[Downloaded free from http://www.conservationandsociety.org.in on Friday, March 24, 2023, IP: 41.212.59.22]
Conservation and Society 21(1): 61-72, 2023
Research Article
Tackling Conflicts, Supporting Livelihoods: Convivial Conservation in the 
Campo Ma’an National Park
Yvonne Kiki Nchanjia,#, Sabaheta Ramcilovic-Suominenb, Eileen Bogweh Nchanjic, 
William Armand Malad, Juha Kotilainena
aDepartment of Geographical and Historical Studies, University of Eastern Finland, Finland
bNatural Resources Institute, Turku, Finland
cInternational Center for Tropical Agriculture Nairobi, Kenya
dDepartment of Plant Biology, University of Yaoundé I, Cameroon
#Corresponding author. E-mail: yvonne.nchanji@uef.fi
Abstract
While most of the literature on park management and nature conservation has focused on the negative implications 
for local people’s livelihoods, fewer studies have empirically analysed local people’s strategies in responding to these 
policies and renegotiating their position to continue their traditional livelihoods using their traditional knowledge 
and legal systems. This study contributes to the current literature on nature conservation by focusing on the impacts 
of nationally and internationally driven nature conservation policies on indigenous people and local communities 
(IPLCs) and collective strategies and responses to such policies and initiatives to continue their livelihood and 
cultural practices. We employ a qualitative research approach, using the convivial conservation theoretical lens 
to analyse the data collected. We conclude that conservation policies have worsened existing livelihoods and 
constrained the improvement of indigenous people’s livelihoods and local communities. Yet, IPLCs have devised 
coping mechanisms to deal with the negative effects of these conservation interventions, which include resistance 
to some conservation policies, agricultural intensification, and involvement in commercial activities. We argue 
that the convivial conservation approach may offer viable solutions to existing conflicts by promoting human and 
non-human coexistence, based on indigenous and local people’s knowledge and practices.
Keywords: Conservation Policies, National Park Management, Indigenous and Local People’s Experiences 
and Livelihoods, Coping Strategies, Convivial Conservation
INTRODUCTION 582 million hectares (Katerere et al. 2009). These forests 
harbour diverse plant and animal species supporting healthy 
The African continent is home to 25 per cent of the world’s and resilient ecosystems such as watersheds and biological 
remaining rainforests (World Bank African Region 2017). diversity, which are crucial in providing food and medicines 
Forests in the sub-Saharan region cover a surface area of for their inhabitants (Duguma et al. 2019). More than 70 per 
cent of the population of the sub-Saharan region depends on 
Access this article online forests for their subsistence, livelihoods, and income (World 
Quick Response Code: Bank African Region 2017). In Cameroon, forests make up 
Website: around 22 million hectares, representing 46 per cent of the total 
www.conservationandsociety.org.in land area. Forty-eight per cent of these forest areas has been 
classified as protected areas (FAO 2007). A growing number 
DOI:   of development projects such as large-scale agricultural 
10.4103/cs.cs_30_22 expansion, mining, infrastructure (roads, hydro energy, etc.), 
logging, urbanisation, and the exploitation of oil and gas 
Copyright: © Nchanji et al. 2023. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits 
unrestricted use and distribution of the article, provided the original work is cited. Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow, Mumbai | Managed and supported 
by the Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE), Bangalore. For reprints contact: WKHLRPMedknow_reprints@wolterskluwer.com
[Downloaded free from http://www.conservationandsociety.org.in on Friday, March 24, 2023, IP: 41.212.59.22]
62 / Nchanji et al.
resources have placed more pressure on forests (Tchatchou et Toncheva and Fletcher 2021; Toncheva et al. 2021). 
al. 2015), greatly affecting the livelihoods of those depending Our research’s focus on convivial conservation responds 
on forest resources for their everyday needs (Siewe et al. 2017). to the adverse effects protected areas for biodiversity 
Diverse approaches to forest and nature conservation conservation and various sustainable forest management 
have been adopted to curb the harmful effects of activities schemes (Chazdon 2019; Demissie et al. 2019) have on 
that contribute to deforestation and forest degradation, from IPLCs and their livelihoods in Cameroon (Tchindjang et 
traditional conservation policies that enforce strict regulations al. 2005) and elsewhere (WWF 2018; Büscher and Fletcher 
and laws to people-oriented policies (Jeanrenaud 1999; Mabele 2019). We conduct our study in the Campo Ma’an National 
et al. 2022). Nature conservation arose during the European Park (CMNP) in Cameroon, created in 2000 under Decree 
colonial project, which conserved nature for purposes such 2000/004/PM as part of an environmental compensation 
as hunting in colonised Africa and other parts of the world scheme for the negative impacts on the environment and 
(Prendergast and Adams 2003). While nature conservation biodiversity of the Chad–Cameroon Oil Pipeline Project. 
continued as a colonial legacy in the newly established African According to the World Bank, which financed and supported 
states, it re-emerged as an important international policy in the project, the Oil Pipeline Project will help alleviate poverty 
the twentieth century, especially after the adoption of the and improve the local population’s livelihood (Ndumbe 
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD 1992) in 1993. One 2002). The World Bank’s indigenous peoples (IP) policy 
hundred and sixty-eight UN member states signed the CBD requires that IPs do not suffer adverse effects during the 
to reduce biodiversity loss (CBD 1992). Many countries have development process of the projects it finances, and that they 
since almost doubled their protected areas to meet the treaty’s receive culturally compatible social and economic benefits. 
goals and targets (Conniff 2018). Cameroon assigned 30 per IPs are also expected to participate in the Development Plan 
cent of its national territory to protected areas by 2020, of (World Bank Operational Directive 4.20 2003). According 
which 23 per cent has been achieved (MINEPDED-6NR 2019). to the World Bank’s policies and principles, the indigenous 
Various conservation movements propose bold and ambitious Bagyeli peoples living in and around the CMNP should 
principles for the future direction of conservation (Büscher and participate in its development plans and gain socioeconomic 
Fletcher 2020). Two opposing propositions especially are benefits from its operation. Instead, they have been excluded 
covered in the nature conservation literature—one promoting from baseline consultations (Nelson and Tchoumba 2004) 
‘new’ conservation methods (i.e. less emphasis on wilderness and subsequent interventions. 
and pristine nature conservation and more embeddedness According to Owono (2001), the indigenous Bagyeli people’s 
of the human component and development aspect of nature living conditions worsened after the park’s creation. Neba et 
conservation), and the other calling for a return to protected al. (2009: 142) reiterate this in concluding that “it turns out the 
area expansion and enforcement (the ‘neo-protectionist’ park and its people were the compensation, not necessarily the 
approach) (Soulé 2013; Holmes et al. 2017; Dudley and beneficiaries of the compensation,” implying that the Chad–
Stolton 2020). Several studies have critiqued these proposals Cameroon Oil Pipeline Project benefited the multinational oil 
for inadequately addressing the fundamental issues of past and companies and government, with few benefits for IPLCs. The 
present conservation approaches by insufficiently protecting park’s creation led inter alia to numerous conflicts between the 
the rights of indigenous people and local communities (IPLCs) park authorities and IPLCs (Tiani et al. 2010).
and reinforcing the colonial conservation logic and domination Cameroon’s government introduced ecotourism as an 
of western scientific knowledge and state-led top-down alternative livelihood activity to rectify the conflicting 
approaches (Krauss 2022; Massarella et al. 2022). goals between conservation and livelihoods in protected 
More recently, convivial conservation has been proposed areas (Pyhälä et al. 2016; Sama and Molua 2019) while 
as a radical alternative to these conservation approaches ensuring natural resource protection. However, most 
(Büscher and Fletcher 2019, 2020). Convivial conservation communities living in, and around protected areas are 
calls for a shift from the mainstream conservation approach, not involved in the design and planning of ecotourism 
which focuses on protected areas, to prioritising integrated activities (Harilal and Tichaawa 2018). Moreover, income 
spaces for human and non-human coexistence. In the convivial generated from ecotourism activities has been inadequate 
conservation approach, nature is not ‘saved’ from humans; as an alternative source of livelihood (Harilal and Tichaawa 
they are part of the environment, depend on it, and contribute 2018). A growing body of literature (see Section 4.2) 
to it by engaging in agreeable mutual relations with the rest proposes convivial conservation practices as an alternative 
of nature. It proposes an alternative financial arrangement that that is expected to reduce livelihood challenges, increase 
addresses the root causes and injustices associated with market- the participation and engagement of IPLCs, and reduce 
driven financial support in traditional conservation policies. human-wildlife conflicts.
This in turn allows equal redistribution of existing wealth Inspired by the convivial conservation approach, this paper 
and resources (Büscher and Fletcher 2020). It also proposes a goes beyond outlining the negative impacts of the current 
shift from an externally driven and technocratic management nature conservation policies’ to assessing coping strategies and 
structure to more democratic and locally designed and owned responses of IPLCs to such policies and initiatives. We aim to 
governing arrangements (Büscher and Fletcher 2019, 2020; answer three main research questions: 1) What are the lived 
[Downloaded free from http://www.conservationandsociety.org.in on Friday, March 24, 2023, IP: 41.212.59.22]
Convivial conservation, tackling conflicts and supporting livelihoods / 63
experiences of the IPLCs, as a result of forest management common democratic engagement that prioritises governance 
approaches a decade after the park’s creation? 2) What are by indigenous and community groups. These five principles 
the impacts of nature conservation and park management can be interpreted in three practical measures as follows: 
policies on livelihoods? 3) What strategies have indigenous 1) integrated landscapes in which humans and non-human 
and local people developed to cope with these policies within species can coexist; 2) more inclusive democratic forms of 
their socioeconomic and political space? conservation decision-making that challenge elite technocratic 
management and the egalitarian distribution of economic 
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK resources; 3) financial arrangements, based on care rather 
than competition, which seek not to commodify conserved 
We adopt the convivial conservation approach as a theoretical resources but to redistribute existing wealth and resources 
framework to examine how indigenous and local people in more equally (Büscher and Fletcher 2020; Massarella et al. 
forest communities around the CMNP experience and negotiate 2022). Büscher and Fletcher argue that adherence to the above 
everyday practices through various social interactions and principles can create spaces for the coexistence of human and 
relations, and how they develop coping mechanisms to sustain non-human species while addressing the socioeconomic and 
their livelihoods amidst the uncertainties arising from existing political factors shaping their interactions. 
conservation policies and forest management practices. A growing body of research indicates that coexistence is 
Convivial conservation has its origins in Ivan Illich’s Tools possible and can reduce livelihood challenges and human-
for Conviviality (Illich 1973). Büscher and Fletcher (2019, nature conflicts (Frank 2016; Toncheva and Fletcher 2021; 
2020) build on Ivan Illich’s radical ideas about conviviality, Toncheva et al. 2021). Examples of coexistence range from 
hoping to advance the Anthropocene conservation debate mutual tolerance (Woodroffe et al. 2005) and peaceful 
by enabling a transition to postcapitalist conservation cohabitation (Hinchliffe 2007) to active co-adaptation 
(Büscher and Fletcher 2020). This is an alternative to the (Boonman-Berson et al. 2016; Carter and Linnell 2016) and 
neo-protectionist conservation approach, which states that the conflict negotiation (Yurco et al. 2017). Frank (2016) describes 
only way to save nature is to separate humans from non-human the interface of conservation practice and local populations as 
nature. The convivial conservation approach critiques nature moving beyond mitigation to coexistence, where “coexistence 
protection that takes place through state-based protected areas takes place when the interests of humans and wildlife are 
and regulations (Soulé 2013) with little consideration for the both satisfied, or when a compromise is negotiated to allow 
resulting detriment to the human population relying on the the existence of both humans and wildlife together” (Frank 
forest (Büscher and Fletcher 2019). This strict biodiversity 2016: 739). Toncheva and Fletcher (2021) further look at the 
protection approach, often known as ‘fortress conservation’ inherent power dynamics and economic interests that inform 
(Robbins 2007), has frequently led to the displacement of vast the processes of moving beyond conflict to coexistence.
numbers of IPLCs from forest areas that are now protected A study by Toncheva and Fletcher (2021) addresses 
(Brockington and Schmidt-Soltau 2004). the question of transforming human-wildlife conflicts to 
The idea of ‘pristine’ nature and the requirement to protect coexistence through two cases in Bulgaria. The first case 
it from humans has failed: species diversity continues to examines the coexistence of humans and bears, whereas the 
decline and livelihoods of IPLCs are worsening, with no second examines conflicts resulting from their cohabitation; 
alternatives to traditional livelihoods available. However, the these two cases are also referred to as the landscape of tolerance 
drawbacks of nature conservation mean arrangements like and the landscape of fear, respectively. In the landscape of 
coexistence and cohabitation are increasingly seen as viable tolerance, local ecological knowledge of bear behaviour 
alternatives to fortress conservation toward addressing the and traditional folklore promote a positive image of bears as 
shortcomings of the technocratic and historical attempts to symbols of fertility and power. The abundance of food supplies 
conserve biodiversity (Boonman-Berson et al. 2016; Büscher in the surrounding forests also reduces bears’ interference 
and Fletcher 2020). in human livelihood activities. Furthermore, local people 
Convivial conservation has five key principles (Büscher and (hunters) are considered managers of bears. Circumstances in 
Fletcher 2019, 2020). First, it calls for a shift from protected the other landscapes that inhibited human-bear cohabitation 
areas as the main form of conservation governance, the goal were a lack of tolerance by conservation experts and some 
of which is to protect nature from humans, to prioritising local people of bears; a lack of participation by local people 
integrated spaces that promote nature for, to, and by humans. in policymaking regarding bears; financial losses due to crop 
Second, it proposes a discursive shift from the need to ‘save’ and livestock damage by bears coupled with an insufficient 
non-human nature from humans to recognising and celebrating state response. 
human and non-human nature as an overarching whole. Third, Furthermore, convivial conservation criticises the use of 
it encourages long-term engagement with nature rather than market-based instruments, which are designed by and mainly 
short-term touristic wildlife voyeurism in protected areas. benefit global and nation-state conservation actors (Matulis 
Fourth, it proposes a shift from the ‘spectacle of nature’ and Moyer 2017; Büscher and Fletcher 2020). To address the 
to a focus on interactions with everyday nature. Fifth, it need to finance conservation, Büscher and Fletcher (2019, 
proposes a shift from privatised expert technocracy to a 2020) make several proposals for dealing with the issue of 
[Downloaded free from http://www.conservationandsociety.org.in on Friday, March 24, 2023, IP: 41.212.59.22]
64 / Nchanji et al.
uneven wealth and resource distribution. One such proposal of further marginalising IPLCs with convivial conservation’s 
was advocating for engaged visitations instead of ‘touristic focus on engaging communities as recipients and actors 
voyeurism’. In addition, they propose an alternative finance rather than giving them the platform for alternative bottom-up 
mechanism called the conservation basic income (CBI). This schemes for conservation to emerge. 
funding scheme serves and promotes alternative livelihoods Convivial conservation may be unclear on the ‘how’, ‘who’, 
and local income to community members living in and around and ‘what’ of promoted areas concerning financing details, 
biodiversity-rich areas. suggesting the need for the concept’s further development. 
Although received enthusiastically by scholars, convivial Nonetheless, we engage with the ideas of the convivial 
conservation has also been critiqued by some who highlight conservation approach to examine whether and how it can 
the need to address some practical issues and gaps (Ampumuza lead to conflict resolution and alternative ways of supporting 
2022; Bocci 2022; van Bommel and Boonman-Berson 2022; livelihoods and resilience in the case of the CMNP.
Kiwango and Mabele 2022; Mabele et al. 2022). They point 
out that if conservation policy and science are to be genuinely METHODS AND MATERIALS
transformative, convivial conservation should be explicit 
and proactive in addressing injustices grounded in scientific The study was conducted in forest communities around the 
knowledge from the Global North (Ampumuza 2022). CMNP, situated at latitude 2° 21′ 0″ N and longitude 9° 59′ 0″ E 
Second, convivial conservation’s emphasis on inclusiveness in the southwestern part of the Republic of Cameroon. The 
and participatory engagement has been criticised for the CMNP shares boundaries with the Republic of Equatorial 
overrepresented involvement of people from international Guinea to the south and the Atlantic Ocean to the west. Its 
organisations in conservation initiatives. There is a call for a surface area is 264,064 ha, and it is an integral part of the 
sharper focus on promoting locally derived initiatives based Technical Operational Unit (TOU) established in 1999. 
on local practices, knowledge, and legal systems (Bocci 2022). The TOU comprises the CMNP, forest management units 
Mabele et al. (2022) further highlight the need to (FMUs) for timber production, agro-industrial plantations, 
devolve decision-making power to local people. They also and a multiple-use agroforestry area devoted mainly to human 
fundamentally question the promotion of conservation areas activities.
to derive the radical and equitable alternatives to which While more than 150 communities surround the Campo 
convivial conservation aspires. Finally, in advocating ‘engaged Ma’an area, three communities (Nazareth, Mintom Centre, 
visitation’ instead of ‘touristic voyeurism’, Kiwango and and Campo Beach) were chosen for this study as seen in 
Mabele (2022) question the former’s applicability in Global Figure 1. Community selection for data collection was based on 
South countries that rely on international tourism revenues. In ethnicity and the main livelihood activity. The first community, 
addition, regarding the CBI scheme, they warn of unintended Nazareth, comprises the indigenous Bagyeli people, who were 
injustices that may arise. Ampumuza (2022) reiterates the risks initially hunters with a semi-nomadic lifestyle. The two other 
Figure 1 
Map of CMNP showing the study villages (Noora Rämö, 2018)
[Downloaded free from http://www.conservationandsociety.org.in on Friday, March 24, 2023, IP: 41.212.59.22]
Convivial conservation, tackling conflicts and supporting livelihoods / 65
communities are non-indigenous people of Bantu origin. They working with the WWF—a non-governmental organisation—
differed in that one had a farming culture (Mintom Centre), to understand their views on and involvement in park 
and the other a fishing culture (Campo Beach). management and its impacts on the community’s livelihood.
Data were collected from primary and secondary data Four FGDs were held in each community. Group discussions 
sources. The primary data sources included in-person key generally involved 8 people, disaggregated by sex and age (≤35 
informant (KI) interviews with IPLCs who lived in the area years and >35 years). Two FGDs were made up of only females 
before and after the park’s creation and forest authorities who and the other two of only males. There were no mixed groups. 
had implemented various forest management policies over the Separating FDGs by sex and age helped create an enabling 
years. We remark here that focus group discussions (FGDs) environment for self-expression and prevented the different 
bring together a homogeneous group of individuals from the groups from influencing each other’s answers, especially 
community to discuss their personal experiences, beliefs, the voices of women and girls. Most importantly, it allowed 
perceptions, and attitudes through moderated interaction. In an intersectional insight into the roles of men and women in 
this case, we were interested in how the IPLCs interacted with using forest resources, and whether they were involved in the 
other stakeholders and negotiated access and use of forest management and decision-making processes that affected their 
resources before and after the park’s creation. Such discussions livelihoods. It also gave us an insight into the coping strategies 
were also used to validate responses from other methods developed by the local population to sustain their livelihood.
(Nyumba et al. 2018). Meanwhile, semi-structured household At the household level, open-ended questions were asked of 
interviews enable researchers to consider traditional and local household heads. Ten households were purposively sampled 
knowledge, as well as people’s experiences and contexts, in in each community. The prevalent patriarchal culture meant 
facing challenges within this space (Bryman and Burgess men were spokesmen for female-headed households and 
1995). These methods resemble those of Häggström (2019) thus represented them. The questions for the household head 
and Frechette et al. (2020), who examined lived experiences revolved around household access to and the use of resources 
as a methodology and a way to express self in and through in the community, forest resource management, how it affected 
the forest, respectively. Based on qualitative research, the households’ livelihoods, and the coping mechanism households 
snowball sampling technique was used, in which existing developed to sustain their livelihood. A total of 30 households 
subjects provided referrals to recruit future subjects for the was interviewed.
research study (Naderifar et al. 2017). Data were collected using an audio recorder with the 
Secondary data were obtained from archival sources. We respondents’ consent. Fieldnotes and recorded interviews were 
obtained archival data from the Environment and Forestry later translated from French to English, and transcriptions were 
Ministries in Yaoundé and the national park archives and made using the f4 software package. The data transcribed were 
electronic databases. Archival data were used to triangulate coded according to identified themes. The coded themes were 
information from the primary database (Ventresca and Mohr used to better understand the livelihood activities of local and 
2017). Secondary data complemented primary data, which indigenous people—their access to and use of forest resources 
provided a better understanding of forest resource access and and their perception and experience of park management. 
use by the IPLCs, forest resource management and its impact 
on livelihood, and peoples’ experiences of park management RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
and their ability to cope with changes affecting their livelihood 
activities. Participants in all communities and institutions were In the following sections, Section 4.1 provides a historical 
informed about the study’s aim, and consent was sought before overview of how policies and laws from the colonial era have 
any interviews or discussions occurred. shaped the current landscape and social realities in the CMNP. 
Primary data were collected from 22 KI interviews, 12 In 4.2, we focus on the effects of the conservation policies on 
FGDs, and 30 open-ended household interviews. KIs were the livelihoods of IPLCs, highlighting the coping mechanisms 
selected using the snowball technique. Of the 22 KI interviews the communities use. We also explore the applicability of 
conducted, 15 KIs were from the communities, 5 KIs were convivial conservation principles in the case of the CMNP to 
government officials, and 2 KIs were World Wildlife Fund create better conservation and livelihood outcomes. 
(WWF) staff. The five KIs from each community were 
selected based on their knowledge of the park’s creation CMNP as a Tool for Reproduction of Neo-colonial 
and forest management processes. The KIs were mainly Conservation Policies 
chiefs and the elderly in the communities. Our interest was 
in understanding the community’s experience of resource The indigenous people of the Bagyeli ethnicity and the 
allocation, use, management, and livelihood options before non-indigenous people (Bantu ethnicity) are referred to as 
and after the park’s creation. The five government officials ‘indigenous and local peoples’ (IPLCs) in this study. The 
were selected and interviewed to understand how the park indigenous people (including the Bagyeli indigenous people) 
was managed, and whether communities benefited from the were the first occupants of the Central African rainforest 
development and management projects carried out in the (Thorbecke 1913; Bianchi 2004). Other ethnic groups such 
park. We also conducted two KI interviews with individuals as the Bantu later migrated across Africa and established their 
[Downloaded free from http://www.conservationandsociety.org.in on Friday, March 24, 2023, IP: 41.212.59.22]
66 / Nchanji et al.
territories in forestry zones (Oyono 2005). After colonisation, livelihoods. This is a top-down management approach, in 
first by the Germans and later by the French and British colonial which the people’s voice is absent, and there is no continuous 
powers, the colonisers became the legal owners of forests involvement of local people within initiatives building on local 
and land. Consequently, the IPLCs were denied their rights, knowledge, as Bocci (2022) notes. The practices above further 
including those of access, use, management, and decision- reinforce a hegemonic conservation worldview that originates 
making (Diaw and Njomkap 1998). in colonial times and is supported by neo-protectionists 
This change resulted in disputes and conflicts, which continue (Büscher and Fletcher 2020; Massarella et al. 2022).
today—more than 60 years after independence (Oyono 2005). In addition to the above State Forestry Legislation, at 
After independence, the state of Cameroon adopted the land the CMNP level, the legislative framework elaborates a 
governance style of the colonial occupier, by taking control and management plan that is renewable every five years (PNCM 
ownership of all lands in the Ordinance, including: (i) n°74/1 2014). The management plan includes resource management 
of 6 July 1974 (RoC 1974: 4), (ii) Forestry Ordinance and objectives for recreation, tourism, and conservation, favouring 
Legislation of 1973 and 1981 (Ordinance n°73/18 of 22 May the new conservation movement that promotes a market-based 
1973, and Law n°81/13 of 27 November 1981). This legislation natural capital biodiversity approach (Büscher et al. 2012). 
marginalised local and indigenous communities and enacted This is consistent with the tourism funding conservation 
forest appropriation by the state (Olinga 2001). We infer that model in eastern and southern Africa (Lindsey et al. 2007). 
a fortress conservation approach was adopted, banning all As proposed by the new conservationists, this conservation 
human activity within protected areas. This resulted in the approach is a way of subjecting biodiversity to mainstream 
IPLCs losing control, management, and user rights of forest economic valuation as a solution to the environmental crisis 
resources, enforcing the existing exploitative relationship (Kareiva et al. 2011, 2012). To address the tourism funding 
imposed by the European colonial powers. conservation model, the convivial conservation approach 
The various conservation policies enforced so far are proposes a long-term engaged visitation instead of touristic 
as follows: the 1994 Forestry Law (RoC 1994) enacted to voyeurism. However, as Kiwango and Mabele (2022) argue, 
ensure the sustainable management and use of resources such a proposal of engaged visitation can only be applied in the 
in the various ecosystems. This law established two forest Global North, as countries in the Global South, like Tanzania 
categories: permanent and non-permanent forest estates. 
Although the 1994 forestry law recognises customary rights and Kenya, heavily rely on international tourism revenues. 
over land, trees, and forests, these rights are limited to usufruct The 1994 forestry law failed to recognise indigenous 
rights exclusively for domestic use (Art. 8). Article 26 of the rights; as such, another official document—a Memorandum 
same law further states that these rights can be restricted or of Understanding (MoU) between the Ministry of Forestry 
extinguished with or without compensation, depending on and Wildlife (MINFOF) and the indigenous Bagyeli people 
the forest category (RoC 1994). However, the law does not in Campo Ma’an—was drawn. The memorandum aimed to 
outline any comprehensive legal procedure for their application exercise indigenous people’s user rights in the CMNP and its 
(Forest Legality 2013). It is implemented as deemed fit by the peripheral zones through participative management as part of 
executing body—usually government authorities—for their the implementation of its management plan (MINFOF 2015). 
interest. This exemplifies the degree of vertical power relations The MoU is expected to provide indigenous people with 
(Ramcilovic-Suominen and Kotilainen 2020; Nchanji et al. access to natural resources in the park under the control of the 
2021), characterised by top-down state-centred management conservation authorities. 
policies and practices, one stakeholder—the government The fact that indigenous people’s access or rights over 
authorities—has over another—the indigenous and local resources continue to be controlled by the conservation 
people—in the forest management process. Yet, it demonstrates authorities reveals unequal power relations in which both 
the central characteristic of capitalism, in which powerful national and international conservation authorities and 
stakeholders control conservation policies for personal interest. policy actors shape the regulation to manage resources for 
There is no straightforward procedure in the 1994 Forestry conservation purposes. By doing so, they define access 
Law on institutionalising customary law. As such, its and control over resources, often in their interests (Oyono 
interpretation by the various forest management stakeholders 2006). Yet local people’s interests, especially of marginalised 
differs in different situations, resulting in disputes (Forest indigenous and ethnic minority groups, remain excluded 
Legality 2013). For example, there is no clear indication of the from decision-making regarding forest resource management, 
exact quantity of forest resources to be harvested for domestic leading to their limited access to resources. This exclusion 
consumption, so forest officials individually reshape these is also exacerbated by unfair rules and social-exploitative 
forest laws to meet their interests. patron-client relationships (Daur et al. 2016). For example, 
The results from all 96 respondents in all the FGDs and 30 governmental actors and private entities, often external to the 
of the 30 household interviews in all three villages revealed sites, influence new management structures and arrangements 
that communities’ access to harvest resources had been that affect local politics, decision-making methods, and the very 
restricted, meaning the quantity of resources harvested failed lives of local actors and vulnerable social groups (McDermott 
to meet domestic demand, negatively affecting people’s et al. 2019; Ramcilovic-Suominen and Kotilainen 2020).
[Downloaded free from http://www.conservationandsociety.org.in on Friday, March 24, 2023, IP: 41.212.59.22]
Convivial conservation, tackling conflicts and supporting livelihoods / 67
How Convivial Conservation Can Inform the Current However, section 82 of the 94/01 Forestry law states, “In 
Conservation Practice and Possibly Transform cases where animals constitute a danger or cause damage to 
Conservation Conflicts persons and property, the service in charge of wildlife may 
undertake to hunt them down under conditions laid down by 
Postcolonial conservation policy interventions put in place order of the ministry in charge of wildlife.”
by the government have constrained IPLCs from benefiting Further, section 83 of the same law states, “No person may 
from forest resources. Studies have shown that before CMNP’s be charged with breach of hunting regulations as concerns 
creation, people’s main livelihood activities were hunting, protected animals if his act was dictated by the urgent need to 
farming, fishing, and collecting non-timber forest products defend himself, his livestock, or crop.” 
(Ashley et al. 2006). The Bantu people (Batanga, Mabea, and The 94/01 law is reiterated in section 13 of Decree 95/466 
Yassa) closer to the coastal region were primarily fishermen, (RoC 1995). By inference from the above statement, the 
while those farther from the coast (Bulu, Mvae, Ntumu) were study deduced that the park authorities seemed to prioritise 
primarily agriculturists, as is the case with our study’s two the protection of wildlife to the detriment of the livelihood 
Bantu communities. The Mintom Centre community were of the IPLCs, thereby re-enforcing unequal power relations 
traditionally farmers, while the Campo Beach community between the actors as laws were interpreted according to their 
were fishermen. Meanwhile, Bagyeli’s indigenous people (the own interests. Respondents in the Mintom Centre community 
Nazareth community) were primarily hunter-gatherers living referred to wildlife as ‘children of the government’, unlike 
a semi-nomadic lifestyle. them. The above quotation is reflected in the research by 
Results from 30 household interviews and 96 respondents DeVore et al. (2019) on squatters on Bahia’s southern coast, 
in FGDs showed that the livelihoods of indigenous and local where one said they “protect jaguars but don’t protect small 
communities were continually diminishing as conservation farmers.” 
regulations were imposed daily on them. The indigenous The financial loss from wildlife crop damage without 
Bagyeli people have not only lost the legal right to their forests repercussions fuels IPLCs’ negative image of wildlife and 
but their culture and identity, as they are expected to adopt a the government officials who protect it. Toncheva and Fetcher 
sedentary agrarian lifestyle. This neo-protectionist approach (2021) describe the same situation, in which the respondents 
to conservation can increase the communities’ socioeconomic accuse the government of an insufficient response to the 
problems by not addressing poverty and inequality in forest damage bears cause to livestock, crops, and beehives. In 
communities. Using the results from the household surveys, KI the case of bears in Bulgaria, the compensation provided 
interviews, and FGDs, we present and discuss lived experiences by the government did not meet the value of the damage. 
concerning the IPLCs’ adopted coping mechanisms. We also A compensation policy regarding wildlife damage on 
discuss a potential shift to rethinking landscapes where the ideas property and farmland in Cameroon should be developed in 
the convivial conservation approach suggests could provide an collaboration with IPLCs to avoid shortcomings, following 
insight into the study area’s local conservation realities. the lessons learnt from the Bulgarian case (Toncheva and 
Fletcher 2021), cognisant of the specific sociocultural and 
Managing human-wildlife conflicts economic context. 
The integrated landscape operationalised in the Campo Ma’an The proposed CBI as an alternative source of income for 
area made provision for a multi-use agroforestry area for IPLCs is expected to equitably meet the basic needs of every 
human activities like agriculture. The majority of respondents individual in the community without conditionality, increasing 
during FGDs and interviewees complained that the portions their willingness to tolerate crop damage and provide them 
of land cultivated were usually raided by wildlife from the with resources like electric fences to protect their crops and 
park and their crops were destroyed with no compensation reduce conflicts with wildlife. This will also create a space 
for damage. This statement from a household head in Mintom for respondents and forest conservators to discuss how to 
Centre supports this claim: tackle further issues resulting from human-wildlife conflict 
 “When we plant our crops, wildlife from the park enters and conservation. 
our farms when the crops have started growing and While many scholars support the CBI alternative, they 
destroy everything. Not even the farm gardens close to also caution that it could result in an excessive monetary 
the house are free from animal destruction. The animals valuation of wildlife, thereby contributing to further injustice 
aren’t afraid. Yet we’re told not to kill them. We’ve (Ampumuza 2022; Kiwango and Mabele 2022). Hence, while 
complained to the park authorities, but they do nothing alternative finance mechanisms can be transformative, both the 
to stop this. Are animals more important than human political and economic contexts and local power relations need 
survival? Because these crops they occasionally destroy first to be addressed and even transformed for this to work.
are for our survival.”
When asked what the park authorities were doing to resolve Power struggles and alternative income sources 
this, a government official KI said, “The 1994 forestry law Non-timber forest product (NTFP) collection in the park 
is unclear on specific actions if animals destroy crops on is limited to domestic use, and NTFP commercialisation is 
farmland.” prohibited by law. NTFP sales are possible only after obtaining 
[Downloaded free from http://www.conservationandsociety.org.in on Friday, March 24, 2023, IP: 41.212.59.22]
68 / Nchanji et al.
a sales permit from Yaoundé, which is a complicated and The results from the 30 household interviews and 96 
lengthy procedure for the locals (Ashley et al. 2006). The respondents in the FGDs show that fewer people are currently 
research participants did not understand why they needed a involved in hunting for fear of being caught and penalised. 
permit to sell NTFPs like Irvingia gabonensis (bush mango), However, to cope with hardship, some households admitted 
which had always been at their disposal, especially when the to resisting government rules by camping and hunting at night 
NTFPs were collected from farmland and not the national in the forest. This claim is supported by a household head, 
park. The research participants were dissatisfied with the who said:
conservation policy, stressing that their loss of forest resource  “We camp and hunt at night in the forest as a strategy to 
user rights contributed to hardship in their families. hide the number of game animals from the conservation 
Moreover, the lack of precision in regulations governing authorities, who seize the game if there are more than three 
domesticated or wild NTFPs reveals that conservation animals – the number permitted for home consumption. 
policies inadequately address the socioeconomic issues arising This is because we aren’t permitted to hunt as a livelihood 
from their implementation. Instead, it supports capitalist activity.” 
conservation by empowering the park authorities to provide From the park authority’s perspective hunting is in this 
and control exploitation permits. This can be redressed if sense considered illegal and ‘negative’, because it goes against 
people participate in making decisions regarding NTFP use the regulations for the protected area. However, from some 
and permits. Bocci (2022) advocates not only meaningful respondents’ perspective, hunting is in this instance an act 
participation but the IPLCs’ direct and continuous involvement of survival because the activity generates more income than 
for sustainable, just, and transformative participation. To cope other livelihood activities. This finding corroborates Gandiwa 
with limited access to NTFP, which, if sold, would contribute (2011) and Nlom (2021), whose findings showed that local 
positively to their livelihoods, the IPLCs seek alternative people received substantial income from illegal hunting and 
income sources. Using their traditional knowledge, indigenous its trade. 
people trade tree bark, leaves, and herbs of medicinal value In line with lessons learnt from the community hunting 
within communities and with people from neighbouring towns. zone in the Lobeke National Park, which belongs to the Tri-
Hunting as a livelihood activity for the indigenous Bagyeli National Sangha transboundary conservation complex in 
and Bantu people after the park’s creation is prohibited by law the north-western Congo Basin (Usongo and Nzooh 2008) 
(Forestry Law 94/01, section 80). However, all the respondents in southeast Cameroon, our study proposes the creation of 
divulged that ‘bushmeat’ was sold in local markets. This claim community hunting zones as one of the co-management 
was corroborated by a KI from the Mintom Centre community. options that would favour the real significance of IPLCs in 
He said: sustainable hunting in the CMNP. This case is a learning 
 “When we set traps around our farms and catch the laboratory, in which communities have been able to negotiate 
animals that destroy our crops, the forest guards seize an allocation of community hunting areas within the park’s 
the game, saying it is illegal to kill ‘bushmeat’. So, if I space with co-management arrangements. Nevertheless, the 
kill an animal behind my house, is it in the park? The challenge of examining the cost-benefit ratio of the Zone 
most annoying thing is after this bushmeat has been d’Intérêt Cynégétique à Gestion Communautaire (ZICGC) 
seized the next minute you’ll see traders selling cooked for communities remains. 
bushmeat at the market square. I’d like to know if those The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development 
selling cooked bushmeat are allowed to hunt and sell it, (MINADER) introduced the Agricultural Investment and 
or if the bushmeat being seized from us is being sold to Market Development Project (PIDMA) as an alternative to 
them to cook and sell.” hunting in 2017. It sought to train communities to ensure 
The enforcement of the law regarding the sale of forest engagement in the forest and agricultural value chain in 
products is therefore inconsistent and favours those who pursuit of a sustainable livelihood. Improved maize seedlings 
sell bushmeat at local markets. As Ashley and Mbile (2005) were made available to communities, and women’s groups 
put it, “rural economies are caught between framework were trained in improved NTFP processing. However, these 
legislation that lacks implementing guidelines or directives measures lasted less than a year, as the project, funding, and 
and enforcement officials whose informal interpretation and support ended abruptly in 2018.
selective application of the law carry the deciding weight.” In collaboration with WWF, the conservation authorities are 
This directly attracts the park authorities’ capitalist interest. developing the Kudu-Zambo gorilla habituation project, which 
They disregard environmental justice, which favours IPLCs. As exudes ecotourism potential and is seen as an alternative source 
Duffy et al. (2016) suggest, hunting needs to be viewed more of income for IPLCs. The project employs fewer than ten men 
broadly, with conservationists examining what constitutes as casual community workers to work as forest guides and 
illegal hunting, what prompts people to hunt illegally, and how trackers because of their knowledge and mastery of the forest 
to address hunting instead of viewing it as a matter of legality in the national park area. During FGDs, all 96 respondents said 
or illegality. They suggest hunting needs to be understood this was another way to enrich the government, not them. This 
from historical, social, and political contexts, as outlined by is in line with the argument that ecotourism is one of the new 
MacKenzie (1988). market-based instruments intended to merge environmental 
[Downloaded free from http://www.conservationandsociety.org.in on Friday, March 24, 2023, IP: 41.212.59.22]
Convivial conservation, tackling conflicts and supporting livelihoods / 69
conservation and economic development (Büscher and Fletcher ‘who’ should be involved, and ‘what’ proportion should be 
2020). Intergovernmental financial institutions have widely controlled by whom.
adopted this neoliberal approach to conservation with the To create a landscape of coexistence, a local initiative that 
aid of international conservation organisations like the WWF can act as an alternative economic source for IPLCs will be 
(as at our study site), which only creates more challenges for necessary. This will require brainstorming among IPLCs 
locals (Igoe and Brockington 2007; Büscher et al. 2012). This and the submission of a proposal to the park conservator. 
perceived ‘win-win’ situation never includes IPLCs, who are If the development of a local initiative is impossible, an 
often not part of the business venture or earn little or nothing unconventional compensation mechanism that is not market-
from it. A sustained engagement with IPLCs is necessary to based can be adopted that reflects on the shortcoming of 
ensure they benefit from initiatives in the long term. conventional compensation schemes—complex procedures, 
inadequate valuation of crop damage, and limited information, 
Rethinking conservation landscapes as explained by Toncheva and Fletcher (2021). This can be a 
In Cameroon, the landscape concept was put into use as a short-term strategy for coexistence while the state and all other 
TOU in 1999 for the enhancement of integrated landscape stakeholders brainstorm long-term solutions.
management within and outside protected areas (Chia and 
Sufo 2016). The Campo Ma’an TOU comprises the national CONCLUSION
park, FMUs, a state maritime estate, and a multi-use zone (ibid. 
2016). The multiple-use agroforestry area was zoned for human The state and international conservation agency-driven 
activities like agriculture. However, the IPLCs complained that management of the CMNP represents a twofold threat to the 
the land the park authorities allocated for farming activities livelihoods of IPLCs and their sustainability owing to the 
outside the national park’s boundaries was noticeably small. park’s poor contribution to forest communities’ economic 
As such, the crop yield cannot meet people’s food demand development. This maintains a cycle of tension and generates 
and income needs; indigenous and local people therefore a poverty trap for IPLCs. Convivial conservation is considered 
seek more land for survival. This demand is consistent with an approach that can inform conservation policies and possibly 
redistributive land reform policies that foster human wellbeing provide solutions and address these conservation conflicts.
(DeVore et al. 2019). It also ties in with the convivial approach We draw on the existing literature on convivial conservation 
that advocates the equitable distribution of existing resources to draw examples and lessons learnt that could be adapted in 
and wealth (Büscher and Fletcher 2020). Locals are coping the CMNP in Cameroon. Our analysis echoes other studies 
with limited land by engaging in agricultural intensification (Toncheva and Fletcher 2021; Toncheva et al. 2021) that 
activities like fertiliser use. The results from all 96 respondents show a shared landscape can be developed through integrated 
in the FGDs, 30 household interviews, and 15 KI interviews conservation spaces based on local traditional knowledge, 
revealed some villagers were intensifying their agricultural management, and conservation practices humans derive from 
activity by applying fertilisers on their farmland for a higher living in nature and coexisting with wildlife. This is enabled 
crop yield. However, this practice remains marginal because of by IPLCs’ increased involvement in park development plans 
IPLCs’ negative perceptions of agricultural products resulting and activities instead of the superficial involvement in which 
from fertiliser use. the state-level authorities control the process, with little or 
The findings concerning how agricultural practices are no participation and decision-making power entrusted to 
managed in the Campo Ma’an landscape are consistent with local communities (Büscher and Fletcher 2020). Although 
the fortress conservation movement, which prioritises the democratic participation has been re-emphasised as an enabler 
needs of non-human nature in forest resource management for community-based conservation (Zheng et al. 2021), 
instead of promoting both the needs of non-human nature the IPLCs in our study area were informed of policies but 
and the livelihoods of the human population relying on uninvolved in their design or implementation. This in turn 
forest resources for survival. It challenges the idea that created despair and anger among local communities, as well as 
conservation is about saving non-human nature alone, a lack of trust in the state authorities and conservation agencies. 
emphasising the promotion of nature for, to, and by humans The IPLCs criticised the Kudu-Zambo gorilla habituation 
(Büscher and Fletcher 2020). To move towards a landscape project, developed by the state authorities and WWF as an 
of coexistence, the equitable redistribution of resources such alternative income source, for its insufficient benefits: job 
as land that benefits nature and local people, who all depend opportunities were limited to forest guides. We considered 
on forest resources for their survival, will be necessary. lessons learnt from various cases like community hunting 
One such proposal is the redistribution of land, so the grounds in the Lobeke National Park for our case. We found 
IPLC has enough for farming without biodiversity losses. that community hunting grounds and agricultural and value 
This is the reappropriation of physical space for collective addition projects co-designed with IPLCs could be sustainable.
use—what Shaw and Waterstone (2019) call the pursuit of The strength of convivial conservation lies in its focus on 
geographic justice. This concept ties nicely with the convivial locally embedded problems and solutions based on traditional 
conservation approach of redistributive wealth and resources. knowledge, its promotion of democratic participation 
It is associated with questions of ‘how’ this should be done, and devolution of decision-making power to IPLCs, 
[Downloaded free from http://www.conservationandsociety.org.in on Friday, March 24, 2023, IP: 41.212.59.22]
70 / Nchanji et al.
and its shift from market-based instruments. Our paper Financial disclosures 
restates both the importance of engaging with traditional 
knowledge and practices in policies, regulations, and formal Sabaheta Ramcilovic-Suominen gratefully acknowledges the 
management practices and the need to acknowledge and Academy of Finland Research Fellowship Grant (no. 332353) 
balance the livelihood needs of local communities in relation which enabled her to provide contribute to this paper. 
to conservation goals that are too often designed purely at an 
international level. Ultimately, this endeavour could also lead Research Ethics Approval
to better outcomes for the goals of conservation.
Moreover, drawing on examples and lessons learnt from This research was conducted in alignment with the ethical 
the existing literature that could be adapted in the CMNP in guidelines of the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity 
Cameroon, mechanisms of convivial conservation such as (TENK). Permission for conducting the research was sought 
CBI could be helpful to serve both as an alternative income and granted by the specific regional and divisional governments 
source for IPLCs and as a compensation scheme for IPLCs in our study areas in Cameroon. Respondents in all communities 
for the destruction of farm products and other wildlife and institutions were informed about the aim of the study, and 
damage. Secondly, convivial conservation provides valuable consent was sought before any interviews or discussions took 
insights in relation to human-wildlife conflicts/coexistence place. During the research process, respondents were assured 
in that it proposes a shared landscape based on traditional of their anonymity and the confidentiality of the survey. Data 
knowledge, local management, and conservation practices collected and analysed were anonymised to ensure participant 
that humans derive from living in nature and coexisting confidentiality.
with wildlife.
REFERENCES
Author contribution statement
Ampumuza, C. 2022. Living with gorillas? Lessons from Batwa-Gorillas’ 
*Yvonne Kiki Nchanji: conceptualisation, methodology, data convivial relations at Bwindi Forest, Uganda. Conservation and Society 
20(2): 69–78.
collection, data analysis, drafting of manuscript, writing- Ashley, R. and P. Mbile. 2005. The policy terrain in protected area landscapes: 
reviewing and editing, critical revision of manuscript, final How laws and institutions affect conservation, livelihoods, and 
approval of the version to be published. agroforestry in the landscapes surrounding Campo Ma’an National Park 
*Sabaheta Ramcilovic-Suominen: academic supervisor, and the Dja Biosphere Reserve, Cameroon. Agroforestry in Landscape 
conceptualisation, methodology, reviewing and editing, critical Mosaics Working Paper Series. World Agroforestry Centre, Tropical 
Resources Institute of Yale University, and The University of Georgia.
revision of manuscript, resources, final approval of the version Ashley, R., D. Russell, and B. Swallow. 2006. The policy terrain in protected 
to be published. area landscapes: challenges for agroforestry in integrated landscape 
*Nchanji Eileen Bogweh: co-author, methodology, reviewing conservation. Biodiversity and Conservation 15(2): 663–689.
and editing, critical revision of manuscript, resources, final Bocci, P. 2022. ‘Rooting,’ for change: the role of culture beyond resilience 
approval of the version to be published. and adaptation. Conservation and Society 20(2): 103–112.
*William Armand Mala: co-author, reviewing and editing, Boonman-Berson, S., E. Turnhout, and M. Carolan. 2016. Common sensing: 
critical revision of manuscript, resources, final approval of the human-black bear cohabitation practices in Colorado. Geoforum 74: 
192–201.
version to be published.
*Juha Kotilainen: academic supervisor, methodology, Brockington, D. and K. Schmidt-Soltau. 2004. The social and environmental 
impacts of wilderness and development. Oryx 38(2):140–142.
reviewing and editing, critical revision of manuscript, Büscher, B. and R. Fletcher. 2019. Towards convivial conservation. 
resources, final approval of the version to be published. Conservation and Society 17(3): 283–296.
Buscher, B. and R. Fletcher. 2020. The conservation revolution: radical ideas 
Acknowledgements for saving nature beyond the Anthropocene. London: Verso Books.
Büscher, B., S. Sullivan, K. Neves, et al. 2012. Towards a synthesised 
The authors are grateful for all helpful comments provided by the critique of neoliberal biodiversity conservation. Capitalism Nature 
anonymous referees and the editor. Sabaheta Ramcilovic-Suominen Socialism 23(2): 4–30.
gratefully acknowledges the Academy of Finland Research Fellowship Bryman, A. and R. Burgess. 1995. Reflections on qualitative data analysis. In: 
Grant (no. 332353) which enabled her to provide contribute to this Analysing qualitative data (eds. Bryman, A. and R. Burgess). London: 
paper. We also express our thanks to the mapmaker, Noora Rämö. Routledge. 
Lastly, we acknowledge the support of all respondents who in one Carter, N.H. and J.D. Linnell. 2016. Co-adaptation is key to coexisting with 
way or the other made this work a success. large carnivores. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 31(8): 575–578.
Chazdon, R.L. 2019. Towards more effective integration of tropical forest 
Declaration of competing/conflicting interests restoration and conservation. Biotropica 51(4): 463–472.
Chia, E.L. and R.K. Sufo. 2016. A situational analysis of Cameroon’s Technical 
Operation Units (TOUs) in the context of the landscape approach: critical 
The authors declare that they have no known competing issues and perspectives. Environment, Development and Sustainability 
financial interests or personal relationships that could have 18: 951–964.
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. Conniff, R. 2018. Selling the Protected Area Myth. The New York Times, 9. 
[Downloaded free from http://www.conservationandsociety.org.in on Friday, March 24, 2023, IP: 41.212.59.22]
Convivial conservation, tackling conflicts and supporting livelihoods / 71
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/09/opinion/protected-area-myth. Global South. Conservation and Society 20(2): 179–189.
html. Accessed on January 3rd, 2023. Lindsey, P.A., P.A. Roulet, and S.S. Romanach. 2007. Economic and 
Convention on Biological Diversity. 1992. Text of the convention. https://www. conservation significance of the trophy hunting industry in sub-Saharan 
cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf. Accessed on April 26, 2022. Africa. Biological Conservation 134(4): 455–469.
Daur, N., Y.O. Adam, and J. Pretzsch. 2016. A historical political ecology Mabele, M.B., J.E. Krauss, and W. Kiwango. 2022. Going back to the roots: 
of forest access and use in Sudan: implications for sustainable rural Ubuntu and just conservation in southern Africa. Conservation and 
livelihoods. Land Use Policy 58: 95–101. Society 20(2): 92–102.
Demissie, F., K. Yeshitela, M. Rouleau, et al. 2019. Socioeconomic importance MacKenzie, J.M. 1988. Empire of nature: hunting conservation and British 
of forest resources and their conservation measures in Ethiopia: the case Imperialism. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
of area closure in South Gonder of Ethiopia. Environmental Monitoring Matulis, B.S. and J.R. Moyer. 2017. Beyond inclusive conservation: the 
and Assessment 191(7): 437. value of pluralism, the need for agonism, and the case for social 
DeVore, J., E. Hirsch, and S. Paulson. 2019. Conserver la nature humaine instrumentalism. Conservation Letters 10(3): 279–287.
et non humaine : un curieux cas de conservation conviviale au Massarella, K., J.E. Krauss, W. Kiwango, et al. 2022. Exploring convivial 
Brésil. Anthropologie et Sociétés 43(3): 31–58. conservation in theory and practice. Conservation and Society 20(2): 
Diaw, M.C. and J.C.S. Njomkap. 1998. La terre et le droit: une anthropologie 59–68.
institutionnelle de la tenure foncière au Sud Cameroun. INADES- McDermott, C., E. Acheampong, S. Arora-Jonsson, et al. 2019. Chapter 16 
Formation, Yaoundé Cameroun. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions – A Political Ecology 
Dudley, N. and S. Stolton. 2020. Leaving space for nature: the critical role of Perspective. In: Sustainable development goals: their impacts on forests 
area-based Conservation. Abingdon & New York: Routledge. and people (eds. Katila, P. C. Pierce Colfer, W. De Jong, et al.) pp. 510-
Duffy, R., F.A. St John, B. Büscher, et al. 2016. Toward a new understanding 540. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
of the links between poverty and illegal wildlife hunting. Conservation MINEPDED. 2019. Sixth national report for the convention on biological 
Biology 30(1): 14–22. diversity. https://chm.cbd.int/database/record?documentID=238964. 
Duguma, L.A., J. Atela, P. Minang, et al. 2019. Deforestation and forest Accessed January 3rd, 2023.
degradation as an environmental behavior: unpacking realities shaping MINFOF. 2015. Memoradum d’entente entre la ministere des forets et de la 
community actions. Land 8(2): 26. faune et les communautes autochtones Bagyeli de la zone de L’UTO 
Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. 2007. State of the Campo Ma’an. Unpublished document. Pp. 6.
World’s Forest. FAO Report. Rome, Italy Naderifar, M., H. Goli, and F. Ghaljaie. 2017. Snowball sampling: A purposeful 
Forest Legality. 2013. Risk tool: Cameroon. https://forestlegality.org/risk-tool/ method of sampling in qualitative research. Strides in Development of 
country/cameroon. Accessed on May 13, 2022. Medical Education 14(3): e67670.
Frank, B. 2016. Human–wildlife conflicts and the need to include tolerance Nchanji, Y.K., S. Ramcilovic-Suominen, and J. Kotilainen. 2021. Power 
and coexistence: an introductory comment. Society and Natural imbalances, social inequalities and gender roles as barriers to true 
Resources 29: 738–743. participation in national park management: the case of Korup National 
Park, Cameroon. Forest Policy and Economics 130: 102527. https://
Frechette, J., V. Bitzas, M. Aubry, et al. 2020. Capturing lived experience: doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102527
methodological considerations for interpretive phenomenological 
inquiry. International Journal of Qualitative Methods  19: Ndumbe, J.A. 2002. The Chad-Cameroon oil pipeline–hope for poverty 
1609406920907254. reduction? Mediterranean Quarterly 13(4): 74–87.
Gandiwa, E. 2011. Preliminary assessment of illegal hunting by communities Neba, G.A., J. Nguiebouri, A.M. Tiani, et al. 2009. Changing management 
adjacent to the Northern Gonarezhou National Park, Zimbabwe. Tropical direction in Campo-Ma’an. In: In search of common ground: adaptive 
Conservation Science 4(4): 445–467. collaborative management in Cameroon (eds. Diaw, M.C., R. Prabhu, 
and T. Aseh). Pp. 139–156. Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International 
Häggström, M. 2019. Lived experiences of being-in-the-forest as experiential Forestry Research (CIFOR).
sharing with the more-than-human world. Environmental Education 
Research 25(9): 1334–1346. Nelson, J. and B. Tchoumba. 2004. Pipelines, parks, and people: Bagyeli 
document land use near Campo Ma’an National Park. Cultural Survival 
Harilal, V. and T.M. Tichaawa. 2018. Ecotourism and alternative livelihood Quarterly 28(1).
strategies in Cameroon’s Protected Areas. Euro Economica 2(37): 
133–148. Nlom, J.H. 2021. A bio-economic analysis of conflicts between illegal hunting 
and wildlife management in Cameroon: The case of Campo-Ma’an 
Hinchliffe, S. 2007. Geographies of Nature: societies, environment, ecologies. National Park. Journal for Nature Conservation 61: 126003.
London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Nyumba, T., K. Wilson, C. Derrick, et al. 2018. The use of focus group 
Holmes, G., C. Sandbrook, and J.A. Fisher. 2017. Understanding discussion methodology: insights from two decades of application in 
conservationists’ perspectives on the new-conservation debate. conservation. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 9(1): 20–32.
Conservation Biology 31(2): 353–363.
Olinga, J.J. 2001. Synthèse des Outils Légaux Relatifs à la Gestion des Forêts 
Illich, I. 1973.Tools for conviviality. London: Marion Boyars au Cameroun. Unpublished consultancy report, CIFOR, Yaoundé.
Igoe, J. and D. Brockington. 2007. Neoliberal conservation: a brief Owono, J.C. 2001. Case Study 8 Cameroon - Campo Ma’an. The Extent of 
introduction. Conservation and Society 5(4): 432–449. Bagyeli Pygmy Involvement in the Development and Management 
Jeanrenaud, S. 1999. People-oriented conservation: progress to date. Plan of the Campo Ma’an UTO. Indigenous Peoples and Protected 
In: Partnerships for protection: new strategies for planning and Areas in Africa. http://www.forestpeoples.org/sites/default/files/
management for protected areas (eds. Stolton, S. and N. Dudley). publication/2010/08/camerooncampomaaneng.pdf. Accessed on July 
P. 126. Earthscan, London. 16th, 2021. 
Katerere, Y., P.A. Minang, and H. Vanhanen. 2009. Making sub‐Saharan Oyono, P.R. 2005. The foundations of the conflit de langage over land and 
African forests work for people and nature: policy approaches in a forests in southern Cameroon. African Study Monographs 26(3): 
changing global environment. Nairobi, Kenya: World Agroforestry 115–144.
Centre. Oyono, P.R. 2006. Local players, representations and “politics” of eco-power 
Kiwango, W.A. and M.B. Mabele. 2022. Why the convivial conservation vision in rural Cameroon since 1994. Canadian Journal of Development 
needs complementing to be a viable alternative for conservation in the Studies 27(2): 163–185.
[Downloaded free from http://www.conservationandsociety.org.in on Friday, March 24, 2023, IP: 41.212.59.22]
72 / Nchanji et al.
PNCM. 2014. Plan d’Amenagement du Parc National de Campo-Ma’an et de areas evolution in Cameroon from the beginning to 2000: lessons to learn 
sa Zone Peripherique. Technical Report. and perspectives. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Cartographic 
Prendergast, D.K. and W.M. Adams. 2003. Colonial wildlife conservation and Conference. Pp. 9–16.
the origins of the Society for the Preservation of the Wild Fauna of the Tiani, A.M., G. Akwah, and J. Nguiébouri. 2010. Women in Campo-Ma’an 
Empire (1903–1914). Oryx 37(2): 251–260. National Park: uncertainties and adaptations in Cameroon. In: The 
Pyhälä, A., A. Osuna Orozco, and S. Counsell. 2016. Protected areas in the equitable forest. Pp. 147–165. Routledge.
Congo Basin: failing both people and biodiversity? London: Rainforest Toncheva, S. and R. Fletcher. 2021. Knowing bears: an ethnographic study of 
Foundation-UK.Ramcilovic-Suominen, S. and J. Kotilainen. 2020. knowledge and agency in human–bear cohabitation. Environment and 
Power relations in community resilience and politics of shifting Planning E: Nature and Space 5(2): 1–23.
cultivation in Laos. Forest Policy and Economics 115: 102159. https:// Toncheva, S., R. Fletcher, and E. Turnhout. 2021. Convivial conservation 
doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102159 from the bottom-up: human-bear cohabitation in the Rodopi mountains 
Republic of Cameroon (RoC). 1994. Loi n°94 du 20 Janvier 1994 Portant of Bulgaria. Conservation and Society 20(2): 124–135.
Régime des Forêts, de la Faune et de la Pêche. Les Editions de Usongo, L. and Z. Nzooh. 2008. Case Study 2: Protected areas land use 
l’Imprimerie Nationale, Yaoundé. planning: lessons learned from the Lobéké National Park. https://carpe.
Republic of Cameroon (RoC). 1974. Régime foncier et domanial: ordonances umd.edu/sites/default/files/documents/lessons_learned/lessons_learned_
no 74-1, 74-2 et 74-3 du 6 Juillet 1974. Les Editions de l’Imprimerie chapter2_case_study2.pdf. Accessed on 20th July 2022.
Nationale, Yaoundé. van Bommel, S. and S. Boonman-Berson. 2022. Transforming convivial 
République du Cameroun (RoC). 1995. Décret N° 95-466-PM du 20 conservation: towards more-than-human participation in research. 
juillet 1995 fixant les modalités d’application du régime de la faune. Conservation and Society 20(2): 136–145.
République du Cameroun, Yaoundé, Cameroun. Ventresca, M.J. and J.W. Mohr. 2017. Archival research methods. The 
Robbins, P (ed.). 2007. Fortress conservation. In: Encyclopedia of Blackwell companion to organizations. (ed. Baum, J.A.) pp. 805–828. 
environment and society. P. 705. SAGE Publications, Inc. https://dx.doi. Blackwell Publishers.
org/10.4135/9781412953924.n432. World Bank African Region. 2017. Forest, Trees and Woodlands in Africa: An 
Sama, G.L. and E.L. Molua. 2019. Determinants of ecotourism trade in Action Plan for World Bank Engagements. Report 73026.
Cameroon. Natural Resources 10(6): 202–217. World Bank Group. 2003. Implementation of Operational Directive 4.20 
Siewe, S., J.M. Vadjunec, and B. Caniglia. 2017. The politics of land use in on indigenous peoples: an evaluation of the results, World Bank 
the Korup National Park. Land 6(1): 7. Group. https://policycommons.net/artifacts/1442995/implementation-
Soulé, M. 2013. The new conservation. Conservation Biology 27: 895–897. of-operational-directive-420-on-indigenous-peoples/2074170/. 
Tchatchou, B., D.J. Sonwa, S. Ifo, et al. 2015. Déforestation et dégradation Accessed on January 23, 2022. CID: 20.500.12592/d8cb0g.
des forêts dans le Bassin du Congo: État des lieux, causes actuelles et World Wildlife Fund. 2018. Living Planet report 2018: aiming higher. (eds. 
perspectives. Papier occasionnel 120. Bogor, Indonesie: CIFOR.https:// Grooten, M. and R.E.A. Almond). WWF, Gland, Switzerland.
www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/OccPapers/OP-120.pdf. Accessed Zheng, B., M. Li, B. Yu, et al. 2021. The future of community-based ecotourism 
on April 26, 2022. (CBET) in China’s protected areas: A consistent optimal scenario for 
Tchindjang, M., C.R. Banga, A. Nankam, et al. 2005. Mapping of protected multiple stakeholders. Forests 12(12): 1753.
Received: 10-Mar-2022; Revised: 10-Nov-2022; Accepted: 11-Nov-2022; Published: 08-Feb-2023