312 Rattan exploitation in the Yaoundé Region of Cameroondistribution of rattans, the rhythm of production of ‘plantules’ by clones, the
growth of stems under various conditions, the phenology, the impact of
harvesting techniques on clones in the various stages of development and the
relationships between rattans and elements of the biocénose.
Concerning the conservation of forest resources, rattan in the region has
both enormous potential advantages and non-negligible limitations (Defo
1999b). The main assets of rattan include the fact that it requires for its
development that the forest cover be maintained (support), the fact that it is
accessible to grassroots populations (its exploitation at the present state does
not require much technical and financial capital as compared to small scale
logging of timber for example) and the considerable size of its potential or
effective outlets at the national and international scale. Rattan exploitation
(harvesting, processing) and some activities of forest ecosystems degradation
(hunting) have the same agents, and as such the rattan work can slow down
these activities by competing for time on the work schedule of stakeholders.
That is all the more true as rattan brings in money year round and its
exploitation is labour intensive. Furthermore, as compared to some activities
that cause the degradation of forest resources (hunting for example), the
exploitation of rattan presents a sure advantage at the level of the
remuneration of working time (US$1.80 to US$2.27 per day for the rural rattan
processors against US$1.4 to US$1.8 for hunting for example, even if it is true
that the work effort is more exacting in the case of rattan).
The limitations of rattan in the area of conservation are as impressive as
its advantages. Among the most obvious, one can mention the
complementarities farmers have created between rattan exploitation and
hunting for example (complementarity in the timetable^11 , mutual financing)
and the low remuneration of the work as compared to some other activities
that cause forest degradation such as the small scale exploitation of timber.
In the current state of things, it would be illusory to think that this NTFP could
be an alternative to deforestation (Defo 1999b; Trefon and Defo 1999). It is
clear that rattan exploitation cannot entirely eliminate the direct and
underlying causes of deforestation (agricultural expansion, logging, population
pressures, government policy, corruption, markets and macroeconomic
conditions). Rattan is certainly no panacea and cannot be expected to be a
wonderful remedy preventing deforestation.
The promotion of rural craftsmanship and establishing of more remunerative
prices for unprocessed rattan could render this NTFP more competitive and
enable it to play a positive role in the forest ecosystems conservation. If rattan
provides more substantial gains, given that safeguarding the forest is currently
indispensable to its survival, the populations may in some cases no longer
destroy (in an accelerated and large scale manner) its ecosystem and this
NTFP would have thus contributed to the mitigation or reduction of the
deforestation rate. However, this promotion would have to be preceded by a
rational management plan for the stands and an adequate regulatory system
in order to avoid overexploitation due to the race for rattan, which has become
more expensive. This possible race would without doubt have a negative impact
on the productive potential and the forest ecosystem if prior appropriate
technical, social and regulatory measures or dispositions are not put in place.17Rattan.P65 312 22/12/2004, 11:05