|
by
John Nelson, Justin Kenrick and Dorothy Jackson
May 2001
Contents
Executive
summary
1
Background
2
Methods and activities
3
Findings
3.1
Access to information
3.1.1 Biased
baseline studies informing IPP and CP
3.1.2 Lack
of basic information amongst the Bagyeli and other groups
3.2
Compensation measures
3.2.1 Uncompensated
damage to forest resources
3.2.2 Relocation
of Bagyeli Communities
3.2.3 Damage
to sacred sites
3.2.4 Lack
of access by Bagyeli to wider compensation plan
3.3
Development Programmes devised for the Bagyeli
3.3.1 Agriculture
3.3.2 Education
3.4
Inequality and discrimination
3.4.1 Land
and resource rights
3.4.2 Land
expropriation
3.4.3 Identity
cards.
4
Conclusions
5
Recommendations
6
Bibliography
Executive Summary
This
report reviews the activities and main findings generated during
a participative consultation by the Forest Peoples Project (FPP)
with members of Bagyeli 'Pygmy' communities in south-west Cameroon
affected by the Chad-Cameroon oil pipeline project. Approval for
this project was given in spite of major concerns raised by civil
society concerning the potential negative impacts of the project
on the poorest people of Chad and Cameroon, including the Bagyeli.
The purpose of the recent consultation by FPP was to enable the
Bagyeli community to articulate their concerns and aspirations,
and to support them to identify capacity-building measures needed
to enable them to gain access to the decision-making processes,
and participate effectively in the shaping of the pipeline project.
The
consultation for this project took a grass-roots approach. Intensive
consultations were carried out with affected Bagyeli communities
between Lolodorf and Kribi during two field visits in February and
March 2001. Forty-two Bagyeli from 10 camps were consulted and discussions
held with 29 other key stakeholders, including the World Bank country
office, the Societé National des Hydrocarbures (SNH) in Yaoundé,
COTCO consultants and field managers, and other involved agencies
such as Tropenbos at Kribi and the Cameroonian NGO Centre for Environment
and Development in Yaoundé. The names of local informants have not
been included in this report for their protection.
This
work concluded that there is a lack of information access throughout
the project’s institutional framework, with major information gaps
about Bagyeli livelihood systems amongst COTCO staff and consultants,
and about the pipeline project amongst the Bagyeli. Inadequate consultation,
poor communication between stakeholders and a lack of informed participation
by all parties, particularly the Bagyeli who are one of the key
stakeholders, has caused confusion at all levels about the construction
of the pipeline and the compensation process. Problems with the
lack of information stem partly from the inadequate consultation
carried out to prepare the pipeline’s Indigenous Peoples Plan (IPP)
and the Compensation Plan (CP), but also from the daily discrimination
faced by the Bagyeli from Bantu farmers and local government structures.
During
the FPP consultation the Bagyeli stated that the IPP consultation
process, which was supposed to ensure the informed participation
of the Bagyeli in the elaboration of the Indigenous Peoples Plan,
did not make culturally appropriate space for meaningful dialogue
between baseline study consultation teams and the Bagyeli. Our evidence
reveals that this process did not allow for their informed participation
in the consultation process.
The
FPP consultation revealed that at the local level, Bagyeli people
lack fundamental information about the pipeline project that should
have been made available during the consultation period during the
development of the IPP and CP. This was a very surprising finding,
given the language of the background studies, the IPP, and the World
Bank’s Indigenous Peoples Policy (OD 4.20) which stresses the requirement
for informed participation by local communities. Questions that
are still unanswered for the Bagyeli affected by the pipeline project
start with very basic issues, including, for example:
- What is the pipeline?
- Who is due compensation and for what?
- What are the processes for claiming
compensation or appealing concerning the lack of compensation?
These
are questions that Bagyeli are still posing today, long after the
pipeline route has been established and compensation has already
been agreed and handed out in their area.
Because
of the Bagyeli's weaker economic and political position vis-à-vis
their Bantu neighbours, their lands are vulnerable to expropriation
by them. With the advent of compensation measures based on land
tenure, Bantu have been able to use their greater knowledge of the
pipeline process and their prior dominance over the Bagyeli to claim
Bagyeli lands as their own and thus capture compensation rightfully
due to Bagyeli.
Typically,
Bagyeli community members were not aware when the pipeline was coming
to their area, or, initially, where it was crossing their lands.
In contrast, Bantu community members did know this information and
were able to capture compensation payments for damage to Bagyeli
lands by claiming those lands as their own. This has led to a progressive
erosion of Bagyeli land rights, and is the most serious negative
impact of the pipeline project on the Bagyeli thus far.
At
other levels of the hierarchy leading up to COTCO headquarters in
Douala, there is poor information or contradictory knowledge about
particular aspects of the project. These include: the impacts of
the project on Bagyeli land tenure and usage; which NGOs are working
with Bagyeli and where; the timing of the project implementation;
whether or not any Bagyeli have received any compensation; and the
appeals process for unresolved compensation claims.
The
failure to take account of Bagyeli customary land rights and resource
use has skewed the pipeline compensation process from the outset,
and the customary land tenure system upon which Bagyeli livelihoods
are based does not appear to be recognised in either the IPP or
CP.
No
Bagyeli have so far received individual compensation by the pipeline
project. COTCO managers responsible for implementing the compensation
process and those responsible for drawing up the IPP assert that
no Bagyeli have received individual compensation because COTCO deliberately
ensured that the pipeline did not cross Bagyeli lands or sacred
sites. However, evidence collected during this consultation shows
that the pipeline crosses Bagyeli land at least five times in the
Bipindi area, will have serious negative impacts on Bagyeli forest
resources, has required some Bagyeli to move the location of their
camps, and threatens sacred sites. More seriously, the pipeline
project is causing the erosion of Bagyeli land rights and this is
undermining their livelihood system.
Regional
compensation also forms part of the overall compensation plan, and
is supposed to fill in the gaps left by the process of compensating
individual loss. However, the regional compensation plan in the
area under consideration by this report will be entirely controlled
by the Bantu. Given the inequalities between Bantu and Bagyeli,
the regional compensation process is likely to favour the Bantu
community while excluding the Bagyeli community.
For
both individual and regional compensation, there is an emphasis
on the provision of compensation to mitigate losses for those relying
on the livelihood system predominantly used by Bantu communities,
i.e. one based primarily on agriculture. These measures are a totally
inadequate form of compensation for those relying primarily upon
a hunting and gathering-based livelihood system.
The
IPP development programmes are intended to benefit Bagyeli directly,
but in fact have not addressed the needs expressed by the Bagyeli
to FPP during the recent consultation. While the IPP states that
Bagyeli need agricultural education and training, the Bagyeli have
determined that they need to have security of land tenure over their
agricultural land, and long-term protection for their customary
rights to forest resources.
In
conclusion, FPP’s community consultation exercise revealed that
basic elements of good governance, including informed participation,
transparency, fairness and accountability are being undermined by
the pipeline project, causing increased marginalisation of the Bagyeli
within civil society in Cameroon.
Future
investments to help the Bagyeli overcome this situation should concentrate
on enabling them to overcome these key constraints, and supporting
their wish to participate fully in Cameroon civil society without
giving up their way of life. This means that mechanisms need to
be developed to ensure that Bagyeli rights to their lands and way
of life are recognised by wider society.
Key measures needed to move the project
in the direction of improving conditions for the Bagyeli are:
- increasing the informed participation
by Bagyeli communities in future pipeline consultation processes
and wider issues;
- building the information base, skills,
and institutional capacity of the Bagyeli to protect their interests
and engage effectively with Bantu communities, local authorities
and other sectors of civil society;
- developing mechanisms for constructive
involvement of Bagyeli in national policy development, reform
and implementation
This report reviews
the activities and main findings generated during a participative
consultation by the Forest Peoples Project (FPP) with members of
Bagyeli 'Pygmy' communities in south-west Cameroon affected by the
Chad-Cameroon oil pipeline project, which crosses the lands of Bagyeli
communities between Lolodorf and Kribi in SW Cameroon. This pipeline
construction project was devised by a consortium of oil companies
and is being partially funded by the International Finance Corporation
(IFC), a World Bank Group member. The project was approved by the
World Bank in June 2000. The actual construction of the oil pipeline
is planned to commence in November 2001, although preliminary work
to mark out and clear the pipeline route is already underway.
Approval for this project
was given in spite of major concerns raised by civil society concerning
the potential negative impacts of the project on the poorest people
of Chad and Cameroon, including the Bagyeli. An Indigenous Peoples
Plan (IPP) was commissioned by the project managers, the Cameroon
Oil Transportation Company (COTCO), in order to identify and help
mitigate the negative social impacts of the pipeline's construction
and operation on both the Bagyeli and their Bantu neighbours. However,
this plan did not fully address certain fundamental issues required
under the terms of the World Bank’s Indigenous Peoples Policy (OD
4.20), namely that:
- there is a clear borrower government
commitment to adhere to the World Bank’s policy
- acceptable mechanisms are in place to
ensure indigenous participation in the full project cycle
- an Indigenous Peoples’ Component
is developed which
- makes an assessment of the national
legal framework regarding indigenous peoples
- provides baseline data about the
indigenous peoples to be affected
- establishes a mechanism for the
legal recognition of indigenous peoples’ rights, especially
tenure rights
- includes sub-components in health
care, education, legal assistance and institution building
- provides for capacity-building of
the government agency dealing with indigenous peoples
- establishes a clear schedule
for fitting actions related to indigenous peoples into the
overall project, with a clear and adequate budget
- final contracts and disbursements
are conditional on government compliance with these measures.
Mitigation measures
have been drawn up by COTCO based on baseline studies carried out
to inform both the IPP and the Compensation Plan (CP) which are
sub-components of the pipeline’s Environmental Management Plan.
These measures are being implemented through a compensation programme
at the present time, and further mitigation measures are envisaged
in the form of the development projects (relating to health, education
and agriculture) proposed in the IPP.
The consultation exercise
upon which COTCO’s IPP and CP have been based was criticised by
the Bagyeli and NGOs for not adequately taking the views and aspirations
of the Bagyeli community into consideration. In addition, fundamental
issues of Bagyeli customary land tenure and resource use, and deep-seated
inequalities between project ‘beneficiaries’ have not been addressed
during project preparation. There is a significant risk that, under
the current project conceptualisation and institutional framework,
activities carried out by COTCO with the intention of benefiting
the Bagyeli communities could in fact do the reverse.
The purpose of the
recent consultation by the Forest Peoples Project was to support
the Bagyeli community to articulate their concerns and aspirations,
and to assist them to identify capacity-building measures needed
to enable them to gain access to the decision-making processes,
and participate effectively in the shaping of the pipeline project.
In addition, this work forms the basis for the preparation of a
full funding proposal to DFID’s Civil Society Challenge Fund which
will include capacity building measures to enable the Bagyeli to
influence both the IPP and the way the project will be implemented
on the ground.
The consultation for
this project took a grass-roots approach. Intensive consultations
were carried out with affected Bagyeli communities between Lolodorf
and Kribi during two field visits in February and March 2001. Forty-two
Bagyeli from 10 camps were consulted. Between the two trips a local
support NGO, Planet Survey, carried out further work to identify
key areas of concern, to identify individual cases of Bagyeli lands
affected by the pipeline construction and to begin to map some of
these areas. The community consultations took the form of individual
interviews in Bagyeli homes, field surveys of portions of the pipeline
route with Bagyeli people, group interviews with the Bagyeli communities,
a meeting in Bipindi of Bagyeli from several camps, and individual
interviews with key Bantu informants and local officials.
In total, FPP staff
made contact with 29 other key stakeholders, including the World
Bank country office, the Societé National des Hydrocarbures (SNH)
in Yaoundé, COTCO consultants and field managers (both at Lolodorf
and Kribi), and other involved agencies such as Tropenbos at Kribi
and the Cameroonian NGO Centre for Environment and Development in
Yaoundé. The consultations ended with a meeting in the Cameroon
capital, Yaoundé, between the World Bank Representative for Cameroon,
a senior representative of COTCO, four representatives of the Bagyeli
community and NGO representatives from Planet Survey and the Centre
for Environment and Development, where the main findings of the
consultation were shared and further information was gathered.
The consultation exercise
was organised and implemented, in conjunction with local partners,
by experienced FPP staff, including an anthropologist with extensive
knowledge and experience of Pygmy culture and livelihood systems,
and an economist with long experience with natural resource management
policies and issues affecting smallholder livelihood systems in
francophone Africa.
The advantage of FPP's
approach to the community consultations undertaken was that they
were founded upon discussions with the Bagyeli in order to gain
an understanding of their perception of the events related to the
pipeline consultation and project implementation. These findings
were complemented by discussions with many of the other key stakeholders,
and by factual information gained from background project documents
and the IPP. The community-based approach taken allowed FPP to compare
and contrast Bagyeli perceptions and aspirations concerning the
pipeline project with what was actually supposed to take place,
as set out in World Bank guidance and the IPP.
There is inadequate
information access throughout the project’s institutional framework,
with major information gaps about Bagyeli livelihood systems amongst
COTCO staff and consultants, and about the pipeline project amongst
the Bagyeli. Inadequate consultation, poor communication between
stakeholders and a lack of informed participation by all parties,
particularly the Bagyeli who are one of the key stakeholders, has
caused confusion at all levels about the construction of the pipeline
and the compensation process. Problems with the lack of information
stem partly from the inadequate consultation carried out to prepare
the IPP and CP, but also from the daily discrimination faced by
the Bagyeli from Bantu farmers and local government structures.
During the FPP consultation
the Bagyeli stated that the IPP consultation process, which was
ostensibly conducted to ensure the informed participation of the
Bagyeli in the elaboration of the Indigenous Peoples Plan, did not
in fact allow for their informed participation or for an evaluation
of whether the pipeline would adversely affect them. Instead it
appeared to them to be an attempt at information dissemination,
but one that did not communicate a clear picture of what the pipeline
would involve, what the positive and negative effects might be,
or what the process of compensation would mean. Most crucially,
the Bagyeli made clear to us that the consultation process for the
IPP and CP did not make culturally appropriate space for meaningful
dialogue between baseline study consultation teams and the Bagyeli.
These criticisms of the original baseline studies conducted to elaborate
the IPP were originally made by the Bagyeli at a workshop on the
World Bank’s Indigenous Peoples Policy, attended by indigenous representatives
and World Bank staff in Washington DC in May 2000 Planet Survey
and CODEBABIK 2000; Griffiths and Colchester 2000).
One of the reasons
given by the Bagyeli for the inadequacy of the baseline studies,
the consultations, data collection and analysis which informed the
IPP and CP, was that much of the research on the ground was carried
out by Cameroonian researchers who belong to the same local Bantu
groups who dominate and exploit the Bagyeli (see below), and was
therefore culturally biased.
From our discussions and analysis we concluded
that the IPP consultation teams:
- did not provide a clear analysis of
Bantu-Bagyeli relations;
- did not understand the Bagyeli livelihood
system and social organisation;
- did not recognise how established patterns
of discrimination against Bagyeli would influence the implementation
of the pipeline compensation process, and;
- when drawing up IPP compensation proposals,
did not address the Bagyeli communities' own livelihood aspirations
(which differ from those of the neighbouring Bantu).
The IPP document notes
that 'Before visiting a Bakola [Bagyeli] Pygmy settlement, the consultation
team met with the chief of the Bantu village associated with the
Bakola Pygmy settlement as a courtesy and in recognition of the
special relationship between the Bakola Pygmies and the Bantu villagers.'
(IPP 2-3). The problematic nature of this ‘special relationship’,
and its implications for conducting culturally appropriate research,
is not addressed by the IPP. Instead it appears from the IPP that
local Bantu villagers were always present, whether as researchers
or translators, when the consultation team met with the Bagyeli.
An indication of cultural
insensitivity is the fact that the IPP refers to the Bagyeli as
Bakola, even though in this region the Bagyeli refer to themselves,
and are referred to by their neighbours, as Bagyeli not as Bakola.
Biesbrouck, who has conducted fieldwork in this area, writes that
'Whereas Loung argues that Bakola is the correct name for the entire
group of foragers in the coastal area of Cameroon, I have deliberately
chosen to use the term BaGyeli as it is the word by which the vast
majority of my informants indicated the group to which they felt
they belonged' (Berg and Biesbrouck 2000: 190, fn 2). This report
likewise refers to the Bagyeli by the name they use and prefer.
FPP’s consultation
revealed that at the local level, Bagyeli people lack fundamental
information about the pipeline project that should have been made
available during the consultation period during the development
of the IPP and CP. This was a very surprising finding, given the
language of the background studies, the IPP, and the World Bank’s
OD 4.20 which stresses the requirement for informed participation
by local communities.
Questions that are
still unanswered for the Bagyeli affected by the pipeline project
start with very basic issues, including, for example:
- What is the pipeline?
- Who is due compensation and for what?
- What are the processes for claiming
compensation or for appeals concerning the lack of compensation?
These are questions
that Bagyeli are still posing today, long after the pipeline route
has been established and compensation has already been agreed and
handed out in their area.
Typically, Bagyeli
community members are not aware when the pipeline is coming to their
area, or, initially, where it will cross their lands. In contrast,
many Bantu community members have received this information, usually
well in advance, enabling local Bantu to capture compensation payments
for damage to Bagyeli lands, by claiming those lands as their own
(see section 3.4). This erosion of Bagyeli land rights is the most
serious negative impact of the pipeline project on the Bagyeli thus
far.
At other levels of
the hierarchy leading up to COTCO headquarters in Douala, there
is poor information or contradictory knowledge about particular
aspects of the project. These include: the impacts of the project
on Bagyeli land tenure and usage; which NGOs are working with Bagyeli
and where; the timing of the project implementation; whether or
not any Bagyeli have received any compensation; and the appeals
process for unresolved compensation claims. The following examples
are given to illustrate this basic lack of information, lack of
communication, and confusion.
FPP’s consultations
established that
- the pipeline crosses Bagyeli lands and
that it has a negative impact upon Bagyeli livelihood systems
(see below), facts unrecognised by local project field managers.
- the COTCO socio-economic supervisor
for the pipeline project (to whom FPP was directed for information
by senior COTCO staff) was unaware of the activities of the NGO
Planet Survey in the pipeline zone. However, Planet Survey has
worked with Bagyeli communities in the pipeline zone for the past
five years, and representatives of the NGO accompanied Bagyeli
to Washington DC in May 2000 to attend a workshop with World Bank
representatives and members of the IPP consultation team.
- Bagyeli community members in the pipeline
zone were unaware when pipeline construction would begin and exactly
what construction would entail, while COTCO field managers had
exact information about these details.
- some senior COTCO representatives genuinely
believed that Bagyeli community members had received individual
compensation, while we were able to establish, by talking to Bagyeli
and local COTCO staff, that no Bagyeli had or were likely to receive
individual compensation for damage to their land caused by the
pipeline construction. This fact was subsequently confirmed to
us by senior consultants involved in the elaboration of the IPP.
- there is great confusion over the appeals
process for unresolved compensation claims: some COTCO staff and
local authorities believed that there would be no further claims,
while others thought that new claims could be lodged.
These examples underline
the important fact that information flows between Bagyeli and those
involved in the planning and implementation of the pipeline project
have remained consistently poor or non-existent. At present there
are no clear lines of communication between COTCO and the Bagyeli
community. The consultation FPP carried out provided an exceptional
opportunity for Bagyeli and COTCO staff to exchange information
and views.
Compensation should
be based on the rights and resources of affected peoples, however
the failure to take account of Bagyeli customary land rights and
resource use has skewed the pipeline compensation process from the
outset. Bagyeli livelihood systems, as in most other ‘Pygmy’ groups
in Central Africa, are primarily based around gathering and hunting
in the forest, but include some agriculture. These are systems that
are widely recognised at the local level, but are also exploited
by the more politically and economically powerful Bantu, who are
the local neighbours of the Bagyeli.
No Bagyeli have so
far received individual compensation by the pipeline project, even
though the pipeline’s route crosses Bagyeli lands and encroaches
on their sacred sites. The pipeline also undermines Bagyeli livelihoods,
because it causes direct damage to their forest resources and is
associated with a compensation plan which has allowed Bagyeli land
to be claimed by Bantu seeking to benefit from the compensation
process (see section 3.4).
According to the IPP,
the team carrying out the baseline survey asked the Bagyeli about
the pipeline’s impact on wildlife, and were told that the Bagyeli
believed that these would only be temporary (i.e. for the duration
of the construction period) (IPP 2-4). Consequently the IPP and
CP focussed solely on compensation for agricultural land. However,
FPP’s community consultations revealed a very different picture,
in which Bagyeli have a much greater range of concerns about the
possible consequences of the pipeline on their resource base. Their
concerns include fears about the potential impact of oil spillages
and about the disruption to wildlife, not only during the construction
period, and as a consequence of the clearance of a 30 meter wide
band of forest along the entire pipeline route, but also afterwards
during pipeline monitoring. There are also fears about the impact
of hunting by COTCO workers for personal consumption, or worse,
for the commercial bush meat trade. The Bagyeli clearly expressed
their misgivings that the pipeline construction is one more step
in an ongoing process that involves outsiders claiming and taking
over control of their forest lands, further undermining their livelihood
system.
COTCO managers responsible
for implementing the compensation process and those responsible
for drawing up the IPP agree that no Bagyeli have received individual
compensation. The reason they gave is that they deliberately ensured
that the pipeline did not cross Bagyeli lands or sacred sites. One
manager stated: 'The route of the pipeline was made with the intention
of avoiding the Pygmy camps. . . So we haven’t compensated any.
Not one Pygmy camp has been compensated in my zone. I have never
heard of a Bagyeli saying that the pipeline has passed through their
field.'
However, evidence collected
during FPP’s consultation shows that the pipeline route already
impacts on Bagyeli communities: the pipeline crosses Bagyeli land
at least five times in the Bipindi area, has required some Bagyeli
to move the location of their camps, and threatens sacred sites.
The IPP states that
during visits to Bagyeli communities to explain the pipeline project
'...issues of concern to the Bakola Pygmies and the Bantu villagers
were discussed. Their main worry was not to be resettled and that
graves would not be moved. They were reassured that all important
and irreplaceable sites (such as villages, houses, graves, and sacred
sites) would be avoided and spared, and that sufficient compensation
would be paid to replace useful plants and crops and start new fields.'
(IPP 2-3). These intentions are not being fulfilled; some illustrative
examples follow.
From an outsider's
perspective the actual numbers of trees that be will cut along the
pipeline easement are few, when compared to the forest that will
remain. However, many Bagyeli believe that this opening up of the
forest, which is happening without their consent, is part of a longer-term
destructive process which continues to erode their customary land
rights and livelihood systems.
During FPP’s consultation
Bagyeli expressed their fears that the construction of the pipeline
will lead to a more permanent destruction of important forest areas,
and that the opening up of the forest will cause an increase in
outsiders coming to the forest to hunt. The Bagyeli pointed out
that these long-term and indirect impacts on the Bagyeli are not
recognised in the compensation process. One Bagyeli said:
We
live by the hunt but we get nothing for the destruction of the
forest. They pay compensation only according to the way of life
of the Myi [Bantu]. That which is paid to the Myi is not paid
to the Bagyeli.
As one COTCO field
manager noted, although it is against company policy for COTCO workers
to hunt bush meat, the company cannot control what they do out of
uniform in their own time. Given that 140 of the workers constructing
the pipeline recently went on strike because of their poor pay and
conditions, it is very likely that pipeline workers will seek additional
sources of income by turning to hunting and the sale of bushmeat.
The negative impacts on the resource base of local populations caused
by an increase in commercial bushmeat hunting by outsiders moving
into an area (e.g. logging camps), have been well documented in
other Central African locations. The potential negative impacts
of this type of activity by pipeline workers is also mentioned in
background documents prepared by COTCO.
Bagyeli medical specialists
pointed out that the route of the pipeline will destroy some areas
which contain irreplaceable medicinal plants (for example, in areas
west of Bipindi), which – like sacred sites – cannot be adequately
compensated for. Indeed, compensation for such areas has not been
considered. One renowned healer commented:
When
the pipeline destroys the medicinal trees, it will destroy everything.
I am a healer; I don’t use the medicines of the hospital. I was
born in the forest, I live in the forest, I will die in the forest.
I live from the forest – the pipeline destroys the forest by which
I live.
It is notable that
villagers are compensated for damage to forest products such as
wild mango trees (statement by one of the COTCO managers responsible
for implementing the compensation process) but the disruption to
Bagyeli livelihoods has been framed as ‘temporary’ (see above under
3.2) and so they are not compensated for loss or damage to the non-timber
forest products they rely on.
FPP
‘s consultation revealed at least three cases of Bagyeli communities
that have been relocated as a direct result of the pipeline. In
a Bagyeli community west of Bipindi, a Bagyeli man said:
They
told us to move camp because the pipeline would pass through here.
The white man of the pipeline told us we had to move and that
we would get compensation. They asked ‘What do you want for moving
camp?’ We had to build houses, etc., so we asked for money for
that. But the Myi [Bantu] who had already moved us out had already
taken the compensation.
His sister added:
The Bagyeli work on the pipeline
and the Myi take the wages. The monkey travels on high, but the
chimpanzee takes what the monkey finds. I don’t want to talk of
the pipeline, because the pipeline makes the Myi take from us.
The pipeline will impact
on at least one sacred site. A sacred tree on a so-called ‘island’(3
sides of which are bordered by rivers) south east of Bipindi, will
be cut down when the land is cleared for 15 metres either side of
the pipeline. The tree is well known as a sacred site where Bagyeli
make offerings on behalf of Bagyeli and Bantu who are ill or afflicted
by sorcery. It is notable that the Bagyeli ritual specialist and
guardian of this tree does not receive any recompense for his services,
since villagers making offerings only give gifts to the Bantu chief,
and the Bantu chief orders the Bagyeli specialist to conduct the
ritual. If the tree is cut down the Bagyeli ritual specialist wishes
to receive compensation reflecting the years of service he has given
to local communities without remuneration.
Regional compensation
also forms part of the overall compensation plan, and is supposed
to fill in the gaps left by the process of compensating individual
loss. The regional compensation plan and the individual compensation
plan, whilst alluded to in the IPP, actually form part of the Compensation
Plan component of the overall Environmental Management Plan (EMP).
The IPP, which is simply another component of the EMP, does not
deal directly with the compensation of the indigenous people affected
by the pipeline, although it does make provisions for development
work with Bagyeli communities (see 3.3 below).
One COTCO manager explained
that it was through this village-based regional compensation mechanism
that the needs of the Bagyeli would be addressed. However, the regional
compensation plan covers the provision of educational, health and
agricultural materials to the 234-237 villages listed by COTCO as
being located along the pipeline, and is negotiated between the
village authorities and COTCO. In the area under consideration by
this report the regional compensation process will be entirely controlled
by the Bantu. Given the inequalities between Bantu and Bagyeli,
the regional compensation process is likely to favour the Bantu
community while excluding the Bagyeli community.
For both individual
and regional compensation, there is an emphasis on the provision
of compensation to mitigate losses for those relying on the livelihood
system predominantly used by Bantu communities. Compensation for
lost crops and fields, along with the provision of agricultural
supplies, has been useful to those facing damage to crops and fields,
and who will need to re-establish lost cultivation elsewhere. However,
apart from the fact that this compensation process has itself led
to the dispossession of Bagyeli lands (see section 3.4 below), these
measures are a totally inadequate form of compensation for those
relying primarily upon hunting and gathering-based livelihood systems.
Notwithstanding the fact that Bagyeli practice some agriculture,
what political and economic autonomy the Bagyeli have been able to retain in their dealings
with their Bantu neighbours stems from their access to forest resources
– either for subsistence or exchange. The undermining of this autonomy
due to the pipeline construction and erosion of Bagyeli forest resources
was not recognised as significant during the baseline research carried
out for the IPP and CP.
According to one of
the COTCO managers: 'Pygmies are not included in the individual
compensation plan so we have the IPP which has 3 parts: agriculture
and education (which are 100% for Pygmies) and health clinics (which
are for Pygmies and Bantu).' These measures in the IPP are separate
from the regional compensation measures outlined above which are
aimed at whole villages and not specifically at the Bagyeli. The
IPP’s development programmes are intended to benefit Bagyeli directly,
but in fact have not addressed the needs expressed by the Bagyeli
to FPP during the recent consultation.
The IPP document appears
to be partially based upon the assumption that the best way of helping
the Bagyeli is to encourage them to change their livelihood system,
that is, to move Bagyeli away from gathering and hunting towards
becoming fulltime agriculturalists. One of the few places in the
IPP document where the nature of the relationship between the Bantu
and the Bagyeli is alluded to is in what appears to be a rhetorical
question 'Are the Pygmies obliged to be subservient to the Bantu
villagers or do they have to adopt agriculture themselves in order
to survive?' (IPP 4-2).
The emphasis on agriculture
in the IPP is framed in terms which assume that the Bagyeli must
adopt their neighbours’ lifestyle in order to ‘develop’. There appears
to have been no effective consultation with the Bagyeli to ascertain
what it is they actually need or want. The assumption commonly made
by outsiders is that the ‘backwardness’ of the Bagyeli is a major
problem for them, whereas the main problem Bagyeli identified during
FPP’s consultation process was their marginalisation within civil
society and lack of land rights. While the IPP states that Bagyeli
need agricultural education and training, the Bagyeli have determined
that they need to have security of land tenure over their agricultural
land, and long-term protection for their customary rights to forest
resources. As one Bagyeli, who cultivates fields near the road,
said
We who live by the road have
the problem of land. We need title for our land.
Another said:
We live by the hunt but we get
nothing for the destruction of the forest.
It is widely recognised
amongst anthropologists that Central African hunter gatherers have
a good diet and are able to engage in reasonably equal exchange
relations with their Bantu neighbours as long as they are still
able to maintain a good degree of autonomy and are able to gather
and hunt in the forest (as well as often working small fields themselves).
A similar point is noted in the IPP document itself when it says:
'…although the diet of the populations that live in the forest environment
is on the whole satisfactory, it is those societies that are changing
(Pygmies towards sedentarization) who manifest insufficiencies on
a nutritional level.' (IPP B-4). The emphasis on agriculture in
the IPP contrasts with this view and with the Bagyeli’s own long-term
interests.
It is still unclear
how the educational component of the IPP will actually work. The
emphasis in the IPP document is on the use of literacy classes for
the adult populations in Bagyeli settlements. This may well be useful,
although it is not something the Bagyeli asked for according to
the IPP document where they requested education for their children
(IPP 3-12) nor was it something Bagyeli mentioned to FPP. It is
questionable whether education initiatives will simply reproduce
a Bantu dominance and whether they will be sensitive to Bagyeli
culture and needs.
3.4
Inequality and discrimination
Almost all land in
the area used by Bantu and Bagyeli is untitled, and subject to customary
land tenure rules that have been in operation for decades. The rights
of access and use are mutually recognised by Bantu and Bagyeli,
and it is this recognition that has, at least in the past, led to
a balance between these two communities who rely on very different
economic systems to secure their livelihoods.
The Bantu rely mainly
upon agriculture in areas cleared of forest to secure their income,
and they engage in capital investments in houses and other storage
buildings. The majority of Bagyeli rely mainly upon hunting, gathering
and cultivating in the forest, and periodically move their hunting
camps. They do not make significant cash-based investments in capital
assets. Bagyeli forest resources management requires long-term investment
in social networks, which confer user rights for particular areas
and resources, and also form the basis for the generation and transmission
of indigenous knowledge about the use and management of forest resources.
Bagyeli customary law
allocates collective access to forest resources through residential
units linked through the base camp, village, or through kinship,
which often result in complex networks of mutual
rights stretching over considerable distances. When Bagyeli move
to a distant area, they usually choose one that is near to their
kin, where they can make use of this web of rights to forest resources.
There are parallels between Bagyeli and Bantu customary property
regimes since – from a Bantu perspective – Bagyeli have become
incorporated into the clans of their Bantu ‘patrons’ and Bagyeli
base camps are considered a division of the nearby Bantu village.
In principle, villagers and Bagyeli may use the same forest space
and resources, although in practice the Bantu tend to use secondary
forest, fallow land and cacao plantations more, rather than the
high forest (forest which has not been turned over to cultivation,
i.e. not field or fallow) preferred by the Bagyeli.
The perception of geographical
scope of rights differs between Bagyeli and Bantu. For the Bantu
the whole of the non-forest cultivated area is considered common
property to which villagers have priority of access. From a Bantu
perspective, each of the different Bagyeli base camps associated
with one village has rights only to specific areas of high forest
associated with that base camp, not to the whole forest area.
For the Bagyeli, it
is possible to have access to all of the high forest, as long as
they are able to ‘be on good terms’ with others, and so maintain
their right to use neighbouring areas of forest. Boundaries in the
high forest enable rights-holders to exclude people belonging to
other residential units. Rights may be extended to outsiders, such
as distant relatives, or friends who live in another village, providing
gifts are given, forest yields are shared and the conditions of
use respected. Conflicts over resources amongst the Bagyeli are
never settled through Bantu customary institutions but dealt with
by the Bagyeli themselves. Bagyeli find it inconceivable that a
complete stranger or outsider would come to exploit a forest without
prior permission of the rights-holders. The local village chief
or the weekly tribunal coutumier de justice intervenes in Bantu-Bagyeli conflicts
over land and resources, and this system is weighted in favour of
the Bantu (see Biesbrouck 1999; Berg and Biesbrouck
2000).
According to the documents
available to FPP these property regimes and the Bagyeli livelihood
system do not appear to be recognised in either the IPP or CP nor,
crucially, is the discriminatory nature of the current system of
exchange and conflict resolution. Great effort has been made both
by the Cameroon government and by Bantu villagers to settle Bagyeli
by the roadside and reduce their ability to move autonomously between
different areas of the forest. For the government this has been
mainly motivated by a wish to impose effective taxation and ‘development’,
whereas the Bagyeli ascribe Bantu villages' motivation for moving
them nearer as due to their desire for a cheap source of labour.
The government and local Bantu communities share the view that the
Bagyeli livelihood system is backward, rather than just different.
The powerlessness felt
by the Bagyeli is expressed by a comment during FPP’s final consultation
workshop. When the country representative of the World Bank expressed
surprise that the Bagyeli did not resist having their land taken
from them, a Bagyeli representative explained: 'They treat us like
animals, there is no difference.'
Because of the Bagyeli's
weaker economic and political position vis-à-vis their Bantu neighbours,
their lands are vulnerable to expropriation by Bantu neighbours,
who are also more numerous and have greater access to and influence
with the local government authorities.
With the advent of
compensation measures based on land tenure, Bantu have been able
to use their greater knowledge of the pipeline process and their
prior dominance over the Bagyeli to claim Bagyeli lands as their
own and thus capture compensation rightfully due to Bagyeli. FPP
encountered four accounts of Bantu claiming Bagyeli lands during
the development of the compensation plan and taking the compensation
when it subsequently arrived, and there are likely to be more cases.
In other instances
the Bantu used physical force to drive the Bagyeli off their own
land. A Bagyeli elder from a community near Kribi explained:
'The
Myi [Bantu] have taken our land so that the Myi can get the compensation.
They harassed us by force because we were Bagyeli. The Myi knew
that the problem would come, so they cultivated the land that had
belonged to the Bagyeli, in order to get the compensation'.
This statement was
confirmed by the local Bantu community leader.
Another example is
of a community of about 80 Bagyeli people further east towards Bipindi.
Here the Bagyeli did not want to be settled by the road but, like
many other Bagyeli communities, were forced to do so by government
policy and by their neighbours seeking a source of cheap labour.
Witnessed by the whole village, the sous
préfet had given the relocated Bagyeli a tract of land by the
road stretching 5km back into the forest. Three years ago, just
when the pipeline was being talked about, Bantu villagers arrived
and cleared and cultivated part of the Bagyeli land, restricting
the Bagyeli to cultivating an area extending only 100 metres from
the road. As a result the Bantu rather than the Bagyeli received
compensation for disruption caused by the pipeline crossing land
that had originally been given to the Bagyeli.
The fact that most
Bagyeli cannot afford identity cards reinforces Bagyeli peoples’
unequal access to justice and law. Bagyeli seeking redress from
the (Bantu) authorities for acts of discrimination and exploitation
carried out by Bantu farmers, are fined, ostensibly because they
lack identity cards which are a requirement under Cameroon law.
One of the Bagyeli consulted by FPP, who had lost his land to Bantu
neighbours, said
I
didn't go to the authorities because I was afraid. I have no identity
card, so how can I speak to the authorities? To those same people
who have taken my land? I was told to wait, wait, wait. Now instead
of cultivating and hunting on this side of the road, I have to go
3 kilometres the other side of the road to cultivate. I have been
told that I cannot hunt in the area where the pipeline is going
to be.
FPP’s
community consultation exercise revealed that basic elements of
good governance, including informed participation, transparency,
fairness and accountability are being undermined by the pipeline
project, causing increased marginalisation of the Bagyeli within
civil society in Cameroon. The evidence for this general finding
falls under the following headings: lack of clear information; inadequate
compensation plans, and reinforcement of discrimination.
- Lack
|