Vol. x(4), pp.

xxx-xxx, xxx October-December 2020

DOI: 10.5897/JENE
Article Number: xxxx
ISSN 2006-9847
Copyright©2020
Author(s) retain the copyright of this article Journal of Ecology and The Natural Environment
http://www.academicjournals.org/JENE

Full Length Research Paper

Framework for assessing the level of stakeholders’

involvement and governance in mangrove
management: Case of selected local communities in the
south west coastal Atlantic Region, Cameroon
David C. Forkam1, Gordon N. Ajonina2,3*, Patience U. Ajonina4 and Martin N. Tchamba1
1
Department of Forestry, Faculty of Agronomy and Agricultural Sciences, University of Dschang, BP Dschang,
Cameroon.
2
Institute of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, University of Douala (Yabassi), Cameroon
3
Cameroon Wildlife Conservation Society (CWCS), Coastal Forests and Mangrove Programme BP 54 Mouanko,
Littoral Region, Cameroon
4
Department of Geography, Faculty of Social and Management Sciences, University of Buea, South West Region,
Cameroon.
Received 20 April, 2020; Accepted 1 July, 2020

Mangrove forest management is becoming increasingly difficult due to increasing pressure from
burgeoning mangrove fuel wood dependent coastal population justifying the urgent need for a multi-
dimensional participatory approach that brings together all stakeholders into a broad management and
governance framework. This paper investigates, analyzes and puts stakeholders’ participation within
the framework for mangrove ecosystem management in local communities of Bimbia-Mabeta areas, a
prominent mangrove deforestation hotspot in Cameroon. Results from data collected from a survey of
three chosen communities and analyzed using relevant statistical tools showed the level of
involvement and intervention in the management process of two categories of stakeholders: direct
stakeholders (primary) being exploiters and indirect stakeholders (secondary - providing service
control, law and enforcement; and tertiary - mainly ecological service beneficiaries). Their
respective incomes per annum derived from mangrove resource exploitation activities ranged from
500.000 to 750.000 fcfa ($1000 - 1500) per person for direct exploiters; and indirect (municipal
services) 180.000 to 1.800 000fcfa ($360 to 3600) and 360000 to 1.080 000 fcfa ($720-2160) for
government services. A matrix and map was constituted to categorize and appreciate
stakeholders in terms of their roles, responsibilities, interests, influence for mangrove restoration
and level of impact of mangrove degradation on their livelihoods. Perspectives for elaboration of
appropriate management and stakeholders’ engagement plans for more efficient governance to
enhance sustainable management of mangroves through integrated, multidisciplinary and
ecosystem approaches are further discussed.

Key words: Mangrove ecosystem management, stakeholders‟ involvement, stakeholder‟s matrix, stakeholder‟s
map, stakeholders‟ engagement plan, good governance, Cameroon.

INTRODUCTION

Mangroves are salt tolerant woody halophytes that classified among the most carbon-rich ecosystems in the
fringes most tropical and subtropical coastal world (Lefebvre 2000; Feka and Manzano, 2008).They
environments worldwide (Alongi, 2002). They are are the world‟s most productive ecosystems
having a high primary production, high rates of recycling period, Macintosh and Ashton (2002) also found that in
and provide a high supply of nutrient source that supports some areas, mangroves are protected by law but the lack
many complex food chains (Lefebvre et al., 2000; Feka of enforcement coupled with economic incentives to
and Manzano, 2008). They play critical roles in livelihood reclaim land has resulted in deliberate destruction and
sustenance and ecological securities of rural economies consequent decline in the surface area of the world‟s
especially communities inhabiting coastal zones with mangrove by about 50% and regionally with Asia and
substantial mangrove stands (Alongi, 2009; Ajonina et al., Africa losing 61 and 55% respectively. Thomas et al.
2014). This is through functions such as high biodiversity (2017) elucidated that the high carbon content of
reservoir, fisheries production, timber production, mangroves, coupled with their financial value in terms of
shoreline protection, pollution abatement and high carbon the ecosystems services that they support, makes them
sequestration rates superior to adjacent inland tropical an important asset for carbon trading initiatives through
forests. The mangrove ecosystem contributes towards the REDD+ climate change adaptation mechanism. This
stabilizing and mitigating the effects of climate change thus forms the basis and justifications for various
(Alongi, 2009; Ajonina et al., 2014). Mangroves are interventions aimed at the sustainable utilization,
heavily used traditionally and commercially worldwide by conservation and restoration of the mangrove forest in
local communities as a source of fuelwood and charcoal the face of heavy deforestation threats of human origin.
for cooking and heating, wood for construction of houses, Africa which displays richness and diversity of cultures
huts, fences, bridges as well as timber for furniture and and peoples, geographical features and biodiversity hard
many other products (Kathiresan and Bingham, 2001; to find elsewhere, hosts about 19% of the world's
Alongi, 2002). In spite of their critical roles, mangroves mangroves, of which about 20,410 km (12% of the
have been considerably undervalued in the past world's mangroves and 59% of African mangroves) are
(Primefact, 2008), negatively perceived as hostile, located in West-Central Africa (Feka and Ajonina, 2011;
smelling, muddy, “wastelands” as well as breeding Kauffman and Bhomia, 2017). This complexity in Africa
grounds for mosquitoes encouraging the clearing, has created great diversity in resource use and
degradation or otherwise loss of many mangrove forests management by rural people (Barrow et al., 2002).
(Primefact, 2008; Forkam et al., 2019). This has also Cameroon is among the few countries in the world
contributed to very little public and scientific attention paid blessed with mangroves which cover over 30% of the
to mangrove compared to the colourful coral reefs or country‟s more than 590 km of coast stretching from the
tropical rain forests (Dittmar et al., 2006). Approximately border with Nigeria contiguous with the mangroves of the
one fifth of the world‟s mangrove ecosystems are thought Niger Delta in the north, to Equatorial Guinea in the south
to have been lost since 1980 due to diverse pressures being the second largest coast in Central Africa after the
from multiple local stakeholders for livelihood sustenance coast of Gabon (Folack and Gabche, 2007). The
(Hanneke et al., 2012). The destruction of the mangrove mangrove coverage of more than 230 000 ha puts the
ecosystem is not a recent issue and is positively related country as the largest in Central Africa and the sixth largest
to human population density (Alongi, 2002). in Africa (Ajonina et al., 2008; MINEPDED-RCM, 2017)
Today, despite increasing awareness regarding the with several stakeholders involved in mangrove resource
value and importance of mangroves, the destruction and management (FAO, 2018). These actors include at the
degradation at alarming rates of mangrove forest one of international level NGOs; at the national level public
the most threatened tropical ecosystem continues to take administration with the involvement of several ministries
place in many parts of the world for a variety of economic comprising in particular: Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife
as-well-as political motives (Polidoro et al., 2010 in “MINFOF”, Ministry of Environment, Nature Protection
Ndongmo, 2019) leading to the decline in the surface and Sustainable Development “MINEPDED”, Ministry of
area of the world‟s mangroves (Konoyima and Johnson, Fishery and Animal Husbandry “MINEPIA”, Ministry of
2019). According to Konoyima and Johnson (2019), the Economy, Planning and Regional Development
distribution of mangroves has decreased globally, with “MINEPAT”, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural
some 2,260 nationally designated and 285 internationally Development “MINADER”, Ministry of Transport
recognized sites worldwide containing about 41% of the “MINTRANS”, Ministry of Mines, Industry and
world‟s remaining mangroves. Valiela et al. (2001) found Technological Development “MINMIDT”, Ministry of
that for all continents, present-day mangrove forest area Energy and Water Resources “MINEE” and Ministry of
is substantially smaller than the original area, with a world Scientific Research and Innovation “MINRESI”); at the
average loss of 35% since 1980s translating into an local level local communities, councils and local
overall areal loss rate of 2.1% per year. During same authorities; non-governmental organizations; and the

*Corresponding author E-mail: gnajonina@hotmail.com.

Author(s) agree that this article remain permanently open access under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License 4.0 International License
private sector. It must be noted that the exploitation of Good governance has been defined according to UN
mangrove poses serious threats to the rich mangrove System Task Team on the Post 2015 and Keping (2017)
biodiversity, the environment and human well-being. At in relation to the desired outcome to human development
the coastline of Cameroon, around the Bimbia-Mabeta from a democratic view as a collaborative management
neighborhood, mangrove forests are not seen as a mechanism processes and institutions, through which
fundamental economic and ecological resource to be citizens, group, stakeholders show their interests,
treasured; as such diverse livelihood activities have led to exercise their legal rights, attain their obligations and
over-exploitation, degradation and even loss in some mediate their differences. This also pertains to institutions
areas (Forkam et al., 2019). As there exist an important of governance, including public administration and public
link between livelihood and environmental security which services connected, in particular, with the sound
has been ignored in the past by mangrove stakeholders management of resources, delivery of and equitable
(as stakeholders focused mainly on the benefits derived access to public services, responsiveness to the views of
from the mangrove ecosystem, neglecting their roles, citizens and their participation in decisions that concern
rights and responsibilities to protect the mangrove), it is them. Governance identifies the blurring of boundaries
therefore imperative to identify and characterize the between stakeholder groups (government, NGOs, public
stakeholders as well as assessing their level of sector, local communities etc.) and responsibilities for
involvement to promote good governance in the tackling social and economic issues; the power
management of the Bimbia-Mabeta mangrove. dependence involved in relationships between institutions
The most effective way to examine local stakeholders‟ involved in collective action; emphasizes the importance
involvement in mangrove forest management, is of autonomous self-governing networks of actors and
essentially to identity them, have an understanding of shared responsibilities in public management; and
their stakes, power relations, their interests and the ways recognizes the capacity to get things done without relying
in which the different stakeholders are able to compete on the power of the Government to command or use its
for the power to control the mangrove resources. This will authority.
enable us understand their level of involvement (influence This study is aimed at elaborating a framework for
and/or impacts) in mangrove forest management. This is identification, categorization, characterization and
very important especially as the mangrove resource is mapping of stakeholders involved in the management of
the principal source of income for the local population of the local mangrove resources. The study assesses their
the Bimbia-Mabeta area. Hence it is very clear that man roles, rights, responsibilities, interests, level of impact on
is at the center of mangrove degradation.Thus, the the degradation of mangrove resources, level of influence
involvement of all stakeholders in mangrove on mangrove restoration as well as their levels of income
management is therefore very important firstly, because earned from their different incomes generating activities.
according to Mukherjee et al. (2014), the number of The study equally elaborates a plan for stakeholders‟
people living within 10km of significant mangrove areas participation so called stakeholder engagement plan
might have risen to 120 million by 2015, and that the bulk (SEP) for effective governance towards sustainable
of this population resides in developing countries in Asia management of mangrove forests in the Bimbia-Mabeta
and West and Central Africa and largely dependent on area in south western Cameroon. This piece of work
mangrove resources for daily sustenance and livelihood. could inform all mangrove stakeholders and other natural
Secondly, the fact that mangrove is seen as open access resource managers that the mangrove ecosystem is like
resource available to the public (Buck, 1998). Kustanti et a natural paradise that can get lost one day. It also
al. (2014) talks of common pool resources (CPR) as it highlights the growing reality that, unless humanity
brings together both direct interest and indirect or power embraces the awesome responsibility of using,
enforcing stakeholders for success and cooperation. preserving and protecting the mangrove ecosystem, it will
According to Bourne (2005) and Jing et al. (2011), indeed disappear.
stakeholders are individuals, groups or institutions that
can be negatively or positively affected by a proposed
project or that can affect the outcome of the project METHODOLOGY
(persons impacted by the project). On the other hand,
Development of the conceptual framework for identification
Ramsar Convention (2007) defined stakeholder as any and categorization of stakeholders within the Bimbia-Mabeta
individual, group or community living within the influence mangrove communities in Cameroon
of a site and who are equally said to be dependent on the
site for their livelihood. An important critical element in Several approaches have been used in the classification and
any management approach is the involvement of all categorization of stakeholders in the management of natural
stakeholders, which include among others: local resources on planet earth. These different approaches or school of
thoughts focus either on the importance, interests, benefits,
communities, non-indigenes, indigenous peoples, as well relevance, needs, rights, and other natural advantages. Some
as various affected economic sectors at all stages of the classification approaches and school of thoughts will now be
process. examined. Concerning interest, Krott (2005) observed rivalry
between different interest groups attempting to utilize the benefits
 Stakeholders

Direct users Indirect users

Secondary Tertiary
Primary Stakeholders
Stakeholders Stakeholders

Development Funding Policy Petty

Agents Mechanism makers/ traders
Collectors Processors Traders Consumers
Implementers

Whole- Households Senators/

Fish NGOs Scientific PNDP REDD+/
Mangrove and Councils Parliamentarians/
sellers Research CC
resource smokers/ Government
wood and Kitchens
Exploiters/ ministerial
Fishermen splitters Retailers services

Figure 1. Conceptual frame work constructed from: MacArthur (1997), Claridge (1997), Barrow et al. (2002), Krott (2005),
Samoura et al. (2007), Eba‟a Atyi et al. (2013), Kustanti et al. (2014) and FAO (2016).

Eba’a Atyi

gained from mangrove as a common pool resource. This rivalry Research and Academic Institutions. And the last and most
which he observed between local stakeholders (interest) and fascinating is the approach that grouped mangrove actors in five
political players (power) form the basis of his classification. Kustanti categories according to their needs and interests. Samoura et al.
et al. (2014) on the other hand, inspired by the works of Krott (2007) categorized them as Social actors (village association and
(2005) decided to further work on “actors, interest, and conflicts in village committee), Economic actors (economic groups and
the sustainable management of mangrove forest”, and found that entrepreneurs), Political actors (local elected authorities and
there exist two categories of mangrove stakeholders: direct and prefectures), Research groups (technical government services,
indirect users. According to them, the direct users are those directly research institutes, NGOs and project organisations) and
exploiting the mangrove forest while the indirect users are those Environmental services (tourists services, international institutions,
who are not in direct contact with the mangrove forest and are not NGOs, environmental departments).
directly exploiting the mangrove forest. Eba‟a Atyi et al. (2013) and The conceptualisation of our framework was therefore based on
FAO (2016) found the works of Krott (2005) and Kustanti et al. the above school of thoughts which we articulated the identification
(2014) to be relevant and decided to add more value to their work and categorization of mangrove stakeholders around two sub-
by further classifying fuelwood/wood fuel stakeholders into direct divisions that is the direct and the indirect stakeholders (Figure 1).
and indirect stakeholders. In their classification, the indirect The direct stakeholders‟ also known as primary stakeholders are
stakeholders were grouped into government and traditional those who are in direct contact with the mangrove forest and/or
authorities while the direct stakeholders were categorized into resources. That is those who are involved in the direct and indirect
collectors/producers, transporters, traders, consumers. Reviewing consumption of mangrove resources (livelihood sustenance).While
a paper entitled “stakeholder Roles and Stakeholder analysis in the indirect stakeholders on the other hand are categorised into
Project Planning” that focuses on stakeholders‟ interest, MacArthur secondary and tertiary stakeholders that is those who are involved
(1997), identified three categories of stakeholders which he in promoting conservation, sustainable utilisation and restoration
grouped them into primary, secondary and external stakeholders. efforts through policy making and/or policy implementation,
Furthermore, Claridge (1997) made allusion to the direct and sensitisation, education/capacity building, participatory
indirect impacts of stakeholders on mangroves and synchronize development programs, funding of developing projects and
their “interests and needs” to come out with the following programs (secondary stakeholders) geared towards mitigating the
classification: Local direct users‟ communities, Local indirect users impacts of the direct stakeholders as well as those enjoying the
Communities, Remote direct Users Communities, Government benefits of environmental services like climate regulation (tertiary
Agencies, Supporters of Mangrove Users Communities and stakeholders). From the block diagram, the direct stakeholders
 Figure 2. Land use Map of Limbe III Council.

include among others: exploiters/collectors, transformers/ East coast of the Limbe town and is found within the Mount
processors, transporters, traders and final consumers. While the Cameroon region. It has an estimated surface area of 212 km2. The
secondary stakeholders on the other hand include: the three communities chosen for the study are Mabeta-Njanga, Mboko
Development agents which are the NGOs, Scientific research, II and Kange. The location map of the study areas that is the Limbe
Councils, and National Community Driven Development Program III council area derived from the map of the South-West Region and
(PNDP); Funding mechanism as REDD+/climate change; Policy the sample sites can be seen in Figure 2.
makers/implementers are the Senators and Parliamentarians, as
well as government ministerial services and traditional authorities
(indirect - secondary stakeholders). The petty traders are the Socio-economic surveys
indirect - tertiary stakeholders.
The study was carried out on the local population of three
communities living adjacent to mangroves at the Bimbia-Mabeta
Description of study site area that exploit and use mangroves. Both purposive and random
sampling techniques were used during the surveys. The study
„The South West Region of Cameroon is located between 9° 00‟ E communities were randomly selected from nine fishing camps
to 16°00‟ E and 2°00‟ N to 7° 00‟ N and is bordered to the South by situated adjacent to mangroves zone at the Bimbia-Mabeta area
the Atlantic Ocean, to the West by the Federal Republic of Nigeria, divided into three strata (3 fishing communities per stratum). The
to the North by the North West Region and to the East by the stratification was done as follows: stratum 1: (Dikolo, Mabeta-
Littoral Region. The region has a surface area of 25 410 km2 and a Njanga, Ijaw-Mabeta), Statum 2: (Mboko I, Mboko II, Mboma I) and
population of about 1,384289 estimated in 2010 (Agendia, 2010). stratum 3: (Mboma II, Anglophone Kange, Francophone Kange).
This Region has 6 divisions with Fako being our division of interest This study area was purposively chosen because the area is an
since it is where the Bimbia-Mabeta communities of the Limbe III epicenter of mangrove exploitation for livelihood sustenance in
municipality are located. The Limbe III municipality is located in the Cameroon.
During this survey, 120 questionnaires were administered to the RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
local population concerned directly or indirectly with mangrove
exploitation within the three chosen communities. Before the Identification and categorization of stakeholders
administration of the questionnaire within these chosen
communities, the local population and the development agents,
within the Bimbia-Mabeta mangrove communities
policy makers and policy implementers (secondary stakeholders) as drawn from the conceptual frame work
part of the targeted population because we consider the secondary
stakeholders as Pro-Conservationists. That is those concerned with Fitted into Table 1 are the various actors on the field in
the putting in place of sustainable management strategies and the conceptual framework already presented in Figure 1.
mechanisms that will enhance conservation of the mangrove As already indicated, stakeholders encountered were of
ecosystem. They were served with both structured and unstructured
questionnaires to get from them the role they have played in
two types depending on their level of influence in
promoting the conservation, sustainable utilization and restoration mangrove management (level of influence in
of the Bimbia-Mabeta mangrove ecosystem. conservation, sustainable utilization, restoration, and
The three communities for consideration randomly selected from degradation). The direct stakeholders being primary
the nine fishing communities that are found within the Bimbia- stakeholders while the indirect stakeholders categorized
Mabeta mangrove area were Mabeta-Njanga (3° 59‟ 57” N, 9° 17‟ into secondary and tertiary stakeholders. The primary
39‟‟ E) Mboko II (3° 58‟ 72‟‟ N, 9° 18‟ 06‟‟ E) and British Kange (3°
54‟ 63‟‟ N, 9° 20‟ 85‟‟ E).
stakeholders being both indigenes and non-indigenes of
the local population and are characterized by collectors
(fishermen and, mangrove exploiters), Traders
Data collection procedure and analysis
(wholesalers and retailers) mainly Buyam-Sellam of fuel
Data collection was conducted using both qualitative and wood and fish respectively (mostly women) found
quantitative methods. The qualitative approach includes key streaming the mangrove areas for mangrove wood and
informant interviews, focus group discussions. While the caught fish (smoked fish or fresh fish in ice boxes), the
quantitative approach on the other hand was done using transporters (hired engine propelled boats riders or hand
questionnaires (with open and close ended questions). The
interviews for the qualitative approach were addressed exclusively
pulled canoes and truck pushers), Processors (fish
to the indirect stakeholders notably: key traditional leaders, smokers, fuel wood splitters, paddle carvers and
municipal and government service personnel within the study area carpenters were seen) and Consumers (over 100
with the aim of strengthening in-depth discussions and interactions households). For the secondary stakeholders, the
geared towards investigating their role, rights, responsibilities, level “Development Agents” encountered were NGOs such as
of impact on mangrove degradation, level of influence on mangrove Cameroon Wildlife Conservation Society (CWCS, 2015),
restoration as well as their annual income earning level. The
quantitative approach on the other hand was carried out using
Consortium Partners with Forests and Wetlands
questionnaires targeting the direct stakeholders notably the Consulting (FWC), Bimbia Bonadikombo Natural
different households to whom 100 questionnaires were randomly Resource Management Council (BBNRMC), People
administered to them using the simple random sampling technique. Earth Wise (PEW) and Cameroon Mangrove Network
The random sampling selection procedure was facilitated by the (CMN); Research and Academic institutions were
information provided by the traditional leaders and councils
namely University of Buea, Limbe Nautical Fisheries
authorities on the available number of houses in each community
from where at least 30% of the population size was predetermined Institute (LINAFI) and Institute for Research in Agriculture
for assessment from physical visit and selection of houses and Development (IRAD); the Councils were mainly Tiko
facilitated by the linear settlement pattern. The relationship between and Limbe III councils; and National Community Driven
a house and household was defined in this case as people Development Program (PNDP). The “Policy
irrespective of families, sleeping under one roof or living in the Implementers” were identified as (Ministerial services of
same house (Ekobo, 1995). In each household the questionnaires
were administered to the head of the house to obtain information on
Forestry and wildlife “MINFOF”, Environment, Nature
their role, rights, responsibilities, annual income, level of impact on Protection and Sustainable Development “MINEPDED”,
mangrove degradation and level of influence on mangrove Fisheries, Livestock and Animal Husbandry “MINEPIA”,
restoration. Both surveys were conducted during the months of Agriculture and Rural Development “MINADER”, Tourism
March and April 2016. Household surveys were heavily facilitated “MINTOUR” and Territorial Administration “MINATD”),
thanks to the intervention of field extension workers of the while the Funding mechanism was mainly Reducing
government services in charge of fisheries, forestry and wildlife.
Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation
(REDD+). Though not in direct contact with the
Data analysis mangroves, that is not using mangroves directly, but
Data collected was subjected to mainly descriptive statistical
concerned with putting in place sustainable management
analyses (frequency tables, bar-charts, pie-charts, etc.) using the strategies for the conservation of the mangrove
EXCEL statistical software package. Inferences were used to ecosystem and resources. In the tertiary stakeholders‟
analyze the annual income earning levels of both direct users of category, another group of indirect interest stakeholders
mangrove resources and indirect users via fiscality (taxes) and living at the proximity of the mangrove forest not equally
notably contingency analysis using SPSS 17.0. Matrices and maps exploiting mangrove directly but enjoying the indirect
were constituted to categorize and appreciate the stakeholders in
terms of their roles, responsibilities, interests, influence (for ecological benefit (positive externalities or green house
mangrove restoration) and the level of impact on mangrove benefits) were mostly petty traders such as shopkeepers
degradation as well as the level of conflicts between different users. (provision shops, coffee and tea shops).
Table 1. Matrix of categorization of stakeholders within the Bimbia-Mabeta mangrove communities from field observations.

Category Description Field observation

Direct users
(i) Primary stakeholders
Mangrove resources exploiters,
Collectors Some 92 Mangrove resource exploiters with over 97 fishermen
fishermen
At least 66 fish smokers, 3paddle carvers and several wood splitters,
Processors Fish smokers, wood splitters
and carpenters
Mainly Buyam-sellam of fresh and smoked fish, as well as those
Traders Wholesalers, retailers
trading with mangrove wood and fuel wood
At least 350 households and kitchens from data obtained from the
Consumers Households, kitchen
councils.
Indirect users

(ii) Secondary stakeholders

NGOs: Cameroon Wildlife Conservation society (CWCS), Consortium
Partners with Forest and Wetlands Consulting (FWC), Bimbia-
Bonadikombo Natural Resource Management Council (BBNRMC),
People Earth Wise (PEW), Cameroon Mangrove Network (CMN);
Scientific Research: Several Research students and Interns from
NGOs, scientific research, Councils, University of Buea, Limbe Nautical Fisheries Institutes (LINAFI),
Development agents
National development programmes University of Dschang and Douala hosted by the Divisional and Sub
divisional delegations of ministerial services and IRAD ;
Councils: Tiko and Limbe III councils (2);
National Development programmes: Participatory National Driven
Development Programme (PNDP), (1)

Reduction Of Tiko-Limbe III Mangrove Deforestation And Degradation

Funding mechanism REDD+/climate change Through Integrated Sustainable Mangrove And Associated Coastal
Forest Management supervised by PNDP

Ministerial services: Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife (MINFOF),

Senators, Parliamentarians , Ministry of Environment, Nature Protection and Sustainable
Development (MINEPDED), Ministry of Fisheries, Livestock and Animal
Policies makers/implementers government ministerial
Husbandry (MINEPIA),Ministry of Tourism (MINTOUR), Ministry of
services Agriculture and Rural Development (MINADER), Ministry of Territorial
Administration and Decentralization (MINATD)

(iii) Tertiary stakeholders

Petty traders Shop keepers Several Provision shops and coffee/ tea shops
 Figure 3. Activities of local direct stakeholders of the Bimbia-Mabeta mangrove area, Cameroon.

80

60
Percent

40

20

0
< 500 000 FCFA 500 000 - 750 750 000 - 1000 > 1000 000 FCFA
000 FCFA 000 FCFA
Levels of income
Figure 4. Annual income earning levels of the local direct primary stakeholders.

of direct stakeholders and their activities within the respondents revealed that their annual income earned
Bimbia-Mabeta mangrove area stood at less than 500.000fcfa (less than $1000), 21%
earned annual incomes ranging between 500.000-
The major activities actively carried out by some local 750.000fcfa (between $1000-1500) while just about 5 and
stakeholders in the study area are presented in Figure 3. 2% of respondents earned annual incomes ranging
The majority of the respondents (97%) were involved in between 750.000-1.000.000fcfa (between $1500-2000)
fishing followed by 92% in mangrove exploitation, 66% of and greater than 1.000.000fcfa (greater than $2000)
the respondents involved in fish smoking while only 1% of respectively. The annual income earning level of the
the respondents were involved in petty trading and they local stakeholders observed ranged from less than
obtained indirect benefits from the mangrove. 500.000 to greater than 1.000.000fcfa with no noticeable
influence on the conservation of the mangrove because
the three activities (fishing, fish smoking and mangroves
Annual income levels of various stakeholders exploitation) were major activities that contributed
towards mangrove degradation.
The annual income earning of the local direct primary The annual earnings of the secondary indirect
stakeholders can be seen on Figure 4: Some 72% of the stakeholders especially the councils (development
Table 2. Income /revenue collected by the state (source: field surveys).

Unit Frequency Amount

Local Service
Department Category of tax Purpose price of per year
in charge
(Fcfa/$) collection (FCFA/$)
Boat
Registration/ownership Fish production 5000 (9) Annually 5000 (9)
tax
Fishing authorization To carryout fishing
Divisional 5000 (9) Annually 5000 (9)
tax activity
Ministry of Livestock, delegation of
Fisheries and Animal livestock, Kitchen ownership To carryout fish
5000 (9) Annually 5000 (9)
Husbandry fisheries and authorization smoking
(MINEPIA) animal Sanitary inspection 200Fcfa 72000
husbandry Sanitation tax Daily
for crayfish (0.4) (120)
Sanitation tax
Sanitary inspection
500 (1.0) Weekly 24000 (40)
for fish

1000 (2)/
Ministry of Forestry Forestry Chief Authorization tax (way- Transportation and
Pickup Daily Unknown
and Wildlife(MINFOF of post bill) fuel trade
truck
Decentralized Land occupation for
Fuel wood depot tax 1000 (2) Monthly 12000 (20)
Territorial Council fuel wood parking
Collectivities Kitchen tax Fish smoking 1000 (2) Monthly 12000 (20)

agents) and the different decentralized government Councils, MINEPED MINFOF, MINEPIA, MINTOUR and
services (MINFOF, MINEPIA, MINTOUR, MINADER etc.) REDD+ with high influence or power on decision for
(policy implementers) though difficult to obtain from most mangrove restoration yet are highly impacted by the
of them due to corrupt practices, were however reliably degradation of the resource and are said to be the
revealed from local informants through different “Defenders”. The associations of fishermen, fish
categories of taxes they pay to municipal and smokers, mangrove exploiters and fresh/smoked fish
government authorities especially the Forestry Chief of buyam-sellam with low capacity to influence mangrove
post, divisional delegation of Fisheries and animal restoration but highly impacted by mangrove degradation
husbandry and the councils. The taxes which were daily, are termed “vulnerable group” While the petty traders and
monthly or annual collections ranged between 1000- shopkeepers having correspondingly low influence and
3000Fcfa ($2-5) per day for the forestry service, 500- low impact , are the “apathetic” of the four categories of
5000Fcfa ($1-9) per year for the fishery service and stakeholders. Presented in Table 3 is a matrix synthesis
500Fcfa ($1) daily not regular to 1000fcfa monthly ($2) on of stakeholders, their roles, right, responsibility, interests,
regular basis by the council service. Details of what is level of impact by mangrove degradation and their level
required by law in terms of taxes/revenue are of influence on mangrove restoration in accordance with
summarized in Table 2. the stakeholders‟ categorization model shown in Figure 1.

Stakeholders mapping DISCUSSION

Categorization and mapping of stakeholders in terms of This study presents evidence supporting previous claims
their roles, rights, responsibilities, interests, level of by Townsley (1998) and Reed (2008) that the first steps
impact on mangrove degradation and their level of in almost every intervention and governance affecting the
influence on decisions for mangrove restoration are use of natural resources is the identification of individuals
presented in Figure 5 and Table 3. It can be deduced that as well as groups holding some kind of “stake” or interest
NGOs, Scientific research, academic institutions, have in that resource. Even though the several approaches
high influence on decision for mangrove restoration but used in the classification and categorization of
less impacted by mangrove degradation. They are stakeholders involved in the management of natural
otherwise known as the “promoters”. They are closely resources on planet earth focuses either on the
followed by parliamentarians, Senators, MINEFI, PNDP, importance, interests, benefits, relevance, needs, rights,
 `

Level  NGO  Senators

of H
decision  Scientific Research  Parliamentarians
influence
i
on g  Academic institutions  Government services
mangrove h (MINEPDED, MINEFI, MINFOF,
restoration (High influence, low impact). MINEPIA, MINTOUR, etc.)
(Promoters group)
 Councils

 PNDP

 REDD+/CC

( High influence high impact)

(Defenders group)

 Petty traders  Fresh/Smoked fish Buyam-sellam

 Shopkeepers  Fishermen association

(Low influence, low impact)  Fish smokers association

(Apathetic/indifferent group)  Mangrove exploiters association

L (Low influence high impact)

o
w (Vulnerable group).

Low High

Level of impact by mangrove degradation

Figure 5. Mapping level of influence on mangrove restoration (Y-axis) and the level of impact by
mangrove degradation (X-axis) by the various stakeholders in the Bimbia-Mabeta mangroves, SW
Cameroon.

and other natural advantages, the likes of Krott (2005) tertiary stakeholders. The direct (primary) stakeholders
classification was based on the rivalry he observed are collectors (fishermen, wood exploiters), traders
between different interest groups attempting to utilize the (wholesalers, retailers), processors (fish smokers, wood
benefits gained from mangrove as a common pool splitters) and consumer (households), while the indirect
resource (a rivalry observed between local stakeholders stakeholders are Development agents, Policy makers
(interest) and political players or powers). Two main (secondary) and Petty traders (tertiary). This result is in
types of stakeholders are involved in the management of line with works of Claridge (1997) and Kustanti et al.
the mangrove with varying annual income earning levels. (2014) on “actors, interest, and conflicts in the
Judged from their level of influence on conservation, sustainable management of mangrove forest”, in which
sustainable utilization, restoration, and degradation, they they found that two categories of mangrove stakeholders:
are grouped into direct or primary stakeholders and direct and indirect users, as well as Eba'a Atyi et al.
indirect stakeholders, categorized into secondary and (2013) and FAO (2016), who also revealed that, the
Table 3. Synthesis matrix for stakeholders‟ roles, rights, responsibilities, interests, level of impact by mangrove degradation and their level of influence on mangrove restoration.

Level of Level of
Definition
impact by influence on
Stakeholders category (local Revenue/
Role Right Responsibility mangrove mangrove
representative) benefits degradation restoration
Primary stakeholders
Their fishing activities
Fishermen Carryout fishing around Fishing should be Revenue from
1-Fishermen around mangroves High Low
Association mangroves sustainable fishing activities
should be legal
Ensure continuous Revenue from
Fish smokers Carryout fish smoking
2-Fish smokers Fish smoking supply of smoked the sales of High Low
Association trade
fish smoked fish
Revenue from
Mangrove Exploitation of
To exploit Ensure sustainable exploitation of
3-Mangrove exploiters exploiters mangrove resources High Low
mangroveresources exploitation mangroves
Association should be legal
resources
Secondary stakeholders
Organise Education,
training and
Support conservation Propose conservation Tax
Non- sensitisation
efforts through strategies, sustainable exonoration,
Governmental workshops on the Low High
integrating local utilisation and information,
Organisation importance of
community partication restoration measures. visibility
mangroves and its
resources
Report research
1- Development agents Introduce new
Carryout research on findingsand propose
conservation Information and
Scientific different aspects of new conservation Low High
measures and visibility
Research mangroves techniques and
techniques
measures
Receive reveune from Carryout
Tax and
mangrove users Stop illegal activities in rehabilitation and
Councils Potential carbon Low High
the mangrove forest restoration project
revenue
onmangrove forest
Supervised the
councils initiate,
Charged with facilitating implement and follow
National local councils in the To offer crucial up their development
Community process of development technical and financial through the Tax and
Driven through facilitation for resources for councils elaboration and potential carbon Low High
Development the elaboration of a implementation of revenue
program (PNDP) councils development their communal
plan development plan.
Table 3. Cont’d

Adopt laws and

Ensure the
regulations governing To know the state of Information
protection of
Parliamentarian the protection of mangrove from the Low High
mangroves and
s mangrove and fragile ministries concern
fragile zones
zones

Adopt laws and Ensures the

regulations governing To know the state of protection of
3-Policy makers Senators Information Low High
the protection of mangrove from the mangroves and
mangrove and fragile ministries concern fragile zones
zones
Ministry of
Environment,
Enure laws and Control or stop all Monitor all activities
Nature
regulations governing mangrove activities carried out within Potential carbon
4-Policy implementers Protection and Low High
mangroves are enacted which aren‟t mangrove forests revenue
Sustainable
and enforced conservation oriented and fragile zones
Development
(MINEPDED)
Ministry of
Stop illegal and Monitor all activities
Fishery, Ensure that laws and
unsustainable linked to fisheries
Livestock and regulations governing
fisheries practices in production in and Tax Low High
Animal fisheries production are
and around mangrove around mangrove
Husbandry enacted and enforced
areas areas
(MINEPIA)
Prohibits
unsustainable
Ministry of Ensure that laws and agricultural activities Monitor all activities
Agriculture and regulations governing around mangrove (eg linked to agriculture
Information Low High
Rural agricultural activities are animal rearing) and around mangrove
Development enacted and enforced promote sustainable areas
practices (eg
apiculture)
Discourage
unsustainable touristic
Ensure that laws and Monitor all touristic
Ministry of activities, promote
regulations governing activities organised Income from
tourism sustainable tourism Low High
touristics activities are in and around tourism
(MINTOUR) (eg birdwatch and
respected mangroves
boating round
mangrove
Table 3. Cont’d.

Tertiary stakeholders
Shopkeepers Non Non Non Non Low Low
Revenue
Just buying and
1-Petty traders Smoked fish “buyam- Buy and sell smoked Carryout smoked from selling
selling of smoked
sellam” fish fish trade of smoked High Low
fish
fish.

direct users are those directly exploiting stakeholder to another which is in accordance sustainability is the involvement of stakeholders in
(collectors) alongside the intermediaries with the importance, needs and interest of the management process. Owing to the level of
(transporters, traders, processors consumers) mangrove resource to them. As seen on Figure 5 the impacts of degradation on the Bimbia-Mabeta
while the indirect users are those who are not in and Table 3, the study shows that direct and the mangrove with underlying causes deeply rooted in
direct contact with the forest, that is the (traditional tertiary indirect stakeholders (buyam-sellam of the complex socio-cultural, economic and political
and official) authorities. smoked fish) sustained high impact from contexts, identification of the different types of
The results of this work is in line with previous mangrove degradation and low influence on mangrove stakeholders in the area, their role in
studies conducted in several parts of west and mangrove restoration, while the indirect re-establishing ecological functions, their rights,
Central Africa, Asia and South America like the (secondary) stakeholders have high influence in responsibilities and benefits cannot be over
works of Ajonina and Usongo (2001), Feka et al. mangrove restoration and with low impacts from emphasized. Since the world is becoming more
(2009) and Feka and Ajonina (2011) in which they mangrove degradation. This is in conformity with integrated, and being the most important concept
all found fish smokers, fishermen mangrove wood the works of MacArthur (1997); Barrow et al., in modern society that strongly emerges in the
exploiters, sand extractors and agriculturists as (2002) and Samoura et al. (2007) that categorized field of natural resource management because of
direct users of mangrove resources. A claim them as; Social actors (village association and the complexity of the systems involved. This
which was further supported by Feka and village committee), Economic actors (economic implies that in enhancing conservation of the
Manzano (2008) and Hanneke et al. (2012) as groups and entrepreneurs), Political actors (local mangrove ecosystem requires a more efficient
their works were able to produce additional elected authorities and prefectures), Research and sustainable management strategy that will
evidence to prove that fishermen, fish smokers groups (technical government services, research mitigate the negative impacts to obtain a
and mangrove wood exploiters are direct users. institutes, NGOs and project organisations) and significant positive impact in rehabilitating and
They found that there exist a positive correlation Environmental services (tourists services, restoring the mangrove resources. Much still
between fishing, fish smoking and mangrove international institutions, NGOs, environmental needs to be done as far as this ecosystem is
wood exploiters which influence the conservation departments). concerned to address the prevailing human
of the mangrove ecosystem. threats at the Bimbia-Mabeta mangrove zone
On the point of view of stakeholders roles, whose management is heavily hinged on multi-
rights, responsibilities, benefits, level of influence CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS dimensional stakeholders‟ approach that brings
on mangrove restoration as well as level of together stakeholders from various sectors
impacts of mangrove degradation, the study Thousands of people rely on the ecosystem involved in mangrove management. This can only
produces evidence that the roles, rights, services provides by mangroves at the Bimbia- be done through research, sensitization (with
responsibilities and benefits as well as level of Mabeta area for poverty alleviation and livelihood more emphasis on public awareness raising and
influence on mangrove restoration and level of sustenance but have not yet identified that the education legislative), capacity building, the
impacts of mangrove degradation vary from one best management method to ensure its introduction of new legislation and new governing
bodies with clearer administrative roles on environmental groups that provides a conducive environment, common
issues, as well as the institution of a stronger participatory and synergistic framework to facilitate the
conservation status for the Bimbia-Mabeta mangrove co-management of the adjacent mangroves forest and
area so that it can gain its outstanding value. We are left also for sustainable resource use innovations to operate.
spellbound by the works of World Bank, ISME, CENTER (iv) Carryout community-based tree planting schemes for
Aarhus (2003); Hanneke et al. (2012), who both mangrove restoration: The government and civil society
highlighted the essential ingredients for the governance organizations need to be stimulus to carry out a
from effective involvement of all stakeholders as a campaign mobilizing other stakeholders groups on
critically important element in the management process planting (afforestation) and replanting (reforestation) of
where coordination and clear distribution of mangroves trees (mangroves restoration) at severely
responsibilities among the different stakeholders degraded sites with the effective involvement and
necessary to ensure successful and sustainable participation of stakeholders. Their level of involvement
management of mangrove, are achievable by will be commensurate with their different stakes in the
establishing “management plans” with “stakeholders resource.
engagement plans” for all mangrove areas without which (v) Creation of effective partnerships to support
implementation of any management system involving participatory mangrove management: Successful and
different stakeholders can be ineffective. For this to be sustainable mangrove management will depend upon the
achieved, the following recommendations are proposed: creation of effective partnerships and promoting
participatory activities between the different users and
(i) Need for appropriate separate legislation for beneficiaries in the chain of delivery of mangrove
mangroves. Adherence to appropriate laws and good ecosystem services.The financial support through the
institutions is the basis of good governance. Legislation REDD+/climate change mechanism towards conservation
on environment and natural resources is still general and efforts to developing countries should be reinforced to
let alone not specific to mangroves. Mangroves by the encourage local communities having mangrove stands to
nature are also hiding grounds of all sorts of criminals sustainably manage and protect their mangrove forest
since it is no man‟s land. There is therefore need for geared towards preventing global climate change.
appropriate separate legislation for mangroves to curb
corruption, „ill‟ intentions of some stakeholders and
governments‟ agencies to rob off the livelihood of rural CONFLICT OF INTERESTS
stakeholders while failing to make alternative sources of
livelihood for them. The authors have not declared any conflict of interests.
(ii) Incorporation of multidisciplinary approach to
management process: In order for mangroves to be ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
managed effectively, Hanneke et al. (2012) found that
critical framework or enabling conditions must be The authors wish to sincerely thank all the respondents
established which include a clear and accepted who responded to all the questions asked and
understanding of ownership and use rights and a solid government field extension staff who facilitated the
legal infrastructure that supports and incorporates realisation of this research. They also want to extend
mangrove management strategies into a wider planning their gratitude to the anonymous reviewers for their
and policy framework. They noted that such frameworks comments and contributions made to improve the quality
will involve all relevant agencies and stakeholders and of this work.
extend across all adjacent zones and communities. The
sustainable management of the Bimbia-Mabeta
mangroves ecosystem needs be integrated into a REFERENCES
broader spatial framework of coastal zone management
which incorporates the multidisciplinary (holistic), Agendia A (2010). Cameroon 2005 census results: smack of diabolic
geo-political planning. Participating in positive change. Available at:
participatory and integrated stakeholders‟ approaches in
http://agendia.jigsy.com/entries/economy/cameroon-2005-census-
the management process. It is a participatory system results-smack-of-diabolic-geo-political-planning
whereby planning, management and implementation of Ajonina G, Kairo JG, Grimsditch G, Sembres T, Chuyong G, Mibog DE,
conservation, sustainable multiple utilization and Nyambane A, FitzGerald C (2014). Carbon pools and multiple
benefits of mangroves in Central Africa: Assessment for REDD+.
restoration of the mangroves ecosystem can be achieved 72pp.
through stakeholders dialogue, negotiations, consensus Ajonina GN, Usongo L (2001). Preliminary Quantitative Impact
and compromise due to divergent views or interests. Assessment of Wood Extraction on the Mangroves of Douala-Edea
(iii) Building organizational and functional capacity of Forest Reserve, Cameroon. Tropical Biodiversity 7(2-3):137-149.
Alongi DM (2002). Present state and future of the world‟s mangrove
fishers and other mangrove exploiters: They equally need
forests. Environmental Conservation 29:331-349.
to organize the fishermen or other mangrove exploiters Ajonina GN, Abdoulaye D, Kairo JG (2008). Current status and
into co-operative or associations or socio-professional conservation of mangroves in Africa: An Overview. Rainforest
 Movement Bulletin No. 133. Kustanti A, Nugroho B, Kusmana C, Darusman D, Nurrochmat D, Krott
Alongi DM (2009). Introduction in the energetic of mangrove forests. M, Schusser C (2014). Actor, Interest and Conflict in Sustainable
Springer Science and Business Media BV, New York. Mangrove Forest Management-A Case from Indonesia. International
Barrow E, Clarke J, Grundy I, Kamugisha JR, Tessema Y (2002). Journal of Marine Science 4(16):150-159.
Whose Power? Whose Responsibilities? An Analysis of Stakeholders Kauffman JB, Bhomia RK (2017). Ecosystem carbon stocks of
in Community Involvement in Forest Management in Eastern and mangroves across broad environmental gradients in West-Central
Southern Africa. Nairobi, IUCN-EARO. Africa: Global and regional comparisons. PLoS ONE
Bourne L (2005). Project Relationship Management and the 12(11):e0187749.
Stakeholder Circle TM. PhD Thesis, RMIT University. Australia Keping Y (2017). Governance and Good Governance: A New
Buck SJ (1998). The Global Commons: an introduction. Island press, Framework for Political Analysis. Fudan Journal of Humanity and
Washington, D C. 182p. Social Science 11:1-8.
Claridge G (1997). What do we mean by Community Involvement? In: Lefebvre (2000). Determinant of Avian diversity in Neotropical
Claridge G, Callaghan BO (eds), Community involvement in wetland Mangrove Forest. In: Biodiversity in wetland: assessment, function
management: Lessons from the field, Proceedings of Workshop 3: and conservation, volume 1.B. Gopal, W.J. Junk & J.A Davies, eds.,
Wetlands, local people and Development, International Conference Bachuys publishers, Leiden, The Netherlands.
on Wetlands Development, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Macintosh DJ, Ashton EC (2002). A review of mangrove biodiversity
Cameroon Wildlife Conservation Society (CWCS) (2015). conservation and management. Centre for Tropical Ecosystems
Socioeconomic report for the REDD+ Project Idea Note (PIN) for the Research, University of Aarhus, Denmark.
Tiko-Limbe III Councils mangrove areas, MINPAT-MINEPDED MacArthur JD (1997). Stakeholder Roles and Stakeholder Analysis in
REDD+ Programme, Cameroon. Project Planning: A review of approaches in three agencies - World
Dittmar T, Hertkorn N, Kattner G, Lara RJ (2006). Mangroves, a major Bank, ODA and NRI. Bradford: University of Bradford, Development
source of dissolved organic carbon to the oceans. Global and Project Planning Centre.
Biogeochemistry Cycles 20:GB1012. Mukherjee N, Sutherland WJ, Dicks L, Huge J, Koedam N, Dahdouh-
Eba'a Atyi R, Lescuyer G, Poufoun NJ (2013). Étude de l‟importance Guebas F (2014). Ecosystem Service Valuations of Mangrove
économique et sociale du secteur forestier et faunique au Cameroun. Ecosystem to inform Decision Making and Future Valuation
MINFOF-CIFOR. Exercises. PLoS ONE 9(9):e107706.
Ekobo A (1995). Conservation of the African Elephant (loxondonta MINEPDED-RCM (2017). Atlas des mangroves du Cameroun.
africana) in Lobeke, South-East Cameroon, Unpublished MINEPDED, Cameroon.
Ph.D.Thesis, Caterbury : University of Kent. Ndongmo KJ (2019). Potential Impact of Fish Smoking on Mangrove
FAO (2016). Enhancing Sustainability and Efficiency of Woodfuel Resources in Southwest Cameroon. Tropical Conservation Science
Production and Consumption. AFRICAN FORESTRY AND 12:1-13.
WILDLIFE COMMISSION. Twentieth Session. FO:AFWC/2016/7 Primefact (2008). Profitable and Sustainable Primary Industries.
FAO (2018). Final Evaluation of the Project “Sustainable Community www.dpi.nsw.gov.au
Based Management and Conservation of Mangrove Ecosystems in Polidoro B, Carpenter K, Collins L, Duke N, Ellison A (2010). The loss of
Cameroon”. (GCP/CMR/030/GEF PSBC) species: Mangrove extinction risk and geographic areas of global
Feka NZ, Manzano MG (2008). The implications of wood exploitation for concern. Peer-Reviewed Open Access Journal 5(4):1-10.
fish smoking on mangrove ecosystem conservation in the South Ramsar Convention Secretariat (2007). Managing Wetlands:
West Province, Cameroon. Tropical Conservation Science 1(3):222- Frameworks for managing Wetlands of International Importance and
241. other wetland sites. Ramsar handbooks for wise use of wetlands, 3rd
Feka NZ, Chuyong GB, Ajonina GN (2009). Sustainable utilization of edition. Vol. 16. Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Gland, Switzerland.
mangroves using improved fish-smoking system: a management Reed MS (2008). “Stakeholder participation for environmental
perspective from the Douala-Edea Wildlife Reserve, Cameroon. management: A literature review. Biological Conservation 141:2417-
Tropical Conservation Science 2(4):450-468. 2431
Feka NZ, Ajonina GN (2011). Drivers causing decline of mangrove in Thomas N, Lucas R, Bunting P, Hardy A, Rosenqvist A, Simard M
West-Central Africa: A Review. International Journal of Biodiversity (2017). Distribution and drivers of global mangrove forest change,
Science, Ecosystem Services and Management 7(3):217-230. 1996–2010. PLoS ONE 12(6):e0179302.
Folack J, Gabche CE (2007). Natural and anthropogenic characteristics Samoura K, Bouvier AL, Waaub JP (2007). Strategic Environmental
of the Cameroon Coastal zone. A report for the Ocean Data and Assessment for Planning Mangrove Ecosystems in Guinea.
Information Network for Africa Phase II (ODINAFRICAII)–Project Knowledge, Technology and Policy 19(4):77-93.
513RAF2041. Townsley P (1998). Social Issues in Fisheries. FAO Fisheries Technical
Forkam DC, Tchamba MN, Ajonina GN (2019). An Evaluation of press Paper 375.
Mangrove Ecosystem Conservation Options within the Bimbia- World Bank ISME CENTER Aarhus (2003). Draft code of conduct for
Mabeta Local Communities in South western Cameroon, Central Sustainable Management of Mangrove Ecosystems. Available at:
Africa. Current Trends in Forestry Research 6:1030. www.mdpi.com/journal/diversity
Hanneke VL, Spalding M, Alongi DM, Kainuma M, Clüsener-Godt M, Valiela I, Bowen J, York J (2001). Mangrove forests: one of the world‟s
Zafar A (2012). “Policy Brief”: Securing the Future of the Mangroves. threatened major tropical environments. Bioscience 51(10):807-815.
Jing Y, Ping Qi S, Bourne L, Christabel MH, Xiaolong X (2011). A UN System Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda.
Typology of Operational Approaches for Stakeholder Analysis and
Engagement: Findings from Hong Kong and Australia.” Construction
Management and Economics 29(2):145-162.
Kathiresan K, Bingham BL (2001) Biology of mangroves and mangrove
ecosystems. Advances in Marine Biology 40:81-251.
Konoyima KJ, Johnson RG (2019). Socio-economic Status and Living
Conditions of Coastal Communities: Impacts on the Mangrove
Ecosystems in the Scarcies, Sierra Leone, West Africa. International
Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences. ISSN: 2300-2697. Vol.
88.pp1-4 Available at: https://www.scipress.com/ILSHS.88.1
Krott M (2005). Forest Policy Analysis. Springer, Netherland.