New
WRM publication on resistance against industrial plantations in
Cameroon
This new publication
of the WRM Series on Plantations (*
) examines resistances of populations neighboring
two of Africa’s largest industrial tree plantations: the rubber
monoculture Hévéa-Cameroun (HEVECAM) and the oil palm plantation
Société Camerounaise de Palmeraies (SOCAPALM). The report
intends to contribute to fill a lack of information on the situation
around commercial plantations in Equatorial Africa.
Before the settlement
of the two monocultures, the region – situated in Southern Cameroon
near Kribi – was covered by coastal rainforest exceptionally rich
in biodiversity. It was sparsely populated by Bantu peasants-hunters
and Bagyeli hunters-gatherers (“Pygmies”), both of them tightly
dependant on forest resources. With the arrival of the plantations
in 1975 for HEVECAM and in 1978 for SOCAPALM, these populations
were displaced and the forest was cut and replaced by monocultures.
Today, the plantations are adjacent to about twenty Bantu and Bagyeli
communities which are in more or less open conflict against these
agro-industries, as the report explains.
By investigating the
conflict, it appears clearly that the role of the government has
always been central, notably through its determination of the legal
framework within which the agro-industries operate (land property,
terms and conditions,
social and environmental laws). If it is true that the state must
comply with the requirements of international actors (IMF/World
Bank, French government), it remains nevertheless true that it is
a key actor in the conflict, roughly speaking always on the side
of the agro-industries. The relation between local populations and
the state is in this respect ambiguous: on one hand, it is perceived
as distant and authoritarian (“it is not your land but the land
of the government” is the typical answer villagers receive from
authorities), and on the other hand, the state is to a certain degree
still respected (“we are not going to take up arms against our own
government!”).
In this conflicting
context, one may wonder why, in Cameroon, industrial plantations
have so much been promoted by the state – while their economic performances
often remained well below the expectations. An explanation consists
in showing the vested interests of the national elite and/or the
subordination of peasants to the requirements of capitalist accumulation
seen as the unique way towards “development”. In short, the state
has incontestably been positioned from the beginning of the colonization
– and at the request of the mother country’s private sector – as
the main actor imposing the transition to capitalism, and this,
in spite of the resistances of many local communities. Incidentally,
the first important nationalist movement – the UPC (Union des
Populations du Cameroun) of the socialist Ruben Um Nyobé – originates
from land ownership issues related to the French colonization.
Yet the conflict between
local populations and HEVECAM–SOCAPALM is not only a struggle over
the land: it is also – and perhaps above all, now – an environmental
conflict. This is so because Bantu and Bagyeli do not claim the
control of the plantations’ territory as such, since the latter
has now, in their eyes, become useless. What they claim is: (1)
a compensation in any form – monetary, village plantations, or infrastructure
(roads, schools, etc.) – for the destruction of what they see as
their forest; and (2) the non-extension of HEVECAM–SOCAPALM, that
is, the preservation of their remaining customary forests. It is
for this purpose that the neighboring Bantu commonly claim the employment
of some of them among the high executives of the companies.
However, as it is often
the case with rural impoverished populations, social conflicts remain
largely latent, poorly organized and without a clear political dimension.
Villagers often show a form of resignation. As the state is the
“supreme chief of the land” as well as of the legitimate violence,
there is an obligation of compliance. The protest’s ground often
remains the discourse, a situation that R. Oyono names a “conflict
of language”. In fact, the events described in the publication correspond
quite well to what J. Scott calls the “everyday forms of resistance”.
The latter refers to any act by members of lower classes aimed at
mitigating or refusing the requirements (here: the land occupation
and the obligation to respect private property) of superior classes
(here: HEVECAM–SOCAPALM’s management and the state) or aimed at
expressing their own requirements (here: a compensation in a broad
sense). This kind of resistance went mostly unnoticed by historians
and political scientists – because it generally remains without
written traces – although it may represent the most common form
of conflict among rural populations. The latter are therefore not
what external observers have too often thought they were seeing,
that is, globally passive social groups which would sporadically
burst in violent riots. These everyday forms of resistance often
are the weapons of the powerless. They can take different forms
such as sabotage, theft, feigned ignorance, false agreement, concealment,
non-commitment, slandering, arson, etc. In our case, the thefts
of the plantation’s products as well as the fires are typical forms
of resistance taking place around HEVECAM–SOCAPALM. This kind of
class struggle requires no or little coordination and planning;
it is generally anonymous and avoids all direct confrontation with
authorities or superior classes in order to dodge repression. What
is more, through their accumulation, these resistances can have
serious effects on the interests of the ruling classes.
Regarding the relation
conflict–effects, J. Martínez-Alier points out that “the focus should
not be on ‘environmental conflict resolution’ but rather (within
Gandhian limits) on conflict exacerbation in order to advance towards
an ecological economy”. It is plausible indeed, writes this author,
that these kinds of environmental conflicts – described as an “environmentalism
of the poor” – will soon represent an important social force social
towards sustainability.
Julien-François Gerber
(JulienFrancois.Gerber@campus.uab.es)
(*) WRM Series number
13: "Résistances contre
deux géants industriels en forêt tropicale. Populations locales
versus plantations comerciales d’hévéas et de palmiers à huile dans
le Sud-Cameroun" by Julien-François Gerber.
Only available in French.
It can be downloaded from
WRM's web site at:
http://www.wrm.org.uy/publications/Cameroun_fr.pdf
For printed copies please
contact: bookswrm@wrm.org.uy
