**1. Introduction**

The extension of research results to the range of actors involved with natural resources is an essential operation for the sustainable management of plant formations. The concept of forest extension is described as a systematic process of exchanging ideas, knowledge and techniques that can change attitudes, practices, knowledge, values and behaviors for better forest and tree management [1, 2]. With the multiplicity of partnerships involved in sustainable forest management (local people, non-governmental organizations, private sector and government, scientists), there is a need for wider dissemination of forestry-related information and for flexible communication based on dialog, feedback and flexibility [3, 4]. Indeed, Kandzior and Rivas [4] consider forestry extension to be a minimum requirement

for any forestry program targeting rural people. Decision-makers are aware of the importance of research results in the day-to-day management of forest sites. However, they cite obstacles such as accessibility and insufficient skills for their exploitation [5, 6]. There is therefore a great interest in synthesizing and making accessible to different stakeholders, the diversity of data from research considering the complexity of sustainable forest management processes.

The sustainability-oriented forest management process involves six key concepts [7]: better management practices/reduction of the impact of logging, biodiversity conservation, forest protection, multi-scale planning, participatory forestry and maintaining forest production. This conception is in line with the paradigm of "systemic forestry" of Nocentini *et al.* [8], who further specify that the sustainable management of vegetation must integrate multisectoriality, an implementation oriented towards a dynamic resilience-seeking process, the multifunctionality of ecosystems including ecological, social and economic components, and the plurality of actors. With this divergence of approaches, goals and specific realities, forest management has recently evolved towards the concept of sustainable forest management [9, 10]. The sustainable management of protected areas has its own particularities and is even more essential because of the major interest in *in situ* biodiversity conservation [10, 11], or the importance of the ecosystem goods and services it promotes, especially for the benefit of riparian communities [12, 13]. This observation justifies the multiple strategies put in place by organizations working in the fields of biodiversity conservation for greater efficiency in the management of these natural sites. They are working to permanently reduce, generally through guidelines, the lack of ownership of research results in forest governance.

Many steps in sustainable management planning for protected areas are supposed to be based on the results of prior studies [11, 14]. In reality, however, this governance is sometimes based on empirical considerations [5, 15], as has long been the case in Mozogo-Gokoro National Park, located in a semi-arid sudano-sahelian region in the Far North of Cameroon. In a context marked by strong edaphoclimatic and anthropogenic constraints, this management is sometimes considered effective in the MGNP, due to its resilience [16]. With multiple publications describing this protected area [17–25], this chapter aims to be part of a process of sustainable management that respects international and national standards. Considering the complexity and uncertainty recognized in the study of natural environments [8, 26, 27], it is not intended to recommend rigorous actions on a scientific basis. Instead, with the identification of governance deficiencies, threats, pressures and valuation assets, sustainable management guidelines can be formulated based on reference documents [7, 8, 11, 14, 28–33].

In this chapter, the specific objectives set are, among others, to state the characteristics for the valorization of the MGNP, to determine the managerial insufficiencies, the pressures and the threats to its conservation, to identify and comment on the major axes of intervention in relation to the management objectives, all of this in confrontation with the principles or experiences known in the literature.

### **2. General information on the MGNP**

The MGNP is located in a dry zone in the far north of Cameroon (10°56′ and 10°57′ North latitude and 13°54′ and 13°58′ East longitude.), Mayo-Tsanaga Department, Mayo Moskota Arrondissement (**Figure 1**). This site was created as a forest and fauna reserve by decree No. 165 of 12 June 1932 of the High Commissioner of the French Republic in Cameroon, and then set up as a national park by decree No. 120 of 5 December 1968 of the Secretariat for Development of *Implications of Ethnoecological and Phytoecological Studies for the Sustainable Management… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.98584*

**Figure 1.**

the State of Cameroon. Its governance is essentially state-owned, notably with the Cameroonian government's Order No. 911/MINEF of 12 April 1994, which guides its management through its designation as a 3rd category Technical Operational Unit, based on its surface area of 1400 ha (50,000 ha being the lower limit of the 2nd category). In Olson *et al.*'s [34] classification, it corresponds marginally to the Mandara Plateau mosaic ecoregion. However, in reality, its biodiversity is closer to the savannah ecosystems of eastern Sudan or the Sahelian savannahs with *Acacia* spp. The MGNP also belongs to the Ramsar site of the Waza-Logone floodplains, representing the 10% of wetlands in the West African sahel [35]. Its designation as a park is theoretically assimilated to category II of the IUCN classification, but it does not have a management plan in line with this status.

This protected area has been demarcated without cadastral reference [25]. Its boundaries can therefore be moved by the population according to their interests. In addition, the park lacks a buffer zone as provided for by the regulations. Difficulties in water supply constitute a factor degrading the habitat of the medium-sized fauna it contains, corresponding to mammals (patas monkeys, olive baboons, gray duikers, mongooses, burrowing squirrels, porcupines, Thomson's Gazelles, ...), birds (114 species), reptiles (monitor lizards, canine pythons and other snakes), and several batrachians and invertebrates [20]. As a solution to this problem, the forestry administration built two artificial ponds in 2009 (one of which is mostly dry) and a solar-powered pumping trough (currently non-functional). The administration has also worked to build twenty kilometers of tracks within the park, but these are often not maintained.

Three vegetation zones have been distinguished as Field Data Collection Units or (CU) in some of the work done in this protected area [16, 23]. These are CU1: Mosaic of gallery forests, dense dry forests and shrub thickets (392.73 ha), CU2: Mosaic of dense dry to clear forests and shrub thickets (836.33 ha), and CU3: Mosaic of clear dry forest to wooded savannahs and shrub thickets, (95.91 ha). The climate is megathermal with mean annual temperatures ranging from 26–28°C [16].

Rainfall variability (with the observation of intense episodes of drought with sometimes less than 800 mm of annual rainfall), or even climate change, and anthropisation supported by a population density of more than 300 inhabitants/km2 [25], have not significantly impacted the vegetation of the park [22]. These are nevertheless real pressure factors, which although they have affected the vegetation (with several signs of degradation noted especially in CU3); have certainly not led to a loss of resilience [16]. Illegal resource harvesting [20], has led to the creation of several trails into the park. It is an ecoregion whose soils are mainly classified as Oxisols, Vertisols and Fluvisols [36]. Their fertility certainly justifies the strong land pressure in the riparian zone of the park, with the existence of multiple crop fields [25]. Evidence of grazing and human constructions are also observed at the edge of the park.
