Interactions Between People and Nigeria-Cameroon Chimpanzee ( Pan troglodytes ellioti ) Around Mbam-Djerem National Park,Central Cameroon

Abstract

Understanding the interactions between local people and chimpanzees is crucial to develop sustainable wildlife conservation strategies and management policy in the Mbam-Djerem National Park (MDNP). The MDNP covers about 416,512 ha and shelters the Nigeria-Cameroon chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes ellioti) being the most endangered of all currently recognized chimpanzee subspecies. Close to 30,000 people live in the periphery of the MDNP and depend on the park’s resources for subsistence. We investigated the extent of, and factors leading to, the interactions between people and chimpanzees through a socio-economic survey focusing on households (124) and individual interviews (38) in 30% of villages around MDNP. About 95% of the respondents stated that human–wildlife conflict is an issue around MDNP. Access to resources (78.9%), crop damage (84%), and animal attack (11.3%) were the main sources of conflicts. The ground squirrel Xerus erythropus (59.7%), the green monkey Chlorocebus aethiops (20.2%), chimpanzees (7.3%) and baboons Papio anubis (5.6%) were identified as the main conflict animals and the destroyed crops included peanuts (70.2%), maize (15%) and cassava (5%). The population perceptions differed between the park’s four sectors and were significantly influenced by education and the main livelihood activity. The study also provided quantitative evidence on the role of personal and religious beliefs on the behavior towards chimpanzees. Our findings suggest that the improvement of income-generating activities and education will contribute to strengthening the conservation of chimpanzees.

Keywords

Mbam-Djerem National Park people–chimpanzee interactions Nigeria-Cameroon chimpanzee human wildlife conflict management policy

Introduction

The wildlife is essential to maintain the ecological balance of an ecosystem and needs to be carefully considered for the effective management of protected and conserved areas. The Mbam-Djerem National Park (MDNP) is the largest national park within the protected area network of Cameroon and is characterized by a high diversity of wildlife (MINFOF, 2007; Morgan et al., 2011). MDNP is home to more than 450 species of birds, 60 species of reptiles, 35 species of fish and 16 species of mammals including the endangered Nigeria-Cameroon chimpanzee Pan troglodytes ellioti (MINFOF, 2007; Morgan et al., 2011).

The Nigeria-Cameroon chimpanzee, is recognized as one of four subspecies of chimpanzee (Gonder et al., 1997; Morgan et al., 2011), is classified as Endangered by the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (Hayward, 2009), with between 3,500 and 9,000 individuals remaining (Beck & Chapman, 2008a; Hayward, 2009; Morgan et al., 2011; Oates et al., 2016). Their population is facing a rapid decline across their limited geographic range, as a consequence of landscape fragmentation, habitat loss, diseases, commercial bushmeat hunting, climate change and human wildlife conflict (Beck & Chapman, 2008b; Cameron et al., 2016; Sesink Clee et al., 2015). In fact, this great ape can be seen not only as a source of conflict, but also as an important source of income generated through ecotourism (Teel et al., 2010; Tsakem et al., 2015).

Therefore, understanding the relationship between people and great ape populations is necessary for an adequate biodiversity conservation planning and practice around National Parks (Aharikundira & Tweheyo 2011b; Bortolamiol, 2014; Hill & Wallace, 2012; Hill & Webber, 2010). The increase in human population and deforestation for agricultural purposes are negatively influencing great ape populations and their habitat (De Wasseige et al., 2012; Ghimire, 1994; Tsakem et al., 2015). For example, the magnitude of anthropogenic activity on great ape habitats translates into a forest conversion rate of over 90% (Last & Muh, 2013; Nellemann et al., 2014), predisposing surrounding local people and wildlife to conflictual relationships for the use of space and natural resources (Aharikundira & Tweheyo, 2011a). The permanent search for a compromise between improving the living conditions of local populations around national parks and the sustainable management of biodiversity would explain the increasing number of studies relating to the coexistence of humans and wildlife (Bukie et al., 2018; Eniang et al., 2011; Weladji & Tchamba, 2003).

The coexistence of human and wildlife might generate various interactions including conflicts, ecotourism and ritual practices which have been reported around protected and conserved areas (Sillero-Zubiri & Laurenson, 2001; Sillero-Zubiri & Switzer, 2001; Tsakem et al., 2015). As shown in previous studies, human–wildlife interactions have intensified around protected areas, requiring rigorous management policy especially for a charismatic species like chimpanzee (Hill, 2004; Hill & Wallace, 2012; Littlewood et al., 2020; Teel et al., 2010). Some findings highlighted crop attacks as a major human–wildlife conflict in many countries of tropical ecosystems (Bukie et al., 2018; Tsakem et al., 2015; Weladji & Tchamba, 2003). Crop attacks by wildlife are considered a serious problem in most rural territories found at the periphery of protected and conserved areas in Central Africa. This may cause the loss of life, human injury, destruction of crops and agricultural infrastructure (Treves & Naughton-Treves, 2005; Treves et al., 2006).

However, human–chimpanzee interactions might generate socio-economic benefits through ecotourism, research, cultural belief and education, but also a conflict for the use of feeding resources considered as a priority by the IUCN/Primate Specialist Group (Hockings, 2009). Chimpanzees feeding on crops have been reported for many protected and conserved areas across Africa (Hockings et al., 2012; Hockings et al., 2017; McLennan et al., 2012). Given the actual anthropogenic threat on natural habitat, chimpanzees can adapt their feeding behavior to cultivated crops which are palatable, easily digestible, and offer energetic advantages over natural foods (Bessa et al., 2015; Doran, 1997; Hockings et al., 2017; McLennan et al., 2012; McLennan & Ganzhorn, 2017). We assumed chimpanzee could be identified as the fauna species mostly involved in interactions with local community although potential crop raiding by this ape has not yet been evaluated in MDNP.

The objectives of the present study were to establish the types of interactions between local populations and wildlife, to evaluate the importance of chimpanzees in human wildlife interactions, and to assess the extent of damages caused by wildlife to the livelihood of local farmers. Achieving these objectives is relevant for informing national parks managers for improving the current conservation policy at MDNP by focusing on more sustainable approaches with regards to human–wildlife interaction, livelihood creation and an understanding of the need for conservation action. An improved policy and adapted strategies will help to achieve acceptance of conservation practices by the local population and thus enhance the quality of great ape habitats and reduce threats to this endangered species.

Methods

Study Area

Created in 2000, the MDNP covers 4,165.2 km² and lies between 5°30′N and 6°14′N, and 12°20′E and 13°15′E (Bobo et al., 2006; Mitchard et al., 2009) (Figure 3). A 1,662.34 km² core zone is established at the center of the MDNP with the primary purpose to ensure a safe and long term persistence of the chimpanzee population and other large mammals. The climate of the area comprises two seasons of almost equal length: the rainy season from mid-April to mid-October and the dry season from mid-October to mid-April. The average annual rainfall is 1,900 mm while the average annual temperature is 24 °C (Bobo et al., 2006). The MDNP is located partially in the Guinea-Congolian and in the Sudanian regions (White, 1993) with savannah in the north and the Central African forest block in the south. The national park is therefore dominated by forest-savannah mosaic, with a primary lowland rain forest in the southern sector (Maisels et al., 2006; Maisels et al., 2007). The relief is relatively flat and the altitude ranges from 650 m to 930 m above sea level (a.s.l.). About 60 species of mammals belonging to 10 orders, 26 families and 34 subfamilies have been identified at the MDNP (Bobo et al., 2006). More than 50,000 inhabitants, whose lives depend almost entirely on the natural resources, reside around the MDNP (Fosso et al., 2017; MINFOF, 2007). The local population includes Christians, Muslims and Animists distributed in more than 75 villages and their main activity varies between farmers, cattle breeders, fishermen and hunters (MINFOF, 2007; Morgan et al., 2011). The human population tends to be concentrated in the northern periphery where grazing lands are available and where the Mbakaou dam was constructed in 1964, and in the eastern periphery of the national park where the Belabo-Ngaoudéré railway link is located which was constructed in 1970 (Bobo & Weladji, 2011) (Figure 1). Established at the edge of the forest and the savannah ecosystems in Cameroon (Maisels et al., 2009; Mitchard et al., 2009), it appears that, the MDNP is an ideal place for assessing the relationship between people and the Nigerian–Cameroon chimpanzee, which is the least studied of all great ape subspecies (Gonder et al., 2006; Oates et al., 2016).

Figure 1.

The Study Area Highlighting Villages and Roads Around MDNP.

Data Collection

We conducted two socio-economic surveys (Document S1) combining the approach used by other authors (Aharikundira & Tweheyo 2011b; Fetters et al., 2013): a questionnaire survey of households in villages surrounding the MDNP and individual interviews of resource persons (Hill & Wallace, 2012; Hill & Webber, 2010). The questionnaire survey was conducted in the four sectors of the MDNP (North, South, East and West) as defined in the National Park management plan. The questions in the survey were focused on characteristics such as geographic location, access to the park, local perception of population which could have an influence on the management of the MDNP and the bushmeat consumption.

The questionnaire survey was conducted in 30% (22) randomly selected villages out of the 74 found around MDNP. In each village, a household was considered as a sampling unit. Eight villages and 42 households were selected in the North, four villages and 18 households in the South, five villages and 28 households in the East and five villages and 36 households in the West. This provided for a total of 124 households surveyed around the MDNP. The questionnaires were administered to the head of household. The woman in a household was considered head of household when her husband was absent. Respondents represented various socio-economic backgrounds. In regards to bushmeat, we just asked whether the respondent eat bushmeat or not, in order to evaluate the extent of bushmeat as a potential threat to chimpanzee in MDNP.

As the second part of the assessment, a total of 38 resource persons (experts leading conservation projects and traditional leaders in the study area) including park warden, ecoguards, NGO coordinators, and chiefs of the villages were interviewed in the selected villages with 11 resource persons in the North, 12 in the West, seven in the East and eight in the South. These 38 individuals represented one National Park warden, four forest officers, four heads of sectors (leader of the team protecting each of the four designed areas called sectors of the park to strengthen its management effectiveness), 22 traditional leaders and 11 heads of private organizations operating locally.

Data Analysis

The data collected (Document S2) were reviewed, categorized and analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistic 20 software. Descriptive statistics were used to examine patterns in the human–wildlife conflict including the type of conflict, type of crop damage, the crop-raiding animal, and the solution to the conflict. The type of conflict was compared across sectors using an ANOVA with a significance level of 5% to assess whether certain characteristics of the respondents (religion, education, ethnic group, main activity, tribes) could influence the perception of populations on wildlife, damage to crops, conflict resolution, and conservation. Chi-square test and the Multiple Component Analysis (MCA) were also used to assess the correlation between certain characteristics of the respondents (ethnic group, religion, main activity) and drivers of human–wildlife conflict in the MDNP.

Results

Socio-Economic Background of the Respondents

Among the interviewed persons, 60.5% lived in the community for more than 15 years compared to 26.3% who lived there less than 5 years old, which allow to better address the problem of wildlife conservation in the study area. Of 124 respondents, 90% were men and only 10% were women, representing different age groups (Table 1).

Table 1.

Age Groups of the Respondents (years).

Age groups	Frequency	Percentage (%)
< 20	3	2.4
20–30	11	8.9
30–40	24	19.4
40–50	45	36.3
> 50	41	33.1
Total	124	100.0

The level of education remained limited to primary (60.5%) and secondary school (29%) with only (0.8%) of the respondents having attended high school or university, while 9.7% had never been in school at all. Overall, the main livelihood activity was farming (87.1%) although it showed a significant difference between geographic sectors (Chi-square = 38.94, df = 9, p = 0.0001) (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

The Main Activity of the Responded According to Sectors.

With the given activities, the annual income of respondents also differs according to the sectors (F_1, 3 = 4.25, p = 0.007) and vary between 25,000 and 50,000 FCFA (20.2%) to more than 75,000 FCFA (58.9%) (Table 2).

Table 2.

Annual Income (FCFA, 1US $= 500 FCFA) of the Respondents.

Revenue class (FCFA)	Frequency	Percentage
<25,000	8	6.5
25,000–50,000	25	20.2
50,000–75,000	18	14.5
>75,000	73	58.9
Total	124	100.0

Human–Wildlife Conflict

Human–wildlife conflict is an issue in the MDNP according to 94.73% of the respondents although no evidence of significant difference between sectors was found (Chi-square = 11,787 df = 9, p = 0.226). Responses indicated that crop raiding (83.9%) was the main form of conflict, followed by aggression (11.3%) and social disruption or disorder (3.2%), with the least reported being predation (0.8%) (Table 3). By social disruption we referred to the disorder found between individuals in the community especially when one assumed that his crop was damaged by an animal considered as the totem of other. Is some extent community may got afraid when they know in the farm, they can encounter baboon or chimpanzee.

Table 3.

Types of Conflict Found Around Mbam-Djerem National Park.

Form of conflicts	Frequency	Percentage
Crop raiding	104	83.9
Aggression	14	11.3
Predation	1	0.8
Social disruption	4	3.2
Other	1	0.8
Total	124	100.0

Crop Raiding Animal

Only 7.3% of respondents considered chimpanzees as crop raiding animals although we found differences between geographic sectors (Figure 3) (Chi-square = 19,385 df = 9, p = 0.022). Instead, the ground squirrel (59.7%) and the green monkey (20.2%) were identified as mainly being involved in crop raiding, followed by the baboon (5.6%) (Figure 4).

Figure 3.

Animals Involved in Crop Raiding According to Four Sectors of the MDNP.

Figure 4.

Animals Involved in Crop Raiding in the Study Area.

Crop Types Damaged by Wildlife

Crop species mostly raided by wildlife around MDNP are groundnut Arachis hypogea (70.2%), maize Zea mays (15%), cassava Manihot esculenta (4.8%) and banana Musa spp. (1.61%) as shown in Figure 5. We found significant differences between geographic sectors (Chi-square = 23,466 df = 9, p = 0.005). Damages for groundnut and maize were most recorded in the western and northern sectors, while cassava and banana were frequently destroyed in the southern and eastern sectors of the MDNP.

Figure 5.

Crop Types Damaged in the Study Area.

The extent of crop damages was not different between geographic sectors (ANOVA: F_{1, 3} = 0.35, p = 0.787). Farmers reported extents as 0.5 to 1 ha (40.3%), more than 1 ha (39.5%) and less than 0.5 ha (12.1%).

Impacts of Human–Wildlife Conflict on Livelihoods

Based on a monetary evaluation of crop losses for farmers, we found no evidence of differences between geographic sectors (ANOVA: F_{1, 3} = 0.77, p = 0.5). In most occasions, losses were below 50,000 FCFA (41.5%), and only 7.3% of the respondents declared losses above 200,000 FCFA (Table 4).

Table 4.

Monetary Loss (FCFA, 1 US $= 500 FCFA) as the Consequence of Human–Wildlife Conflict.

Value class (FCFA)	Frequency	Percentage
<50000	51	41.5
51,000–100,000	36	29.3
101,000–150,000	23	18.7
151,000–200,000	4	3.3
>200,000	9	7.3

Reactions of People against Crop Attacks

Among the respondents, 53.2% of famers used traps and dogs to protect their crops from crop-raiding animals, while 28.2% reported no reaction to the crop attacks (Table 5). This pattern varied between geographic sectors (Figure 6) (Chi-square = 18.063, df = 9, p = 0.034). People also used poison (9%) to deter wildlife from crop attack which represented a high risk of wildlife extinction. Poison product used is the chemical called Furadan. Most farmers also used a locally made product including the seeds of Thevetia peruviana added to fermented urine and carbon rod (graphite) from useless batteries which more often killed the animal involved in crop raiding and even scavengers.

Table 5.

Different Reaction of People Against Crop Attacks.

Reactions	Frequency	Percentage
Traps	66	53.2
Shotgun	7	5.6
Guarding	5	4.0
Poisoning (Furadan®)	11	8.9
No reaction	35	28.2
Total	124	100.0

Figure 6.

Reaction of People Against Crop Attacks According to the Four Sectors of MDNP.

Local Population Perception of Chimpanzees

We assessed the local population perception of chimpanzee based on cultural beliefs (Table 6), tribes (Table 7) and geographic sectors. Around MDNP, 79.8% of the respondents were Christian while only 6.4% were animist. Chimpanzees were perceived as totem (68.2% of responses) according to geographic sectors (ANOVA: F_1,3 = 3.778, p = 0.029), tribes (ANOVA: F_1,3 = 6.173, p = 0.001), and religion (ANOVA: F_1,3 = 1.346, p = 0.263). In the south and west sectors, peoples considered chimpanzee as the savior of their ancestor during the past. While according to the tribe, the Gbaya and Vuté tribes consider chimpanzee as a totem, for Bororo and Fulbe, are animal species like any other animal, though human-like. According to the tribes, 29.8% and 36.3% of the respondents were Gbaya and Mboum respectively, and both tribes also considered chimpanzees as human.

Table 6.

Cultural Beliefs of People Around Mbam-Djerem National Park.

Beliefs	Frequency	Percentage
Christian	99	79.8
Muslim	17	13.7
Animist	8	6.4
Total	124	100.0

Table 7.

Different Tribes and Their Belief Around Mbam-Djerem National Park.

Ethnics group	Frequency	Percentage	Belief
Gbaya	37	29.8	Christian
Vute	23	18.5	Christian
Bororo	4	3.2	Muslim
Mboum	45	36.3	Christian
Mambila	12	9.7	Animist
Fulbe	3	2.4	Muslim
Total	124	100.0	–

We also assessed the correlation between variables (Appendix A). The different variables have a high internal consistency (Cronbach's Alpha = 0.806). Thus, we find that the ethnic group is strongly correlated with bushmeat consumption (0.575), religion (0.424) and main activity (0.444). Muslim do not ate bushmeat. According to their social norm, animal need to be slaughtered (by cutting the neck) before they eat any part of it.

Discussion

Understanding interactions between the local population and chimpanzees is crucial for the development of sustainable conservation strategies in protected areas. The access to the natural resources often gives rise to various conflicts between human population and wildlife.

Human–Wildlife Conflicts

From our results, the main livelihood activity of the local population around the MDNP was farming. Mostly peanuts were destroyed, followed by other crops being maize, cassava and banana as stated by survey respondents. Similarly, in Kainji Lake National Park in Nigeria (Adeola et al., 2018; Ogunjobi & Adeola, 2016) and in Lobéké National Park in Cameroon (Tsakem et al., 2015), maize, groundnuts and cassava were the most widely grown crops, with maize and groundnuts mainly being raided by wildlife (Bukie et al., 2018; Sillero-Zubiri & Switzer, 2001).

The ground squirrel was the animal species mostly involved in crop raiding around MDNP. In other region such as Senegal and Nigeria, rodents have similarly been identified as being strongly involved in crop raiding around protected areas (Bukie et al., 2018). Several other animal species were involved in the conflicts around MDNP like the green monkey, the chimpanzee and the baboon. Baboons were involved in maize raiding in the north sector of the MDNP which ecologically is a savannah. This result is consistent with others authors who confirmed that baboon are known to favor maize crop around National Parks (Bobo & Weladji, 2011; Eniang et al., 2011; Warren, 2003), while chimpanzees were pointed as aggressive animal in the southern sector of the National Park. Chimpanzees were mainly found in this sector of the MDNP which is a forest, and people also using this sector for collecting non timber forest products. Interactions with chimpanzees here are then most frequent and they may be aggressive in order to defend their territory.

Around the MDNP, most people are famers and crop raiding causing monetary losses constitutes an economic risk for households. The extent of the conflict has hampered the subsistence system of the local population. The estimated annual losses was higher than the annual income of some respondents. This may result from farmers possibly perceiving the damages as more severe than they were in reality or because of the lack of proper tools to assess the damages. This was already the case in Bénin and Ivory Coast where farmers around the Pendjari Biosphere Reserve and the Tanoé-Ehy Marsh Forest declared losses much higher than expected (Houinato & Sinsin, 2000; Kouao et al., 2018).

Monetary losses due to human–wildlife conflicts have been reported around most protected areas (Aharikundira & Tweheyo 2011b; Bukie et al., 2018; Marchal & Hill, 2009; Tsakem et al., 2015; Weladji et al., 2003) and conflict mitigation/compensation measures should be incorporated in the protected area management strategies. The choice of maize and groundnuts as main crops in farming around MDNP is explained by their short production period that sometimes allows for off-season production. In addition, these crops are the most popular food source for the population because their local transformation is simple and diversified.

Chimpanzees were less involved in crop raiding around MDNP. This is not the case for example at Budongo in Uganda, where chimpanzees spoil fruits in orchards (Dudley et al., 2002) and at Cantanhez in Guinea Bissau where they are perceived as the main pest of maize crops and sugar cane Saccharum officinarum (Hockings & Sousa, 2013). At MDNP, the local population received economic benefits only through research activities focused on chimpanzees although more income could be generated through ecotourism development (Tsakem et al., 2015).

Local people around protected areas generally use several approaches to protect crops against wildlife. These include day and nighttime guarding, noises to frighten animals as well as fences and traps (Hill, 2004; Mwakatobe et al., 2014; Sillero-Zubiri & Switzer, 2001). In our study area, people used different approaches to protect their crops which varied between geographic sectors and depended on the animal species involved in the conflict. To deter chimpanzees in the west sector, and baboons in the north sector, which are both large-sized mammals, the rifle can be used while traps and poison products are set against ground squirrels in the north. Poison products including the use of Thevetia peruviana seeds have been highlighted by many authors to prevent crop attacks (Dooh et al., 2014; Mboussi et al., 2018). However, we advised the community to adopt a combination of approaches as this may help to better protect their crops and contribute to the conservation of wildlife (Karidozo & Osborn, 2007; Mwakatobe et al., 2014; Ringo & Kaswamila, 2014).

Impacts of Human–Wildlife Conflict and Implication for Conservation

Wildlife conflicts can have negative consequences if they are not effectively apprehended (Houinato & Sinsin, 2000). The local population of different tribes around the MDNP depend on the natural resources of the park and therefore conflicts of interest are inevitable (Bobo & Weladji, 2011). Although chimpanzees are not yet subject to reprisals by the population, if current conflicts remain unresolved, biodiversity conservation in the MDNP might be negative affected. In fact, intolerance of crop raiding species could lead to dramatic actions (poisoning and illegal killing), reducing the size of animal populations (Ijeomah & Ogbara, 2013; Woodroffe et al., 2005).

Around MDNP, local beliefs are a supporting asset for chimpanzee conservation (Appendix B), which is an opportunity to strengthen biodiversity management programs. For instance, we discovered that in MDNP, Muslim do not eat bushmeat mainly because according to their social norm, animal need to be slaughtered (by cutting the neck) before they eat any part of it. Also Gbaya and Vute tribes considered chimpanzee as a savior of their ancestor. Local communities should therefore be more effectively involved in the national park management and the sustainable use of natural resources (Morgan et al., 2011). A participatory approach, where the opinion of communities and other stakeholders are considered when making management decisions, could be meaningful and help to make the communities autonomous in solving their own problems. Farmers need to be sensitized on legislative regulation and informed about diseases and zoonosis risks form hunting and eaten bushmeat, and their point of view considered for the sustainable wildlife management issues (Aharikundira & Tweheyo 2011b; Junker et al., 2020; Littlewood et al., 2020; Petrovan et al., 2018). Further, a local database on human–wildlife conflicts should be established for regional long-term monitoring. Similarly, a conservation education program could be developed around MDNP to educate children from primary and secondary schools about the importance of biodiversity for local communities.

Since human–wildlife conflicts are generally becoming more frequent (Eniang et al., 2011; Hockings & Sousa, 2013; Sillero-Zubiri & Laurenson, 2001), research should focus on them in order to gain new insights and suggest possible solutions according to geographic regions and species involved. Small rodents are more often causing damage than larger mammals, although the latter are the focus of most human–wildlife conflict studies (Eniang et al., 2011). Such future findings may further support the understanding and acceptance of conservation measures and foster the collaboration between protected area management and communities, as is needed in the case of MDNP.

Despite the damages not being of a great amplitude, it is advisable to anticipate the conflicts and to limit the monetary losses in order to gain the population’s incentive in favor of conservation. According to the tribes and religious attributes in the study area, most people do not hunt or eat chimpanzee meat, which is important information to be considered for reviewing the chimpanzee conservation policy in the MDNP as it may create opportunities for specific conservation action focused on these tribes.

One immediate approach needed is to reinvigorate relations between local communities and the conservation department. Conflict resolution strategies must take into account the specific context of each geographic sector of the National Park. For example, techniques to limit human–chimpanzee conflicts should be developed with priority in the southern sector where chimpanzee attacks have been recorded. Group farming is advisable and it should strongly be recommended for farmers to locate their farms in land use areas far from the border of the national park. Our results provide the baseline data on human–chimpanzee interaction at the MDNP. Although further studies on monetary losses from human–wildlife conflict around MDNP and other protected areas are recommended, cultural beliefs are an asset for chimpanzee conservation in MDNP. Therefore, it is important for partners and stakeholders to work together to strengthen the conservation strategies of P. t. ellioti in this forest-savannah transitional area in Cameroon.

Appendix A: Correlation Between Different Variables Which Influence the Conservation of Biodiversity in Mbam-Djerem National Park.

Dimension: 1
	Sector	Ethnic group	Religion	Main activity^a	Bustmeat consumption	Knowing the park limit	Human-wildlife conflict	Threats on chimpanzee
Sector	1.000	0.278	0.168	0.308	0.428	0.252	0.211	0.046
Ethnic group	0.278	1.000	0.424	0.444	0.575	0.123	0.424	0.062
Religion	0.168	0.424	1.000	0.331	0.451	−0.149	0.317	−0.053
Main activity^a	0.308	0.444	0.331	1.000	0.447	0.157	0.911	0.066
Bustmeat consumption	0.428	0.575	0.451	0.447	1.000	−0.024	0.443	0.047
Knowing the park limit	0.252	0.123	−0.149	0.157	−0.024	1.000	0.085	0.074
Human-wildlife conflict^a	0.211	0.424	0.317	0.911	0.443	0.085	1.000	0.026
Threats on chimpanzee^a	0.046	0.062	−0.053	0.066	0.047	0.074	0.026	1.000
Dimension	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
Eigen value	3.135	1.260	1.000	0.968	0.673	0.532	0.352	0.080

^aMissing values were imputed to the mode of the quantified variable.

Appendix B: Strength, Weakness, Opportunity and Threats (SWOT) Analysis.

Activity	Strengths	Weaknesses	Opportunities	Threats
Agriculture	– Availability/fertility of soils – Young manpower	– Lack of organization – Market risk – Lack of training	– Willingness to produce – Existing market – Road and railway	– Loss of yield – Encroachment – Conflict
Fishing	– Local Association – Assistance of the government – Database available	– Bad communication – Corruption – No sanitary control – Failure to respect the closure period – Wrong application of the law	– Market – Employment	– Overexploitation – Conflict
Animal rearing	– Pasture – Climate – Young workforce – Sensitization	– Traditional rearing – Transhumance on foot – No breed selection – Under valuation of products	– Market – Employment	– Encroachment – Conflict – Zoonosis – Hostage
Craft	– Resource available	– Lack of knowledge of the resource – Lack of training and promotion	– Employment – Consumer pole	– Loss of culture – Poverty – Conflict

Supplemental Material

sj-xlsx-1-trc-10.1177_19400829211033504 - Supplemental material for Interactions Between People and Nigeria-Cameroon Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes ellioti) Around Mbam-Djerem National Park, Central Cameroon

Supplemental material, sj-xlsx-1-trc-10.1177_19400829211033504 for Interactions Between People and Nigeria-Cameroon Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes ellioti) Around Mbam-Djerem National Park, Central Cameroon by Serge Alexis Kamgang, Kadiri Serge Bobo, Mary Katherine Gonder, Bernard Fosso, Albert Mounga, Roger Corneille Fotso, Bertille Alix N. Ngougni Kenfack and Brice Sinsin in Tropical Conservation Science

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-2-trc-10.1177_19400829211033504 - Supplemental material for Interactions Between People and Nigeria-Cameroon Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes ellioti) Around Mbam-Djerem National Park, Central Cameroon

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-2-trc-10.1177_19400829211033504 for Interactions Between People and Nigeria-Cameroon Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes ellioti) Around Mbam-Djerem National Park, Central Cameroon by Serge Alexis Kamgang, Kadiri Serge Bobo, Mary Katherine Gonder, Bernard Fosso, Albert Mounga, Roger Corneille Fotso, Bertille Alix N. Ngougni Kenfack and Brice Sinsin in Tropical Conservation Science

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

This research was implemented with the generous support of the RSG Foundation, the WWF Russell E. Train Education for Nature and the Garoua Wildlife School through its United States Fish and Wildlife Service capacity-building program to which we are grateful. We thank the Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife for providing the study leave agreement to carry out this study. We are grateful for logistical assistance from the Wildlife Conservation Society, and the Central African Biodiversity Alliance. We also express our gratitude to the local population for their hospitality. In the field, we had help from Eric Teguia, Ruffin Ambahe, Passy Cherelle, Thierry Ambas, and Cyrille Nyemga. Finally, we acknowledge all the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and contribution on the revised manuscript of this paper.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared there is no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. And their relationship with World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) and Rufford Small Grant (RSG) Foundation is purely a donor/grantee relation. This does not hinder their commitment to the editorial policies of Tropical Conservation Science on publishing findings, data, and materials.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was funded by grants awarded to Serge Alexis Kamgang from WWF Russell E. Train Education for Nature (Agreement #ST62) and the RSG Foundation (RSG 13184–1). The founders had no role in study design, data collection, analysis and decision to publish the findings.

ORCID iD

Serge Alexis Kamgang

Supplemental Material

The datasets analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request although some data used are included in this published article as Supplementary Material.

References

Adeola

Ibrahim

Adeola

Alaye

Akande

(2018). Primates associated with crop raiding around Borgu sector of Kainji Lake National Park, Nigeria. World News of Natural Sciences, 18, 223–231.

Aharikundira

Tweheyo

(2011). Human-wildlife conflict and its implication for conservation around Bwindi Impenetrable National Park. In: A. Watson, J. Murrieta-Saldivar, & B. McBride (comps.), Science and stewardship to protect and sustain wilderness values: Ninth World Wilderness Congress symposium, November 6-13, 2009, Merida, Yucatan, Mexico (Proceedings RMRS-P-64; pp. 39-44). US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Beck

Chapman

(2008a). A population estimate of the endangered chimpanzee Pan troglodytes vellerosus in a Nigerian montane Forest: Implications for conservation. Oryx, 42(3), 448–451.

Beck

Chapman

(2008b). Short communication: A population estimate of the Endangered chimpanzee Pan troglodytes vellerosus in a Nigerian montane forest: Implications for conservation. Cambridge University Press.

Bessa

Sousa

Hockings

K. J.

(2015). Feeding ecology of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes verus) inhabiting a forest‐mangrove‐savanna‐agricultural matrix at Caiquene‐Cadique, Cantanhez National Park, Guinea‐Bissau. American Journal of Primatology, 77(6), 651–665. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.22388

Bobo

K. S.

Waltert

Fermon

Njokagbor

Mühlenberg

(2006). From Forest to Farmland: Butterfly diversity and habitat associations along a gradient of forest conversion in Southwestern Cameroon. Journal of Insect Conservation, 10(1), 29–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2011.608219

Bobo

K. S.

Weladji

R. B.

(2011). Wildlife and land use conflicts in the Mbam and Djerem conservation region, Cameroon: Status and mitigation measures. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 16(6), 445–457.

Bortolamiol

(2014). Interactions hommes-chimpanzés-forêt. Approche spatiale et territoriale de la répartition des chimpanzés, des perceptions locales et de la gestion de la biodiversité (Sebitoli, parc national de Kibale, Ouganda). Université Paris Diderot.

Bukie

J. O.

Yager

G. O.

Tsavyange

G. A.

(2018). Wild animal raid on agricultural crops in Katsina-Ala Local Government Area of Benue State, Nigeria. In: Proceedings of 6th NSCB Biodiversity Conference, Uniuyo (49–52 pp).

10.

Cameron

K. N.

Reed

Morgan

D. B.

Ondzié

A. I.

Sanz

C. M.

Kühl

H. S.

Olson

S. H.

Leroy

Karesh

W. B.

Mundry

(2016). Spatial and temporal dynamics of a mortality event among Central African Great Apes. PloS One, 11(5), e0154505

11.

De Wasseige

De Marcken

Bayol

Hiol-Hiol

Mayaux

Desclée

Nasi

Billand

Defourny

Atyi

E. A.

(2012). The forests of the Congo basin: State of the Forest 2010. Publications Office of the European Union.

12.

Dooh

J. N.

Ambang

Bekolo

Heu

Tueguem

W. K.

(2014). Effect of extracts of Thevetia peruviana (Pers.) K. Schum on development of Phytophthora megakarya causal agent of black pod disease of cocoa. Journal of Applied Biosciences, 77(1), 6564–6574.

13.

Doran

(1997). Influence of seasonality on activity patterns, feeding behavior, ranging, and grouping patterns in Tai chimpanzees. International Journal of Primatology, 18(2), 183–206. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026368518431

14.

Dudley

J. P.

Ginsberg

J. R.

Plumptre

A. J.

Hart

J. A.

Campos

L. C.

(2002). Effects of war and civil strife on wildlife and wildlife habitats. Conservation Biology, 16(2), 319–329. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.00306.x

15.

Eniang

Ijeomah

Okeyoyin

Uwatt

(2011). Assessment of human–wildlife conflicts in Filinga range of Gashaka Gumti National Park, Nigeria. Production Agriculture and Technology Journal, 1, 15–35.

16.

Fetters

M. D.

Curry

L. A.

Creswell

J. W.

(2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs—Principles and practices. Health Services Research, 48(6 Pt 2), 2134–2156.

17.

Fosso

B. T., P.

Donkam

Nzouango

Ambahe

(2017). On human responses to climate change in the periphery of Mbam-Djerem National Park – Cameroon – Centre Africa (Survey report, WCS).

18.

Ghimire

K. B.

(1994). Parks and people: Livelihood issues in national parks management in Thailand and Madagascar. Development and Change, 25(1), 195–229. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.1994.tb00514.x

19.

Gonder

M. K.

Disotell

T. R.

Oates

J. F.

(2006). New genetic evidence on the evolution of chimpanzee populations and implications for taxonomy. International Journal of Primatology, 27(4), 1103–1127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10764-006-9063-y

20.

Gonder

M. K.

Oates

J. F.

Disotell

T. R.

Forstner

M. R.

Morales

J. C.

Melnick

D. J.

(1997). A new west African chimpanzee subspecies? Nature, 388(6640), 337

21.

Hayward

M. W.

(2009). The need to rationalize and prioritize threatening processes used to determine threat status in the IUCN Red List. Conservation Biology : The Journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 23(6), 1568–1576.

22.

Hill

C. M.

(2004). Farmers’ perspectives of conflict at the wildlife–agriculture boundary: Some lessons learned from African subsistence farmers. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 9(4), 279–286. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10764-006-9063-y

23.

Hill

C. M.

Wallace

G. E.

(2012). Crop protection and conflict mitigation: Reducing the costs of living alongside non-human primates. Biodiversity and Conservation, 21(10), 2569–2587. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10531-012-0318-y

24.

Hill

C. M.

Webber

A. D.

(2010). Perceptions of nonhuman primates in human–wildlife conflict scenarios. American Journal of Primatology, 72(10), 919–924.

25.

Hockings

K. J.

(2009). Living at the interface: Human–chimpanzee competition, coexistence and conflict in Africa. Interaction Studies, 10(2), 183–205. https://doi.org/10.1075/is.10.2.05hoc

26.

Hockings

K. J.

Anderson

J. R.

Matsuzawa

(2012). Socioecological adaptations by chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes verus, inhabiting an anthropogenically impacted habitat. Animal Behaviour, 83(3), 801–810.

27.

Hockings

K. J.

Sousa

(2013). Human-chimpanzee sympathy and interactions in Canaan National Park, Guinea-Bissau: Current research and future directions. Primate Conservation, 26(1), 57–65. https://doi.org/ 10.1896/052.026.0104

28.

Hockings

K. J.

Yamakoshi

Matsuzawa

(2017). Dispersal of a human-cultivated crop by wild chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes verus) in a Forest–farm matrix. International Journal of Primatology, 38(2), 172–193.

29.

Houinato

Sinsin

(2000). La pression agro-pastorale sur la zone riveraine de la Réserve de la Biosphère de la Pendjari. Tropicultura, 18, 112–117.

30.

Ijeomah

Ogbara

(2013). Challenges of wildlife management in Kainji Lake National Park. Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of Agriculture, Food and Environment, 9, 1–8.

31.

Junker

Petrovan

S. O.

Arroyo-RodrÍguez

Boonratana

Byler

Chapman

C. A.

Chetry

Cheyne

S. M.

Cornejo

F. M.

CortÉs-Ortiz

Cowlishaw

Christie

A. P.

Crockford

Torre

S. D. L.

De Melo

F. R.

Fan

Grueter

C. C.

GuzmÁn-Caro

D. C.

Heymann

E. W.

KÜhl

H. S.

(2020). A severe lack of evidence limits effective conservation of the world's primates. BioScience, 70(9), 794–803. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biaa143

32.

Karidozo

Osborn , F. (2007). Human-elephant conflict trials in Zimbabwe: Can bees deter elephants from raiding crops. In Proceedings of a symposium on mitigating human-elephant conflict: Case studies from Africa and Asia (pp. 29–36)

33.

Kouao

M. L.

Bene

J.-C. K.

Koffi

A. D.

Kouame

B. A.

Kone

(2018). Caractérisation des dégâts provoqués par la faune sauvage à la périphérie de la Forêt des Marais Tanoe-Ehy au Sud-Est de la Côte d’Ivoire. International Journal of Biological and Chemical Sciences, 12(4), 1717–1730. https://doi.org/10.4314/ijbcs.v12i4.16

34.

Last

Muh

(2013). Effects of human presence on chimpanzee nest location in the Lebialem-Moné Forest landscape, southwest region, Cameroon. Folia Primatologica; International Journal of Primatology, 84(1), 51–63. https://doi.org/10.1159/000346305

35.

Littlewood

N. A.

Rocha

Smith

R. K.

Martin

P. K.

Lockhart

S. L.

Schoonover

R. F.

Wilman

Bladon

A. J.

Sainsbury

K. A.

Pimm

(2020). Terrestrial mammal conservation: Global evidence for the effects of interventions for terrestrial mammals excluding bats and primates. Open Book Publishers, https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0234

36.

Maisels

Ambahe

Ambassa

Yara

C. N.

Fosso

(2009). Great ape and human impact monitoring in the Mbam et Djerem National Park, Cameroon (final report to USFWS-GACF Agreement 98210-7-G290). Wildlife Conservation Society.

37.

Maisels

Ambahe

Ambassa

Fotso

(2006). New northwestern range limit of the Northern talapoin, Mbam et Djerem National Park, Cameroon. Primate Conservation, 21, 89–91. https://doi.org/10.1896/0898-6207.21.1.89

38.

Maisels

Bout

Inkamba-Inkulu

Pearson

Aczel

Ambahe

Ambassa

Fotso

(2007). New northwestern and southwestern range limits of De Brazza's Monkey, Mbam Et Djerem National Park, Cameroon, and Bateke Plateau, Gabon and Congo. Primate Conservation, 22(1), 107–110. https://doi.org/10.1896/052.022.0109

39.

Marchal

Hill

(2009). Primate crop-raiding: A study of local perceptions in four villages in North Sumatra, Indonesia. Primate Conservation, 24(1), 107–116.

40.

Mboussi

S. B.

Ambang

Kakam

Bagny Beilhe

(2018). Control of cocoa mirids using aqueous extracts of Thevetia peruviana and Azadirachta indica. Cogent Food & Agriculture, 4(1), 1430470. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2018.1430470

41.

McLennan

M. R.

Ganzhorn

J. U.

(2017). Nutritional characteristics of wild and cultivated foods for chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) in agricultural landscapes. International Journal of Primatology, 38(2), 122–150.

42.

McLennan

M. R.

Hyeroba

Asiimwe

Reynolds

Wallis

(2012). Chimpanzees in mantraps: Lethal crop protection and conservation in Uganda. Oryx, 46(4), 598–603. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605312000592

43.

MINFOF. (2007). Plan d'aménagement du Parc National du Mbam et Djerem et sa zone périphérique 2007–2011.

44.

Mitchard

E. T.

Saatchi

S. S.

Gerard

Lewis

Meir

(2009). Measuring woody encroachment along a Forest-savanna boundary in Central Africa. Earth Interactions, 13(8), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1175/2009EI278.1

45.

Morgan

B. J.

Adeleke

Bassey

Bergl

Dunn

Fotso

Gadsby

Gonder

M. K.

Greengrass

Koulagna

D. K.

(2011). Regional action plan for the conservation of the Nigeria–Cameroon chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes ellioti). IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group and Zoological Society of San Diego.

46.

Mwakatobe

Nyahongo

Ntalwila

Roskaft

(2014). The impact of crop raiding by wild animals in communities surrounding the Serengeti National Park. Tanzania. International Journal of Biodiversity and Conservation, 6, 637–646. https://doi.org/10.5897/ijbc2014.0753.

47.

Nellemann

C., R.

Henriksen

Raxter

, Ash, and E., & Mrema, (2014). The environmental crime crisis: Threats to sustainable development from illegal exploitation and trade in wildlife and Forest resources. United Nations Environment Programme.

48.

Oates

J. F.

Doumbe

Dunn

Gonder

M. K.

Ikemeh

Imong

Morgan

B. J.

Ogunjemite

Sommer

(2016). Pan troglodytes ssp. ellioti. The IUCN Red List of threatened species. 2016: e.T40014A17990330.

49.

Ogunjobi

Adeola

(2016). Wild vertebrates associated with crop raiding around Kainji Lake National Park, Nigeria. Applied Tropical Agriculture, 21, 138–142.

50.

Petrovan

Junker

Wordley

Kühl

Orth

Smith

Sutherland

(2018). Evidence-Based synopsis of interventions, a new tool in primate conservation and research. International Journal of Primatology, 39(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10764-018-0017-y

51.

Ringo

Kaswamila

(2014). Effectiveness of a general management plan in mitigating human-wildlife conflicts and enhancing conservation: A case study of Wami-mbiki wildlife management areas. Tanzania. International Journal of Environment and Bioenergy, 9, 44–55.

52.

Sesink Clee

P. R.

Abwe

E. E.

Ambahe

R. D.

Anthony

N. M.

Fotso

Locatelli

Maisels

Mitchell

M. W.

Morgan

B. J.

Pokempner

A. A.

Gonder

M. K.

(2015). Chimpanzee population structure in Cameroon and Nigeria is associated with habitat variation that may be lost under climate change. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 15(1), 1–13.

53.

Sillero-Zubiri

Laurenson

M. K.

(2001). Interactions between carnivores and local communities: Conflict or co-existence? In Gittleman

J. L.

Funk

S. M.

Macdonald

D. W.

Wayne

R. K.

(Eds), Carnivore conservation (pp. 282–312). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12117

54.

Sillero-Zubiri

Switzer

D. K.

(2001). Crop raiding primates in Tanzania. Searching for alternative, humane ways to resolve conflict with farmers in Africa. Wildlife conservation research unit. University of Oxford.

55.

Teel

T. L.

Manfredo

M. J.

Jensen

F. S.

Buijs

A. E.

Fischer

Riepe

Arlinghaus

Jacobs

M. H.

(2010). Understanding the cognitive basis for human-wildlife relationships as a key to successful protected-area management. International Journal of Sociology, 40(3), 104–123. https://doi.org/10.2753/IJS0020-7659400306

56.

Treves

Naughton-Treves

(2005). Evaluating lethal control in the management of human-wildlife conflict. Conservation Biology Series-Cambridge, 9, 86.

57.

Treves

Wallace

R. B.

Naughton-Treves

Morales

(2006). Co-managing human–wildlife conflicts: A review. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 11(6), 383–396. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871200600984265

58.

Tsakem

S. C.

Tchamba

Weladji

R. B.

(2015). Les gorilles du Parc National de Lobéké (Cameroun): Interactions avec les populations locales et implications pour la conservation. International Journal of Biological and Chemical Sciences, 9(1), 270–280. https://doi.org/10.4314/ijbcs.v9i1.24

59.

Warren

(2003). Olive baboons (Papio cynocephalus anubis): Behaviour, ecology and human conflict in Gashaka Gumti National Park, Nigeria. Roehampton University.

60.

Weladji

R. B.

Moe

S. R.

Vedeld

(2003). Stakeholder attitudes towards wildlife policy and the Benoue Wildlife Conservation area, North Cameroon. Environmental Conservation, 30(4), 334–343. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892903000353

61.

Weladji

R. B.

Tchamba

M. N.

(2003). Conflict between people and protected areas within the Bénoué Wildlife Conservation Area, North Cameroon. Oryx, 37(01), 72–79. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605303000140

62.

White

(1993). The AETFAT chorological classification of Africa: History, methods and applications. Bulletin du Jardin Botanique National de Belgique/Bulletin Van de National Plantentuin Van België, 62(1/4), 225–281.

63.

Woodroffe

Thirdgood

Rabinowitz

(2005). The impact of human–wildlife conflict on natural systems. People and Wildlife, Conflict or Co-Existence?, 9, 1.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.46 MB

0.03 MB