*Article* **The Organization of Nature Conservation in State-Owned Forests in Poland and Expectations of Polish Stakeholders**

#### **Ewa Referowska-Chodak**

Department of Forest Protection, Institute of Forest Sciences, Warsaw University of Life Sciences (SGGW), ul. Nowoursynowska 159, 02-776 Warsaw, Poland; ewa\_referowska\_chodak@sggw.pl; Tel.: +48-22-5938169

Received: 2 July 2020; Accepted: 21 July 2020; Published: 23 July 2020

**Abstract:** *Research Highlights:* The presented findings result from the first large-scale research conducted in Poland in relation to the State Forests—the most important place for the protection of Polish nature. They may constitute an important contribution to the improvement of the nature conservation system. *Background and Objectives:* The current model of organization of nature conservation in the State Forests in Poland is not fully effective. In regard to the growing influence of society on nature protection and the need to improve the existing system of nature conservation, this study poses the question: what are the expectations of various stakeholders as for the organization of nature conservation in the State Forests? The aim of the article is to present these expectations, to broadly discuss them, and to present recommendations for the future. *Materials and Methods:* The survey was conducted in 2013, among 41 various stakeholder groups in Poland. The choice of the surveyed groups was determined by their legal competence and/or practical experience in nature conservation in the State Forests. *Results:* A total of 77.9% of the respondents supported the concept of transferring full responsibility for nature conservation to foresters, while 51.1% supported financing of nature conservation tasks exclusively by the State Forests. In total, 46.8% of respondents believed that foresters should determine the principles and methods of nature conservation. The presented expectations of the Polish stakeholders differ from the current real situation, however, they still cannot be considered as a complete solution. *Conclusions:* The results indicate a need for a broader discussion and perhaps, consequently, a reorganization of the functioning of nature conservation in state-owned forests in Poland, considering the social expectations and trust in foresters. This can be inspiring also for other countries with a high proportion of state-owned forests.

**Keywords:** State Forests; nature protection; financing; decision making; responsibility; implementation of protective measures; Poland

#### **1. Introduction**

#### *1.1. The State-Owned Forests in the World and in Poland*

Forests, not only in Poland but also worldwide, are regarded as the most important centers of terrestrial biodiversity [1–3]. Among them, the state-owned forests (and generally lands) are very important for nature conservation [4–10]. On the one hand, this is due to well-preserved natural resources that are worth protecting (e.g., [11]). On the other hand, the creation of protected areas on state lands reduces social conflicts related to the limitation of the possibilities to use nature resources (e.g., [8,12–15]). It is noteworthy, that in 2006 about 11.5% of the world's forests were in protected areas [3], in the case of Europe, in 2018 it was 17% (of the state forests), and e.g., in Austrian Federal Forests as much as 50% [6].

Public ownership of forests, including State ownership, concerns approximately 76% of the world's total forest area—about 3040 million ha. The share varies from region to region: it is the lowest in Europe (44%), average in North America, Latin America-Caribbean, and Asia-Pacific (68%, 64% and 67%, respectively), and the highest in Africa, Central Asia, and Russian Federation (99%, 100% and 100%, respectively) [16]. In Europe, 35 companies, enterprises, and agencies (from 24 countries) that sustainably manage state forests are associated in the European State Forest Association (EUSTAFOR). For example, in Norway it is Statskog (about 1 million ha), in France the Office National Des Forêts (about 6.7 million ha), and in Romania Romsilva (about 3.2 million ha) [17].

The State Forests National Forest Holding (in short: The State Forests; this abbreviation will also be used in the text for forests managed by the State Forests), established in Poland in 1924, is also a member of EUSTAFOR. It is the largest institution managing state-owned forests from all countries within the European Union. In 2018, with about 26,400 employees, this institution managed 7.1 million ha of woodlands (and 0.5 million ha of other lands), which account for 76.9% of the total area of Polish forests, 96.7% of the total area of state-owned forests in Poland [18], and over 3.3% of forest area in the EU [19].

Polish forests managed by the State Forests are an important source of timber and other commercial products. For example, in 2018, the harvested yields reached 43.30 million m<sup>3</sup> of wood and at least 4500 tonnes of fruit and 3200 tonnes of mushrooms [18]. Wood products account for 9.3% of the value of Polish exports, and the importance of the wood sector in Poland's national economy is greater than the average one in the European Union. At the regional and local level, the forest-wood sector is a stimulator of development, especially in rural regions, with a total employment standing at about 500,000 people [20]. The State Forests operate on the principle of financial self-sufficiency and cover their costs with their own revenues ([21], sect. 50.1), with a positive financial result, e.g., in 2018, the net profit amounted to about PLN 540 million [22]. Conducting a sustainable forest management requires that the State Forests should meet both people's needs and economic factors, while protecting forests and biodiversity ([21], sect. 6.1.1a). However, in practice, this involves a number of smaller and larger conflicts between various stakeholders, especially between the "demand for timber" and the "conservationists position". These trade-offs between different demands towards State Forests are specific not only to Poland, but also e.g., to Germany [23].

#### *1.2. The Importance of the State Forests for the Protection of Polish Nature*

As early as in 2004, Polish law concerning forests (including the State Forests) was classified as restrictive, as compared to other countries and regions of the world [4]. This is of vital importance for nature conservation in those areas. The adopted model of sustainable forest management (Forest Act [21], sect. 7.1), implementing the integrative approach to nature conservation [5], allows to protect or shape forests with a high biodiversity on a large scale. Forests in Poland are relatively well-preserved, biologically diverse, supporting over 60% of species recorded in Poland. This results in a large number of protected areas and objects in the State Forests, covering 24.3% of the area of Poland (based on [18,24]), often disproportionately higher than on the remaining 75.7% of the area of Poland (Table 1). Out of the 10 legal forms of nature conservation (Nature Conservation Act [25], sect. 6.1), only national parks are excluded from the structure of the State Forests. The state-owned forests located in the latter, cover a much smaller area, about 192,000 ha ([24]) and are managed according to different rules [25]. Among the forms of nature conservation put into practice by the State Forests and listed in Table 1, those with numbers 2, 3, 8 correspond most closely to the integrative approach for nature preservation, while those with numbers 1, 5, 6, 7, and 9 to the segregative approach. In the case of number 4 the approach may vary, depending on the situation of the object of protection (partly after: [26]). The forms of nature conservation listed in Table 1 cover a total of 70.6% of the area managed by the State Forests (unpublished data, made available by Directorate-General of the State Forests, in short: DGSF).


**Table 1.** Forms of nature conservation in the State Forests (SF) compared to Poland in general, at the end of 2018 (based on [24,27], and information from the General Directorate of Environmental Protection).

<sup>1</sup> Different methods of counting in the State Forests and in Poland in general.

It is noteworthy, that for private owners (of forests) in Poland, biodiversity conservation is neither an ethical priority nor a financial benefit [28,29]. There is a common lack of will, habits, or social need for environmental protection and undertaking activities aimed at it [30]. Hence, so far, not private but state ownership of land/forest is a pillar of nature conservation in Poland [28,31]. This is why the organization of nature conservation in the State Forests is so crucial for the effectiveness of nature conservation in the whole country.

#### *1.3. Current Organization of Nature Conservation in the State Forests*

According to Professor Olaczek (Polish authority in the field of nature conservation), the current organization of nature conservation in Poland and in the State Forests is imperfect. The biggest deficiencies and shortcomings are the bureaucracy, related costs, conflicting solutions, and managing of protected areas "at a distance", discouraging foresters, scientists, and also local governments from nature conservation [32].

The organization of nature conservation in the State Forests is regulated by the Nature Conservation Act [25] and Forest Act [21]. The most important competences and activities of various institutions, concerning different forms of nature conservation in the State Forests (from Table 1), are presented in Figure 1. Among listed institutions, the so-called organs of nature conservation i.e., persons having special legal and practical competences in issues related to nature conservation were distinguished ([25], sect. 91).

Not all solutions in the organization of nature conservation in the State Forests are permanent—some can be realized in different variants (dotted lines in Figure 1). For example, supervisory bodies of nature reserves, natural monuments, ecological areas, documentation sites, and landscape-nature protected complexes are determined in the legal acts establishing those objects ([25], sect. 15.3, 44.2). In practice, district forest managers of the State Forests may be designated.

Below, focus is placed on three practical aspects of the actual organization of nature conservation in the State Forests: determination of protective measures; responsibility for the protected areas and objects; financing of nature conservation tasks.

The determination of principles and methods of nature conservation in the state forests means the decision-making process on the design of nature conservation. Among the forms of nature conservation listed in Table 1, only nature reserves, Natura 2000 sites, and landscape parks have protection plans, prepared by the Regional Director of Environmental Protection, the Minister of the Environment or the director of the landscape park, respectively ([25], sect. 20, 28, 29; see Figure 1). Foresters may comment on draft plans ([25], sect. 19.1a, 28.3, 29.2, 29.5), but these comments do not have to be taken into

account. In all the other cases (forms of nature conservation), decisions about protective measures are added to the legal acts establishing those objects and areas ([25], sect. 23.2, 44.2) or are made ad hoc by the units that established the given form of nature conservation. In practice, conservation plans are still lacking in many cases, as there is no money to draw them up, and in addition, some organs of nature conservation are overloaded with responsibilities and are not keeping up with their realization [32]. In communes, on the other hand, the knowledge about protected objects (No. 5–8 in Table 1) is often incomplete and incorrect, which means that there are no grounds to determine methods of their protection [33]. Foresters from the State Forests can have more influence on the design of nature conservation only in the case of drafting a conservation plan for a nature reserve. However, such a solution is rarely used (Figure 1). Foresters set their own rules for nature conservation in areas outside the protected objects (29.4% of the area managed by the State Forests), implementing the integrative approach to nature conservation ([21], sect. 7.1), though the Minister of the Environment may still introduce some adjustments when approving them ([21], sect. 22.1).

**Figure 1.** Organization of nature conservation in the State Forests (solid line—permanent solution, dotted line—possible solution).

In this article, the responsibility for protected areas and objects includes the organization and implementation of protective measures. The organization of protective measures means organizing people (workers), equipment, and materials necessary to carry out the protective measures, as well as the enforcement of legal acts associated with this form of nature conservation. This is usually the responsibility of the entity that supervises the given form of nature conservation (Figure 1). Out of the forms of nature conservation listed in Table 1, only landscape parks have their own administration ([25], sect. 105, 107), and it is independent of the structure of the State Forests in the same area. The implementation of protective measures consists of realizing them in the field, and it is often done by specialized companies selected through a tender procedure. In practice, the entities responsible for protective measures often do not have sufficient resources to organize and implement them [32]. For example, systematic protective measures were carried out in only 55% of communes examined by the Supreme Audit Office [33]. The organization and implementation of protective measures is very often delegated to employees of the State Forests. This is always the case within the borders of landscape parks and Natura 2000 sites ([25], sect. 32.4, 105.5; Figure 1). In the case of other forms of nature conservation, foresters carry out protective measures if they are included in forest management plans, on the basis of information from available legal acts (e.g., those establishing the given forms of nature conservation in the State Forests) ([21], sect. 6.1.11). Additionally, foresters

are responsible for the organization of nature conservation in areas outside the protected objects, when realizing the model of sustainable forest management.

In relation to the current financing of nature conservation, the State Forests should in theory be granted designated subsidies from the government budget to perform the tasks delegated by the governmental administration. This applies particularly to the preparation and implementation of protection plans for nature reserves supervised by this institution, as well as to the protection of plant and animal species ([21], sect. 54.5). In reality, 2008 was the last year in which funds for this purpose were provided: 0.57 million PLN [34]. In the same year, direct costs of nature conservation covered by the State Forests reached 5.09 million PLN [35]. In 2018, no designated subsidies from the government budget were transferred, and direct costs of nature conservation covered by the State Forests amounted to 17.18 million PLN [22]. We should add to these sums costs of lost profits due to the restrictions on forest management in protected areas. The annual expenditure of the State Forests on nature conservation in the broad sense—including environment-friendly methods of forest management—was estimated to reach at least about 500–700 million PLN [34,36]. Additionally, the government budget should participate in the financing of Natura 2000 sites ([25], sect. 39). Apart from designated subsidies from the state budget, funds for nature conservation should also theoretically be provided by some organs of public administration ([25], sect. 4.2), e.g., those that establish the forms of nature conservation and determine the necessary protection measures. In practice, a much greater role in funding nature conservation in the State Forests is played by foreign (especially EU) and Polish environmental protection funds. Nature protection projects implemented by the State Forests (both within and outside the protected areas) have co-financing from the Operational Programme Infrastructure and Environment in the total amount of 42.05 million PLN in 2014–2020 (based on [37]), and from the LIFE fund in 2010–2020—a total of approx. PLN 39.05 million PLN (based on [38]). In the latter case, the National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management (from Poland) also provides financial support for the State Forests in the total amount of 20.31 million PLN.

#### *1.4. The Influence of Society on Nature Conservation in the State Forests*

The influence of society on nature conservation in forests may depend on historical, political, legal, economic, and social factors. In the group of political and legal factors—at international and national level—the Aarhus Convention [39] on access to information, public participation in decision-making, and access to justice in environmental matters is worth mentioning. This Convention on a global scale is one of the important steps towards social involvement in environmental resource management [40] and towards meeting societal demands in nature conservation in forests. However, it applies currently only to Europe and a few Asian countries [41]. The extension of policy and legal tools for public participation in nature conservation has a particular effect on public forests, where there is no conflict with the rights of private owners to their land. Social pressure and preferences for nature conservation in state forests are characteristic e.g., for Austria [6] or for Germany [23,42], where—according to the state forestry representatives—non-governmental environmental organizations are even unable to compromise on their demands for nature conservation [42].

In Poland, the influence of society (various stakeholders) on nature conservation in forests began to be more noticeable only after the collapse of socialism in the second half of the 1980s. The change of the political system allowed the creation of numerous non-governmental organizations (NGOs), including those dealing with nature and environmental protection [43,44]. In relation to the visible development of environmental NGOs, the public awareness of the influence on forest nature conservation has also increased. Additionally, Poland signed the abovementioned Aarhus Convention [39]. It means that the procedures related to social involvement in the environment protection need to be followed, and this applies also to forests [45].

The Polish society can influence nature conservation in state-owned forests in various ways. For example, it can suggest new areas and objects to be protected. The effectiveness of such proposals depends on their merits and a positive decision of the relevant organs and institutions. The society

(as well as various institutions, organizations, local governments, etc.) has also the right to consult legal acts concerning environmental protection, nature conservation, and forestry, e.g., proposals of strategies, acts of the Parliament, and resultant ordinances published on the website of the Government Legislative Centre [46]. The society (various stakeholders) can submit comments and proposals concerning projects of protection plans for protected areas ([25], sect. 19.1a, 28.4, 29.6), and thus participate in their management. In some cases, representatives of the society have a right to decide on the fate of selected forms of nature conservation. This applies to local governments' agreements to create a landscape park or landscape protection area ([25], sect. 16.4, 23.3). Public consultation is also required for proposals of forest management plans in individual forest districts of the State Forests. The forest management plan is a document predicting forest management activities for a period of 10 years ahead, approved by the Minister of the Environment ([21], sect. 22.1), and the nature conservation programme constitutes an integral part thereof. Thus the influence of the society (various stakeholders) on nature conservation in the State Forests is potentially quite remarkable according to Polish law, although in reality it started to become effective as late as in the 21st century and in practice (e.g., in the case of forest management plans' consulting) it is still rather weak [47]. However, looking at it more broadly, there is a growing pressure for nature conservation in state forests, especially from non-governmental organizations and some academics [32]. Their expectations can be characterized in simple words as follows: within the boundaries of nature conservation forms, implemented protection should be as restrictive as possible (as in the segregative approach to nature conservation), whereas outside their boundaries forest management should be as gentle as possible for nature (as in the integrative approach) [48]. However, the full spectrum of social expectations regarding nature conservation in the State Forests has not yet been recognized.

#### *1.5. The Purpose of the Study*

The review of the information presented above allows for some important facts to be noted. Firstly, the area of the State Forests is of crucial importance for nature conservation in Poland. Secondly, the current organization of nature conservation in the State Forests is not perfect. Although foresters have the knowledge and skills to properly manage nature in area of state-owned forests (the numerous protected areas and objects are a proof thereof—Table 1), they have little influence on the decision-making process of nature conservation design in most of the area they manage, and the bodies that should deal with it often fail to fulfil their responsibilities. The organization and implementation of protective measures in practice is often passed on to foresters, without financial means to do so, however. Thirdly, expectations of various stakeholders with regard to nature conservation and its organization in the State Forests are insufficiently recognized.

In regard to both the growing influence of society on nature protection and the need to improve the existing system of nature conservation, this study poses the question: what are the expectations of various stakeholders as to the organization of nature conservation in the State Forests? Three main elements were taken into account: determination of protective measures, responsibility for the protected areas and objects, and financing of nature conservation tasks. The aim of the article is to present these expectations, to broadly discuss them, and to present recommendations for the future. For these reasons, attempts have been made to answer further questions: how far do stakeholders' proposals differ from current solutions? May the system proposed by stakeholders be considered ideal? What may affect the solutions they chose? To what extent could the presented results and discussion be useful for other countries with a similar forest ownership structure and/or nature conservation organization?

The determination of "how to protect it, how to organize it?" is as important as the issue of "what and where to protect?" in the state forests. Stakeholders' expectations on this issue may have a significant impact on the foresters' work, especially if they are legalized under the procedures related to social involvement in the protection of the environment. That is why it is particularly important to identify in detail the various stakeholders and their needs. The presented findings result from the first extensive research ever conducted in Poland in relation to the State Forests—the most important place for the conservation of Polish nature. They may constitute an important contribution to the improvement of the nature conservation system. It should also be emphasized, that the analyzed issues (the organization of nature conservation) are universal, associated with forest biodiversity protection in any country where it is implemented. It is also worth noting that the presented results concern state-owned forests, which are quite rarely an object of studies [6], and thus allow to fill the research gap in this respect.

#### **2. Materials and Methods**

To investigate the stakeholders' expectations concerning the organization of nature conservation in the State Forests in Poland, an original questionnaire was used in a survey conducted in 2013.

The choice of the surveyed groups (Table A1 in Appendix A) was determined by their legal competence and/or practical experience in nature conservation in the State Forests. They were designated on the basis of the following:

	- a. "Głos Lasu" ("The Voice of Forest")—free monthly magazine for foresters published by the State Forests,
	- b. "Las Polski" ("The Polish Forest")—independent paid bi-weekly "for foresters and forest friends",
	- c. "Studia i Materiały Centrum Edukacji Przyrodniczo-Le´snej w Rogowie" ("Proceedings of the Center for Nature and Forestry Education")—scientific periodical publishing post conference materials, concerning among others, nature protection in forests at the end of events co-organized by the State Forests,
	- d. "Chro ´nmy Przyrod ˛e Ojczyst ˛a" ("Let's Protect Our Native Nature")—bimonthly for natural scientists and naturalists amateurs, published independently from the State Forests, containing scientific and popular science articles.

A total of 41 stakeholder groups were selected, and out of them, a total of 6746 respondents to the survey, one questionnaire was in fact to be sent to every single organization, regional and local government, etc. (Table A1 in Appendix A). Depending on the type of respondent, the questionnaire was addressed individually to one person (individual respondent) or to the most important person in a given unit/institution (collective respondent). In the case of 3246 individual questionnaires one answer to each question was foreseen. In the case of the remaining 3500 collective addressees (research units; NGOs and their branches; councils of all rural and urban-rural communes; councils of all rural counties; regional nature conservation councils; socio-scientific councils of all forest promotion complexes), it was possible for a larger number of people within a given unit to answer the questionnaire questions. However, only a few socio-scientific councils of forest promotion complexes, NGOs, and research units used this possibility.

A total of 6746 questionnaires were sent and 1608 responses were received (23.8%) (Table A1 in Appendix A). In case of any doubts, the filled questionnaires were verified and supplemented by e-mail and phone in 2013 and 2014 (the questionnaires were not anonymous, respondents provided their e-mail addresses). In the printed or on-line questionnaire (depending on the group of respondents), the following semi-open three questions with answer variants were included:

**Q1:** Principles/methods of nature conservation in the area of the State Forests should be determined by:


**Q2:** Responsibility for the areas and objects of protected nature in the State Forests should be borne by:


**Q3:** Who should finance nature conservation tasks in the State Forests?


Numbers of received answers to the questions listed above are presented in Table A1 (in Appendix A).

The answers to each question were first divided into variants, where identical or almost identical answers were treated as one variant. Then the analysis was conducted in two ways. First, the different variants of answers for a given question were counted and compared to the sum of all answers to that question. In this way, information was obtained as to what proportion of all the respondents to the survey chose a given variant of response. Secondly, a choice of response variants was identified at the level of individual stakeholder groups. For this purpose, the number of responses under a given variant provided by stakeholders belonging to one group was compared to the sum of responses provided by that group.

Next, the hierarchical cluster analysis was carried out on the variant most frequently chosen by respondents in each answer ("the State Forests"). The PAST program was used for this purpose (version 4.03 [50,51]). From the 'Multivariate' menu, 'Clustering' option was selected, followed by 'Classical'. The cluster distinguishing algorithm was set as 'Single linkage' (nearest neighbor), where clusters are joined basing on the smallest distance between the two groups [52]. The distances between objects were counted as Euclidean distances. In this way, the 'dendrogram' was obtained as a result of grouping the respondents according to the similarity of their answers.

Answers to the additional questions posed for the purpose of the work were based on both long-term own observations about the situation of nature conservation in state forests in Poland, as well as the available literature and studies on Poland and other regions of the world.

Although the research was carried out a few years ago, it has not lost any of its validity and relevance, because to date nothing has changed in the organization system of nature conservation in the State Forests. The results obtained are related to the current situation in Poland (in the State Forests).

#### **3. Results and Discussion**

#### *3.1. Determination of Principles and Methods of Nature Conservation*

The first question (Q1) investigated stakeholders' opinion on who should determine the principles/methods of nature conservation in the area of the State Forests. This question was answered by 1605 respondents (Table A1 in Appendix A), in 17 variants (V). Most frequently, they chose the following responses: "the State Forests" (V1—46.8%, for proportions in individual groups of respondents, see Table 2) and "organs of nature conservation" (V2—40.0%). Apart from these two variants, more than 1% of respondents answered: "organs of nature conservation in consultation/agreement with the State Forests" (V3—5.0%) and "the State Forests in agreement with nature conservation organs/guards" (V4—4.9%). The remaining variants of answers were submitted by 0.1%–0.6% respondents. In total, 59.4% of respondents believed that the principles/methods of nature conservation in the area of the State Forests should be determined by the State Forests, either independently or in cooperation with other entities.

**Table 2.** The four most frequently chosen variants to answer Question 1 (who should determine the principles/methods of nature conservation in the area of the State Forests?).


Currently (see Section 1.3) foresters have a limited influence on establishing nature protection rules, especially within the boundaries of protected areas (70.6% of the area managed by the State Forests). Meanwhile, the largest group of stakeholders (46.8% of respondents) expects the setting of nature conservation rules to be the exclusive task of the State Forests' foresters. Local self-governments prevailed among the supporters of such a solution. On the other hand, a particular skepticism about this option was expressed by members of the administration of protected areas (national parks and landscape parks), selected organs of regional authorities (at the level of province), as well as representatives of research units and regional directors of environmental protection (Table 2). These stakeholders, along with representatives of provincial funds for environmental protection

and water management, as well as regional authorities (at the level of counties), preferred nature conservation rules to be created by organs of nature conservation (40.0% of respondents), showing a mistrust towards foresters. This overlaps only to a limited extent with the current organization system of nature conservation, in which the principles of protection are most often determined by the entities which established a given form of nature conservation (Figure 1). It is noteworthy that e.g., some German foresters consider the existing rules and programs regarding strictly protected forest reserves as an expression of mistrust towards them and their forest management skills [23].

The presented proposals did not include one that seems very valuable: foresters cooperating with scientists. This cooperation should be applicable particularly to those forms of nature conservation which represent the segregative approach to nature preservation (e.g., nature reserves). In the case of forms representing the integrative approach to nature preservation (e.g., landscape parks), cooperation should be extended to include representatives of local communities. In both cases, a supporting role could be attributed to NGOs. This would implement the model of co-management (management distributed among different state- and non-state actors [53]), with the establishment of rules and methods of protection being, of course, only a part of this management [54]. It is noteworthy that the application of a full model of co-management increases environmental awareness, reduces social conflicts, and reduces the costs covered by the government budget [12,55]. It is also worth noting that the statements concerning the establishment of protection rules were strongly polarized, indicating only one group of entities in charge of. Only 13.2% of stakeholders saw the need for cooperation between at least two parties. This seems to result from a lack of good mutual communication experienced by individual stakeholders in Poland. If the current organization of nature conservation in the State Forests is continued, the situation may only get worse. As an example, the opinion of NGOs from 2019 can be given that in recent years the previously good cooperation with foresters has deteriorated in many cases [48]. This may be related to the abovementioned opinion of Professor Olaczek about the current system discouraging foresters, scientists, and also local governments from nature conservation [32]

#### *3.2. Responsibility for the Protected Areas and Objects*

The next question (Q2) concerned the responsibility for areas and objects of protected nature in the State Forests. This question was answered by 1608 respondents (Table A1 in Appendix A), in 15 variants (V). Most frequently, they chose the response: "the managing body—the State Forests" (V1—77.9%, for proportions in individual groups of respondents, see Table 3). The threshold of 1% of respondents was exceeded also for the following responses: "organs of nature conservation" (V2—14.0%), "the managing body—the State Forests—and organs of nature conservation" (V3—4.7%), as well as "the managing body—the State Forests—and other entities, depending on signed contracts/competences determined in legal acts" (V4—1.2%). The remaining variants of answers concerning responsibility for nature conservation in the State Forests were submitted by 0.1%–0.4% respondents. In total, 85.4% of respondents believed that responsibility for areas and objects of protected nature located on land managed by the State Forests should be borne by the State Forests, either independently or in cooperation with other entities.


**Table 3.** The four most frequently chosen variants to answer Question 2 (who should be responsible for the areas and objects of protected nature in the State Forests?).

Currently (see Section 1.3) foresters are often responsible (in practice) for the organization of protective measures and their implementation. The largest group of stakeholders (77.9% of respondents) expects such a solution to be valid always, even though currently it is not the case in all situations (see Figure 1). The high support for this solution was mostly due to the opinion of local self-governments members, but also e.g., national parks directors, state regional sanitary inspectors, and representatives of provincial funds for environmental protection and water management (Table 3). This opinion was the least common e.g., among directors and councils of landscape parks, regional directors of environmental protection, and selected organs of government at the regional level (provinces). The listed stakeholders (excluding landscape park authorities) would prefer to delegate the responsibility for protected areas and objects to organs of nature conservation (14.0% of respondents), which is a solution partly functioning at present (Figure 1).

The organization of protective measures and their implementation exclusively by foresters is a proven solution [32], but its full implementation in relation to protected areas and objects should be correlated with securing financial appropriate resources. This solution may also be completed by the possibility to delegate the implementation of protection tasks to non-governmental organizations, which would apply for funds from external funding sources. Apart from reducing own costs, the State Forests could thus improve relations with this group of stakeholders [56], which, in recent years, have slightly deteriorated [48]. In cases of joint management of a protected area, the need to define precisely the responsibility is emphasized by Vokou et al. [55]. The current organs of nature conservation should in turn supervise all of the above activities, in the sense of controlling of whether and how they have been implemented and with what effect.

#### *3.3. Financing of Nature Conservation Tasks*

The last question (Q3), concerning the financing of nature conservation tasks in the State Forests, was answered by 1604 respondents (Table A1 in Appendix A), in 20 response variants (V). Most frequently, they chose the following responses: "the State Forests from their own funds" (V1—51.1%, for proportions in individual groups of respondents, see Table 4) and "the government budget" (V2—37.3%). The threshold of 1% of respondents was exceeded also for three other responses: "the State Forests from their own funds and the government budget" (V3—5.1%), "the State Forests from their own funds and external aid funds" (V4—1.9%), "the State Forests from their own funds, the government budget, and external aid funds" (1.7%). The remaining variants of funding nature conservation in the State Forests were submitted by 0.1%–0.4% respondents. In total, 61.4% of respondents believed that the State Forests should participate in the funding either independently or in cooperation with other entities.



Currently (see Section 1.3) the funds for nature conservation should be secured in the budget by the government and organs of public administration, and outside the boundaries of the protected objects—by the State Forests themselves. Meanwhile, a majority of stakeholders (51.1%) expect that all the costs of nature conservation tasks (also in protected areas) should be covered only by the State Forests, which is a solution that is largely in practice at present. This answer was chosen more frequently e.g., by members of local self-governments (at commune and county level) as well as directors of national parks and regional directors of environmental protection. On the other hand, a particular skepticism about this was expressed by representatives of research units as well as councils of forest promotion complexes and NGOs. These stakeholders expect all the costs of nature conservation tasks to be covered rather by the government budget (37.3% of respondents), which, in turn, is a narrower solution than the current one.

It is surprising that only a very small proportion of stakeholders' responses took into account external aid funds for environmental protection. In practice they provide important support for Polish nature conservation in recent years (see Section 1.3). Therefore, it seems that they should be taken into account as far as possible when financing nature conservation tasks both within and outside the protected areas. In the former case, the State Forests should also be granted real subsidies from the government budget (covering direct costs of nature conservation), because they carry out tasks important for Polish nature and society which implies costs and losses.

#### *3.4. Factors A*ff*ecting the Solutions Chosen by Stakeholders*

As it was shown in the previous subsections, the "State Forests" (exclusively) were the most frequent (in general) answer chosen by respondents. However, depending on the stakeholder group and on the question, this variant was more or less accepted (Table 5).


**Table 5.** Proportions of respondents suggesting that the State Forests should be the only entity responsible for determination of nature conservation's principles, undertaking responsibility for the nature conservation and responsible for its financing.

The dendrogram (Figure 2) prepared on the basis of the data from Table 5 shows which stakeholder groups answered similarly (taking into account the answers to all three questions), and which differently. The smaller the distance, the more similar the concepts of nature conservation organization in the State Forests. The concepts presented by stakeholders K, Z, Y, and N are the least similar to the others, while the most similar to each other are those presented by stakeholders E, F, G, and H. In the first case it was determined by the fact that these were single respondents. In the second case, three groups of respondents (out of four) come from the same social circle (rural counties). A great similarity of concept can also be seen in pairs O-P, C-D, B-X, and Y-Z, of which the first, third, and fourth are the least dependent on each other.

**Figure 2.** Dendrogram showing the results of the hierarchical cluster analysis (codes A–Z according to Table 5).

However, it should not be forgotten that apart from the answer "the State Forests" (exclusively), stakeholders also chose other response variants in which the State Forests were equally present. In total, 59.4% of respondents in case of Q1 (Principles), 85.4% in the case of Q2 (Responsibility) and 61.4% in the case of Q3 (Financing) chose the State Forests, either independently or in cooperation with other entities.

As the State Forests (foresters) were the most frequent answer chosen by respondents, an attempt to determine what factors could have influenced that is made below.

The expectation to have foresters' involvement in the nature conservation organization increased may result from the intensive forest education of the society since the beginning of 2004. It annually involves about 3–4 million people. Forest education comprises explanation of e.g., principles of sustainable forest management and activities in the field of nature conservation carried out by the State Forests [57]. The support of respondents may indicate an increase in public confidence in foresters' activities, associating them not only with tree felling, but also with care for biodiversity.

Another factor may be the trust in foresters resulting from tradition and/or frequent mutual contacts. Foresters have always been a respected and valued social group in Poland, particularly important in local communities. Actually, local self-governments have quite a lot to do with foresters, which could positively affect the evaluation of their work. There are also other examples. Sanitary inspectors are aware of the involvement of foresters in nature conservation, because they consult the project of forest management plan (including nature conservation programme) for each forest district ([21], sect. 6.1.11). Representatives of provincial funds for environmental protection and water management associate foresters with grant applicants and later beneficiaries of the grants transferred by those funds for nature conservation and environmental education of the society (e.g., [58]). In general, public trust in foresters is high: in 2018, in a public survey, the activity of the State Forests was evaluated positively by 84% of Poles, 86% believed that foresters are honest, and about 89%, that they are competent [59]. In 2014 (one year after the author's survey) it was 81%, 86%, and 86%, respectively [60].

The next factor may be the recognition of foresters' contribution to nature conservation in forests. Many stakeholders are aware of the foresters' contribution to nature conservation in Poland, protective tasks carried out by them, as well as of the large number of protected objects on the land managed by the State Forests (see Table 1). Polish foresters have a very rich practical experience in protecting and shaping forest ecosystems, which should neither be ignored nor underestimated [61]. The directors of national parks also appreciate the financial help from the foresters, as the State Forests partly fund the protective measures and scientific research within national parks ([21], sect. 58.2–3, [22]).

External 'evidence' of the integration of nature conservation into forest management may be another factor. The State Forests are subject to external forest management quality control in respect of e.g., biodiversity conservation, to receive certificates from the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC–[62]) and Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC–[63]). In 2013, the holding also received from the UNESCO the prestigious Sultan Qaboos Prize for Environmental Preservation, for outstanding contributions to the management or preservation of the environment [64].

The stakeholders' willingness to free from responsibility and expenses related to nature conservation may also be important. For the vast majority of the legally determined organs of nature conservation, nature conservation is an addition to numerous principal duties, associated with spatial management, economy, and community at the level of commune, county, or province (authorities) or to duties in the field of environmental protection (regional directors of environmental protection) [25,45]. Additionally, and quite often, the local self-governments are not prepared in respect of knowledge and staff to conduct nature conservation tasks ([65]—problem no. 12, [33]). Another problem is funds, which are insufficient, not only at the national level (government budget) but also regionally (budget of regional director of environmental protection) and locally (budget of commune) [13,32,33]. Hence a perspective of getting rid of responsibility in nature conservation probably appeared beneficial for the interviewed stakeholders.

Noting the shortcomings of the current nature conservation system may be another factor. Stakeholders have mostly proposed solutions that are currently working in practice, although in theory (in law) they are often considered a possible option only. However, they are more effective than basic solutions. This is in particular the case of the implementation and financing of nature conservation tasks.

The last factor may be the belief that the State Forests are a rich institution. The State Forests are perceived by the society as a wealthy company: in 2018, for example, the average monthly salary of a forester was almost twice as high as the average monthly salary in the entire national economy [22,66]. Therefore, according to many stakeholders, the State Forests can afford to finance nature conservation tasks.

However, some stakeholders preferred different organizational solutions in nature conservation than those involving foresters from the State Forests. The expectation of foresters being relieved of the burden of nature conservation organization may result from the comprehension of the heavy burden currently born by foresters—especially in terms of financing nature conservation. A particular understanding in this point was shown in the group of scientists, underfunded in Poland, who represented not only scientific institutions, but also participated in socio-scientific councils of forest promotion complexes and NGOs. It should be noted, however, that the study involved mainly less radical organizations, which cooperate with the State Forests.

Another factor may be the conviction about one's own competence and irreplaceability in nature conservation—less willingness to transfer to foresters the competence to determine nature conservation principles (or sometimes also to implement them) may be due to a conviction about greater abilities in this field among nature conservation officials, regional directors of environmental protection, scientists, or directors of landscape parks. This results sometimes in decisions on protective tasks being taken by people who have not been in contact with the object in question [32].

Publicizing negative stories by the media may be the next factor. The media publicize primarily conflicts (appearing in various regions and with different intensity) between foresters and some scientists and/or environmental organizations on the scope and restrictiveness of nature conservation in relation to forest management. This can unilaterally affect public opinion.

Another factor may be the negative stereotype of a forester. A reason for associating the State Forests with protection recommendations less frequently can be the still functioning negative stereotype concerning foresters, suggesting that tree felling harms nature and foresters in their work make decisions based only on economic reasons. This stereotype can further aggravate if a given group of stakeholders only rarely gets in touch with foresters or is unable to verify the various publicized pieces of information in the field. It is noteworthy, that e.g., in Germany foresters also report that they are experiencing increasingly critical public opinion, especially with regard to harvest operations [23].

The last factor may be lack of trust in foresters resulting from mindsets and mutual contacts—forest management in the State Forests takes into account the needs of various interest groups (e.g., related to the forest-wood industry), as well as the necessity to maintain the stability and the good sanitary condition of the forest. Decisions made in this direction are most often contrary to the expectations of people and institutions orientated towards nature conservation, leading to their distrust of foresters as people potentially responsible for this protection. In recent years this has been the case, for example, for some NGOs [48].

#### *3.5. Lessons for Poland and Other Countries*

According to Sutherland et al. [67], on the global scale, the increase in number of protected areas was faster than our abilities to manage them properly. One of the elements of management is the organization of nature conservation. Not always and not everywhere the organization of nature conservation works properly [23], which may be influenced by historical circumstances, among others. For example, in Central and Eastern European transition countries nature conservation is still affected by the post-socialistic model of governance and it operates in a rather ineffective way [68]. On the basis of the presented research background (Introduction), the results obtained and the discussion carried out, several proposals can be formulated for both Poland and other countries with a similar structure of forest ownership and/or similar system of nature conservation organization.

The first proposal is to support and improve the organization of nature conservation in state forests (this would apply to Poland and probably some other countries). It is noteworthy, that the type of forest ownership affects the forest nature conservation, and this impact may vary depending on the country and culture [4,69,70]. For example, in Poland, because of our history, lack of appropriate policy, public awareness, initiative, and differentiation between conventional forms of nature conservation and nature conservation on private land, the latter is implemented on a very small scale [71]. The organization of nature conservation in state-owned forests (not only in Poland) will therefore be of fundamental importance for nature protection in particular countries for a long time to come. It is noteworthy, that within the European Union, management of protected areas is more advanced in countries of Western Europe than of Central-Eastern Europe, so the former should share their experiences with the countries that joined the Union later [72], i.e., also Poland.

The second proposal is to increase the foresters' rights to organize nature conservation (Poland). The great trust put by stakeholders in foresters, as well as the actual the State Forests' contribution to nature conservation in Poland, can be a basis for changing the current law. This would in majority concern the establishment of nature conservation rules for protected areas and objects. A similar action in other countries would have to be preceded by analogous studies of public trust in this type of solution.

The third proposal is to conduct regular surveys on public confidence in foresters, and periodically more detailed surveys among key stakeholders (Poland/other countries). The importance of public trust and awareness with respect to foresters' competence in planning and implementation of sustainable forest management was noted, e.g., by Franklin and Johnson [73]. The same applies to nature conservation in its more restrictive form. The knowledge of both the public attitudes and that of the individual stakeholders towards the foresters' work may be important for forest managers to shape development strategies (e.g., for the State Forests in Poland), as well as for possible organizational and legal changes in nature conservation. The social moods regarding the role to be played by the State Forests are also not without significance. According to a recent survey, 23% of Poles believe that the primary task of the State Forests should be nature conservation [59].

The fourth proposal is to increase people's knowledge and awareness of the foresters' work for nature conservation (Poland/other countries), through forest education and information actions. This may reduce the number and intensity of conflicts between foresters and different social groups

(in the context of nature conservation in forests), as well as increase public confidence in foresters as decision-makers in the field of nature conservation. It is noteworthy, that e.g., German foresters also indicate making the public more aware of the benefit of forest management for nature conservation as very important in future [23]. Education is also needed in the field of nature conservation itself—to form responsible attitudes and understanding for protection necessity, including its positive consequences for people [32]. It is noteworthy, that in Poland, as well as in some other countries, the procedures related to social involvement in protection of the environment need to be followed, and it results in an equally strong stress placed by the society and environmental organizations on tightening of regulations related to the use of forest and nature conservation [74].

The fifth proposal is to increase the role of scientists (Poland), mainly as a support for foresters in establishing principles and methods of nature conservation in state forests. According to Zamora (in [75]), a stronger and more trustful relationship between protected areas managers (but also decision-makers) and scientists is fundamental to enhance effective management. At the same time, it would be necessary to provide resources and capacity needed to conduct research actions for nature conservation in state forests.

The next proposal is to develop good communication in the field of nature conservation in state forests (Poland/other countries). Depending on the situation and needs it may be organized at different levels: between scientists and decision-makers [7,8,76–79], scientists, decision-makers and other stakeholders, e.g., the local communities [12,28,73,77,80,81], between the bodies that manage the protected areas [7], between scientific communities [80], or between foresters and NGOs [48]. Communication process allows to reduce social conflicts and achieve better compromises [23]. It is important because the problem of conflicts over the use of natural resources within protected areas concerns many regions of the world, not excluding Poland (e.g., [8,12,14,15,28]).

The last proposal is to search for various sources of financing nature conservation in state forests (Poland/other countries). The problem of insufficient funding of nature conservation is observed not only in Poland, but also in other countries, e.g., Germany [7,23], United Kingdom [40], Greece [55], Switzerland [9], and the Netherlands [7]. In case of Natura 2000, none of the European countries have created a financial solution that would satisfy all stakeholders [13]. Examples of funding sources include subsidies from the state [55], income from admission fees [55,75], tourism and recreation, as well as sale of local products [55], market-based mechanisms [82], or external aid funds for environmental protection [8]. It should be noted that NGOs are well experienced in fundraising for nature conservation tasks [83], so establishing cooperation with them is worthwhile.

#### *3.6. Limitations*

The studies presented have three basic limitations:


#### **4. Conclusions**

The aim of this article was to present current solutions as well as expectations of the selected Polish stakeholders in respect of organization of nature conservation in state-owned forests in Poland. Three aspects were taken into account: determination of protective measures, responsibility for the protected areas and objects, and financing of nature conservation tasks on land managed by the State Forests. In a survey conducted in 2013 among 41 various stakeholders' groups, 77.9% of the respondents supported the concept of transferring full responsibility for nature conservation to foresters, while 51.1% supported financing of nature conservation tasks exclusively by the State Forests. In total, 46.8% of respondents believed that foresters should determine the principles and methods of nature conservation.

Proposals concerning the organization of nature conservation in the State Forests, presented by the stakeholders, vary from the current solutions, although to a different extent, depending on the activities. The solutions proposed would definitely more often than it is currently the case involve the State Forests' foresters in the organization of nature conservation in Poland, especially in terms of establishing the principles of nature conservation and its financing. The organization of nature conservation in the State Forests proposed by stakeholders (the most frequently chosen answers to the questions asked) is much better than the current one in terms of simplicity of solutions. In fact, it reduces the number of bureaucratic contacts between offices/institutions and foresters, as well as potential conflicts between authors of protection recommendations and their contractors. In addition, it provides that the protection rules would be established by people who have the closest, often daily contact with protected areas and objects, as well as the knowledge and practice in forest protection and management. In favor of the solution proposed by stakeholders is also the fact that the Polish State Forests are managed in a sustainable way, taking into account the needs of biodiversity protection. Completing that with competences in the field of nature conservation organization would be a solution consistent with the State Forests' activity model. However, the presented solutions have also some shortcomings and several improvements could be proposed, as indicated in the text of this article.

The most important observation, however, is that the stakeholders have expressed quite a high trust in the foresters. This trust, as well as the actual foresters' contribution to nature conservation in Poland, can be the basis for changes in the current law towards increasing their powers, especially in terms of determination of protective measures. The presented problems, as well as some proposals, are universal, and may be inspiring also for other countries with a high contribution of state-owned forests in their efforts to improve the system of nature conservation organization.

**Funding:** This research was funded by the State Forests National Forest Holding in Poland, grant number 28/12. The costs of translation of the manuscript into English and the APC were funded by the Institute of Forest Sciences, Warsaw University of Life Sciences (SGGW).

**Acknowledgments:** The author wishes to thank the anonymous reviewers for their comments, which greatly helped to improve the paper.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The author declares no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

#### **Appendix A**

**Table A1.** Groups of stakeholders and numbers of responses to questions Q1–Q3.


**Table A1.** *Cont*.


<sup>1</sup> For those respondents, the questionnaires enabled individual members of the given unit to present their own opinions; only few socio-scientific councils of forest promotion complexes, NGOs, and research units used this possibility.

#### **References**


© 2020 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

### *Article* **Land Use and Access in Protected Areas: A Hunter's View of Flexibility**

#### **Ayonghe Akonwi Nebasifu and Ngoindong Majory Atong**


Received: 19 March 2020; Accepted: 20 April 2020; Published: 24 April 2020

**Abstract:** Anthropologists sometimes ask what flexible practices mean when used in instances of land use and access among protected area regimes which control the land and the indigenous or local people who claim rights to the land. In the Mount Cameroon National Park (MCNP), West Africa, this question comes with urgency because of the historical disputes associated with defining access and user-rights to land within this park. In this case, we present an ethnographic study using a transect walk with a native Bakweri hunter to map and analyze his opinions about land use and access into the park. The findings show that, despite State prohibitions for this park, customary practices still occur for mutual reasons, whereas, in situations of disputes, other practices continue on the land unnoticed. We conclude that this flexibility is indicative of reciprocal negotiations and cultural resilience that preserve not only the biodiversity of the park but also the culturally relevant needs of people.

**Keywords:** anthropology; land use and access; flexibility; Bakweri; Mount Cameroon National Park; protected areas; conservation

#### **1. Introduction**

Systems of land use and access have evoked a lot of interest among anthropologists investigating human–environmental interactions [1–7]. While these authors contribute to knowledge about alternative forms of land use, questions still remain about how people act flexibly on the land amidst systems for protected areas. Movement and flexibility enable people to respond better to changes in their physical and social environment [8]. Therefore, in this article, we further engage with flexibility along the lines of [9] study of land access, which explores how local people make use of multiple sets of rights in disputable situations. This provides us with an alternative view on conflict of law (*conflit de droit*) [10]. With the notion that humans affect the natural state of land [11–13], through land uses that trigger State intervention [14,15], we argue that an analysis of flexibility gives new insights about land use and access in exclusionary environments of conservation.

At such locations, the formation of power creates segregation where practices of social groups exist [5]. It eventually leads to what the authors of Reference [16] described as 'land claims' by people detached from their land. Circumstances of this nature influence flexible behaviors that are an indirect outcome of institutional despotism [17] and a conflict of language (*conflit de langage*)' [10] where elements of exclusion and capitalist accumulation exist. Failure to address these lapses hinders the effectiveness of plans to recognize the customary rights of people residing at the fringes of protected areas.

Mount Cameroon National Park (MCNP) is an example for which we can explore the notion of flexibility. MCNP was created in 2009 as part of the government's Permanent Forest Estate (PFE) initiative, dedicating it under State protection [18], in commitment to the 1992 UN Convention on Biodiversity. The park includes six vegetation types including the lowland forest at elevations of 0–800 m, sub-montane rain forest at 800–1600 m, upper montane rain forest at 1600–1800 m, montane scrub at 1800–2400 m, montane grassland at 2000–3000 m, and sub-alpine grassland at 3000–4095 m [19] (p. 81). Considering that mammals such as drills, chimpanzees, preuss monkeys, and forest elephants remain endangered, the State implemented a 1994 forestry and wildlife law and a 2014 co-management plan to ensure park management, but with lapses due to the top–bottom nature of management [20,21] and the use of discussion forums, in which the local people have a minor influence on decision-making [22]. MCNP also includes four cluster conservation zones: Buea, Muyuka, Bomboko, and the West Coast [22] (p. 3), which are rich in biodiversity that the local communities partly use as a means of support for their living.

In the MCNP example, the Bakweri people rely on Mount Cameroon for a livelihood through the gathering of wild fruits such as the *Dacryodes edulis* (G. Don) H. J. Lam (bush pear) and other native spices like *Irvingia gabonensis* (Aubry-Lecomte ex O-Rorke) Baill. (African mango) used to complement farm income. Further, local communities around MCNP have, for several decades, interacted with groups from other parts of Cameroon who live as settlers and farmers working in cocoa farms and plantations created by the German colonial authorities in the 1880s [23]. However, while the Bakweri still largely rely on natural forests which entail conserving various products of cultural importance on the one hand, on the other hand, State mechanisms for conservation comes with challenges.

For instance, though the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UNDRIP) adopted in 2007 emphasized ending activities that exploit indigenous people [24], the restriction of indigenous access to land by the park administration still takes many micropolitical forms, and State authorities defy certain claims of local knowledge. It is noted that Mount Cameroon has long been of ancestral value to the Bakweri and a source of retaining spiritual intervention to protect the land [25]. Thus, while the park should represent what the authors of Reference [26] called 'free-range land' preserved for its spiritual importance to the society, the State uses strict rules to define land use rights. This is why there are resentments between the park regime and local land users [21].

According to the authors of Reference [27], the Bakweri are one of the early groups of the Bantu-speaking people in coastal Cameroon, who settled on the slopes of Mount Cameroon for its fertile volcanic soils, one of the reason for the Bakweri land problem that started an armed resistance against the German military from 1891 to 1894, resulting in land expropriation and displacement of the Bakweri who had been undergoing an endless struggle to retain their lands [28,29]. Also, although legalities exist regulating the rights for locals to use forests, there are no standard verdicts for them to exercise their customary rights in the park [21].

Considering this prejudiced space for defining land use and access, we need to examine whether individual accounts of interacting in the park could offer constructive knowledge for exercising customary practices in protected areas. To do so, we worked with a Bakweri hunter named Mola Njie, during an ethnographic inquiry among 17 villages of the MCNP between August to December 2017 (see also References [20,21]). This study targets three objectives: (1) demonstrate that land use and access in this park is reminiscent of the historical and fragmentary nature of State power, (2) using an example of a hunter's land use, show how flexibility helps in meeting the livelihood needs in protected areas, and (3) analyze the parallels and contrasts between the case of the MCNP and experiences reported elsewhere for showing that resistance to and cooperation with State administrative power can occur simultaneously among the same people.

#### *1.1. Anthropological Critique of Flexible Land Use Practices*

The notion of flexibility has been crucial in understanding changing land use practices among rural people. The empirical example of the MCNP shows avenues for anthropological analysis of flexibility. It was particularly challenging to devise a method where the anthropological analysis of flexibility does not overlook the dynamics of inequality and micro practices of resistance.

#### *1.2. Local Reaction to Colonization of Nature*

With an ethos of flexibility, and with regards to land use and access in Cameroon's protected areas, the authors of Reference [7] examined the alternatives and trade-offs of conservation when people are removed from lands of traditional value to make space for the protection of nature. In this example, the World Wildlife Fund introduced the Integrated Conservation Development Projects (ICDPs), for the Korup National Park. This was aimed at recognizing the equality of rural people as partners in executing plans for conserving areas that involve traditional lands. However, in practice, the Korup Project had little regards for recognizing indigenous people as decision-makers. The Korup Project was equally criticized for prohibiting gathering, hunting, and fishing activities of the local people living in areas defined by the boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria, which the local population relied on for livelihood. As such, many of the locals expressed their wishes to disobey State orders for the simple reason that these orders use procedures which are aimed at seizing lands and traditional user-rights in the name of conservation [7].

Such protests often lead to serious problems in governing Cameroon's national parks, where the exclusionary nature of protected area regimes is based on State laws that often do not take into consideration the traditional rights of people but create disputes between local people and park managers [6]. Consider also the Pygmies of Cameroon, whose livelihoods were affected by the establishment of national parks, prompting their exclusion from the benefits of development [30]. It is in this vein that park authorities almost always fail to truly integrate the beliefs and knowledge systems of the local people within the very institutional fabric of land use and access in protected areas. The authors of Reference [31] noted that excluding local communities from protected areas also undermines the objectives of conservation by creating disputes between local people and park management authorities. In their analysis of MCNP, they showed that local resistance against biodiversity conservation manifested in the everyday struggle for adaptive livelihoods. Such a struggle has been a result of many factors. For instance, population growth, disrupted kinship systems and rights to use and access of resources, loss of property, and no compensation, prompting the locals to set fire to portions of the forest, clearing plots for farming, extraction of honey, and hunting, despite warnings from park authorities.

The above narratives, at large, lay underneath the complicities of what the authors of Reference [3] termed 'colonization of nature', where institutional forms of power exert a conquest of the land, which is also similar to what the authors of Reference [32] specified as 'resistance as thought and symbol', a line of action conceived in constant dialogue or communication towards social justice. These conceptions raise the empirical question of whether locals engage in support, opposition, or both towards the park regime, through flexible use of protected areas. Among the Bakweri, for instance, the dynamic nature of power has been an issue of inequality between actors and locals with claims of rights to land use who become victims of resource governance on the one hand, and State authorities who administer the land (see also Reference [20,21] for more on relations among the actors). Before the coming of the MCNP, the Bakweri had for many generations settled on the slopes of Mount Cameroon as hunter-gatherers, and later as agriculturalists [27]. Many of them, living previously in small enclaves on the mountain, had established territories but later became victims of historical and fragmentary State power, such as the German colonizers who became legal owners of lands formerly occupied by ethnic groups after the Bakweri wars in the 1890s. This led not only to the removal of people from their land but also to the establishment of plantation agriculture [28] and the introduction of State systems for territorial management. Such practices incited land disputes which continued in Cameroon [10,29].

In effect, the Bakweri engaged with the land in similar ways to that of the people with whom the authors of Reference [9] worked: amidst regime efforts to regulate local land ownership, people employ flexible means of retaining land use rights. They continue to find ways for asserting the sovereignty of ownership and rights to their lands around Mount Cameroon [33]. The first move, in 1946, was to create the Bakweri Land Committee (BLC), an assembly of traditional rulers, notables, and elites, aimed at regaining control over Bakweri lands. Following a series of petitions launched by the BLC to the Trusteeship Council of the United Nations in New York, the Colonial Office in London, and colonial authorities in Nigeria, British colonialists adamantly ceded plantations to a newly created Cameroon Development Corporation (CDC) in 1946 as a public body, though the CDC only opened grounds for land privatization to various enterprises based on a Presidential Decree in 1994 [29].

Following Cameroon's independence in 1961, a subsequent 1974 land tenure law distinguished State lands and private lands, eradicating all former claims for Bakweri land and confiscating these lands [33]. These processes bifurcated traditional authority into 'subjects', where they became custodians of the State, instead of a kinship basis for custodianship of the land [34,35]. In legal terms, the 1974 land tenure law defined State lands as lands "not classed into the public or private property of the State and other public bodies [ ... ] which the State can administer in such a way as to ensure rational use and development, and can be allocated by grant, lease, or assignment on conditions to be pursued by decree" [29] (p. 122).

Beneath the 1974 law, private lands "guarantee their owners the right to freely enjoy and dispose of them" [29] (p. 122). In spite of another petition by the BLC to the African Commission on Human and People's Rights in 2002 for violating the rights of the Bakweri over ancestral land occupied by the CDC, the decision came with domestic remedies giving the local courts the green light to resolve the dispute. This case raised several issues about the competence of local courts to handle such disputes. Despite these petitions, a prolonged and unresolved problem of land use and access continues to exist between the Bakweri and State authorities.

Another explanation for this flexibility through the Bakweri land problem can be linked to structural adjustment initiatives in Cameroon. From the 1980s, economic crises arose following a fall in the prices of export products. Thus, an alliance between State authorities and agents of structural adjustment, such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, emerged to rationalize the agro-forestry sectors in Cameroon [20]. A much implicit outcome of the structural adjustment was the promulgation of a State forest reform in 1994 for governing the use of forests following the Cameroon government's signing of the 1993 UN Convention on Biological Diversity. The 1994 forestry law in Cameroon grants user-rights to locals, stating that it recognizes the right for local people to harvest forest resources for personal use, with the exception of those resources under State protection. However, the State reserves the power to permanently or temporarily suspend this right when there is a need of public interest [36]. This again reflects the historical and fragmentary nature of State power.

We can, therefore, note that the coming of colonial and State authorities did alter the traditional basis for land use and access. Although land reforms were introduced for the partial exploitation of forest resources, the criteria for doing so gave little clarity for the customary rights of the people. The upshot of this fragmentary power over the land likens to the authors of Reference [37]'s notion of 'land-grab', where people become part of labor practices in the search for jobs on land they previously had entitlements to, now placed under regime control. This reflects the current situation of land use and access on the MCNP, which warrants a further discussion about flexibility and its role in achieving local needs in protected areas. Previous analysis of villages around the MCNP showed that, in spite of discussion forums (village committees) through which locals partake in the State's agenda for resource management, the seeming co-existence of State land use and customary practices often result in dynamic and micro-practices of inequality yielded in the paradoxical nature of co-management and disputes over land claims [20,21]. Nonetheless, understanding that the dynamics of land use and access can also include acts of territoriality [8,15,26,38–40] to satisfy basic needs and preserve cultural practices, in this article, we examine whether the above remarks might apply to the MCNP and to what extent it meets livelihood needs in protected areas.

#### **2. Materials and Methods**

We used an ethnographic inquiry with the aid of a transect walk, site mapping, and narrative analysis to make sense of various sites in the Buea and West Coast clusters of the MCNP. We relied on the opinions of a single key informant given that previous studies focusing on discussion forums (forest management committees), through which locals partake in the State's agenda for resource management, yielded little analysis about the nature of land use and access in the MCNP [20–22]. According to the authors of Reference [41], in ethnographic research, a transect walk involves a walk through a site with a willing resident who is requested to share personal experiences about historical and culturally significant areas.

The transect walk comprised of the following phases: (1) a preparatory phase, which included acquiring background information through the study of maps and leaflets and obtaining authorization from the technical staff at the office of the MCNP in Buea, (2) getting an orientation about the terrain from local knowledgeable people, and (3) a journey to the MCNP guided by the selected native hunter. Being in his late forties, the hunter belongs to the Bakweri group, and lives in one of the communities at the southwestern slope of Mount Cameroon known today as Buea town, which is located approximately less than 7 km from Bova village. His community comprises of Bakweri people who engage in various forms of economic activities with traders from regions elsewhere. Having spent more than 25 years of living in the area with his relatives, and now with his family of two children, Mola Njie has performed on many occasions not just as a leading tour guide but as a member of several committees dealing with the management of the park and its surrounding villages. To him, hunting has been a practice he did from childhood, though it gradually became limited due to new laws restricting the exploitation of wildlife in protected areas. As such, acquiring a First School Living Certificate at his childhood age enabled him to become involved with other activities for a living, such as being an educator and facilitator for tourism in Buea, furthering his career as a professional driver, and working for the Buea Council within the last fifteen years. The MCNP authorities, however, permit the hunting of animal species considered by law as not endangered. This takes place in forests not under state protection such as those on privately owned land and community land, which enables him hunt part time. (4) The next phase included briefing sessions with a team of tour guides during the walk, and (5) conducting interviews with the hunter aimed at ascertaining his perceptions of land use and access by the local people into the park. We made notes during the walk and used tools which included a camera, a voice recorder, and Global Position System (GPS) equipment, for recording field observations and recording geographical coordinates of important sites which were indicated by the hunter (Figure 1).

A transect walk has the merit of enabling the researcher to cope with challenges in interactive platforms and of disclosing different viewpoints about a given area [42–44]. A transect walk is also a useful means for site mapping [42]. Anthropologists have used site mapping in participatory research to examine community needs and match them with bureaucratic decisions, and to identify knowledge of the state of situations based on the perspectives of the local people it claims to represent [45–47]. In this study, we adopted similar thinking to illustrate the hunter's knowledge of land use and access on the MCNP using open-ended questions which targeted: (a) the hunter's knowledge of traditional land use and access on Mount Cameroon a few years before and after the creation of the MCNP, (b) how the MCNP influences the land use attitudes of the people living close to the boundary of the park, and (c) determining to what extent officials of the park and members of the local community cooperate in the use of the MCNP. Our inspiration for the chosen methods we used came from the authors of Reference [48]'s views about obtaining data through face-to-face interactions of societal experience to describe how encounters are socially and culturally organized in particular situational settings.

Consistent with the authors of Reference [48]'s description of socially and culturally organized interaction in situational settings, we focused on tracking the hunter's movement and meanings of the stories he told while visiting various sites in the park. For us to provide a descriptive analysis of these accounts, we adapted the author of Reference [49]'s descriptive concepts on the application of narrative analysis (Table 1). This approach enabled us to derive meaning from relevant accounts of the hunter.

**Figure 1.** Location of sites on the Buea and West Coast of Mount Cameroon National Park (MCNP) where we collected data. Note, we designed the map using the points (P) collected on the Buea and West Coast clusters of MCNP during fieldwork.



#### **3. Results**

#### *3.1. A Hunter's Way of Knowing the Land*

The key informant in question, Mola Njie, is a man whose parents and close relatives were hunters. He therefore had the opportunity to hunt prior to the creation of the MCNP. Thus, his knowledge of the terrain was an added merit to our study. Before meeting Mola Njie, we had learned from a land surveillance expert about the assistance he gave to a group of researchers back in 1999 when Mount Cameroon erupted. We present below the hunter's narrative of land use and access in the park, with a particular focus on some of the products he described during fieldwork (Table 2). In the discussion section, we then compare our findings on flexibility in the park with information from cases reported on the subject in the literature.


**Table 2.** Distribution of forest products and their use.

#### *3.2. Adapting Local Land Use to the Park Regime*

Here, we use the word 'informal' to refer to 'unnoticed forms' of land use and access into the park by the local people despite State prohibitions. An example of such incursions into the park is seen during the practices of traditional camping and the gathering of forest products in parts of the sub-montane forest, close to the park boundary. These practices, among others, differed from what occurred in remote parts of the park, where people use the land rather for rituals and tourism activities. In the paragraphs below, we describe these forms of land use at localities indicated on the map (Figure 2) as GPS points (P).

Our results indicated evidence of forest products which had been gathered and the setting up of traditional camps in the park. The area between P5 and P9 on the map (Figure 2), are sites of such camps which have been constructed in the sub-montane rain forest close to the park boundary. Here, we see the remains of plants of traditional importance which are used for medicinal and household needs. According to Mola Njie, many medicinal plants in this territory rarely grow in the local communities, which in effect explains the reason why people in need of such plants are obliged to trespass and collect them specifically for use in rituals and village cleansings. To name just a few of such plants in *Mokpwe* (Bakweri language), we have: the *Wulule*, which is used during family ceremonies called *Yoya'a etumba* and the elephant dance festival by the *Maale sacred society*, the *Ewula vaco*, which is a grass used for the treatment of wounds, and the *Monda dwani*, which is a sugarcane consumed as an alternative source of body strength during exhausting farm work. Mola Njie also talked about the *Ewula-maija,* which is a plant he consumes as tea, and as a source of blood supply. Furthermore, people also use a peace plant picked from this area to mark land boundaries and to prevent conflicts between landowners. These examples are part of the flexibility, which the hunter describes as an informal way of using the land, even when the State does not formally approve such activities in protected areas.

**Figure 2.** Land use on the MCNP comprising tourism development (**top**), an ancestral cave (**middle**), and a traditional camp (**bottom**).

Walking through the forest, Mola Njie remembered his youthful days when he visited the mountain to harvest a leaf (*rau-rau)*. When asked about this leaf, he noted that technological development and the introduction of plastic papers in grocery stores were gradually replacing the habit of using the leaf for storing doughnuts (*pu*ff*-pu*ff and *akra*), as he put it:

"When we close after school, we go to the bush and get leaves to sell *pu*ff*-pu*ff and *akra*. All those things when they tie it on this leaf, you enjoy it. It gives the food a different taste."

To Mola Njie, although State conservation laws prohibit the unauthorized entry of people to the park, one reason for acts of trespassing was due to the closeness of 'village land' to the boundary of the park. These are farmlands which are used by the local population who live in nearby communities. For this reason, the authorities of the park carry out periodic arrests for unauthorized incursions into the park.

There are habitats of trees such as the Mahogany, the Iroko, and the Whitewood close to P8 (Figure 2). While holding a leaf from one of these trees, Mola Njie explained that periods before the advent of the MCNP, these habitats were a source of firewood and materials used for house construction. Nowadays, State forestry laws prohibit the extraction of wood on this site. To Mola Njie, the management regime assists him with 'user-rights' under conservation agreements. These rights allow individuals to cultivate tree species in villages, similar to the ones found at P8, to reduce logging in the protected areas. The regime's provision of user-rights enables him to have alternatives for cultivating and harvesting various tree species away from the park. The flexibility, in this case, consists of local acceptance of alternatives provided by the State, while at the same time, they continue accessing areas inside of the park.

Portions of the sub-montane rain forest consist of land for cultivating *Prunus Africana* (a plant for cancer treatment). To Mola Njie, the collection of *Prunus Africana* on Mount Cameroon goes back to the 1970s, when no restrictions existed, and this tree was used for the treatment of many other illnesses. The park regime, using what Mola Njie called a *'Prunus Africana* bark trade', collaborates with a partner agency, Mount Cameroon Prunus Management Company (MOCAP), through which locals gain employment as a harvester of the *Prunus Africana* bark. According to Mola Njie, this initiative offers a flexible choice for him to become a village member of harvesters' unions through which he obtains basic needs. Under this system, union members plan income-generating activities from which he acquires a drinkable water supply and healthcare services. This shows that the State was able to accommodate flexible access regimes to the areas inside the park.

On entry into a traditional camp at P30, Mola Njie pulled out a bottle of water from his bag and while staring up at the sky, as if to say the night is near, he recounts how he worked as a contracted harvester of *Prunus Africana* bark in the year 2006 for a pharmaceutical company, Plantecam. The traditional camp consisted of sticks from the forest, positioned into the ground with piles of wood for resting, and a fireplace in the middle of the camp (Figure 2). He narrated how he spent days on the mountain during harvesting activity and stated that he and his colleagues used the camp for shelter after lengthy periods of trekking and transporting *Prunus Africana* barks down the slopes of the mountain.

We also identified accounts of human activity in the wildlife forest of the park, as well as rituals and stories about hunting. The wildlife forest is located on the West Coast of the MCNP between P25 and P28 (Figure 2). This area represents a habitat for forest elephants, monkeys, and chimpanzees. According to Mola Njie, elephants are of spiritual importance to the Bakweri. They symbolize mid-way communication between 'the living' and 'the dead'. Mola Njie actually abides by this belief in elephant spirituality and explained that this spiritual relationship enabled him to avoid hostilities with elephants when visiting the wildlife forest. Since this area is a few kilometers from the boundary of the park and the village settlements, the elephants come to feed on crops grown on nearby farms. When they do, they leave behind dung, which, to Mola Njie, is a useful form of traditional medicine which is used for the treatment of stomach aches if taken after boiling it in water. This explains why there is a tendency for the local population to collect dung under situations which are unnoticed by the authorities of the park.

To Mola Njie, the appearance and state of the dung gives an idea of the size and location of an elephant in the park. Such knowledge is important for it enables one to avoid any confrontations with elephants while in the wildlife forest. We see a further indication of this knowledge in the hunter's ability to determine an elephant's location based on the number of insects on the dung. A greater number of insects gives the idea that an elephant is nearby. The hunter also associates larger sizes of dung to adult elephants. In Mola Njie's view, the use of such knowledge helps him avoid any confrontations with the elephants and enables him to move about the forest without disturbing these animals. Consequently, while the park authority prohibits the free entry of the local population into the park, we see that there are other means of using the land to satisfy livelihood needs. The fact that this means of engaging with the land takes place in ways that protect elephants while acquiring the dung for medicinal needs, is indicative of the aspects of flexibility in using protected areas.

Ritual needs are one of the evident explanations for the traditional use of the park. As [50] puts it, religious systems are ultimately a study of the people themselves and are the strongest elements which influence the lives of Africans. As such, we cannot understand the concerns of the Bakweri without knowing the traditional beliefs, attitudes, and practices that underpin their religions. The results of the interviews showed that rituals are connected to beliefs in a spiritual being and to the protector of Mount Cameroon, known as *Efassa moto*. To the hunter, this spiritual being is a source of strength and protection to the Bakweri. Consequently, he maintains the necessity of using the land on the mountain for rituals. An example of practicing a ritual was at P11 (Figure 2), where a huge rock known as the 'dancing stone' (*Lyen la ngomo'o*) was located. Mola Njie perceived this stone to symbolize a spiritual figure which has been worshipped by past generations of the Bakweri. He equally stated that the officials of the park actually support this form of worship because it ensures the safety of visitors to the park.

At the site of the rock, Mola Njie requested that we harvest a fern plant and perform a dance to invite *Efassa moto* to protect us on the mountain. The ritual entailed dancing to the tune of music sung by the hunter with the phrase: *Lyen la ngomo'o Iye Iye.* This song praises the Bakweri ancestors and spiritual beings on the land while also requesting them to protect visitors to the park from danger. To the hunter, there are beliefs that in past years, people who failed to perform the dancing stone ritual went missing on the mountain and were never found. In this manner, the authorities of the park cooperate with local land users to maintain this form of flexibility in order to ensure the safety of visitors in the park.

We also visited an ancestral cave which was located a few kilometers from P18 and here, Mola Njie explained that he and his forefathers used the cave for shelter during the hunting seasons and the ancestral worships (Figure 2). Nowadays, this site is maintained as a tourist attraction. Another reason for maintaining ritual beliefs in the park is related to the volcanic eruptions of this mountain, which recently erupted in 1959, 1982, 1999, and 2000, leading to the destruction of biodiversity. To Mola Njie, volcanic eruptions are a sign of *Efassa moto's* resentment against the people's failure to perform rituals on the mountain. As such, when the lava flows damage crops on the land, the Bakweri perform rituals using animal sacrifices as a request for *Efassa moto* to restore environmental stability. These examples are indicative of how local land users are flexible in pursuing their traditional use of the land.

On the issue of hunting, areas close to the P8 site were a hunting attraction before the creation of the MCNP. Here, Mola Njie recalls his youthful encounter with a tree that represents a camping spot for bush rabbits (he called the spot *postman-poto* or *Loka*), as he explained:

"When I used to come here to hunt, the rabbit slept on this tree all day. At six o'clock in the evening, the rabbit would come down from the tree in search of food. Upon returning in the morning, the rabbit would make a screaming sound aimed at deceiving any predator that it was descending from the tree, whereas it was climbing up the tree to sleep. The predator would then arrive later beneath the tree, just to realize that the rabbit had returned to its nest."

Another hunting site is located in the montane grassland section of the park. Here, Mola Njie took us closer to a patch of grass where he explained the practice of hunting and trapping of an antelope at site P18, stating that:

"There was a bush with two exit holes in the middle of two footpaths. In this bush, there was an enclosure where antelopes sheltered during cold weather. Two men had to stand on both sides of the exit holes to get an antelope trapped using sharp sticks."

In trapping the antelope, to him, the process was difficult because success was based on how careful and silently the hunter approached the animal. Due to this difficulty, Mola Njie sold a mature antelope at about 65,000 francs (99,44 euros) a few years before the creation of the MCNP. We should note, however, that nowadays, the park authority does not approve of such means of land use in this protected area.

The remote parts of the park consist of lands used for tourism development (Figure 2). Thus, although the regime prohibits hunting on the land, it promotes tourism by cooperating with some members of the local communities in activities that generate income. We observed footpaths that had been created on the land and newly constructed huts to be used by tourists. According to the hunter, a few years before 2009, the local people used these footpaths during bee farming, as he recounted:

"Back in the days before the MCNP, we trekked for long distances to the Savannah grasslands where we lit fires to get the bees out of their holes in order to collect the honey."

In perspective, Mola Njie referred to footpaths as 'shortcuts' that were crucial before the creation of the park. Footpaths were shorter connections between villages which were located around Mount Cameroon. In recent years, mainly tourists and village inhabitants employed to perform in income-generating activities for the regime make use of these footpaths.

At the montane grassland, a road developed for tourism activity linked the points P23 and P25 (Figure 2) to one of the adjacent villages, i.e., from Bonakanda village in Buea through P25 to a place at P29 known as Mann-Spring lodge. Constructed in 2015, this road facilitated the transportation of equipment to furnish the tourist lodge at Mann-Spring. Mola Njie maintained that Mann-Spring lodge was a former camping spot used by Bakweri hunters before the arrival of a German Botanist, Gustav Mann, who, in 1862, found a spring in the area while collecting plants. Tourism is an example of flexibility where the hunter can cooperate with park authorities in using protected areas for his benefit. Mola Njie names a few friends of his, who were employed by the regime as tour operators, guides, and porters, adding that although they earn some money from tourism in the park, most of the finances from tourism go to the State treasury. Mola Njie expressed the need for initiatives that can be sponsored with funds from such finances in order to achieve the basic needs of the local people.

#### **4. Discussion**

The previous sections demonstrated the fragmentary nature of State power and its influence in shaping practices of land use and access. In doing so, we used the case of the MCNP to explain a native hunter's knowledge of flexibility in land use and access, underlining how local people adapt to new ways of State control without abandoning their land use practices. There are connections between the case of the MCNP and experiences elsewhere in the literature.

The authors of Reference [7]'s study of the Korup National Park revealed how State power beneath the influence of foreign donors (conservationists) transformed the Korup landscape by removing people from the land, adopting forestry laws, and prohibiting the continuity of traditional land use. Similarly, in the Boumba-Bek national park, the park regime detached the Baka pygmies from the benefits of land use [30]. In the case of the MCNP, these patterns of institutional power depict a land conquest [3] and the exclusionary nature of protected area regimes [6,10]. Here, park authorities utilize State forestry laws and co-management plans to prevent the unofficial use of the park. Through these mechanisms, the regime retains the power to sanction people who violate State laws for protected areas.

A reaction to the above means of State control are acts of resistance [31,32]. Here, flexibility is shaped by how the local population uses alternative means to meet their needs in situations of dispute [9]. For instance, in the Korup case, the local population shared a common view of disobeying State laws in resentment of procedures that expropriate village land [7]. In another case, when the government of the Dominican Republic issued protection laws over the Ebano Verde area, the locals of El Arroyazo and La Sal began gathering forest resources without authorization from the State due to inadequate compensation from the regime [15]. Furthermore, the Laponian World Heritage area

in Sweden involved several parties (non-governmental agencies, business representatives, and local people) with varied interests seeking managerial control over the land, making it hard for the local Saami to exercise their rights. Saami reindeer herders argued for indigenous control over the management of Laponia and asked for a majority of seats in the management board, though this came under opposition from State officials and politicians [14].

The hunter's account about the Bakweri displays a subtler form of resistance. He reveals the often-untold use of sites by locals who are close to the park boundary for gathering forest products for medicinal and traditional needs. Previous experiences of open resistance by the Bakweri turned out to be unsuccessful when they tried to change the official rules of the regime to something similar to that of the Laponia case. Therefore, the silent continuation of traditional land use practice in ignorance of the law can be classified as acts of subtle resistance.

In contrast, flexibility in maintaining cultural continuity might not always be classified as resistance, but the general sense of creating space for attaining other needs. For instance, in Siberia, land use and acquisition among the Evenki are conceivable by an individual's good performance on the land, in what Anderson called 'power, sovereignty, and license without sanctions, nor land exclusions' [38] (p. 120). The Yamal-Nenets in the Tundra exert a flexible behavior on the land by using ancient practices of local hunting and fishing as alternative subsistence to reindeer herding in spite of a contemporary economy where the Soviet and post-Soviet territorial organization governs economic activities [8]. Among the Saami in Finnish Lapland, flexibility can be perceived through attitudes of telling very little about place names to outsiders so as to defend the land against external encroachment [40].

The MCNP case presents another picture to the above narrative, which we observe as acts of cultural resilience. Consistent with the author of Reference [50]'s assertion about religious systems that define people, our analysis showed that the park continues to be a place of spiritual importance which the hunter has much regard for through ritual practices in the worship of a spiritual beings that keep people away from dangers. Within this form of resilience, people tend to accommodate new knowledge of land use such as alternative ways of cultivating trees without necessarily abandoning their traditions. This analysis seems consistent with the authors of Reference [8]'s conclusion about the Yamal-Nenets, who adjust new elements to their own needs without changing their traditional ways of living on the land.

The author of Reference [26] distinguished between free-range land and lands with strict rules of acquisition. Instead of both categories existing as distinct in different cultural settings as Casimir implied, the MCNP case showed that both categories co-exist on the same piece of land, where the space for flexibility among land users is informed by collaboration and reciprocity. According to the hunter, park authorities work together with locals to implement conservation plans through income activities, such as in the Prunus management scheme and tourism development. This, in return, supports the economic needs of people, enabling them to earn income which they use to obtain basic needs for their families. Further, the regime partly endorses valuable ritual practices, such as the dancing stone, to secure the safety of people performing various tasks of State interests in the park.

The hunter's narrative and its analysis show how the Bakweri operate in two simultaneous ways, by collaborating with the State regime where it provides positive alternatives to using parklands, while at the same time continuing culturally embedded practices silently as acts of subtle resistance to the regime.

#### **5. Conclusions**

Considering the frictions between human activities in parks, this study underlined the need to examine flexible land use and access in exclusionary systems of protected areas. Previous anthropological studies on land use and related practices have not given much attention to how the notion of flexibility in land use and access occurs in dispute situations where locals and park regimes co-exist on the land. To address this question, we used the example of the MCNP to explore the historical and fragmentary nature of State power, a hunter's testimonies of flexibility, and connections between the MCNP case and experiences elsewhere. The results showed that the current state of land use and access on the MCNP is reminiscent of institutional power and historical patterns of State fragmentation—mechanisms that continue to enable the regime to exercise control on the land. This leads to a situation of reciprocity where the State involves the locals in the park through income activities in return for attaining conservation needs; whereas, the locals welcome the good things about the State giving access to the park, and simultaneously practice covert forms of resistance through trespassing where access to the parklands is prohibited. Therefore, resistance to and cooperation with State power can occur simultaneously among the same people.

Thus, this article shows that land use and access in protected areas are more flexibly negotiated than it may seem from reading existing literature. A more fine-grained analysis of local flexibility in accessing parklands indicates that a national park does not have only good or only bad consequences for local livelihoods. The hunter's knowledge and practice reveal that the Bakweri flexibly accommodate new forms of land use regulations without abandoning their traditional ways of using the land. Here, the flexible use of the land is driven by cultural resilience to preserve one's spiritual connection to the land, as well as by acts of reciprocity between park authorities and locals. Thus, in exclusionary forms of conserving protected areas, flexibility can involve practices that locals convey to resist as well as comply with regimes for their benefit.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, A.A.N.; Methodology, A.A.N.; Investigation, A.A.N.; Writing—original draft preparation, A.A.N.; Writing—review and editing, N.M.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research was funded by the University of Lapland Graduate School Grant 2019.

**Acknowledgments:** Our gratitude to the staff at the Arctic Centre and the Graduate School Committee at the University of Lapland, for supporting the lead author financially and technically in writing this article. Florian Stammler and Seija Tuulentie supervised the lead author in writing this article and we are grateful to them. We acknowledge Anna-Liisa Ylisirniö, who prepared the lead author towards his fieldwork in Cameroon, and Peter Loovers, Samuel Ndonwi, and Lum Suzanne, who spent the time to improve the language of this article. Our work would not have been completed without technical support from the ERuDEF, park management authorities at MCNP, and the Cameroon Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife. Thanks to the hunter, Mola Njie, for his testimonies throughout our visit to the MCNP and to the anonymous reviewers and guest editors for the comments they provided.

**Conflicts of Interest:** There was no conflict of interest among the authors. The funders had no role in the design, collection, analyses, interpretation, writing, and publication of this study.

#### **References**


© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

*Article*
