Due to the importance of NWFP to local communities, national governments and the international community, many local, national, regional and international initiatives and institutional arrangements have been organized to ensure that the benefits from NWFP are maximized and equitably shared and sustained. Good local examples include the ASSOFOMI and the MOCAP common initiative groups in Cameroon, involved with the harvesting and trade in Prunus africana on Mount Oku and Mount Cameroon respectively. At the national level, the Cameroon government have put in place legislatures and created committees and departments within the Ministry of Environment and Forestry to carter for regulatory and policy issues governing the production, processing and trade in NWFPs. Cameroon has a separate department for the promotion of the transformation of NWFPs in the Ministry of Environment and forestry (MINEF).
Some NWFP are traded at regional and/or international levels, meaning that the role of national legislatures and regulations may not suffice to control trade transactions in their products. The most discernible reason is that such products would be smuggled from countries where regulations are strong to countries where regulations are weak. This scenario would lead to poor reporting on production and trade in the product and would hamper any policy geared at ensuring in-country value-addition. In recognition of this fact, many international initiatives such as the CITES and the CBD are gaining strongholds to control international trade in implied NWFP. In addition, 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) brought into focus under Agenda 21, Chapter 11 the promotion and development of NWFP through value addition, domestic processing, and promotion of small-scale forest-based enterprises for rural income and employment.
Many NWFP consumed or traded as food items, medicines or fashionable products are subject to restrictions and regulations on their use and commercialisation. The reasons for these controls are either economic, social, biological, political or a combination of these. Institutions manifest at local, national, regional and international levels. Overall, it is believed that trade-related instruments such as national regulations, CITES regulations, periodic bans and control tools can enable a more conducive environment for equitable and sustainable trade in NWFP from Cameroon. Some measures have been taken but their overall impacts have not been fully assessed. The following sections are critical examinations of the measures in terms of impacts, gaps and ways for improvement.
Conventions and other international, regional, national laws and policies concerning the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, access to benefit sharing and the protection of traditional knowledge govern the exploitation of NWFP in Cameroon. Cameroon is a contracting party to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). The following section examines how trade-related laws and regulations have been used to control the trade of Prunus africana in Cameroon.
The Cameroon government has recognized the promotion of NWFP as a means to fight against poverty in rural areas and to generate revenue for the national economy. This was institutionalized with the creation of the Directorate for the promotion and transformation of forest resources in the Ministry of Environment and Forestry (MINEF) under Decree No. 98/067 of 28 April 1998. Two sub-departments were created, one for the promotion and transformation of NWFP and the other for wood products. The policy and regulations affecting the exploitation of NWFP in Cameroon are primarily influenced by the National Forestry Law No 94/01 of January 1994, which specifies forestry, wildlife and fisheries regulations. This covers regulations on the exploitation of Prunus africana in Cameroon.
Under Article 65(1) of the Framework Law on the Environment, “scientific exploration and biological and genetic resource exploitation in Cameroon shall be done under conditions of transparency and in close collaboration with national research institutions and local communities, and should be profitable to Cameroon (MCBCC, 2001). The exploration and exploitation should be done under the conditions stipulated by the international conventions relating thereto, duly ratified by Cameroon, especially the Rio Convention of 1992 on biodiversity.” The 1994 Forestry Law (Section 11) stipulates,” the genetic resources of the national heritage shall belong to the state of Cameroon. No person may use them for scientific, commercial or cultural purposes without prior authorization.”
The financial laws have some regulatory role on the exploitation and trade in NWFP in Cameroon, especially with regards to the taxes and fees paid. Article 11 of the 1999 Finance Law fixes an arbitrary tax of US$ 0.018 kg-1 of any NWFP harvested and a fee of 5% on any NWFP exported. The impact may be very minimal as the tax represents less than 1% of the value of end products.
In addition, MINEF has identified Prunus africana as one of the six most important NWFP in Cameroon that needs to be promoted for socio-economic development. However, the only national legal protection afforded specifically to Prunus africana in relation to trade in its bark was a temporary ban on its exploitation in Cameroon in 1991, which was lifted in 1992. Despite an official ban in 1990/1, greater quantity (3900 tons) of Prunus africana was harvested and exported between 1991 and 1992 than in any preceding year, indicating the high level of corruption in production zone (Cunningham et al., 1997).
Appraisal of National laws and regulations
The exploitation of Prunus africana on Mount Cameroon began in 1972. The files of the Provincial Service of Forestry for the South West (now Provincial Delegation for Environment and Forestry) indicate that exploitation of medicinal plants was regulated only by Decree No. 74/1357 of 17 April 1974, which suggests a two-year period of exploitation without a policy framework (Laird and Lisinge, 1998).
Following negotiations with the government in January 1975, Plantecam began official exploitation of Prunus in 1976, soon after it was issued a Special Permit - No.536/MINAGRI/DEFC of October 8, 1976. This Special Permit covered exploitation of 500 tons of Prunus africana from both the North West and South West Provinces.
Since 1974 the legal and policy framework for Prunus africana has been in constant flux, with a number of different measures by the government of Cameroon (GoC) influencing the manner in which Prunus is harvested and how local communities benefit from its exploitation. These include the following:
• Decree No.74/357, 17 April, 1974 - Sections 74, 97 98 - Regulates the exploitation of medicinal plants.
• Law No. 81-13, 27 November 1981 - Lays down Forest, Wildlife and Fisheries Regulations.
• Decree No. 83-169, 12 April 1983 - Lays down Forestry Regulations.
• Arrete No.48/A/MINAGRI/DF, 28 February 1991 - Banned the exploitation of Prunus africana in Cameroon (exempting Plantecam).
• Arrete No. 48/MINAGRI/DF, 14 February 1992 - Lifted the ban on Prunus africana exploitation.
• Decision No. 0045/MINEF/DF, 11 January 1993 - Banned felling in the exploitation of Prunus.
• Law No. 94/01, 20 January 1994 - Lays down Forestry, Wildlife and Fisheries Regulations, which cover Prunus africana.
• Decree No. 15/ 531/PM, 23 August 1995 - Lays down Forestry Regulations (Hall et al., 2000).
The 1994 law (No. 94/01) is considered a major improvement on the previous 1981 Law, since it attempts to at least address the need to rationalize the forestry sector, conserve and sustain biological resources, increase the contribution of forest resources to development, and to improve the lives of local communities and forest dwellers. Two major changes in the 1994 Law relevant to the exploitation and trade of all special forest products including Prunus africana are: 1) The applicant must first be granted approval for forest exploitation activities (Section 41 of the Law) from the Prime Minister’s office, and then seek permission from MINEF - this creates a two-tiered system of control; and 2) The Provincial Chief of forest must attach a technical report, which specifies the species and quantities to be exploited, the area in which exploitation will take place, and the harvesting modalities to be used (Article 59 (2b) of Decree of application (Hall et al., 2000).
Based on the above steps, and in accordance with the recommendations of the Ministry technical commission, a special permit can be issued. Holders of special permits are responsible for obtaining forestry Service specifications, which detail the conditions for exploiting and transporting natural products, and the terms and conditions for paying taxes. Following the presentation of a copy of the permit and the receipt or payment of taxes, the Provincial Chief of Forest can authorize a start to exploitation.
The 1994 Law (94/01) requires that the following guidelines are given to any person or company interested in the exploitation of Prunus africana bark:
• Stamped application to the Ministry in charge of forest specifying:
1. Full name, nationality, occupation and place of residence (for individuals)
2. Name, Articles of Association, Head Office, Registered Capital and its distribution, and name of the Director or manager (for Companies)
• The capital invested (Attestation)
• The applicant’s investment plan and the financing guarantee (means of transportation envisaged, existing storage facilities and other facilities to be set up, measures taken to process part of the product locally).
• List of species and quantities to be exploited, as well as the location.
• A signed undertaking that the applicant understands and will abide by the regulations and will cooperate with the Forestry Service.
A Ministerial Committee sits at least twice a year to grant exploitation permits for Prunus africana and other medicinal and NWFP. After permits are issued they remain valid for one year, but are renewable pending production of the following:
• A stamped application
• A copy of the previous permit
• Receipts testifying the payment of the registration fee and the selling price of the product
• Copies of certificates of origin, if the holder exports the product
• A detailed report of the activities of the previous seasons, specifying the quantities of the products exported or processed locally.
The 1994 Law refined the previous procedure by requiring the Provincial Chief of Forestry to attach a technical report specifying the methods for harvesting and the quantity of each species to be exploited (Hall et al., 2000).
In addition to these provisions, the 1994 Law goes further in introducing articles on financial and fiscal measures for the benefit of local communities i.e. S.67 (2) and 68 (2) and (3). These articles grant benefits to local councils, however, which means they will not always find their way to the local population. Community-control over forest resources is generally in flux as a result of the 1994 Forestry law innovation of “Community Forests” (Article 37). The 1994 Forestry Law classifies the national forest estate into two categories of forest: permanent and non-permanent forest. The permanent forest includes gazetted state forests and national parks while non-permanent forest includes communal, community and private forests.
Within this context, broad categories of land tenure and resource use influence Prunus africana management options and where permanent responsibilities rest. In Cameroon, stricter national regulations apply to permanent forests than to communal forest. Nevertheless, the use of communal forests depends on the conditions of access and exploitation spelt out in their original charters. In a communal forest, members of the local community can freely exploit natural resources for traditional uses, in accordance with customary rights of use and access. However, they cannot exploit Prunus africana for commercial purpose without acquiring a special permit. This is the most common form of land tenure system in the Kilum/Ijim forest area in Oku and Kom, where the harvesting and sales of Prunus africana remains the primary responsibility of the community. A third category in Cameroon is open access land tenure, where it is difficult to determine who controls what. It is here that conflict and competition arise between different groups of users and where much of the illegal and destructive harvesting of Prunus bark takes place. Neither the local people nor the state is able or willing to exert much control over open access land (Hall et al., 2000).
Despite these improvements, over-exploitation of forest resources continues since effective implementation of the law has not yet been achieved (Laird and Lisinge, 1998). Prior to 1987, Plantecam Medicam, as it was known then, operated within a strict monopoly in the exploitation of Prunus africana in Cameroon. They set and adhered to strict harvesting guidelines such as no felling and no girdling but only the stripping of opposite quarters of the tree to allow for bark regeneration. Thereafter, a breakdown in this monopoly came with the issuance of licenses to 50 companies and individuals. This led to a dramatic increase in field operatives working in an area with corresponding increase in unsustainable practices, notably the felling of trees, total bark removal and non-respect for quotas set. The lesson to be learnt here may be that increasing commercial competition without putting in place adequate management regimes, based on sound inventory data may lead to a corresponding increase in the amount and intensity of bark exploited. Therefore, the issuance of permits is not necessarily a guarantee of sustainability, especially when permits are issued with no harvesting controls being implemented (Sunderland and Tako, 1999).
The over harvesting of Prunus africana bark, primarily from the wild in Cameroon has had a devastating effect on wild populations of the species. This overexploitation sparked conservation concerns, resulting in the species being listed in Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered species of wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) in 1994, becoming effective in 1995 in order to monitor the species in international trade. CITES Appendix II status does not mean that Prunus africana is necessarily threatened with extinction, but that it may become so unless its trade is subject to strict regulation. The Scientific Authority of an export country advises its Management Authority on the sustainability of a consignment and, ideally, the export permit would be based on sound inventory and management information (Hall et al., 2000; Sunderland and Tako, 1999).
In theory, this means that countries of export have to issue export permits and countries of import have to check these permits upon entry (Hall et al., 2000; Cunningham, et al., 1997). The implication is that both exports and imports need to be monitored with export permit strictly based on sound inventory and management information (Ndam, 2004; Sunderland and Tako, 1999). This should ultimately mean that the bark entering the importing countries is harvested from a sustainable source. However, the reality is somewhat different with unsustainable exploitation of Prunus africana still commonplace and quotas and permits are being issued without reference to adequate biological baseline information (Sunderland and Tako, 1999). However, monitoring the trade of Prunus africana is difficult, partly because it is traded in five different forms – unprocessed dried bark, bark extract, herbal preparations in the form of capsules, as a constituent of a hair tonic and as wood.
However, the impact of listing Prunus africana by CITES has been partially effective in reducing threats because it has helped to raise awareness about the problems posed by international trade. The current and forecasted markets for the natural products and derivatives of Prunus africana are European countries, Canada and the USA. Being parties to CITES, these countries are obliged to honour CITES provisions regulating the import of natural products. In addition, their national regulatory bodies, such as the Food and Drug Administrations of both Canada and USA, can further influence the supply-demand by limiting how imported natural products can be used and sold. In France for example, the bark extract of Prunus africana can be sold as a medicine. In the USA, it can only be sold as a herbal dietary supplement. In the UK, it cannot be sold for use as a medicine or dietary supplement (Hall et al. 2000). Nevertheless, the quality of reporting to CITES is inadequate, especially on the part of importing countries (Schippmann 2001).
Several non-governmental, governmental and international bodies are now involved in programmes to promote sustainable management of wild populations, cultivation and monitoring of the trade. For example, for some years the Mount Cameroon Project has been working with villagers to promote the sustainable management of Prunus. Villagers are involved in monitoring the forest to guard against Prunus poachers and to help ensure, in the event of legal harvest, that only a part of the bark is removed (Ndam, 2004). It is hoped that this and similar efforts will suffice to ensure that future supplies of the bark are harvested in sustainable ways. However, the annual sustainable harvest level of Prunus africana in Cameroon has always been exceeded (Tieguhong, 2003). For example, in the Mount Cameroon area, the annual sustainable harvest level has been estimated at 209 tons, but each year over 500 tons are harvested, most of it, by illegal operators (MOCAP, 2004).
Cameroon became a Party to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) at around the same time the World Bank was exerting pressure to reform the country’s forest policy. As a result of these events, the government adopted a new Forestry Law No. 94/01 of 20 January 1994 on Forestry, Wildlife and Fisheries. Decision III/14, paragraph 3 relates the “interactions between traditional and other forms of knowledge relating to conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity; the influence of current laws and policies on knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity”. To a lesser extent, Decision III/15, paragraph 2, dwells on access to and benefit sharing from genetic resources.
In response to this and in an effort to reduce overexploitation and generate greater benefits for local communities from the commercial use of Prunus africana bark, an agreement - “The Agreement for Sustainable Management and Production of Prunus africana at Mapanja Village” - was signed between the main purchasing company, Plantecam Medicam, and the village of Mapanja in 1997. This agreement outlined general benefits for the village (e.g. increased revenues from higher payments per ton collected; training in sustainable management techniques) and serves the wider conservation objective of managing this species sustainably. The major impact of the agreement on conservation and development of Prunus africana is that the local people attest a drastic reduction in illegal and unsustainable harvesting of Prunus bark in most areas, increased economic benefits to the village and better monitoring of harvesting activity after the agreement was signed (Hall et al., 2000; Laird and Lisinge, 1998).
Forest certification remains one of the most contentious issues in international forest policy because it is a trade-related instrument and countries feel that it could influence their competitiveness and market access (Eba’a Atyi and Simula, 2002). This is explained by the fact that it may be difficult to achieve certification status for forest products because of the possibilities of increased costs of production and uncertainties of market benefits for local producers and traders, especially in the short-run.
With regards to NWFP harvesting and trade, they are coming under increasing scrutiny from certification programmes because of their key roles in the sustainable management of forest resources worldwide. Certification is a market-based tool that is becoming a hot topic in many natural resource sectors. According to Dankers (2002) and cited by Walter (2003) certification is a procedure by which written assurance is given that a product, process or service is in conformity with certain standards. It is often linked to the provision of labels for certified products, processes or services. A certification logo or label enables potential customers to differentiate products, based on the social and environmental 'qualities' of the commodity they decide to buy.
This market opportunity is to motivate many producers to adapt their management practices to meet certification criteria (Mallet and Marion, 2000), giving certification its primary function of bringing positive environmental and social changes in resource stewardship. Producers and harvesters can use certification criteria everywhere as a model for best practices. As explained by Rametsteiner and Simula (2001), forest certification is driven by a variety of interests. For industry and trade, it is an instrument for environmental marketing. For buyers and consumers, it provides information on the impacts of the products they purchase. For forest owners and managers, it is a tool for gaining market access or market advantage, or perhaps for capturing price premiums. It also serves to demonstrate responsible forest management through independent third party certification regardless of what the market wants. For the environmental movement, it is a way of influencing how production forests are managed. For governments, it is a soft policy instrument to promote SFM, sustainable consumption patterns and a variety of other environmental and social goals. For investors, it can help in risk mitigation.
Certification is only one tool among many to move towards more sustainable production systems. It will take further refinement of certification programmes to meet local realities, more producers and harvesters willing to test the certification market, and increased demand by consumers for certified products before the full benefits of NWFP certification are felt. How can certification help in the trade of Prunus africana in Cameroon? This is a tricky question. However, the obvious answer lies in the fact that despite the gentler, safer and natural treatment qualities of the Prunus africana tablets, some retailers of complementary medicines refuse to stock them because they cannot guarantee that the bark has been harvested sustainably. In this light, certification can help in assuring retailers that raw materials for the tablets were harvested from a sustainably managed forest in Cameroon.
According to Walter (2003) there are four main categories of certification schemes that are of major relevance to the production, processing and commercialisation of NWFP
• Forest management certification;
• Social certification;
• Organic certification; and
• Product quality certification
Certification entails costs but local NWFPs producers can group themselves to make the cost of certification cheaper. With lower costs and the strong consumer recognition for organics, certification may be most appropriate for many NWFP harvesting operations (Mallet and Marion, 2000).
Fairtrade is also an option for NWFP certification although only for southern producers. To qualify as a Fairtrade product, producers must fulfil specific criteria relating to social conditions of workforce such as paying a minimum wage, respecting terms of employment; also there are conditions for profit sharing and investing back into the community. If a producer fulfils these criteria, his products qualify for fair Trademark and access to fairtrade markets (Mateke, 2001). Fair trade is beneficial for small producers since its primary focus is on ensuring that they receive a fair deal for their products. Secondly, the costs of certification are borne by the retailer and consumer rather than by the producer.
The awareness of quality criteria is increasing in the developing countries and new regulations governing safety of products, quality specifications and good manufacturing procedures are being enacted. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) is very important for establishing, controlling and approving quality and environmental standards for industrial products. There are two generic ISO families that are of relevance to the production, processing and trade in NWFP. These include the ISO 9000 and the ISO 14000 families. The ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 families are among ISO's most widely known standards. ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 standards are implemented by some 634 000 organizations in 152 countries. The ISO 9000 has become an international reference for quality management requirements in business-to-business dealings, and ISO 14000 is well on the way to achieving as much, if not more, in enabling organizations to meet their environmental challenges (ISO Brief, ud).
The vast majority of ISO standards are highly specific to a particular product, material, or process. However, the standards that have earned the ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 families a worldwide reputation are known as "generic management system standards" (Cascio and Schideler, 1998). "Generic" means that the same standards can be applied:
• to any organization, large or small, whatever its product
- including whether its "product" is actually a service,
- in any sector of activity, and
- whether it is a business enterprise, a public administration, or a government department.
"Generic" also signifies that no matter what the organization's scope of activity, if it wants to establish a quality management system or an environmental management system, then such a system has a number of essential features for which the relevant standards of the ISO 9000 or ISO 14000 families provide the requirements (ISO brief, und). Therefore, the enterprises involved with the production, processing and marketing of NWFP such as Prunus africana and the African grey parrot can employ the ISO guidelines to ensure high quality and environmentally sensitive trade.
The ISO 9000 family is primarily concerned with "quality management". This means what the organization does to fulfil:
• the customer's quality requirements, and
- applicable regulatory requirements, while aiming to
- enhance customer satisfaction, and
- achieve continual improvement of its performance in pursuit of these objectives.
On the other hand, the ISO 14000 family is primarily concerned with "environmental management". This means what the organization does to:
- minimize harmful effects on the environment caused by its activities, and to
- achieve continual improvement of its environmental performance.
The benefits of the ISO 14000 EMS gives organisations the tools to monitor and improve their impact on the environment. As a result, having one may help you to
• assure customers of your commitment to demonstrable environmental management;
• maintain good public relations;
• satisfy investor criteria and improve access to capital;
• obtain insurance at reasonable cost;
• enhance your image and market share;
• meet your clients’ registration requirements;
• improve cost control;
• reduce incidents that result in liability;
• demonstrate reasonable care;
• reduce your consumption of materials and energy;
• obtain permits and authorizations;
• reduce the cost of complying with environmental regulations;
• develop and share environmental solutions; and
• improve industry-government relations (Cascio and Schideler, 1998).
Processed products must comply with national and international specifications. There are International Standard Specifications for most processed NWFP. In addition to these, importing countries and buyers may have their own requirements. Export products also involve legal requirements governing registration and packaging. Furthermore eco-audit procedures will be required for safeguarding environmental damage. The ISO 14000 series adds an environmental dimension to the quality standard. This will be equivalent to the European eco-audit and management scheme (EMAS) currently in effect in Europe. These requirements have to be taken into account when planning industrial production of NWFP in developing countries, as ISO regulations will have an impact on marketing of the products.
This series of agreements aims to deregulate international trade by reducing tariffs and encouraging multilateral negotiations on trade issues. It paved the way for the establishment of the World Trade Organization in 1995 as a more powerful Organization for resolving disputes. TRIPS aims to clarify intellectual property rights (patents, trade secrets, trademarks) and measures for enforcing these rights (WTO, 2003).
Like the WTO, TRIPS strengthens and provides more enforceable protection for trade–related intellectual property rights (WTO, 2003). It encourages developing countries to conduct more research and innovation, and helps better access to new technology, including environmental technology. The current situation is inequitable because European and American companies own most of the patents to African high valued plant-based NWFPs such as devil’s claw, Prunus africana etc. This is because industrial research is carried out in developed countries. In most cases such research is focused on cheaper synthetic substitutes as soon as a new useful natural product is discovered. On this note, African countries have to safeguard the property rights of the original resource with international conventions, while at the same time developing higher-yielding and disease-resistant varieties through genetic improvement to ensure sustainable supply of plant material at competitive prices.
Complementary international measures seek to improve conservation prospects by increasing awareness of threats to the viability of populations, which are especially severe in certain areas, and perceived declines in the abundance of the species worldwide. Prunus africana is listed in the Tree Conservation Database of the World Conservation Monitoring Centre (World Conservation Monitoring Centre, 1999, cited by Hall et al., 2000) as a vulnerable species, considered to have suffered a population decline of at least 20% over the last three generations following a decline in area of occupancy, extent of occurrence and /or quality of habitat and exploitation.
Further international action has been taken under FAO auspices, through the FAO panel of Experts on Forest Genetic Resources. By the 8th session of the Panel in June 1993, Prunus africana had been widely publicized as a valuable source of pharmaceutical products. Concerns over sustainability were being voiced and the Panel reinforced these by placing the species on the conservation priority list (Hall et al., 2000). The Panel stressed the need for information on variation, biology and population status as of high priority, and indicated an equally urgent need for in situ conservation action and for provenance and progeny testing to start. During the next session in 1995, Prunus africana remained a high priority species for FAO conservation attention despite a revision of the African priority indigenous species from 80 to 13 (Hall et al., 2000). Ex situ conservation action became an additional priority with Prunus africana and action to improve seed supply was recommended.
Both national and international actions and controls exist and regulate the trade in African grey parrots. The major predicament lies with inefficiencies in the process of implementing the rules and regulations, be they national or international.
In Cameroon, there is a procedure for the attribution of quotas for the trapping of the African Grey parrot under the auspices of the Ministry of Environment and Forestry. The season of capturing parrots in Cameroon is not very precise but the validity of permits to capture ranges from the first of January to the 31st of December of each year (Dandjouma, 2002). An advertisement is usually made by MINEF stipulating the requirements for bidders to apply for the 30 lots of 400 parrots opened for capture in a given season. Bidders send in their applications and winners of lots are selected by merit based on amount of money offered per lot and technical competence. The lots are then attributed to the selected persons by a ministerial decree, with the advice of a technical consultative commission on the quotas of parrots to be captured by each winner of a bid. The technical commission is usually comprised of:
• A president, who is a representative of MINEF
• Members made up of:
• Director of forests,
• Chef of legal Division,
• Permanent Secretary,
• Director of Wildlife and protected areas, who act as the secretary and rapporteur of the commission and
• A representative of the association of trappers.
The names of the tenders alongside their quotas for the year are made public on the national press. The tenders are given a maximum of 45 days to settle their financial obligations for their quotas, which include the tax per parrot captured and the special fee for the Wildlife protection fund lodged in the Directorate of Wildlife and Protected Areas in MINEF. The selected tenders have a 45 days deadline from the date of the signing of the said decision to the release of their financial bids/offers through the payment of taxes to the incomes officer/manager and the accountant for ‘Special funds’ for the protection of wildlife of the MINEF Department of Wildlife and Protected Areas (DFAP). Tenders (authorized ‘trappers) obtain a receipt after submitting 10 certified true copies (made up of nine copies and 1 original) of a technical and administrative offer before the expiry of the deadline, and also a financial offer. The package relating to the technical and administrative offer contains the following:
Administrative file
1. Legal authorization document
2.Taxation certificate
3. Bank statement worth a million francs CFAF
Technical file
1. List of permanent personnel
2. A plan on the hiring of the company
3. Equipment that will be used
4. Copies of license
5. Sworn statement
The stamped and sealed envelope of the financial offer contains indications of the additional amount the tender proposes to pay in relation to the minimum hunting/trapping tax, which is 8.000 FCFA per bird. The said envelope is submitted separately from the technical and administrative files.
The monitoring of the exploitation of these birds is carried out in the field by the persons in charge, and officials of the external services of the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MINEF) through the evaluation of the amount often collected by authorized or non-authorized trappers from authorized or non-authorized trapping areas. These birds are not always packaged with care; hence there are many cases of deaths that can be noticed in the collection areas, up to the pre-exportation phase. A deductible quota form (fiche de décompte des quotas) jointly signed by DFAP and the MINEF officer nearest the trapping site, specifies the quantity collected in relation to the fixed quota, and also indicates the remainder. It should be noted that government law enforcement officers accept only the original version of this document.
Exportation of African grey parrots
The monitoring of the exportation quota of animals under the CITES quota exportation system is performed at the central level (DFAP) by the Chief of service in charge of preparing exploitation licenses. This wildlife exploitation license can be extended over a maximum period of three months. It is granted upon the presentation of a certificate of non-use signed by the MINEF officer of the corresponding exit station.
The chief of service who draws up exportation licenses has a list for the monitoring of quotas for each species under an exportation quota. A deductible quota form is attached to each exportation license, prepared for signing by the Cameroon CITES Management Committee; who could be the same Chief of service, indicating the total number of species already exported (including that of the current license and the remaining quota of this species for Cameroon).
Any request for an exportation license sent to the Management Committee must specify the airport or the port through which the specimens will be dispatched. This exit station is mentioned on the corresponding exportation license; the exporter is not allowed to change the exit station after the signing of the license. Copies of the corresponding deductible quota form is always attached to the signed exportation license, which is immediately faxed or sent to the CITES secretariat and the MINEF officer in charge of the corresponding exit station.
MINEF provincial delegates in charge of auditing exportation licenses obliterate CITES stamps by using perforators, and must send a monthly report to DFAP on the situation of exports and the apprehension of any case of fraud noticed on CITES exportation licenses.
Difficulties encountered in monitoring of activities in areas of capture in the field
• Trapping zones are not always well defined;
• Monitoring of quotas allotted to tenders is not always effective;
• Surveillance personnel are insufficient;
• The trapping period is not always known in advance, as in professional sport hunting.
• Corruption and increasing crime waves such as smuggling and theft, lay the ground for exceeding export quotas. This renders the species increasingly threatened. Crooks and illegality have been attracted by a huge rise in prices caused by international sanctions against the trade in wild birds (Earth Crash, ud; Pattison, ud). For example, the African Grey parrot is reported to fetch around £600 in the UK (Pattison, ud).
Cameroon is a signatory to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), also known as the Washington Convention. The main aim of the convention is to protect species likely to face extinction following uncontrolled exploitation to meet the demands of international trade. According to the degree of threat to which trade in wild-caught birds would impose on a species, it is listed under three Appendices. On Appendix I are the species threatened with extinction on which international trade would have a catastrophic effect. On Appendix II are species that could be threatened if export was not regulated effectively. Trade in these species is permitted if it is sustainable and the specimens were obtained legally (Low, 2002). Also on Appendix II are the offspring- but not those of the first generation- of species on Appendix I. The treaty was signed in March 1973. On June 6 1981 nearly all members of the parrot family, excluding those listed in Appendix I, were placed on Appendix II (Low, 2002). A control system such as annual quota is put on imports and exports of listed species.
With regards to the African grey parrot, which is an Appendix II species, Cameroon was forced to set a quota for the trade in these birds in April 1994. CITES Animal committee asked Cameroon of her quota recommendation on trade in African grey parrots in November, 1993 but Cameroon did not respond. The standing Committee then called on all parties to suspend imports of the species from the country (CITES Notification No. 775, 23 November, 1993). The ban was lifted five months later when Cameroon announced an export quota of 12000 African Grey parrots for 1994 (of which 5500 were stocks held within Cameroon) and agreed to adhere to specific quota recommendations made by CITES Animal Committee (CITES Notification No. 800, 21, April 1994). An export quota of 12000 birds was established for 1995 (Table 2).
Table 2: Annual Quota for trapping African grey parrots in Cameroon
Year |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997 |
1998 |
1999 |
Quota |
12000 |
12000 |
12000 |
12000 |
12000 |
12000 |
Exports |
11602 |
15743 |
21266* |
767 |
12545 |
15220** |
Cameroon CITES management organ divides the annual quota of 12000 birds into 30 lots of 400 parrots. These lots are numbered 1 to 30. These lots are annually auctioned by the CITES management organ of the Ministry of the Environment and forestry (MINEF) in Cameroon. The professional school on wildlife based in Garoua represents the scientific organ of CITES in Cameroon (Dandjouma, 2002).
Appraisal of the Effectiveness of CITES
In Cameroon, CITES has some impacts but not enough to control exports. This is the only global treaty or multilateral environmental agreement (MEA) that regulates the international trade in wild plants and animals and aims to protect species whose conservation status is threatened by such trade. According to Low (2002) it is unfortunate that some countries that trade in enormous numbers of wild-caught parrots are not signatories and parrots on Appendix II continue to be trapped and exported without research data to indicate whether trade is sustainable. Annual quotas, such as those established by the governments of Cameroon are not based on research and might have been, or still are, in excess of sustainable trade levels (Low, 2002).
Imports were suspended in November 1993 as a result of a lack of response to request for information on the scientific basis of Cameroon’s export quota (CITES Notification No. 775). In November 1996, the CITES Secretariat recommended that the Parties reject permits from Cameroon as its 1996 quota was exceeded, later found to be by 11,000 birds (CITES Notification No. 945). In October 1997, the CITES Standing Committee recommended that Parties not to accept any imports of the species from Cameroon until 31 December 1997, stating that the 23,000 birds exported in 1996 covers the quota of 12,000 specimens for both 1996 and 1997 (CITES Notification No. 993). Prohibition was revoked in March 1998 (CITES Notification No. 1998/05) but export quota exceeded again in 1998 and 1999 by a total of 3,765 specimens (CITES, 2001). This situation does not seem to be not unique to Cameroon in the Central African region as the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) exceeded its annual quota of 10000 birds by 7480 in 1999 (CITES, 2001). According to Ngenyi (2002) the trade in African Grey Parrots has been for the past years a lucrative business in Cameroon with almost every sector trying to get its own share of the cake. Although this trade was prohibited in Cameroon in 1997, trappers nevertheless continued to trap. Since then, the situation has not changed in Cameroon. She remarks that the annual quota for Cameroon is 12,000 Grey Parrots, but each year more than 15,000 are exported meaning CITES suspension decisions may not form the sole tools to control the trade in this valuable species. In addition, what may be more relevant is to re-examine the national legislation to control and regulate this trade. This will lead to a sustainable management of this very important bird species and a limitation of parrot laundering through other countries.
In 1990, the CITES Animals Committee formed a Working Group on Bird Trade to examine the international trade in wild caught birds more closely. The trade has been placed on agendas of national governments in major consumer markets in the USA and Europe. In the USA, The Cooperative Working Group on Bird Trade, composed of representatives from conservation, animal welfare, avicultural and pet industry organizations, developed a series of recommendations to address problems associated with the trade. The Wild Bird Conservation Act became law in 1993 in the USA (Low, 2002). The Wild Bird Conservation Act requires a moratorium in one year on most of the half million annual wild-caught bird imports to the USA. Therefore, the Law prohibits the importation of all wild-caught parrots except in certain rare circumstances.
In Europe, the European Parliament has adopted a resolution calling for a ban on European Union (EU) imports of wild caught birds for the pet trade in response to a campaign launched by the animal and bird protection organizations. This ban is however, not yet passed into Law in Europe and elsewhere like in the USA (Low, 2002) , although highly recommended by conservationists. Traffic International (1992) noted that the international bird trade would remain the subject of debate for some time so come, regardless of the forum for discussion. Toufexis (1983) reiterated that implementing the CITES treaty remains a huge problem as does enforcing the tough laws against smuggling that exist in many nations. The laws are adequate but the enforcement is weak.
For example, the analyses of legal trade in wildlife and shows that Britain plays a big role in Europe's annual consumption of more than 20 million live plants and animals. A remarkable 96% of these are taken from the wild. In the UK, 88% of parrot imports were wild-caught, dispelling the myth that most birds on sale in the UK are captive-bred (Earth Crash, ud). Therefore, the UK’s situation is indicative of double standards. In most circumstances trapping of native birds is illegal, as is taking their eggs or even disturbing them at their nest, and can result in a prison sentence in the UK. Yet they legally import thousands of wild-caught birds from other countries (Low, 2002). On this note, Low (2002) recommends that Europe should follow the example set by the USA. This would lead to guaranteeing better protection for wild birds in the current review of European Union wildlife laws.
Conservation organizations campaigning against trade in wild caught birds have been delighted at the response from airlines. Animal welfare organizations have succeeded to convince many airlines to stop carrying wild caught birds. By end of 1991, 41 airlines had accepted not to carry such birds and by July 1993, over 100 airlines had complied with the refusal to carry wild-caught birds (Tamungang, 1997). The director of Kenya Airways appeared on Kenyan TV to announce that the airline would become the one hundredth airline with a wild bird embargo, following lobbying from campaigners. According to ESPB et al. (1992) report, the trade in African grey parrots worldwide had fallen to around a half of former levels due to the campaigns and embargos by mid 90s. But the evidence clearly shows that the Government must severely limit shipment size if it is to reduce mortality because a four-year data shows that although shipments can be as large as 4000 birds, mortality during air transport and quarantine is only significantly reduced in shipments involving less than 100 birds (ESPB et al., 1992).
An example of such a campaigner is the World Parrot Trust (WPT). The World Parrot Trust is a registered charity with thousands of members in over 50 countries. The World Parrot Trust was founded in 1989 at Paradise Park, Hayle, Cornwall, UK, (UK Registered Charity No. 800944). International expansion has been rapid and the Trust now has linked charities and support groups in Africa, Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Holland, Italy, Scandinavia, Spain, Switzerland and the USA (WPT, ud). The WPT is campaigning to stop importation of wild caught birds into the European Union. The objective of the Trust is to promote the survival of all parrot species and the welfare of individual birds everywhere.
The WPT pursues these objectives by funding field conservation work, research projects and educational programmes. Its major activities include the following:
• Restore and protect populations of wild parrots and their native habitats
• Promote awareness of the threats to all parrots, captive and wild
• Oppose the trade in wild-caught parrots
• Educate the public on high standards for the care and breeding of parrots
• Encourage links between conservation and aviculture (WPT, ud).
Therefore, the Trust seeks to promote the concept of ‘responsible aviculture’ where the interests of the parrots themselves are given priority over commercial, political, career or other human concerns. The World Parrot Trust and its members wish to be recognized as the ‘True Friends of the Parrots’, and to win over the majority of aviculturists, pet owners and scientists to its point of view. The World Parrot Trust has been campaigning for individual shipments of parrots to be limited to 50. For instance the World Parrot Trust is campaigning for a ban on the importation of wild-caught parrots into the European Union. By the year 2002, over 16,000 people from 83 countries had signed the petition (Low, 2002).
Although not globally threatened by IUCN criteria, the Trust believes the ruthless trapping and exporting of African grey parrots from West Africa will lead to the extirpation of this species throughout much of its range in the near future. Enforcing existing protected areas and eliminating unsustainable trade in this species are both desperately needed.
