Ivindo National Park (Gabon)

Over the past few years, Gabon has committed large efforts to supporting the sustainable development of its protected areas. The rehabilitation of the Ipassa research station (1962) of Makokou, north-eastern Gabon, included in the newly created 300,000 ha Ivindo National Park (INP), is part of this effort. The project was implemented by the Institut de Recherche en Ecologie Tropicale (IRET) of the Centre National de Recherche Scientifique et Technologique (CENAREST) and by CIFOR. One of its objectives was to support research that would inform and promote sustainable management of the INP. The MLA methods were intended to contribute to this goal by improving the understanding of local perceptions and priorities concerning the landscape, and by finding opportunities for informed negotiation between development and conservation objectives in the INP area. Apart from this, the project also aimed to give local scientists a first experience with participatory methods.

Practical considerations (time, logistics and budget) limited the study to only one of the communities affected by the new park, namely Loaloa. Field work lasted four weeks and involved stays of four to six days in the forest with extensive travel downriver to (partly) account for the territory used by the villagers. Planning and data collection was done by CIFOR in collaboration with IRET and CENAREST staff, and local experts. We largely followed the original MLA methods, with small adaptations to local context in the questionnaires. No physical soil study was conducted because of the cost and difficulty in finding a field soil scientist in Gabon.

Most of Loaloa’s approximately 240 people in 47 households belong to the Kota ethnic group, with some Makina and Fang. People hunt, fish and extract sand from the river bed. Agriculture is very limited and many purchase additional food from nearby Makokou, which is also a centre for bush meat trade towards larger cities such as Libreville. Traditional hunting and fishing sites along the Ivindo are included in the new national park. The affected communities have not been involved in the plans for establishing the park or in its future management plan. Other actors in the area include park management, conservation NGOs (Wildlife Conservation Society and WWF) as well as researchers.

Makokou is one of the best studied sites in Africa in terms of biological and ecological research, but studies of local communities’ uses and perceptions of forest resources are few in Gabon (Sassen and Wan, 2006). This project supported three master students to research the use and importance of specific resources, and was complemented by a study on the economic valuation of goods and services provided by the park.

Many other communities are affected by the INP as well as by increased commercial logging. For higher impact, such a study should probably be scaled-up to the wider landscape providing an opportunity for more integrated management of the Park and its surroundings. This would mean including the perspectives of more communities and facilitating discussion with other stakeholders such as park authorities, local government and conservation NGOs.

The study provided sound scientific knowledge on the importance of the INP area to communities, and their dependence on it. It showed that people have a deep knowledge of forest ecosystem functioning and see the potential benefits of a protected area but are worried about restrictions to their uses. Elephants are regularly killed for their Ivory and bush meat trade is considered a threat in the area. It seems obvious that an agreement should be sought with local communities enabling them to hunt a number of species sustainably while at the same time controlling commercial hunting.

The outcomes of different elements of the study (botany, ethnobotany, scoring exercises) are highly consistent. This means simplifications and reduction in the amount of data collected are probably possible, avoiding costs of activities that provide overlapping information. It is not clear yet how the data will be used further and affect biodiversity management in the area. Information was provided to scientists, donors and decision makers, but no structure is in place to ensure follow-up or evaluation of impacts.