Forbi Preasious Funwi et al.

Exploring farmers’ vulnerability and agrobiodiversity
in perspective of adaptation in Southern Cameroon

Forbi Preasious Funwiab, Denis Jean Sonwac, William Armand Malab, Takanori Oishid,
Marlene Toukam Ngansopab, and Marie MbolobabcMillennium Ecologic Museum, Cameroon

Department of Plant Biology, University of Yaounde I, Cameroon

Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Central African Regional Office, CameroondAfrican Studies Center – Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, Japan

Abstract
Climate change is a global phenomenon that indiscriminately affects all sectors of the economy andsocial life-support systems. New trends in climate change will leave high impacts on rural populations,whose livelihoods depend on agriculture and natural resources, leaving them increasingly vulnerable.
Agrobiodiversity management is a promising method of facilitating adaptation to climatic changes.
Hence, this study aimed to investigate the vulnerability of farmers and assess agrobiodiversity inSouthern Cameroon in the context of adaptation. Focus groups and surveys were conducted in 31
villages in Ayos and Bokito in Southern Cameroon. The vulnerability index was computed for selectedindicators of different components of vulnerability (exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity). Data
analysis revealed that in the two communities, the majority of villages were moderately vulnerable toclimate change. However, Bokito community appeared to be more vulnerable than Ayos community.
Farmers adopted several climate adaptation strategies such as crop replacement, replanting, planting oftrees, cultivation of crops in swampy areas, and the expansion of cocoa cultivation in savannahs. Rich
agrobiodiversity was identified in both sites; however, Ayos was richer than Bokito for wild plants,
wildlife, and fisheries resources. The Bokito community also had a higher dependence on agriculture.
Sustainably managing the rich agrobiodiversity of the landscape can provide a critical method to build
the resilience of farmers.

Keywords: farmers, climate change, vulnerability, agrobiodiversity, adaptation― 259 ―
本稿の著作権は著者が保持し、クリエイティブ･コモンズ表示4.0国際ライセンス（CC-BY）下に提供します。
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.ja

Exploring farmers’ vulnerabilitiy and agrobiodiversity in perspective of adaptation in Southern Cameroon

1. Introduction
Climate change is a global phenomenon that indiscriminately affects all sectors of the economy andsocial groups (Dendir and Simane 2019). This change manifests itself through rising temperatures,changing rainfall patterns, and frequent and severe weather events, which increasingly affect societies
and ecosystems globally and in turn require support to adapt to these changes (IFAD 2013, Fedele et al.
2019). According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the negative
impacts of climate change will be most severely felt in the Least Developed Countries (FAO 2017).
Several studies have shown that Africa is the most vulnerable continent (e.g. Rockstrom 2000, Sonwa
2018, Sarkodie and Strezov 2019). This vulnerability is attributed to limited skills and equipment fordisaster management, inadequate financial resources (poverty), weak institutional capacity, heavy
dependence on rain-fed agriculture, as well as socioeconomic and ecological conditions (Rockstrom
2000, Mulwa et al. 2017, Sonwa et al. 2017, Agovino et al. 2018, Sonwa 2018). Sarkodie and Strezov(2019) summarise Africa’s vulnerability by reporting that Africa has a high sensitivity, high exposure,and low adaptive capacity.
Studies have asserted that climate change will continue at an accelerating rate, thereby raising theadaptation challenge for agriculture (IPCC 2013, Fan et al. 2017), and that this poses a major andgrowing threat to global food security (FAO 2018). Thus, as the impacts of climate change on agriculture
intensify, it will become increasingly difficult to grow crops, raise animals, manage forests, and catch
fish in the same ways and same locations as in the past (FAO 2016). This situation exacerbates thevulnerabilities of poor farmers in rural areas, whose livelihoods primarily depend on agricultural,
forestry, and fishery resources, by creating major challenges to attaining sustainability through thedepletion of natural resources (Agovino et al. 2018). Adesina and Odekunle (2011) posit that toeffectively address adaptation to climate change, it is critical to have clear perceptions of thevulnerabilities of ecological, economic, and social systems within a country. Hence, there is an urgent
need to continue seeking reliable solutions to the numerous problems posed by pervasive climate change.
This further heightens the need for assessing vulnerability.
Vulnerability has been defined as the degree to which a system is susceptible to, or unable to cope
with, the adverse effects of climate change, including climate variability and extremes (IPCC 2007).
This definition embodies three elements often used to assess vulnerability: the exposure of a system toclimate variations, its sensitivity, and its adaptive capacity (Luers et al. 2003, Turner et al. 2003, Füssel
and Klein 2006, IPCC 2007). Exposure refers to the degree of climate stress to which a particular unitor system is exposed. The stress could be changes in climate conditions or variability in climatic
behaviour, including the magnitude and frequency of extreme events (O’Brien et al. 2004). Sensitivity
is the degree to which a system is modified or affected by an internal or external disturbance or set of
disturbances (Adesina and Odekunle 2011). Several approaches to climate change adaptation exist andone of them is the management of agrobiodiversity.

― 260 ―

Forbi Preasious Funwi et al.

Agrobiodiversity has been identified as a key indicator of the sustainability of food systems (Sthapit
et al. 2017). In addition, agro-ecological practices promoting the optimal use of crop genetic diversity(Hajjar et al. 2008) can sustainably intensify agricultural production, whilst simultaneously increasing
ecosystem resilience and reducing gas emissions per unit of production (Hughes et al. 2008), andcontributing immensely to the global resilience of agriculture-based communities.
Several studies have been undertaken to address adaptation to climate change in Cameroon. For
example, Ngondjeb (2013) assessed the impact of climate change and adaptation options of agriculturein the Sudano-Sahelian zone of Cameroon. Tingem et al. (2008) studied the impact of climate change
on crop production, whilst Brown and Sonwa (2015) investigated rural local institutions and climatechange adaptation in Cameroon’s forest communities. These studies did not tackle the issue of climatechange vulnerability, with the exception of Fongnzossie et al. (2018). Their study assessed vulnerabilityof coastal dwellers to climate risks in the Campo-Kribi area of Cameroon. Hence, assessing vulnerability
with the aim of providing more information for climate change adaptation planning is an ongoing
research target for Cameroon. The objectives of the present study were to assess the vulnerability offarmers in Southern Cameroon and examine the potential for adaptation of agrobiodiversity in natural
farmers’ livelihood support systems, with a special focus on the Ayos and Bokito communities. The
study sought to describe the vulnerabilities of these communities and the factors that explain them tounderstand the agrobiodiversity stock of each site and determine how it can contribute to climate change
adaptation.
2. Material and methods
2.1. Study sites
The study was conducted in Ayos in the Nyong and Mfoumou Division of the Centre Region of
Cameroon, and in Bokito in the Mbam and Inoubou Division of the Centre Region of Cameroon (Figure1). Ayos is located east of the capital Yaounde, whilst Bokito is found west of Yaounde. Yaounde is themain urban market for both areas. The climate of Ayos is humid tropical whilst that of Bokito is humid
subtropical. However, both areas are characterised by the same seasons: A long dry season from mid-November to mid-March, characterised by end of year festivities
in the early part of the season and farm preparation activities for replanting towards the end of
the season;
 A short rainy season from mid-March to mid-June during which farmers concentrate on crop
cultivation and most especially short-cycle crops; A short dry season from mid-June to mid-August during which farmers harvest some of thecrops planted during the short rainy season and also prepare farm plots to receive seeds during
the long rainy season; and A long rainy season from September to mid-November with major farming activities.

― 261 ―

Exploring farmers’ vulnerabilitiy and agrobiodiversity in perspective of adaptation in Southern Cameroon

The vegetation of Bokito is dominated by herbaceous and shrubby savannah grassland whilst Ayos
is dominated by gallery forests and Raphia swamp forests. Bokito has a population of 72,000 inhabitants,
spread across 36 villages, with a total surface area of 1,115 km². Ayos has a population of 22,899
inhabitants with 29 villages and a total surface area of 1,250 km².

Figure 1. Map indicating study sites
2.2. Vulnerability assessment framework
Vulnerability arises from complex interactions between socio-economic, institutional andenvironmental systems, which complicate any assessment or quantification (Krishnamurthy 2014).
Hence, several approaches have been developed to assess vulnerability to climate change in different
contexts. However, there is no ‘one size fits all’ method for the assessment of vulnerability. Doch et al.
(2015) reported that vulnerability assessments link the social and biophysical dimensions ofenvironmental change. Several authors conceptualise vulnerability as the exposure of a system tohazards, sensitivity of the system to change, and its adaptive capacity to the changes in the environment(IPCC 2007, 2013, Heng et al. 2013). The vulnerability assessment framework developed by theIntergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC 2007) has been widely used to analyse vulnerability,
due to its robustness and adaptability. This approach uses indicators to assess vulnerability through avulnerability index.
2.3. Data collection procedure
Data were collected through focus group discussions and completed using the council development
plans of the two areas. The focus group data were collected in 31 villages and these were selected basedon the size of their population, access to the market, and ethnicity (Table 1).

― 262 ―

Forbi Preasious Funwi et al.

Table 1. Villages where focus group data were collected
Ayos
Village
Number of participants
VillageNsan 110
Tchekos
Niamvoudou
10
Omeng
Wong
10
Tobagne
Ebeck
18
Bongo
Ndelle14
BatangaAbeng Nnam
25
Yangben
Melan
10
Kedia
Yebe
8
BokagaNgoun 223
Guefigue
Mbaka
13
Yambassa
Tomba 1
7
BogandoAkam Engali
20
Balamba
Mbang
13
Yoro
Olembe7
Assala 1
Nyabewa
7
Begni
Biwo
7
Total
202
Total
Grand total
412

BokitoNumber of participants
8
8
11
7
19
13
9
24
17
16
10
11
32
16
9
210

2.4. Data analysis
The data were analysed using the SPSS software. The weighting of indicators was done through ranking
scores provided during focus group surveys, and expert judgments. The indicators for sensitivity,
exposure and adaptive capacity were chosen through literature review of multiple vulnerability studies(e.g. Adesina and Odekunle 2011, Atedhor 2015, and Žurovec et al. 2017) and focus group data. The
weighted values were further used to compute Vulnerability (V) using the equation developed byGehendra (2012):
V= (E×S)/AC
Where V: vulnerability, E: exposure, and AC: adaptive capacity.
The vulnerability of each community was categorised using five ranking classes, as used by Fongnzossie
et al. (2018), as follows:
Low: V ≤ 1; Medium: 1 ˂ V ≤ 2; High: 2 ˂ V ˂ 4; Very high: V ≥ 4. Where, V= Vulnerability Index.
Descriptive statistics were used to summarise the adaptation strategies of farmer communities.

― 263 ―

Exploring farmers’ vulnerabilitiy and agrobiodiversity in perspective of adaptation in Southern Cameroon

3. Results
3.1. Exposure
3.1.1. Farmers’ perceptions on temperature, rainfall, and other biophysical climate variables
All farmers in Ayos and Bokito acknowledged that the seasons are changing. A high number of villages(26 villages) in both sites also reported less rainfall, the shortening of the rainy season and longer
duration of droughts and frequent whirlwinds. Higher temperatures were reported more frequently in
Bokito.
3.1.2. Farmers perception of climate change impact
Farmers in Ayos and Bokito both reported the prevalence of plant pest and diseases, and landdegradation as the biggest impacts of climate change (Table 3). Farmers in Bokito reported the drying
of soils frequently as the most severe impact of droughts on their livelihood support systems, which
includes water sources and difficulty in undertaking tillage farming practices. Farmers in Ayos villages
indicated that crop failure was more severe.
Table 2. Farmers’ perception of climate variables
Climatic variable
Number of villages signalling event
Ayos
BokitoLess rainfall
15
11
Number of rains vary
1
3
Number of rains increase
0
1
Early onset of rains
25Late onset of rains
1
1
Unpredictable onset of rains
13
9
Shortening of rainy season
14
13
Lengthening of rainy season
0
1
Early ending of rains
98
Unpredictable ending of rains
66
Frequent occurrence of droughts
122
Varying occurrence of droughts
1212Long duration of droughts
10
14
Higher temperatures3
8
Extreme hot and cold temperatures
3
6
Varying temperatures
7
15
More frequent and violent winds with 15
12storms― 264 ―

Forbi Preasious Funwi et al.

Table 3. Impacts of climate change per number of villages listing them per site
ImpactNumber if villages signalling
impactAyos
BokitoPoor growth of plants2
9
Crop failure
4
1
Destruction of crops
64
Drying of soils
38
Destruction of houses
2
2
Drying of crops
2
7Rivers drying up
815
Land degradation
8
9
Prevalence of crop pests and diseases 14
12
Human health problems
511
3.1.3. Occurrence of extreme climatic events
Major, extreme climatic events recorded in the study area were violent winds and long droughts. The
drought conditions could be responsible for the water scarcity and recurrent drying of rivers in Bokito.
3.2. Sensitivity
3.2.1. Relative livelihood importance of forest, savannahs, and other land use types
Five major functional landscapes were identified on the study site based on community perception(streams and rivers, savannah, forest, fallows and croplands) but for functionality reasons, fallows andcropland were merged and referred to as farmland (farming systems) . The results revealed that the mostimportant landscape for the provision of trade products was farmland for both sites, followed by forest
and aquatic areas (streams and rivers) in Ayos only. The forest emerged as the most important landscapefor construction materials, followed by rivers/streams and farmland with a higher relative importancefor farmland in Ayos. The major hunting ground for the Ayos community was forest whilst the major
hunting grounds for Bokito were savannahs and forests. Fishing activities were more important in Ayos
than in Bokito.
On a general note, the Ayos community recorded a higher dependence on resources favoured by
the presence of a forest than the Bokito community, who showed a higher dependence on agriculture(Table 4), although agriculture was practiced in both forest and savannah landscapes. This confirms theplace of savannahs in the society, as highlighted by Boke-Olén et al. (2016) who reported that savannahs
are particularly important because they are populated with societies dependent on subsistence farming.

― 265 ―

Exploring farmers’ vulnerabilitiy and agrobiodiversity in perspective of adaptation in Southern Cameroon

Table 4. Relative importance of landscapes for the provision of goods and services
Goods and Streams/rivers
Savannah
Forest and forest Farmland
services
products
Ayos
Bokito Ayos
BokitoAyos
Bokito
Ayos
Trade
20.80
9.35
2.14
6.33
35.27
15.62
41.79
products
Construction 19.50
17.90
1.04
2.86
61.38
70.35
18.08
Food
20.78
14.43
0.78
13.97
36.72
16.09
41.72
Fuelwood
1.79
1.90
2.29
24.75
61.74
41.86
34.18
Hunting
7.00
5.62
4.43
51.86
63.67
40.24
24.9
Tools
1.94
2.22
2.50
20.06
69.4
2.11
26.16
Traditional
11.88
10.12
2.08
21.12
63.85
52.64
22.19
medicine
Total
83.69
61.54
15.26
140.95392.03 298.91
209.02

Bokito
68.70
8.89
55.50
31.49
2.28
15.61
16.12
198.593.3. Adaptive capacity
3.3.1. Literacy rate
Within the framework of this study, the literacy rate was considered as the proportion of the persons in
a community that could read and write. The average literacy rate was 60.91 % for Ayos and 79.73 % for
the community of Bokito. In Ayos, the highest literacy rate was 98 %, whilst the lowest was 45 %. For
Bokito, the highest literacy rate was also 98 %, whilst the lowest was 50 %.
3.3.2. Sanitation

Sanitary infrastructure was absent in most villages. In villages where this was present, thequality of service rendered to the populations was generally poor due to the lack of equipment
and an insufficiency of qualified staff.
3.3.3. Housing quality
Houses in the two study sites were generally made of thatch, mud, planks, and cement bricks. The
majority of houses in most villages were poorly constructed thatched houses. Housing quality was betterin Bokito than in Ayos.
3.3.4. Markets and transportation
In Ayos, the main market is located in the Ayos urban area. Braving the odds of bad roads, which aremostly unmaintained earth roads (in 14 villages), is a major constraint for farmers to market theirproducts and/or to obtain substitutes for household consumption. Villages located a great distance fromthe divisional headquarters suffer more, as the majority of goods transportation is conducted by motor
bikes, which carry very small quantities. There are periodic markets (once a week) in some villages inthe vicinity of Bokito that give some farmers the opportunity to sell their products without having to― 266 ―

Forbi Preasious Funwi et al.

transport them. Roads in the Bokito area are also predominantly earth roads with very high levels of
inaccessibility. Motor bikes are also the main transportation means, but private vehicles interveneoccasionally in the transportation of goods.
3.3.5. Organisations
The study found that at the village level there were very few local institutions and associations working
in the domain of agriculture and conservation. Focus group results also revealed a low level ofcollaboration among farmers, hence making it difficult for them to create and manage their cooperatives
and farmer groups.
3.4. Vulnerability
The analysis of data revealed a high number of farmers being moderately vulnerable with a very highvulnerability obtained for only one village in the Bokito community (Table 5).
Table 5. Exposure, sensitivity, adaptive capacity and vulnerability index per village
Site
Village
Exposure
Sensitivity Adaptive
Vulnerability
index
index
capacity index
index
Ayos
Nsan 1
1.67
2.13
1.57
2.25
Niamvoudou
1.67
1.63
1.43
1.90
Wong
1.67
2.00
1.14
2.92
Ebeck
1.67
2.00
1.43
2.33
Ndelle
1.67
1.88
1.71
1.82
Abeng Nnam
1.67
1.88
1.43
2.19
Melan
1.67
2.13
1.14
3.10
Yebe
1.67
2.13
1.29
2.75
Ngoun 2
1.67
2.00
1.14
2.92
Mbaka
2.22
1.88
1.57
2.65
Tomba 1
1.78
2.00
1.57
2.26
Akam Engali
1.78
2.00
1.14
3.11
Mbang
1.89
1.88
2.00
1.77
Olembe
1.78
1.75
2.00
1.56
Nyabewa
1.78
2.00
1.57
2.26
Biwo
1.78
2.00
1.29
2.77
BokitoTchekos
2.11
2.00
1.29
3.28
Omeng
2.44
2.00
1.14
4.28
Tobagne
2.56
2.00
1.43
3.58
Bongo
2.56
2.00
1.43
3.58
Batanga
2.56
1.88
1.43
3.35
Yangben
2.56
2.00
1.57
3.25
Kedia
2.56
2.00
1.71
2.98
Bokaga
2.56
2.00
2.00
2.56

― 267 ―

Exploring farmers’ vulnerabilitiy and agrobiodiversity in perspective of adaptation in Southern Cameroon

GuefigueYambassa
BogandoBalamba
Yoro
Assala 1
Begni

2.56
2.56
2.56
2.56
2.56
2.56
2.56

2.00
1.88
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.88
1.88

1.86
2.00
1.57
1.43
1.43
1.86
1.57

2.75
2.40
3.25
3.58
3.58
2.58
3.05

3.5. Local adaptation strategies
Farmers use different local strategies to cope with the effects of climate change, mainly based on theimpact. In Ayos, farmers mostly resorted to fallowing, the use of fertilisers, cultivation in swampy areas,
waiting for rains, mixed cropping, replanting, and crop replacement, as climate adaptation strategies(Table 6). However, some farmers lack adaptation strategies and bear the consequences of climatechange. In Bokito, the major local adaptation strategies were fallowing, planting of cocoa in savannah,
mixed cropping, crop replacement, and planting of trees. Farmers revealed that in the past, cocoa wascultivated only in the small forest patches of Bokito.
Table 6. Local adaptation strategies reported by farmers
Adaptation strategy
Number of villages that listed them
Ayos
BokitoNo adaptation strategies
22
Wait for rains before planting
42
Replanting
3
5
Mixed cropping
5
7
Anticipation of planting
4
1
Crop replacement
2
4Planting of trees
33
Planting cocoa in savannah
35
Farming in swampy areas
4
1
Use of pesticides and insecticides
1
1
Fallowing
6
10
Use of fertilisers
5
1― 268 ―

Forbi Preasious Funwi et al.

3.6. Agrobiodiversity in forest landscape of Southern Cameroon
3.6.1. Agrobiodiversity in cultivated species
The study revealed that similar food crops are cultivated in the two study areas. However, the main foodcrops cultivated in Ayos are cassava, plantain, groundnuts, and egusi. These crops are often mixed withother crops, including maize and cocoyams. In Bokito the major cultivated food crops are maize,
cocoyams, plantain, groundnuts, yams, egusi, and sweet potatoes. The planting of fruit trees is practiced
more frequently in Bokito than in Ayos. The major cash crop cultivated in Bokito is cocoa, with a large
number of plantations established in savannah areas, whereas two major cash crops are cultivated in
Ayos (coffee and cocoa). Market gardening is more developed in Bokito with a high level of cultivationof tomatoes and pepper.
Table 7. List of agrobiodiversity in cultivated plant species
Scientific name
FamilyCommon/local name
Alium cepa
Amaranthus esculentus
Amaranthus hibridus
Annona muricata
Arachis hypogaea
Capsicum annuum
Capsicum fructescens
Carica papaya
Citrullus lanatus
Citrus aurantium
Citrus limon
Citrus paradisi
Citrus reticulata
Citrus sinensis
Cocus nucifera
Coffee spp.
Colocasia esculenta
Cucumeropsis mannii
Cucurbita pepo
Dacryodes edulis
Dioscorea spp.
Elaies guineesis
Glycine max
Ipomoea batatas
Lactuca sativa
Legenaria siceraria
Mangifera indica
Manihot esculenta
Musa paradisiaca
Musa sapientum
Ocimum gratissimum
Persea americana

Liliaceae
Amaranthaceae
Amaranthaceae
Annonaceae
Fabaceae
Solanaceae
Solanaceae
Caricaceae
Cucurbitaceae
Rutaceae
Rutaceae
Rutaceae
Rutaceae
Rutaceae
Arecaceae
Rubiaceae
Araceae
Cucurbitaceae
Cucurbitaceae
Burseraceae
Dioscoreaceae
Arecaceae
Fabaceae
Convolvulaceae
Asteraceae
Cucurbitaceae
Anacardiaceae
Euphorbiaceae
Musaceae
Musaceae
Lamiaceae
Lauraceae

Local onion
Amaranth
Amaranth
Soursop
Groundnut
PoivronPepperPaw paw
Watermelon
Lime
Lemon
Pamplemouse
Mandarin
OrangeCoconut
CoffeeTaro
Egusi
PumpkinSafou
Yams
Oil palm
SoybeanSweet potatoes
Lettuce
Calabash
Mango
Cassava
PlantainBananaMessepAvocado― 269 ―

Ayos

Bokito

×
×
×
×
×
×
×

×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×

×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×

×

×
×
×
×
×

×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×

Exploring farmers’ vulnerabilitiy and agrobiodiversity in perspective of adaptation in Southern Cameroon

Phaseolus vulgaris
Psidium guayava
Saccharum officinarum
Sesamun indicum
Solanu tuberosum
Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum macrocarpon
Solanum nigrum
Spondias cytherea
Talinum triangulare
Telfairia occidentalis
Theobroma cacao
Vernonia amygdalina
Xanthosoma sagittifolium
Zea mays
Zingiber officinale

Fabaceae
Myrtaceae
PoaceaePedaliaceae
Solanaceae
Solanaceae
Solanaceae
Solanaceae
Anacardiaceae
Portulacaceae
Cucurbitaceae
Malvaceae
Asteraceae
Araceae
Poaceae
Zingiberaceae

Beans
Guava
Sugarcane
SesameIrish potatoes
Tomatoes
Eggplant
Black nightshadeCasmanga
Waterleaf
Fluted pumpkin
Cacao
Bitterleaf
MacaboMaize
Ginger

×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×

×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×

×
×
×
×

×
×
×
×
×

3.6.2. Agrobiodiversity in wild plant species
The study revealed a higher number of wild plants used for food and nutrition in Ayos. Among these
species, many are not found in Bokito. Examples include Garcinia cola, Cola ricinofolia, andBaillonella toxisperma (Table 8). Additionally, Tetracarpidium conophorum, which is found in Bokito,
does not occur in Ayos.
Table 8. List of plant agrobiodiversity in wild plant species
Scientific name

FamilyCommon/local name

Acalypha ornata

Euphorbiaceae

Sondo

×

Aningera robusta

Sapotaceae

Abam

×

Annona muricata

Annonaceae

Wild soursop

×

Baillonnella toxisperma

Sapotaceae

Moabi

×

Beilschmidia obscura

Lauraceae

Kanda

×

Bulchozia cariacea

Piperaceae

Lion's cola

×

Canarium schweinfurthii

Burseraceae

Canarium××

Cola acuminata

Malvaceae

Cola nuts

××

Cola ricinifolia

Malvaceae

Monkey's cola×

Coula edulis

Olacaceae

Komen

×

Dacryodes macrophylla

Burseraceae

Tom×

Garcinia cola

Clusiaceae

Bitter cola

×

Gnetum spp.

Gnetaceae

Eru×

Irvingia gabonensis

Irvingiaceae

Bushmango

×

Monodora myristica

Myristicaceae

Pebe

×

Myrianthus arboreus

Cercropiaceae

Mva'a

×

Nuclea diderichii

Rubiaceae

Angokom×

Nuclea pobeguinii

Rubiaceae

Akondoc×

Ocimum sp.

Lamiaceae

Masseb×

Pentaclethra macrophylla

Leguminosea

African bean tree×

― 270 ―

Ayos

Bokito×××Forbi Preasious Funwi et al.

Piper guineense

Piperaceae

Bush pepper

××

Ricinodendron heudelotii

Phyllanthaceae

Njansang

××

Tetracarpidium conophorum

Euphorbiaceae

African walnut

Tricoscypha acuminata

Anacardiaceae

Mvut

×

Uapaca spp.

Cannabaceae

Ezen

×

Voacanga africana

Apocynaceae

Voacanga×

Xylopia staudtii

Annonaceae

Avom

×

Caterpillars

×Mushroom××

×

3.6.3. Agrobiodiversity of domestic animals (livestock)
Similar domestic animals were being reared in the two study areas. However, the varieties of theseanimals were mainly local. In addition, animal rearing was practiced on a small scale in bothcommunities.
Table 9. Diversity of livestock in Southern Cameroon.
Scientific name

FamilyCommon/local nameBos taurus

BovidaeCattleCanis lupus familiaris

Canidae

Dog

Capra hircus

Bovidae

Goat

Carina mischata

AnatidaeDomestic duck

Felis catus

Domestic cat

Domestic cat

Gallus gallus domesticus

Phasianidae

Domestic fowl

Ovis aries

Bovidae

Sheep

Sus scrofa domesticus

SuidaePig

3.6.4. Agrobiodiversity in wild animals (wildlife) and fishery resources
The study revealed a rich diversity of wild animals are used as food (Table 10). However, variations inavailability of the animals exist, with bush meat being increasingly available in the Ayos forest area.
Bokito farmers reported low availability, mainly due to the bushfires and overgrazing on the savannahlandscape, which chase away animals. Bushfires also cause habitat destruction thereby reducing animal
availability and causing land degradation.
Table 10. Agrobiodiversity in wildlife
Scientific name
FamilyAtelerix sp.
Erinaceidae
Cephalohus dorsalis
Bovidae
Cephalophus callipygus
Bovidae
Cercopithecus erythrotise
Cercopithecidae
Crossaculius
Viverridae― 271 ―

Common/local name
Hedgehog
Bay duikerPeter's duiker
Red eared monkey
Mangoust

Exploring farmers’ vulnerabilitiy and agrobiodiversity in perspective of adaptation in Southern Cameroon

Dendrolyrax arboreus
Epus europaeus
Gazella sp.
Lepus europaeus
Manis spp.
Pelusios gabonensis
Potamochoerus larvatus
Sciurus sp.
Thryonomys
Tragelaphus sp.
Vivera civetta

Procaviidae
Erethizontidae
Bovidae
Leporidae
Manidae
Testudinidae
SuidaeSciuridae
Thryonomyidae
Thryonomyidae
Viverridae

Dama/Tree hendrax
Porcupine
GazelleRabbitPangolin
Bells hinged tortoise
Bush pig
SquirrelGreater cane rat
Cane rat
Civet

Major rivers in both areas are rich in fishery resources that support human life. However, theseresources are more abundant in Ayos than Bokito. In addition, Hererotis niloticus (Kanga) is specific to
the Ayos site in the Nyong River. Farmers in Ayos also practice fishing throughout the year, with the
exception of the period of very heavy rains when rivers are flooded and high risk.
Table 11. Fishery resources that are used as food in Southern Cameroon
Scientific name
FamilyCommon name
Oreochromis niloticus
Cichlidae
Tilapia
Hererotis niloticus
Osteoglossidae Kanga
Brachyura sp.
Ocypodidae
Crabs
Channa sp.
Channidae
Snakefish
Ciprinus carpio
Cyprinidae
Carp
Esox lucius
Esocidae
BrochetHolothuria sp.
Holothuriidae
PentardNeochanna burrowsius
Galaxidae
Mud fishPenaeus monodon
Astacidae
CrayfishSilurus sp.
Siluridae
CatfishAquatic snails
Oysters
Reptiles used as food in the study area include Nana spp. (Elapidae), Varanus spp. (Varanidae),
Bitis gabonica (Viperidae), Dendroaspis angusticeps (Elapidae), and Gongylophis sp. (Boidae).
4. Discussion
4.1. Vulnerability to climate change and agrobiodiversity potential of Southern Cameroon
In the last decade, farmers have recognised the impacts of climate change in the study area. Farmers
reported lower amounts of rainfall, the shortening of the rainy season, longer duration of droughts, andfrequent whirlwinds. Several studies have reported similar variability of climate factors (e.g.
Fongnzossie et al. 2018). These changes caused numerous impacts, including prevalence of crop pests― 272 ―

Forbi Preasious Funwi et al.

and diseases, land degradation, and human health problems. Additional studies (e.g. Travis et al. 2015)
obtained similar results.
The results demonstrated that farmers in both localities (Ayos and Bokito) were vulnerable toclimate change. However, one village in Bokito (Omeng) had high vulnerability. The high vulnerability
index value of this village reflects the reality observed in the field, and can be explained by its poor
access, low literacy rate, poor health and education facilities, and limited access to the market. The roadlinking this village to the subdivisional headquarters of Bokito is an unmaintained earth road crossed bya big river lacking a bridge. Farmers here face tough circumstances in order to transport their goods tothe nearest market. This area was also highly dependent on rain-fed agriculture, thereby increasing its
vulnerability. Similar results were obtained by Oo et al. (2018). On a general note, more villages in the
Bokito area recorded moderate vulnerability indices than in the Ayos area. This result aligns with thehigh level of sensitivity of the different landscapes to climate change. In addition, Ayos communities
were less dependent on agriculture when compared to Bokito. Several studies have shown that farming
communities that are highly dependent on agriculture are more likely to be vulnerable to the impacts ofclimate change. The vulnerabilities of these villages can also be associated with their socioeconomic
characteristics, extreme climatic events (long droughts, high temperatures, and erratic rains) and theirecological profile (Mekonnen et al. 2019).
Despite several developed strategies, adaptation to climate change appears to be difficult forfarmers. This suggests that the vulnerability of farmers may be determined by the availability of public
infrastructure such as roads, bridges, markets, and health and educational facilities. Furthermore,
extension services and conservation institutions were lacking in both localities, thereby preventing
farmers from acquiring knowledge that could facilitate their adaptation.
The study revealed that farmers in the two areas cultivated similar food crops. However, differences
could be observed in the main crops that were cultivated. Farmers in Ayos cultivated mostly cassava,
groundnut, plantain, and cocoyam. These are the staple food crops they use in their meals with bushmeat and freshwater fish. This feeding habit is part of their culture and might contribute to thevulnerability of the farmers. Thomas et al. (2018) argued that culture could be used to clarify theadaptive capacity of local communities, as it could be the basis for decisions taken by farmers.
Meanwhile, farmers in Bokito cultivated more maize, cocoyams, plantain, groundnuts, yams, egusi andsweet potatoes. However, farmers in Bokito adopt new crops more frequently than farmers in Ayos.
Major differences were observed between Ayos and Bokito in terms of agrobiodiversity in wild
plant species. These differences arise from the variation in landscapes. Ayos has higher forest cover than
Bokito, which is endowed with few patches of forest and more savannahs. The greater number of wild
plant species available for food reduces the vulnerability of farmers. This result is supported by thefindings of Fongnzossie et al. (2018) who observed that farmers resort to the collection of non-timber
forest products as strategies to adapt to the impacts of climate change. Since there are limited forestlands― 273 ―

Exploring farmers’ vulnerabilitiy and agrobiodiversity in perspective of adaptation in Southern Cameroon

in the Bokito area, there appears to be greater pressure facing these resources from local populations.
This may account for the diminishing forest resources in the area. This might also explain why farmers
in recent years, have relied on the cultivation of cocoa in savannahs alongside an increased intensity inthe cultivation of subsistence food crops in swampy areas.
4.2. Linking climate change adaptation and agrobiodiversity in Southern Cameroon
Farmers in Southern Cameroon are exposed to the risks of climate change. Managing agrobiodiversity
sustainably in the area appears to be a better option for adaption. However, this management isdependent on the legitimate power that governs the collection of natural agrobiodiversity and power
related issues around the landscape include land disputes. In these situations, the groups who are mostvulnerable are the poor, widows, orphans, and youths. The youth have limited access to land due to suchdisputes and are therefore more exposed to climate risks. According to The World Bank (2005), because
natural resources are such an important source of value for so many people, it is of little surprise thatpolitics and power relations should strike at the heart of natural resource management. Power could
influence access to land in a biased manner.
A strong correlation in many societies has been identified between the decision-making powersthat a person enjoys, and the quantity and quality of land rights held by that person (FAO 2002). Accessto land is often regulated by the land tenure system. In most rural areas, including the study area, only
the male children have access to land inheritance. This increases vulnerability of unmarried women andwidows in rural areas. This affirmation is supported by the studies of Brown (2011), who showed thatwomen are dependent on agricultural and forest resources for their livelihood and are often marginalised
within the society. Orphans, whose parents die young, suffer from the seizure of their land by theirpaternal uncles, as well as influential people and elites in the community. Fairbairn (2013) argued that
elites exercise ‘access control’ over land may contribute to community dispossession despite a national
legal framework that protects peasant land rights. Such influences limit the availability of agriculturalland for poor rural farmers.
5. Conclusion
This study revealed that farmers perceived climate variability in Southern Cameroon. The savannah
ecotone of Southern Cameroon is increasingly sensitive and exposed to climate change than the forest
zone. Farmers in both areas also use different measures to cope with climate change. The majority ofvillages in the two communities are moderately vulnerable to climate change. A large potential ofagrobiodiversity was obtained for Southern Cameroon, with a higher diversity in the Ayos site. From
this, we can conclude that the Ayos community has more safety nets, through the agrobiodiversity
present in its livelihood support systems, than the Bokito community, which is more agriculturedependent.

― 274 ―

Forbi Preasious Funwi et al.

The vulnerability trends of farmers can be reversed through the sustainable management of the richagrobiodiversity of the study area. It is therefore imperative for policy makers, adaptation planners andprivate initiatives working in Southern Cameroon to place agrobiodiversity management at the centreof action in all the life-support systems, including agrobiodiversity. Additionally, agrobiodiversity needs
to be incorporated in climate-smart agriculture in Southern Cameroon. Alongside this, good institutionalframeworks are required at the local level, through which national and regional policies can address theimpacts of climate change and provide more options for climate adaptation.

Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the Tokyo University of Foreign Studies (TUFS), Japan, for the financial support
provided to the research team of Dr Denis Jean Sonwa, within the framework of the KAKENHI project:‘Resource Management and Political Power in Rural Africa’, that permitted data collection for this paper.

References
Adesina, F.A. and T.O. Odekunle 2011. ‘Climate change and adaptation in Nigeria: Some backgroundto Nigeria’s response – III’. 2011 International Conference on Environmental and Agriculture
Engineering, IPCBEE 15: 146–154.
Agovino, M., M. Casaccia, M. Ciommi, M. Ferrara, and K. Marchesano 2018. ‘Agriculture, climatechange and sustainability: The case of EU-28’. Ecological Indicators 105: 525–543. doi:
10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.04.064
Atedhor, G.O. 2015. ‘Agricultural vulnerability to climate change in Sokoto State, Nigeria’. African
Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development 15(2): 9855–9871.
Boke-Olén, N., V. Lehsten, J. Ardö, J. Beringer, L. Eklundh, T. Holst, E. Veenendaa, and T. Tagesson
2016. ‘Estimating and analyzing savannah phenology with a lagged time series model’. PLoS ONE
11(4): e0154615. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0154615.
Brown, H.C.P. 2011. ‘Gender, climate change and REDD+ in the Congo Basin forests of Central Africa’.
International Forestry Review 13(2): 163–176.
Brown, H.C.P. and D.J. Sonwa 2015. ‘Rural local institutions and climate change adaptation in forest
communities in Cameroon’. Ecology and Society 20(2): 6. doi: 10.5751/ES-07327-200206.
Dendir, Z. and B. Simane. 2019. ‘Livelihood vulnerability to climate variability and change in different
agroecological zones of Gurage Administrative Zone, Ethiopia’. Progress in Disaster Science
3:100035. doi:10.1016/j.pdisas.2019.100035.
Doch, S., J-C. Diepart, and C. Heng 2015. ‘A multi-scale flood vulnerability assessment of agricultural
production in the context of environmental change: The case of Sangkae River watershed,― 275 ―

Exploring farmers’ vulnerabilitiy and agrobiodiversity in perspective of adaptation in Southern Cameroon

Battambang province’. In Learning for resilience: Insights from Cambodia’s rural communities.
Ed. J-C. Diepart, Phnom Penh: The Learning Institute, pp. 19–49.
Fairbairn, M. 2013. ‘Indirect dispossession: Domestic power imbalances and foreign access to land in
Mozambique’. Development and Change 44(2): 335–356.
Fan, X., C.J. Fei, and B.A. McCarl 2017. ‘Adaptation: An agricultural challenge’. Climate 5(3): 56. doi:
10.3390/cli5030056.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) 2002. Land Tenure Studies 4: Genderand access to land. Rome: FAO.
—— 2016. The State of Food and Agriculture: Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security. Rome:
FAO.
—— 2017. FAO Strategy on Climate Change. Rome: FAO.
—— 2018. Climate Smart Agriculture Building Resilience to Climate Change. Rome: FAO.
Fedele, G., C.I. Donatti, C.A. Harvey, L. Hannah, and D.G. Hole 2019. ‘Transformative adaptation toclimate change for sustainable social-ecological systems’. Environmental Science and Policy 101:
116–125.
Fongnzossie, F.E., D.J. Sonwa, V. Kemeuze, and C. Mengelt 2018. ‘Assessing climate change
vulnerability and local adaptation strategies in adjacent communities of the Kribi-Campo coastal
ecosystems, South Cameroon’. Urban Climate 24: 1037–1051.
Füssel, H.M. and R.J.T. Klein 2006. ‘Climate change vulnerability assessments: An evolution ofconceptual thinking’. Climatic Change 75(3): 301–329.
Gehendra, B.G. 2012. ‘Community based climate change vulnerability assessment - tools andmethodologies; Enhancing community adaptation to climate change’. Paper presented at the 2nd
Asia-Pacific Climate Change Adaptation Forum, 12–13 March 2012, Bangkok, Thailand.
Hajjar R., D.I. Jarvis, and B. Gemmill 2008. ‘The utility of crop genetic diversity in maintaining
ecosystem services’. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and the Environment 123: 261–270.
Heng, C., S. Doch, and J-C. Diepart 2013. ‘Towards measuring the vulnerability of agricultural
production to flood: Insight from Sangkae river cathcment, Battambang Province, Cambodia’.
International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development 4(2).
Hughes, A.R., B.D. Inouye, M.T.J. Johnson, N. Underwood, and M. Vellend 2008. ‘Ecologicalconsequences of genetic diversity’. Ecology Letters 11(6): 609–623.
International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) 2013. Smallholders’ Farmers, Food Security
and Environment. Rome: IFAD.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007. Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability:
Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Geneva: IPCC.
—— 2013. ‘Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’. IPCC Climate Change 2013: The PhysicalScience Basis: Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the― 276 ―

Forbi Preasious Funwi et al.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Eds. T. Stocker, et al., Cambridge; New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Luers, A.L., D.B. Lobell, L.S. Sklar, C.L. Addams, and P.A. Matson 2003. ‘A method for quantifying
vulnerability, applied to the agricultural system of the Yaqui Valley, Mexico’. Global
Environmental Change 13: 255–267.
Mekonnen, Z., T. Woldeamanuel, and H. Kassa 2019. ‘Socio-ecological vulnerability to climatechange/variability in central rift valley, Ethiopia’. Advances in Climate Change Research 10: 9–20.
Mulwa, C., P. Marenya, D.B. Rahut, and M. Kassie 2017. ‘Response to climate risks among smallholder
farmers in Malawi: a multivariate probit assessment of the role of information, household
demographics and farm characteristics’. Climate Risk Management 16: 208–201.
Ngondjeb, Y.D. 2013. ‘Agriculture and climate change in Cameroon: An assessment of impacts andadaptation options’. African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development 5(1):85–94.
O’Brien, K., L. Sygna, and J.E. Haugen 2004. ‘Vulnerable or resilient? A multi-scale assessment ofclimate impacts and vulnerability in Norway’. Climatic Change 64: 193–225.
Oo, A.U., G. Van Huylenbroeck, and S. Speelman 2018. ‘Assessment of climate change vulnerabilityof farm households in Pyapon District, a delta region in Myanmar’. International Journal ofDisaster Risk Reduction 28: 10–21.
Krishnamurthy, P.K., L. Lewis, and R.J. Choularton 2014. ‘A methodological framework for rapidly
assessing the impacts of climate risk on national-level food security through a vulnerability index’.
Global Environmental Change 25: 121–132.
Rockstrom, J. 2000. ‘Water resources management in smallholder farms in eastern and southern Africa,
an overview’. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth Part B - Hydrology Oceans and Atmosphere 25:
275–283.
Sarkodie, S.A. and V. Strezov 2019. ‘Economic, social and governance adaptation readiness for
mitigation of climate change vulnerability: Evidence from 192 countries’. Science of the Total
Environment 656: 150–164.
Sonwa, D.J., A. Dieye, E.E. Mzouri, A. Majule, F.T. Mugabe, N. Omolo, H. Wouapi, J. Obando, and N.
Brooks 2017. ‘Drivers of climate risk in African agriculture’. Climate and Development 9(5): 383–
398.
Sonwa, D.J. 2018. ‘Forest and climate change response in Africa’. Proceedings of the ASC–TUFS ‘Kickoff’ Symposium: Frontiers of African Studies. Eds. H. Kirikoshi, Y. Matsunami, S. Takeuchi, and
N. Midorikawa, Tokyo: African Studies Center – Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, pp. 71–82.
Sthapit, B., D. Gauchan, B.K. Joshi, and P. Chaudhary 2017. ‘Agrobiodiversity index to measure
agricultural biodiversity for effectively managing it’. In Conservation and Utilization ofAgricultural Plant Genetic Resources in Nepal. Proceedings of 2nd National Workshop, 22-23 May― 277 ―

Exploring farmers’ vulnerabilitiy and agrobiodiversity in perspective of adaptation in Southern Cameroon

2017 Dhulikhel; Eds. B.K. Joshi, H.B. KC, and A.K. Acharya, Kathmandu: NAGRC, FDD, DoA
and MoAD, pp. 170–175.
Thomas, K., R.D. Hardy, H. Lazrus, M. Mendez, B. Orlove, I. Rivera-Collazo, T. Roberts, M. Rockman,
B.P. Warner, and R. Winthrop 2018. ‘Explaining differential vulnerability to climate change: A
social science review’. Climate Change e565. doi: 10.1002/wcc.565.
Tingem, M., M. Rivington, G. Bellocchi, S. Ali-Azam, and J. Colls 2008. ‘Effects of climate change oncrop production in Cameroon’. Climate Research 36: 65–77.
Travis, W.R., S.R. Waddington, C.L. Anderson, A. Chew, Z. True, and A. Cullen 2015. ‘Environmental
impacts and constraints associated with the production of major food crops in Sub-Saharan Africa
and South Asia’. Food Security 7: 795–822.
Turner, B.L., R.E. Kasperson, P.A. Matson, J.J. McCarthy, R.W. Corell, L. Christensen, N. Eckley, J.X.
Kasperson, A. Luers, M.L. Martello, C. Polsky, A. Pulsipher, and A. Schiller 2003. ‘A frameworkfor vulnerability analysis in sustainability science’. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America 100: 8074–8079.
World Bank 2005. ‘Social analysis guidelines in natural resources management: Incorporating social
dimensions into Bank supported projects’. Social Analysis Sector Guidelines Note Series, Social
Development Department. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Žurovec, O., S. Cadro, and B.K. Sitaula 2017. ‘Quantitative assessment of vulnerability to climatechange in rural municipalities of Bosnia and Herzegovina’. Sustainability 9: 1208.
doi:10.3390/su9071208.

― 278 ―