Cameroon's National Ecosystem Assessment: Developing a knowledge base for the wider African continent

Prudence Tangham Galega, co-chair of the Cameroon National Ecosystem Assessment, shares how her role evolved from early ‘corridor talks’, and passes on her advice for others embarking upon the assessment journey. Prudence has held senior leadership roles in environmental protection across the broader African continent. This conversation occurred during the National Ecosystem Assessment (NEA) Initiative’s Global Workshop in September 2024 in Cambridge, UK.

Fabiana Spinelli (FS), NEA Initiative:  Could you tell us about yourself, your background, and the organizations and processes you are involved in at a national, regional and global level?

Prudence Tangham Galega (PG): My name is Prudence Galega. I am a judge by profession, but I have had a chequered professional experience and an evolving career in leadership positions for environmental protection in my country [Cameroon], regionally and globally. Currently, I am the Director of the Multimedia Legal and Judicial Centre of the Ministry of Justice.

Before this position, I provided technical leadership and oversight as Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Environment in Cameroon. In my oversight functions I was technically responsible for planning, programming and budgeting for environmental and sustainable development issues. Prior to that, as a national focal point for the Convention on Biological Diversity [CBD], I provided leadership for ten years representing my country in negotiations, coordinating the input of the African group of negotiators, and also ensuring the input of countries in my subregion.

I have continued to provide technical leadership, especially in the expert drafting of the African Union  Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan and the  Guideline Document for the Central Africa region to internalize the GBF [The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework] and related decisions that came out of COP15 [15th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity].

FS: Please tell us more about your role in the Cameroon National Ecosystem Assessment, and how this has supported other regional ecosystem assessments in Africa.

PG: My knowledge, experience and capacities in various forms in the Cameroon National Ecosystem Assessment have played a critical role in enabling me to deliver on my support function during the preparations and negotiation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework especially during COP15 and in post-implementation processes.

I would say that the springboard for my engagement in national ecosystem assessments was what you call the ‘corridor talks’: the corridor bilateral meetings I had during the IPBES [Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services] meetings, especially with UNEP-WCMC, that led to the conception of the NEA Initiative. These talks were critical in linking me with UNEP-WCMC and helping me understand the needs of national-level ecosystem assessments. As I was playing a lead political role in my country at the time, it was also essential to capitalize on my position of influence to see how we could jumpstart national ecosystem assessments in Cameroon, and thanks to the support of UNEP-WCMC and the International Climate Initiative of German government, a Cameroon initiative was able to take off with Cameroon hosting the first global launching workshop.

I had to play multiple roles at a national level to ensure the effective implementation of the Cameroon National Ecosystem Assessment, to ensure an appropriate multidisciplinary governance structure was put in place and functioning, and in providing oversight at various levels including the technical inputs in drafting the findings of the assessments.

I was delighted that I could facilitate the establishment of a national science-policy platform during the (Cameroon National Ecosystem Assessment) process. This was the inter-sectorial multi-stakeholder body headed by the ministers in charge of environment, forest, and scientific research. this was one of the major achievements of our work and was very useful in providing oversight and validation of our deliveries.

I was the co-chair for the Cameroon National Ecosystem Assessment, working closely with Dr. Hiol Hiol, as my co-chair from the scientific community.  Sadly, he is of blessed memory, and I use this opportunity to recognize him for his work and our strong collaboration. We coordinated input from over 50 experts who authored the assessment. We had 22 coordinating leads and authors, as well as experts who helped co-author the assessment and facilitated the inclusion of traditional knowledge.

My role in the Cameroon’s assessment went beyond just the conduct of an assessment. The primary objective of the assessment was to generate credible, viable knowledge to inform policymaking processes at various levels. As a first step, the early findings of the assessment contributed significantly to the preparation of Cameroon’s 6^th National Report to the CBD, with the national assessment authors playing a key role in the preparation of the report.

FS: Could you tell us more about that report and its importance?

PG: Although the assessment findings was used in Cameroon’s sixth National Report to the CBD, it is important to emphasize that the findings and the understanding of biodiversity’s value to people’s livelihoods, was applicable not only in Cameroon but across Africa. It was important – to understand the state of biodiversity and its potential for people's development and, simultaneously, to understand the stakes and the drivers that threaten the flow of people's benefits. Using the methodological approach that came out of the national ecosystem assessment, informed and adapted from the IPBES conceptual framework, provided a better understanding of this relationship and the contribution nature can provide to development, especially at a time when countries in the African continent were revising their national development strategies.

For Cameroon, this also presented an opportunity to foster an in-depth understanding of the links with the nations transition sectors of agriculture, forestry, energy, and tourism, that depend on nature, carrying out interventions that negatively impact ecosystems.

This understanding was equally critical for the negotiations of GBF where the negotiations focused on how to ensure a continuum of landscapes and seascapes, faced with the increasing impact of climate change and anthropogenic drivers on these landscapes. The state and response of forest hotspots were thus at the center of the negotiations. I come from the tropical forest region and understand the value of forest biodiversity as hotspots for ecosystem and species diversity that provide critical services for human well-being. My expectation is that countries in revising their NBSAPs will fully commit to one of the significant outcomes of the GBF negotiation at COP15, a 30/30 terrestrial and marine protection target.

NBSAPs [National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans] are recognized as the principal mechanism for internalizing the GBF. Soon after adopting this global policy instrument, countries were called upon to update and revise their NBSAPs. The revision process is based on planning, monitoring, and reporting mechanisms, which require knowledge and credible information from assessments.

The NEAs conducted assessments to understand the key dimensions that determine good governance. I must state that while the assessments had excellent findings on integrative, adaptive and inclusive policy approaches, there were huge gaps in terms of finance mechanisms. Yet, financing was identified as fundamental, with attempts to assess current biodiversity funding from domestic public sources, and development partner sources. This highlighted issues of transparency and accountability, and the need to invest in mobilizing additional financing from diverse innovative sources to support the protection of biodiversity and ecosystem services.

FS: Thank you for such a comprehensive and inspiring response. Can you tell us about the communication process for the Cameroon assessment and some of the challenges you’ve faced?

PG: I've observed that where countries appoint communications focal points, they make progress. They develop a communication strategy and implement its activities, but some countries don't have the capacity.

For Cameroon's assessment, we started by developing a communication and awareness plan to accompany the assessment and ensure its dissemination. We faced significant challenges. We were building a community of practice that brought together different communities: science and policy, science and traditional knowledge, but trying to bring together science and communication was very complex. The communication team's engagement was very weak, and as a result effective communication only started at the end of the assessment.

Though we did succeed in communicating some of the core messages from the assessment through the media, in a research publication, within COMIFAC at the sub regional level and a few side events and publications of the CBD information papers, we were less able to develop the communication tools that comprehensively outlined what these findings were as contained in the summary for policy makers.

At the end of the assessment, there was more ambition and we thought we could catch up on this, with UNDP’s Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Network (BES-Net) commitment to disseminate the assessment’s findings. Again, faced with serious collaboration issues, communicating the findings is yet to be effective. Nonetheless, we have learned a lot from other countries that have done excellent work in communicating their national ecosystem assessments, especially from the NEA Initiative’s annual global workshops we’ve attended.

Understanding what the arts can do was a great lesson at this year’s workshop. Songs, paintings, and drawings create awareness and communicate findings, especially from a traditional knowledge perspective. Traditional knowledge systems have messages that can be visually communicated or used to communicate findings. We are still at the onset of effective communication, and we hope that these practices and approaches will be integrated into our communications strategy.

FS: Imagine a country approaching you and indicating they’ll be starting a national ecosystem assessment soon. What advice would you give them?

PG: Sharing our experiences with other countries that wish to conduct national ecosystem assessments will be of critical importance.

One of the main objectives of national ecosystem assessments is to build individual and institutional capacities. As such, my first piece of advice would be to help the country understand its capacity needs. As I said, we started informally along the margins of IPBES to understand a country’s assessment needs. That is what underpinned the concept note for the NEA Initiative.

Once you have identified your needs, you must understand your target of influence, where your findings will be of great value. Experience shows that the targets vary significantly. Some are local-level policies or decision-making, whereas others are national policymaking processes. In Cameroon’s case, the target was the development strategy revision process.

FS: Thank you for taking the time to speak with us and share your valuable insights. Your journey with the Cameroon National Ecosystem Assessment is truly inspiring, and we believe that your experiences will serve as a valuable resource for individuals and countries around the world.

PG: Thank you. It has been a pleasure speaking with you as well.

Many thanks to Prudence for taking the time to share her expertise and experience with us.

Over the course of our ‘Voices from the NEA Initiative’ series, we’ll be speaking to practitioners, policymakers and Indigenous and Local Knowledge Holders from across the NEA Initiative’s partner countries. We’ll find out more about their assessment experiences, their insights and their advice for those beginning a national ecosystem assessment process.

The NEA Initiative at UNEP-WCMC is part of BES-Net, working in partnership with UNDP and UNESCO. Financial support for the NEA Initiative is provided by the International Climate Initiative of the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Climate Action, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, the Norwegian Environmental Agency, the Japan Biodiversity Fund and SwedBio.