A case of State Capture: The Ministry of Forests and Wildlife - Reclaiming Collaborative Governance in Cameroon’s Forestry Sector: Ensuring Empowerment Beyond Compliance

Peter Mbile

Over the past several years, stakeholders in Cameroon’s forestry sector have observed a growing shift in the governance landscape—one that has raised important questions about the balance between state oversight and citizen agency. A key example is the increasing requirement for community-based associations, cooperatives, and common initiative groups to sign Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs) with the Ministry of Forests and Wildlife (MINFOF) in order to continue operations in the sector.

While this move may reflect a broader intention to harmonize efforts and align with national objectives, it also raises concerns about the concentration of decision-making power and the unintended implications for civic participation. To better understand this dynamic, it is helpful to view it through the lens of state capture.

 Understanding State Capture in Context 

State capture, in its classical sense, refers to a situation in which public decision-making processes are unduly influenced by a narrow set of interests—often resulting in the gradual erosion of institutional independence and public accountability. It differs from legitimate regulation in that it subtly alters the rules of engagement, reshaping policy outcomes in ways that may not necessarily serve the broader public interest.

In the context of Cameroon’s forestry sector, the mandatory signing of MoUs can be seen as part of a broader shift away from the spirit of openness and co-management that characterized the post-Rio era. Following the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Cameroon embraced key sustainable development principles—particularly those related to freedom of association and participatory resource governance. This era saw a flourishing of community initiatives, grassroots innovations, and cooperative action.

The recent procedural requirements, though perhaps well-intentioned, may inadvertently signal a shift toward centralization. This raises important questions: Are these new frameworks enabling communities to participate more effectively in forestry governance, or are they redefining the rules in ways that limit their agency?

 Implications for Empowerment and Innovation 

When participation becomes conditional on formal agreements that are not co-created or co-negotiated, there is a risk that the process becomes more about compliance than collaboration. Community groups, once vibrant with local knowledge and initiative, may feel constrained, uncertain about their autonomy, and less motivated to innovate. Over time, this could lead to a narrowing of civic space and a decline in the dynamism that community-led forestry has brought to Cameroon.

Moreover, an overly centralized system, while administratively efficient, can unintentionally undermine the very partnerships needed to ensure sustainable forest governance. When communities feel disempowered or sidelined, trust in institutions may erode, and the effectiveness of forest management initiatives may diminish.

 A Constructive Path Forward 

To realign with the foundational principles of sustainable development and participatory governance, a few key actions are recommended:

1. Promote Co-creation of Frameworks: Rather than unilateral agreements, the development of MoUs and other regulatory frameworks should be co-designed with the active involvement of community stakeholders. This would foster ownership, legitimacy, and long-term compliance.

2. Enhance Legal Literacy and Dialogue: Many local associations may not fully understand the implications of the new requirements. Capacity-building and open forums can ensure informed engagement and strengthen trust between communities and public institutions.

3. Recognize the Value of Informal Systems: Traditional knowledge, informal networks, and indigenous management practices are valuable assets. Public policy should find ways to validate and integrate these, rather than overwrite them.

4. Establish Feedback Mechanisms: Creating institutional spaces for communities to express concerns or suggest improvements to policy instruments can reinforce adaptive governance and reduce the risk of perceived exclusion.

5. Strengthen Multi-stakeholder Platforms: Encouraging ongoing dialogue among government, civil society, the private sector, and local communities helps ensure a more inclusive governance ecosystem—one that reflects shared goals and mutual responsibilities.

 In Conclusion

Cameroon’s forestry sector has long been admired for its early efforts at community-based resource management. The current moment offers an opportunity not to reverse those gains, but to refine them—ensuring that oversight mechanisms enhance, rather than inhibit, civic empowerment.

True partnership in natural resource management is built not just on structure, but on trust, dialogue, and shared purpose. By carefully balancing regulation with respect for citizen agency, Cameroon can continue to lead by example in sustainable and inclusive forest governance.

Peter Mbile is an Environmental Management Specialist and commentator on Society and Politics. He holds a PhD in Forest Policy and Economics He is based in Yaoundé, Cameroon