulatory issues. Implementation of institutional aspects is essential for this plan to work.Plantations should be encouraged, with technical 2. and material incentives provided to divert focus from wild resources.The radical changes proposed in this National 3. Management Plan will need commitment, strong controls and monitoring and extensive changes in both attitudes and behaviour.Improved traceability is key to the success of the plan 4. and essential to build Cameroon’s international image. Distinguishing between active ingredients in wild 5. Prunus and plantation is a key aspect in long-term sustainability.

Speedy implementation of this Plan is essential to avoid 6. losing the valuable international market for Prunus extract-based pharmaceutical and health products to alternative natural or synthetic products.Carbon sequestration and avoided deforestation funds 7. from Prunus plantations should be explored as potential source of funding for farmers and the Government.The challenges of increased costs due to the procedures 8. for PAUs, investments in plantations, inventory and management plans, controls and monitoring compared to its current market value where these aspects have not been accounted for, will have to be addressed by actors at all parts of the chain, while keeping the product competitive to alternatives.Actors at all stages of the chain all benefit from 9. continued collaboration and exchange of information on the sector, practices, prices and developments. Securing land title and protecting 10. Prunus africana resources in non-permanent forests need to be addressed. The PAU system proposed should be open to 11. all enterprises and organisations, offering a fair opportunity for smaller and community based organisations to compete for PAU titles, while maintaining fair competition to enable an open access market and support fair product prices. Certification of 12. Prunus africana, although not unsuitable for the pharmaceutical market11, may be an option for the health and botanical products market. Recent studies and market links directly with Cameroon could enhance this and add to the traceability process. Promoting exchanges of information on technical, 13. price and buyers between groups of harvesters, nurseries, Community Forests, Councils and private owners. The challenge of establishing a stable and fair, 14. equitable relationship between harvesters and buyers of Prunus bark has to be overcome.

Recommendations

14

11 Where the ‘end-consumer’ is a medical doctor prescribing prescription medicines, there is little scope for added value by registering Prunus africana bark or products with forest or fair trade certification schemes.

Abott, J. I. O., Thomas, D. H. L. Gardner, A., Neba, S. E. and Khen, M. W. 2001 Understanding the links between conservation and development in Bamenda Highlands, Cameroon. World Development 29: 1115-1136.

Acharya, B., Bhattarai, G., de Gier, A. and Stein, A. 2000 Systematic adaptive cluster sampling for the assessment of rare tree species in Nepal. Forest Ecology and Management 137: 65–73.

Ackagou Zedong, H. 2007 Rapport de Mission Sur L’etat Des Lieux De Prunus Africana dans les Provinces de L’Adamaoua, du Nord Ouest et du Sud Ouest. Effectuée du 15 Septembre au 02 Octobre 2007. S. G. Ministere Des Forets Et De La Faune, Direction Des Forets, MinFoF: 19.

Acworth, J. 1997 Results of sustained yield estimates of Prunus africana from Mt Cameroon. Presentation by James Acworth, Forestry Adviser, MCP-Limbe Mcp. Limbe, MCP: 5.

Acworth, J., Ewusi, B. and Ndam, N. 1999 Supporting sustainable livelihoods through participatory conservation: Prunus africana in the Mount Cameroon region. Case Study for DFID.

Acworth, J. 2000 Concept Note - Recommendations for the planning of a national inventory of Prunus africana in Cameroon 8p.

Acworth, J., Ewus, B. N. and Donalt, N. 1998. Sustainable exploitation of Prunus africana on Mt. Cameroon. Symposium on the Trade in Europe Conservation of Medicinal Plants, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.

Altavahealth 2008. Chapter 5 Botanicals and the Treatment of BPH. Altavahealth.

ANAFOR 2008. Etat des lieux de la recherche scientifique sur le Prunus Africana au Cameroun. A. S. C. F. D. Cameroun, Autorite scientifique cites flore du Cameroun. Juillet 2008: 9.

Anon. 2002 Pygeum africanum - Prunus africana - African plum tree - Monograph: Pygeum africanum. Alternative Medicine Review.

Avana, M., Tchoundjeu, Z. and et. al. 2004. Diversité génétique du Prunus africana (Hook .f.) Kalkman au Cameroun. Bois et Forêts des Tropiques 282(4).

Awono, A., Manirakiza, D. and Ingram, V. 2008 Baseline study in pilot sites in the South West and North West provinces of Cameroon on Prunus africana. Mobilisation et renforcement des capacités des petites et moyennes entreprises impliquées dans les filières des produits forestiers non ligneux (PFNL) en Afrique Centrale (GCP/RAF/408/EC). Cifor. Yaoundé, CIFOR.

Belinga, S. J. 2001 Rapport D’inventaire National du Prunus Africana. Phase 2 Adamaoua, Tchabal Mbabo, Tchabal Gang Daba, Office National de Développement des Forets: 91.

Betti, J. L. 2008. Non-Detriment findings report on Prunus africana (Rosaceae) in Cameroon. Case Study 9 Prunus Africana, Country - CAMEROON. CITES Non Detriment Findings Workshop, Mexico, CITES.

Bioversity International 2009 Development of strategies for the conservation and sustainable use of Prunus africana to improve the livelihoods of small-scale farmers; Annual Progress Report Reporting Period: January-December 2008. B. International. Rome, Bioversity International: 7.

Cable, S. and Cheek, M. (Eds) 1998 The Plants of Mount Cameroon - A Conservation Checklist. Kew, Royal Botanic Gardens.

Chapman, H. 2007 The Nigerian Montane Forest Project Annual Report 07. Annual Report. C. O. S. School of Biological Sciences. Christchurch, New Zealand, University of Canterbury: 20.

Chapman, H. 2008 The Nigerian Montane Forest Project. TROPINET 19(1): 7-9.

Chapman, H., Bekker, R., Barnard, J. and Shu, G. 2003 The botany of Tchabal Mbabo A contribution towards the Nigerian/Cameroon Transboundary initiative. N. M. F. Project. Canterbury, New Zealand, University of Canterbury/Nigerian Montane Forest Project: 1.

15Bibliography


Chapman, H., Bekker, R. Barnard, J. and Shu, G. 2007 The botany of Tchabal Mbabo A contribution towards the Nigerian/Cameroon Transboundary initiative. N. M. F. Project. Canterbury, New Zealand, University of Canterbury/Nigerian Montane Forest Project: 1.

Chapman, H. M. 2004 Botanical Survey of Tchabal Mbabo, Adamawa Province Cameroon Nigerian Montane Forest Project Project number RAF/G43/A/1G/31. N. A. T. M. Transboundary Collaboration for Ecosystem Conservation: The Mountain Forests of Gashaka-Gumti National Park. Canterbury, New Zealand, University of Canterbury.

Chapman, H. M., Olson, S. M. and Trumm, D. 2004 A report in the montane forests of Taraba Stat Nigeria, and an assessment of how have they changed over the past thirty years. Oryx.

Chapman, J. D. and Chapman, H. M. 2001 The Forests of Taraba and Adamawa States, Nigeria. An Ecological Account and Plant Species Checklist. Christchurch, New Zealand.

Chapman, C. A., Chapman, L. J. Rode, K. D., Hauck, E. M. and McDowell, L. R. 2003. Variation in the Nutritional Value of Primate Foods: Among Trees, Time Periods, and Areas. International Journal of Primatology 24(2).

Chapman, H. M., Olson, S. M. and Trumm, D. 2004. A report in the montane forests of Taraba Stat Nigeria, and an assessment of how have they changed over the past thirty years. Oryx.

Chapman, H. 2007 The Nigerian Montane Forest Project Annual Report 07. Annual Report. C. O. S. School of Biological Sciences. Christchurch, New Zealand, University of Canterbury: 20.

Cheek, M., Onana, J. and Pollard, B. 2000. The Plants of Mount Oku and the Ijim Ridge, Cameroon: A Conservation Checklist. Kew, Royal Botanic Gardens.

CITES 2006 Review of Significant Trade in specimens of Appendix-II species Species selected following COP11 and COP12. CITES Sixteenth meeting of the Plants Committee, Lima, Peru.

CITES 2008 Summary report of the workshop on implementation of review of significant trade recommendations for Prunus africana. Workshop on implementation of review of significant trade recommendations for Prunus africana, Naivasha, Kenya, CITES.

CITES Secretariat 2006 Document submitted by Spain: Evaluation of the harvest of Prunus africana bark on the Bioko Island (Equatorial Guinea): Guidelines for a management plan. Summary Record Sixteenth Meeting of the Plants Committee, Lima, Peru, CITES.

Clemente Muñoz, M. A., Navarro-Cerrillo, R. M., Kasimis, N., Hernández Bermejo, J. E. Padrón Cedrés, E., Martín-Consuegra Fernández, E.,

Hernández Clemente, R. and García-Ferrer Porras, A. 2006 Evaluation of the harvest of Prunus Africana bark on Bioko (Equatorial Guinea) : guidelines for a management plan. Córdoba, Spain, Universidad de Córdoba.

Cunningham, A. B., Ayuk, E., Franzel, S., Duguma, B. and Asanga, C. 2002 An economic evaluation of medicinal tree cultivation. Prunus africana in Cameroon. People and Plants Working Paper 10: 1-39.

Cunningham, A. B. 2006 Prunus africana CITES Significant Trade Review of Prunus africana. CITES Sixteenth meeting of the Plants Committee, Lima, Peru, CITES.

Cunningham, A. B., Ayuk, E., Franzel, S., Duguma, B. and Asanga, C. 2002 An economic evaluation of medicinal tree cultivation. Prunus africana in Cameroon, People and Plants Working Paper 10: 1-39.

Cunningham, A. B. and Mbenkum, F. T. 1993 Sustainability of harvesting Prunus africana bark in Cameroon. A medicinal plant in international trade. People and Plants Working Paper 2: 1-32.

Cunningham, M. A. B. 2006 Etude CITES du commerce important: Prunus africana. PC16 Doc. 10.2/ Etude du commerce important de spécimens d’espèces de l’Annexe II, Convention Sur Le Commerce International Des Especes De Faune Et De Flore Sauvages Menacees D’extinction 57.

Dawson, I. K. and Powell, W. 1999 Genetic variation in the Afromontane tree Prunus africana, an endangered medicinal species. Molecular Ecology 8: 151-156.

Dawson, I., Were, J. and Lengkeek, A. 2001 La conservation de Prunus Africana, Arbre Médicinal Africain Surexploité. Ressources Génétiques Forestières n° 28. Fao. Rome, Organisation des Nations Unies Pour L’alimentation Et L’agriculture: 69.

Dibobe, H. 1997 Bark yields from individual trees of Prunus africana. M. C. Project. Limbe, MCP: 4.

Ehlers, T., Berch, S. M. and MacKinnon, A. 2003 Inventory of non-timber forest product plant and fungal species in the Robson Valley. BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management 4(2).

Ekatie, J. and Mambo, O. 2006 Exploitation and commercialisation of Non-timber forest product in Cameroon, The Experience of the Mount Cameroon Prunus management Common Initiative Group (MOCAP). Situation of Non-timber Forest Products in the Central African Sub-region, Limbe, FAO.

ENGREF 1987 Massif d’Oku, Cameroon. Classement en reserve et principes pour un plan directeur d’amenagement. Summary. ENGREF- Centre Universitaire de Dschang.

ETFRN 2000 Developing needs-based inventory methods for non timber forest products. Developing needs-based inventory methods for non-timber forest


products application and development of current research to identify practical solutions for developing countries, Rome, Italy, FAO.

Ewusi, B.N., Asanga, C.A., Eben Ebai, S. and Nkongo, J.B.N. 1992 An Evaluation of the Quantity and Distribution of Pygeum africanum on the slopes of Mt Cameroon. Study carried out at the request of Plantecam Medicam, B.P. 1941 - Douala and the Ministry of Agriculture - Yaoundé, Cameroon.

Ewusi, B. and Acworth, J. 2001 Commercial Exploitation of Prunus Africana Bark on Mount Cameroon. Community participation in the strive for sustainability. 16th Commonwealth Forestry Conference. Fremantle, Western Australia.

Mount Cameroon Project (Limbe). Ewusi, B. N. 1998 The sustainable management of

Prunus Africana in the mount Cameroon region. The World Bank/WBI’s CBNRM Initiative/Mount Cameroon Project Volume, 1 DOI.

FAO, GTZ and COMIFAC 2008 Directives Sous-Regionales relatives a la Gestion Durable Des Produits Forestiers Non Ligneux d’origine vegetale en Afrique Centrale. GCP/RAF/398/GER Renforcement de la sécurité alimentaire en Afrique Centrale à travers la gestion et l’utilisation durable des Produits Forestiers Non Ligneux. Yaounde 24.

Fashing, P. J. 2004 Mortality trends in the African cherry (Prunus africana) and the implications for colobus monkeys (Colobus guereza) in Kakamega Forest, Kenya. Biological Conservation 120: 449–459.

Farwig, N., Bleher, B. and Bohning-Gaese, K. 2006. Consequences of forest fragmentation on frugivores, seed dispersal and genetic structure of Prunus africana populations in Kenya. Journal of Ornithology 147(5): 114-114.

Fauron, R. and Roux, D. 1984 La Phytotherapie a l’officine (de la vitrine...au conseil) Practical Guide to Phytotherapy:Guide Pratique de Phytotherapie French & European Publications, Incorporated.

Foaham, B., Dagobert, S. Ingram, V. and Awono, A. 2009 Inventaire de prunus africana dans les provinces du Sud-ouest et du Nord-ouest du Cameroun, Novembre 2007 – Novembre 2008. CIFOR, Yaounde.

Fossey, D. 1983 Gorillas in the mist. St Ives, Phoenix.Franzel, S., Ayuk, E., Cunningham, A. B., Duguma, B.

and Asanga, C. 2009 Bark for sale: the adoption potential of Prunus africana as an agroforestry tree for small-scale farmers in Cameroon. Bark: Use, Management and Commerce in Africa. E. A. A. B. Cunningham. 17.

George Wittemyer, P. E., William, T. Bean, A., Coleman, O. , Burton, Justin S. Brashares 2008 Accelerated human population growth at protected area edges.” www.sciencemag.ozrg Science Vol 321, 4 July 2008.

Government of Cameroon 2008 Manuel des procedures d’attribution et normes de Gestion des Forets Communautaires M. D. F. E. D. L. Faune: 36.

Hall, J., O’Brien, E. and Sinclair, F. 2000 Prunus Africana, A monograph. University of Wales Bangor, Mount Cameroon Project, IRCRAF. S. O. A. F. Sciences. Publication No 18, University of Wales Bangor, School of Agricultural and Forest Sciences 104.

Haselwandter, K., 1997 Soil micro-organisms, mycorrhiza, and restoration ecology. In: Urbanska, K.M., Webb, N.R., Edwards, P.J. (Eds) Restoration Ecology and Sustainable Development. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 65–80.

Ingram, V. 2007a Prunus Platform Meeting Report 12 October 2007. Snv. Bamenda SNV.

Ingram, V. 2007b Prunus problem analysis Workshop Report. Bamenda, SNV.

Ingram, V. 2008 Cameroon Highlands Eco-Monitoring & Survey Results 2006 – 2007. Working Paper. Bamenda, Western Highlands Conservation Network (WHINCONET) and Netherlands Development Organization (SNV).

Ingram, V. 2008a Lobby for sustainable harvesting of Prunus in Cameroon. Working Paper. Bamenda, Netherlands Development Organization (SNV).

Ingram, V. 2008b Prunus africana (Pygeum) in North West, South West & West Provinces, Cameroon, Summary of Data 1976-2007. Occasional Paper. Snv. Bamenda, Netherlands Development Organization (SNV).

Ingram, V. and Awono, A. 2008 Prunus platform Meeting Report January 2008 Snv/CIFOR. Bastos Yaounde, CIFOR and Netherlands Development Organization (SNV).

Ingram, V., Niba Fon, J. and Bernard, B. 2007 Report of Mission to Mbi FMI Bolem Ilim; Traditional harvesting of Prunus africana. Client’s Name: NTFPs FAO project/Assokofomi. Snv. Bamenda, SNV: 5.

Ingram, V. and Nsawir, A. T. 2007 The Value of Biodiversity, Pygeum: Money growing on trees in the Cameroon Highlands. Nature & Faune 22(1): 29-36.

Ingram, V. J. and Nsawir, A. 2007 The Value of Biodiversity, Pygeum: Money growing on trees in the Cameroon Highlands. Nature & Faune 22(1): 29-36.

IUCN 2006 2006 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, IUCN.

Jarvis, A., Reuter, H. I., Nelson, A. and Guevara, E. 2008 Hole-filled seamless SRTM data V4, International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT).

Jones, P.J. 1994 Biodiversity in the Gulf of Guinea: an overview. Biodiversity and Conservation. 3: 772-784.


Laird, S. A. and Sunderland, T. C. H. 1996 The Over-lapping Uses of “Medicinal” Species in South West Province, Cameroon: Implications for Forest Management. Annual Meeting of the Society of Economic Botany, London.

Letouzey, R. 1968 Étude phytogéographique du Cameroun. Paris Vè.

Letouzey, R. 1978 20. Roasacees. Flore du Cameroun. Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris.

Letouzey, R. 1985 Notice de la Carte Phytogeographique du Cameoun au 1:500000. Institute de la Recherche Agronomique (Herbier National), Toulouse, France.

Lynch, K. A., Jones, E. T. and McLain, R. J. 2004 Non-timber forest product inventorying and monitoring in the United States: rationale and recommendations for a participatory approach. National Commission on Science for Sustainable Forestry.

Maisels, F. and Forboseh, P. 1999 Phenology of the major tree and shrub species of the Kilum-Ijim forest. Ecological Monitoring programme. K.-I. F. Project. Cameroon, BirdLife International and The Ministry of Environment and Forestry 16.

Martinelli, E. M., Seraglia, R. and Pifferi, G. 1986. Characterization of Pygeum africanum bark extracts by HRGC with computer assistance. Journal of High Resolution Chromatography & Chromatography Communications 9: 106-110.

Mburu, F., Dumarçay, S. and Gérardin, P. 2007 Evidence of fungicidal and termicidal properties of Prunus africana heartwood extractives. Holfzorschung 61(3): 323-325.

Mbuya, L.P. et al. 1994 Useful trees and shrubs for Tanzania: Identification, Propagation and Management for Agricultural and Pastoral Communities. Regional Soil Conservation Unit (RSCU), Swedish International Development Authority (SIDA).

McKay, C.R. 1995 Biodiversity monitoring at Kilum and Ijim Forest. Report to BirdLife International, September 1995.

McKay, C.R. and Coulthard, N. 1996 The Kilum-Ijim Forests I.B.A. in Cameroon: monitoring biodiversity using birds as indicators. Poster, Pan African Ornithological Conference, Accra, Ghana, Dec. 1996.

McKay, C.R. and Young, J. 1995 Developing a monitoring programme for combined community and biodiversity forest management in the Kilum-Ijim montane forest, Cameroon. Report to BirdLife International, September 1995.

MCP 1994 Community participation in the harvesting of Prunus africana bark on Mount Fako under the Licence of PLANTECAM. 47p.

MCP 1996 A strategy for conservation of Prunus africana on Mount Cameroon (technical Paper and Workshop Proceedings). 103p.

MCP 2000 Estimation of Sustained Yield for Prunus africana exploitation from Mount Cameroon, Mount Cameroon Project: 14.

Medicinal-Plants-Specialist-Group 2007. International Standard for Sustainable Wild Collection of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants (ISSC-MAP). Iucn. Bonn, Gland, Frankfurt, and Cambridge (BfN-Skripten 195), Bundesamt für Naturschutz (BfN), MPSG/SSC/IUCN, WWF Germany and TRAFFIC: 38.

Medicinal Plants Specialist Group 2007. International Standard for Sustainable Wild Collection of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants (ISSC-MAP). Iucn. Bonn, Gland, Frankfurt, and Cambridge (BfN-Skripten 195), Bundesamt für Naturschutz (BfN), MPSG/SSC/IUCN, WWF Germany and TRAFFIC: 38.

Meuer, K. 2007. Monitoring of Prunus Africana Exploitation On Mount Cameroon. Prepared for GTZ South-West Antenna Buea, Cameroon, University of Greifswald, Germany: 20.

MinFoF 2008. Assessment of Prunus africana (pygeum) in Bui Division - North West Province. D. D. F. B. Provincial Delegation for the North West, MinFoF North: 3.

Ministry of Agriculture 1986 Cahier des charges, p. d. e. d. e. f. and C. speciales. No 405/MINAGRI/DEFC. Yaounde (1992). Cahier des charges, permis d’ exploitation des essences forestieres speciales. Ministry of Agriculture No 405/MINAGRI/DEFC. Yaounde, Cameroon.

Ministry of Agriculture 1992 Cahier des charges, p. d. e. d. e. f. and C. speciales. No 405/MINAGRI/DEFC. Yaounde (1986). Cahier des charges, permis d’ exploitation des essences forestieres speciales. Ministry of Agriculture No 405/MINAGRI/DEFC Yaounde, Cameroon.

Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife 2008 Exposé; Gestion de Prunus africana au Cameroun. Workshop on the Implementation of Review of Significant Trade (RST) Recommendations for Prunus africana, Naivasha, Kenya, MinFoF, Secretariat general, Department of Forestry.

MOCAP-CIG 2007 Training of Trainers on Modern Harvesting techniques and marketing of Prunus Africana for Forest Management Institutions of the Association of Kom Forest Management Institution (ASSOKOFOMI) and the Association of Oku Forest Management Institution (ASSOFOMI). Workshop Final Report. Fgf. Manchok, Oku, Mount cameroon prunus management common initiative group: 14.

Muchugi, A., Lengkeek, A. G., Kadu, C. A. C. Muluvi, G. M., Njagi, E. N. M. and Dawson, I. K. 2006 Genetic variation in the threatened medicinal tree Prunus africana in Cameroon and Kenya: Implications for current management and evolutionary history.


Navarro-Cerrillo, R. M., Clemente, M., Padron, E., Hernandez-Bermejo, E., Garcia-Ferrer, A. and Kasimis, N. 2008a Forest structure in harvested sites of Afromontane forest of Prunus africana [Hook.f.] Kalkm., in Bioko (Equatorial Guinea). African Journal of Ecology. 46: 620-630.

Navarro-Cerrillo, R. M., Clemente-Muñoz, M. and García-Ferrer-Porras, M. A. 2008b Setting export quotas of Prunus africana: Guidelines for a Management Plan. Workshop on Implementation of Review of Significant Trade (RST) Recommendations for Prunus africana, Naivasha, Kenya, Naivasha, Kenya, 8-11 September 2008.

Ndam, N. 1998 Tree regeneration, vegetation dynamics and the maintenance of biodiversity on Mount Cameroon. The relative impact of natural and human disturbance. Bangor, University of Wales. Doctorate of Philosophy: 315.

Ndam, N. and Asanga, C. 2008 Setting up of a sustainable management system for Prunus africana in Cameroon. Program d’appui au PSFE. Gtz/Propsfe. Yaounde, GTZ: 96.

Ndam, N. and Ewusi, B. 2000a Case Study: Income from Prunus africana. Forests in Sustainable Mountain Development: A State of Knowledge Report for 2000. M. F. Price and N. Butt. Wallingford, Oxon, U.K. , CAB International: 306-309.

Ndam, N. and Ewusi, B. N. 2000b Management Plan for Prunus africana on Mount Cameroon. G.-M. C. B. C. C. Buea. Limbe, LBZG-MCBCC: 57.

Ndibi, B. P. and Kay, E. J. 1997 The regualtory framework of medicinal plants in Cameroon; the case of Prunus africana on Mount Cameroon. Biodiversity and Conservation 6: 1409-1412.

Nfi, A. N., Jiofack, T., Fokunang, C., Kemeuze, V., Fongnzossie, E., Tsabang, N., Nkuinkeu, R., Mapongmetsem P. M. and Nkongmeneck, B. A. 2008 Ethnobotany and phytopharmacopoea of the South-West ethnoecological region of Cameroon. Journal of Medicinal Plants Research 2(8): 197-206.

Nfi, A. N., Mbanya, J. N., Ndi, C., Kameni, A., Vabi, M., Pingpoh, D., Yonkeu S. and Moussa, C. 2001 Ethnoveterinary Medicine in the Northern Provinces of Cameroon. Veterinary Research Communications 25(1): 71-76.

Nkefor, J. Ndam, N. and Blackmore, P. 1998 Cultivation of Prunus africana (Hook. F.) Kalkman, opportunities for plantation and agroforestry development. 11p

Nkembi, L. and Atem, E. T. 2008 TFTF Cameroon workshop report on nursery design, construction and management For the South west, West and North West. March – May 2008. T. F. T. Future/Erudef. Buea, ERUDEF: 18.

Nkuinkeu, R. 1999 Medicinal plants and forest exploitation. The NWFP of Central Africa: Current

research issues and prospects for conservation and development. T. C. H. Sunderland, L.E. Clark and P. Vantomme. Rome, FAO.

Nsom, A., Tah, K. and Ingram, V. 2007 Current situation of Prunus africana in the Kilum forest Emfveh-Mii & Ijim Community Forests Workshop with stakeholders on conflict resolution in Prunus africana management, Oku June 2007, Oku, SNV.

Nsom, C. L. and Dick, J. 1992 An ethnobotanical tree survey of the Kom area. Unpublished document, iJim mountain forest.of Oku and Fundong, North West Region, Cameroon.

Ntsama, G.-L. 2008 Exploitation Des PFNL (Cas du Prunus Africana) et reduction de la pauvrete en milieu rural. Sciences Economiques. Yaoundé, Cameroun, l’Université de Yaoundé II. Masters: 27.

ONADEF 1991 Normes d’inventaire d’aménagement et de pré investissement 66

ONADEF 1996 Rapport d’inventaire du Pygeum sur le Mont Cameroun : Méthode traditionnelle.

ONADEF 1999 Rapport sur la détermination des aires de répartition du Pygeum dans la région de Banyo, Tibati et Tignère. Region de l’Adamaoua 15 p

ONADEF 2000a Rapport de mission préparatoire à l’inventaire du Pygeum: étape de l’Ouest et de l’Adamaoua, 17 p.

ONADEF 2000b Rapport sur la détermination des aires de répartition du Prunus africana (Pygeum) dans les Regions de l’Ouest, Littoral et du Nord-Ouest 20p

Ondigui, R. P. B. 2001 Sustainable Management of a Wild Plant Species for the Conservation of Montane Forest Ecosystems and the Welfare of Local Communities: A Case Study of Prunus Africana in the Mount Cameroon Area World Mountain Symposium 2001

Pontius, J.S. 1997 Strip Adaptive Cluster Sampling: Probability Proportional to Size Selection of Primary Units, Biometrics 63: 1092–1096.

Pouna, J. and Belinga, J.S. 2001 Rapport d’inventaire national du Prunus africana. Phase2-Adamaoua, Tchabal Mbabo, Tchabal Gang Daba. Bibliothèque GTZ et ONADEF 51p.

Parrott, J. and P.H. 1989 Report on the conservation of Prunus (Pygeum) africanum in Cameroon. Report. K. M. F. Project. Bamenda, Kilum Mountain Forest Project: 3.

Peters, C. M. 1996 The ecology and management of non-timber-forest resources. Technical papers. W. Bank. Washington DC.

Pomatto, V. 2001 etude de marche du pygeum africanum en Europe. Yaounde, GTZ – MINEF: 59.

Reason, P. and Bradbury, H. (Eds) 2001 Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage.

Reforesting Scotland Non Timber Forest Product Inventory Method. R. Scotland, Reforesting Scotland 9.


Republic of Cameroon 1994 Law No 94-01 regulating Forestry Wildlife and Fisheries. Republic of Cameroon.

Roesch, F.A.Jr. 1993 Adaptive cluster sampling for forest inventories. Forest Science 3(4): 655–669.

Sacandé, M., Pritchard, H. W. and Dudley, A. E. 2004 Germination and storage characteristics of Prunus africana seeds. New Forests 27(3): 1573-5095.

Schmidt, L. 2007 Tropical Forest Seed. Springer.Schönau, A. P. G. 1973 Metric bark mass tables

for Black wattle, Acacia mearnsii October 1973. Wattle Research Institute Report 1972 - 1973. Pietermaritzburg, Commercial Forestry Research Institute.

Schönau, A. P. G. 1974 Metric site index curves for Black wattle. October 1974. Wattle Research Institute Report 1973 - 1974. Pietermaritzburg, Commercial Forestry Research Institute. 39 (4): 655-669.

Stewart, K. M. 2001 The commercial bark harvest of the African cherry (Prunus africana) on Mt. Oku, Cameroon: effects of traditional uses on population dynamics. Botany. Florida, Florida International University. Phd.

Stewart, K. M. 2003 The African cherry (Prunus Africana): from Hoe-Handles to the international herb market. Economic Botany: 24.

Stewart, K. 2007 The effects of bark harvest on the endangered African cherry, Prunus africana on Mount Oku, Cameroon. Flag Report. S. F. C. O. T. E. Club: 4.

Stewart, K. 2009 Effects of bark harvest and other human activity on populations of the African cherry (Prunus africana) on Mount Oku, Cameroon. Forest Ecology and Management 258(7): 1121-1128.

Sunderland, T. C. and Tako, C. 1999 The exploitation of Prunus africana on the island of Bioko, Equatorial Guinea. WWF Germany, IUCN/SSC Medicinal Plant Specialist Group. P. A. P. Initiative. Bonn, Prunus africana Working Group: 13.

Sunderland, T. C. H. and Nkefor, J. P. 1997 Conservation through cultivation: the propagation of Prunus africana. Tropical Agriculture Association Newsletter December.

Tah, K. 2009 Simple Management Plan and Management Agreement of BIHKOV FMI, Report on workshop of Analysis and Revision of Bihkov Community Forest SMP and Report on Training on Implementation of SMP in Bihkov FMI. Anco. Bamenda, ANCO -FGF: 72, 3, 4.

Tame, S. and Asonganyi, J. 1995 Vegetation survey of the Ijim mountain forests, Northwest Province, Cameroon. Report, BirdLife International/GEF (World Bank)/MINEF. 25pp.

Tangem, E. P. 2008 Report of Mission to Kumbo 12 – 15 August 2008 Kumbo Prunus africana Commercial Agents Mission Reports. Fao.

Bamenda, FAO-CIFOR-SNV-World Agroforestry Centre-COMIFAC: 4.

Tchoundjeu, Z., Avana, M. L., Leakey, R. R. B., Simons, A. J., Asaah, E., Duguma B., and Bell, J. M. 2002 Vegetative propagation of Prunus africana: effects of rooting medium, auxin concentrations and leaf area. Agroforestry Systems 54: 183–192.

Tchoundjeu, Z., Mbile, P., Asaah, E., Degrande, A., Anegbeh, P., Facheux, C., Tsobeng, A., Sado, T., Mbosso, C., Atangana, A., Mpeck, M. L., Avana, M. L. and Tita, D. 2004. Rural livelihoods: Conservation, management and use of genetic resources of indigenous trees ICRAF’s experiences and perspectives in West and Central Africa. Plant Genetic Resources And Food Security In West And Central Africa. Icraf. Yaounde, IFAD-DFID Small holder Farmer Project 2000-2002 Project Report: 152-163.

Thomas, D.W. 1986 Vegetation in the montane forest of Cameroon. In: Stuart, S.N. (ed.) The conservation of the montane forests of Western Cameroon, 20-27. Report of the ICBP Cameroon Montane Forest Survey.Thomas, D.W. 1987 Vegetation of Mount Oku. In: Macleod, H. Conservation of Oku Mountain Forest, Cameroon. ICBP Report no. 15, ICBP, Cambridge. Pp 54- 56.

Tieguhong, J. C., Ndoye, O. and Ekati, J. E. 2008 Community-based NTFP production and trade for rural poverty alleviation and resource conservation: Case of Prunus africana on Mount Cameroon, Cameroon.

Tientcheu, M. L. A. 2007 IRAD/University of Dschang Activities on Prunus africana. Prunus problem analysis, SNV.

Tonye, M. M. 1999 Evaluation phenotypique des plants de Prunus africana (Hook.f ) kalkman mis en essais culturaux. U. D. Y. I. J. B. D. L. P. M. Cameroon: 92.

Tonye, M. M., Asaha, S., Ndam, N. and Blackmore, P. 2001 State of Knowledge study on Prunus africana (Hook. f ) Kalkman. C. A. R. P. F. T. Environment.

Thompson, S.K. 1991 Adaptive cluster sampling: Designs with primary and secondary units. Biometrics vol. 47, 1103 – 1059.

Thompson, S.K. 1992 Sampling. Wiley, New York.Thompson, S.K. and Seber, G.A.F. 1996 Adaptive

Sampling. Wiley, New York.Tsobeng, A., Degrande, A., Avana Tientcheu, M-L,

Tchoundjeu, Z. and Tabuna, H. 2008 Cultivation and Sustainable Bark Collection of Prunus africana. Technical Note. Icraf. Yaounde, ICRAF: 15.

Underwood, F. M. and Burn, R. W. 2000 Biometric aspects of sampling for the Cameroon inventory of Prunus africana, Mount Cameroon Pilot Phase, Interim Report. Mcp. Reading, Statistical Services Centre, Department of Applied Statistics, The University of Reading: 18.


URS 2005 Guidelines for non timber products (NTFP) screening survey. Canberra, URS/AudAid.

Van Daalen, H. 1991 Forest growth: a 35-year Southern Cape case study. South African Forestry Journal 159: 1-10.

WHINCONET 2005 Report on the illegal harvesting of Prunus africana in the Kilum-Ijim Forests of Oku and Fundong. C. B. C. S. C. Snv Highlands. Bamenda, Cameroon, Western Highlands Nature Conservation Network (WHINCONET): 19.

White, F. 1983 The vegetation of Africa. UNESCO, Paris.

Wong, J. 2003 Biometrics and NTFP Inventory. U. O. W. School of Agricultural and Forest Sciences. Bangor 12.

Wong, J. L. G., Thornber, K. and Baker, N. 2001 Resource assessment of non-wood forest products. Non-wood Forest Products (CD-ROM). Rome, Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO).

Wubet, T., Kottke, I., Teketay, D. and Oberwinkler, F. 2003. My corrhizal status of indigenous trees in dry Afromontane forests of Ethiopia. Forest Ecology and Management 179: 387–399

This plan was developed in September 2008 as an outcome of the CITES Significant Trade Group meeting in Kenya by the Cameroon CITES Management and Scientific Authorities MINFOF and ANAFOR, with assistance from CIFOR.

Date of submission September 2008

Dates of project Activity 1and 2 – Sept – Dec 2008 and Activity 3 and 4 – 2009-2010 AuthorGovernment of Cameroon - MINFOF & ANAFOR

Objectives General objective: Project will assist Cameroon Government and partners to fulfil their obligations under CITES to implement the Significant Trade Review recommendations to finalise a management plan of Prunus africana (including the determination of the export quota) to guarantee the sustainable trade. Specific objectives1. In short term (by 31 December 31) prepare a

management plan for four specific zones - validate

with participation of stakeholders /actors in Prunus sector

2. Adapt and implement revised institutional framework; system of permit allocation, monitoring and traceability system (by 31 December 2008)

3. In the medium term (by 2009), capacity building of Management Authorities’ human and financial needs to implement and monitor CITES in Cameroon

4. In medium term (by 2010) extend scope of the Management Plan by realising inventories that lead to sustainable quotas for other zones of Prunus africana in Cameroon

JustificationDifficulty to comply within timescale with the •recommendations of the July 2006 and July 2008 CITES Plants Committee Significant Trade Review Prunus africanaNon-Detriment Findings indentified – see spider •chartConsolidate existing data on resource availability of •Prunus africana in CameroonLack of means to implement the CITES with •sufficiently scientifically supported evidence Inappropriate institutional and legal framework for •sustainable exploitation Lack of capacity and knowledge of Scientific •Authority to implement CITES

Annex 1. Prunus africana action plan

Plan of workManagement Plan 1.

Activities Timescale Result Responsibility

Gather all current baseline and inventory data for 1. Cameroon to contribute to a management plan which determines a quota on the basis of inventories and consolidate and verify the harvesting technique (s)

Sept-Nov 15 draft management plan FAO project - CIFOR management plan

Mission Nigeria/Cameroon border control posts 2. mission to verify and check data on illegal commerce with Nigeria

Sept-Nov 15 Verification of status of trade in Prunus with Nigeria

Management Authority

Finalisation meeting on management plan with 3. authorities, stakeholders, partners.

31 Nov Stakeholder understanding and consensus on management plan report

Management Authority FAO project - ICRAF and SNV meetingsplan

Validation by Minister MINFOF 4. 15 Dec Management plan sent to CITES by 15 Dec

Minister MINFOF


2. Institutional framework

Activities Timescale Result Responsibility

Desk research to prepare texts for: 1. a. Revision of current system of permit allocation

to be based upon inventory and sustainable resource off-take

b. Improved monitoring and traceability system to meet CITES requirements (mission of sensitisation)

c. Specify harvesting method (norms)d. Specify methodology for future inventories

and calculations for sustainable offtake e. Coordination mechanisms for new permit/

monitoring system between Scientific and Management Authorities

Sept -Oct draft texts Management Authority

Activities to be done by a consultant – via GTZ ProPSFE

Validation meeting committee Inter-ministerial 2. CITES and “Comité d’attribution” of Titres

Oct 15 - Nov 15

Committee agrees on texts

Management Authority(GTZ – ProPSFE support)

Final version prepared3. Final textValidation by Minister MINFOF 4. 15 Decr Implementation of

new system permits and monitoring

Minister MINFOF

Diffusion of new texts (radio, newspaper, copies 5. of texts to MINFOF divisional and provincials delegates and stakeholders )

Dec 08 – Jan 09

Stakeholder understanding and consensus on management plan report

Management Authority (GTZ – ProPSFE support)

3. Capacity building

Activities Timescale Results Responsibility

Training within the “Specialised Master” on CITES 1. 2009 Trained personnel available

CITES Secretariat

Provide adequate material to issue permit and 2. ensure monitoring• acompletecomputertoissueCITESPermit(and

appropriate logiciel)• avehicle4x4forfieldmonitoringmission

2009 Material available Management Authority

4. Inventories

Activities Timescale Results Responsibility

Prioritisation and mapping of zones for future 1. inventories, agreement for who will inventory which zones

Jun 2009 Map of Prunus zones Identification of responsibilities of inventory

Management and Scientific Authorities

Conduct inventories for other zones (about 8 2. zones)

Jun 2009 Private sector/NGOs/CFs

Incorporation of inventories in Simple 3. management plans for Community Forests NW, SW (exploitation inventories)

Jun 2009 Community Forest have their simple management plan with inventories


Incorporation of inventory into management plan 4. for Mt Cameroon National Park

Results of inventories done on Mt Cameroon are available


Cameroonian Forestry LawsDecree No.74/357, 17 April, 1974 - Sections 74, 97 •98 - Regulates exploitation of medicinal plantsLaw No. 81-13, 27 November 1981 - Lays down •Forest, Wildlife and Fisheries RegulationsDecree No. 83-169, 12 April 1983 - Lays down •Forestry RegulationsLaw No. 94/01 of 20 January 1994 Forestry Law and •application Decree No. 95/531/PM of 23 August 1995

CITES implementing legislation in Cameroon Décret No 2005/2869/PM of 29 Juillet 2005 fixant •les modalités d’application de certaines dispositions de la Convention sur le Commerce International des Espèces de Faune et de Flore Sauvages Menacées d’Extinction au CamerounDécision N° 0104/D/MINFOF/SG/DF/SDAFF/SN •du 02 Mars 2006, désigné l’ANAFOR pour assurer le rôle de l’AS de la CITES au Cameroun pour les questions concernant les espèces menacées d’instinct ion de la flore sauvageArrêté No 067/PM du 27 Juin 2006, portant •organisation et fonctionnement du Comité Interministériel de Coordination et de Suivi de la mise en œuvre de la CITES

CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, signed in Washington 3 March 1973, amended in Bonn, 22 June 1979

Prunus africanaArrete No.48/A/MINAGRI/DF, 28 February 1991 •- Banned exploitation of Prunus in Cameroon (exempting Plantecam)Arrete No. 48/MINAGRI/DF, 14 February 1992 - •

Lifted the ban on Prunus exploitationDecision No. 0045/MINEF/DF, 11 January 1993 - •Banned felling of PrunusLettre Circular No. 0958, 15 November 2007•Lettre Circular 2058, 22 November 2007•Lettre N• o2050/L/MINFOF/SG/DF/SDAFF/SN 22 Nov 2007 Gestion de Prunus africana and Lettre Circulaire No. 0958/LC/MINFOF/SG/DF/SDAFF/SN 15 Novembre 2007 relative à la délivrance des documents pour le suivi de la gestion de Prunus africana au Cameroun.

Special forestry products Décision No. 0020 /D/MINFOF /SG/DF/SDAFF/ •SAG, 0,6 Jan 2009 portant octroi des quotas d’exploitation des produits forestières spéciaux Décision No. 0443 /D/MINFOF /SG/DF/SDAFF/ •SAG, 13 Juin 2008 portant octroi des quotas d’exploitation des produits forestières spéciaux Décision No. 0336 /D/MINFOF /SG/DF/SDAFF/ •SAG, 16 Juil 2006 portant octroi des quotas d’exploitation des produits forestières spéciaux Décision No. 0009 /D/MINFOF /SG/DF/SDAFF/ •SAG, 13 Jan 2006 portant octroi des quotas d’exploitation des produits forestières spéciaux Décision No. 0143 /D/MINEF /DF/SDEIF/STEF/•BP, 17 Avril 1998 accordant un permis spécial a la Société plantes du Cameroun (Plantecam)

Harvesting (Ministry of Agriculture 1992); Ministry of Agriculture 1986)

European Union Council Regulation (EC) No. 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (published on 3 March 1997, in Series L, No. 61 of the OJEC)

Annex 2. Relevant legislation

CIFOR is a leading international forestry research organisation established in response to global concerns about the social, environmental, and economic consequences of forest loss and degradation. CIFOR advances human well-being, environmental conservation, and equity by conducting research to inform policies and practices that affect forests in developing countries. CIFOR is one of 15 centres with the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). CIFOR’s headquarters are in Bogor, Indonesia. It also has offices in Brazil, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Ethopia, Vietnam, Zambia and Zimbabwe, and works in over 30 other countries around the world.

CIFOR’s vision is of a world in which forests remain high on the world’s political agenda, and people recognise the real value of forests for maintaining livelihoods and ecosystems services. In CIFOR’s vision, decision-making that affects forests is based on solid science and principles of good governance, and reflects the perspectives of developing countries and forest-dependent people. Our purpose is to advance human well-being, environmental conservation, and equity by conducting research to inform policies and practices that affect forests in developing countries. We are guided by the following principles:

Commitment to impactOur research is driven by a commitment to •eradicating poverty and protecting the environment.

ProfessionalismWe adhere to the highest scientific and ethical •standards, and are transparent in our methods and honest in our results.

We demonstrate accountability to our colleagues and •partners. We respect organisational policies and procedures, •and implement them consistently in a fair and transparent manner. We honour individual contributions and dedication •to the highest standards of achievement.

Innovation and critical thinkingWe encourage innovative, creative and risk-taking •solutions through credible and responsible scientific inquiry. We work with enthusiasm and maintain eagerness to •learn and to think critically.

Respect and collaborationWe acknowledge and respect diversity in terms of •race, gender, culture, religion and different needs regarding work/family balance. We promote equity, empowerment, independence of •thought and open participation. We treat colleagues and partners with trust, respect, •fairness, integrity and sharing of credit.

CIFOR Cameroon - Central Africa C/o IITA Humid Forest Ecoregional Center, B.P. 2008, Yaounde Cameroon Tel: +237 22 22 74 49/ 22 22 74 51 Fax: +237 22 22 74 50Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.cifor.cgiar.org

Annex 3. Authors

Below is the proposed time scale plan to implement this Prunus Management Plan.

No Issue Deadline Remark

1 CIFOR submission of PMP to MINFOF End of May

2 MINFOF to validate and submit PMP to CITES & EU End of May

3 Approval CITES and EU Mid June

Revisions by MniFoF June

4 MINFOF to submit a printed copy of PMP to CITES & EU June

CIFOR to return printed copies of PMP to MINFOF for distribution

Mid June

5 MINFOF to ready written and approved test dividing Permit Allocation Units for Prunus

Before December 2009

6 MINFOF to ready written and approved norms of Prunus harvesting


7 MINFOF to ready written and approved norms of ACS inventory for Prunus


8 ANAFOR to sign a text recognising identified experts for each CITES related plant


9 MINFOF and ANAFOR to agree on the consultation sheet Before December 2009

10 MINFOF to adopt proposed monitoring formats and encouraged staff to adopt


11 MINFOF allocate or identify funds for capacity building in the use of ACS and analysis

Before December 2012 Universities Cordoba, and Reading

12 MINFOF to allocate funds for Prunus national inventory and/or source form private sector (regeneration tax/PSFE)


13 MINFOF to keep CITES and EU informed of Prunus road map as part of ongoing CITES reporting obligations

Before July 2009

Annex 4. Road map for implementing the Prunus management plan

Annex 5. Maps of PAU landscapes

Annex 117

Annex 6. Bark regeneration and crown health definitions

C R O W N H E A L T H

G O O D F A I R

P O O R

D E A D

Bark Damage0 = no damage1 = small patches removed (<10% of trunk bark)2 = larger patches removed (10-25% of trunk bark)3 = large strips removed (26-50& of trunk bark)4 = extensive bark removed (51-75% of trunk bark)5 = ringbarking or girdling 6 = complete girdling, all bark removed (certain death)

1 2 3 4 5

Stem Form1 – forked from bottom2 – fork at less than 6 m height3 – forking starts above 6 m height4 – stem twisted5 – stem straight

B A R K R E G E N E R A T I O N

G O O D FA I R

P O O R

Z E R O / D E A D

Minutes of the ‘Drafting a management plan for Prunus africana in Cameroon, 26 February 2009, Yaounde, Cameroon

IntroductionThis report is in seven main parts: 1) the workshop justification, 2) the workshop methodology, 3) the participants and their expectations, 4) a highlight/focus of each presentation, 5) the outcomes of working sessions including comments from the plenary session, 6) the way forward/road map and, 7) the annexes (the workshop program, the list of participants, presentations and Prunus exploitation data from Adamaoua and South West regions).

I-Workshop objectiveThe workshop was organised by CIFOR in the framework of the GCP/RAF/408/ECMobilisation et renforcement des capacités des petites et moyennes entreprises impliquées dans les filières des produits forestiers non ligneux en Afrique Centrale project, in order to draft a participative management plan for Prunus africana in Cameroon. It is part of the partners’ (e.g. CIFOR, GTZ, FAO) support to the Government of Cameroon to meet obligations to CITES to develop a national Management Plan for Prunus africana in Cameroon. Key issues from all current baseline and inventory data gathered for Cameroon were discussed with participants. It will help contribute to the production of a management plan which determines a quota on the basis of inventories and consolidate the harvesting techniques.

II-Workshop methodologyThe full day workshop was composed of a plenary, working and restitution sessions (see program Annex 1) as detailed below:

Plenary session during which key presentations •updated the knowledge of participants on Prunus issuesfour working sessions during which issues discussed •covered:

Zoning or Permit Allocation Units (PAUs) »for Prunus Harvesting and inventory techniques /norms »Permit Allocation Procedure (PAP) based on »a fruitful collaboration between ANAFOR,

CITES Scientific Authority for Plants (CSA and MINFOF, CITES Management Authority (CMA) Prunus plantations. »

Restitution and discussion to find consensus on •issues raised in the group working sessions.

III- Participants and their expectationsA total of 66 participants were invited and 40 representatives attended from all levels of the Prunus chain (see Annex 2):

Cameroon private sectors ( 19 invited, •eight attended)Associations of Community Forests/harvesters in •Cameroon ( six invited, 12 attended)Traditional chiefs- forest representatives – (two •invited, one attended)International private sector (13 invited, none •attended; apologies from two who will visit in March/April, two requested to be kept in touch with process)Development/Support Partners (eight invited, •eight attended)Government ( 10 invited, nine attended)•Research ( four invited, one attended, two •sent apologies)Tree-nurseries (three invited, two attended)•Association of NTFP traders ( three invited, •one attended)

The following expectations were stated by the participants:

Work together to make the management plan in 1. order to have a well-organised market that produces P. africana (PA). Functional PA management plan should be 2. examined that can avoid conflicts with communities and local authorities. Recognise the responsibility of each Prunus actor. 3. Address the problem of traceability of Prunus 4. products. Leave with environmental plan that respects the 5. conservation and exploitation for social use and economic benefits. Leave with plan that assists us at the level of 6. our work at the field. System that allows us to exchange information. Monitoring system for the population 7. and enterprises.

Annex 7. Minutes of drafting meeting 26 February 2009

Annex 121

Plan that assists exploitation and regeneration 8. of Prunus. Problem of “pillage”/overexploitation. 9. Hope that we here together find the solution. 10. Harmonise the price differences of PA in 11. various regions. Like to see a Prunus management plan that can 12. help build the capacity of the farmers with the civil society involved. Have a Prunus management plan that helps us help 13. the farmers for a sustainable management of PA. Leave this meeting with a clear solution! Help build capacity of farmers and for production. 14. Leave today with a good management plan.15. Learn about the 16. P. africana. Every stakeholder knows his/hers responsibility in 17. implementing the plan. That all actors will contribute to the execution of the 18. management plan. Contribute to a good research.19.

IV- Highlights of PresentationsANAFOR Presentation, Narcisse Mbarga In summary:

ANAFOR is the CITES Scientific Authority (CSA) •for Prunus and other endangered plants while Garoua Wildlife School is CSA for animals, and MINEPIA, CSA for fish in Cameroon.ANAFOR’s role is to advise MINFOF to make •decisions that allow sustainable use of those species.ANAFOR works through a network of relevant •researchers.Meaning of plants status listed in Appendixes I, II •and III of CITES. Efforts made by ANAFOR to raise funds and carry •out studies on Prunus africana and Pericopsis elata, plant species listed in Appendix II of CITES.Road map of ANAFOR for 2009.•

MINFOF presentation, Henri Akagou In summary:

What is CITES?•MINFOF is the CITES Management Authority •(CMA) for Prunus and other endangered species (plants and wildlife) in Cameroon.How MINFOF allocates Prunus permits.•How Prunus was listed in Appendix II of CITES in •2005.Suspension of Prunus Trade by EU in 2007. •MINFOF is aware of international concern on •Prunus issue and is doing all its best to avoid CITES suspension (as one country suspended in 1993, met CITES conditions in 2001 but by 2008 the suspension was not lifted.)

Attendance of CITES meeting. »Prunus inventory with EU, FAO, SNV, »

COMIFAC, ICRAF and CIFOR support.Preparation of Prunus intuitional setting report »in collaboration with GTZ.Preparation of Prunus management plan in »collaboration with CIFOR.Collaboration with Nigeria to address trans- »border issue at Adamaoua site.Collaboration with ANAFOR to ensure CITES »trust of circulated information from Cameroon.Training of staff at MSc levels on issues related to »CITES issues.

FAO presentation, Armand Asseng Ze In summary:The EU-funded project is to promote revenue through sustainable use of NTFPs. It works towards COMIFAC’s mission and promotes collaboration among MINFOF and its partners such as FAO, SNV, ICRAF and CIFOR in addressing Prunus sustainable issues. It has facilitated the set-up of a network of Prunus actors. The project brings together experience from both Cameroon and Democratic Republic of Congo in species such as Prunus africana, but also Irvingia spp., Gnetum spp, honey, and Safou.

GTZ presentation, Yanek Decleire & Mambo Okenye In summary:

Aim is to develop a strategy that will allow •Cameroon to move from zero quota situation today to a sustainable yearly quota in the future acceptable to EU and CITES.Bear in mind the current consequences (loss •of revenue for poor communities and State of Cameroon, possible loss of international market if the suspension continues).Build on what we know already in relation to •Prunus issues (sites for potential growth, harvesting and inventory methods, initiatives of successful plantations, challenges with control and traceability).Overcome the challenges of sustaining best practices •in inventory, harvesting control, benefit sharing, permit allocation, and regeneration. Achievements in relation to efforts to sustain Prunus •in Cameroon and more importantly on what needs to be done. Issues included zoning, ANAFOR networking with scientists and MINFOF, Permit allocation and monitoring/traceability, inventory & harvesting norms and relationship with international bodies (EU & CITES). Establish a proper communication mechanism at •the level of all actors (CITES, ANAFOR-MINFOF, permit holders, controllers, harvesters and local communities).Address in the near future the tasks identified by •MINFOF such as preparing:

text describing permit allocation units »inventory norms »


harvesting norms »communication of Cameroon effort on Prunus »issues to CITES & EUa validation of PMP that will soon be submitted »by CIFOR

CIFOR presentation, Verina Ingram It focused on how the four working sessions should operate. For that, short terms of reference were given to each team:

Prunus and zoning/Prunus Allocation Units. 1. Maps of all regions above 800 m altitude »and how they can be grouped for practical management

Prunus in plantations 2. Proposition of a certificate of origin. »

Harvesting options:3. stripping 2/4 and 5-yeas frequency »

Site specificity e.g. Mt CMR, NW, ʴAdamaoua rainfallImplementation of harvesting method ʴ

Fell or coppice as in Kenya and Madagascar »Requires big investment to ensure ʴregeneration

Institutional issues (permit allocation procedure 4. monitoring and control measures, road and export levels, relations between Cameroon and Nigeria)

V- Outcomes of Working SessionsNB Nouhou Ndam, Verina Ingram and Abdon Awono were visiting each group to clarify issues.

1. Restitution of the session on the setting of Allocation Units and related discussions the plenary session

Participants of the session on the setting of allocation units were:

Makaki Moise (Chair)•Noumba Joseph • Fonlon Julius Ngoran•Mokom Eric •Ngiko David•Achidi Asanga •Louis Nkembi•Okenye Mambo •Mngo Macarius Deme•

It was retained that:Prunus grows in non-permanent forest, permanent 1. forest (protected areas) and in plantations.In the region of Adamaoua, Prunus is found between 2. Banyo and Tignere and extend to Nigeria.This raises the need for Nigeria-Cameroon 3. collaborative monitoring to ensure traceability of traded products.

Although Prunus is dominantly found in Faro et 4. Deo (Tignere), it is more accessible from Banyo.It was agreed that MINFOF staff representatives 5. in Banyo could be in charge of control and issue way bill/letter permitting a vehicle to transport the Prunus bark (Lettre de voiture) and inform MINFOF staff at Tignere.The Tchabal Mbabo area is in the process of 6. becoming a national park and the boundary has already been delineated. Part of the area is proposed as Community 7. Hunting Zone.The Jakiri-Fundong zone is accessible from 8. OKU and Fundong and should all be under the management of the relevant community forest authorities.Only CATRACO exploited 46 t of Prunus bark 9. in 2008. Zones II (Kumbo-Foundom-Oku) and III (Kambe 10. and environs) are mainly rich with planted Prunus and no permit unit allocation is encouraged.Zone IV (Bamenda, Ndop and Mbengwi) is 11. dominated by community forests and plantations, no permit unit allocation is encouraged.Akwya in Manyu is easily accessible from the North 12. West region, therefore should be removed from South West region to be attached to the North West Region. The NW R Delegate will monitor Prunus exploitation there and keep his colleague in the SWR informed. Zone 1 of the South West region (Fako & Meme) 13. refers to Bakinguili, Bokwango, Bonakanda etc., and all these areas are community forests; the small part outside CFs has been heavily exploited. Zone 2 of the South West region (Fako & Meme) is 14. where 80% of the Prunus is foundThe group of the working session feels that units 15. identified the region of Littoral are centred on the Manengouba (apparently the group has not differentiated between Mt Koupe and Mt Manengouba).The issue of keeping one or two units in the Littoral 16. region was not addressed because participants raised three different options:

Protected areas should be reserved for no Prunus »exploitation. This will reassure CITES & EU. It will protect genetic erosion Only core areas of the protected areas should »be reserved for no Prunus exploitation. This will still reassure CITES & EU and can still protect genetic erosion although measures will be needed to avoid trespassing.Community “droit d’usage“, i.e. user right, will »be given to protected areas to exploit Prunus under the supervision of the Protected Area (PA) authority.

Annex 123

The working group also felt that all sites in the 17. western regions are in non-permanent forest except Santchou, which is a PA.The group recommended that the annual 18. authorisation/permit be given at local level.The central region is made up of non-permanent 19. forests and deserves to be a single unit due to its low Prunus content.

Take into account the characteristics of different 20. zones.

The different unit are summarised in the table below (Table 1).

Timelines for carrying out the inventory to confirm the quotas in landscapes were not discussed.

Table 1. The proposed 15 permit allocation sites in six landscapes (regions) based on Prunus africana distribution and importance in Cameroon

Major landscapes for Prunus africana Cameroon Division Locations

Proposed 15 permit allocation sites (after an inventory & agreed Prunus management plan)

Adamaoua-for 5 permit allocation units(Area is Faro et Deo between Banyo and Tignere and bordering Nigeria, to be divided into 5 permit holders, each for 100 t/yr)

Mayo banyo Faro et Dero (Samba Pelmali Boudounga)

Adamaoua Region 1Adamaoua Region 2Adamaoua Region 3Adamaoua Region 4Adamaoua Region 5The area is mainly in Faro et Dero but accessible from Banyo. Vehicle letter to move product take account access

Tchabal MbaboGandoua wawa

Faro & Deo Tchabal Gang DabaTignere environsTchabal Bong Bong

North West - for 4 permit allocation sites

(Areas to be divided into 4 permit holders, each for agreed t/yr to be confirmed by an inventory

Bui Jakiri, Fundong and Oku North West Region 1(Kilum-Ijim 18 Community Forests & Plant Life Sanctuary)

Bui & Boyo Kumbo, Fundong and Oku North West Region 2(area outside Region 1 and within Bui & Boyo divisions)(Zone with private plantations)No Prunus in the wild in NW?

Donga MantungNkambe and whole Division

North West Region 3(Zone with private plantations)No Prunus in the wild in NW?

Ngoketunjia,Momo, Mezam &Menchum +Akwaya in Manyu(for accessibility)

Bamenda, Ndop, Mbengwi, Wum and environs

North West Region 4(Zone with private plantations and community forests)

Mt Cameroon for 2 permit allocation sites(Areas to be divided into 2 permit allocations , each with agreed t/yr to be confirmed by an inventory

Fako , Meme BakingiliBokwago, BomanaBwassaMapanja, Akwaya environsRompi HillBonakandaKoto II

Mt Cameroon region 1(Mt Cameroon National Park)

Fako , Meme & Manyu

Mt Cameroon region 2(Forest areas outside the Mt Cameroon National Park)

Littoral & Bakossi Mountains for 2 permit allocation sites(Areas to be divided into 2 permit allocations, each with agreed t/yr to be confirmed by an inventory

Moungo

Kupe Manegouba

SantchouLittoral & Bakossi Mountains Region 1(Areas inside Integrated Ecological Reserves)

Littoral & Bakossi Mountains Region 2(Areas outside Integrated Ecological Reserves)

Bouroukou (near Melong)Nkongsamba environsNsoung environsMount Kupe (loum)Mount Lonako (Nkongsamba)Mount Manengouba (Nkongsamba)


Major landscapes for Prunus africana Cameroon Division Locations

Proposed 15 permit allocation sites (after an inventory & agreed Prunus management plan)

West for 1 permit allocation site

(Areas grouped into 1 permit holder of ≤ x t/yr to be confirmed by an inventory)

Haut-Kam Bafang environs

WesternHighland Region

BandekumMboebo-Folentcha (Bafang)

Nde Bangante environs (Batchingou), Tombel

Noun Mount Mbapit( Baigom-Foumbot)Mont Koubam (Bangourain)Mont Yawou (Makam-Foumban)

Menoua Dschang EnvironsForéke (Dschang)

Bamboutos Mount Bamboutos (Mbouda)

Lebialem Bangem, BamebouCentral Highlands for 1 permit allocation site(Areas to be grouped into 1 permit holder of ≤ X t/yr to be confirmed by an inventory

Mbam et KimMefou et Akono

Mt. Ngora,Mt. YangbaMt. GolepMt. Eloumdem

CentralHighland Region

2. Restitution of the session on plantations and related discussions in the plenary session

Participants of the session on Prunus plantation were: Bunda Bernard •Bah Mary Neng•Ombolo Tassi •Nsoga Bond Remy•Evoe Philippe •Vincent Belignie (Chair)•

The group came out with the following six types of ownership:

State owns land and resources in a protected areas as,1. Mt Cameroon National Park (in process)a. Mt Bakossi Ecological Reserveb. Mt Oku Plant life Sanctuaryc. Mt Tchabal Mbabo National Park (initiated).d.

State owns land and not resources in non-permanent 5. forests such as forest non-protected and not attributed (e.g. area outside Mt Cameroon).Council owns land and resources (council protected 6. area, opportunity for council Prunus plantations).Community forest with villagers owning the 7. resources and not the land.Private plantations with individuals owning the 8. resources but not the land. Private plantations with individuals owning the 9. resources and the land (titled/family).

The following issues/challenges were raised to be considered in Prunus management plan (MPM):

So far, Prunus from plantation contributes very little •to the national production.Plantation should not be ignored rather should be •encouraged.In the future, Prunus from plantation would •dominate the national production. The issue of traceability will have to be carefully •tackled to rebuild Cameroon’s international image with EU and CITES.The issue of similarity of active ingredients in Prunus •from the wild and that from plantation will have to be addressed.The issue of carbon sequestration with Prunus •plantations should be explored as an additional source of funding to farmers.The challenges of high cost of Prunus plantation •setting, inventory, protection/monitoring and certification against its low market value will have to be overcome. The need for farmers’ organisations to become legal •entities to share experience and defend their right has a cost which the Prunus consumers will have to bear. The issue of securing land title or protecting •resources in non-permanent land needs to be addressed. The need to protect against theft is a challenge and •additional cost.

Annex 125

The needs of seed fund to develop Prunus •plantations will have to be addressed.The challenge of establishing a stable and fair •relationship between harvesters and buyers of Prunus bark has to be overcome.Need to advise with regard to wild vs. planted •species.Need to refer the texts of CITES, also with respect to •the problem of traceability.Note that CITES tells that while somebody is •occupied in planting a species that is listed by CITES, the origin of the product must be well guaranteed. This is done by a certificate of origin that accompanies each part of the exploitation and export of PA.

3. Session on harvesting and inventory and related discussions in the plenary session

Maturin Tchatat (Chair)•Ekati Etoma Foe •Kale Lithe Charles•Mtemching Djomo Serges •Kangong George•Nkwele Jacob •Marcellus Che•Brunuo Ewusi •Vegah Brian•

For best harvesting practices, an appropriate harvesting tool was recommended such as:

A list of tools should be established•People should be trained to use tools and harvest•

For harvesting techniques Present method is good (2/4), based on »previous experience (4yrs in Kumbo, 5yrs in Mt Cameroon) and studies by the University of Bangor and CERUT.Tag harvested trees (no tag, weight, date of »harvesting, name of harvester) and bundle tag.Do not harm the cambium (use sharpened stick »during period when the bark is hard) (use of appropriate equipment).No new method (1/8) is advisable. »Check if the negative impacts of harvesting on »Prunus trees are due to nature of the Species or lack of respect.There is a limited/lack of data on the results of »applying the harvesting technique.Research shows that current application of the »harvesting technique is not sustainable (loss of at least 30% of the trees). No concrete experience for better alternatives. »The harvesting technique and frequency (time »period to come back to the tree and exploit the

other section) should be taken together in order to discuss whether it is manageable.Between 1996 and 2003, trees harvested with »two-quarter method worked very well. It is after 2003, that the system and south collapsed (info from North West and South West regions).Check the ‘costs’ of different methods (periodical »debarking vs cutting and waiting for coppicing ).The cost – benefit analyses is needed to convince »the communities to use the exploitation method.

The present method of harvesting (2/4) is good enough if implemented. This was based on previous experience (4 years in Kumbo, 5 years in Mt Cameroon) and studies by the University of Bangor and CERUT. Other accompanying measures include:

Tag harvested trees (no tag, weight, date of •harvesting, name of harvester) and bundle tag.Do not harm the cambium (use sharpened stick •during period when the bark is hard) (use of appropriate equipment).No new method (1/8) is advisable.•Zoning for harvesting.•Use trained harvesters (specialised harvesters from •the locality).Branches can be harvested.•Monitoring and control should be strict (periodic •evaluation with all stakeholders).Meting out sanctions.•Trees with <30 cm DBH recover faster than trees •with bigger diameter.

Season of harvestingThe time of harvesting can be deferred to the »rainy period (June, July, August).

Rotation periodPresent method is good (2/4) based on previous »experience (5yrs in Kumbo, 5yrs in Mt Cameroon) and studies by the University of Bangor and CERUT.

ProblemsNon-respect of harvesting norms. »Non-existence of legalised harvesting norms. »Bark stealing leading to removal of bark sections »left by the previous harvester.No systems to track bad practices. »

Inventory ACS is a good method.•Permit to measure the size of plot and more •representative.

ChallengesDifficult for initial planning. »Plot size is variable. »Analysis is complex. »Sampling error may be too high. »


How to overcome challengesMore work to be done on analysis. »Capacity building of Prunus actors in charge of »inventory and analysis.

4. Session on institutional issues (permit allocation procedure monitoring and control measures, road and export levels, relation Cameroon-Nigeria)

Participants of the session on the Prunus related institutional issues were:

Joseph Ntsengue Levodo (Chair) •Armand Asseng Zé (Reporter)•Mbarga Narcisse •Akagou Zedong Henri• Mbu Samuel •Bende Jacob•Fon Julius •Decleire Yanek•Dogmo Gustave •Luking Majoda•

On resource allocation, the group recommended:That a proposal be made to MINFOF with a full 1. description of allocation units as in UFA. All 70 sites should be regrouped into 15 Prunus Allocation Units (PAU). The PAUs should have standardised names and PA should be for no exploitation, and:

MINFOF demarcates the PAUs »Call for tender »Proposed that each PAU be managed for up to a »maximum of 30 years by a permit holderFix rotation of debarking to 8 years »Produce PAU management plan »Divide each PAU into 8 yearly exploitable units »(YEU)Carry out yearly inventory in the YEU to be »exploited during that yearThat ANAFOR coordinated a network of Prunus »experts to advise MINFOFThat ANAFOR become member of Prunus inter- »ministerial committee That MINFOF act with ANAFOR advice to »assure CITES / EU.

On resource control, the group recommended:ANAFOR should approve management and 2. exploitation inventories,MINFOF services at PAU site and local Prunus 3. partners (projects and communities) should be consulted when business people apply for Prunus permit; this should be done by ANAFOR who should always be informed by MINFOF central services,

A text should be prepared to document procedural 4. collaboration between MINFOF and ANAFOR during permit allocation and monitoring. This text should further be developed to become part of the forestry law,Existing plantation should be introduced to local 5. MINFOF for certificate of resource ownership and control /monitoring,Community Forest with Prunus should approach 6. local MINFOF services for collaborative successful exploitation of Prunus and control/monitoring.On resource monitoring, the group recommended:7. ANAFOR has the duty to monitor the sustainable use of plant species, including.:

Capacity building of ANAFOR CITES staff and »that of associates at research institutions (e.g. universities, IRAD, CIFOR, ICRAF…)Allocation of means for field visit to discuss »monitoring of quotas, bark harvesting and trend in supply Collect and update fair and relevant information »Get opinion of local experts (as they may have »a most recent information) before advising MINFOF Check use of monitoring sheets at field, roads »and export levelsThe permit application sheet should include: »

The name of the area (PAU) in which the ʴapplicant want to operateThe status of applicant (duly registered and ʴup to date with tax payment)Commitment letter to respect harvesting ʴnorms, quota that will be allocated and monitoring sheet for all levelsHow it will involve the local people ʴCheck fairness of data collected. ʴ

Need to note that after the technical work of the 8. management plan, it will be effective to deal with the institutional aspects and implementation.

VI- Plenary session—way forward / road map

CIFOR will try and to integrate as much as possible •the outcomes of the workshop and aim at submitting to MINFOF a participatory drafted Prunus Management Plan (PMP) for Cameroon. The draft could be available by the end of March 2009 and CIFOR is ready to print validated copies of PMP by June 2009.It is expected that MINFOF should:•

Brief CITES and EU in March about the effort »of Cameroon to meet the expected requirements on Prunus

Annex 127

could validate the PMP in April »produce before June 2009 »

Prunus inventory norms ʴPrunus harvesting norms ʴText describing the different Prunus ʴAllocation UnitsText describing the Permit Allocation ʴProcedure for Prunus.A report to CITES on the collaboration ʴbetween

Mr Akagou, Mr Belinga and Yanek (GTZ adviser) •are responsible for follow up. The Prunus consultant (Nouhou NDAM) will be sharing a monthly email to key prunus partners for update on progress on theses actions It is expected that ANAFOR constitute and share •before June 2009 its list of Prunus expert advisers. These actors should regularly up date ANAFOR on Prunus issue from their sites. Mr Mbarga is in charge of this process.

Additional comments received:

From: [email protected]

Sent: Mon 20/04/2009 16:01

To: [email protected]

Subject: Re: Minutes from Prunus Management Plan Drafting Workshop 26 February 2009

Comment on the draft management planThe main goal of developing this plan is to, among other reasons, assure sustainability in the quality and quantity of supplies of the produce. But the aspects of permits to be issued to specific exploiters for a longer duration may indirectly imply granting monopoly and we can imagine the results of market situation void of the forces of demand and supply.Please i am in Yaounde for this week up.Can there still be some photos for the drafting workshop.

1. The workshop program Objective: Support the Government of Cameroon to meet obligations to CITES to develop a national management plan for Prunus africana in Cameroon, by gathering all current baseline and inventory data for Cameroon to contribute to a management plan which determines a quota on the basis of inventories

VII- Workshop

Time What Who (Facilitation- Abdon Awono)

08.00 Welcome and participants self introduction Verina

08.20 Introduction to CITES Process and Cameroon’s action plan and proposals for Prunus africana, history and where we are now ANAFOR Scientific Advisory Committee Questions

Henri Akagou & Narcisse Mbarga

09.00 Presentation GTZ Study Yanek Decleire

09.45 FAO project role Armand Assenge

10.00 Presentation of draft management plan (Power point and hard copies) and discussions – main group

Verina present Nouhou - reporting

Coffee Break

Working session 1: on Prunus Allocation Units• (discussion on the proposed zones, permits and related administration) Working session 2: on Prunus technical issues (harvesting techniques, ACS •inventory technique, (discussion on best practices for harvesting, inventory and how to overcome challenges)Working session 3: on Prunus institutional issues • (Permit allocation procedure, monitoring and control measures, road and export levels, relations with Nigeria)

Verina, Abdon & Nouhou, Jolien, to visit each of the three working sessions for advice/orientation

Each group elect a chair and a reporter. TORs for each working sessions to be developed

12.30-1.15 Lunch and split into groups

13.30 Restitution of thematic working sections findings in the plenary: 2:30-4pmRestitution of the working session • 1 (updated zoning) Restitution of the working session 2 • (best practices during harvesting and inventory)Restitution of the working session 3 • (Proposed sheet for MINFOF permit allocation showing ANAFOR scientific advice)

Abdon facilitate Ndam capture reporting Jolien photos

17.00 What next – steps for authorities in Cameroon for finalisation and adoption Henri Akagou?

and consolidate and verify the harvesting technique (s) Output: A particpatively drafted management plan for Prunus africana in Cameroon. Date: Thursday 26 February 2009. Location: CIFOR conference room, IITA Regional Centre, Nkolbission, Yaoundé, Cameroon

Agenda

Annex 129

2. List of the workshop participants

Attendance List, Prunus Management Plan, CIFOR-SNV-FAO-ICRAF SME ProjectNo. Name Organisation Telephone Email

1 KANGONG George RARC Kumbo 77 94 99 90 [email protected]

2 ACHIDI ASANGA Z. CIG Bata Community Forest

77 75 60 56 [email protected]

3 VEGAH V. Brian MIFACIG - Resource Center Belo


4 MAKAKI Moise DRFOF/ADAMAOUA 99 61 39 96 [email protected]

5 OMBOLO Tassi E.E. DRFOF/ADAMAOUA 75 52 07 29 [email protected]

6 NSOGA B. Remy DD/FOF/FAKO 74887461 [email protected]

7 MNGO Macarius Demse OKU Fon’s Palace 99 39 50 63 [email protected]

8 MBUH Samuel Emfveh-Mii com. FMO vice President Assofomi

96 93 34 52

9 BAH Mary Kedjem-Mawes F.M.O ASSOFORMI Secretary

96 95 41 25

10 BUNDA Bernard ASSOKOFOMI /Mbi Fmi-Fmo

77 43 35 70 [email protected]; [email protected]

11 KALE LITIE MOCAP CIG 77 35 82 96 [email protected]

12 AKAGOU Zedong MINFOF, Management Authority


13 AWONO Abdon CIFOR 96 13 55 66 [email protected]

14 EKATI Etoma Joseph MOCAP CIG Buea 77 35 82 95 [email protected]

15 LUKONG Majoda Fonyua BIHKOV FMI, FMO 96 90 05 48 [email protected]

16 NGOKO David AFRIMED 77 39 01 79

17 Mokom Ngu Eric(Erimon) Ets Erimon 77 74 48 16 [email protected]

18 FONLON Julius Ngoran CAMEP KUMBO 77 21 28 20 [email protected]

19 Julius NIBA fon SNV 99 63 06 15 [email protected]

20 NOUMBO Joseph AFRIMED 77 71 01 39/22221387 [email protected]

21 MTEMCHING Djomo SERGES RDFOF-SW 96 01 02 91 [email protected]

22 BEUDE Jacob SGP SARL 22 23 89 08;77 71 01 40 [email protected]

23 DONGMO Gustave SGP SARL 99 44 47 67

24 MBIANGA Bertin AGRODEN DERE Douala 99 15 98 48; 33 05 60 87 [email protected]

25 NKWELLE Jacob RECODEV TOMBEL 75 14 76 05 [email protected]

26 Louis NKEMBI TFTF/ERUDEF 99 12 29 04 [email protected]

27 EVOE Philippe DRFOF/MINFOF NW 99 82 88 12 [email protected]

28 Narcisse Mbarga ANAFOR, AS/CITES 99 90 91 97 [email protected]

29 Vincent BELIGNE SCAC/MINFOF 96 44 25 94 [email protected]

30 Joseph NTSENGUE LEVODO SDNL/DPT/MINFOF 99 96 56 22 [email protected]

31 Armand Asseng Zé FAO 77 18 61 83 [email protected]

32 Marcellus CHE WHINCONET B’da 77 47 15 26 [email protected]

33 Nouhou Ndam TRAFFIC 75 14 17 50 [email protected]

34 TCHATAT Mathurin IRAD 99 94 59 54 [email protected]

35 NJOMBE EWUSI Bruno ANAFOR 77 03 09 99825279 [email protected]

36 DECLEIRE Yanek GTZ /MINFOF/MINEP 77 11 87 84 [email protected]

37 SCHURE Jolien CIFOR 75 63 70 31 [email protected]

38 Okenye Mambo GTZ-ProPSFE 77665644 [email protected]

39 Ndam Nouhou TRAFFIC CENTRAL AFRICA

75141750 [email protected]

40 INGRAM Verina CIFOR 99 41 73 97 [email protected]


5. Data collected by MINFOF Regional Delegation of South WestPrunus exploitation from the south west region between 2006-2008

Company 2006 2007 2008

AFRIMED 42 980 0 0CEXPRO 34 380 0 0MOCAP 0 0SGP 14 000 - 0ETS ERIMON - 0 -ESSAMP & FILS - 2 000 -TOTAL PER YEAR 91 360 2 000 0

4. Data collected by MINFOF Regional Delegation of ADAMOUAPrunus exploitation from the Adamoua Region 2006-2008

Year Company Origin Destination Total (Kg)

2005 SGPA Banyo Bafoussam 150 2262005 AFRIMED Banyo Bafoussam 27 275

177 5012006 AFROMED Banyo Bafoussam 155 0622006 ERIMON Banyo Yaoundé 34 000

189 0622007 AFROMED Banyo Bafoussam 69 5002007 ERIMON Banyo Yaoundé 24 880

94 3802008 CATRACO Fongoy (Faro et Deo)

3. Key presentations at the workshop (Not included in this copy)

Date : 20 /02/09 MINFOF/ANAFOR:

Le Directeur des Forets•Le point focal autorité de gestion du CITES (Mr •Akagou)Le point focal autorité scientifique du CITES pour •les plantes (Mr Mbarga)Le spécialiste des inventaires du Prunus (Mr Belinga)•Deux autres collaborateurs du DF (arrivés en retard)•

Partenaires (GTZ/CIFOR):Yannek de la GTZ, Conseiller Technique auprès de •MINFOF et MINEPVerina Ingran du CIFOR chargé d’élaborer le plan •de gestion du PrunusNouhou NDAM Consultant pour les études du •Prunus

Objectif Recueillir les avis du MINFOF sur le rapport de •GTZ relatif à la réorganisation institutionnelle pour la gestion durable du Prunus au Cameroun

Points de discussionCapacités d’ANAFOR comme l’autorité scientifique •du CITES pour les plantesMode d’écorçage•Mode d’inventaire•Mode de contrôle•Mode de zonage •Mode d’allocation de permis •

Ce qui a été adopté par MINFOFCapacités d’ANAFOR comme l’autorité •scientifique du CITES pour les plantes

L’ANAFOR doit se renforcer en : »créant des réseaux d’experts pour chaque ʴproblématique (ex. Prunus , Assamela)créant des points focaux dans les universités ʴet er les instituts de recherches pour faciliter la collaborationfacilitant les recherches ciblées autour des ʴthèmes CITES utilisant le fond OIBT et les 30 millions ʴFCFA Franc de la contrepartie promis par MINFOF/DF pour mieux maitriser les problématiques liées au CITES

utilisant les résultats des recherches et ʴaccueillant les avis des experts pour conseiller l’autorité de Gestion de CITES (MINFOF)

Mode d’écorçage•Bien que CIFOR etl es autres chercheurs ne »semblent pas etre convaincus de la méthode actuelle de 2/4 (Prunus 30-80 cm DBH) ou 4/8 (Prunus >80 cm DBH), le MINFOF l’adopte comme la meilleure offre sans alternative disponibleLe MINFOF fait appel aux partenaires (GTZ, »CIFOR, FAO et autres) pour entreprendre les recherches visant à informer les décideurs dans ce domaineTaper et écorcez avec le bâton serait moins risqué »qu’utiliser abusivement la machette qui affecterait le cambium exposant le Prunus à une mort lente.Le MINFOF fait appel aux partenaires (GTZ, »CIFOR, FAO et autres) pour l’appuyer enfin de rédiger les Normes d’écorçage pour Prunus dans les prochains mois

Mode d’inventaire•La méthode ACS (Adapted clustered Sampling) »recommandée par CITES malgré les difficultés lies à son utilisation et aux analyses Le MINFOF fait appel aux partenaires (GTZ, »CIFOR, FAO et autres) pour

le renforcement des capacités de ses ʴpersonnels et les acteurs de la société civilel’appuyer enfin de rédiger les ʴ Normes d’inventaire pour Prunus dans les prochains mois

Mode de contrôle•Les mesures proposées de contrôle et de »traçabilité au niveau des zones d’exploitation (cahier de charge), lors des transports et d’exportation ont été adoptées puisque s’inspirant de la lettre circulaire du MINFOFMINFOF promet de les mettre en application et »s’apprête à l’améliorer quand le besoin se fait sentir

Annex 8. Minutes of Prunus management plan meeting 20 February 2009


Mode de zonage •MINFOF la proposition de l’étude GTZ qui »préconise le regroupement des plusieurs sites connus (>64 d’après CIFOR à un nombre réduit (15 proposé par la GTZ) Le MINFOF fait appel aux partenaires (GTZ, »CIFOR, FAO et autres) pour l’appuyer enfin de rédiger le texte d’écrivant les limites de zonage (unité d’allocation de permis -UAP) pour Prunus dans les prochains moisAprès le découpage, les UAPs seront attribuée sur »base d’appelle d’offre Une collaboration étroite entre écorceurs »et collecteurs seront un des éléments de considération dans l’appel d’offre Tenir compte que le Prunus se trouve dans les »

Aires protégées ʴForêts communautaires ʴForets dans les domines non permanents ʴPlantations privées ʴ

Dans aires protégées, MINFOF promet de »donner le droit d’usage spécialDans les forêts communautaires, les »communautés locales elles même sont responsables de leur PrunusDans les plantations privées, les planteurs »devront résoudre les problèmes fonciers et obtenir auprès de MINFOF local une attestation qu’ils sont réellement ceux qui ont planté les PrunusLes plantations sont à encourager en »collaboration avec ANAFORDans les forêts des domines non permanents, »tenir compte de

Exploitants légaux qui vivent de leur ʴprofession et éviter tout esprit régionalisteEncourager les communautés locales à ʴs’organiser et demander la zone comme forêts communautaires

Mode d’allocation de permis•Dans les UAPs les permis seront attribué pour »une longue durée (30 ans selon GTZ) Le MINFOF accepte la proposition d’octroyer »les permis à longue durée pour responsabiliser les exploitants mais pourrait réduire la durée

Autres engagements du MINFOF•Entreprendre un inventaire national pour »rehausser l’image du Cameroun à l’étranger comme l’a fait la Guinée EquatorialeValider rapidement le Plan de Gestion de Prunus »que CIFOR prépare pour que celui-ci puisse l’imprimer pour distribution et soumission au CIES et EUEnvoi une mission au Nigeria pour discuter de »la traçabilité du Prunus transfrontalier entre les deux pays au niveau de l’AdamaouaRecevoir dans l’avenir l’avis de l’ANAFOR avant »d’octroyer les permis de PrunusEcrire au CITES et EU pour les informer du »progrès et de la feuille de route du prunus CamerounDF promet d’assister à la réunion du CIFOR sur »le plan de gestion de Prunus le jeudi 26th février malgré la réunion sur la certification à douala pendant la même période

Compte Rendu par le GTZ 23/02/2009

Le 15 Avril 2009, s’est tenue au CIFOR, Nkolbisson une rencontre stratégique entre les acteurs de la filière Prunus africana. L’objectif de cette réunion était d’échanger et d’évaluer le niveau d’avancement des travaux devant déboucher sur la mise en place d’un plan de gestion du Prunus au Cameroun. Toute chose qui permettrait d’envisager des axes de sortie de la situation actuelle qui ne permet pas au Cameroun d’exporter cette espèce dans les espaces de l’Union Européenne qui accueille pourtant la quasi-totalité de la production nationale du Prunus. Prenaient part à cette réunion les groupes SOLVAY PHARMA et SYNKEM de France représentés respectivement par MM. Jean Pascal Yaher et Bernard Bonnevie, le Ministère des Forêts et de la Faune (Organe de gestion) représenté par M. Belinga Salemon, l’ANAFOR (autorité scientifique) représenté par M. Ondoua E. Schadrack, la Société Africaine des Médicaments (AFRIMED) représentée par son Directeur général M. Albert Nkemla, la Compagnie Commerciale pour l’Exportation des Produits Forestiers Spéciaux (CEXPRO) représentée par son Directeur général M. Mana Toukour, la Compagnie AFRICAPHYTO représentée par son Directeur Général Dr Sandjon, l’ICRAF représenté par Sado Thaddée et le CIFOR qui accueillait la réunion au titre des activités qu’il conduit sur l’élaboration du plan de gestion du Prunus au Cameroun dans le cadre du projet GCP/RAF/408/EC, FAO financé par l’Union Européenne. L’ordre du jour a porté sur deux principaux points à savoir le niveau d’avancement des travaux sur la mis en place d’un plan de gestion de Prunus au Cameroun d’une part et des actions planifiées pour la suite des opérations d’autre part.

D’entrée de jeu tous les participants se sont accordés sur la nécessité de mener des actions concertées afin de trouver une solution immédiate et durable au problème du Prunus au Cameroun. En effet les conséquences de la suspension des exportations de cette espèce sont multiples et à toutes les échelles. Autant les producteurs en souffrent parce qu’ils sont sevrés des revenus qu’ils tiraient de la vente des écorces, autant les opérateurs économiques nationaux et les firmes pharmaceutiques impliquées dans le circuit éprouvent des difficultés à faire fonctionner leurs structures en l’absence des échanges

habituels. Pire encore l’absence de la matière première au niveau des compagnies pharmaceutiques soulève des vives inquiétudes par rapport à la situation des malades qui pourraient bientôt ne plus trouver les médicaments contre le mal de la prostate sur le marché. Cette situation appelle, pour ainsi dire, des actions urgentes et pragmatiques de tous les acteurs afin que l’ordre soit rétabli le plus tôt possible.

Le CIFOR a fait un exposé sur l’évolution des travaux qui doivent déboucher sur un Draft du plan de gestion de Prunus africana au Cameroun qu’il est convenu d’appeler Plan directeur national de gestion de Prunus africana au Cameroun. Ce Draft devra donner lieu à son approbation par le gouvernement du Cameroun à travers une procédure et un acte administratif appropriés. L’on a retenu que la méthode de travail du CIFOR consiste à impliquer autant que faire se peut tous les acteurs de la filière afin que le résultat final soit à l’image de la volonté générale pour une gestion soutenue et durable de l’espèce au Cameroun. C’est dans ce sens que s’inscrivent les séminaires et de nombreuses rencontres formelles et informelles à l’instar de la réunion du jour. Avant la tenue desdites réunions, sur la base des études et des inventaires menés sur l’espèce, un premier draft a été produit et circulé aux techniciens pour commentaires. Ce plan s’oriente vers la définition des unités de production majeures du Prunus au Cameroun (15 au total). A partir de ces unités, des appels d’offres pourraient être lancés pour responsabiliser les opérateurs économiques qui se seraient montrés à la hauteur des exigences des cahiers de charge pour une gestion conforme aux plans simples de gestion localisés (par unité de production retenue) contenus dans le plan directeur national de gestion du Prunus au Cameroun. Le quota devra être défini sur la base du résultat des inventaires préalables. Cela veut dire en d’autres terme que seules les unités de production ayant fait l’objet d’un inventaire pourraient faire l’objet d’appel d’offre. Si tout se passe comme prévu, l’unité de production devra être concédée à l’opérateur économique pour une longue période (probablement 30 ans). Toutes les dispositions efficientes sont à prendre pour assurer une traçabilité qui éviterait des confusions qui remettraient en cause tout l’édifice construit.

Annex 9. Minutes of Prunus management plan importers-exporters meeting 15 April 2009


Les propositions formulées lors du dernier séminaire ont déjà été intégrées dans le document. Cependant certaines informations indispensables à la définition du temps de rotation pour la récolte sur un même arbre ne sont pas disponibles. Par hypothèse, la force de reconstitution de l’écorce serait différente d’une région à une autre et peut-être d’une altitude à une autre. En concertation avec les partenaires du projet FAO ci-dessus évoqué, le CIFOR vient de lancer, une étude pour avoir plus d’information à ce sujet. Menée en collaboration avec l’Université de Dschang, cette étude sera bouclée en Septembre 2009. Toutefois le processus devra se poursuive sans attendre les résultats définitifs de ladite étude.

Cette présentation a donné lieu à des commentaires constructifs sur la démarche. Compte tenu des multiples contraintes que pose la suspension actuelle, une question importante a été posée à savoir comment pourrait-on s’assurer que le Cameroun exporte le Prunus dans les

Points d’attention

Action Acteurs Echéance

Faire une Etude sur la régénération de l’écorce pour définition le temps de rotation CIFOR SeptembreFaire une mission d’enquête dans les zones frontalières Nigeria/Cameroun (surtout dans l’Adamaoua) pour établir un rapprochement avec l’organe de gestion du Nigeria

MIFOF/ANAFOR/CIFOR

Juin

Compléter les contacts des importateurs et vérifier si le Prunus est exporté à partir du NigeriaFinaliser l’élaboration des normes d’inventaire GTZ Juin?Procéder à la validation nationale des normes d’inventaire GTZ JuilletProcéder à la validation des techniques de récolte de Prunus JuilletProcéder à l’approbation officielle des inventaires réalisés sur le Prunus. ?Analyser la possibilité d’infiltrer dans la loi forestière dont la modification vient d’être lancées, une disposition qui permettrait que sous certaines conditions le Prunus soit exploité dans les parcs (allusion faite au Mont Cameroun qui pourrait être transformé en parc bientôt)

DF

Proposer la cartographie des 15 sites en ressortant leurs spécificités CIFORRendre disponible le Draft du Plan directeur national de gestion du Prunus africana au Cameroun (Donner des copies physiques à l’organe de gestion et à l’autorité scientifique)

CIFOR Juin

Organiser une réunion technique pour la validation du Plan directeur national de gestion du Prunus africana au Cameroun

?

Adopter officiellement le Plan directeur national de gestion du Prunus africana au Cameroun

MINFOF (Organe de Gestion)

Transmettre au CIFOR le taux de conversion des écorces fraîches en écorces sèches (10 kg écorces fraîches = ? kg écorces sèches)

AFRICAPHYTO 10 Mai 2009

Définir les quotas de 2010 sur la base des inventaires disponibles après validation officielle

MINFOF (Organe de Gestion)

?

Faire un rapport sur la scientificité des opérations telles que menées sur le Prunus au Cameroun.

ANAFOR (Autorité Scientifique)

?

Ressortir les Plans simples de gestion des 18 forêts communautaires du Nord Ouest concernées par la récolte du Prunus

- Actualiser les données des inventaires Adamaoua dont la validité prend fin en 2011

MINFOR (Belinga)

MINFOF

20 Avril 2009

Lancer le plus tôt possible les appels d’offre après la cartographie des 15 sites

NB. Prière de compléter la colonne Echéance selon les acteurs

meilleures conditions en 2010? Une réponse positive à cette question passe par une planification rigoureuse des actions à mener à court, à moyen et à long terme. C’est par ce moyen que les exigences de la CITES vis à vis du Gouvernement du Cameroun pourraient ainsi être aplanies. Le rêve est même que la gestion du Prunus africana au Cameroun soit un modèle à vulgariser dans les pays producteurs. Le tableau ci-dessous rend compte des points d’attention.

Par ailleurs, certains points ont été soulevés dans les discussions et devraient être analysés et pris en compte dans la finalisation du plan directeur national de gestion de Prunus au Cameroun. Il se présentent comme suit :

Exigence d’une disposition sur la Formation des •producteurs agréés dans les bassins de production (Unité de Production ou concession pour un long temps). Assiette de récolte pour une récolte groupée

Annex 135

Exigence d’une disposition pour le renforcement des •capacités de l’autorité scientifiquePour un meilleur contrôle, prévoir dans les plans •simples de gestion des audits sur l’application des normes de gestion durable (définir le temps de révision des plans) Il faut montrer que nous allons soutenir la •production par la domestication en impliquant au mieux le secteur privé ou les industriels pour relâcher progressivement la pression sur les espaces de forêts naturelles. Réflexion sur la facilitation de l’obtention des •certificats de propriété pour inciter la mise en place des plantations afin d’accroître la production forestière.Réflexion sur une politique incitatrice à la plantation •par les populations impliquées dans la production (Comment aider la population à devenir propriétaire de droit de l’arbre planté ?).

Quoiqu’il en soit, pour répondre à la demande du marché, il est indispensable qu’on renforce les bases de production du Prunus africana. Cela ne peut être possible qu’en domestiquant davantage. Les firmes pharmaceutiques présentes à cette réunion seraient disposées à accroître leur prix d’achat au kilogramme pour participer à cet effort. Cela pourrait se faire à

travers les contrats avec les partenaires nationaux étalés sur trois ans par exemple, avec la possibilité de préfinancement. Les opérateurs économiques camerounais pour leur part ont fait savoir qu’ils étaient déterminés à accompagner la domestication du Prunus pour vue que les conditions d’exploitation soient claires. On pourrait imaginé la mise en place d’un fond de soutien à la plantation du Prunus au Cameroun

En définitive, pour des besoins transitoires, il y a lieu de prendre des mesures urgentes pour sortir le Prunus africana de ses difficultés actuelles. Pour autant, il faut capitaliser sur les résultats des inventaires disponibles et sur la base des unités de production qui auront été définies, pour définir les quotas pour 2010. Ceci éviterait non seulement la fermeture de certaines compagnies avec tout ce que cela comporterait comme perte d’emplois, mais aussi le sevrage des malades de la prostate des médicaments et le découragement des populations productrices qui pourraient privilégier d’autres utilisations tels l’artisanat et le bois de chauffe qui passent par l’abattage de l’arbre. Par ailleurs il faudrait poursuivre des actions efficientes pour actualiser les données des inventaires faits notamment dans la région de l’Adamaoua pour éviter que le potentiel de cette région soit mis en doute du fait des évolutions internes aux écosystèmes.

Compte rendu Abdon Awono CIFOR, 20 April 2009

Factors Minimum standards required Ongoing Research Objective

Exploitable area and management strata.

Map showing known range of species, and identifying the sites under management and exploitation.

Where possible these areas should be subdivided into management strata, where more information on localised population density is available

Explore how remote sensing methods can be combined with existing knowledge of populations, both to estimate total area of natural range, and to assist with the stratification of forest areas for inventory and management. Where RS data is absent, propose statistical methods to estimate the geographical extent of species occurrence.

Density of productive trees (excluding dead or over-exploited trees).

Inventories should be of sufficient intensity to ensure that the results are within acceptable confidence limits. This inventory must be prepared by a professional body independent of the licensee. The results should be reviewed by the newly appointed Scientific Authority and recommended for approval to the Management Authority.

Inventories adequate for reviewing and revising Forest Management Plans should be repeated at least every 5 years.

Reliable Minimum Estimate (RME = mean - 1-tailed 90% confidence limit) of population density based on a sound sampling methodology should be used for establishment of quotas;

Test, compare, and document innovative sampling designs that are cost-efficient and suitable for inventories of single, clumped species such as Prunus africana.

Tree health Estimate the proportion of the population that is healthy based on crown condition scoring or other accepted indicators of tree health.

Carry out research into the physiological effects of (repeated) bark removal on the long-term health and bark regeneration of Prunus africana trees.

Best method and frequency of exploitation

There is debate on the best method of exploitation of Prunus (either minimum exploitable diameters for felling, or partially debark tree in a temporal cycle).

For non-destructive harvesting methods, estimate the frequency and extent of exploitation possible that allows full recovery of the tree between harvests.

Extend the study on tree health to look at the effects of repeated bark removal from different sites, size classes and debarking methods.

This work was once discussed as what can be carried out in Cameroon by the Natural History Museum, Paris, in collaboration with, and funding from, industry and CITES. Need to recontact the interested parties.

Recruitment, mortality, & growth rates of P. Africana

Where exploitation results in increased levels of mortality of productive trees, develop population model to determine the long-term impact of exploitation on population structure and regeneration.

Use existing inventory data and establish long-term monitoring plots to determine the population dynamics of Prunus africana under different management regimes, particularly natural, and perturbed forest and monocrop plantation/agroforestry schemes.

Provenance and Yield per tree

Determine average yields per size class from accepted exploitation methodology (destructive or non-destructive) and apply to yield estimates for each of the different sites (at which P. africana displays significantly different growth habit, probably due to a combination of climatic and edaphic conditions, and possibly genetic difference between populations)

Carry out controlled exploitation of Prunus africana to assess the relationship between yield and tree size (and method/frequency of harvest), for each site. Need to assess effect of alternative harvesting methods (total bark removal, leaves, roots etc) and effect on natural regeneration potential

Annex 10. Overview of research gaps

Annex 137

Factors Minimum standards required Ongoing Research Objective

Monitoring of yield per exploitation zone/management unit.

National estimates should be the sum of the yield estimates by PAU. Evidence (e.g. from periodic independent monitoring) of its effective implementation should be given for each area under exploitation.

From the above factors, develop a method to calculate a “Reliable Minimum Estimate” of yield for Prunus africana both for local management units, and determine how these can be built up into a national quota.

Cost of sustainable management

The costs and responsibilities for management need to be carefully assessed to ensure that the management system is sustainable and the product is competitive on the world market. A major problem is that the management costs make the resulting bark much more expensive than unsustainably exploited bark.

From the above work, calculate the estimated cost of achieving sustainable management in comparison with the value of the product, and other costs of production. The overall aim must be to deliver a system that is efficient and economically viable for dissemination to other situations.

High active ingredient yielding varieties for domestication

Identification of fast growing variants, identification of active ingredient yielding varieties, suitability for domestication, knowing yields.

Selection of fast growing, high active ingredient yielding varieties for domestication − taking into account pharmaceutical and health product industry requirements.

Alternatives to bark harvest

Yield levels of tree parts (1. felling total tree, 2. berries, 3. roots, 4. leaves), quantities harvestable, wet and dry weight, extract levels.

Assess optimum harvest method and sustainability scenarios.

Differentiate planted from wild prunus

Establish (if there are) methods to differentiate wild and planted Prunus.

Provide methods (technical, visual, chemical, genetic or other) to distinguish between variants.

Adapted from: Acworth 2000

Nor

th W

est

Villa

ge

Alt

itud

ea (m

)Co

ordi

nate

s(G

PS)

Ow

ner

Are

a (h

a)Ye

ar o

f pl

anta

tion

No

tree

s pl

ante

dbN

o tr

ees

pres

ent

Nur

sery

Den

sity

ha/

av

erag

eSt

ate

of tr

ees

Bam

onti

(Non

i)

1051

3266

9488

E

0701

678N

Fabi

an B

aba

0,37

1990

/ 19

9820

00c

570

154.

1H

arve

sted

Kank

eize

(Non

i)11

6032

6686

85E

0699

173N

Ndi

John

-19

9820

015

00

N

ot h

arve

sted

Bam

onti

(Non

i)32

6691

85E

0699

588N

V N

Mbe

nkum

-19

9290

030

050

N

ot h

arve

sted

Feki

ngG

S F

ekin

g-

1992

100

250

N

ot h

arve

sted

Mba

mG

S M

bam

-19

9210

04

0

Not

har

vest

edO

ku32

6698

75E

0691

383N

G S

Ngv

enka

i-

-36

0

Har

vest

ed

Tadu

(Kum

bo

cent

ral)

2111

3267

6246

E06

8910

5NTa

du W

ater

Com

mun

ity1,

072,

2719

97 /

2002

500

100

093

.544

.1N

ot h

arve

sted

Dze

mbo

(Jak

iri)

1794

3268

3748

E06

8025

9NEl

ias T

ata

1993

475

100

0N

ot h

arve

sted

Sop

(Jak

iri)

1766

3268

2035

E06

7887

2NEr

ic T

.Ver

kijik

a0,

8519

9410

0060

00

705.

9 N

ot h

arve

sted

Men

gu V

ekov

i (J

akiri

)20

9532

6758

88E

0677

453N

Char

les

L. L

ukon

g-

1977

/ 19

9810

030

0

Har

vest

ed

Man

tum

1 e

t 2

(Jak

iri)

1634

3268

2935

E06

7229

6NBu

i Bea

ns C

orn

& fo

rest

ry

Ente

rpris

e0,

6919

9219

0025

00

362.

3N

ot h

arve

sted

Nka

r (Ja

kiri)

--

C. L

avla

--

1000

500

H

arve

sted

Abo

h (b

elo)

1816

3265

4796

E06

8459

2NJo

seph

Chi

oh-

1989

-60

300

H

arve

sted

Abo

h (B

elo)

--

Djin

do M

ouss

a-

--

100

0H

arve

sted

Band

jong

(Fun

dong

ce

ntre

)15

2832

6400

31E

0694

084N

Sylv

este

r Nge

h-

1992

-20

010

0

Not

har

vest

ed

Fund

ong

1608

3264

2717

E06

9380

9NCh

air N

gham

-19

93 /

2002

-90

00

Not

har

vest

ed

Njin

ikej

em-

--

-19

9747

-0

-N

jinik

om-

--

-19

9260

0-

0-

Tot

al-

8925

2962

450

272

Ave

rage

1656

m68

718

519

9421

218

215

0

212

56%

NR

1992

33%

R 1

1% U

Sour

ce: F

oaha

m e

t al.,

200

9

Ann

ex 1

1. P

lant

atio

ns

Annex 139


a M

esur

ée a

u G

PS a

u po

int c

entr

al d

e la

pla

ntat

ion

b M

entio

ned

by th

e pl

ante

r or i

n lit

erat

ure

c C

unni

ngha

m a

nd M

benk

um 1

993

d M

esur

ée a

u G

PS a

u po

int c

entr

al d

e la

pla

ntat

ion

e M

entio

ned

by th

e pl

ante

r or i

n lit

erat

ure

f C

unni

ngha

m a

nd M

benk

um 1

993

Sout

h W

est

Villa

ge

Alt

itud

ed (m)

Coor

dina

tes

(GPS

) O

wne

rA

rea

(ha)

Year

of

plan

tati

onN

o tr

ees

plan

tede

No

tree

s pr

esen

tN

urse

ryD

ensi

ty h

a/

aver

age

Stat

e of

tree

s

Ekon

jo68

032

5179

28E

0449

351N

P. K.

Nju

mba

1998

-13

0+50

150

- N

ot h

arve

sted

Mol

iwé

247

3253

0079

E04

5317

1NC

D C

1997

795

00f

Den

sém

ent

peup

lé13

57-

Not

har

vest

ed

Saxe

nhof

558

3252

3878

E04

5317

1NC

D C

1997

1,7

-En

mél

ange

av

ec

Euca

lypt

us

-N

ot h

arve

sted

Liko

mbé

195

432

5219

88E

0454

707N

M. B

oua

Ndi

vé-

-25

25-

Not

har

vest

ed

Liko

mbé

2-

-Eb

el E

kém

a-

--

500

-N

ot h

arve

sted

Bova

I. 1

946

3252

8592

E04

6230

4ND

. Kin

gé M

olon

gé19

96-

500

350

-N

ot h

arve

sted

Bova

I. 2

--

S. E

mbo

la M

osim

a19

96-

350

300

-N

ot h

arve

sted

Bova

II. 1

897

3252

9655

E04

6345

1NN

jié19

94/

1996

1,8

1000

850

472

Not

har

vest

ed

Bova

II. 2

926

3252

9494

E04

6362

6NN

jié19

960,

1710

010

058

8-

Not

har

vest

ed

Bova

II. 3

932

3252

9356

E04

6345

4NW

. Ndi

vé E

wul

é19

96-

100

30-

Not

har

vest

ed

Bokw

ango

183

732

5250

37E

0456

205N

Mar

tin L

uma

--

100

50-

Not

har

vest

ed

Bokw

ango

2-

-D

ead

Elum

bé

Njo

h-

-15

00-

-A

batt

us p

our

la p

lupa

rtM

ambe

a-

--

2000

--

--

-

Tot

al13

355

2355

805

0A

vera

ge75

5m26

198

085

% N

R (1

645)

8% R

8%

USo

urce

: Foa

ham

et a

l., 2

009

Ingram Guideline Cam Prunus Mgt Plan 2009

Documents

Transcript of Ingram Guideline Cam Prunus Mgt Plan 2009