korup-impact : Protected Areas in the Congo Basin: Failing both people and biodiversity?

Displacement: The decree that created the Korup National Park in 1986 stipulated that the 1465 people in the six villages inside the park were to be resettled out of the park area (Marcus Colchester, 1994; Francis, 2010). The policy and the decision of displacement were made without consulting the targeted population: they were not informed that they would be moved, neither were they told where they would be taken nor how and when the process was to take place (Francis, 2010). The Cameroonian government took the responsibility for compensating populations displaced but failed to uphold its promise to many individuals, and the scheme was considered a failure (Francis, 2010; Colchester, 1994).
Diminished livelihoods: Schmidt-Soltau estimates that local people’s loss of forest livelihoods (including hunting, gathering, and producing non-forest timber products) would amount to a third of their cash income if they stopped using the resources of the park completely (Schmidt-Soltau, 2002a : 10). In 2014 it was announced that three of the five villages inside the park would obtain the status of legal enclaves and permanent-use zones, where cultivation and collection of non-timber forest products would be allowed (WWF Coastal Forests Programme, 2014: 3).
Conflicts: During resettlement, the displaced communities were not consulted regarding where or how they would live after being displaced, which resulted in violent confrontations between the communities and the Cameroonian government. Casualties were reported and some peope returned to their original homes (Francis, 2010). Since the implementation of the Korup Project in 1986, rangers have reportedly come time and again to ‘raid the villages’, confiscating game and weapons while local populations refused to comply with laws other than customary ones (Schmidt-Soltau, 2002a: 5).
Reported human rights abuses: There are known tensions, as stated above, but to date no clear reports of abuses by eco-guards have emerged.
Income generating activities: None.
Presence of indigenous peoples: No reported indigenous presence.
Prior consultation: Local communities were not consulted regarding the creation of the park, its initial planning and the modalities of their resettlement. (Schmidt-Soltau, 2002a; Francis, 2010; Mbile, 2009: 174). This led to inappropriate resettlement measures such as housing incompatible with the population’s way of life (Schmidt-Soltau, 2002b: 15). This lack of prior of consultation has been widely associated with the park’s failure to protect biodiversity (Gibson and Marks, 1995, Mbile, 2005).
Participation and consultation: In 1992, a development programme directed towards the rural areas surrounding the Korup Park (‘support zone’) was agreed between the European Union and the government of Cameroon ‘in order to help local people to find sustainable economic alternatives to the present hunting, trapping, gathering and deforestation practices in the park’. An environmental education and awareness programme that would assist the local people to take part in the decision-making process and manage their own resources was also envisaged (Schmidt-Soltau, 2002a: 7). In 2008, it was proposed that the five in-park villages become legal enclaves with a permanent-use zone associated. A participatory methodology for the negotiation process was finalised in 2014 whereby villages and their elites, local administration and the park service agreed on limits for the zone and elaborated a land use and management plan (WWF Coastal Forests Programme, 2014: 4). An agreement signed in March 2015 gives the people of one of the villages, Erat, legal permanent residence and regulated use rights (The Green Vision Newspaper, 2015).