Mucking inCommunity
participation inmangrove ecosystem
restoration can be
improved inCameroon’s DoualaEdea Wildlife
Reserve
By Jean Hude
Moudingo Ekindi
Department of Plant Biology/
Forestry Sciences, University of
Yaoundé, Cameroon
ejeanh21@yahoo.com
Mr. Moudingo Ekindi ( Cameroon)
received his fellowship in 2008 tocarry out DESS research titled
Assessment of community
participation in mangrove forest
restoration in four selectedvillages of the Douala–Edea
Wildlife Reserve: a contribution toimproved social resilience ofcoastal communities to climatechange at the University of
Yaoundé in Mouanko, Cameroon.

Senses working overtime: Villagers gather at a sensitization meeting. Photo: J.H. Moudingo Ekindi

Cameroon has about 196 000 hectares of mangrove
forest, which is rich in vertebrate fauna (Spalding etal. 2010). The 160 000-hectare, IUCN category IV
Douala–Edea Wildlife Reserve (DEWR) was created in 1932and selected as a category 1 operational technical unit (agovernment land-use classification) in 1994. The reserve
covers part of the Cameroonian inshore plain (Ajonina andUsongo 2001), and about 10% of it is occupied by mangroves.
There are six villages in the vicinity, in which foreign
nationals, including from Benin, Ghana and Nigeria,
comprise 80% of the population. Fishing, fish-smoking andmangrove fuelwood harvesting are their main livelihood
activities; fishing is conducted mainly by men and fishsmoking mainly by women.
Very few fish-smokers have adopted the improved ovens
introduced in 2003 by the Cameroon Wildlife Conservation
Society (CWCS), a national NGO, to minimize fuelwood
usage. This is shown by the sharp increase in the number of
traditional ovens in the area, from 340 in 1997 to over 850 in
2008. There is increasing demand for mangrove wood
(Rhizophora racemosa) due to population growth on one
hand and the demand for smoked fish and fuelwood byvillages on the other. These set the grounds for unremitting
encroachment and the overexploitation of mangrove wood.
A traditional oven can use over 5 m3 of mangrove wood perday (Ajonina 2008). More than 84% of mangrove
deforestation and degradation in the DEWR is caused byfish smoking (Ajonina et al. 2005).
In order to find a win–win solution to the over-use ofmangrove resources, the CWCS used a participatory wetland
appraisal to involve poor coastal communities in mangrove

restoration activities. This approach was taken because it
gives local people the opportunity to learn by doing. The key
was to change attitudes to mangrove deforestation anddegradation because mere protective measures have beenineffective.
Little or no study has been done in the DEWR to characterize
community participation in mangrove restoration efforts.
My study was conducted as part of an effort to do so. I set
out to answer the following question: “Does the involvementof local people in mangrove nursery establishment andsubsequent out-planting phases have a significant impact on
the restoration of mangrove forests in the DEWR?”

Methods
The study was conducted in four villages—Mbiako, Yoyo 1,Yoyo 2 and Youme 2. All are located in the mangrovedominated part of the reserve, where the CWCS has beenworking for over ten years. Community participation wasexamined through three stages: sensitization, community
organization and nursery out-planting.
Both primary and secondary data were used in the analyses.
The primary data were derived over a period of 14 monthsthrough two approaches, namely observational studies(phase 1; Moudingo 2007) and a questionnaire survey(phase 2). Phase 1 consisted of taking stock of the number ofindividuals involved in each stage, while phase 2 used a
semi-structured questionnaire to interview 400 individuals
to gauge recent community perceptions. The interviewees
were selected using a stratified random sampling approach.
The linear settlement pattern in the selected villages
facilitated this sampling design. Secondary data came from

ITTO Tropical Forest Update 21/115

The importance of rewards

Figure 1	Community responses on willingness to participate in mangrove
restoration vs the provision of incentives, DEWR
No response
Total
Youme 2
Yoyo 2
Yoyo 1
MbiakoOther
Protective materials
Work-sharing & capacity Building
Food
SalaryEncouragement (in-kind/cash)
010

20

30% of total respondents

origin within and across villages but gave no clear typology of community
participation.
Participatory research: The author plants a mangrove seedlingin the Douala–Edea Reserve. Photo: J.H. Moudingo Ekindi

various sources, such as articles in scientific journals, books,
newsletters, and reports on community participation and onmangrove work.
User-friendly statistic software (Microsoft Excel and theStatistics Package for Social Sciences) was used to encodeand analyse raw data and to process the participatory data
matrices from phases 1 and 2 respectively. To support andcorroborate these results, descriptive statistics as well as
inferential statistics, namely Pearson’s χ2 test and Spearman’scorrelation, were used.

Findings
The degree of community participation in mangrove
restoration activities was highly variable and there was amarked disparity between the four villages. Fish-smokersand woodcutters were the most represented at thesensitization stage and led to the formation of village
steering committees. Overall, eight committees were formed.
Each village had two committees, one on mangrove
restoration (known as village mangrove restoration steeringcommittees) and the other on improved smoke ovens(known as common initiative committees). Overall, women
were the majority on these committees. The efforts of andsynergies between participants of these two types ofcommittee, coupled with the efforts of some other villagers,
yielded close to four hectares of R. racemosa plantation.
During the nursery and out-planting stage, most of those
who participated in the in situ production of seedlings weremen. For all stages community participation analysis
revealed discrepancies in age, nationality, gender, marital
status, educational level, occupation, longevity at site and16

ITTO Tropical Forest Update 21/1

Communities differed significantly in their responses to reforestation
proposals. In the phase 2 questionnaire, many people responded that themangroves were degraded, while others replied ‘not at all degraded’. Thus,
there were differing views on whether replanting was necessary. Many
people were unaware of the stages involved in a successful reforestation
operation. Community participation in nurseries and out-planting activities
was variable: some people were eager initially to participate in the program
but eventually abandoned or resisted it, while others refused outright. Most
people were willing to participate in activities, but conditioned suchparticipation on factors such as more training and especially the provisionof incentives (Figure 1).
Owing to the importance of mangroves to human wellbeing, the restorationof these ecosystems and their ecological functions cannot be overemphasized.
Community involvement in such efforts is essential: not only is it a low-cost
approach, it also helps to educate communities on the benefits of reversing
degradation and deforestation and promotes the sustainable use of resources
and the protection of coastal areas. This study sets the ground for adaptive
measures (anticipatory, short-term and reactive options) to broaden
community participation and awareness in biological management andmitigation strategies. Although in many cases community participation inmangrove restoration in the DEWR was incidental, it was an ‘eye-opener’ forthe communities as they organized in an attempt to secure tenurial rights.
This collaboration will increase their scope to participate in the wise use ofresources in the proposed Douala-Edea National Park and Wetlands ofInternational Importance, which is about 296 000 hectares in size.

Recommendations
Based on the results of this study, the following recommendations can bemade to strengthen community participation in future resource management
initiatives.

Sensitization
More long-term sensitization efforts should be made to enhance the visibilityof project objective(s), benefits, communication and environmental
awareness. These could involve:Mud larks: Putting mud into bags for the seedling nursery, Douala–Edea Reserve.
Photo: J.H. Moudingo Ekindi•

The organization and introduction of environmental mangrove
education in schools.

•The enactment of ‘community days’ for mangrove restoration.

•The use of community opinion leaders to pass the message of mangrove
restoration to other members of the community.

Community organization
There is a need to establish more community groups and bring adjacentvillages together, regardless of whether mangroves are important for thosevillages. Whatever the organizational structure chosen by collaborators, theroles and responsibilities of participants must be clearly delineated.
Leadership and organizational structures should have legal ramification andshould be provided with sufficient technical information and support.

Nursery and out-planting initiatives
Youth should be targeted in mangrove restoration activities because of theirtremendous energy. Facilitators and villagers should monitor the success ofrestoration because feedback will help to inspire and empower others.
Credits should be provided for the provision of assistance materials in theform of grants rather than loans. Equally, graduated sanctions should beimposed for the violation or disturbance of restored sites.

GeneralOverall there is a need for:•long-term planning•

the integration of other conservation initiatives into restoration works•

increased incentives and motivation•

prudent diplomatic approaches•

further research.

Swamped: Village men plant-out Rhizophora racemosaseedlings. Photo: J.H. Moudingo Ekindi

conservator and his team of eco-guards for theircollaboration; and, the chiefs and inhabitants of the selectedvillages for their contribution to the success of this work.

References
Ajonina, G. 2008. Inventory and modelling mangrove forest stands
dynamics following different levels of wood exploitation pressure in theDouala-Edea Atlantic Coast of Cameroon. Ph.D. Thesis, Faculty ofForestry and Environmental Sciences, University of Freiburg, Freiburg,Germany.
Ajonina, G. and Usongo, L. 2001. Preliminary quantitative impact
assessment of wood extraction on the mangroves of the Douala-Edea
Reserve, Cameroon. Tropical Biodiversity 7(2): 137–149.
Ajonina, P., Ajonina, G., Jin, E., Mekongo, F., Ayissi, I. and Usongo, L.
2005. Gender roles and econmics of exploitation, processing andmarketing of bivalves and impacts of forest resources in the DoualaEdea Wildlife Reserve, Cameroon. International Journal of
Sustainable Development and World Ecology 12 (5): 161–172.
Moudingo, E., 2007. Preliminary report: assessment of community
participation in mangrove forest restoration in three selected villages inthe Douala-Edea Wildlife Reserve, Cameroon. Cameroon Wildlife
Conservation Society, Mouanko, Cameroon.
Spalding, M., Kainuma, M. and Collins, L. 2010. World atlas ofmangroves. Earthscan, London, UK.

Acknowledgements
The author thanks ITTO for the timely granting of the fellowship andespecially Dr Chisato Aoki for her kind assistance; Professor Pelz Dieter andDr Ajonina Gordon for information on mangroves, data analyses andstatistical interpretations; Professor Amougou Akoa, Dr Mbarga Bindzi and
Dr Biye Elvire for their various contributions to my knowledge; the DEWR

ITTO Tropical Forest Update 21/1

17