Wildlife use and the role of taboos in the conservation of wildlife around the Nkwende Hills Forest Reserve; South-west Cameroon

Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine

Bonito Chia Ntumwel²  Fodjou Florence Mariam Aghomo²  Kadiri Serge Bobo¹ 

[1]School for the Training of Wildlife Specialists Garoua, Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife, P.O. Box: 271, Garoua, Cameroon

[2]Department of Forestry, Faculty of Agronomy and Agricultural Sciences, University of Dschang, P.O. Box: 222, Dschang, Cameroon

关键词: Wildlife;    Traditional ecological knowledge;    Taboos;    Nkwende hill forest reserve;    Ngunnchang and Obang communities;    Culture;    Cameroon;   

Others  :  1133411
DOI  :  10.1186/1746-4269-11-2

 received in 2014-06-04, accepted in 2014-11-26,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Cameroon is known as Africa in miniature because of its multitude of ecosystems and associated biodiversity, cultures and traditions. The country also harbors very ancient human populations whose relationship with nature is very intimate and where animals play important roles for their livelihood. Located in the South-west region of Cameroon, the Nkwende Hills Forest Reserve (NHFR) represents an important wildlife conservation site because of its strategic position at the periphery of Korup National Park (KNP). The periphery of NHFR is inhabited by several ethnic groups amongst which are the Obang and Ngunnchang clans who share particular relationships with wildlife. The present paper studies these relationships and contributes to the growing trend of scientific ethnozoological studies across Africa.

Method

From August to December 2011, a questionnaire survey was addressed to 126 randomly chosen household respondents (HRs) in seven villages at the Northwest periphery of NHFR. In households, preference was given to parents, and to the eldest child in case the parents were absent. Questions related to the uses and local taboos on wildlife species were asked to HRs.

Results

Both communities have accumulated knowledge on the use of 51 wildlife species of which 50.9% represent mammals, 21.6% birds, 15.7% reptiles, 7.8% fish and 3.9% invertebrates. Four main use categories of wildlife by both communities were identified, namely (1) Food, medicine and sales values (41.2%), (2) Ethnomusical animals and parts used as trophy (29.2%), (3) Decoration and jewelry making values (21.9%) and (4) Magico-religious and multipurpose values (7.8%). Regarding local taboos, species specific taboos (generation totems and acquired totems), habitat taboos (sacred forests), method and segment taboos still persist but are rarely respected among the youth mainly because of the scarcity of wildlife (65.3% of HRs).

Conclusion

Like other communities living around forest areas, the studied communities use wildlife in their culture and tradition. Wildlife is not only used for consumption, but also for traditional medicines, craft materials and spiritual purposes. But, threats to wildlife and their traditional uses are real and acculturation seems to be the main driver. High priority should be given to the reconciling conservation of species with high values for local communities and human needs.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Bobo et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

Figure 8.

Figure 9.

Figure 10.

Figure 11.

Figure 12.

Figure 13.

Figure 14.

Figure 15.

Figure 16.

Figure 17.

Figure 18.

Figure 19.

Figure 20.

Figure 21.

Figure 22.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Naughton-Treves L, Weber W: Human dimensions of the African rainforest. In African rainforest ecology and conservation. Edited by Weber W, White LJT, Vedder A, Naughton-Treves L. New Haven: Yale University press; 2001:30-43.
• [2]Stuart SN, Adams RJ, Jenkins MD: Biodiversity in sub-saharan Africa and its islands: conservation, management and sustainable use. IUCN occasional papers 6. Gland, Switzerland 1990.
• [3]Doumenge C: Atlas pour la conservation des forêts d’Afrique. UICN, France editions Jean Pières de Monza Paris 1996, 310.
• [4]Doumenge C: Forest diversity, distribution and dynamics in the Itombwe mountains, South – kivu. Congo Democratic Repub Mt Resour Dev 1998, 18(3):249-264.
• [5]Doumenge C, Garcia JE, Gartlan S, Langrand O, Ndinga A: Conservation de la biodiversité forestière en Afrique centrale Atlantique: Le réseau d’aires protégées est –il adéquat? Bois Forêts Tropiques 2001, 268:5-27.
• [6]Wilkie DS, Carpenter JF: Bushmeat hunting in the Congo Basin: an assessment of impacts and options for mitigation. Biodiv Conserv 1999, 8:927-955.
• [7]Food and Agricultural Organisation: Resources assessment of Non Timber Products experience and biometric principles. 2001, 109.
• [8]Mbolo M: La collecte et l’analyse des données statistiques sur les produits forestiers non ligneux: Une étude pilote au Cameroun. 2002, 137.
• [9]Robinson JG, Bennett EL: Carrying capacity limits to sustainable hunting in tropical forests. In Hunting for sustainability in tropical forests. Edited by Robinson JG, Bennett EL. New York: Columbia University Press; 2000:13-30.
• [10]World Conservation Monitoring Centre: United Nations list of national parks and protected areas. Gland: IUCN; I994.
• [11]Adams WM: Green development: environment and sustainability in the third world. London: Routledge; 2001.
• [12]Sillitoe P, Alshawi LAA, Al-Amir HAK: Challenges to conservation: land use change and local participation in the AlReem Biosphere Reserve, West Qatar. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed 2010, 6:28. http://www.ethnobiomed.com/content/6/1/28 webcite BioMed Central Full Text
• [13]Duncan WT, McCauley JT, Bromley WA, Mbenchum FT: Korup ethnobotany survey. Final report. Weyside park, Godalming Surrey: WWF Panda house; 1989:154.
• [14]de Merode E, Homewood K, Cowlishaw G: Wild resources and livelihoods of poor households in Democratic Republic of Congo. ODI Wildlife Policy Briefing No.1 2003.
• [15]Kideghesho JR: Co-existence between the traditional societies and wildlife in western Serengeti, Tanzania: its relevancy in contemporary wildlife conservation efforts. Biodiver Conserv 2008., 21
• [16]Hobbs JJ: Guidelines for the involvement of nomadic pastoralists in conservation and development. In Nomadic societies in the Middle East and North Africa: entering the 21st century. Edited by Chatty D. Leiden: Brill Publishers; 2006:785-799.
• [17]Mwihomeke ST, Msangi TH, Mabula CK, Ylhäisi J, Mndeme KCH: Traditionally protected forests and nature conservation in the North Pare mountains and Handeni district, Tanzania. J East Afr Nat Hist 1998, 87(1 and 2):279-290.
• [18]Bobo KS, Ntumwel CB: Mammals and birds for cultural purposes and related conservation practices in the Korup area, Cameroon. Life Sci Leaflets 2010, 9:226-233.
• [19]Kakati LN, Doulo V: Indigenous knowledge system of zootherapeutic use by Chakhesang tribe of Nagaland, India. J Hum Ecol 2002, 13:419-423.
• [20]Solovan A, Paulmurugan R, Wilsanand V, Singh RAJA: Traditional therapeutic uses of animals among tribal populations of Timil Nadu. Ind J Trad Know 2004, 3:198-205.
• [21]Jamir NS, Lal P: Ethnozoological practices among Naga tribes. Ind J Trad Know 2005, 4:100-104.
• [22]Lohani U: Man-animal relationships in Central Nepal. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed 2010, 6:31. BioMed Central Full Text
• [23]Alves RRN: Relationships between fauna and people and the role of ethnozoology in animal conservation. Ethnobiol Conserv 2012, 1(2):1-69.
• [24]Bobo KS, Weladji RB: Wildlife and land use conflicts in the Mbam and Djerem conservation region, Cameroon: status and mitigation measures. Hum Dimen Wild 2011, 16(6):445-457.
• [25]Alves RRN, Albuquerque UP: Ethnobiology and conservation: why do we need a new journal? Ethnobiol Conserv 2012, 1:1-3.
• [26]Ndeh ADR, Mbah B, Dzikouk G: Ornithological surveys of Nkwende Hills, Bakossi Mt. UFA (11-001 and 11-002); for biodiversity conservation and priority settings in the Cameroon-Nigeria Transboundary. Birdlife Int 2002., 44
• [27]Zimmermann L: A comparative study of growth and mortality of trees in Ceasalp dominated lowland African rainforest at Korup, Cameroon. 2000.
• [28]Hotterer RE, Schlitter DA: Shrews of Korup National Park, Cameroon, with the description of a new Sylvorex (Mammalia: Soricidae). 1991.
• [29]Rodewald PG, Dejaifve PA, Green AA: The birds of Korup National Park and Korup project area, South West Province, Cameroon. Bird Conserv Intern 1994, 4:1-68.
• [30]Bobo KS, Waltert M, Fichtler M, Mühlenberg M: New bird records for the Korup project area, Southwest Cameroon. Malimbus 2005, 27:13-18.
• [31]Bobo KS, Njie FM, Mbeng SE, Mühlenberg M, Waltert M: Baumann’s Greenbul Phyllastrephus baumanni, new to Cameroon. Short Notes. Malimbus 2007, 29:130-132.
• [32]Lawson DP: Inventory and status of Herpetofauna of Korup Rainforest National Park, Cameroon. Report to the Korup Project 1992.
• [33]Lawson DP: The reptiles and amphibians of the Korup National Park project, Cameroon. Herpetol Nat Hist 1993, 1:27-90.
• [34]Reid GM: The living waters of Korup rainforest: a biological survey report and recommendations with emphasis on fish and fisheries. In WWF report 3206-A8:1. Gland: World Wildlife Fund; 1989.
• [35]Devitt P: The people of Korup project area: report on phase one of the socio-economic survey. WWF-UK; 1988.
• [36]Butcher C: Village information database: a survey of the villages in the support zone of Korup project. Korup project, Cameroon 1997.
• [37]Vabi M: Socio-economic surveys of human use inside and within 3 km of Korup National Park. WWF-CPO Activities Report 1999.
• [38]Malleson R: Forest livelihoods in SW Province, Cameroon: an evaluation of the Korup experience. University College London; 2000. Submitted for the Degree of Ph.D. Department of Anthropology
• [39]Ngalim OY: Revenue components and conflicts in the use of natural resources in the peripheral zone North-east of the Korup National Park. Memoire FASA/UDs 2011, 93.
• [40]Ntumwel BC: Contribution of dung decay rates to the estimation of densities of duikers and the ethnobiology of mammals and birds in the Korup National Park. Internship report/ FASA/UDs 2010, 49.
• [41]Dewbre J, BorotdeBattisti A: Agricultural progress in Cameroon, Ghana and Mali: why it happened and how to sustain it. OECD Food Agric Fish Working Papers 2008, 9:60.
• [42]Kingdon J: The Kingdon field guide to African mammals. San diego: Academic Press; 1997:496.
• [43]Fa JE, Brown D: Impacts of hunting on mammals in African tropical moist forests: a review and synthesis. Mammal Rev 2009, 39:231-264.
• [44]Djeukam R: The wildlife law as a tool for protecting threatened species in Cameroon. A report to MINFOF, Cameroon 2007, 34.
• [45]Kamgaing TOW: Chasse villageoise et contribution a l’élaboration d’un modèle de prélèvement durable pour Cephalophus monticola en périphérie nord-est du parc national de Korup, sud-ouest Cameroun. Mémoire F.A.S.A/Uds 2011, 119.
• [46]Moute A: Contribution à l’élaboration des stratégies pour une gestion durable de la faune mammalienne sauvage en périphérie nord-est du Parc National de Korup, Sud-ouest Cameroun. Mémoire FASA/Uds 2010, 83.
• [47]Ndengue MLS: Evaluation du statut de conservation des primates diurnes à la périphérie nord-est du Parc National de Korup, Sud-ouest Cameroun. Mémoire F.A.S.A/Uds 2011.
• [48]Brown MW: The roles of wild animals in rural households of the Korup National Park support zone: Women perspectives. Report to the Korup project 1996, 13.
• [49]Lauren E: Wildlife utilization survey of villages surrounding the Rumpi hills forest reserve. Report to the Korup project 1992, 59.
• [50]Bobo KS, Ntumwel BC, Nganmegne FN, Fosso LC, Mekontchou CG: Sacred plants and animals in the Batoufam and Bansoa communities in west Cameroon. Life Sci Leaflets 2011, 18:684-689.
• [51]Reid GM: The living waters of Korup rainforest: a hydrobiological survey report and recommendations, with emphasis on fish and fisheries. Report to the Korup project 1989, 72.
• [52]Alves RRN, Léo Neto NAL, Santana GG, Vieira WLS, Almeida WO: Reptiles used for medicinal and magic religious purposes in Brazil. Appl Herpetol 2009, 6:257-274.
• [53]Solanki GS, Chutia P: Ethnozoological and sociocultural aspects of Monpas of Arunachal Pradesh. J Hum Ecol 2004, 15:251-254.
• [54]Colding J, Folke C: The relations among threatened species, their protection and taboos. Conserv Ecol (Online) 1997, 1:6.
• [55]Colding J, Folke C: Social taboos: “invisible” systems of local resource management and biological conservation. Ecol Appl 2001, 11:584-600.
• [56]Azah MM: A socio-economic study on the feasibility of a community wildlife management concept in the periphery zone northeast of the Korup National Park. Memoire FASA UDs 2010, 75.
• [57]Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C: Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecol Appl 2000, 10(5):1251-1262.
• [58]Berkes F: Rethinking community-based conservation. Conserv Biol 2003, 18(3):621-630.
• [59]Becker CD, Ghimire K: Synergy between traditional ecological knowledge and conservation science supports forest preservation in Ecuador. Conserv Ecol 2003, 8(1):1. (Online) URL: [http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol8/iss1/art1/ webcite]
• [60]Moller H, Berkes F, Lyver PO, Kislalioglu M: Combining science and traditional ecological knowledge: monitoring populations for co-management. Ecol Soc 2004., 9(3) [online]. Accessed 22 May 2006
• [61]Kideghesho JR: The potentials of traditional African cultural practices in mitigating overexploitation of wildlife species and habitat loss: experience of Tanzania. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manage 2009, 5:83-94.