喀麦隆的森林资源和背景

根据森林和野生动物部（2018 年）的数据，喀麦隆拥有约 2,200 万公顷森林，占国家总面积的 46% 左右。26,000 公顷（森林面积的 0.1%）为人工林。

陆地面积

47.3

百万公顷

森林覆盖

20.2

百万公顷

生产林

15.7

百万公顷

森林所有权

100

% 公有

CONTEXT

According to the Ministry of Forests and Wildlife (2025) and FAO assessments (2025), Cameroon covers approximately 47.6 million hectares, of which 19.1 million hectares are forested in 2025, representing nearly 40% of the national territory.

Forest management is overwhelmingly based on natural forests under public ownership (100%), with approximately 12.1 million hectares of production forests. These include around 7.1 million hectares of Forest Management Units (FMUs/UFA), 2.35 million hectares of communal forests, and 2.59 million hectares of community forests.

The structure of the forest estate—divided between Permanent Forest Domain (PFD) and Non-Permanent Forest Domain (NPFD)—combined with varying levels of governance and control, creates significant differences in risk across supply chains.

Forest loss in Cameroon, estimated at around 117,000 hectares per year over the period 2020–2025 (FAO 2025), is mainly concentrated in the southern and eastern forest regions, particularly along agricultural frontiers and in accessible areas. It corresponds to an annual loss rate of about 0.6% of total forest cover, characterised by a diffuse and progressive dynamic driven by anthropogenic pressures, rather than large-scale industrial conversion.

This deforestation is primarily driven by:

agricultural expansion (both industrial plantations and smallholder farming),
fuelwood and charcoal production,
mining activities, and
infrastructure development.

In parallel, forest degradation and legality risks are strongly linked to:

illegal logging and informal harvesting,
misuse or irregular allocation of permits,
weak law enforcement and limited administrative control, and
corruption affecting parts of the supply chain.

In this context, operators sourcing from Cameroon must go beyond country-level indicators and conduct a robust, supply chain–specific due diligence, taking into account forest type, origin of the timber, and local risk dynamics.

全球森林观察地图

RISK SCORES

CORRUPTION PERCEPTION INDEX (Transparency international)

/100

0 is highly corrupt, 100 is very clean.
Source: Transparency International

ILLEGAL DEFORESTATION AND ASSOCIATED TRADE (IDAT) Risk (Forest Trend)

91.75

/100

100 is higher risk, 0 is lower risk
Source: Forest trend

SOURCING HUB RISK SCORE (Preferred by nature)

/100

0 is higher risk, 100 is lower risk
Source: Preferred by nature

COUNTRY DEFORESTESTATION CLASSIFICATION LIST - EUDR (European Commission)

Standard risk category

For more information about the methodology, see here

Sources :

Interpretation of Risk Indicators

The indicators presented in this country profile (CPI, IDIAT, Sourcing Hub, EU benchmarking) are macro indicators intended to support risk analysis. They do not constitute a uniform qualification of the country or of its operators.

The EU benchmarking system classifies countries according to their risk of producing commodities that are not deforestation-free. For countries classified as standard risk, operators must conduct full due diligence, including information collection, risk assessment, and risk mitigation.

A country classified as presenting a certain level of risk does not mean that trade is prohibited. Operators may still source from such countries, provided that risks are adequately mitigated. This may include prioritising certified supply chains or those verified by independent third-party audits. Moreover, risk levels can vary within a country: a specific supplier or supply chain may present a low risk even in a country classified as high risk.

In accordance with the EUDR (Articles 9 to 11), risk assessment must in all cases be carried out at the level of the plot of origin and take into account the specific context of the region, the type of forest, and the supply chain.

The Timber Trade Portal is designed to support this analysis but does not replace the operator’s due diligence obligations.

Subnational variations in risks

Regional and Structural Risk Considerations

Risk levels may vary significantly within producer countries. However, in Cameroon, risk assessment should not rely solely on geographic location. It must be structured around a combination of spatial, legal, and operational factors.

Cameroon-specific risk approach:
Risk is primarily determined by:

Forest domain: Permanent Forest Domain (PFD) vs Non-Permanent Forest Domain (NPFD)
Type of harvesting title or permit
Level of governance and effective control

Risk interpretation by forest domain:

Permanent Forest Domain (PFD) (e.g. industrial concessions / FMUs):
– More structured regulatory framework
– Availability of management plans and documentation
– Remaining risks: allocation of titles, compliance with management plans, social and environmental obligations
Non-Permanent Forest Domain (NPFD) (e.g. community forests, small-scale permits, unclassified areas):
– Higher overall risk profile
– Limited planning and weaker traceability
– Higher exposure to land-use change and conversion
– Often limited administrative oversight
Implications for due diligence:
• Do not rely solely on country or regional risk classification
• Assess risk at supply chain level (from plot to export)
• Verify consistency of documents across the supply chain
• Prioritise supply chains with stronger traceability and third-party verification where relevant
• Apply enhanced scrutiny for supplies from NPFD or high-pressure areas

Important:
The presence of official documents does not, by itself, guarantee legality. Compliance must be demonstrated through a coherent and verifiable set of information covering the entire supply chain.

Sources:
• FAO, Global Forest Resources Assessment 2025 – Cameroon
• FAO, forest domain structure and land-use classifications (Permanent vs Non-Permanent Forest Domain, pp. 15–27)
• Preferred by Nature, Timber Legality Risk Assessment – Cameroon (2021)
• TRAFFIC & FODER (2025), Guide to verify the legality of timber from Cameroon

HARVESTING SOURCE	DUE DILIGENCE COMPLEXITY	DUE DILIGENCE CONSIDERATION
Forest Management Units (FMUs/UFAs) Permanent forest domain (PFD)	Moderate	Long-term concessions managed under approved forest management plans. Generally provide the highest level of traceability, planning and regulatory oversight. Verify concession rights, management plans, annual operating permits and harvesting records.
Council Forests Permanent Forest Domain (PFD)	Moderate	Managed under approved management plans. Verify legal allocation, harvesting authorisations and implementation of management requirements.
Community Forests Non-Permanent Forest Domain (NPFD)	High	May present additional challenges regarding governance capacity, traceability, implementation of management plans and land-use change risks. Enhanced verification is recommended
Vente de Coupe Non-Permanent Forest Domain (NPFD)	High to Very High	Short-term permits not supported by long-term forest management plans. Due diligence may be more complex due to limited long-term planning, shorter permit duration and greater need to verify harvesting boundaries, legality and traceability.
Small-scale permits (ARB, AEB, APC, etc.) Non-Permanent Forest Domain (NPFD)	High to Very High	Limited-scope permits that often require extensive verification of timber origin, permit justification and chain of custody. Enhanced scrutiny is strongly recommended.

所有国家概况