Principle of Environmental Management in Cameroon

Chapter Title: PRINCIPLES OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT IN CAMEROON
Chapter Author(s): Christopher F. TAMASANG and Andre Felix Martial TCHOFFO
Book Title: Environmental law and policy in Cameroon - Towards making Africa the
tree of life | Droit et politique de l'environnement au Cameroun - Afin de faire de
l'Afrique l'arbre de vie
Book Editor(s): Oliver C. Ruppel and Emmanuel D. Kam Yogo
Published by: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv941sr6.16
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
This content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives
4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). To view a copy of this license, visit
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Environmental law and policy in Cameroon - Towards making Africa the tree of life |
Droit et politique de l'environnement au Cameroun - Afin de faire de l'Afrique l'arbre de vie
This content downloaded from

154.72.171.36 on Mon, 22 Mar 2021 12:42:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
CHAPTER 10:
PRINCIPLES OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT IN
CAMEROON
Christopher F. TAMASANG & Andre Felix Martial TCHOFFO
1 Introduction
Environmental degradation in general and its threat to human wellbeing has become
one of the most unavoidable topics in general international, and consequently domes-
tic discourse. One of the major stakes in environmental discourse in particular is how
to balance the offsets between development and protection of the environment. It is
true that each state has the sovereign right to design and pursue her development ob-
jectives as she deems fit but in recent years, the modus of development opted for by
each state is no longer a thing reserved within her exclusive purview, but one that at-
tracts the general attention of states that make up the international community. With-
in the context of developing countries like Cameroon, this sort of new trend which
comprises international scrutiny of domestic development becomes a bit delicate be-
cause development needs are hoisted in urgency meanwhile international concerns
for environmental protection constitutes the rope with which the length of the said
development is measured.
The considerations highlighted above only reveal that environmental protection
and the pursuit of development are two hands of which one cannot wash itself clean
without the help of the other so as to achieve human wellbeing. In the same spirit, in-
ternational law rules and principles cannot be dissociated from domestic policy and
decision making processes relating to the environment and development nexus. It
may be expected from the latter consideration that domestic policy makers should
simply refer to some sort of international environmental code that contains the gen-
eral orientations and directions of the international community, but there is no such
code. Rather, bits and patches of environmental exigencies are scattered into assorted
multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) and related instruments, each with its
own specificity. So in the absence of an international environmental law compendi-
um, the general orientations relating to the conservation and management of natural
resources may only be obtained through a synergy and cluster of these MEAs which,
242
154.72.171.36 on Mon, 22 Mar 2021 12:42:08 UTC
PRINCIPLES OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT IN CAMEROON
it should be said, is not an easy task. Some of the prescriptions contained in these
texts are said to be soft, and others hard,1 and so it may be a pretty meticulous exer-
cise for a state to tap out the general environmental considerations from these texts
through the abovementioned clusters and synergy. What then may be a simpler for-
mula?
Almost every legal discipline has some rules, values, principles and even maxims
which, for the most part, constitute expressions that synthesise the subject matter of
the whole discipline so that with just a few of these expressions, we may be able to
discern the substratum of that particular area of studies.2 Environmental law is not an
exception; in effect, there are a number of principles which, it may be argued, make
up the foundations of this discipline as well as a general guidance and orientation for
policy makers and state action. So rather than referring to particular texts in a bid to
determine the rules that guide or shape action relating to environmental management,
it may be more practical to simply look at these principles to see how they have been
received by international texts and case law and then translated into the national en-
vironmental management processes.
This chapter therefore sets out to make an appraisal of the extent to which Came-
roonian law relating to environmental management incorporates principles of inter-
national environmental management. To this end, the work devolves in six sections
of which the first is an introduction; the second, deals with conceptual clarifications;
the third is an analysis of the fundamental principles of environmental management
in Cameroon while the fourth section indicates the limited extent to which these
principles are treated under Cameroonian law. The fifth and sixth sections consider
some of the challenges which hinder smooth incorporation of principles of environ-
mental management into legislative crafting, general conclusion and way forward re-
spectively. It is hoped that that this paper may inform policy and decision-makers on
how to better translate general environmental law principles into policy considera-
tions that guarantee a more sustainable management of the environment and its re-
sources.
____________________
1 ‘Soft Law’ refers to the category of texts that do not contain rigorous legal provisions but
rather general principles, breach of which may not really invite immediate and deterring sanc-
tions. They are either inspirational sources of law or later on mature into hard law. An examp-
le includes the Rio Declaration of 1992 from the United Nations Conference on Environment
and Development. An example of a ‘hard law’ on the other hand is the Convention on Bio-
diversity (1992).
2 A good example of a discipline whose subject matter is contained in its principles or maxims
is equity. Some of the relevant maxims that constitute the bedrocks of equity include: equity
acts in personam and not in rem; delay defeats equity; equality is equity; equity follows the
law; he who seeks equity must do equity and he who comes to equity must come with clean
hands; equity looks at that as done which ought to be done and equity looks at the intent to
impute an obligation.
243
154.72.171.36 on Mon, 22 Mar 2021 12:42:08 UTC
2 Why principles of environmental law in general and principles of

environmental management in particular?
2.1 Theoretical foundations of principles of (environmental) law
Whether we talk of principles of law or principles of environmental law, they all are
abstract. In a generic manner, these principles are all founded on equity, ethics and
good conscience. Most of them are therefore said to be imbedded in natural law. It
should be said immediately that founded on these basis, principles of law remain ab-
stract, general in nature and most of all non-binding. The reason is because abstract
rules – such as the rules of morality and good conduct in society are not enforceable
at law. It is the reason why it is common to hear people say general principles of law
are non-binding. But are these the only foundations of principles?
At this juncture, it may be interesting to highlight the fact that some – most of
these so-called general principles of (environmental) law are identified and conse-
crated in legal texts and instruments. This sort of legal consecration not only plays
the same role that codification of customary norms3 play in relation to these princi-
ples, but most of all, it gives the principles some judicial viability and enforceability.
We may like to single out the example of the legal recognition and consecration of
principles of law in Article 38 (1) (c) of the Statutes of the International Court of Jus-
tice. At the national level, principles of environmental management are contained in
Article 9 (a) – (f) of the 1996 Law Establishing the Regime of Environmental Man-
agement in Camerooon4 (herinafter referred to as the ‘1996 Law’). The only problem
is that the law referred to here above is a framework law and its legal enforceability
is not as enough as to command any specific legal enforceability of these principles.
In any case, the baseline is that principles of law may also be founded on legal texts
once they are identified and ascribed some particular legal regimes. This is not as if
to mean that legal texts create principles of law, they rather constitute solid basis or
foundations for these principles. This is the same case with the principles that are up-
held and consecrated by powerful locus classicus decisions of precedents.5 Once this
____________________
3 The codification of customary norms serves a number of purposes. First, it is to secure the
customary rule and make it long-lasting without any dangers of modification of the rule of its
disappearance in time. Through codification, the customary rule can also become an erga om-
nes rule which becomes binding to all states, whether they are members of the treaty of codifi-
cation or not. Codification equally and arguably provides easier judicial enforceability since
the custom is henceforth covered by a text. It should be said in passing that the principal organ
in charge of codification in international law is the International Law Commission that pre-
pares draft instruments of codification.
4 Law No. 96/12 of 5 August 1996 Establishing the Regime of Environmental Management in
Camerooon.
5 The Trail Smelter Arbitration was between USA and Canada, 3 RIAA 1907 (1941).
244
154.72.171.36 on Mon, 22 Mar 2021 12:42:08 UTC
happens, the court decision through which the principle is consecrated as a precedent
consequently becomes the basis – jurisprudential basis – of the principle.
Writers sometimes identify and elaborate generously on the scope and significance
of certain principles which may not be based on any text or court decision yet.
Viewed from this angle, we may refer to the consecration by scholars as the doctrinal
consecration. Almost every contemporary writer6 in international environmental law
devotes some time to consider principles of environmental law at length.
2.2 Sources and role of principles in law and environmental law in particular
If we go by the general formula for determining the sources of international law in

general provided by the Article 38 (1) of the Statutes of the International Court of
Justice, general principles of law constitute a non-negligible source of international
environmental law. But the question is to know whether the principles of environ-
mental law can be given the same status as the general principles of international
law. Both categories of principles are abstract, come from equity, ethics and natural
law. In this way, they usually inspire judges and policy makers in taking decisions on
a given subject. With this similitude, one may say that the principles of environmen-
tal law can be accorded same status with those of international law in general. These
principles are philosophical and ideological in nature and are of general application
and recognition, for the most part, unlike environmental values that are usually more
context-specific.
It may be interesting to make the clarification here at once that general principles
of environmental law, just like general principles of international law are not direct
sources of law like written law for instance. We consider principles only to be sec-
ondary or inspirational sources of law. Taking the famous separation of powers theo-
ry7 into consideration, every legal system should have a legitimate authority compe-
tent to make laws. It is the law that comes from such authority that is considered to
be of direct application. So general principles of environmental law are not of that
category, but only inspire and guide judges and policymakers in the decisions that
they take.
____________________
6 See notably authors like Bell & McGillivray (2008:41-75); Sands & Peel (2012:187-236);
Fisher et al. (2013:402-457); Louka (2006:49-57); Sand (2003:231-289); Ebbeson & Okowa
(2009:411-429); Sunkin et al. (2002:1-91); Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos (2011:83-105).
7 The separation of powers theory is the theory according to which every legal system should
have three arms of government: the legislative, the executive and the (federative, that is in the
original version of the theory by John Locke) judiciary, as systematised by Baron Charles
Louis de Seconda alias Montesquieu. The law making organ is the legislative, the organ if im-
plementation is the executive and the organ of enforcement is the judiciary.
245
154.72.171.36 on Mon, 22 Mar 2021 12:42:08 UTC
2.3 Some conceptual clarifications
2.3.1 What is environmental management?
Environmental management within the context of Cameroon includes all the opera-
tions geared towards the improvement and preservation of the state of the environ-
ment, both in its natural resources in general and ecosystem, as well as how to inter-
fere with the environment rationally in order to achieve human wellbeing as high-
lighted in Article 2 (2) of the 1996 Law. Any project aimed at achieving develop-
ment in whatever form that must pass through interference with natural resources is
subject to a set of stringent rules aimed at ensuring that the said development is not
achieved at the expense of environmental sanity.
2.3.2 What do we mean by the environment?
At the national level, the environment, in the light of the provisions of the 1996 Law
refers to:8
all the natural or artificial elements and biogeochemical balances they participate in, as well as
the economic, social and cultural factors which are conducive to the existence, transformation
and development of the environment, living organism and human activities.
From the above definition, what can one consider to be environmental law?
Generally, law is defined as a body of rules and regulations that govern human life
in a given society and at a given time. If we go by this definition and with respect to
the definition of the environment above, then one may say that environmental law is
the body of rules and regulations that govern human life in and man’s interaction
with the environment at a given time and place.
3 Fundamental principles of environmental management under Cameroonian

law
For purpose of smooth understanding of the role of each, the principles may be split
into three categories: there are principles that seek to make a blend between envi-
ronmental control and socio-economic development; principles that seek to reduce or
prevent likely harm to the environment; and finally, principles that affix liability for
damage caused on the environment. The first part of this section will be consecrated
____________________
8 See Article 4 (k) of the 1996 Law.
246
154.72.171.36 on Mon, 22 Mar 2021 12:42:08 UTC
to the theoretical formulation of the principles while the second part will be dedicat-
ed to an assessment of the practical utility and implementation of these principles in
Cameroon. Relevant statutory provisions are contained in Articles 1 and 9 (a) – (f) of
the the 1996 Law.
3.1 Theoretical presentation of the principles
3.1.1 Principles that reconcile environmental management and socio-economic

development
There are at least four principles that guide and orientate state action: the principle of
sustainable development, the principle of permanent sovereignty over natural re-
sources, the principle of integration and the principle of participation. Each of these
deserves some individual consideration in turns.
3.1.1.1 The principle of sustainable development
3.1.1.1.1 Meaning of sustainable development
Of all the principles of environmental law, the principle of sustainable development

has the most contested definition because it means different things to different peo-
ple. This is why the meaning of the principle is said to be context-specific and pur-
pose-driven. One of the gist from the Stockholm Conference was that the environ-
ment was to be protected for the sake of it, thereby overlooking the development as-
pects of it.9 The United Nations then created the Brundtland Commission in Nairobi
to give it a thought. The result of the works of that Commission was, inter alia, one
of the most solicited definitions of sustainable development. According to that Re-
port, sustainable development is “…development that meets the needs of the present
generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs”.10
The principle of sustainable development does not really feature under Chapter III
of the 1996 Law entitled ‘Fundamental Principles’. This sends the signal that the
Cameroonian legislator does not exactly consider the concept as a principle. The leg-
____________________
9 Tamasang (2008:146).
10 Brundtland Commission Report (1987).
247
154.72.171.36 on Mon, 22 Mar 2021 12:42:08 UTC
islator however defines sustainable development, even though not as a principle, but
as a key word under Chapter I of the 1996 Law that deals with “Definitions”.11
3.1.1.1.2 Some manifestations of the principle
Writers identify different sets of elements that spring from the principle, but others
treat some of these components of the principle as independent principles on their
own. The most common elements of the principle include intra-generational equity
(or wise use12 and equitable utilisation) and intergenerational equity. From these two,
we can be able to explain how the principle manifests itself through certain obliga-
tions.
First, there is the obligation of equitable utilisation13 which translates the require-
ment of intra-generational equity. This duty or obligation was articulated in early ju-
dicial decisions regarding the sharing of freshwater resources.14 The duty is also con-
tained in the 1997 United Nations Watercourses Convention. It should be remarked
that equity is a principle that is hard to pin down15 and many authors16 have argued
that equitable considerations introduce an especially subjective element in the inter-
pretation of international environmental law. On the one hand, the principle may be
interpreted to mean that the use of natural resources of the earth should be done on a
50/50 proportion. From another viewpoint, it may be interpreted to mean that those
who have priority in the use of certain resources should benefit from maximum pro-
tection. Yet again, the principle may suggest that the use of natural resources is based
____________________
11 The definition of sustainable development under the 1996 Law is provided by Article 4 (d).
According to that section, sustainable development “shall be a mode of development which
aims at meeting the development needs of present generations without jeopardizing the capa-
cities of future generations”.
12 See Tamasang (2015).
13 Louka (2006:53). The author considers equitable utilization to be a distinct principle of inter-
national environmental law on its own but we prefer to treat it here as a subset of the principle
of sustainable development.
14 Lac Lanoux Case (Spain v. France), 12 RIAA, 285. See also Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project
between Hungary and Slovakia (1998) 37 ILM 162 (Danube Dam).
15 The concept of equity is hard to pin down because several meanings can be given to it. Among
the most common one, equity is understood to mean good conscience, moral rectitude and na-
tural justice. It also refers to a shield that was developed in England to protect the law from its
own inherent weaknesses and limitations (see Lord Cowper in the Case of Dudley and Ward v.
Lady Dudley). Today, equity is no longer absolutely associated with discretion and conscience
because the rules are now as formalistic and systematised as those of Common Law so that the
meaning of equity today may not really be same as the meaning it got in the 16th Century.
16 Notably Louka (2006:53).
248
154.72.171.36 on Mon, 22 Mar 2021 12:42:08 UTC
on factors that are independent of where the property is situated within national con-
fines.
Another manifestation of the principle is the responsibility that we owe future
generations. Richard Driss17 notes that at the start of the Century, cities were not
crowded, rural areas were more active and pollution was not known to be an interna-
tional problem. Today, “science has given birth to monsters” and the threat of a pol-
luted planet looms. As time evolves, the question receives a bolder imprint: what
kind of environment do we want to leave to future generations? In fact, if a child is
born today, by 2035 he will be 18 years old. Are the efforts that we put in place suf-
ficient to guarantee the achievement of the goals designed by the international com-
munity? Our responsibility to future generations is coded in our very existence; we
come from the past and study our ancestors as well as their behaviour. So one una-
voidable component of our development and wellbeing is how much we are able to
guarantee the wellbeing of future generations.
3.1.1.2 The principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources
3.1.1.2.1 Significance and foundation of the principle
Before saying anything about this principle, it may be good to point out that the 1996
Law does not make mention of it in the famous Article 9 (a)-(f) that contains all the
principles envisaged by the legislator in matters of environmental management. This
is not as if to mean that this principle is completely disregarded in matters of envi-
ronmental management in Cameroon. On the contrary, even if the principle does not
come out clearly in the 1996 Law, it is specifically alluded to in the Cameroonian
Constitution18 as the basis for development and the principle that governs the cooper-
ation between Cameroon and any other state to achieve the said development.19 The
1996 Law being subject to the Constitution must therefore take on board the provi-
sions of the latter in the process of environmental management in Cameroon.
What are the foundations of the principle? First, the principle is announced in
Principle 21 of the Stockholm Conference20 according to which “states have, in ac-
____________________
17 Driss (1998:21).
18 The Constitution referred to above is Law No. 2008/1 of 14 April 2008 to amend and supple-
ment some provisions of Law No. 96/6 of 18 January 1996 to amend the Constitution of 2
June 1972.
19 See paragraph 3 of the Cameroonian Constitution.
20 The 1972 United Nations Conference on Human Environment is popularly known and refer-
red to as the Stockholm Conference that held in Sweden. This meeting is the first remarkable
gathering of the international society to try and shape environmental policy. It was attended by
249
154.72.171.36 on Mon, 22 Mar 2021 12:42:08 UTC
cordance with the UN Charter, and the principles of international law, the sovereign
right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental policies…”.
This enunciation by Principle 21 became a cornerstone of international environmen-
tal law and twenty years after – in the Rio Declaration21, states were almost absolute-
ly unable to change the language or modify the enunciation. It should be indicated
that the principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources is enunciated sim-
ultaneously with the obligation not to cause environmental harm and since 1972,
both principles have been respected as such without decoupling. We have decided to
untangle them in our present analysis by reason of the different categories into which
we have classified them such that it may not be convenient to discuss both of them
under the same category.
It should also be made clear that the principle of permanent sovereignty over natu-
ral resources was not born in the Stockholm Conference; since about 1952, the prin-
ciple had been seen in many UN Resolutions22 geared towards the need to balance
the rights of sovereign states over their resources with the desire of foreign compa-
nies to ensure legislative certainty and stability of investment.
Besides the Stockholm and Rio Conferences, the principle is also contained in a
number of texts23 such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) which pro-
vides that states have “sovereign rights…over their natural resources” and that the
____________________
113 countries (even though only India and Sweden were represented by their respective Heads
of States).
21 Summit took place in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 1992. This is history’s single most reported event
(over 9,000 journalists), 178 nations represented and 115 heads of states present. Unlike in
Stockholm, the South had taken consciousness of environment and development concerns.
The South therefore expressed the concern at Rio that environmental protection should not be
done at the expense of their development and that the North should bear primary responsibility
for suffering caused by environmental degradation so far. The North on its part, even more
conscious of the need to protect the environment and interfere with it rationally seemed to lay
much emphasis, logically, on sustainable development. From the summary of the two positi-
ons (between North and South), it appears that while the South paid more attention to intra ge-
nerational equity, the North laid emphasis but on intergenerational equity.
22 For more details see van Wyk (2017). See for instance UNGA Resolution 1803 (XVII) (1962).
In this Resolution, it was indicated that, “the right of peoples and nations to permanent sover-
eignty over their natural wealth and resources must be exercised in the interest of their natio-
nal development of the wellbeing of the people of the state concerned”.
23 The principle is contained in the preamble of the United Nations Framework Convention to
Fight against Climate Change in which parties are urged to “respect state sovereignty in inter-
national cooperation to fight against climate change”. The International Tropical Timber Ag-
reement (ITTA) also acknowledges “the sovereignty of producing members over their natural
resources” in its Article 1 (old) and preambular paragraph (d) of the 2006 amendment of the
Agreement. The Ramsar Convention of 1971 makes it clear that the inclusion of national wet-
land sites in its list of wetlands does not “prejudice the exclusive sovereign rights of…the par-
ty in whose territory the wetlands is situated” (Article 2 (3) of the Convention).
250
154.72.171.36 on Mon, 22 Mar 2021 12:42:08 UTC
authority to determine access to genetic resources rests with the national govern-
ments and is subject to national legislation.24
Besides international texts and MEAs specifically, the principle of permanent sov-
ereignty over natural resources is also enunciated in a number of court decisions. An
example in perspective is the decision of the International Court of Justice in the case
of Kuwait v. American Independent Oil Company25 in which the ICJ had the oppor-
tunity to bring clarity on the significance of the principle. In effect, the ICJ equally
indicated several years after this case that the principle is one that can be considered
as part of customary international law.26
3.1.1.2.2 The principle of permanent sovereignty as an enhancement to democracy
An interesting issue on which to ponder, especially within the context of developing

countries and Cameroon in particular, is what connection there is between sovereign-
ty over natural resources and democracy. Some scholars27 hold the view that the mu-
tual democratisation of states and their societies appears to operate in a virtuous rela-
tionship with more reflective ecological modernisation at the domestic level as well
as more effective environmental citizenship by such states. It is also true that this vir-
tuous relationship cannot be deepened without a move from liberal democracy to
ecological democracy.28 Despite growing levels of environmental recognition and
awareness, liberal democratic states have been unable to resolve or significantly min-
imise many ecological problems.
Liberal democracies continue to construct decisions and design policies geared
towards acceleration of investment, production and consumption all to be champi-
oned by the private sector. When these states permit social actors to displace ecologi-
cal costs on to others, it restricts the ability for environmental victims to enjoy the
full range of freedoms that liberalism supposedly upholds. This includes the freedom
to participate or otherwise be represented in the making of decisions that bear upon
their own lives.
Ecological democracy (green democratic state) is most suited in this context and
field of studies than liberal democracy as it enables a more concerted political ques-
tioning of traditional boundaries between what is public and private, domestic and in-
ternational, intrinsically valuable and instrumentally valuable. The rationale behind
____________________
24 See Article 15 (1) of the CBD. See also Article 6 of the 2010 Nagoya Protocol to the CDB that
governs access to genetic resources.
25 Kuwait v. American Independent Oil Company 21 ILM 976 (1982).
26 ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (1996).
27 See for instance Eckersley (2004:241).
28 (ibid.).
251
154.72.171.36 on Mon, 22 Mar 2021 12:42:08 UTC
ecological democracy is that all those potentially affected by ecological risks ought
to have some meaningful opportunity to participate, or be represented in the determi-
nation of policies or decisions that may generate risks.29 A flipside however of per-
ceiving sovereignty in green democratic states as a shield is the responsibility for
neighbouring states not to cause environmental harm which will be discussed later.
3.1.1.3 The principle of integration
The principle of integration is not included in the list of principles outlined in Article
9 of the 1996 Law. This notwithstanding, the principle is observed in practice espe-
cially in the actions and plans of the administration as we shall see in the second part
of this section in which we discuss the practical utility of principles of environmental
management in Cameroon. The principle is equally identified in section five below
as one of the principles that are developed and observed more in practice but without
any much legislative consideration.
Environmental protection requirements must be integrated into the definition and
implementation of all areas of policy in particular with a view to promoting sustaina-
ble development.30 The European Community Treaty provides that environmental
protection requirements must be integrated into other community policies such as
policies that have to do with agriculture and industry-related policies.31
The principle of integration seeks to incorporate environmental consideration into
all policy areas. The aim here is to avoid otherwise contradictory objectives that re-
sult from a failure to take into account environmental protection or resources conser-
vation goals. For instance, the failure to consider environmental consequences of lib-
eralising air travel or road construction programmes designed to meet priority
transport objectives may possibly ensue when environmental concerns are not suffi-
ciently integrated in the drafting of the budgetary law.
3.1.1.4 The principle of participation
The principle of participation is constructed on the premise that in order to ensure ef-
fective implementation of environmental laws and actions at all levels, individuals
____________________
29 (ibid.:243).
30 Article 6 of the European Community Treaty. This Article lends more impetus to the allegati-
on that sustainable development is the paramount consideration of all which the other princip-
les must strive to attain.
31 (ibid.:Article 175).
252
154.72.171.36 on Mon, 22 Mar 2021 12:42:08 UTC
should be able to participate in environmental decision making.32 The principle may

be understood as if to mean that it only seeks to ensure or guarantee procedural rights
for citizens. This will be an erroneous interpretation because the principle of partici-
pation requires a little more than just procedural rights. For instance, the principle
seeks to ensure the flow of information as well as guarantee the mainstreaming of lo-
cal and indigenous people in every decision making process.
In this light, it may be fair to say that environmental issues are best handled with
the participation of all citizens concerned at the respective levels of society. For in-
stance, at the national level, every individual should have appropriate access to in-
formation relating to the environment that is held by public authority; including in-
formation on hazardous materials and activities in their communities and the oppor-
tunity to participate in decision making processes. In this way, at the national level,
states must facilitate and encourage public awareness, effective access to judicial and
administrative proceedings as well as guarantee the availability of redress and reme-
dy through these processes.
The principle of participation is contained in Article 9 (e) of the 1996 Law. Under
this law, the principles manifests through three points: access to information, the du-
ty to protect the environment and consultation or public debate before certain deci-
sions are taken. The enunciation of the principle under that section of the law is ra-
ther vague and limited in scope. Just one isolated example may strengthen this argu-
ment: the Article is silent on the issue of access to justice especially the extension of
locus standi for public-interest litigations. Issues of access to justice are instead ad-
dressed in Article 8 (2) of the 1996 Law which does not fall under the title of ‘Fun-
damental Principles’, and even then, the issue of public interest litigation which is a
contemporary development is apparently missing in the law.
In a nutshell therefore, the principle of participation, from the above presentation,
has three major canons: first we have participation in decision making; availability
and access to information; and finally, access to judicial procedures.
3.1.2 Principles that relate to the reduction or prevention of likely harm
3.1.2.1 The precautionary principle
The 1996 Law simply retakes the view that lack of certainty, given the current scien-
tific and technological knowledge should not retard the adoption of effective and
commensurate measures aimed at preventing a risk entailing serious and irreversible
____________________
32 Sunkin et al. (2002:53).
253
154.72.171.36 on Mon, 22 Mar 2021 12:42:08 UTC
damage to the environment at an economically acceptable cost.33 We have adopted a

binary approach to the presentation of this principle: on the one hand, we will look at
the significance and foundation of the principle while on the other, we will consider
the manifestation of the principle through its link with future generations which in
turn links up the principle to sustainable development.
The precautionary principle is to the effect that in case of serious and imminent
harm which is irreversible, lack of scientific certainty shall not be a reason for post-
poning cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation. The principle
is founded upon the assumption that science cannot absolutely predict how or why
adverse impacts will occur or what their effects may be on man and the ecosystem.
So the principle applies where there is absence of proof but availability of infor-
mation sufficient enough to prevent risk. Where reasonable evidence exists, actions
aimed at avoiding adverse impacts of harm become necessary. In this sense, the pre-
cautionary principle is all about “being safe rather than being sorry”.34
Very often, our experience in environmental matters reveals that when we are cer-
tain, we rather become impotent because it is too little too late to repair the damage.
The precautionary principle carries with it a structure of ideas which enable us to
take decisions which seek ecological balance for the benefit of our human society. It
offers guidance, within the embrace of the law, as to how we might interfere least, or
least damagingly in the ecosystems that support life on earth. In addition, the princi-
ple provides a philosophical authority to take decisions in the face of uncertainty.
Thus the principle becomes symbolic of the need for change in human behaviour to-
wards the environment that sustains our existence; it challenges science but respects
the basic principles of ecology.35
It should be clarified that the precautionary principle is not the same as the preven-
tive principle. In effect, much of the confusion surrounding the principle’s interpreta-
tion relates to its distinction from the more traditional standards of environmental
prevention. According to Agius and Busuttil,36 the precautionary principle in both its
conceptual core and its practical implications, is preventive, but not all preventive
standards are precautionary. In fact, any particular preventive standard may be either
non-precautionary or precautionary and in various degrees, but it cannot be ‘unpre-
ventive’.
Prevention and elements of sustainable development can be traced back even to
the 1930s but precautionary language made its grand apparition in the mid-1980s.
This is why the UN Secretary General in 1990 said that the principle “has been en-
____________________
33 See Article 9 (a) of the 1996 Law.
34 Bell & McGillivray (2008:55).
35 Agius & Busuttil (1998:93).
36 (ibid.:99).
254
154.72.171.36 on Mon, 22 Mar 2021 12:42:08 UTC
dorsed by virtually all recent international forums”.37 From inception, the principle
has constantly provided disagreement as to its meaning and effects among states and
international judicial practice. Opponents of the principle have decried its potential to
over-regulate and thus limit human activity.38 This notwithstanding, the principle is
considered as one of general application and is linked to sustainable development.39
There is some evidence that states now begin to support this interpretation even
though there is no unanimity on this viewpoint. The ICJ in 1995 described the prin-
ciple in the Nuclear Test Case (between New Zealand and France) as a widely ac-
cepted and operative principle in international law even though France claimed that
the status of the principle in international law was « tout à fait incertain ». We under-
stand why when it was proposed that the principle should be included in the French
Constitution as part of the Environmental Charter, the French Scientific Establish-
ment went radical about the idea.40 The longstanding conceptual debate about the
principle has accordingly been supplemented by discussion of its implementation
which has in turn given rise to a number of related questions about its nature and
practicability:
• Is the principle scientific (rather than being ideological)?
• If so, can it be made operational in policy and regulation settings?
• If yes, can its implementation be subjected to meaningful judicial review?
• If not, does that call the practical usefulness of the principle to question?41
Besides this jurisprudential consecration and recognition,42 the principle has equally
attracted a wide range of textual consecration through diverse international texts.43
____________________
37 An example is the Ministerial Declaration of the Second International Conference on the Pro-
tection of the North Sea on in November 1986, London. The states affirmed that: “…in order
to protect the North Sea from possibly damaging effects of the most dangerous substances, a
precautionary approach is necessary…” Again, signatories to the Baltic Sea Declaration
adopted at the Baltic Environmental Conference held at Ronneby, Sweden, on 2 September
1990, agreed to “apply the precautionary principle, that is to take effective action to avoid po-
tentially damaging impacts of substances that are persistent, toxic and liable to bio-
accumulate” see 1 Year Book of International Environmental Law (1990), 423-429. Finally,
the principle reappears in COP 9 of the Convention on the prohibition of International Trade
in Endangered Species held in Fort Lauderdale – USA, 7-8 November 1994.
38 Sands & Peel (2012:218).
39 See the Bergen Ministerial Declaration on Sustainable Development in the United Nations
Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Region, 16 May 1990. In effect, paragraph 7 of
that Declaration is to the effect that in order to achieve sustainable development, policies must
be based on the precautionary principle.
40 Paterson (2011).
41 For a detailed discussion on these questions and the precautionary principle, see Paterson
(2011:85).
42 See further The Southern Bluefish Tuna Cases – New Zealand v. Japan and Australia v. Japan
(2001) IRL 148; see also the Mox Plant Case – Ireland v. The United Kingdom (2002) 41 ILM
405.
255
154.72.171.36 on Mon, 22 Mar 2021 12:42:08 UTC
It should be indicated that the implementation of intergenerational and intra-

generational equity has been more explicit in practice than most of the other princi-
ples of environmental law. One significant by-product of intergenerational rights is
the position that everyone has the right to live in a balanced, ecologically safe and
healthy environment. This places an obligation on the present generation to take all
precautionary means necessary to conserve the diversity of culture and natural re-
source base just in same way as we obtained the right to access the legacy of the past
generation.44 The precautionary principle interpreted in this way lends more credence
to the assertion that most, if not all, the other principles of environmental law seek to
achieve the objective of sustainable development.
3.1.2.2 The principle of preventive action
Under the 1996 Law still, the legislator makes mention of preventive action and cor-
rection of threats to the environment by using the best available techniques at an eco-
nomically acceptable cost.45 It may be expedient for us to consider the significance
and foundations of the principle in international and national law.
The principle of preventive action is to the effect that states bear the responsibility
to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the
environment of other states or areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. It has
been clarified above already that the principle of preventive action may be muddled
with the precautionary principle but the two mean different things even though both
of them promote the prevention of environmental harm as an alternative to bringing
remedy to harm that is already caused. In a nutshell, the precautionary principle
works well in moments of scientific uncertainty meanwhile the preventive principle
may even be pursued by relying on scientific certainty.
The principle is contained in a number of international instruments of which one
of the most common is the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development (Principles 2, 11 and 14). But before then, the principle was already
enunciated in Principles 6, 7, 15, 18 and 24 of the Stockholm Declaration of 1972.
____________________
43 The principle is contained in the preamble of the 1985 Vienna Convention on the Protection of
the Ozone Layer as well as in the preamble of the 1987 Montreal Protocol to that Convention
and the June 1990 amendment to the Protocol. Many scholars consider that the core of the
principle lies in Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration. The principle features in the UNFCCC in
Article 3 (3); The 1979 Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution as well as in
the preamble of its Additional Protocol II relating to Further Reduction of Sulphur Emissions
– 1994, UN DOC.GE. 94. 31969.
44 Weiss (1990).
45 Article 9 (b) of the 1996 Law.
256
154.72.171.36 on Mon, 22 Mar 2021 12:42:08 UTC
The preventive principle had equally featured, before 1992, in the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 (Article 194) as well as the 1985 Vienna
Convention on the protection of the ozone layer, Article 2 (2) (b) and in the preamble
of the 1987 Montreal Protocol to the said Convention. The Convention on Biological
Diversity as well as the Climate Change Convention all give some legality to the
principle.46
3.1.2.3 The responsibility not to cause environmental harm
This principle is one of the many principles that are left out of the list of principles
presented in the 1996 Law. In any case, the requirements of the principle can be de-
duced from the reading of the principles of prevention and precautionary action dis-
cussed under the said law.
The obligation not to cause environmental harm is a principle that is associated
with the principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources. In this way, the
principle acts as a measure to limit or prevent absolute sovereignty of states by im-
posing on them the duty to make sure that the exercise of sovereign rights does not
damage their immediate environment or that which is beyond national confines. All
states have pledged their loyalty to this principle and the ICJ in the Nuclear Test
Cases indicated that the principle has become an erga omnes in international law.
The principle thus presented raises a few pertinent questions: What is environmental
damage? What type of environmental damage is prohibited (is it just any type of
damage or the most serious and significant ones)? What standard of care is applica-
ble to the obligation; is it absolute, strict or fault-based? What is the measure of dam-
age? These questions have been considered at length by Sands and Peel.47
It is posited that this principle gets its source from customary international law.48
If we buy this idea, then it may be worthy to point out that custom stands as one of
the major sources of international law in general and IEL in particular. The obliga-
tion not to cause environmental harm also enjoys some international recognition.49
This principle signifies that no state has the right to cause damage to the environ-
ment in breach of international standards. In effect, this principle is closely associat-
____________________
46 See Article 8 (h) and 14 (1) (d) of the CDB; Article 2 of the Biosafety Protocol to the CBD
and Article 2 (2) (d) (i) and Article 5 of the Nagoya Protocol. The United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change makes provision for the principle of preventive action in its
Article 2.
47 Sands & Peel (2012:Chapter 17).
48 See Hunter et al. (1998:345).
49 In effect, we notice that this principle is consecrated in a number of international instruments
such as in Section 21 of the Stockholm Declaration and Article 2 of the Rio Declaration.
257
154.72.171.36 on Mon, 22 Mar 2021 12:42:08 UTC
ed with other principles such as good neighbourliness.50 It is not because a state has
permanent sovereignty over her natural resources that the exercise of this right
should breach the rights of her neighbours (to a healthy environment for instance),
and the interests of the world at large. Any sustainable development process which
passes through green trade must be done with respect to this obligation not to cause
environmental harm.
The scope and contours of the principle however remain an issue of construction
in international doctrine because the issue has not yet been subject to any interna-
tional judicial clarification. So for instance, what is the degree of harm that can trig-
ger the obligation and what standard should be made binding on the state are all
questions of construction.
It has been indicated above already that the principle is founded on Principle 21 of
the Stockholm Declaration that makes provision for permanent sovereignty over nat-
ural resources as well as the obligation not to cause environmental harm. It must
however be pointed out that the principle predates the Stockholm Conference; its
origin can be traced as far back as the Trail Smelter Arbitration51 in which it was
held that:
under the principles of international law…no state has the right to use or permit the use of her
territory in such a manner as to cause injury by fumes in or to the territory of another of the par-
ties or persons therein…
Several years later, Judge De Castro in the Nuclear Test Cases stated in his dissent
that the rule laid down in the Trail Smelter Arbitration was one of customary interna-
tional law. In this light, one may say that the obligation not to cause environmental
harm derives from the customary rule of good neighbourliness.
Again, the UN Charter in its Article 71 reminds the members that: “their policies
in the metropolitan areas must be based on the general principle of good neighbourli-
ness”. The principle is again contained in Article 3 of the United Nations Environ-
mental Programme Draft Principles as well as Article 193 of the Law of the Sea
Convention, 1982. Besides the Trail Smelter, other cases have recognised by princi-
ple, such as the Corfu Channel Case between UK and Albania (1949);52 the Lac
Lanoux Case53 brings out the clarification that states must not enjoy their rights to the
extent that it encroaches on the rights of others.
____________________
50 See Hunter et al. (1998:374) for details on this principle.
51 The Trail Smelter Arbitration was between USA and Canada, 3 RIAA 1907 (1941).
52 ICJ Reports 4, at 22.
53 Spain v. France, 12 RIAA, at 285.
258
154.72.171.36 on Mon, 22 Mar 2021 12:42:08 UTC
3.1.2.4 The principle of substitution
The principle of substitution enunciated under the 1996 Law is to the effect that in
the absence of a written general or specific rule of law on environmental protection,
the identified customary norm of a given land, accepted as more efficient for envi-
ronmental protection, shall apply.54 The latter principle is quite important and con-
textual as it gives some room for customary rules and practices to apply in matters of
environmental management and protection. This principle is not commonly found in
the doctrine of international environmental law and so some credit must be given to
the Cameroonian legislator for consecrating this principle which is an expression of
the intention to uphold and include customary laws and practices in the general envi-
ronmental management process.
At this point, it may be good to indicate, in passing, that other principles of envi-
ronmental law that fall under this category include the principle of substitution and
the principle of common heritage of humankind.55
3.1.3 Principles that seek to affix responsibility for environmental harm
3.1.3.1 The principle of common but differentiated responsibility
The principle of common but differentiated responsibility is contained in Principle 7

of the Rio Declaration. In Article 3 (i) of the UNFCCC, it is provided that “parties
should act to protect the climate system on the basis of equity and in accordance with
their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capacities.” The prin-
ciple further gives rise to two sets of obligations: the obligation to protect the envi-
ronment (expressed in form of common responsibilities) and the obligation to con-
sider differing circumstances in relation to each state’s contribution (this is otherwise
referred to as differentiated responsibilities).
It must be pointed out that this is a principle that mostly concern the relationship
and cooperation between states at the international level to handle or address envi-
ronmental concerns. So even though we may not see it in the principles identified in
the 1996 Law, Cameroon demonstrates her commitment to respect her own share of
international responsibility to minimise environmental worries translated through the
management plans and actions contained in other legal instruments.
____________________
54 See Article 9 (f) of the 1996 Law.
55 Hunter et al. (1998:335-343).
259
154.72.171.36 on Mon, 22 Mar 2021 12:42:08 UTC
3.1.3.2 The polluter pays principle
According to Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration, the polluter should bear the ex-
penses for carrying out pollution control and prevention measures so as to ensure that
the environment is in an acceptable state. In other words, the cost of these measures
should be reflected in the cost of goods and services which cause pollution in their
production and/or consumption. The polluter pays principle is based on the fact that
those who are responsible for pollution should meet the cost of its consequences.
This principle is however highly contested and may bring to light retrospective li-
ability for historic pollution. As such, the principle may turn around to impose a duty
to pay for pollution control measures as well as a wider responsibility on the produc-
ers of waste.
The principle of liability and the polluter pays principle are contained in Article 9
(d) and (c) respectively. The former is not very common in international environmen-
tal discourse unlike the later which is one of the most notorious of the principles of
environmental management in international environmental law doctrine and legal in-
struments. There appears to be a problem with the way the polluter pays principle is
couched in the English version of the 1996 Law which we will point out here below
and then advice the use of the French version which is the original version of the text
while the English version is only an inexact translation.
According to Article 9 (d) of the 1996 Law, the author of any act that endangers
human health and the environment shall or cause the said conditions to be eliminated
in such a way as to avoid the said effect. The so-called ‘pollute and pay’ principle
provides that charges resulting from measures aimed at preventing, reducing and
fighting against pollution and the rehabilitation of polluted areas shall be borne by
the polluter.56 In effect, the contention we are raising here begins from the expression
used in the law, to wit, ‘the pollute and pay principle.’ If this is intended to be an in-
corporation of the famous polluter pays principle of international environmental law,
then we humbly submit that the two expressions do not seem to convey the same
technical message. The first expression appears to be an incentive while the second
appears to be more deterrent. The pollute and pay suggests that one who has the abil-
ity to pay may go ahead and pollute and this may work out to the advantage of bigger
entities that interfere with natural resources and the environment in general, to the
detriment of smaller but ‘clean’ corporations. Again, even if this were to be the case,
the general objective of sustainable development which is the virtue that all principle
must strive to attain would be defeated. On the other side, this interpretation may not
have been the intention of the legislator, in which the expression still betrays his in-
____________________
56 See Article 9 (c) of the 1996 Law.
260
154.72.171.36 on Mon, 22 Mar 2021 12:42:08 UTC
tention and thus becomes misleading. If we take away the conjunction ‘and’, we may
arrive at ‘polluter pays’ which means that the conjunction rather opens a leeway in
the law making it possible for polluters to escape through the cracks.
The French version of the 1996 Law appears to be better in its caption than the
English version. The former version talks of the principle of ‘pollueur-payeur’ which
is not the same as the ‘pollute and pay’ principle captioned in the English version.
While awaiting the revision and proper translation of the said 1996 Law, we submit
that the English caption should be avoided as it is misleading.
3.2 Practical utility and implementation of the principles of environmental

management
The utility and implementation of these principles in Cameroon will be assessed

from two perspectives; from an administrative and from a judicial perspective. Each
one of them needs to be considered independently.
3.2.1 Utility and implementation through administrative regulations and actions
3.2.1.1 Administrative regulations that consecrate principles of environmental

management
It must be pointed out that there is a plethora of administrative regulations that en-
hance the implementation of specific principles either in specific texts or more than
one principle enshrined in such texts. We will use a selected few of these texts to il-
lustrate the fact that the principles enunciated in the 1996 Law do not remain only in
the said law but are followed up in administrative regulations.
The first law we will like to identify is Order No. 0070/ MINEP/05 of 22 April
2005 to determine the different types of operations the realisation of which is subject
to the rule of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA; since 2013, we refer to it as
Environmental and Social Impact Assessment).57 It is true that EIA is not exactly a
principle of environmental law, but a subset of the polluter pays principle (Article 9
(c) of the 1996 Law) as well as the principle of precaution (Article 9 (a) of the 1996
Law). The 2005 Order above makes a list of all the types of activities that will be
subject to assessment58 and this is not only precautious but also an indication to any
____________________
57 See Decree No. 2013/0171/PM of 14 February 2013 on Environmental and Social Impact As-
sessment.
58 See to this effect Articles 3 and 4 of the 2005 Order.
261
154.72.171.36 on Mon, 22 Mar 2021 12:42:08 UTC
potential polluter that in case his activity will be more damaging to the environment
than economically gainful, he may be estopped from carrying out such activity. Even
when the EIA is positive, the person carrying out the activity shall be responsible for
cleaning up any pollution and treating resultant wastes.
There is, in same vein, a regulation jointly enacted by Ministry of Environment,
Nature Protection and Sustainable Development (MINEPDED) and the Ministry of
Commerce (MINCOMMERCE). The instrument in question is Order No. 004/12 of
24 October 2012 on the Regulation of the Manufacture, Importation and Commer-
cialisation of Non-Biodegradable Packages. Pursuant to the polluter pays principle,
the responsibility not to cause environmental damage and the principle of liability,
the 2012 Order above provides that all dealers in non-biodegradable packages shall
be responsible for the management of the resultant waste.59 In addition, for anyone to
deal in such packages, such an operator must obtain a prior permit60 from the compe-
tent instance. The adoption of this law by the two ministries in question is an isolated
example of the readiness of the government to be bound by the cannons of the prin-
ciples of environmental management.
Finally, we have Order No. 002/MINEPDED/2012 of 15 October 2012 that estab-
lishes Special Conditions for the Management of Industrial and Dangerous Waste.
The provisions of this law relating to the subject matter identified seek to enhance the
implementation and respect of the same principles indicated in the previous para-
graph. Yet again, this is another manifestation of the fact that the principles legislated
upon in the 1996 Law inspire and guide the executive arm of government in adopting
regulations on environmental management. But how then are these principles trans-
lated into practice? The following subsection answers the question.
3.2.1.2 Principles of environmental management in the practical actions of the

cameroonian administration
With a single example, we will be able to illustrate how government action is

planned and executed with respect to the principles of environmental management.
We will like to use the example of recent initiatives of the Ministry of Forestry
(MINFOF) to taste genetically modified species and organisms in Cameroon pursu-
ant to the Law on Biosafety.61 Section II of the 2007 enabling instrument62 to the
____________________
59 This provision is contained in Article 3 (1) and (2) of the 2012 Order.
60 See Article 4 (1) of the 2012 Law.
61 Law No. 2003/006 of 21 April 2003 to Lay down Safety Regulations governing Modern Bio-
technology in Cameroon.
62 The enabling instrument to this Law is Decree No. 2007/0737/PM of 31 May 2007 Estab-
lishing the Modalities for the Application of Law No. 2003/006 of 21 April 2003.
262
154.72.171.36 on Mon, 22 Mar 2021 12:42:08 UTC
above mentioned law is entitled Public Consultation and Participation. Under that
section, Articles 46 and 47 of the 2007 Decree provide that in order for any action of
modern biotechnology to be carried out in Cameroon, the project team must be able
to do public consultations in view of sampling the opinions of the populations in the
project site. Once the opinions are obtained they are handed over to the Technical
Committee on Biosafety63 of MINFOF. This Committee carefully studies the opin-
ions of the populations and then give a reasoned (motivated) opinion which may be
positive or negative in relation to the execution of the project. The technical opinions
of these experts will then be transmitted to the Minister in charge of Forestry and
Wildlife for him to either authorise or cancel the particular project that has been initi-
ated. This is the modus operandi for the execution of any project that has to do with
the testing of species to see whether they are genetically modified or not.64
Through this example, we see that the principle of participation is taken to be a
principle that guides the actions of the administration as well as it plays a vital role in
determining whether a plan or project initiated by the government can be achieved or
not.
3.2.2 The judiciary and the implementation of principles of environmental

management in Cameroon
The practical implementation of the principles of environmental management as con-

tained in the 1996 Law is not left in the hands of the administration alone; it is as
well an objective of the law-enforcement organ which is the judiciary. Through a se-
lected few cases, we will show how the irrational exploitation of resources as well as
pollution of the environment is sanctioned by the courts. It must however be indicat-
ed that the judicial implementation of the principles of environmental management is
not exactly absolutely admirable; in the course of our discussion under this section,
we will indicate where the judiciary did not meet up with the role expected of her and
consequently what would be ideal in the respective circumstances.
____________________
63 The Technical Committee on Biosafety at MINFOF was created by Decree No. 039/CAB/PM
of 30 January 2012 on the Creation, Organisation and Functioning of the National Committee
on Biosafety.
64 The procedure for execution of projects relating to Biosafety was confirmed to us by Angèle
Ziekine, Sub-director at MINFOF.
263
154.72.171.36 on Mon, 22 Mar 2021 12:42:08 UTC
3.2.2.1 Implementation of the responsibility not to cause environmental damage

and the principle of liability
We can see the role of the judiciary in the practical implementation of these princi-
ples through the famous case of The People of Cameroon v. Bisong Daniel Nkwo ali-
as Bucande.65 The case was entertained in the Court of First Instance of Nguti,
Southwest Region of Cameroon, in which the defendant stood trial on four counts for
poaching with respect to the 1994 Wildlife Law.66 Among his charges, the defendant
was accused of killing 19 elephants (a class A protected specie under the 1994 Law)
and for illegally hunting in the Bayang-Mbo wildlife sanctuary which is equally a
highly protected area. Mr. Batuo Paul led the prosecution as the Senior State Counsel
for Bangem. In her reasoned judgement delivered on 11 March 2004 the court found
the accused guilty and sentenced him to two years imprisonment with a fine of one
million francs CFA. Alternatively, the defendant could serve another two years im-
prisonment in lieu of the said fine. In addition, the court ordered that the elephant
teeth should be handed to the World Conservation Society (WCS) as exhibit ‘A’ for
preservation.
Through this judgement, we see that the court was guided by and strictly applied
the principle of liability and obligation not to cause environmental harm. The princi-
ples of environmental management therefore consolidated the sanctions previewed
by the 1994 Wildlife Law above.
The same principles inspired the court and were upheld in the case of The People
v. Sadou Mana and Three Others.67 The case was filed before the Court of First In-
stance of Garoua in the Northern Region of Cameroon in which the defendants were
tried for poaching, receiving and trafficking black rhinoceros which again is a class
A protected specie under the 1994 Wildlife Law in the Benue National Park. The
first defendant was sentenced to two years imprisonment and a fine of 300,000 francs
CFA for poaching. The other defendants were found guilty for receiving and each
one of them were sentenced to six months imprisonment with a fine of 200,000
francs CFA each.
____________________
65 2004 (unreported) CFING/107c/03/04.
66 The Wildlife Law in question is Law No. 94/01 of 20 January 1994 on Forestry, Wildlife and
Fisheries Regulation. In effect, the defendant was held, inter alia, to have violated Articles 18
(2) and 158 of the said Law.
67 The case was filed in its original French version as Affaire Ministère Public et Ministère de
l’Environnement et de Forets v. Sadou MAna, Bowana Raoul, Nana Augustin and Haoua Bo-
lade (unreported), Judgement No. 568/COR of 6 January 1998.
264
154.72.171.36 on Mon, 22 Mar 2021 12:42:08 UTC
3.2.2.2 The judiciary and the principle of participation
On many occasions, the courts have had to permit and recognise the participation of
Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) in the identification, investigation, prose-
cution of offenders and execution of judgements. These NGOs give tremendous and
most often much needed technical support to the entire legal process. Evidence of
this was seen in the case of The People of Cameroon v. Bisong Daniel mentioned
above, in which the judicial machinery was triggered by WCS. The complaint in that
case was actually presented to the State Counsel by David Hoyle the then director of
WCS. The director in question testified in court as the first prosecution witness while
the other staff of the NGO gave evidence to the prosecution. It should be recalled to
this effect that the court, after landing her sentence ordered that the teeth of the ani-
mal be handed to WCS for preservation. This tells of the willingness of the court to
acknowledge and consolidate the participation of other stakeholders in the process of
environmental management.
In the same vein, in the case of The People (MINEF) v. Bertrand Van Den Brink
and Groupement Coop Buns,68 investigations were conducted with the assistance of
the Foundation for Environment and Development (FEDEV). It is this NGO that ac-
tually visited the locus and recorded the polluting activities of the defendants.69
FEDEV actually played the role of the plaintiff in the case of Foundation on Envi-
ronment and Development (FEDEV) v. Bamenda Urban Council70 in which the NGO
filed the action on behalf of the population. The possibility for an NGO such as this
one is a clear manifestation of the principle of participation that takes into account
the aspect of extension of locus standi for public interest litigations. Unfortunately,
this case is one of those which still await judgement in the High Court of Bamenda
which will be discussed below.
3.2.2.3 The judiciary fails to apply the polluter pays principle
In the case of The People (MINEF) v. Bertrand Van Den Brink, the Bamenda Court
of First Instance missed the opportunity to enforce the observance of the polluter
pays principle. The case was investigated by the Northwest Provincial Chief of Bri-
gade Control for MINEF, as then it was. After investigation, the case was forwarded
to the legal department. The director of the defendant company faced an eight charge
____________________
68 CFIB/87c/03-04.
69 The Report can be obtained from Ref. No. MINEF / PDEF / NWP / PSCB / 43, Report of Pol-
lution of Natural Waterways Chum, Bafut-Wum Road.
70 Suit No. HCB/117M/04-05.
265
154.72.171.36 on Mon, 22 Mar 2021 12:42:08 UTC
count for pollution of natural waters, air pollution, harvesting communal forest with-
out prior assessment and failure to rehabilitate degraded sites caused by exploitation
of laterite in violation of the 1994 Wildlife Law and the 1996 Law. The defendant
was a European and after being served with the court process, he left Cameroon and
failed to show up. The court was therefore frustrated by the absence of the defendant.
The facts of this case reveal that the defendant potentially committed gross viola-
tion against the polluter pays principle and challenged the readiness of the authorities
that be to enforce the principle. A few procedural issues were ignored in this case. In
the first place, absence of a defendant may be a cause for discontinuity of criminal
action but not the same for a civil action. If the criminal action was discontinued,
there was still possibility to pursue a civil action. On the other hand, service of a pro-
cess and subsequent departure of the latter does not exactly frustrate the action con-
sidering that there is what we refer to as substituted service which may happen with
the collaboration of the ministries in charge of external relations of the two countries.
Again, an international arrest warrant may be sought or the defendant tried by any
other court if we consider that the nature of the damage caused was not only a prob-
lem for Cameroon but raised common concern for humankind. Taken from this
viewpoint, the offence committed by the defendant can be said to be hosti humanum
generis (hostile to humanity as a whole) and thus give rise to universal jurisdiction.
We therefore think that had the competent authorities pressed harder and further, jus-
tice would have been achieved but the apparent disinterestedness and may be igno-
rance of the authorities is one of the reasons that pushes us to advocate for the crea-
tion of specialised environmental courts below.
4 Addressing the insufficient consideration of principles of environmental

management in the 1996 law
4.1 Absence in Cameroonian law of some basic principles of contemporary

environmental management
The principles of environmental management discussed in this write-up are those

contained in the 1996 Law on Environmental Management in Cameroon. The princi-
ples envisaged by this law are six in number and contained in Article 9 (a)-(f). It may
be logical to argue that at the time the law was enacted, the principles of environmen-
tal law were not as developed as we find them today. In effect, the majority of con-
temporary writers in the discipline identify a dozen of these principles or something
around that neighbourhood. The consequence is that some of the most outstanding
principles of environmental management that obtain today are not contained in the
law and while we may strive to observe them in practice, they have no legal backing
and regime at the national level. In the following subsection, we will pick out a few
266
154.72.171.36 on Mon, 22 Mar 2021 12:42:08 UTC
glaring examples of the principles of environmental management that are either ab-
sent or poorly addressed under the 1996 law.
4.1.1 Absence of the Erga Omnes principle in the 1996 law
The expression ‘erga omnes’ is a Latin phrase which means towards everyone or
again towards all. Legally speaking therefore, an erga omnes obligation is one that
binds everybody, so we say it is generally binding. In international law, the fulfil-
ment of the obligations or requirements contained in this principle is of interest to all
states considering that the subject matter of such obligations is of importance to the
international community as a whole. So breach of such an obligation raises concerns
not only to the victimised state but also to all the other members of the international
community. Therefore once these obligations are breached, every state must be con-
sidered justified in invoking the responsibility of the guilty state committing the in-
ternationally wrongful act. An example of an erga omnes rule is the right to self-
determination.
At the national level, the principle urges judges to give a wider interpretation to
cases on breach of environmental principles in order that this covers the harm that
has been caused on the environment since the environment is a universal common
heritage of which that of Cameroon is only an integral part.71 What this means is that
the judge who is seised of an environmental matter, has according to this principle, to
give the widest interpretation that considers such a harm as having been perpetrated
to the universal environment. This is therefore different from the traditional interpre-
tation which is always limited to serving the interest of the parties to a case brought
before the judge. The absence of this principle in the 1996 law really betrays the ex-
tent of reconciliation of the provisions of the law with contemporary developments in
the discipline.
4.1.2 Absence of the principle of common concern for humankind
The principle of common concern for humankind has been discussed in earlier parts
of this work and so we need not duplicate the explanations at this point. What is im-
portant to point out here is the fact that the major environmental concerns today are
addressed at the international level not as the particular problems of the places that
give rise to these concerns, but as the common and shared responsibility of all states.
____________________
71 Section 2 (1) of the 1996 Law.
267
154.72.171.36 on Mon, 22 Mar 2021 12:42:08 UTC
Issues such as climate change, global warming, loss of biodiversity and forest loss all
constitute issues of concern for the community of states in general. In the same light,
any developmental project or initiatives must be guided by the principle of common
concern for humankind. Cameroon being one of those countries that distinguish
themselves in natural wealth and capital, she depends a lot on this natural capital for
her development. But if the development itself is not sustainable, its adverse effects
may create common concerns for humankind.
Failure of the 1996 law to properly address this principle despite its role and status
in international environmental law exposes a huge vacuum in the said law and its in-
ability to take on board contemporary trends contained in these principles.
4.1.3 Misplacement of the principle of sustainable development
The 1996 Law in effect does not mention the principle of sustainable development
anywhere in the section consecrated for ‘fundamental principles’ split into the vari-
ous subsections of Article 9. One may be tempted to argue that the principle of sus-
tainable development is, according to the dominant opinion, the most paramount
principle of all and has become a virtue which all the other principles of environmen-
tal management must seek to enhance. If this argument sells through, one may under-
stand why the Cameroonian legislator failed to include sustainable development un-
der the section consecrated for principles of environmental management.
The above argument notwithstanding, we still think that sustainable development
as a cardinal principle of international environmental law deserved to be identified
and elaborated in Article 9 of the 1996 Law. It becomes even more worrying when
we read earlier sections of the said law which make explicit reference to sustainable
development, but in those parts it becomes unclear whether the concept is intended to
be understood as a principle or an environmental value. In Chapter 1 of the 1996 Law
that defines key terminologies of the law, Article 4 (d) clearly defines the concept of
sustainable development, which definition is not very distant from most of the defini-
tions resorted to in international environmental law. This gives the impression that
sustainable development will only be treated as a key term in the dispositions of the
law and not exactly one of the fundamental and why not most paramount principle of
environmental management.
If the 1996 Law above has to be subject to any revision, at least for purposes of
clarity, we suggest that the principle of sustainable development be considered under
the section of the law dedicated to fundamental principles and under that category, it
must be made to feature as the most dominant or basic of the principles.
268
154.72.171.36 on Mon, 22 Mar 2021 12:42:08 UTC
4.2 Challenges to the development of principles on environmental management in

Cameroon
4.2.1 Impasse between what obtains in theory and in practice
One major challenge that is faced in Cameroon in matters of development of princi-

ples of environmental management is that there is absence of legal basis or backing
for some of the principles that are developed in practice. On the one hand, the reason
may be due to the fact that the law only mentions such principles superficially with-
out any comprehensive details or an enabling instrument. On the other hand, it may
happen that some of the principles that are taken into consideration by the diversity
of actors in environmental management such as the ministries of environment and of
forestry in the execution of plans and projects are not actually found in the law. This
is the case with principles such as common but differentiated responsibility and
common concern for humankind, just to name these two. This situation makes it ra-
ther difficult to legislate on such principles that exist in practice while the law is still
silent or unsatisfactory about them. As such, the legal regime governing such princi-
ples usually comes from international prescriptions rather than domestic legislation
that best translates the readiness and willingness of a state to comply and enforce the
observance of the same international requirements.
4.2.2 Timidity of doctrine in the discipline
Environmental law being a relatively new discipline in general and in Cameroon in

particular, we expect to witness the type of doctrinal timidity in the discipline espe-
cially on sensitive issues such as the role of principles in matters of environmental
management. It may be good to recall here that legislators may not necessarily be
experts in the discipline of law but with the duty to make law, they sometimes hugely
depend on the contributions of experts and scholars to achieve their mission. We may
therefore begin to understand why the 1996 law on environmental management in
Cameroon does not really treat the subject of ‘fundamental principles’ of environ-
mental management comprehensively. Yet again, since the passage of the law in
1996 as a framework legislation, we expect some modification of the said law over
twenty years afterwards today but the literature as well on the subject within the time
frame indicated cannot be very reliable and inspiring for the legislator.
269
154.72.171.36 on Mon, 22 Mar 2021 12:42:08 UTC
4.2.3 The 1996 law challenged by contemporary trends
The 1996 Law on Environmental Management in Cameroon was enacted just a few
years after the Rio Summit of 1992 and the passage and entry into force of some of
its outcome documents like the CBD and UNFCCC. While it may be good to laud
the effort and promptitude with which the Cameroonian legislator adopted the 1996
Law, we may not also continue relying on that twenty years afterwards. The intensity
and emphasis of environmental exigencies in the modern society is not exactly the
same as they were at the time of enactment of the law. The following illustration may
be worthwhile.
The parties to the Rio Declaration of 1992 thought it wise to convene another
summit in the same venue twenty years later; that was in 2012, to take stock of the
level and extent of achievement of the objectives set out in 1992 as well as change
the emphasis and attention so that which marries contemporary trends. In 1972 in the
Stockholm Declaration, the emphasis was on human environment (man and his rela-
tionship with the environment); in 1992 in Rio, the emphasis was on environment
and development while in 2002 in Johannesburg and 2012 in Rio, sustainable devel-
opment and poverty eradication were the guiding considerations. If the 1996 law was
adopted at the wake of the Rio Summit of 1996 as if inspired by it, then the time is
rather ripe for the revision of the said law since the agenda of the initial Rio summit
has taken a wider dimension. We may begin to see why sustainable development is
not included in the 1996 law as a fundamental and all englobing principle meanwhile
it was a major concern in Johannesburg in 2002 and in Rio+20 in 2012. In same way,
no mention is made of the principle of common concern of humankind and the erga
omnes principle. Therefore, if there is no room for the modification of this law, it
may be hard to envisage the development of principles of environmental manage-
ment to suit the purpose and status that befits them today. It may be added that the
1996 law in question is only a framework legislation and not an environmental code
for instance which is still highly desired and awaited.
5 Conclusion and way forward
5.1 Conclusion
A global appreciation of the above write up only leads to the conclusion that there is
some synchronisation between international environmental requirements contained in
its general principles and Cameroonian Law on environmental management. This
harmony is not however a perfect one because some of the founding principles of in-
ternational environmental law are not given proper consideration under the 1996 Law
while others are simply poorly conceived. It may be quite biased to say that princi-
270
154.72.171.36 on Mon, 22 Mar 2021 12:42:08 UTC
ples of environmental management in Cameroon are properly put in practice without

any hitches. In the light of the challenges relating to the crafting and implementation
of principles of environmental management discussed in the previous section of this
work, some recommendations have been designed in view of enhancing the role of
principles in general environmental management.
5.2 Way forward
5.2.1 Revision of the 1996 Cameroonian law on environmental management
It may be good to recall here that the 1996 Law in question was adopted just four
years after the Rio Summit on Environment and Development and not very distant
from the date of entry into force of most of the Rio-outcome instruments. This makes
the 1996 Law not entirely obsolete today but void of provisions that espouse con-
temporary environmental trends and issues. Principles such as erga omnes and com-
mon concern for humankind are completely neglected in the law meanwhile such
principles are modern fabrics of international environmental management. The law
therefore needs to be revised in order to broaden the scope and substances of the
principles of environmental management.
5.2.2 The need for enabling instruments to enhance the implementation of some
principles
There is need for the adoption of enabling instruments that will give more effect to
some of the fundamental and guiding principles of environmental management in
Cameroon. An enabling instrument for instance is necessary for the rehabilitation of
polluted areas as a subset of the polluter pays principle. This has already been done
for some of the principles such as the principle of participation whose implementa-
tion is enabled by the law on Environmental Impact Assessment as modified by the
2013 Law on Environmental and Social Impact Assessment.
5.2.3 The creation of specialised environmental courts or tribunals
A while ago we made mention of the erga omnes principle whose pointers are specif-
ically poised at the judge. We do not expect judges to have the same level of training
and knowledge in environmental matters as much as he/she does in other legal
branches. In the case of Cameroon, there is yet no branch consecrated for the training
of environmental judges in the National School of Administration and Magistracy. It
271
154.72.171.36 on Mon, 22 Mar 2021 12:42:08 UTC
is not therefore unexpected for magistrates (whether standing or sitting) who leave
from this institution to have the kind of disinterestedness in enforcing environmental
considerations and principles as they do. It is only fairly recently that environmental
studies were introduced in the National School of Administration and Magistracy
(ENAM). The introduction of environmental education in institutions in charge of
training of magistrates in French-speaking and English-speaking African countries is
still under preparation and negotiation. The last meeting on the subject was organised
in Yaoundé under the auspices of UNEP, Francophonie and ECOWAS in February
2018. On the basis of such developments, we see that the issue of insufficient capaci-
ty of judges and traditional court systems in building environment-related issues is
not an allusion but a reality.
References
Agius, E & S Busutil (eds), 1998, Future generations and environmental law, London, Earthscan
Publications.
Bell, S & D McGillivray, 2008, Environmental law, 7th edition, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Coyle, S & K Morrow, 2004, Philosophical foundations of environmental law: property, rights and
nature, Cambridge, Hart Publishing.
Driss, R, 1998, The responsibility of the state towards future generations, in: Agius, E & S Busutil
(eds), 1998, Future generations and environmental law, London, Earthscan Publications, 21-26.
Ebbeson, J & P Okowa, 2009, Environmental law and justice in context, Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press.
Eckersley, E, 2004, The green state: rethinking democracy and sovereignty, Cambridge, The Mas-
sachusetts Institute of Technology.
Fisher, E, B Lange & E Scotford, 2013, Environmental law: texts, cases and materials, Oxford, Ox-
ford University Press.
Hunter, H, J Salzmann & D Zaelke, 1998, International environmental law and policy, New York,
Foundation Press.
Louka, E, 2006, International environmental law: fairness, effectiveness and world order, Cam-
bridge, Cambridge University Press.
Paterson, J, 2011, The precautionary principle: practical reason, regulatory decision-making and ju-
dicial review in the context of fuctional differentiation, in: Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos, A, New
environmental foundations, 3rd edition, Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, 83-104.
Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos, A, 2011, New environmental foundations, 3rd edition, Routledge,
Taylor and Francis Group.
Sands, P & J Peel, 2012, Principles of international environmental law, 3rd edition, Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
Sunkin M, DM Ong & R Wight, 2002, Source book on environmental law, 2nd edition, London,
Cavendish Publishing.
Tamasang, CF, 2008, Sustainable development: some reflections with regards to the new constitu-
tional dispensation in Cameroon, 15 (1) African Law Review, 142.
272
154.72.171.36 on Mon, 22 Mar 2021 12:42:08 UTC
Tamasang, CF, 2015, Crafting and implementation of multilateral environmental agreements: are
parliamentarians useful actors? 4 (6) Revue Africaine de Droit Public, 44.
Tchoffo, AFM, 2013, Green trade, sustainable development and the protection of basic human
rights in Africa: the case of Cameroon, Dissertation for Diplome d’Etudes Approfondies, Univer-
sity of Yaoundé II.
Weiss, EB, 1990, Our rights and obligations to future generations for the environment, 84 The
American Journal for International Law, 198.
van Wyk, S, 2017, The impact of climate change law on the principle of state sovereignty over natu-
ral resources, Baden-Baden, Nomos.
273
154.72.171.36 on Mon, 22 Mar 2021 12:42:08 UTC

Principle of Environmental Management in Cameroon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Principle of Environmental Management in Cameroon

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Principle of Environmental Management in Cameroon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter Title: PRINCIPLES OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT IN CAMEROON

Chapter Author(s): Christopher F. TAMASANG and Andre Felix Martial TCHOFFO

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv941sr6.16

This content downloaded from

Christopher F. TAMASANG & Andre Felix Martial TCHOFFO

2 Why principles of environmental law in general and principles of

2.1 Theoretical foundations of principles of (environmental) law

If we go by the general formula for determining the sources of international law in

2.3 Some conceptual clarifications

2.3.1 What is environmental management?

2.3.2 What do we mean by the environment?

3 Fundamental principles of environmental management under Cameroonian

3.1 Theoretical presentation of the principles

3.1.1 Principles that reconcile environmental management and socio-economic

3.1.1.1 The principle of sustainable development

3.1.1.1.1 Meaning of sustainable development

Of all the principles of environmental law, the principle of sustainable development

3.1.1.1.2 Some manifestations of the principle

3.1.1.2 The principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources

3.1.1.2.1 Significance and foundation of the principle

3.1.1.2.2 The principle of permanent sovereignty as an enhancement to democracy

An interesting issue on which to ponder, especially within the context of developing

3.1.1.3 The principle of integration

3.1.1.4 The principle of participation

should be able to participate in environmental decision making.32 The principle may

3.1.2 Principles that relate to the reduction or prevention of likely harm

3.1.2.1 The precautionary principle

damage to the environment at an economically acceptable cost.33 We have adopted a

It should be indicated that the implementation of intergenerational and intra-

3.1.2.2 The principle of preventive action

3.1.2.3 The responsibility not to cause environmental harm

3.1.2.4 The principle of substitution

3.1.3 Principles that seek to affix responsibility for environmental harm

3.1.3.1 The principle of common but differentiated responsibility

The principle of common but differentiated responsibility is contained in Principle 7

3.1.3.2 The polluter pays principle

3.2 Practical utility and implementation of the principles of environmental

The utility and implementation of these principles in Cameroon will be assessed

3.2.1 Utility and implementation through administrative regulations and actions

3.2.1.1 Administrative regulations that consecrate principles of environmental

3.2.1.2 Principles of environmental management in the practical actions of the

With a single example, we will be able to illustrate how government action is

3.2.2 The judiciary and the implementation of principles of environmental

The practical implementation of the principles of environmental management as con-

3.2.2.1 Implementation of the responsibility not to cause environmental damage

3.2.2.2 The judiciary and the principle of participation

3.2.2.3 The judiciary fails to apply the polluter pays principle

4 Addressing the insufficient consideration of principles of environmental

4.1 Absence in Cameroonian law of some basic principles of contemporary

The principles of environmental management discussed in this write-up are those

4.1.1 Absence of the Erga Omnes principle in the 1996 law

4.1.2 Absence of the principle of common concern for humankind

4.1.3 Misplacement of the principle of sustainable development

4.2 Challenges to the development of principles on environmental management in

4.2.1 Impasse between what obtains in theory and in practice

One major challenge that is faced in Cameroon in matters of development of princi-

4.2.2 Timidity of doctrine in the discipline

Environmental law being a relatively new discipline in general and in Cameroon in

4.2.3 The 1996 law challenged by contemporary trends