A. Species
Scientific name: Prunus africana
Common name(s): African Cherry
Global IUCN Red List Threat Status: Vulnerable
B. Location of use
Geographic location(s):
- Cameroon
Country/Region:
C. Scale of assessment
Scale of assessment: National Level
Name/Details of location: Cameroon
D. Timescale of use
Start Year: 2019
End Year: 2019
E. Information about the use
How is the wild species sourced?: Wild species sourced from its natural habitat
Type of use: Extractive
Practice of use: Gathering/Cutting/Collecting terrestrial plants and fungi or their products from the wild
Lethal or non-lethal: Non-Lethal
Does this use involve take/extraction of: The whole entire organism and Only parts or products of the organism
Purpose(s) of end use: Medicine and hygiene, Materials and construction and Monetary, Pharmaceutical, Timber
Motivation of use: Basic subsistence, Income generation from trade (individual/household/community) and Largescale commercial exploitation for trade
Is this use legal or illegal?: not recorded
F. Information about the Users
Which stakeholder(s) does the record primarily focus on?: Local people, Non-local Internal, Non-local External and National / local private sector
G. Information about the sustainability of use
Is there evidence that the use is having an impact on the target species?: Wild species sourced from its natural habitat
Has an assessment (or judgement) of sustainability of the use of the target species from an ecological perspective been recorded?: No, sustainability not determined
Details of assessment carried out: CITES Livelihood Case Study findings
Brief summary on why the use has been assessed/judged to be sustainable or unsustainable: There are parts that are sustainable, and parts that are not. For regions in which the management plans are being enforced, the species is indeed being used in a sustainable manner. However, due to corporations often not using it, some of the use continues to be over-exploitation
Has an assessment (or judgement) of sustainability of the use of the target species from an economic perspective been recorded?: Yes, considered sustainable
Details of assessment carried out: CITES Livelihood Case Study Findings
Brief summary on why the use has been assessed/judged to be sustainable or unsustainable: Simple management plans have been developed for 18 sites in Mount Oku, North West Region, covering a total area of about 15,000 ha for an annual exploitation quota of 100t of dry bark or 200,000 kg of wet bark per year, generating approximately 60,000,000 CFA (c.US$90,000)
Has an assessment (or judgement) of sustainability of the use of the target species from a social perspective been recorded?: not recorded
Brief summary on why the use has been assessed/judged to be sustainable or unsustainable: While the record
Has an assessment (or judgement) of sustainability of the use of the target species from a human health perspective been recorded?: not recorded
Has an assessment (or judgement) of sustainability of the use of the target species from an animal health/welfare perspective been recorded?: not recorded
Recommendations provided in the record to maintain or enhance the sustainability of the use of the target species
Continued enforcement and use of PSU development plans Management plans must clearly define roles Local communities MUST be involved Capacity development, including training in harvesting techniques Institutional development or community organizations as management entities
Record source
Information about the record source: formal_data_stats
Date of publication/issue/production: 2019-01-01T00:00:00+0000
Source Reference(s):
Jean Lagarde Betti, Edited by Dilys Roe
Date of record entry: 2024-07-09