Insearchofcommonground final evaluation 26 june 2018 compressed by United Purpose

Able 36

“IN SEARCH OF COMMON GROUND” FOR FARMER-GRAZER CONFLICTS IN THE NORTH WEST REGION OF CAMEROON

END-OF-PROJECT EVALUATION REPORT

Authors: Nchinda Valentine P., Che Marcellus, Tata-Ngome P.I., Shidiki Abubakar & Chi Napoleon This working report is a product of Village Aid, Concern Universal and MBOSCUDA. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed this paper are those of the respondents reported by the consultant and i

in do

All rights reserved. This working report is a product of Village Aid, United Purpose (formerly Concern Universal) and MBOSCUDA. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are those of the respondents reported by the consultant and do not necessarily reflect the views of the association or those of the consultant and Coordinator who represents the group. United Purpose, MBOSCUDA and Village Aid do not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colours, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of United Purpose, MBOSCUDA and Village Aid or the consultant concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Rights and Permissions Copying and/or transmitting portions or all of this work without permission or citation may be a violation of applicable law. All the queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to the Office of the Publisher. © 2018

United Purpose P.O. Box 25488, Dakar-Fann, Senegal

Email:

Tony.Jansen @united-purpose.org M: +221 77 717 4842

© 2018 Mbororo Social and Cultural Development Association (MBOSCUDA) Old Town Bamenda P.O. Box 221, Bamenda, Cameroon Email: mboscuda@yahoo.co.uk Tel. + 237 677 65 71 86 (cell) + 237 233 361 206 (fixed)

Enquiries and comments should be addressed to: Tony Jansen – Email: Tony.Jansen @united-purpose.org 2

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to administrators (SDOs, DO, delegates of agriculture and livestock) and the management of MBOSCUDA especially Sali Django, Sali Usmanu, Paralegals Extension Officers (PEO) and Community Resource Volunteers (CRV) for facilitating contacts with grazers and farmers. We testify that the patience exercised by the farmers and grazers in responding to the long list of questions during the interviews has made a major contribution to the success of the end-of-project evaluation. We extend our gratitude to all these great people! The research assistants exercised professional skills and determination under challenging conditions. Gratitude is due to Ibrahima Nguimba, Buba Cardimu, Ngesang Melie Pechue, Nchinda Aziseh Akweu, Yaouba Ibrahim, Musa Saidou, Wirsiy Sylvia Yaah, Hawe Bouba, Ngoh Philomena Ngwemeta, Ngesang N. Ngetleh, Neba Dieudonne Fru and Rachel Fondi for data collection and management.

The team spirit and professionalism exercised by the technical team from baseline through the midterm to the final evaluation of the project is also acknowledged. We are therefore grateful to the team members for their collaborative spirit, sacrifices and all the effort they put in. This final evaluation could not also have been a success without the support of key persons from Village Aid and United Purpose (previously Concern Universal). Veronica Wigley, Giorgia Nicatore, Andy Layzell, David Drew and David Phillips edited this study report in collaboration with the authors and we are grateful for the entire process. We are particularly grateful to all those that developed this project and accompanied us through the qualitative and quantitative Monitoring and Evaluation exercises over the last five years of the ISCG project. Beside those previously cited, we extend our gratitude to Kemal Shaheen who played a very important role to kick-start this project. We are particularly grateful for the financial support of the Big Lottery Fund that previously permitted us to conduct the baseline, midterm and now this end-of-project evaluation. We are delighted to have been given yet another opportunity to conduct this end-of-project evaluation.

Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 18 1.1 End-Of-Project Evaluation Objectives ..............................................................................................................20 1.2 Rationale of the evaluation ...................................................................................................................................20 1.3 General organization of the report .....................................................................................................................20 2. METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................... 21 2.1 Choice and description of study area .................................................................................................................21 2.2 Sampling and data collection ...............................................................................................................................23 2.3 Data collected .........................................................................................................................................................23 2.4 Data analysis ...........................................................................................................................................................25 2.5 Limitations and challenges ...................................................................................................................................25 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................... 26 3.1 Effectiveness and socio-political context of project execution ......................................................................26 3.1.1 Effectiveness ........................................................................................................................................................... 26 3.1.2 Socio-political context ........................................................................................................................................... 26 3.2 Socio-economic and demographic characteristics of the respondents .........................................................28 3.3 Agriculture and grazing practices including alliance farming .........................................................................33 3.3.1 Household livestock composition and rearing systems ................................................................................... 37 3.3.2 Pasture improvement ............................................................................................................................................. 39 3.3.3 Sources of cooking fuel ......................................................................................................................................... 39 3.3.4 Use of slurry ............................................................................................................................................................ 40 3.4 Land tenure system in farmer-grazer conflict areas .........................................................................................41 3.5 Access to clean and safe drinking water in farmer-grazer conflict areas ......................................................43 3.6 The principle causes, frequency and severity of conflicts ...............................................................................49 3.6.1 Frequency of conflict ............................................................................................................................................. 49 3.6.2 Conflict opponents ................................................................................................................................................ 51 3.6.3 Causes of conflict ................................................................................................................................................... 51 3.6.4 Changes in the perception of farmers and grazers on the causes of conflicts .............................................. 53 3.7 Changes in the effects of farmer-grazer conflicts .............................................................................................54 3.8 Changes in Sources of Support for Resolving Conflicts .................................................................................57 3.9 Use of Conflict Resolution Options ...................................................................................................................59 4

3.10 Changes in the visibility of MBOSCUDA actions in conflict prone areas of the North West Region of Cameroon ......................................................................................................................................................................62 3.11 Milestones .............................................................................................................................................................66 4. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................ 72 4.1 Lessons learnt .........................................................................................................................................................73 4.2 Recommendations .................................................................................................................................................74 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................... 77

Tables Table 1: Proportion of respondents interviewed in five divisions of the North West Region.............................23 Table 2: Proportion of respondents by gender and marital status and households with disabled persons ........24 Table 3: Distribution of respondents by religion .........................................................................................................29 Table 4: Respondents by ethnic group ..........................................................................................................................29 Table 5: Level of education of respondents according to main activity ...................................................................30 Table 6: Respondents’ socioeconomic characteristics (n=807) .................................................................................31 Table 7: Main activities of respondents across five divisions of the North West Region .....................................33 Table 8: Secondary activities of respondents across five divisions of the North West Region ............................34 Table 9: Break-down of source of cow-dung used by some households for farming activities ...........................35 Table 10: Differences in earned agricultural income under cow-dung based farming system .............................36 Table 11: Household average livestock numbers for farmers and herders ..............................................................38 Table 12: Livestock owned by women, young and disabled people in herder households...................................38 Table 13: Training on pasture improvement and ownership of pastures by grazers .............................................39 Table 14: Main source of cooking fuel ..........................................................................................................................40 Table 15: Household land acquisition mode ................................................................................................................41 Table 16: Annual amounts (FCFA) spent by farmers and grazers for access to land ............................................42 Table 17: Main sources of water for household consumption ..................................................................................45 Table 18: Extent of water contamination reported by all respondents ....................................................................46 Table 19: Causes of water contamination as reported by survey respondents ........................................................47 Table 20: Reported Frequency of symptoms of water-borne diseases such as typhoid, stomach upset & Malaria ..............................................................................................................................................................................................48 Table 21: Changes in the proportions of respondents that experienced farmer-grazer conflicts by division, over the life of the project in the North West region of Cameroon ........................................................................................49 Table 22: Mean numbers of conflicts for all respondents involved in conflicts by division ................................50 Table 23: Frequency of farmer-grazer conflicts ...........................................................................................................51 Table 24: Farmers’ and grazers’ perceptions of who conflicts were with ................................................................51 Table 25: Principal causes of farmer/grazer conflicts .................................................................................................52 Table 26: Causes of conflict reported by women who were household heads .......................................................53 Table 27: Percentage of household heads who agree with statement related to causes of conflict .....................54 Table 28: Effect of conflict on parties in conflict and their families ........................................................................56 Table 29: Value of assets lost and crops destroyed in conflict-prone areas in FCFA over the past three years57 6

Table 30: Respondents’ first source of help for the most serious conflict situation experienced........................58 Table 31: Outcome for the source of help for conflict resolution ............................................................................60 Table 32: Livelihood indicators for households exposed to farmer/grazer conflicts over the last three years (midterm) ............................................................................................................................................................................62 Table 33: Livelihood indicators for households exposed to farmer/grazer conflicts over the last three years (endof-project)...........................................................................................................................................................................62 Table 34: Proportion of farmers and grazers with knowledge on services offered by MBOSCUDA ................63 Table 35: Proportion of females and males with knowledge of services offered by MBOSCUDA ...................64 Table 36: BLF indicators –Five years’ progress .................................................................................................................70 Table 37: BLF indicators –Midterm milestones.................................................................................................................79

Figures Figure 1: Conflict hotspots, transhumance communities and study locations in North West Cameroon; ........22 Figure 2: Farmers and Grazers food and non-food expenses (n=807) ....................................................................32 Figure 3: Respondents’ preferred modes of conflict resolution ................................................................................59 Figure 4: Proportion of respondents that agree or strongly agree there is little collaboration between grazers and farmers (n=829, 862 & 796 for baseline & final evaluations respectively) ..............................................................61 Figure 5: Percent of respondents claiming that MBOSCUDA is helping “a great deal” in increasing their participation in conflict resolutions ................................................................................................................................65 Figure 6: Percent of respondents claiming that MBOSCUDA's services are “Useful or Very Useful” .............66 Figure 7: Most important component of ISCG project..............................................................................................72

Acronyms

Alliance Farming

CBO

Community-Based Organisation

CDENO

North West Livestock Development Fund

CRV

Community Resource Volunteers

Divisional Officer

HELVETAS

Swiss Interco-operation

HPI

Heifer Project International

ISCG

In Search Of Common Ground

MBOSCUDA

Mbororo Social and Cultural Development Association

MINEPIA

Ministry of Livestock, Fisheries and Animal Industries

MINADER

Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development

NWR

North West Region

PEO

Paralegal Extension Officer

SDD

Sub Divisional Delegate

SDO

Senior Divisional Officer

SNV

Netherlands Development Organization

Executive Summary ‘In Search of Common Ground’ (ISCG) is a five-year project, which strives to reduce farmer-grazer conflicts between subsistent crop farmers and Mbororo cattle herders in the North West Region of Cameroon. This final evaluation assesses project achievements in its targeted communities, focusing on: changes in the extent, severity and causes of farmer-grazer conflicts; access to natural resources; institutional support; and livelihood practices. The study replicates the baseline and midterm evaluations previously undertaken at the start and halfway into project implementation. Primary data were collected using structured questionnaires administered to households of Mbororo cattle herders and subsistence farmers in five administrative divisions (Mezam, Momo, Bui, Boyo and Donga Mantung) covering 14 communities as it was the case with the baseline and midterm surveys. Altogether, 807 households were studied compared with 840 and 864 at baseline and midterm, respectively.

Background characteristics •

The level of education of the respondents was generally low. Most farmers (59%) have been educated at the primary level and most grazers (68%) have been educated at primary school or have had informal Koranic education;

•

Most grazers are still Mbororos and most farmers are non-Mbororos as was the case at the start of the project. The majority of Mbororos are Muslims and the majority of farmers are Christians. Agriculture still remains the main activity of 96% of the farmers. By contrast 94% of grazers rear cattle and this is their main source of income.

•

There were significant differences between the per capita monthly food and non-food expenditures of the farmers and grazers, with grazers spending somewhat more than farmers.

•

The average household size for farmers (7.3) is significantly smaller than that of grazers (10.5). Similarly, the aggregated number of children for farmers (5.2) is significantly lower than that of grazers (7.2). The estimated land used was the same (3.0ha) for both the farmers and grazers. The average cattle herd size for grazers at the end of the project increased from 50 at baseline (Nchinda et al., 2014b) to 69 at the end of project;

Alliance farming, pasture improvement and biogas Alliance farming has been promoted as a way to improve crop yield, cattle health and collaboration between farmers and grazers, but its use – whilst increasing – is not widespread. There is some way to go to encourage these measures, whilst the use of improved pasture as an alternative to cattle feed source has increased significantly: •

The proportion of farmers growing crops using cow dung increased from 28% at baseline to 61% at the end of the project. Cow dung is increasingly sourced through Alliance Farming. As expected farmers (96%) claim that crop yields under alliance farming are higher;

•

The proportion of grazers who have adopted the use of improved pasture tripled from 17% at baseline to 48% at the end of the project;

•

The main source of cooking fuel is wood for 98% of the surveyed households at final evaluation as it was at the baseline. The use of biogas is still very limited (only one of the respondent at baseline and fourteen at final evaluation. Consequently, the use of slurry in crop production, as a by-product of biogas, is limited (only three of the respondent at baseline and twenty-three at final evaluation).

Land tenure system Land tenure is a complicated issue and payments for land lease or to the traditional authorities is often required. •

Most land is inherited (78%) and some bought (8%), which is similar to the findings of the baseline and midterm surveys;

•

In order to access and use land there can be land lease costs or payment to the traditional or administrative authorities. Land lease costs stood at a median value of FCFA 20,000 (US$ 35) thereby showing a small drop of FCFA 30,000 (US$ 53) compared to the baseline. The median amount paid to traditional or administrative authorities for land use decreased from FCFA 200,000 (US$ 353) at baseline to FCFA 100,000 (US$ 176) at end-of-project.

Access to clean and safe drinking water There has been a marked improvement in access to clean and safe drinking water and a reduction in the incidences of water conflicts. Knowledge about the prevention of water pollution and clean and safe water usage in the communities has also increased significantly from 16% at baseline to 96% at end-ofproject. Despite this, access to water still remains a major concern in the communities. Grazers have not fully shared in the enhancement of clean water supplies that farmers have benefited from. The management of this is in the hands of community water management committees. It is a priority for more to be put in place and for capacity building to be undertaken: •

The improvement in access to clean water has contributed to a drop in water related conflicts (from 44% at baseline to 14% at the end-of-project);

•

The main sources of drinking water are streams, rivers and waterholes for 43% of households at the end-of-project compared to 66% at baseline. However, it is mainly farmers who have benefited from this reduction, as only 26% of farmer households now use streams, rivers and waterholes compared to 59% of grazers;

•

It is also farmers who have benefited most from access to public taps: whereas around six percent of both groups accessed public taps in the baseline survey, now farmers’ access has increased to 39% compared to only 9% for grazers;

•

Streams, rivers and waterholes remain the source of drinking water for virtually all the cattle and which contaminates water consumed by humans resulting in water-borne diseases, such as typhoid;

•

The proportions of respondents reporting increases in the levels of collaboration and sustainable use of water in the communities increased significantly by 58% points from 18% at baseline to 76% at end-of-project;

•

The proportion of respondents who reported the contamination of water sources as one of the main causes of typhoid was 38% which was 17% points higher than the situation at baseline;

•

Water management committees exist in all the project communities to manage access to safe and clean drinking water but regular follow up and training are required to sustain their actions.

Incidence and severity of farmer-grazer conflicts In the interviews everyone was asked whether or not they believed the conflicts had reduced. The most important finding is that people say that conflict has reduced (86% compared with 32% at baseline) and that conflict is less severe than it was before (83% compared with 37% at baseline). There is a larger increase in this positive perception among grazers. Households were also questioned about exposure to conflicts during the last three years. It was found that 66% of households had been involved in a conflict relative to 74% at baseline thereby indicating an 8% drop in the proportion of those involved in conflicts by the end-of-project. This is a major change and an important indicator of improvement. •

It was found that 37% of people said that conflicts occurred rarely relative to 7% at baseline and that there is a larger increase in this positive perception among grazers than the farmers;

•

At baseline, the farmers accused grazers of trespassing on farmlands and grazers accused farmers of encroaching on grazing land. At the end of the project there was a greater consensus with large numbers overall (60%) agreeing that trespass by grazers on farmland was the major cause.

•

The conflicts have devastating social and economic effects. Of those affected, farmers report damage to crops (84%) and grazers report injuries to cattle (22%) and intimidation (24%);

•

The value of assets lost due to conflict can be considerable. The largest numbers of respondents are affected by crop damage and by expenditure on conflict resolution itself. The latter includes the costs of restitution, the cost of using the Agro-Pastoral Commission and legal costs.

All respondents were asked about their perceptions of the conflicts and their causes. By final evaluation the four main reasons given were: destruction of crops by cattle (97% agreeing or strongly agreeing), the lack of effectiveness of the Agro-Pastoral Commission (76%), the government not doing enough (82%) and the carelessness of herdsmen (81%). The fourth reason about the carelessness of herdsmen has come up very strongly at the final evaluation.

Sources of support for resolving conflict Dialogue platforms are seen as a desirable way to resolve conflicts whilst the Agro-Pastoral Commission seems not to be working effectively. •

Amicable settlement, perhaps via the traditional council is the first source of help. The AgroPastoral Commission is used by only 14% (approximately the same as at baseline), and the Dialogue Platforms are used by 14%, an increase on baseline (12%). People were also asked about their preferred modes of conflict resolution and the Agro-Pastoral Commission is preferred by just 1-3% (of the respondents at baseline & final evaluation) and the Dialogue Platforms by 38-55% of all these respondents;

•

The use of traditional and administrative authorities and the courts are the least preferred modes of conflict resolution as the process can be lengthy, financially demanding or simply considered unfair;

•

The Agro-Pastoral Commission does not perform all functions attributed to it and funds are not allocated for their work by the state as required by the law of 1974. The financial burden is borne by farmers and grazers who have themselves to finance the intervention;

Outcomes of conflict mitigation The statistics here suggest that progress is being made in resolving conflicts. •

In practice, cases are settled with restitution (49%), settled without restitution (6%) or, in some cases abandoned (30%) as was the case at the start of the project, with a steady increase in the first category relative to baseline. The settlement of cases by traditional councils or by the courts is relatively rare.

Visibility of MBOSCUDA MBOSCUDA is increasingly known for offering social and economic opportunities by a majority of the respondents (especially the females). MBOSCUDA is also known for its first and most important 14

responsibility in resolving conflict in the North West Region of Cameroon and people feel that they are better supported as a result. •

The services offered by MBOSCUDA are known to 98% of respondents, a large increase on baseline (59%);

•

MBOSCUDA is now well known among the farmers & grazers for social and economic services as opposed to conflict resolution among farmers & training/literacy services among the grazers at the start of the project.

•

About 65% of both farmers and grazers at the end of the project believe the services of MBOSCUDA are very useful compared to 25% at baseline;

•

The proportion of respondents who believe that the CBOs have helped strengthen the way MBOSCUDA works with local communities was 80%.

Baseline indicators for the measurement of project milestones and impact The statistical indicators show milestones and achievements made during the lifespan of the project execution. These indicators can serve as a baseline for future interventions geared at facilitating access to quality water resources, improved pasture, alliance farming, biogas and most especially conflict resolutions in Cameroon.

Recommendations The findings of the final evaluation show some progress has been made in reducing the proportion of those exposed to farmer-grazer conflicts in the project communities. It also sets the pace for accountability in the use of resources, learning, impact and the design of future interventions. The following recommendations are proposed in order to strengthen the prospects of fully achieving the goals of conflict mitigation mechanisms and intended outcomes:

1. Conflicts still remain a serious issue for large numbers. When conflicts arise, amicable settlement should be encouraged as much as possible. Dialogue Platforms have an important role to play here as both farmers and grazers recognize them as the most appealing way of conflict resolution after amicable settlement between the parties concerned. Efforts should be made towards sustaining the existence and smooth functioning of the Dialogue Platforms by reinforcing their capacity in conflict prevention and mediation.

2. Measures should be taken to discourage grazers and particularly herdsmen from allowing cattle to trespass on farmlands. This may be included in the awareness campaign messages. The joint construction of fences by farmers and grazers should also be encouraged; around farms to avoid crop destruction by cattle.

3. Grazers are now more aware than are farmers of their role in causing conflict. As well as the use of the Dialogue Platform, actions can be taken to discourage farmers from planting on grazing land.

4. Working with key stakeholders to feed into policy changes with regards to land reform is an important long-term goal given that current land tenure arrangements are a major cause of conflict. It can also be considered as the intent of future advocacy packages to be instituted by MBOSCUDA and collaborators;

5. Efforts should be made to strengthen collaboration between farmers and grazers by promoting best practices especially in the area of equitable usage of water, uptake of improved pasture, alliance farming, and intensification of crop production using slurry, cow-dung and improved seeds.

6. Emphasis should be given to increasing access to clean and safe drinking water for both humans and cattle under non-competitive circumstances. Working with key stakeholders, this should include the construction of clean and safe drinking water sources/catchments, setting up of water management committees where they do not exist and building their capacity to be more effective in carrying out their functions. Grazers should be targeted particularly because access to clean and safe drinking water at present appears to benefit farmers more than grazers;

7. Development of a clear advocacy plan could underpin much of the work towards achieving Strong Organisations. This could provide a springboard for communities to take forward activities long after project funding comes to an end. 17

1. Introduction The causes of farmer-grazer conflicts among the ethnic Mbororo cattle herders and non-Mbororo subsistence farmers, particularly in the North West Region of Cameroon (NWR), have been well documented. These disputes are principally because of competition over the use of land and water resources for agricultural and non-agricultural use (Rashid, 2012; Kelsey & Knox, 2011; Manu et al., 2014, Nchinda et al., 2014a&b), the increase in human and animal population (Gefu & Kolawole, 2002) and resource access rights and the inadequacy of grazing resources. The effects of these conflicts can be devastating and include loss of assets and human life, insecurity, food crises and sustained poverty. Also, conflict limits the ability of crop farmers and grazers (herders) to live in harmony in the same community (Pelican, 2012). Rashid (2012) reported that conflict has farreaching economic, production and socio-psychological effects on households. A survey carried out in 14 farmer-grazer conflict-prone communities in the North West Region of Cameroon revealed that 85% of farmers had their crops damaged whilst the grazers reported cases of cattle injuries, mortality or theft (29%) and intimidation (26%). The economic losses to households exposed to these conflicts were estimated at FCFA 55,000,000 (Nchinda et al., 2014b). Research in Bauchi State in neighbouring Nigeria demonstrated that the income of families exposed to farmer-grazer conflict was far lower than in non-conflict areas and that the conflict had negative effects on the nation as a whole. The farmers and the grazers were further financially penalised because they were required to pay a fee of US $40 for conflict mitigation services (Sulaiman and Jaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;afar-Furo, 2010). The project In Search of Common Ground (hereafter ISCG), was developed by Mbororo Social and Cultural Development Association (MBOSCUDA) and international partners (Village Aid & Big Lottery Fund) to mitigate the scourge of farmer-grazer conflict in the NWR. This utilises Dialogue Platforms, a specialised mediation method, previously piloted in four-locations in the area. ISCG was a five-year

project, from August 2013 to July 2018, scaling up this conflict mitigation initiative to 14 other locations1. The project has also established and facilitated agricultural interventions to help reduce the causes of the conflict and competition over scarce resources. It addresses two fundamental gaps in existing services. The first is the exclusion of marginalized Mbororo cattle herders (grazers) from poverty-reduction strategies in Cameroon and the failure to recognize their collective rights to access land, to achieve personal and material security and improved grazing conditions. This has created barriers to accessing vital services and resources like land and water. Secondly, existing government provision for addressing farmer-grazer conflicts (the commission established by the Presidential Decree of 1978) is reported to be inadequate (Sone, 2012). Rather than addressing their root causes, it exacerbates farmer-grazer conflicts through the encouragement of litigation and compensation. The ISCG project was designed to lead to: •

reduced incidence and severity of conflict between crop farmers and cattle herders (through dialogue and collaboration) resulting in more equitable access to natural resources and an improved environment for exercising basic rights;

•

improved skills in sustainable farming methods leading to better crop and livestock yields, greater cooperation between crop farmers and cattle herders and increased awareness of the need for environmental protection;

•

equitable access to clean water contributing to reduced conflict between farmers and grazers and more sustainable use of this vital natural and economic resource;

•

Mbororo people having greater capacity to exercise their rights, leading to more responsive legislation, reduction in their experience of human rights violations and improved opportunities for their social and economic development.

1Akum,

Baba II, Bainjong, Achain, AchaTugi , Njaetu, Ashong, Mbakam, Konchep, Bih, BinshuaBarare, Mbonso and Nkowe (distributed

in eight sub-district areas of the NWR of Cameroon)

1.1 End-Of-Project Evaluation Objectives The overall objective of this evaluation is to assess the progress made towards achieving project milestones and outcomes in targeted communities. The specific objectives are to: •

determine the changes brought about by the project intervention in causes, frequency and severity of farmer/grazer conflicts in targeted communities;

•

determine the effect of water catchment protection, alliance farming, improved pasture practices and biogas installations on the livelihoods of cattle herders and farmers in the project areas (through the provision of data, statistical indicators and analysis on livelihoods);

•

determine changes in the capacity of MBOSCUDA and its related CBOs brought about by the intervention as well as establish the level of collaboration and more efficient and genderequitable practices;

•

determine the environmental and/or political issues that have influenced or directly affected the introduction or implementation of any parts of the project;

•

Provide data, statistical indicators and analysis on the livelihoods of cattle herders and farmers and other family members including women and children.

1.2 Rationale of the evaluation Mackay and Douglas (2003) argue that evaluation findings can be used in the improvement of policies and programs. For instance, in Niger, Turner et al. (2011) examined farmer-grazer conflicts in four communities and concluded that they were less likely in the Sahel Region of Niger because of the higher levels of common livelihood interests and cooperation shared by the social groups of the communities. This was an interesting conclusion. The evaluation results will provide information on progress made in the achievement of project deliverables (effectiveness) and end-of-project outcomes and effects. Additionally, any shortfall in expected outcomes or unexpected findings from the evaluation will inform future programme design and policies. 1.3 General organization of the report The report is organized in four main sections. The first provides background information on farmergrazer conflicts. It also provides the context of the study and the rationale. The second section describes 20

the methodology employed which includes the data collection process and the analytical method used. The findings are presented and discussed in the third section, which covers aspects of farmer-grazer conflicts that have changed over the project life cycle and the extent to which this has affected agriculture and livestock production. It examines and explores changes in the nature and causes of conflicts and how they affect communities along with a discussion of mitigation strategies. The section also assesses the extent to which the key indicators of the project were realised by the fifth year of project implementation. The fourth and last section presents the conclusions and suggestions for future programmes and/or policies.

2. Methodology 2.1 Choice and description of study area The evaluation was conducted between December 2017 and June 2018. Primary data for the assessment were collected in December 2017 in 14 communities distributed over five administrative divisions (Mezam, Momo, Bui, Boyo and Donga Mantung) of the NWR of Cameroon. These are the same communities that were covered during the baseline and midterm surveys in 2014 & 2016, respectively. These are all communities in areas targeted by the ISCG project, which have farmer-grazer conflicts. The communities where respondents were interviewed include Akum, Baba II, Bainjong, Achain, AchaTugi, Njah-Etu, Ashong, Mbakam, Konchep, Bih, Binshua, Barare, Mbonso and Nkowe (Figure 1). Figure 1 also shows some of the transhumance areas where cattle browse during drought periods.

Figure 1: Conflict hotspots, transhumance communities and study locations in North West Cameroon;

Source: Nchinda et al., 2014a

2.2 Sampling and data collection A total of 807 households (farmers and grazers) were interviewed in the 14 communities targeted by ISCG project. At the end-of-project evaluation, we followed up previous evaluations (baseline & midterm) and successfully interviewed 78% of those previously contacted at baseline and/or midterm. The end-of-project survey was stratified into two groups, farmers and grazers, in order to obtain roughly similar numbers in each group. Primary data were collected using structured questionnaires administered to household heads of Mbororo cattle herders (408), and subsistence farmers (399) in five administrative divisions covering 14 conflict hot spots or communities in the NWR of Cameroon (Table 1).

Table 1: Proportion of respondents interviewed in five divisions of the North West Region Division Mezam Momo Boyo Bui Donga Mantung Percent of respondents No of cases

Farmers (%) 16 15 15 23 32 100 399

Grazers (%) 14 21 15 22 27 100 408

All (%) 15 18 15 23 30 100 807

Number of Communities 2 3 2 3 4 14

2.3 Data collected Data were collected with the assistance of trained enumerators using structured questionnaires similar to those used in the baseline and midterm studies, with minor modifications and additions to enhance clarity and to provide more information. A logical framework developed for the purpose of this evaluation was used to document progress made in the implementation of the ISCG project. The questionnaire was used to gather data on the socioeconomic characteristics of respondents (gender, marital status, ethnic group, age, income level, occupation, etc.) in the conflict hotspot areas. Information was documented on whether respondents were exposed to conflict, its incidence and severity, what their views on its causes were and on what mitigation practices were seen as successful. Respondents were also questioned on their knowledge of and involvement in services offered in the context of the ISCG project and on their knowledge of and views on the activities of MBOSCUDA. Livelihood data collected include the land tenure system and access to natural resources such as land 23

and water, along with agro-pastoral system information including water access and protection activities, alliance farming (AF), improved pasture and biogas experiences. Table 2 provides information on gender and marital status and on households with disabled people. Thirteen percent (13%) of the 807 households had disabled people. Of the 103 disabled persons, 24% are females and 76% males. Thirty-five percent (35%) of those with disabilities had sight, hearing or speech disabilities; the rest had mobility problems, suffered from paralysis or had mental health problems. A large majority of the respondents interviewed were men with female respondents representing 24% of the total sample. Most of the respondents interviewed were married.

Table 2: Proportion of respondents by gender and marital status and households with disabled persons Farmers Criteria

Female

Male

Grazers

Both No of

Female

Male

Female

Male

All

100

805

100

103

5 5 10 13 0

50 40 0 0 50

19 34 70 85 50

81 66 30 15 50

100 100 100 100 100

693 61 10 39 2

100

cases

Gender of respondents Percent of respondents 19 30 (row %) Households with disabled persons Percent of respondents 16 31 (row %) Marital status of household heads (row %) Married 15 32 Single 30 25 Divorce 60 30 Widowed 72 15 Separated 50 0 Percent of respondents 19 30 (row %)

NB: Data for gender, disability and marital status are given as row percentages

2.4 Data analysis The data collected were analyzed using STATA version 14. The analysis was done mostly using descriptive statistics. T-test and chi-square tests were used to account for significant differences in measured parameters between the farmers and grazers. In the analysis, the situation at end-of-project was compared with that at baseline in order to capture progress made in the realisation of outputs/outcomes of the project. The project outcome indicators, key variables for the measurement of project progress, were also analyzed using the logical framework. 2.5 Limitations and challenges Overall, minor challenges faced during the study were mitigated and did not jeopardize the findings of the study in spite of the fact that the terrain was very rough and difficult to cover. In one of the fourteen communities (Ashong), only 43% of the 54 farmers/grazers were interviewed because of prevailing leadership and political conflicts in the community at the time of the survey. This problem was addressed by increasing the numbers of questionnaires administered in other survey communities by 7%.

3. Results and Discussion 3.1 Effectiveness and socio-political context of project execution 3.1.1 Effectiveness The ISCG project was designed to alleviate poverty in 14 communities of the NWR of Cameroon over a period of five years (June 2013 to June 2018) by: (i) reducing the incidence and severity of conflict between indigenous crop farmers and semi-nomadic Mbororo cattle herders; (ii) improving the livelihoods of farmers and grazers by increasing crop and livestock productivity; (iii) ensuring equitable access to clean water; and (iv) empowering Mbororo people to have greater capacity to exercise their rights. Some outputs were expected to be achieved by the end of the project. This section covers the progress made so far. The following outputs and milestones were achieved: 21 PEOs/CRVs who were recruited provided extension support visits and awareness campaigns in 14 targeted communities; 14 Dialogue Platforms were created; radio advice programs on farmer-grazer conflict resolution were organized; 217 alliance farming pairs were promoted in all the 14 targeted communities; 14 demonstration biogas plants were constructed; and fourteen water catchments with pipe-borne water provision were initiated. In some of the communities water management committees were put in place and in others existing ones were restructured. In addition, 14 pasture demonstration sites, covering approximately 34.4 hectares, were set up in the project target communities. In a nutshell, all the project deliverables or milestones were achieved within the time scales originally specified. These milestones were achieved under somewhat challenging socio-political conditions as explained below. 3.1.2 Socio-political context Cameroonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s North West Region is the second largest cattle-rearing region of the country after Adamawa Region. It is also one of the two regions where there are extensive farmer-grazer conflicts. The regulatory framework to mitigate farmer-grazer conflicts in the North West Region and in Cameroon as a whole is spelled out in Decree No 78/263 of July 3, 1978 in which powers are bestowed on the Agro-Pastoral Commission. Representatives of different technical ministries and traditional authorities in each district or division constitute this commission, which is chaired by the 26

Divisional Officer of each sub division. In addition to this regulated framework there are other local initiatives such as the Dialogue Platforms (including those established by ISCG), traditional councils or private sector initiatives. When the Agro-Pastoral Commissions, Dialogue Platforms or traditional authorities are unable to resolve conflicts and if – but only if – there are criminal elements to the farmer-grazer conflict then the judiciary can be involved (Nchinda et al., 2014a). The project is implemented in an environment where other Civil Society Organisations are also carrying out activities to reduce these conflicts. For instance, Dialogue Platforms were also created by the Archdioceses of Bui division due to extensive farmer-grazer conflicts in some of the communities. Similarly, in Momo division, MBONGOP TRUST also created Dialogue Platforms to handle farmergrazer conflicts. The traditional authorities are also important stakeholders used in the mitigation of farmer-grazer conflicts. The technical ministries, notably that of Livestock, Fisheries and Animal Industries, not only issue grazing permits but also take action in reducing farmer/grazer conflicts. They undertake training to encourage the use of improved pastures. They have technical services responsible for the extension of pasture improvement technologies to rural communities. The North West Livestock Development Fund (CDENO) for instance, is a specialized state-controlled institution whose mission includes contributing to the conservation and improvement of pastures and the development of basic grazing infrastructure such as drinking troughs, cattle dips, etc. Some projects with related activities were earlier implemented in the project catchment areas by institutions such as CDENO, HELVETAS Cameroon, HPI, SNV in communities such as Ashong, AchaTugi, Baba II, Baijong and Binshua including the Tugi Silvo-pastoral project. Water points and water catchments were constructed or rehabilitated in most of the study communities and trained water committees were put in place. Some other initiatives have already been taken towards the construction and use of biogas plants in the NWR of Cameroon. SNV and HPI have both undertaken such initiatives in some of the ISCG project communities. Experience from previous projects notably the Pilot Project on Domestic Biogas in the Western Highlands of Cameroon, executed by HPI, shows how this technology was used in generating cooking gas and manure (slurry) for agriculture (alliance farming). As well as the complexities of disentangling the impact of ISCG from these previous initiatives in assessing the survey’s findings, the project’s policy and political environment also affects any assessment of its effectiveness. First, it must be noted that the initiative to set up Dialogue Platforms is “informally” endorsed by the administration of the region and the heads of Agro-Pastoral Commissions. This is particularly so because the Agro-Pastoral Commissions, headed by the DOs, are 27

the only legally recognised forums for handling farmer-grazer conflicts. The administrators who head the Agro-Pastoral Commissions have the powers to dissolve any group that has no legal recognition such as DPs. Some DPs do have formal recognition but even those without this status are collaborating with DOs, many of whom actively encourage the DPs. However, some “big” herders and political figures often described as big wigs were reported to have colluded with these administrators to work against actions taken by MBOSCUDA within the framework of the ISCG project aimed at conflict mitigation. These groups were reported to have attempted through the media to label MBOSCUDA’s actions to be against public interest as described in some newspapers2. Threats of extreme physical violence to MBOSCUDA field staff were also recorded. Fortunately, the MBOSCUDA management with the support of the administration was subsequently able to get the situation under control. It should be noted that these extremely difficult circumstances probably related more to MBOSCUDA’s human rights activities, which are completely outside the remit of the ISCG project. Furthermore, the last two years of the project implementation were affected by a socio-political tension in the North West and South West Regions of Cameroon otherwise referred to as the “Anglophone Crisis”. This was characterised by civil unrest and “ghost towns”3 resulting in a slow-down in achieving the project deliverables. The political tension coupled with leadership conflicts strained the achievement of project deliverables in one of the communities notably Ashong as explained in section 2.6.

3.2 Socio-economic and demographic characteristics of the respondents Generally, the characteristics of those interviewed at the end of the project are similar to those previously interviewed at baseline and midterm. Seventy eight percent of those previously interviewed (at baseline and midterm) were again interviewed during the end-of-project survey. The respondents belong to three major religious affiliations (Tables 3). The grazers and farmers interviewed were

(see Chronicle No 438 of 22 Dec. 2015 p. 5-8; The independent Observer No 077 of Dec. 2015 p. 5-7 & Life Time No 00123 of 22 Dec. 2015 p. 5-9) 3

These are days all economic activities in the capital city (Bamenda) and the rest of the region were shut town

Muslims and Christians (Catholic and Protestants) respectively. Islam was the religion of all Mbororos4 interviewed whereas some nonâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;Mbororos also have Islam as their religion. Conversely, an overwhelming proportion of farmers are Christians (Catholics and Protestants) and/or are Animist or of the Orthodox and traditional faith. Other Christian denominations such as Baptist, Jehovahâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Witness and Full Gospel were identified but grouped under Protestants.

Table 3: Distribution of respondents by religion Religion

Farmers (%)

Grazers (%)

7 95 94 75

93 5 6 25

391

408

Islam Catholic Protestant Others No of cases

All (%) 100 100 100 100 100

No of cases 52 18 29 75 799

The general point in the section above is that most grazers are Muslims and most farmers, with a few exceptions, are Christians. Table 4 below further shows the distribution of respondents across five ethnic groups. The analysis shows that grazers are mostly Mbororos as opposed to farmers that are essentially the Tikaris, Moghamo, Widikum or Kom. However, a few grazers are from the former ethnic groups just as a few farmers are Mbororos.

Table 4: Respondents by ethnic group Grazers

(%)

Mbororo

100

399

Tikari

100

271

Widikum

100

Moghamo

100

Kom

100

Ethnic group

All

Farmers

No of cases

Within this report Mbororo respondents who are both farmers and grazers are referred to as Mbororos

Percent of respondents

100

No of cases

366

403

769

Table 5 provides information on the level of education of the respondents interviewed at the end of the project. The analysis shows that most of the respondents have either a primary level of education (38%) or have never been to school (26%). Few attended high school or university. Fifty nine percent (59%) of farmers have the primary level of education but a relatively large proportion of grazers attended the traditional Koranic sessions (40%). These may have been sessions in homes and not formal Islamic institutions. The latter are very rare in pastoralist communities.

Table 5: Level of education of respondents according to main activity Level of education

Farmers (%)

Grazers (%)

All (%)

Never been to school

Koranic school

Primary school

Secondary school

High School

University

Percent of respondents

100

No of cases

391

403

794

The socioeconomic characteristics of farmers and grazers interviewed are presented in Table 6. The average household size of the grazers is significantly higher than that of the farmers. The average numbers of children in the grazersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; household is significantly higher than those of farmers. The average age of the farmers interviewed is significantly higher than that of grazers.

The average number of years of residence in the community is higher for farmers than for grazers though with no significant difference. The farmers and grazers are people who have lived in close proximity for close to 40 years, and have shared natural resources in these communities for a long time. Most of the respondents (86%) say they are unlikely to move out of the community, as was the case at baseline. Four per cent (4%) of respondents, mostly people below 40 years of age, say they are likely to move out of the community for various reasons: to search for better living conditions; 30

because of the conflict or reduction in grazing/farming space and, in a limited number of cases because of the effects of conflicts over the use of natural resources.

In terms of land ownership or occupancy, the average area of land size owned by grazers is the same as that owned or occupied by farmers. At baseline, it was established that the area of land exploited by grazers was more than that of farmers. However, there was no significant difference. Grazers mostly occupy land on the hills where grazing activities take place whereas farmers occupy land at lower altitudes in each of the communities. It should be noted that in Cameroon, all permanent land users can be defined as occupants. Most of those who permanently occupy and use the land claim to be owners. However, it is only when a title, a legal document, is issued that the person can claim to actually own the land. The average herd size for Mbororos (69) and farmers (42) shows some remarkable increases on both sides in the final survey given that, at baseline, the average herd size for grazers was 42 and 13 for farmers who were herders.

Table 6: Respondentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; socioeconomic characteristics (n=807) Variable

Farmers

Level of sig. difference

Grazers

Mean

Std. Dev.

Mean

Std. Dev.

Age (years)

50.4

14.3

45.5

14.0

<0.01***

Household size

7.3

7.1

10.5

9.1

0.00***

Number of children (0-17)

5.0

4.5

7.2

7.0

0.00***

Number of children (5-17 years of age)

3.0

2.5

4.5

4.6

0.00***

Number children (<5 years)

1.7

2.6

2.3

2.8

0.00***

Duration of stay in community (years)

41.0

1.7

40.9

15.8

0.98NS

Experience in farming or cattle rearing (years)

25.4

14.1

25.6

16.5

0.84NS

Land owned (ha)

3.0

3.3

3.0

4.3

0.97NS

Herd size

42.0

39.5

69.4

86.5

0.34NS

NB: *** represents 1% level of significance;

Figure 1 provides information on farmersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; and grazersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; food and non-food expenses. The analysis shows that the average household monthly food and non-food expenditures for grazers are significantly higher than those of farmers (Figure 1). This was the same situation established at baseline. Despite the fact that grazer households are significantly larger than farmer households, the difference in per capita food and non-food expenditures between farmers and grazers is still statistically significant.

80,000

Farmer

71,104

Grazer

Amount (FCFA)

70,000 60,000

54,911 43,670

50,000 40,000

28,809

30,000 20,000 10,000

5,444

6,704

8,157

10,180

0 Household monthly Household monthly Per capita monthly food expenses non-food expenses food expenditure

Per capita monthly non-food expenditure

Figure 2: Farmers and Grazers food and non-food expenses (n=807)

3.3 Agriculture and grazing practices including alliance farming The predominant activities carried out by households are agriculture for the farmers (96%) and grazing for the grazers (94%, Table 7) as was the case at baseline. Only a very small number of grazers report farming as their main activity (and this was also noted at baseline). On the other hand, only a few farmers also rear cattle and consider this to be their main activity.

Table 7: Main activities of respondents across five divisions of the North West Region Farmers Grazers Division

Mezam Momo Boyo Bui Donga Mantung Total (row %)

In agri c. (%)

In cattle rearing (%)

*In other activities (%)

% of responde nts

No of cases

In agric (%)

In cattle rearing (%)

In other activities (%)

% of respondents

No of cases

98 98 97 97

0 2 0 1

2 0 3 2

100 100 100 100

62 59 59 92

2 7 5 5

93 93 95 94

5 0 0 1

100 100 100 100

59 86 61 90

100

127

100

112

100

399

100

408

NB: *Other activities are palm wine tapping, petit trading, fishing, wageworkers and rearing of other livestock

Table 8 shows the secondary activities carried out by respondents. The secondary activity carried out by most farmers (across all the divisions) is petit trading. Conversely, agriculture is the secondary activity of most grazers (with the exception of those of Donga Mantung whose secondary activity is petit trading). Palm wine tapping is an activity exclusively carried out by the farmers and grazers who are non-Mbororos.

Table 8: Secondary activities of respondents across five divisions of the North West Region Farmers Cattle Petit Palm Others No Agriculture rearing trading wine activities All of Agricult Division (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) cases ure (%) 24 3 41 24 9 100 34 47 Mezam 19 4 35 8 35 100 26 27 Momo 28 5 44 13 10 100 39 60 Boyo 8 5 43 18 28 100 40 76 Bui 23 2 34 5 36 100 61 11 Donga Mantung 21 4 39 13 25 100 200 49 Total (row %) NB: * Other activities are fishing, wageworkers and rearing of other livestock

Cattle rearing (%) 36 23 26 4 15 18

Grazers Petit Palm trading wine (%) (%) 9 4 15 16 12 0 17 1 66 4 24 4

Others (%) 4 19 2 2 4 5

All (%) 100 100 100 100 100 100

No of cases 45 26 43 78 47 239

The former paragraphs describe agriculture and grazing activities carried out by the farmers and grazers. The section continues with a description of alliance farming as practiced by the respondents. The term alliance farming used here refers to collaboration between farmers who do crop farming and grazers with cattle whose dung is used as manure. Crop and livestock farming are activities that are often associated because of the benefits that each stands to offer to the other. At the end of the project, 61% (490) of all surveyed respondents (farmers and grazers) practice or claim to have practiced alliance farming in the last two years. In fact, 73% (298) of grazers claim cattle graze on land after crops are grown on it in what is described as alliance farming. Approximately, 48% (192) of farmers claimed they grow crops using cowdung under alliance farming arrangements. This shows an increase of 19% compared to 28% at baseline. Cow-dung from cattle rearing activities is sourced directly by allowing cattle to graze on crop fields in some of the study areas. In return, the droppings go to fertilize the fields for agricultural production. This mutual arrangement benefits both farmers and grazers.

The farmers who claim to practice alliance farming in the communities under study also fetch cow-dung for crop production activities carried out by their households. Table 9 provides details as to how these respondents get cow-dung for crop cultivation activities (various alliance farming arrangements). At baseline, 41% of the respondents who used cow-dung fetched it from their own cattle farms. By the end of the project, however, this had dropped to 4% and 45% of farmers received their cow dung free of charge from grazers. These increases probably indicate that many more farmers and grazers are committed to practicing alliance farming.

Table 9: Break-down of source of cow-dung used by some households for farming activities Source of cow-dung From own farm After cattle graze on farm From grazers free of charge Collected from grazing land Bought from grazers Percent of respondents No of cases

Baseline Total (%) 41 34 18 5 2 100 235

Final Total (%) 4 38 45 11 3 100 172

Alliance farming benefits both farmers and herders. Crop farmers experienced in these practices declared that alliance farming results in high crop yields. About 96% of 156 alliance farming crop-growing respondents interviewed said crop yields are higher under alliance farming. Herders generally consider alliance farming to be beneficial to the health of the livestock especially cattle. About 91% of the cattle herders involved in alliance farming at baseline said that cattle are very healthy when they are allowed to browse on crop residues. This compares with 96% of all cattle herders at end-of-project reporting improved health of their cattle. A cow-dung based farming system seems to have financial benefits (Table 10). The annual income earned (FCFA 133,000) by farmers after using cow-dung on farm fields was higher than that earned by those who did not use cow-dung (FCFA 94,000) although the difference was not statistically significant. The estimated annual agriculture income per hectare (57,000 FCFA) earned by farmers who use cow-dung was higher than that of those that do not (26,000 FCFA). The amounts may look small but the important issue is that these are subsistence farmers whose principal production objective is not income generation. Surpluses are often sold in order to raise money for other basic household needs including payment of school fees for children. Caution is needed however as the difference in earned agricultural income cannot be entirely attributed to the use of cow-dung. Other factors such as farm management practices, institutional characteristics and environmental factors may also account for this difference. Or it may simply be that those with larger farms are more likely to use cow-dung in this way. It is also necessary to control for exogenous and environmental factors in order to establish the true effect of the use of cow-dung on earned agricultural income.

Table 10: Differences in earned agricultural income under cow-dung based farming system No cow-dung used Cow-dung used All Lev. of Item Obs. Mean Obs. Mean Obs. Mean sign. Agriculture 7 125 132,732 132 NS 94,285∓76,563 130,693.∓ income/yr. ∓251,091 244,992 Agriculture 7 122 57,037∓115,591 129 NS 26,435∓25,978 55,376∓ income/yr./ha 112,741

NB: NS implies not significant. The -/+ figures represent 95% confidence intervals.

3.3.1 Household livestock composition and rearing systems

The average numbers of livestock reared in the study locations are presented in Table 11. Livestock or cattle rearing, as earlier mentioned, is not an activity carried out by all households interviewed. Farmers essentially carry out agricultural farming whereas the herders mostly undertake animal husbandry. Four cattle rearing systems were previously identified at baseline and midterm: The extensive (low input) cattle rearing system consists of allowing cattle to browse free-range throughout the production cycle. This is different from the intensive (high input) system in which cattle are provided with all their feed requirements. The Semi-intensive rearing system is a mix of the two systems. In this system cattle are provided with supplementary feed in addition to free-range browsing over the production cycle. The systems just described differ from the fourth system of nomadic rearing whereby the grazer has no permanent residence hence moves from one location to the other with his cattle. Unlike the baseline and midterm evaluation, only two types of cattle rearing systems practiced by herders were identified. These include the extensive cattle rearing system predominant among grazers (90%) and the semi-intensive (10%) system. The intensive cattle rearing system was not identified in this survey. The only case of nomadic cattle rearing represents less than 1%

Livestock reared by both the herders and farmers include cattle, sheep, goats and horses. Herder households on average rear 69 cows, 26 sheep and 11 goats. Grazers livestock herd size is larger than that of farmers. There are only a few farmers involved in livestock production activities as shown in Table 11. The number of cattle owned has a huge range, from 0 to 800. Both livestock composition and rearing systems have remained unchanged compared to the situation at baseline.

Table 11: Household average livestock numbers for farmers and herders Farmers Livestock Cattle Sheep Goats Other livestock

Grazers

No of cases

Mean

Min

Max

No of cases

Mean

Min

Max

9 4 2

42 15 4

10 5 4

120 25 4

401 264 33

69 26 11

0 0 0

800 200 50

NB: Where the number of observations is small (<30) the estimate may not be reliable

Young people (under 18 years of age), women and people with disabilities rear livestock such as cattle, sheep and goats (Table 12). The average number of cattle owned by youths (19) is higher than the mean number of cattle owned by women (11). The livestock were acquired by way of inheritance, as a birth or marriage present, bought or as a combination of these. The cattle reported to be owned by women and youths within the household are reared under the control of grazer household heads (Nchinda et al., 2014a).

Table 12: Livestock owned by women, young and disabled people in herder households Livestock

Number of respondents

Mean

Min

Max

221 243

11 19

0 0

60 240

125 102

8 9

1 0

50 60

6 4

8 2

2 1

20 2

Cattle Women Youths Disabled people Sheep Women Youths Disabled people Goats Women Youths Disabled people

NB: Where the number of observations is small (<30) the estimate may not be reliable

3.3.2 Pasture improvement Approximately 257 respondents interviewed in the current study received some or a great deal of training on pasture improvement techniques. This indicates that many more grazers have been trained on improved pasture management techniques since the inception of the project. Table 13 provides information on the extent of training received on pasture improvement. The training was offered to the grazers in the context of this project and also by the Ministry of Livestock, NGOs, family members or friends. Two carbohydrates-rich grass varieties mostly grown include Bracharia and Guatemala. There is also Stylosanthes (legume) that grows together with Bracharia in some areas of the region. An increasing proportion of grazers adopt the use of improved pasture as an alternative to providing cattle feed. The proportion of grazers who adopted5 the use of improved pasture doubled from 17% at baseline to 36% at midterm (Nchinda et al., 2014b & 2016c) and to 48% by the end of the project. Table 13: Training on pasture improvement and ownership of pastures by grazers Training on pasture improvement Own improved pasture No training Some A great deal of % of No of (%) Training training respondents cases (%) (%) No pasture fields 52 44 4 100 163 A little 2 96 2 100 102 Some 2 85 13 100 53 A large amount 4 25 71 100 28 Overall percent 26 64 10 100 163 No of cases 89 222 35 346 NB: Improved pasture fields reportedly owned by respondents range from 0.10 hectare to 20 hectares

The average area of land allocated for improved pasture stands at 1.5 hectares for those grazers who were trained. The trained grazers in Boyo division have the largest area of mean pasture fields (2.0ha) followed by those of Mezam (1.7ha), Momo (1.6ha) & Bui (1.6ha) and least by those of Donga Mantung (1.0ha) divisions respectively. 3.3.3 Sources of cooking fuel Wood is the principal source of cooking fuel for 98% of the respondents (Table 14). This is approximately the same proportion as at baseline. The use of biogas is not a major source of

These are respondents who claimed to own at least a little to a large amount of improved pasture

cooking fuel in any of the communities. At the time of the evaluation, only fourteen biogas plants were constructed in seven different project communities (reported by MBOSCUDA). Those who reported biogas as a source of cooking came from Akum, Achain, Ashong, Acha Tugi, Mbakam, Mbonso and Nkowe. So far, fourteen people reported the use of biogas as the main source of cooking fuel for the household compared to only one identified in Bainjong at baseline. About 86% of those practicing alliance farming are conscious of the fact that cowdung could be used to generate cooking gas. This proportion was 29% at baseline. On a general note, 72% of all those interviewed at the end of the project are now aware of the fact that cow-dung could be used in generating cooking gas. Some experience in the use of biogas, also exists in Mezam and Donga Mantung divisions following previous support provided by SNV and HPI.

Table 14: Main source of cooking fuel Source of fuel Wood Biogas Gas Wood, gas or sawdust Sawdust All Percent of respondents

Baseline (%) 98 0 0 2 0 827 100

End-of Project 98 2 1 0 0 789 100

3.3.4 Use of slurry Slurry is a by-product of the biogas process and is potentially very useful as a fertilizer as an alternative to more expensive chemical products. Twenty-three persons in eleven of the fourteen communities reported the use of slurry in crop production and these cases were recorded in Bui, Mezam, Momo, Boyo and Donga Mantung divisions respectively. The number of respondents using slurry for crop production increased from 5 to 23 across all the study divisions in the North West Region of Cameroon. These respondents said that crop yield was high with slurry fertilization. It should be recalled that only fourteen biogas plants were set up by the end of the project. It is also worth recalling that efforts towards the use of slurry from biogas plants for crop production were promoted in the region by HPI and SNV.

3.4 Land tenure system in farmer-grazer conflict areas In Cameroon, all land is owned by the state unless the competent ministerial department issues a land title that transfers the ownership. Individuals who exploit land without titles are considered caretakers and the right to exploit the land can be passed on from one generation to the other. Land is therefore obtained mostly by inheritance as reported by the respondents at baseline (85%), midterm (77%) and at the end of the project (78%) (Table 15). The table shows that there was little difference in the percentage of respondents who reported having bought land at baseline and at the end of the project. The proportion of those allocated land by traditional authorities has doubled over the project implementation cycle. The rest of the respondents get access to land from friends or the traditional or administrative authorities.

Table 15: Household land acquisition mode Source of land By inheritance Bought Provided by Fon/Ardo* Provided by the administration By inheritance, purchased or given by Fon/Administration Begged from Fon, Administration or Friends Percent of respondents No of cases

Baseline % 85 7 6

Own land Midterm End-of-project % % 77 78 10 8 11 10

0 100 709

1 100 605

1 100 500

*Fon here refers to traditional rulers of respective communities non-Mbororo and Ardo the leader of the Mbororo people in the targeted communities

The putative owners of land in most of the cases do not have land titles or grazing permits (64%). Grazers may apply for grazing permits, which allow their cattle to graze in specified areas, but this is not ownership in the full legal sense. Approximately 36%6 of the 500 respondents claiming ownership of land at final evaluation reportedly have permits or titles for

This percentage appears higher than expected. Respondents probably consider sales agreements as permits or

titles thereby inflating the proportion of those in question.

their land. The number of respondents with permits or land certificates varies from one division to the other with the highest numbers of cases registered at baseline in Donga Mantung (59), Momo (40), Bui (19), Mezam (13) and Boyo (11) divisions. These numbers represent 7%, 5%, 2%, 2% and 1% of all the respondents interviewed at the time. At final evaluation, the highest numbers of cases were registered in Momo (57), Donga Mantung (36) and Mezam (33), Boyo (32), Bui (30) and divisions. These represent 7%, 4%, 4, 4% and 4% of all the respondents interviewed at end-of-project for each of the divisions respectively.

The respondents who get access to land through the traditional or administrative authorities sometimes have to make a payment for this (Table 16). This cost described as ‘allegiance fee’ is charged annually, in most cases, or paid to the authorities at the time land is acquired. The amount of money last paid to the authorities as annual “allegiance fees” by the respondents who did so was estimated at a median value of FCFA 10,000. However, the respondents that lease land claimed to pay a median amount of FCFA 20,000 to the authorities each year (as lease) for the use of land. The amount paid both to traditional and administrative authorities for land use is even higher. In fact, the amount spent in satisfying the financial request of the traditional and administrative authorities annually for land use is estimated at a median of FCFA 100,000. It is worth noting that all grazing permit holders are expected to obtain grazing permits for the land for which they are allocated for grazing. These permits are not land titles and are renewable every 10 years.

Table 16: Annual amounts (FCFA) spent by farmers and grazers for access to land Farmers Grazers All Variable No of Median No of Median No of Median Min. cases cases cases Last amount paid to traditional or administrative authorities for land use (FCFA) 11 100,000 12 Land lease cost (FCFA) 53 15,000 54 Amount paid to authorities annually as allegiance (FCFA) 48 5,000 72 NB: Small number of observations, that is those less than 30, Median values are used here because of outliers (extreme values)

125,000 20,000

23 107

100,000 20,000

5,200 0

25,000 120 10,000 1,000 may not provide reliable estimates;

Max.

2,000,000 500,000 350,000

The amount of money spent to access the use of land appears to be higher for grazers than the farmers as was the case in the baseline survey. This difference might be because grazers require larger areas of land for grazing than the farmers need for their livelihoods. These grazers also have an official fee to pay annually to the Ministry of Livestock for the use of grazing space or for grazing permit. There are gender differences in the ownership of assets, especially land, over which farmergrazer conflicts arise. Of the 517 respondents who owned land, 3% were women and 97% men. An overwhelming majority of these self-declared landowners do not have titles or permits. Only 3% of households headed by females and 33% of those headed by males claim to have titles and/or permits for the land at hand.

3.5 Access to clean and safe drinking water in farmer-grazer conflict areas Access to clean and safe drinking water was a serious issue in conflict-prone communities in the NWR of Cameroon at the start of the project. The provision of pipe-borne water was one of the expected outputs of the project. Following its initiation, this situation has improved markedly for farmers but less so for grazers (Table 17). The marked improvement in the provision of pipe-borne water has contributed to a drop in the incidences of clean water related conflict as reported by respondents at baseline (44%), midterm (19%) and most especially at the end-of-project implementation (14%). Whilst the proportion of those accessing drinking water from streams, rivers or boreholes has reduced, the proportion of those with access to safe and clean drinking water from taps has increased more than fourfolds among farmers (from 16% to 69%) and from 14% to 38% among grazers. This can partly be attributed to the project providing pipe-borne water in some of the targeted communities. However, 43% of all respondents still depend on streams, rivers or boreholes for household drinking water (Table 17).

However, there has been an increasing collaboration among respondents towards having access to clean and safe drinking water. The proportions of respondents reporting increases in the levels of collaboration in accessing and sustainable use of water in the communities increased significantly from 18% at baseline to 76% at end-of-project. This could partly be explained by 43

the awareness created about practices that promote safe water usage and prevention of water pollution. In fact, 93% of the end-of-project survey respondents reported an increase in knowledge about the prevention of water pollution and clean & safe water usage in the communities. This compares to only 16% of respondents at baseline who reported knowledge about the prevention of water pollution and clean & safe water usage. The average number of minutes per trip spent by (mostly) women and children to fetch drinking water from these streams, rivers or boreholes at baseline was 14 minutes as opposed to 13 minutes at end-of-project. At baseline, the number of minutes spent per trip to fetch water varied from one division to the other with the highest recorded in the following divisions: Donga Mantung (20 mins.) and Bui (20 mins.) followed by Momo (15 mins.), Boyo (10 mins.) and the lowest in Mezam (5 mins.). The situation at end-of-project had improved for Bui (13 mins.) and Donga Mantung (10 mins.). The time had increased in Mezam (9 mins.), Momo (24 mins.) and Boyo (11mins.) but the differences are mainly small. The marked improvement in the provision of pipe-borne water partly contributed to the reduction in time taken to fetch water in the study communities, although this does not take into account the number of trips that needed to be made. Despite the reduction in time required to fetch water, access to water still remains a major concern in the communities as previously explained. Accessing water is particularly problematic during the dry season when some of the water sources dry up and inhabitants have to depend on unsafe water from water holes. The struggle over access to clean and safe drinking water is a contributory factor in conflicts; this situation is, in general, serious and affects all members of the communities. The main sources of drinking water for 66% of the respondents at baseline and 43% at end of project were streams, rivers and water holes. This shows an overall 23% point drop in the proportion of those that depend on streams, rivers and boreholes for drinking water.

Table 17a shows the sources of water for cattle in the NWR of Cameroon over a period of five years and as reported during the ISCG project implementation. The analysis also shows that livestock and people still compete over the source of drinking water. Streams, rivers and waterholes are sources of drinking water for both and this competition is exacerbated during the dry season when some of the water sources dry up. 44

Table 17: Main sources of water for household consumption Baseline Source of household drinking water Farmers Grazers (%) (%) Stream, river or water hole 60 73 Public tap 5 6 Tap in the household 11 8 Harnessed or protected water source, 0 1 Unprotected well or pump well 20 12 Stream river/ water hole and public Tap, 4 2 well and mineral water Percent of respondents 100 100 No of cases 438 393

All (%) 66 6 10 0 16

End-of-project Farmers Grazers (%) (%) 26 59 39 9 30 29 4 3 0 0

All (%) 43 24 30 3 0

100 831

100 394

100 408

100 802

Table 17a: Main sources of water for cattle Main source of water for cattle Stream, river or water hole Harnessed or protected water source Tap in the household Stream, River or water hole and Public tap Percent of respondents No of cases

Farmers (%) 97 1 2

Baseline Grazers (%) 98 1 0

All (%) 98 1 1

100 132

100 390

100 522

End-of-project Farmers Grazers (%) (%) 97 97 0 2 1 1 2 100 251

0 100 402

All (%) 97 1 1 1 100 653

The competition over the use of water for livestock and agricultural activities among the inhabitants of the communities leads to water contamination (Table 18). However, this problem appears to have reduced substantially as only six percent (6%) of the respondents at midterm & end of project reported water contamination to occur often or very often compared to 13% at baseline. Moreover, about double the number of respondents claim never to have had drinking water contaminated at end of project than at baseline (31% & 61% respectively).

Table 18: Extent of water contamination reported by all respondents Description Baseline Midterm Farmers Grazers All Farmers Grazers (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) Drinking water contaminated Never 37 23 31 61 48 Rarely 10 18 14 14 17 Sometimes 41 44 43 21 28 (Very) often 11 15 13 5 8 Percent of respondents 100 100 100 100 100 No of cases 420 370 790 430 415

All (%) 54 16 25 6 100 845

End-of-Project Farmers Grazers All (%) (%) (%) 69 10 18 4 100 374

53 9 30 8 100 393

The main cause of water contamination at baseline, midterm and end-of-project as reported by respondents is livestock activities. Climate change and drought are factors also reported by a sizeable number of respondents to be a cause of water contamination (Table 19).

61 9 24 6 100 767

Table 19: Causes of water contamination as reported by survey respondents Baseline Midterm Cause Farmers Grazers All Farmers Grazers All (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) Livestock only 49 25 37 69 58 63 Agricultural only 3 10 6 4 5 4 Livestock and 24 31 28 12 9 10 agricultural activities Climatic Conditions; 24 31 28 15 27 22 Drought, Dry season Un-identified persons 1 3 2 1 2 2 Sewage disposal 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent of 100 100 100 100 100 100 respondents No of cases 239 252 491 165 200 365

End-of-Project Farmers Grazers All (%) (%) (%) 38 50 46 11 9 9 20

0 0

0 1

0 0

100

149

234

Base: Households who reported that water is sometimes and (very) often contaminated The contamination of water sources exposes community members (32%) to different water-borne diseases such as typhoid, and malaria as well as stomach upsets that might be symptoms of related infections (Table 20). At baseline 369 households reported water-borne diseases; this had reduced to 273 at midterm and 227 at end-of-project. Of these, 23% were reported to be typhoid at baseline, compared with 38% at end-of-project. Respondents also considered coughs, catarrh and malaria to be connected to the poor nature of water available for households.

In the baseline survey, water-borne diseases appeared not to be an issue in Akum and Baba II. However, this was a cause for concern at end-of-project in communities such as Barare, Njah-Etu and Ashong especially given the proportion of respondents reporting the occurrence of water-borne diseases (Table 20). In the baseline survey (Nchinda et al., 2014), higher proportions of respondents in Nkowe, Bih, Achain, Mbakam, Ashong and Konchep (in this order) reported the incidence of water-borne diseases often or sometimes. Access to water could be one of the major factors responsible for the occurrence of these diseases.

Table 20: Reported Frequency of symptoms of water-borne diseases such as typhoid, stomach upset & Malaria Community Not at all Sometimes Often No of Percent of (%) (%) (%) cases respondents Binshua Bih Acha Tugi Barare Nkowe Akum Konchep Achain Baba II

79 46 76 33 81 76 75 58 78

19 51 24 48 17 24 21 39 18

2 3 0 20 2 0 4 3 4

53 59 46 46 52 49 52 59 49

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Bainjong Njah-Etu Ashong Mbakam Mbonso All No of cases

100

49 57 80 68 68 482

30 30 18 26 27 189

21 13 2 5 5 36

47 23 61 57 707 707

100 100 100 100 100

Presence of water management committees in communities and their competence The management of water resources in targeted communities is often in the hands of selected community members otherwise known as water management committees. At the time of the end-ofproject evaluation, water management committees were reported to exist in all the project communities and were trained. Other existing water management committees have been restructured notably those of Njah-Etu, Ashong, Binshua and Bainjong and Baba II. Other actors have also been supporting the strengthening of the capacity of water management committees in some of the areas covered. In terms of competences of the water management committees, 85% of respondents at endof-project who are aware of the existence of these committees in their communities consider them to be very competent or efficient.

3.6 The principle causes, frequency and severity of conflicts 3.6.1 Frequency of conflict The analysis of data collected from the respondents of these communities at the end-of-project evaluation shows that 66% were involved in a conflict in the past three years, compared with 74% at the start of the project (Table 21). There has been a general drop in the proportion of respondents involved in conflicts over the past five years across all the divisions with the exception of Boyo and Momo divisions where the situation has seemingly not improved. The struggle for leadership and the strained relationship between the grazers and farmers in Momo exacerbated conflicts in the area as explained in sections 2.6 and 3.1.1 of this report. However, it must be noted that conflicts have reduced in Boyo division in absolute terms as shown by the count of conflict cases at final evaluation (34) compared to baseline (48). Moreover, the analysis in Table 22 also attests to the fact that the mean numbers of conflicts in Boyo division have reduced. Furthermore, a deeper analysis similar to that presented in Table 23 shows that 61 of the respondents of Boyo division reported that conflicts rarely occur in the targeted communities. Overall, the numbers involved in conflict dropped by 8%. This drop in the proportion of those involved in conflicts is linked with the finding that 86% and 83% of the respondents believe that the frequency and severity of conflicts has reduced over the years compared to the baseline situation (Table 36). Table 21: Changes in the proportions of respondents that experienced farmer-grazer conflicts by division, over the life of the project in the North West region of Cameroon Division

Baseline(a) Involved in Not conflict involved (%)

Bui

171 155 114 96 82 618

52 68 58 87 66 64

126 126 106 111 82 551

End-of-project(b) Involved Not in conflict involved (%)

63 47 76 82 91 66

% Change (b-a)

-7 -40 Momo 11 Mezam -6 Boyo 25** All -8 **NB: However, conflict reduced in absolute terms in the division (see Table 22); End of project estimates refer to last 2 years and baseline estimates refer to last 4 years. Donga Mantung

70 87 65 88 66 74

Midterm Involved in Not conflict involved (%)

163 131 110 87 34 525

The end of project figures probably underestimate the extent of change over the project period, as the end of project figures cover a period of four years rather than the two years covered by the baseline survey. 49

Generally, the average number of conflicts has dropped in the areas targeted by the ISCG project. The average number of conflict faced by each of the conflict-exposed respondents over the past five years appears to have decreased in four of the five divisions (Donga Mantung, Momo, Bui and Boyo). The average number of conflicts in Mezam at end-of-project was approximately the same as that at baseline (Table 22). However, it is worth noting that the variability in the number of conflicts registered is wide and that these changes may not provide a clear trend in the occurrence of conflicts in the areas.

Table 22: Mean numbers of conflicts for all respondents involved in conflicts by division Baseline End-of-Project Division

No of respondent s reporting conflict cases

Mean no of conflicts

Std. Dev.

Min

Mezam

4.4

3.9

Momo

103

5.3

Bui Donga Mantung Boyo

114

Max

Mean no of conflicts

Std. Dev.

Min

Max

3.7

5.1

2.4

1.2

3.9

1.9

2.8

1.7

149

6.8

5.6

102

3.2

3.1

5.3

6.7

2.6

524 5.3 4.9 1 50 350 3.0 2.7 Î&#x201D;=change (increase (+) or decrease (-) in mean number of conflicts in the past three years

All

Î&#x201D;

No of respondent s reporting conflict cases

The above questions were asked of households involved in conflict. At the same time all respondents were asked about their perceptions of the conflicts (Table 23). Their view is that the frequency of conflicts is decreasing. At baseline 59% said that farmer-grazer conflicts occur very often but at end of the project this had fallen to 22%, and to 15% of grazers.

Table 23: Frequency of farmer-grazer conflicts

Perception Farmers (%) 64 30 7

Very often Often Rarely Percent of 100 respondents No of cases 440 Base: All respondents

Baseline Grazers (%) 53 39 7

Midterm Grazers (%) 20 48 32

All (%) 59 34 7

Farmers (%) 42 40 18

100

393

833

445

417

862

396

405

801

All (%) 32 44 25

End-of-Project Farmers Grazers All (%) (%) (%) 29 15 22 46 36 41 25 49 37

3.6.2 Conflict opponents Eighty six (86) percent of the farmers that were involved in conflict at the end of the project were in fact involved in conflict with grazers. On the other hand, 94% of grazers involved in conflict at the end of the project were in fact involved in conflict with farmers during the last three years of project implementation. The reported conflict opponents are the same as those registered at baseline (Table 24). Though an overwhelming majority of conflicts is between farmers and grazers, a small number of conflict cases were also recorded among the farmers and grazers themselves, for example 5% & 8% of farmers had conflicts with other crop farmers and another 4% & 6% with non-Mbororo grazers during the project implementation phase. Similarly, 5% & 6% of Mbororo grazers had conflicts with other Mbororo grazers at end of project and baseline respectively. Table 24: Farmers’ and grazers’ perceptions of who conflicts were with Conflict Opponent Baseline End-Of-Project Farmers Grazers All Farmers Grazers (%) (%) (%) (% ) (%) Crop farmer 5 93 46 8 94 Mbororo grazer 91 6 51 86 5 Non-Mbororo grazer 4 1 3 6 1 Percent of respondents 100 100 100 100 100 No of cases 320 287 607 203 142

All (%) 43 52 4 100 345

Base: Those reported to have ever been involved in conflict

3.6.3 Causes of conflict Table 25 provides information on the main causes of conflicts identified at baseline, midterm and end-of-project. The results show a remarkable change as far as respondents’ understanding of the causes of conflicts is concerned. At baseline the farmers were accusing the grazers of trespassing on farmlands and, on the other hand, grazers were accusing farmers of encroaching on grazing land. At 51

the final evaluation, a large number (75%) of all the parties agreed that the principal cause of farmergrazer conflicts in the North West of Cameroon was cattle trespassing on farmland. By the end of the project 51% of the grazers recognized their role in causing conflict as a result of trespass and encroachment on farmlands. Farmers however did not see themselves as part of the problem in the same way and only 7% believed encroachment and trespass on grazing land by farmers was a major issue. Table 25: Principal causes of farmer/grazer conflicts Principal causes of conflict Baseline Farmer Grazers All s (%) (%) (%) Trespass on farm land 39 11 26 Encroachment on farm land 38 18 29 Encroachment on grazing 10 47 28 land Encroachment and Trespass 10 8 9 on Farmland Trespass on grazing land 1 7 4 Others* 1 9 6 Percent of respondents 100 100 100 No of cases 320 290 610

Midterm Farme Grazer rs s (%) (%) 86 62 8 6

All (%)

End-Of-Project Farmers Grazers All (%) (%) (%)

76 7

75 17

39 12

60 15

5 0 100 304

9 3 100 233

6 2 100 537

3 1 100

8 3 100

5 2 100

205

145

350

NB: Trespass and encroachment refer to cattle movement and human occupancy of land respectively Others refers to blocked access to water source, encroachment and trespass on grazing land, civil matter (e.g. disputed divorce matter), administrative failures and poisoning of Cattle Base: All those involved in conflicts & particularly reporting causes of conflicts

The main causes of conflicts reported by most female-headed households were essentially connected to the use of land (Table 25). A majority (77%) of female-headed households interviewed at the endof-project reported that trespass of cattle on farmland is the major cause of farmer-grazer conflict, a far larger number than that reported at baseline (Table 26). Interestingly, the women never reported poisoning of cattle and civil matters (Nchinda et al, 2014a) as causes of conflict.

Table 26: Causes of conflict reported by women who were household heads Principal cause of conflict Encroachment on farm land Trespass on farm land Encroachment on grazing land Encroachment and Trespass on Farmland Encroachment and Trespass on Grazing land Encroachment into Grazing Land and Blockage of water source All the above including legal/admin. Failures Percentage of respondents No of cases

Baseline (%) 34 27 22 12 3 1

Midterm (%) 8 89 3 0 0 1

End-of-project (%) 14 77 4 0 4 0

1 100 120

0 100 121

0 100 93

3.6.4 Changes in the perception of farmers and grazers on the causes of conflicts Awareness campaigns within the project appeared to have helped the stakeholders understand the causes of conflict. This probably partly accounts for the changes in their perception on the subject matter and the related land tenure system. These attitude questions were asked of all respondents. At baseline, an absolute majority of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that conflicts were caused by the destruction of crops by cattle, carelessness of herdsmen, encroachment onto grazing land by farmers and movement of cattle during transhumance as well as financial influence and benefits (Table 27). By the end of the project problems caused by cattle were still seen as the major factor.

Table 27: Percentage of household heads who agree with statement related to causes of conflict

Conflict related Questions

Baseline (n=861)

End-of-Project (n=798)

% that agree or Strongly agree

95 82

97 81

Causes of conflict Destruction of crops by cattle The carelessness of herdsmen Encroachment of farmers onto grazing land Movements of cattle during transhumance Blocked access to water sources and cattle corridors by the farmers Killing or poisoning of cattle by farmers Financial influence (benefits) do worsen farmer-grazer conflicts Political ecology factors Land tenure and land ownership issues are a major contributor to the conflict problem The Agro-pastoral Commission is less effective than the Dialogue Platforms in resolving disputes The government (DO/SDOs) donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t do enough to tackle these conflicts

46 51 50

68 76 82

As far as the land tenure and management systems are concerned, there were at the end of the project large numbers that believe that the policy environment and formal conflict resolution set-ups are contributing factors to conflicts. Higher numbers than before signal land tenure and ownership as important factors (68%), say the government (including the DOs and SDOs) is not doing enough (82%) and say that the Agro-pastoral Commission is less effective than the Dialogue Platforms (76%). 3.7 Changes in the effects of farmer-grazer conflicts

Table 28 shows the effects of conflicts and the different proportions of farmers and grazers reporting such effects at the start and end of project. The respondents have consistently reported three major effects of conflicts in the last five years of project implementation. First and foremost, a majority of grazers and farmers (54%) agree that the major aspect is the destruction of crops by cattle. Secondly, 54

cattle injury, killing and theft were effects of farmer-grazer conflicts reported by 11% of the respondents. Thirdly, intimidation was reported by 10%.

Table 28: Effect of conflict on parties in conflict and their families Baseline Effects of conflict Farmers Grazers (%) (%) Crops damaged by cattle 85 11 Cattle injured, killed or stolen 1 29 Intimidation 2 26 Physical Attack 2 10 Extortion 1 6 Theft/damage to property 6 3 Arson 1 3 Illegal detention 0 4 Rape 0 1 Cattle injured, killed/stolen, 1 7 intimidation, attack & illegal detention Nothing 0 0 Percent of respondents 100 100 No of cases 288 214

All (%) 54 13 12 6 3 5 2 2 1

End-of-project Farmers Grazers (%) (%) 84 9 2 22 2 24 2 9 0 16 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0

All (%) 54 10 11 5 7 1 1 1 0

0 100 502

7 100 204

17 100 139

11 100 343

Table 29 shows the cost of conflicts to those involved and the number of persons affected in the last three years of project implementation. There is a cost to resolving conflicts, which is on average higher for grazers (97 in number costing FCFA 50,000) than for farmers (66 in number and costing FCFA 15,000). A relatively large number of farmers are affected by crop damage (189) at an average cost of FCFA 75,000 whilst a somewhat smaller number of grazers (28) have livestock losses at an average cost of FCF175,000. Aggregating all these different costs shows who is losing out the most. If the costs and losses are aggregated for the farmers we find that the total losses are FCFA 15,540,000 and for the grazers the total losses are FCFA 32,620,000. This suggests that grazers financially lose out more than farmers. Table 29: Value of assets lost and crops destroyed in conflict-prone areas in FCFA over the past three years Assets lost

Farmer No of Median cases

Grazer No of Median cases

All Median

No of cases

Expenditure on conflict resolution

15,000

50,000

30,000

163

Expenditure human injuries

10,000

Value of crops

75,000

189

30,000

75,000

200

Value shelter loss

300,000

Value of property

27,500

150,000

50,000

Value farm loss

20,000,000

Value livestock lost

175,000

Value of agricultural tools

95,000

Treatment of cattle injuries 155,000 2 95,000 22 NB: The figures in the table reflects most severe loss incurred by respondents

3.8 Changes in Sources of Support for Resolving Conflicts Competition over the use of land leads to conflict. Some shifts in the different sources of help were registered at end-of-project compared to the situation at baseline (Table 30). The analysis shows that an increasing proportion of parties in conflict opted for amicable settlement, increasing from 33% at baseline to 37% at end-of-project. The number that used the Dialogue Platforms as their first source of help had increased slightly over the lifetime of the project from 12% to 14%. The number that used the Agro-Pastoral Commission was fairly stable with just a one percent point increase from 13% at baseline to 14% at end of the project. 57

Of those who had used the Dialogue Platforms in conflict resolution a high proportion (82%) believe it is a more effective mediation method than the farmer grazer commission (Table not shown). This is higher than the 49% reported by Nchinda et al. (2014a) at baseline. Table 30: Respondentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; first source of help for the most serious conflict situation experienced Baseline End-of-Project Source of help Farmers Grazers All Farmers Grazers All (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) Amicable settlement by conflicting parties 30 36 33 31 45 37 Traditional council 25 17 21 24 9 17 Agro-pastoral commission 11 15 13 12 17 14 Dialogue Platform 12 13 12 13 16 14 Did nothing at all 15 8 12 18 8 14 Both Traditional Council & Agro-pastoral 5 3 4 0 1 1 commission Litigation (court) 2 6 4 1 3 2 Mediation of relatives 1 2 1 1 1 1 Percent of respondents 100 100 100 100 100 100 No of cases 315 286 601* 204 145 349*

*These are numbers of persons reporting serious conflict situations and who reported first source of help. Hence, the numbers of most serious conflict cases registered at end of project are smaller than at the start of the project. People were also asked about their preferred modes of conflict resolution the results were very different to those above (Fig 3). Whilst amicable settlement is still a preferred course of action for many (52%), the Agro-pastoral Commission was preferred by only 1% and the Dialogue Platforms were preferred by 55%. This corresponds to an increase of 14% from 41% at baseline. This suggests that there is considerable scope for setting up more Dialogue Platforms and that if they were set up they would be used by large numbers of people. The use of the courts is among the least preferred modes of conflict resolution as the outcome is often lengthy and financially costly.

Amicable settlement

Dialogue Platform

Take matter to court

1 1

Agro-pastoral commission

55 41

2 3 2 3 5

Traditional council

52 52

1 0

End-of-Project (n=335)

7 10

Midterm (n=527)

Baseline (n=597)

Percent (%)

Figure 3: Respondentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; preferred modes of conflict resolution

3.9 Use of Conflict Resolution Options Increasingly, the parties in conflict settle their dispute amicably with restitution as reported by 37% and 49% of the respondents at baseline and end-of-project respectively (Table 31). At the same time a large number of disputes were abandoned. Amicable settlement with restitution increased most among the grazers and the various actions undertaken in the context of the ISCG project may be contributing factors. Whilst an increasing proportion of the respondents settle their disputes with restitution, the traditional and authorities resolved the remaining cases. However, approximately 25% of conflictexposed respondents administrative (350) did not seek help. Therefore, Table 31 provides conflict resolution outcome only for those that sought help.

Table 31: Outcome for the source of help for conflict resolution Baseline Conflict Resolution Outcome Farmers Grazers (%) (%) Amicable settlement with restitution 28 45 Action abandoned 41 17 Amicable settlement with no restitution 19 16 Legal / administrative settlement with restitution 4 10 Legal / administrative settlement with no 5 8 restitution Pending in Court, or Further Appeal or still in 3 1 process Traditional Council settlement 0 3 Percent of respondents 100 100 No of cases 292 280

All (%) 37 30 18 7 6

End-of-Project Farmers Grazers (%) (%) 44 56 40 16 6 5 6 16 0 4

All (%) 49 30 6 10 2

1 100 572

0 100 151

0 100 112

0 100 263*

Base: Conflict-exposed respondents; * Number conflict-exposed respondents that seek help Respondents were also asked about the collaboration between farmers and grazers. As has been shown in earlier tables, there was a remarkable increase between baseline and final evaluation in the proportion of respondents that report an increase in collaboration towards the sustainable usage of resources in communities (81%). These improvements are shown in Figure 3. The numbers that strongly disagree that there is little collaboration between farmers and grazers as a general statement has increased from 14% at baseline to 48% at final evaluation whilst only 5% now believe there is little collaboration.

Percentage

Baseline

End-of-Project

60% 48%

50%

43%

40% 28%

30% 20%

14%

18%

10%

18%

20%

Figure 4: Proportion of respondents that agree or strongly agree there is little collaboration between grazers and farmers (n=829, 862 & 796 for baseline & final evaluations respectively)

Table 33 provides some livelihood indicators of conflict-exposed respondents interviewed in the final survey. The respondents exposed to conflicts are less wealthy than those not exposed to conflict as indicated by the per capita non-food expenditures (Tables 32 and 33), although it is not possible to say from this analysis whether or not this was a result of the conflict. Whilst the mean farm size for both groups was significantly different, the herd size of grazers involved in conflicts is smaller than that of non-conflict exposed respondents (Table 33). However, the difference is not significant as was the case at the midterm evaluation (Table 32).

Table 32: Livelihood indicators for households exposed to farmer/grazer conflicts over the last three years (midterm) Household exposed to conflict All respondents No Yes Parameter Mean Std Mean Std Mean Std Dev. Dev. Dev. Months Food expenditure (FCFA) 46,484 3,520 47,580 3,609 47,125 2,546 Monthâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Non-food expenditure (FCFA) 80,885 13,900 60,685 6,190 69,080 6,823 Mean land size (ha) 3.0 0.3 3.0 0.3 3.0 0.2 Household cattle size 43 7.8 32 4.2 37 4.1 Food expenditure/capita 6,325 391 6,716 475 6,553 321 Non-food expenditure /capita (FCFA) 10,373 * 1,667 9,293* 996 9,741 904 Agric. income/ha (FCFA/ha) 65,609 * 9,520 95,637* 20,430 83,158 12,586

NB: *** represents 1%, **,* represent 5% and 10% levels of significance.

Table 33: Livelihood indicators for households exposed to farmer/grazer conflicts over the last three years (end-of-project) Household exposed to conflict All respondents No Yes Parameter Mean Std Mean Std Mean Std Dev. Dev. Dev. Months Food expenditure (FCFA) 41,774 43,956 41,757 55,218 42,208 47,224 Monthâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Non-food expenditure (FCFA) 68,596*** 82,875 56,276*** 94,787 57,944 82,378 Mean land size (ha) 4.0* 5.0 3.0* 3.0 3.0 4.0 Household cattle size 83 98 75 97 69 86 Food expenditure/capita 6,089 5,950 6,117 8,179 6,088 6,777 Non-food expenditure /capita (FCFA) 10,967** 30,274 9,338** 20,743 9,203 20,854 Agric. income/ha (FCFA/ha) 72,200* 328,445 65,286* 109,685 62,447 184,027

NB: *** represents 1%, **,* represent 5% and 10% levels of significance.

3.10 Changes in the visibility of MBOSCUDA actions in conflict prone areas of the North West Region of Cameroon One of the ultimate outcomes of the ISCG project is to build the capacity of MBOSCUDA to become a 'centre of excellence' in promoting and defending Mbororo rights. This includes building the capacity of community based organisations so that paralegal extension services are delivered closer to the communities. Hence, reducing the endemic problem of farmer-grazer conflict in the North West

region of Cameroon is one of MBOSCUDA’s strategic goals. This section of the report provides the communities’ evaluation of the services offered by MBOSCUDA and the visibility of the organization. The analysis shows that the proportion of those who know about the services offered by MBOSCUDA increased from 59% (414) at baseline to 91% (783) at midterm and to 96% (772) by the end-of-project (Table 34). Table 34 also provides information about the scope of services offered by MBOSCUDA from the respondents’ point of view. The project appears to have permitted the communities to have a good comprehension about the scope of services offered by MBOSCUDA. Social and economic opportunity services are offered by MBOSCUDA alongside other services such as literacy training, conflict resolution and awareness campaigns (on rights of Mbororos, opportunities and conflict resolution). The most recognized service has consistently been conflict resolution (including awareness campaigns) as reported by most of the respondents interviewed at baseline, midterm and final evaluation.

Table 34: Proportion of farmers and grazers with knowledge on services offered by MBOSCUDA Services offered Baseline Midterm End-of-project Farmers (%) 26 23

Grazers (%) 13 36

All (%) 18 31

Farmers (%) 43 20

Grazers (%) 26 29

All (%) 34 24

Farmers (%) 21 16

Grazers (%) 19 25

All (%) 20 21

At least two of the above

No idea

Percent of respondents No of cases

100 182

100 312

100 494

100 380

100 403

100 783

3 100

1 100

2 100

377

395

772

Resolution of conflict Training/literacy classes Social & Economic Opportunities Access to loans

Base: All respondents that know MBOSCUDA

Knowledge about MBOSCUDA Services by Gender Table 35 shows the proportion of males and females that know about the services offered by MBOSCUDA. Social and economic opportunities are the highest ranked services offered by MBOSCUDA as reported by a majority of the respondents (especially the females) at final evaluation. 63

In fact, this proportion increased substantially among both gender groups and the entire sample as a whole over the lifespan of the project. Respondents also see conflict resolution as the first and most important responsibility of MBOSCUDA. Training and literacy lessons are some of the major services offered by MBOSCUDA as reported by the respondents at baseline, midterm and final evaluation.

Table 35: Proportion of females and males with knowledge of services offered by MBOSCUDA Baseline Midterm End-of-Project Services offered Females Males All Females Males All Females Males All (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) Training/literacy classes 25 32 31 18 26 24 15 22 21 Access to loans 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 Awareness campaign on 25 23 23 11 11 11 3 4 4 rights of Mbororos Resolution of conflict 15 18 18 39 33 34 17 21 20 Social & Economic 3 7 7 22 20 20 45 33 36 Opportunities Awareness campaign on rights of Mbororos, resolutions of conflicts, 0 2 2 3 3 3 13 17 16 social and economic opportuities No idea 32 16 18 7 5 6 4 2 2 100 100 100 Percent of respondents 100 100 100 100 100 100 No of cases

425

494

136

647

783

183

589

772

Figure 5 provides more information about respondents’ perceptions of support services offered by MBOSCUDA at baseline, midterm and final evaluation across the different gender groups. Many more respondents (irrespective of sex or activity) claim MBOSCUDA has been playing an important role in supporting them towards conflict resolution. In fact, the proportion of respondents claiming that MBOSCUDA’s services are helping “a great deal” in conflict resolution increased consistently in the entire sample by 40 percentage points from 23% at baseline to 63% in the final evaluation and most especially among the female (36%) and male (40%) respondents respectively (Figure 5). The proportion increased more among male than among the female respondents.

66%

70% 60%

47%

Percent (%

50%

63%

54%

52%

40% 26%

30% 20%

23%

16%

10% 0%

Females

Males Baseline

Midterm

Both Final

Figure 5: Percent of respondents claiming that MBOSCUDA is helping “a great deal” in increasing their participation in conflict resolutions

The proportion of respondents that believe that the services of MBOSCUDA are very useful has almost tripled compared to the situation at the start of the project (Figure 6). Farmers have a positive view as well as grazers. In fact, the percentage of respondents involved in conflict who had “a great deal” of support from MBOSCUDA to resolve their conflict increased significantly from 25% at baseline to 65% at final evaluation. The proportion increased five fold among farmers and three fold among the grazers by the end-of-project. This is particularly so because 80% of all the respondents believe MBOSCUDA’s services were strengthened through the use of CBOs as this was one of their outreach strategies.

80% 68%

70%

60%

Percent (%)

60%

58%

54%

50%

50% 40%

32% 25%

30% 20%

65%

12%

10% 0%

Farmers Baseline

Grazers Midterm

Both

End-of-Project

Figure 6: Percent of respondents claiming that MBOSCUDA's services are â&#x20AC;&#x153;Useful or Very Usefulâ&#x20AC;?

3.11 Milestones This section of the report provides milestones of the ISCG project required by Big Lottery Fund. A large number of interventions have been put in place in the project. These are the project inputs. These interventions result in project outputs and outcomes and the indicators which measure these are shown in Table 36. The main rationale for the final study is to assess the effectiveness of the project intervention and test whether changes have taken place. A quantitative survey is essential in order that the findings reflect the views and experiences of all farmers and grazers living in the intervention areas. Monitoring is also taking place at MBOSCUDA. This is in the form of a Conflict Database on all cases (799) which MBOSCUDA has dealt with since the project began. The specific details of each conflict event are stored on this database up to the time that the conflict is resolved or the case is abandoned. However, this may only be a partial view of what is happening in the area since MBOSCUDA does not deal with all cases and so we are dependent on the quantitative survey to provide the answers we need.

With such a complex web of factors it is almost impossible to reduce the conflicts to a simple equation between inputs, outputs and outcomes. If a simple input led to a simple outcome then the problems could be easily solved but the world is usually more complex than that. The statistical study provides 66

an essential analysis of what has been done and what has been achieved and this is summarised below for each of the four sets of project outcomes.

(i)

Conflict resolution (Outcome 1) The overall purpose of the project is to reduce conflict between farmers and grazers and this is a serious challenge given nine decades (at least) of such problems. This section of the report provides information on inputs allocated and progress made in conflict resolution in the targeted communities. The inputs in this area include the following: •

Dialogue Platforms set up (14 in project communities and 55 others out of project communities);

•

760 Dialogue Platform members Trained and building capacity for existing members (190);

•

385 Dialogue platform meetings were organised;

•

Sharing of best practice through exchange visits (4) involving 129 DP members;

•

84 community sensitisation campaigns involving 364 DP members.

The progress made in this area is summarized in Table 36 (Outcome 1). Progress has been made in both knowledge and perceptions of conflict. It was found that knowledge of the causes of conflict has increased significantly and that the use of Dialogue Platforms has also gradually increased. The general level of collaboration between farmers and grazers has also improved tremendously. This improvement is a reflection of the efforts and inputs allocated to mitigate conflicts in the communities. There is now general agreement both by the grazers and farmers that the major causes of conflict is trespass on farmland (Table 25). This was not the case at the start of the project. The single most important finding is that the aggregate level of conflict has dropped by 8% (Table 21). Also important is that respondents overall say that conflict has reduced (86% compared with 32% at baseline) and they also say that conflict is less severe than it was before (83% compared with 37% at baseline). These are important results due not only to the fact that people perceive change is taking place but also because the changes appear to be large. (ii)

Sustainable natural resources (Outcome 2) The inputs in this area include the following: 67

•

Alliance farming: Awareness and sensitisation campaigns (100), training on agriculture for stakeholders (100) and training on agriculture for community members (460);

•

Improved pastures: 14 demonstration plots Setting up, 1,450kg of Bracharia seeds & 110 seedlings of Guatemala distributed and 14 community sensitisation meetings organized;

•

Biogas; 14 biogas demonstration units set up and 460 sensitisation meetings organized for 3,974 community members;

•

Barbwires and nails for fencing of improved pasture demonstration plots

The result of this large amount of activity by MBOSCUDA in terms of help to both grazers and farmers has been very effective. The survey shows that the number of households taking up alliance farming has increased from 28% at baseline to 61% at the end-of-project. The number of households taking up improved pasture techniques has increased from 17% at baseline to 44%. An overwhelming majority of farmer households (96%) engaged in alliance farming report improved crop yields and 96% of grazer households engaged in alliance farming report improved cattle health. The proportion of respondents reporting increased yields or improved cattle health as a result of AF has consistently been high thereby re-emphasizing the importance attached to this practice by both the farmers and the grazers.

(iii)

Clean and safe water (Outcome 3) The inputs in this area include the following: •

14 Awareness and sensitisation campaigns meetings organized and 260 participants were trained on access to clean and safe water;

•

7 Water Catchment Protection units set up or developed in Achain, Ashong, Mbakam, Bih, Tugi, Nkowe and Mbonso and 13 water stand points; Cattle drinking troughs were also provided

•

14 created or restructured Water Management Committees.

What are the outcomes here? Clean water is crucial to the health of adults and children in these communities and the findings of the survey show that some remarkable advances have been made. The level of knowledge about safe water use increased significantly since the start of the project. Levels of collaboration about water usage have increased (to 86%) as well as the efficiency of local water management structures (to 84%). Most importantly, the numbers reporting incidents of conflict 68

over water has reduced from 44% at baseline to 14% at end of project, a very large change at the close of the project.

(iv)

Strong organisations (Outcome 4) MBOSCUDA is the organisational focus of this project although it has, at the same time, developed links with farmer organisations such as NOWEFOR (The North West Farmers Organisation). The inputs in this area include the following: •

Staff (4 office staff and 7 PEOs), 10 CRVs and vehicles (Hilux 4x4 and nine motor cycles);

•

Training programmes for staff (on risk assessment, personal safety, conflict mediation and organisational development, IT training and the use of social media tools),

•

Community education campaigns (96) and capacity building for grazers’ organisations;

•

Awareness campaigns (5,000 leaflets and 31 radio programmes).

What has been the result of this, given the importance of building up an established community organisation into something even stronger? The indicators all point in a positive direction. This shows the contribution MBOSCUDA has made in working with local communities to resolve conflict. The percentage of people involved in conflict who said they had a great deal of support from MBOSCUDA increased by 42%. An overwhelming majority of Mbororo women interviewed (96%) at midterm, 85% at end-of-project testified that MBOSCUDA helped them participate in conflict resolution. MBOSCUDA continues to decentralize the services they run using community volunteers and by building the capacity of grassroots organisations (CBO’s) to reach as many communities as possible. The results show that this is working well. The number of people who believe that the CBOs have helped strengthen the way MBOSCUDA works with local communities was 82% at midterm and 80% at the end of the project.

Table 36: BLF indicators –Five years’ progress Project outcome Outcome 1: Conflict Resolution: a reduced incidence and severity of conflict between crop farmers and cattle herders (through dialogue and collaboration) resulting in more equitable access to natural resources and an improved environment for exercising basic rights

Outcome 2: Sustainable Natural Resources: improved skills in sustainable farming methods leading to better crop and livestock yields, greater cooperation between crop farmers and cattle herders and increased awareness of the need for environmental protection

Indicator Percentage of people who know about the causes of conflict between communities and the consequences for those involved The number who have used the Dialogue Platform to resolve farmer/grazer conflicts The percentage who have used the DP and believe it is a more effective mediation method than the alternative farmer-grazer commission The percentage of respondents who report that there is now greater collaboration between communities The percentage of people who say that the number of conflicts has reduced The percentage of people who say that the severity of conflicts has reduced The level of knowledge/skills relating to Alliance Farming, Improved Pasture and Biogas

82%

Baseline Number of cases 508

12%

601

14%

350

49%

82%

101

33%

275

829

81%

647

795

32%

268

825

86%

685

796

37%

301

817

83%

658

794

28%

• 235 • 67 •3 235

• 840 • 67 •3 840

61%

• 490 • 178 • 14 490

• 807 • 408 • 14 807

17%

390

44%

178

408

262

272

96%

150

156

Percent

1. Number practicing Alliance Farming, 2. Number with Improved Pasture farms and 3. Number with Biogas plants The number of households who have taken up Alliance-farming (AF) The number of households who have taken up improved Pasture (IP) The percentage of farmer households practicing AF who have reported improved crop yields

96%

618

Final evaluation Number All of cases 98% 343 350

All

Percent

Outcome 3: Clean and Safe Water: equitable access to clean water contributing to reduced conflict between farmers and grazers and more sustainable use of a vital natural and economic resource

Outcome 4 Strong Organizations: Mbororo people have greater capacity to exercise their rights leading to more responsive legislation, reduction in human rights violations that they experience and improved opportunities for social and economic development

The percentage of grazer households who have reported improved cattle health Construction of Improved Pasture demonstration plots Construction of Bio-gas demonstration plots The level of knowledge about practices that promote safe water usage and prevent water pollution Levels of collaboration and sustainable water usage in communities Levels of efficiency of local water management structures The number of people reporting incidence of conflict over water and improved access Number of members of Water Management Committees who have been trained Proportion of conflicts in the conflict database that include issues relating to access to water The percentage of people involved in conflict who had a great deal of support from MBOSCUDA in conflict resolution The percentage who believe that the CBOs have helped strengthen the way MBOSCUDA works with local communities The number of Mbororo women who believe that MBOSCUDA has helped them to increase participation in resolving conflict The percentage of farmers and grazers who have an increased awareness and understanding of Mbororo rights through the work of MBOSCUDA and CBOs

91%

217

239

96%

257

267

100%

0 16%

0 135

0 840

100% 95%

14 719

14 758

18%

154

499

86%

652

758

58%

206

350

84%

431

514

44%

224

509

14%

103

722

60%

169

280

799

23%

101

443

65%

216

335

80%

626

779

78%

95%

63%

404

840

98%

756

772

NB: aFigures differ from those in baseline report because of corrected inconsistencies in number of cases and non-responses 71

The different components of the ISCG project are very important for the livelihood of the community. However, it may be useful to know the importance attached by community members to each of the project components presented in Table 36. The respondents were asked to select the most important component of the ISCG project that should be continued. The analysis of responses from surveyed respondents show that access to clean and safe drinking water is the most important component of the ISCG project as reported by a majority of them (Figure 7). Setting up of Dialogue Platforms and conflict resolution is also an important component but only next to that on ‘clean and safe water’. Access to clean and safe drinking water is primarily important both to the grazers (48%) and farmers (48%). The second most important component is ‘Dialogue Platform and conflict resolution’ for 32% and 39% of grazers and farmers, respectively.

60% 50% 40% 30% 20%

48% 35% 13%

10% 0%

Dialogue Access to clean Biogas, Platforms and and safe improved Conflict drinking water pastures and Resolution Alliance Farming

5% Stronger Organization (Capacity Building)

Figure 7: Most important component of ISCG project

4. Conclusion

This ISCG end-of-project evaluation is a statistical survey of 807 farmers and grazers in 14 communities of the North West Region of Cameroon. This is the third of a set of three surveys conducted throughout the course of the project and triangulated with qualitative and case study research. The main purpose of this statistical survey is to provide answers as to whether farmer-grazer conflicts have reduced in the ISCG project communities and how successful Dialogue Platforms and new agricultural practices have been 72

The results obtained from the analysis revealed that the number of households involved in conflict had significantly reduced by 8% points from 74% (at baseline) to 66% (at end of project). This corroborates with the view of all respondents that the number and severity of the conflicts had reduced. On the second question on the success of the interventions, the survey shows results for the new Dialogue Platforms which were set up as planned. This model of conflict mediation was also very successful. The use of Bracharia seeds, the introduction of alliance farming to a greater degree than before and the setting up of demonstration sites for biogas (albeit on a small scale) have all been important. Progress on water catchment protection is crucial to the health of men, women and children and this progress has been sound. The capacity of MBOSCUDA has been improved by increasing the number of staff and by training and MBOSCUDA has set up community education and awareness programmes which have reached large numbers in both farmer and grazer communities. The survey found that such innovations were positively received and that MBOSCUDA is increasingly seen as a major player for the improvement of the welfare of the people of the region of Cameroon.

4.1 Lessons learnt •

A higher proportion of people believe that the policy environment and formal conflict resolution set-ups are contributing factors to farmer-grazer conflicts. People claim that administrators (DOs and SDOs) are not doing enough to tackle conflicts;

•

Amicable settlement and Dialogue Platforms were highly preferred by communities and are more effective in addressing conflict;

•

There are important spill-over effects of the ISCG project. For instance, 13 Dialogue Platforms were reported to have been created in communities outside of the project. This may be an indication of the interest other conflict-prone communities have in the use of Dialogue Platforms to resolve prevalent farmer-grazer conflicts. It is therefore likely that other conflict-prone communities would welcome the ISCG conflict resolution approach;

•

There has been a shift in the perception of the causes of conflicts in communities. Unlike the situation at baseline, the respondents unanimously agreed that trespass of cattle on farmland is the 73

principal cause of conflicts in the communities. Grazers recognized their role in causing conflict over trespass and encroachment on farm lands, whereas, the farmers did not fully reciprocate; •

The blame for the trespass of cattle on farmland has shifted from grazers to herdsmen who are sometimes hired youths or children of grazers;

•

Interventions benefit some groups more than others; the provision of clean water has mainly benefited farmers;

•

Community dialogue is being strengthened by introducing a range of ways farmers and grazers share resources. Water catchment protection has had a positive bridge-building effect; collaboration in the sustainable use of water increased by 68% points.

•

Whilst setting up sustainable Dialogue Platforms is a very important component of the ISCG project, providing access to clean and safe drinking water is a priority to the communities and particularly among grazers and farmers alike;

•

Adoption of sustainable and shared agricultural practices takes time. Biogas has had the lowest take-up by communities and may be more difficult to take to scale. However, this could be explained by the fewer number of biogas plants in the communities.

•

The success of any livelihood improvement venture is determined by the socio-political context under which such an initiative takes place. This was the case in one of the project communities where local and national politics impacted the achievement of the project milestones negatively

4.2 Recommendations The findings of the final evaluation show that some progress has been made in reducing the proportion of those exposed to farmer-grazer conflicts in the project communities. However, a significant proportion of community dwellers are still vulnerable to conflicts. In order to strengthen the prospects of curbing conflicts to the minimum, the following recommendations could be considered for future initiatives:

Outcome 1 1. Farmer- grazer conflicts are a serious issue still affecting large numbers of people. The use of Dialogue Platforms contributes to reducing conflicts and is seen by many as a preferred option to 74

the Agro-pastoral Commission and the Traditional Councils. Efforts should be made to sustain and develop existing Dialogue Platforms and to promote them in more areas. Such efforts will include exchange of information on best practices, increasing awareness campaigns and greater involvement by key stakeholders and communities. 2. There is much greater agreement than before that trespass on farmland is the main cause of conflict. The blame for this has shifted from grazers themselves to herdsmen. The focus should therefore be on awareness and practical steps to reduce trespass on to farmland by cattle. Practical measures include construction of stock-proof fences and the use of night paddocks. Educating inexperienced herdsmen can enhance awareness. 3. This change in perception was larger for grazers as they recognized their role in causing conflict over trespass and encroachment on farmlands. However, the farmers did not fully reciprocate. For grazers, trespass by farmers on grazing land continues to be a source of conflict. Grazers are now more aware than are farmers of their role in causing conflict. As well as the use of the Dialogue Platform, actions can be taken to discourage farmers from planting in grazing land. 4. Whilst the Dialogue Platforms have succeeded in bringing people together to discuss problems, respondents say that there is more work to be done to increase collaboration between the farmer and grazer communities. This suggests that there are wider issues to be addressed and further indepth case studies and/or focus groups should be carried out. Outcome 2 1. Little has changed with respect to land tenure and it could be argued that this is the major underlying cause of conflict between farmers and grazers. Working with key stakeholders to feed into any policy changes with regards to land reform will be an important long-term goal. 2.

Increasing agricultural activities alongside the use of appropriate inputs such as improved seeds, alliance farming, intensification of crop production using slurry, cow-dung among others may reduce the pressure on land as well as strengthening collaboration between farmers and grazers.

3. Effort still has to be made to increase the proportion of grazers who own improved pastures as well as to increase the areas allocated for pasture production.

Outcome 3 The level of collaboration around water usage has increased. Clean water has a high bridgebuilding potential between the communities and more needs to be done to improve access to clean and safe drinking water for both people and animals. This should include the construction and maintenance of drinking water sources and catchment areas, setting up of water management committees where they do not exist and building the capacity of these committees to sustainably manage water resource. Grazers should be targeted particularly because farmers appear to have better access to clean and safe drinking water than grazers. Increasing support from, and formalising partnership with stakeholders involved in facilitating access to potable water will be important here. Formalising partnership accords with such partners will be of great help in sourcing technical expertise to support these water projects.

Outcome 4 MBOSCUDA is actively advocating for positive changes, primarily through practice and leading by example, and has achieved a great deal since the start of the project. Its approaches are now widely accepted by the engaged communities (grazers and farmers), as well as, crucially, other institutional stakeholders. A clear plan for advocacy work could underpin much of the work towards achieving Strong Organisations and could also enable further scale-up of interventions.

References Gefu, J.O. and A. Kolawole (2002). “Conflict in Common Property Resource Use: Experiences from an Irrigation Project”. Paper Prepared for 9th Conference of the International Association for the Study of Common

Property.

Indiana.

[Retrieved

October

2005

from

http://d/c.

dlib.

Indiana.edu/achive/00000823/00/gefuj080502.pdf] Kelsey Jones-Casey and Anna Knox (2011). Farmer Herder Conflicts in the Face of Environmental Degradation, World Resources Institute & Rural Development Institute. Focus on Land in Africa Brief

Manu, I.N., Bime, M.J., Fon, DE, Nji, A. (2014). Effects of farmer-grazer Conflicts on rural development: a socio-economic analysis. Scholarly Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 4(3), 11-120. ISSB 2276-7118. Nchinda, V.P., Che, M.A., Ijang, P., Shidiki, A.A. and Chi, N. (2014a). Expert Interview Report for the project: “In Search of Common Grounds for Farmer-Grazer Conflicts in the North West Region of Cameroon”. MBOSCUDA-Cameroon (unpubished). Nchinda, V.P., Che, M.A., Ijang, P., Shidiki, A.A. and Chi, N. (2014b). Baseline Survey Report: “In Search of Common Grounds for Farmer-Grazer Conflicts in the North West Region of Cameroon”. MBOSCUDA-Cameroon (unpubished). Nchinda, V.P., Che, M.A., Ijang, P., Shidiki, A.A. and Chi, N. (2016c). Midterm Evaluation Report: “In Search of Common Grounds for Farmer-Grazer Conflicts in the North West Region of Cameroon”. MBOSCUDA-Cameroon (unpubished). Pelican, M. (2012). Friendship among Pastoral Fulbe in North West Cameroon. African Study Monographs, 33(3): 165-188. Sone, P.M. (2012) Conflict over landownership: The case of farmers and cattle graziers in the northwest region of Cameroon. African Journal on Conflict Resolution, Vol. 12 (1): 83-101. Sulaiman, A. and Ja’afar-Furo, M.R. (2010). Economic Effects of Farmer-Grazer Conflicts in Nigeria: A Case Study of Bauchi State. Trends in Agricultural Economics, 3(3): 147-157. ISSN 1994-7933. Rashid SolagberuAdisa (2012). Land Use Conflict Between Farmers and Herdsmen – Implications for Agricultural and Rural Development in Nigeria, Rural Development - Contemporary Issues and Practices, Dr. Rashid

SolagberuAdisa

(Ed.),

ISBN:

978-953-51-0461-2,

InTech,

Available

from: 77

http://www.intechopen.com/books/rural-development-contemporary-issues-and-practices/land-useconflictbetween-famers-and-herdsmen-implications-for-agricultural-and-rural-development-in

Table 37: BLF indicators –Midterm milestones Project outcome Outcome 1: Conflict Resolution: a reduced incidence and severity of conflict between crop farmers and cattle herders (through dialogue and collaboration) resulting in more equitable access to natural resources and an improved environment for exercising basic rights Outcome 2: Sustainable Natural Resources: improved skills in sustainable farming methods leading to better crop and livestock yields, greater cooperation between crop farmers and cattle herders and increased awareness of the need for environmental protection

Outcome 3: Clean and Safe Water: equitable

97%

Midterm Number of cases 537

555

15.4%

545

83%

30%

194

862

73%

626

862

79%

681

861

33% 45% 99%

• 285 • 149 •5 285 149 249

• 864 • 331 •5 864 331 252

95%

162

171

100% 50% 97%

14 7 768

14 14 796

70% 85%

554 385

794 453

Indicator

Percent

Percentage of people who know about the causes of conflict between communities and the consequences for those involved The number who have used the Dialogue Platform to resolve farmer/grazer conflicts The percentage who have used the DP and believe it is a more effective mediation method than the alternative farmer-grazer commission The percentage of respondents who report that there is now greater collaboration between communities The percentage of people who say that the number of conflicts has reduced The percentage of people who say that the severity of conflicts has reduced The level of knowledge/skills relating to Alliance Farming, Improved Pasture and Biogas 1. Number practicing Alliance Farming, 2. Number with Improved Pasture farms and 3. Number with Biogas plants The number of households who have taken up Alliance-farming (AF) The number of households who have taken up improved Pasture (IP) The percentage of farmer households practicing AF who have reported improved crop yields The percentage of grazer households who have reported improved cattle health Construction of Improved Pasture demonstration plots Construction of Bio-gas demonstration plots The level of knowledge about practices that promote safe water usage and prevent water pollution Levels of collaboration and sustainable water usage in communities Levels of efficiency of local water management structures

All

access to clean water contributing to reduced conflict between farmers and grazers and more sustainable use of a vital natural and economic resource Outcome 4 Strong Organizations: Mbororo people have greater capacity to exercise their rights leading to more responsive legislation, reduction in human rights violations that they experience and improved opportunities for social and economic development

The number of people reporting incidence of conflict over water and improved access Number of members of Water Management Committees who have been trained Proportion of conflicts in the conflict database that include issues relating to access to water The percentage of people involved in conflict who had a great deal of support from MBOSCUDA in conflict resolution The percentage who believe that the CBOs have helped strengthen the way MBOSCUDA works with local communities The number of Mbororo women who believe that MBOSCUDA` has helped them to increase participation in resolving conflict The percentage of farmers and grazers who have an increased awareness and understanding of Mbororo rights through the work of MBOSCUDA and CBOs

19%

148

768

52%

109

210

0.01%

444

52%

303

583

88%

732

830

100%

86%

739

864