Liberia Forest Sector Diagnostic - Results Of A Diagnostic On Advances And Learning From Liberia’s Six Years Of Experience In Forest Sector Reform

7/23/2019 Liberia Forest Sector Diagnostic - Results Of A Diagnostic On Advances And Learning From Liberia’s Six Years Of Experience In Forest Sector Reform

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/liberia-forest-sector-diagnostic-results-of-a-diagnostic-on-advances-and 1/119

LIBERIA

FOREST SECTOR DIAGNOSTIC

RESULTS OF A DIAGNOSTIC ON ADVANCES

AND LEARNING FROM LIBERIA’S SIX

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN FOREST

SECTOR REFORM



This report contains the findings of a diagnostic on Liberia’s forestry sector policy reforms in Liberia. It is a product of

the staff and consultants of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank and is basedon extensive interviews, in-country workshops, community visits and research, including prior work by the World Bankon the Liberian forest sector, such as Rapid Social Assessments, a socio-economic survey of forest communities, andthe World Bank-supported Strategic Environmental Assessment Mainstreaming Social and EnvironmentalConsiderations into the Liberian National Forestry Reform Process). The work was carried out during the period fromMay 2011 to February 2012.

©2012 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank1818 H Street NWWashington DC 20433, USAInternet: www.worldbank.org E-mail: [email protected]

This paper has not undergone the review accorded to official World Bank publications. The findings, interpretations, and conclusionsexpressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the International Bank for Reconstruction andDevelopment/The World Bank and its affiliated organizations, or those of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or thegovernments they represent.



Acronyms

BD/FDA Board of Directors of the Forestry Development

AuthorityBMP Best Management PracticeBOC Board of ConcessionsCA Community AssemblyCAF UL College of Agriculture and Forestry, University of

LiberiaCBD Convention on Biological DiversityCDD Community-driven DevelopmentCFDC Community Forest Development CommitteeCFF County Forest ForumsCFMA Community Forest Management

AgreementCFMB Community Forest Management BodyCFMP Community Forest Management PlanCHYAO Trust Fund for Children and YouthCI Conservation InternationalCIFOR Center for International Forestry ResearchCoC Chain-of-Custody SystemCPAML National Wildlife Conservation and Protected

Area Management LawCRL Community Rights Law of 2009

CFC Community Forest ContractDFID Department For International Development (UK)EC European CommissionECA Executive Committee of the AssemblyEIA Environmental Impact AssessmentEITI Extractive Industries Transparency InitiativeELI Environmental Law InstituteEPA Environmental Protection AgencyESA European Space AgencyETOA Environmental Threats and Opportunities

AssessmentEU European UnionFAO UN Food and Agricultural OrganizationFCPF Forest Carbon Partnership FacilityFCRC Forest Concessions Review CommitteeFDA Lib i F t D l t A

INGO International NGO

ITTO International Tropical Timber OrganizationIUCN International Union for the Conservation of NatureLACE Liberian Agency for Community EmpowermentLC Land CommissionLEITI Liberian Extractive Industries Transparency

InitiativeLFI Liberia Forest InitiativeMHSW Ministry of Health and Social WelfareMLME Ministry of Land, Mines and EnergyMOA Ministry of AgricultureMOE Ministry of Education

MOF Ministry of FinanceMOT Ministry of TransportMPEA Ministry of Planning and Economic AffairsMSME Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises

NACUL National Charcoal Union of Liberia NFF National Forest Forum NFMS National Forest Management Strategy NFP National Forest Programme NFPF National Forest Programme Facility NFRL National Forest Reform Law of 2006

NGO Non-governmental Organization NMSC National Multi-Stakeholders SteeringCommittee

NTFP Non-Timber Forest Products NTGL National Transitional Government of LiberiaPA Protected AreaPROFOR Program On ForestsPROSPER People, Rules and Organizations Supporting the

Protection of Ecosystem ResourcesPUP Private Use PermitREDD Reducing Emissions from Avoided Deforestation

and Forest DegradationRME Reliable Minimum EstimateR-PP Readiness Preparation ProposalRRI Rights and Resources InitiativeSA S i l A t



Table of ContentsPreface ............................. .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .............. ii

Acknowledgements...............................................................................................................................iii Executive Summary..............................................................................................................................iv

Background .............................. .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..... 1 Forest Sector Reform: Principal Achievements since Lifting of Sanctions ............................. ........... 2

Legal and regulatory reforms. ................................................................ ................................... ...... .... 2 Assessments of forest resources. .......................................................................................................... 3 Establishment of a chain of custody for forest resources. ................................................................ ..... 3 Institutional reforms in the Forestry Development Authority................................................................ 4 Protection and management of Sapo National Park..... ........................... .............................. ............... 4 Awarding of Forest Management Contracts................................ ......................................................... 4 Liberia Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative ................................................................ .......... 4

Forest Sector Reforms: How Firm a Foundation? ............................ .......................... ......................... 5 Forest Policy.......................................................................................................................................5 National Forest Reform Law of 2006................................................................................................... 6 National Forest Management Strategy of 2007....................................................... .......... ................ ... 7 Community Rights Law of 2009...........................................................................................................9

Emerging Lessons and Opportunities......................... .......................... .......................... .................... 12 Forest Sector Reform Framework..................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ... 12 Forest Sector Governance ............................ .......................... .......................... .......................... ....... 14 Informed decisionmaking ................................... .......................... ..... ..................... .......... ................ . 16

What are the available forest resources?............................... .......................... ....................... 16 Who owns the forest?... ............................. ............................ .......................... ....................... 18 Forest trends. ............................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ........... 20 No regret decisionmaking. ................................... ........... .................... ...... ............................. 22

The Integration of Community, Conservation, and Commercial Forestry – The Three Cs................... 22 Structural obstacles to Three C integration ............................... .......................... .................. 23

Sustainable Forest Management................................ ........................... .......................... ................... 24 Local forest governance. ................................................................ ............................... ..... ... 25 National forest governance................................................................................................. ... 25



Some Useful Lessons ........................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ................ 46 Proposed Policy Options and Actions................... .......................... .......................... ......................... 49

Forest Sector Partners’ Support............. .......................... .......................... ............................... ........ 51 Considerations for Additional World Bank Engagement ............................ .......................... .............. 53 Post-Script ........................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ........ 58

Recent Developments ................ .................... ...... .............................................................................. 58 Conclusions ........................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ... 62 Recommendations ................................................................ ................................... ...... .................... 63

Appendix I. Forest Policy and Implementation Strategies: Emerging Issues................................ .. 65

Bibliography ............................. .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ... 68

Annex I. Meetings Held............................. .......................... .......................... .......................... ........... 74 Annex II. Workshop Summaries............................................ .......................... .......................... ........ 77 Annex III. UN Panel of Experts Summary .............................. .......................... .......................... ...... 86 Annex IV. USAID/Liberia Land Rights and Community Forestry Program................................... 88 Annex V. Recommendations from Review of Forest Resource Assessments in Liberia.................... 90

Annex VI. Overview Of The Principal Forest Resources Analyses of Liberia ................................. 93 Annex VII. World Bank Trade Integration Study, Wood Industry Recommendations .................. 95 Annex VIII. Forest Sector Partners’ Support .............................. .......................... .......................... . 98 Annex IX. Sanctions Lifting +6 Conference - Establishing a Roadmap for the Forest Sector....... 102

List Of Boxes, Figures, & Tables

Box 1. National Forest Reform Law & Community Land Rights: A Lesson To Learn? ..................... 11Box 2. Current Status Of Forest Concessions ........................... .......................... .......................... ...... 15

Box 3. Evolution Of The Forest Sector Reform Process: UNSC Panel Of Experts On Liberia ............ 17Box 4. Overlaps Between Forest, Agricultural & Mining Concessions & Protected Areas ................. 18Box 5. Drivers Of Deforestation: Shifting Cultivation ............................. .......................... .............. 21



Preface

In 2011, the Government of Liberia asked the World Bank’s advice and guidance on furthering the forestsector reform process and a balanced contribution from the sector to the nation’s social, economic andenvironmental goals. To that end, the World Bank carried out a diagnostic of Liberia’s progress indevelopment and implementation of policy and legal reforms during the period from June of 2006 when the United Nation’s sanctions on Liberian timber exports were lifted until the beginning ofFebruary of 2012.

This document is the result of that diagnostic and is intended for a broad audience of forest sectorstakeholders, including the Government of Liberia, national forest sector stakeholders, donor partners,and the World Bank. It is not intended that this report provide prescriptions. Rather, its intent is tohighlight key issues in the sector, offer recommendations for the consideration of the reader, andcontribute to the ongoing national discussions regarding the future of the reform process.

To prepare this report, an extensive literature review was carried out, and a series of interviews held withdozens of key informants, both within and outside of Liberia. At the outset of the diagnostic, a workshopentitled “Liberia Forest Sector: What Have We Learned?” was held at the World Bank offices in

Monrovia in May 2011 with the objective of orienting the work based on the views and experiences ofkey forest sector stakeholders. The first draft of the report was reviewed by the World Bank’s CentralForestry Team in September 2011 and an updated version produced based on their comments and inputs.Subsequently, follow-up visits and discussions were held in Liberia in November and December of 2011and February of 2012 to both validate the report’s findings and recommendations and to make it current.Valuable inputs for the report were also obtained through several other national workshops, including thenational consultation workshops for the World Bank’s draft Poverty and Social Impact Analysis (PSIA)of community forestry laws and programs, and for the Government of Liberia’s Poverty Reduction

Strategy II (PRS II) Stakeholder Consultative Meeting for the Forest Sector. These latter were held inMonrovia in December of 2012. An updated draft, prepared with the benefit of these further inputs, wasthen broadly disseminated in April and May of 2012 in order to obtain feedback from national andinternational Liberia forest sector stakeholders. A final document incorporating all of the above, was

d d i f



Acknowledgements

The Task Team Leader for this report was Oliver Braedt (AFTAI). The report was authored by JamesSmyle (Consultant). Guidance for the report’s preparation was provided by Idah Z. Pswarayi-Riddihoughand Magda Lovei (AFTNW). Valuable support, guidance, perspectives and peer review for the preparation of the report were provided by a diverse group of individuals from the World Bank (DijiChandrasekharan Behr, Tuukka Castren, Peter A. Dewees, and Nalin M. Kishor of ARD; Paola Agostini,AFTEN; Maria C. J. Cruz and Selvi Joy Isaac of AFTCS; Sachiko Kondo and Louis Tian-Pierquin,AFTNW; Lauren Kelly, IEG). The work would not have been possible without the collaboration, support

and insights from the Government of Liberia. This was provided by the Forestry Development Authority(Theo Freeman, Lawrence Green, Jangar S. Kamara, Morris Kamara, John Kantor and Peter Lowe); theLand Commission (Dr. Cecil T.O. Brandy); the EPA (Hon. Anyaa Vohiri, Varney L. Conneh, BenKarmorh); the MLME (Emmanuel O. Sherman); and the National Investment Commission (Othello Z.B.Karr). The report also benefits from the generosity, time, patience and perspectives provided by national NGOs (Alfred Brownell of Green Advocates; Daniel P. M. Kwabo, James G. Otto, Jonathan Yiah, AliKaba of the Sustainable Development Institute); from private sector associations (Shadrach James,Liberia Chainsaw & Timber Dealers Union; John Deah, Liberian Timber Association); from the

University of Liberia (Prof. John T. Woods); from other international aid agencies (Anna Halton, EC;Carlo Battaglini, EU; Gun Eriksson Skoog, SIDA; Paolo Nastasi, UNMIL; Daniel Whyner and JenniferTalbot, USAID); and from international NGOs (Letla Mosenene, Fauna and Flora International (FFI);Jonathan Gant and Richard Jacobsen, Global Witness; Gregory Kitts, Norwegian Refugee Council;Augusta Molnar, Rights and Resources Initiative); and consultants (Art Blundell, John Bruce, Peter deWaard, Paul De Witt, Sam Koffa, Mark Marquardt, Jackson S. Nobeh; and LiberFor (Ivan Muir, SGS).Partial financing for the diagnostic work was provided by PROFOR.



Executive Summary

Background

1. In 2001, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) imposed sanctions on Liberia in response to itsGovernment’s role in the conflict in Sierra Leone. The sanctions included a ban on the procurementof arms and on trade in Liberian diamonds. In 2003, the UNSC imposed additional sanctions to prohibit trade in roundwood and timber products originating in Liberia, to prevent revenues fromtimber exports being used to finance its own ongoing civil war.

2. In 2003, the Accra Comprehensive Peace Agreement was signed, ending Liberia’s civil war andestablishing a National Transitional Government (NTGL). Working with civil society andinternational partners, the NTGL developed a roadmap for reforms to the forest sector to bring aboutthe lifting of sanctions and to conserve and sustainably manage the country’s forests. Key to thereform process was the establishment in early 2004 of the Liberia Forests Initiative (LFI) as a partnership between the Government and international and non-governmental organizations.

3. From the outset, the LFI had the strong support and participation of national-level stakeholders andthe international community. As a forum, it served to develop consensus on the way forward for thesector and as a catalyst for the development of working partnerships among the stakeholders todeliver on agreed priorities and actions.

4. In the same year that the LFI was established, the NTGL constituted a Forest Concessions ReviewCommittee (FCRC) to review the forestry sector and its role in the conflict, and to evaluate the legalstatus of all timber concessions. Based on its findings, the Committee recommended that (a) all forestconcessions be declared void ab initio (i.e., invalid from the outset); (b) the debarment of 17 forestrycompanies; and (iii) a series of key reforms be made to the 2000 National Forestry Law to improvetransparency, accountability, and public participation in the forest sector. In February 2006, thenewly elected President Johnson-Sirleaf accepted the Committee’s recommendations and took stepsto implement them (Executive Order #1, February 2, 2006). In recognition of the Government’ssubstantive progress toward reforming the forest sector, the UN Security Council voted not to renewthe timber sanctions in June 2006.

Forest Sector Reform: Principal Achievements since the Lifting of Sanctions



Swiss-based Société Générale de Surveillance (SGS). SGS is to develop the system, scale it up proportionate to the roll-out of timber contracts and readiness of the companies, and build the

capacity of the Forestry Development Authority (FDA), the Ministry of Finance, and othergovernment agencies to operate and administer the system.

8. Institutional reforms in the Forestry Development Authority. The FDA was restructured and staffingcut from more than 500 to approximately 300 employees. Terms of reference were developed foreach staff position, and a new organizational structure was put in place to support the implementationof the “Three Cs” framework. A Research and Development Department, a Division for Forest LawEnforcement and Legal Issues, and a Strategic Planning Unit were included in the new structure. New personnel policies were drafted, and FDA’s financial management was reformed.

9. Protection and management of Sapo National Park. Sapo National Park is the country's largest protected area of rainforest and its only national park. It contains the second-largest area of primarytropical rainforest in West Africa. Its management framework was reactivated and the land usesituation stabilized; this included the relocation of squatters engaged in illicit gold mining.

10. Awarding of forest management contracts. With the legal framework and ground rules laid forsustainable forest management and economic revival of the sector, the Government’s next prioritywas to re-initiate commercial forest concessions. Timber production was expected to start in 2008;however, bidding processes took a bit longer than expected. Ultimately, a total of seven Forest

Management Contracts (FMCs) were awarded in 2009 on just over 1 million ha of commercial forestland. No additional FMCs have since been awarded.

11. Liberia Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative. Liberia joined the Extractive IndustriesTransparency Initiative (EITI) in 2009 and became the first country to include contracts and receiptsfrom forestry as part of its initiative.

Forest Sector Reforms: How Firm a Foundation?

12. Forest Policy. An overriding goal of the Government’s Forest Policy (FDA, 2006) is the conservationand sustainable management of all forest areas, so that they will continue to produce a complete rangeof goods and services, contribute to poverty alleviation, and maintain environmental stability whilefulfilling Liberia’s commitments under international agreements and conventions. The policy also



16. Given the NFRL’s consistency with the Forest Policy, it reflects the policy’s same weaknesses,though perhaps bringing them into sharper focus. For example, it makes no attempt to establish

mechanisms or linkages to achieve the policy’s goal of a “balanced and, where possible, integratedapproach? [Three Cs] to achieve maximum benefits for the nation as a whole.” The Law neitheroverturned nor modified the provisions of the National Forestry Act of 2000, which declared foreststhe property of the Republic. Despite both the Forest Policy and the NFRL having specific languageabout protecting and supporting community forest rights, the Law failed to provide a definition ofcommunities’ rights to forest resources or to empower them for purposes of forest management and planning. Instead, the NFRL makes clear that local people have no legal standing in the decision onwhether or not their forest lands are to be logged. The community benefit sharing framework incommercial forestry is weak, and a framework for community compensation in conservation areas is

lacking.17. National Forest Management Strategy of 2007. The National Forest Management Strategy’s primary

objective is “to allocate and manage Liberia’s remaining 4.39 million hectares of forest as either forest management contract areas and timber sales contract areas, community management areas, or protected areas to capture, develop and preserve the wide range of forest resource benefits.” It alsoestablishes a vision of the “ideal status” of Liberia’s forests in 25 years, and proposes an “end state”against which future progress can be measured. It allocates a total of 4.59 million ha of forest for fourcategories of use – two classes of commercial timber production (multiple sustainable use

management, and timber sales contracts), community management, and protected areas.18. The strategy also establishes specific two-year goals for each of FDA’s four principal departments,

which serve as operational directives. In addition, the strategy defines the responsibilities of eachdepartment, but in a rather brief and vague fashion. The principal weakness of the strategy is itsfailure to operationalize the Three Cs concept. It lacks articulation of internal objectives, goals,responsibilities, or mechanisms to integrate the activities of the four departments. Other significantgaps and weaknesses are as follows: (a) it is a strategy for the public forest sector agency, not for theforest sector; (b) it largely ignores production for domestic markets; (c) it provides no guidance on

land tenure and resource access issues; and (d) it fails to provide direction on the future relationshipof community forestry to commercial forestry.

19. Further, the strategy does not address a number of recent developments in the sector, which makes itoutdated These developments include (a) the Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) with the



forest strategy to give the public access to information, promote participation and transparency insector decisionmaking, and strengthen rule of law still remain largely unimplemented. Concerns are

being raised on a number of fronts, including by the IMF (Baunsgaard et al. 2011), that governanceand transparency are not adequate. The latest UN Panel of Experts report (2011b), in discussingconcerns as to the fragility of the gains under the reforms, noted a growing view “ among loggingcompanies and in some quarters in the Government that the reforms and chain of custody wereimposed from outside by the United Nations and the donor community [and]…an increasing trendapparent in the administrative decisions of the Government of Liberia’s Forestry Development Authority and Ministry of Finance, to relax regulations in order to make logging more profitable —decisions that, in fact, are likely to have the effect of undermining the realization of reforms. ”

22.

The strong focus on export-oriented commercial forestry absorbed much of the limited capacityavailable, with the effect of marginalizing conservation and community forestry aspects and divertingattention away from development of domestic processing capacity and markets. The perceived potential for large-scale, export-oriented forest concessions to quickly contribute to employment andrevenue generation in the post-conflict period was a strong motivator and gave rise to the desire toadvance as rapidly as possible in launching commercial forestry. This same sense of urgency alsoappears to have led to the risky strategy of postponing dealing with the difficult and complex issuesassociated with forest land tenure and customary forest rights until after the concessioning processwas initiated. The signing of the Community Rights Law in 2009 revealed contradictions between

GoL’s emerging policies on land and community rights on the one hand, and the forest sector’shistoric policies and laws asserting state ownership of natural forest resources − an assertion that had been restated in the 2006 National Forest Reform Law – on the other. Through the CRL, GoL’srecognition of the customary rights of communities to their forest resources (and, implicitly, alsocustomary rights to land) called into question some basic assumption upon which the National ForestStrategy was based. To date, the strategy’s industrial concession model has generated few benefitsfor the country or local communities. As noted by the IMF (2011), national authorities fullyrecognize that “the FDI-based economic model, which relies heavily on the extraction of raw

materials in ‘enclave sectors’, may have a limited broader development impact and do little toaddress economic exclusion, which was one of the root causes of the conflict .”

23. More recently, the issuance of Private Use Permits (PUP) and large-scale Community ForestManagement Agreements (CFMA) have emerged as priority concerns. There has been an extremely



there is a potential for undermining forest sector reforms; (d) creates the appearance of lack of due process around social, governance and benefit-sharing aspects; and (e) presents a high risk that

communal forest resources will be appropriated by a small group of elites and private logginginterests.

26. Because of the seriousness of these concerns, the FDA’s Board of Directors, at the behest of thePresident of Liberia, placed a moratorium on the further issuance of PUPs for the harvesting of timberas of 18 February 2012. The FDA, however, continued to process PUPs; a fact confirmed byinformation from SGS/LiberFor. In response, the President took further action. In August 2012, shereiterated that the moratorium remained in place, directed the General Auditing Commission (GAC)to investigate the PUPs granted by the FDA, established an independent Special Investigative Body to

conduct a comprehensive review of the policies and procedures regarding the issuance of PUPs, andsuspended the FDA’s Managing Director. Further action by the Executive is pending the final auditreport of the GAC and the recommendations of the Special Independent Investigative Body. TheLegislative and Judicial branches, however, have not been particularly supportive of the positionstaken by the President.

27. Finally, there are a number of emerging policies, needs, and opportunities none of which arecontemplated in the current National Forest Strategy that in the aggregate will have profoundimpacts on how the forest sector operates and is administered in coming years. Among these are (a)

the clear trend towards the recognition of customary land rights and forest tenure, which will lead tothe development of a heretofore unanticipated, significant community forestry subsector; (b) GoL’sdecentralization policy; (c) the growing recognition of the importance of the domestic forest sector,which to date has been largely ignored; (d) the VPA agreement with the EU, which will requireregulation of the domestic market and the integration of many existing (informal) small forest andforest-resource dependent enterprises into formal and regulated trade and commerce; and (v) REDD+, whose Readiness Preparation Proposal (R-PP) introduces a range of new priorities and instrumentsfor forest conservation and management.

28.

A potentially very serious issue stemming from the recent developments around customary land rightsis the financial risk this may pose to GoL. The Government has let forestry (and agriculture andmining) concessions on the basis that the land was public land and unencumbered by private rights.Increasingly, however, this appears not be the case. Issues of compensation could arise on both sides;

if l d d d h d f f h i i h f ll h



processes; and (c) forest sector revenue and operational planning as relevant to fiscal charges,community benefits, administration of forest revenues, transparency, community participation,

regulatory frameworks, and compliance in concessions and PUP. A “Declaration of Intent” wassigned by attendees affirming the roadmap and declaring the intention to work cooperatively and productively for its establishment and implementation. The formation of a Forestry Donors WorkingGroup (FDWG) was also agreed. The draft roadmap is an important instrument, representing a firststep in the re-establishment of a productive dialogue between FDA and sector stakeholders on forestsector policy and priorities.

Conclusions

31. Liberia's forest sector reforms are at a critical stage. Governance of the forest sector requires

attention, yet the effective forest sector stakeholder participation needed to improve governance isimpeded by the lack of functional spaces and formal mechanisms for their engagement, and the lackof transparency resulting from weak communications and information sharing systems. The need fordevelopment of local governance capacity for decentralized forest management is clear, both as aresponse to GoL’s decentralization and emerging land policy, and for the long-term sustainability ofinstitutional efforts to administer the sector. Forests and land rights are a pressing issue requiring thatthe FDA and the Ministry of Lands, Mines and Energy (MLME) align their actions with the LandCommission’s program and respect its mandate (GoL 2009b). Significant, systematic efforts are

needed to develop the institutional and governance arrangements for decentralized forest management by and through communities. In addition, there are a number of other important concerns that meritattention, including: (a) development of the domestic market for forest products; (b) “smart” capacity building progressively targeted at the principal bottlenecks to the sector’s progress; (c) developmentof new sector strategy for achieving the Three Cs under the new and emerging realties; (d)development of a conservation strategy and approach that goes beyond the protected areas system andencompasses the large areas of the country that are now or planned to be under mineral, agricultural,and forest concessions or designated as community forest; and (e) a re-evaluation of current forest production and processing strategies and models in light of changing conditions, with the aim of

promoting development of the domestic market; micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs);formalization of the informal sector; and community ownership.

32. While all of the above is extremely important for the continuation of sector reforms, the first nineth f 2012 h d t t d th d l t di t t f th f t t th f



33. Internal to the sector, reform efforts have been furthered through the SL+6 process. Effective follow-up and nurturing is critical if the initial momentum provided by the Monrovia conference is to be

maintained. However, no budget was committed and no entity was specifically tasked with ensuringthis next step, in order to validate and finalize the roadmap. It is yet unclear how the SL+6 processwill be consolidated and put into action. Clearly this should be a major agenda item for the ForestryDonors Working Group.

34. Lastly, the rapid deployment of PUPs across vast areas of the country has created a de factocommunity forestry sector on a scale that was unimaginable only two years ago. In effect, thecommunity “C” is now the dominant one, with which the other two Cs – commercial andconservation – must learn to coexist and prosper. The dominant community forestry model that

Liberia is pursuing through the scale-up of PUPs is likely to be one of “community/private sector” partnerships. As noted in the Land Commission report (Land Commission of Liberia 2012), “amanagement system based on low impact and highly selective commercial logging on well-identified parts of community land under a balanced partnership with the commercial sector is an opportunitythat needs to be explored.” At present, however, the model is non-transparent, exploitative, andunbalanced, with logging companies the major winners and communities the major losers. In theshort term, efforts are needed to raise community awareness, begin a process of organizingtransparent governance of local land and natural resources, and establish an appropriate regulatoryframework. In the longer term, the focus will need to be on clarifying and formalizing land and

resource access rights, local land use planning, community capacity building, and appropriate forestmanagement practices.

35. Community forestry based on clear land and forest resource access rights will be both a strategic platform and an entry point for developing the domestic forest sector through community-based forestMSMEs and community-private sector partnerships. It will also support the implementation of theVPA and REDD+, and the achievement of GoL’s goals for forest conservation. The VPA requires bringing the informal sector under regulation and its integration into domestic markets. Long term,this will only be fully possible if communities are responsible for managing their forest resources and

complying with norms and regulations. For REDD+ to reach communities and not only large-scaleconcession operators, it will also need this same platform of secure community forest resource accessrights. Equally, community forestry needs REDD+ to bolster local incentives for the conservation andmanagement of forest resources. Achieving Liberia’s objective of 30 percent of forest lands under



by communities; (e) a review is carried out with the Public Procurement Commission and Bureauof Concessions on the proposed single-source contracting of pre-qualified logging companies

under CFMAs on lands that are putatively still public lands; and (f) an interim Code of Practice isdeveloped and agreed with community forest sector stakeholders to guide the FDA, the privatesector, and communities until a comprehensive strategy and set of instruments for communityforestry and forest-based enterprises are developed.

Strongly encourage and support the “Sanctions Lifting + 6” process, to strengthen overallsector governance; promote consensus on medium-term priorities for continued reforms; andstrengthen the capacity and increase the field presence of the FDA and other sector institutions.

Finalize a review of the fiscal framework for forest concessions. Follow the advice of theIMF (Baunsgaard et al. 2011) with regard to ensuring revenue neutrality, and avoiding a

detrimental impact on the confidence of donors, NGOs, and the population (e.g., throughtransparency and stakeholder engagement in the process).

Follow the advice of the IMF (Baunsgaard et al. 2011) regarding the need, prior to anyfuture tendering of forest concessions, to: (a) strengthen the auction mechanism, includingclear and independent oversight, to ensure compliance with the relevant laws, procedures, andregulations; and (b) finalize review and make needed amendments, if any, to the concession’sfiscal framework. In addition, a more robust set of social safeguards for concessions should bedeveloped to strengthen the benefit-sharing framework and correct known problems (e.g., lack of

negotiation capacity by communities, negotiation of benefit sharing after the concession contractis signed, lack of standards and criteria to allow predictability of benefit-sharing costs, etc.); andto avoid or mitigate the risk of concessioning lands that would be ultimately adjudicated tocommunities under statutory or customary land claims.

Ensure the functioning of the Benefit Sharing Trust Fund mechanism by supportingdevelopment of viable proposals by Community Forest Development Committees (CFDCs) tosubmit to the Trust; and by supporting the Trust’s outreach and promotional capacity so that itcan engage with communities through the CFDCs.

38. In the medium to long term: Strengthen sector governance by focusing on transparency and effective stakeholder

participation. Specifically, (a) strengthen oversight of FDA by its Board and diversify theBoard’s membership so that it is representative of the sector’s stakeholders; (b) develop capacity



Update the National Forest Management Strategy, with inputs from the PRS II, SanctionsLifting +6, VPA stakeholder consultations, and other stakeholder engagements and analytical

processes. Develop and promote the domestic market and linkages to regional markets for forest products (timber and non-timber forest products) as a central strategy for employment generationand poverty reduction for rural communities and forest dwellers. Develop policies andinstruments to encourage the growth of a domestic processing sector and forestry/forest resource- based MSMEs; formalize the chainsaw milling and charcoal producing MSMEs, and strengthentheir value chains and backward linkages to managed areas of forest resources. The strategyelaborated by Tissari et al. (2008) for the development of the national forest products processingsector and regional trade and export is still relevant and can be strengthened, with complementary

actions to develop the forest MSME sector in tandem. A specific focus on creating opportunitiesand employment for youth would be an essential element.

Build capacity broadly across the sector to address the wide and ubiquitous lack of capacityamong all forest sector actors at all levels. Given the almost overwhelming need, use the SL+6and other stakeholder processes to build consensus on short to medium term priorities for thesector. The FDA itself must have a systematic program to build its internal capacity over time.The program should be part of a global strategy for the progressive development of the agency’scapacities and its decentralization. The Sanctions Lifting +6 process should inform these

priorities as well. Strengthen the current information base for decisionmaking so that up-to-date policy and

operationally relevant information is available. This would necessarily include information onlivelihoods, forest use systems, and market linkages of those persons and communities living inor near the forests.

Develop and implement a conservation strategy and approach that goes beyond theprotected areas system and encompasses the large areas of the country that are now or plannedto be under mineral, agricultural, and forest concessions, as well as, eventually, designated ascommunity forest. The strategy must cover the question of how to finance conservation at thelandscape scale; REDD+ should provide one of the pillars. New instruments, incentives, andapproaches for conservation should be developed and negotiated in conjunction with relevantministries and institutions: MLME and the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) for conservationoffsets and compensation payments; and MOA the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare



systematic dialogue within the sector on the path forward – in this case, the ongoing Sanctions Lifting+6 process − the Bank could make an important contribution to this effort. Supporting the Sanctions

Lifting process would also help to promote the construction of permanent spaces for dialogue withinthe sector; improve communications and information sharing; and provide of timely inputs to theongoing PRS II process.

40. Facilitate knowledge management. The World Bank could also make a significant contribution by providing access to its substantial global and African experience and knowledge, particularly in theareas of forest concessions management, monitoring and audit; forest land administration, tenure andaccess rights; forest concession policy, including social safeguards; forest fiscal systems to promote poverty reduction and sustainable forest management; formalizing the informal sector, particularlychainsaw milling and charcoal production; stakeholder management and communications;decentralization and forest administration and management; mainstreaming of conservation and biodiversity protection within economic development; management and conservation of biodiversity;and youth employment. The Sanctions Lifting consultations could be a means for prioritizingthematic areas for Bank support.

41. Technical assistance and investment support. There are a number of technical and thematic areaswhere the World Bank would have a comparative advantage in supporting forest sector reform. Atthis stage in the country’s development, it is critical to support economic models that can have broader development impacts and provide for inclusive economic growth. For the forest sector, thekey challenge will be to diversify economic opportunity and enhance the capacity to generateemployment and local benefits by supporting the development of MSMEs based on forest productsand services. Current forest policy, strategy, and efforts have largely ignored the domestic forestsector despite its potential for significant employment generation and poverty alleviation for ruralcommunities and forest dwellers. Current efforts have also ignored the challenges to sustainableforest management posed by the considerable and largely unregulated informal domestic forest sector.The Bank has a great deal of experience with these kinds of long-term development issues, whichrepresent opportunities to link global financing mechanisms (such as GEF and Forest Carbon

Partnership Facility) with its other instruments to assist GoL in developing approaches to forest and biodiversity management and conservation that will support community forestry and ruraldevelopment.



Background

1. In 2001, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) imposed sanctions on Liberia in response to itsGovernment’s role in the conflict in Sierra Leone. The sanctions placed a ban on the procurement ofarms and on the trade in Liberian diamonds. (UNSC 2001). In 2003, the UNSC imposed additionalsanctions to prohibit trade in roundwood and timber products originating in Liberia, to preventrevenues from timber exports from being used to finance Liberia’s own civil war. The timbersanctions were to remain in place until such time as the Government of Liberia (GoL) established itsfull authority and control over timber production areas, and ensured that government revenues fromthe Liberian timber industry were used for legitimate purposes and in benefit of the Liberian people.The resolution also encouraged GoL to establish oversight mechanisms for the timber industry, promote responsible business practices, and establish transparent accounting and auditingmechanisms to ensure the legitimate use of government revenues (UNSC 2003).

2. In 2003, the Accra Comprehensive Peace Agreement was signed, ending Liberia’s civil war andestablishing a National Transitional Government (NTGL). Working with civil society andinternational partners, the NTGL developed a roadmap for reforms to the forest sector to bring aboutthe lifting of sanctions and to conserve and sustainably manage the country’s forests. Key to thereform process was the establishment in early 2004 of the Liberia Forest Initiative (LFI) as a partnership between the Government and international and non-governmental organizations. LFI’s purpose was to provide a platform for the engagement of key stakeholders in the forest sector reform process. One of its central concerns was to advance efforts to achieve transparency and goodgovernance in the management of Liberia’s forests, particularly with regard to developing theireconomic potential for timber production. At the same time, the LFI sought to balance industrialforestry with the provision and maintenance of the forests’ environmental, social, and culturalservices through protected areas management and community forestry (World Bank 2010). This gaverise to the so-called “Three Cs approach,” a conceptual framework to balance and integrate thecommercial, community, and conservation uses of Liberia’s forests “so that they can continue to

produce vital environmental goods and services as well as support the economic development of thenation” (FDA 2006).

3. From the outset, the LFI had the strong support and participation of national-level stakeholders andthe international community (Cohen 2009) It served as a forum to develop consensus on the way



Those in authority allowed illegal logging in exchange for bribes and other favors, includingarms trafficking in violation of UN Security Council sanctions.

Logging companies paid millions of dollars directly to government officials and conspiredwith the authorities to evade taxes. Security forces paid by logging companies were composed of former rebel leaders who

committed gross human rights violations and war crimes. Logging companies owed government some US$64 million in back taxes. Concession rights had been given for more than 250% of the forested surface of Liberia.

5. Based on their findings, the Committee recommended that all forest concessions be declared void abinitio (i.e., be treated as invalid from the outset); that 17 forestry companies be barred from doing business in Liberia; and that a series of key reforms to the 2000 National Forestry Law be enacted toimprove transparency, accountability, and public participation in the sector. In February 2006, newlyelected President Johnson-Sirleaf accepted the Committee’s recommendations and acted upon them.She issued an Executive Order voiding all forest concessions and requiring the Forestry DevelopmentAuthority (FDA) to halt the granting or allocation of any future forest concessions until such time as adetailed set of measures for forest sector reform were “ fully instituted and implemented and thenecessary legislation enacted and regulations passed ” (GoL 2006). The specific measures to bedeveloped were spelled out in the Executive Order (GoL 2006).

6. Prior to the President’s Order, the UNSC had requested − by means of UNSC Resolutions 1607(UNSC 2005a) and 1647 (UNSC 2005b) – that GoL implement the recommendations of the FCRC intheir entirety. As President Johnson-Sirleaf’s Executive Order substantially did just this, in June of2006 the UN Security Council voted not to renew the timber sanctions (UNSC 2006). The lifting ofthe sanctions was a recognition of GoL’s substantive progress toward reforming the forest sector.

Forest Sector Reform: Principal Achievements since Lifting of Sanctions

7. Legal and regulatory reforms. Since the lifting of sanctions, the two most important legal reforms to

the forest sector have been (a) the National Forest Reform Law (NFRL) of 2006, and (b) theCommunity Rights Law (CRL) of 2009. The adoption of the National Forest Reform Law was acritical first step, providing the framework for legal and transparent operation of the sector. TheNFRL established requirements for transparency accountability and public participation and



9. The other piece of legislation, the Community Rights Law (CRL) of 2009, represented a significantstep toward resolving the pressing issue of lack of legal clarity over forest ownership and use rights.According to GoL (2008), this lack of clarity had led to a state of tenure insecurity, conflicting andcompeting tenure arrangements, and constant and persistent clashes of customary and statutory rights.It also reinforced what an ITTO report (2005) described as a tendency for “ traditional land andresource rights of the majority rural population [to be] systematically ignored and undermined.”Where the 2006 National Forest Reform Law had reinforced past forest legislation, providing that“ All forest resources in Liberia … [are] held in trust by the Republic for the benefit of the people,” the2009 Community Rights Law modified the State’s expansive claim to all forest resources, and in itsstead clarified that “ All forest resources on community forest lands are owned by localcommunities.”3 Notably, the CRL did not speak to the issue of land rights, only to the ownership of

the natural forest.10. Assessments of forest resources. An assessment of Liberia’s forest cover was completed in 2004 in

order to determine the condition of the forests and identify potential areas for commercial forest production.4 This was complemented by the “ Liberia Forest Reassessment Review” (2004) evaluatedtrends in forest cover and deforestation between the mid-1980s and 2001 to assess changes in forestcover and quality over that period (Christie et al 2007).5 Taken together, the studies provided valuableinformation and inputs for the national-level policy and strategy development dialogue that wasunderway at that time. These assessments were not, however, of a sufficiently high resolution to

allow for regional-level or operational planning and decisionmaking. To bridge this gap for purposesof production forestry, a rapid national forest inventory was subsequently carried out to provide arough volumetric and species assessment of Liberia’s forests (Hess and Trainer 2006). 6 Unfortunately, for various reasons, this work fell far short of obtaining the number of sample plotsrequired for statistical accuracy and thus could not be considered as definitive.

11. Establishment of a chain of custody for forest resources. A Chain-of-Custody (CoC) system forforest resources was established by means of a contract between GoL and the Swiss-based SociétéGénérale de Surveillance (SGS). The first country-wide CoC system in the world, it received seed

funding from USAID for the period from 2008 to 2010, and thereafter from FLEG/PROFOR and theUK’s Department For International Development (DFID).7 SGS is to develop the system, scale it up proportionate to the roll-out of timber contracts and readiness of the companies, and build thecapacity of the FDA, Ministry of Finance and other government agencies to operate and administer



12. Institutional reforms in the Forestry Development Authority. FDA was restructured based on a study by the European Commission (Cohen 2009), and staffing cut from more than 500 to approximately300 employees.8 Terms of reference were developed for each staff position, new personnel policieswere drafted, and a new organizational structure was put in place to support implementation of the“Three Cs” framework. The new structure includes a Research and Development Department, aDivision for Forest Law Enforcement and Legal Issues, and a Strategic Planning Unit.

13. FDA’s financial management was also reformed with the assistance of: (a) the US Treasury, whichfinanced a diagnostic of the FDA accounting systems; (b) the United States Forest Service (USFS),which contracted PricewaterhouseCoopers with EC financing in 2005, to assist FDA over an eight-month period in preparing the agency’s accounts department for its first audit in more than 15 years9;and (c) a joint US/World Bank-funded Governance and Economic Management Assistance Program(GEMAP) that, between April 2006 and June of 2009, provided a financial controller to work withinFDA and directly support the setup of the system for recording and tracking financial flows. As partof the upgrades, accounting procedures were established and a computerized system introduced.

14. Protection and management of Sapo National Park. Sapo National Park is the country's largest protected area of rainforest and its only national park. It contains the second-largest area of primarytropical rainforest in West Africa. Its management framework was reactivated and the land usesituation stabilized, including relocation of squatters engaged in illicit gold mining. Conservation staffand park rangers were deployed to the field; a bio-monitoring programs was developed andimplemented by Fauna and Flora International (FFI); and with USAID and Conservation International(CI) assistance, a program was initiated to support alternative income generating activities for ruralcommunities around the park. The Wild Chimpanzee Foundation (WCF) has been carrying out anenvironmental education program in villages around Sapo National Park (and Grebo Forest, as well).In 2009/10, WCF also carried out a chimpanzee and elephant survey in the park, which found that the park holds more than 1,000 chimps – a high density for West Africa. Additional support forestablishing and expanding the protected areas network was provided by the Global EnvironmentFund (GEF), through the World Bank, by means of two mid-size projects aimed at strengthening

FDA and the Environmental Protection Agency (FDA) creating new protected areas, mapping forestcommunities, and supporting community livelihood projects.

15. Awarding of Forest Management Contracts. With the legal framework and ground rules laid fort i bl f t t d th i i l f th t th G t hi h



and audit statements of individual companies (profits) and governments (revenues received).(Blundell 2008). With passage of the Liberia Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative Act in2009, Liberia became the first EITI signatory to include contracts and receipts from forestry in itsinitiative. The Liberia EITI website publishes all forest concession and sales contracts, as well as all payments made by the companies to the government and government’s receipts from those contracts.

Forest Sector Reforms: How Firm a Foundation?

17. Forest Policy. In a report to the World Bank, Tissari et al. (2008) noted that Liberia’s 2006 NationalForestry Policy and Implementation Strategy (FDA 2006) is “considered to represent state-of-the-artquality in forest policy.” The policy set sustainable forest management (SFM) as an overriding goal

and explicitly recognized the need to move from a “one-sector” approach of sustained timber yieldsto a multi-sectoral approach where inter-sectoral coordination, policy integration and effective participation and interaction of forest sector stakeholders and their institutions are essential.” Theaim was to move away from the country’s historic focus on the commercial aspects of forest andoptimize benefits for all Liberians, by conserving and sustainably managing all forest areas to ensurethe continued production of a complete range of goods and services, contribute to poverty alleviation,and maintain environmental stability, in keeping with Liberia’s commitments under internationalagreements and conventions. The strategy was to balance the needs of communities with conservingthe environmental services provided by forests, and with their commercial exploitation by a robustforest industrial sector to drive the country’s economic development. Communities, conservation,commercial exploitation – the “Three Cs” approach.

18. The Forest Policy also emphasizes the need to protect vulnerable and marginalized forest-dependent peoples; ensure good governance through effective civil society participation and transparency indecisionmaking; and promote inter-sectoral collaboration. The 2006 strategy document establishedeight specific objectives related to:

(a) Balancing and integrating commercial and community forestry and forest conservation.

(b)

Conserving representative samples of forest ecosystems.(c) Contributing to national poverty alleviation and food security goals.(d) Granting more equitable access to forest resources.(e) Ensuring stakeholder participation in formulation of policies and in conservation and



property and took an exclusionary approach to forest property rights under which forests andforestlands were treated as two separate properties11 (Wily 2007). The rights to naturally occurringforest trees were separated from the rights to the land, with the state reserving to itself the right tothose trees. Despite the recognized need for the new Forest Policy to address this issue, the policy provides no guidance and laid out no principles for how the issue should be resolved. Rather, it notesonly that issues of insecure tenure and ambiguous rights will be addressed at some future time.

21. The new policy framework also has other important gaps: It continues to view communities as the subjects of forest policy, rather than as sector actors

(Wily 2007). It fails to address the need for an integrated policy for land use and land use allocation that

includes the agriculture and mineral sectors, or for inter-sectoral coordination mechanisms acrosskey sector agencies. It does not specifically address the implications of REDD or mining and agriculture concessions

on forests (Global Witness 2010). It does not prioritize goals and objectives or provide guidance on how to deal with the resulting

tradeoffs. It is silent on questions of the domestic timber and wood products markets, which are

significantly larger than the export markets and are being supplied by an active and significant

informal sector (principally sawn lumber from chainsaw millers or “pit sawyers,” and charcoaland fuelwood from small-scale producers). It includes only weak and ambiguous provisions for decentralization of forest administration,

despite the fact that GoL had committed to decentralizing this function to the county andmunicipal levels in the Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy (GoL, UNDP and UNCDF 2007).

22. National Forest Reform Law of 2006. The development and drafting of the National Forest ReformLaw of 2006 (GoL, 2006) was a well-organized and systematic, participatory process which resultedin a draft law that had wide support across the forest sector stakeholder community.12 The Law was

consistent with the Forest Policy and provided the legal framework needed to achieve the policy goalof sustainable forest management through balanced and integrated development. Further, the Lawrequired that local communities must be granted user and management rights, and that proceduresmust be put in place to ensure that communities could equitably participate in and benefit from the



tenure in Liberia (World Bank 2008): “The NFRL embodies the expansive assertion of stateownership of natural forests. While well-intentioned, that law so broadly defines forest resourcesand forest land as to infringe in a most substantial way on the property rights of rural Liberians,both owners of forest land and communities holding and using forest land under customary right .The taking of rights over forests may well be unconstitutional. For traditional communities, itamounts to depriving them of their main economic resource.”

Despite specific language in both Forest Policy and the NFRL about protecting and supportingcommunity forest rights, the Law fails to define those rights or give communities the authorityfor forest management and planning. On the contrary, the NFRL makes clear that local peoplehave no legal standing to decide whether or not their forest lands are to be logged.

The community benefit sharing framework in commercial forestry is weak. The NFRL states that

communities will receive 30 percent of the ground rent paid by concession holders; and that anadditional fee of $1.50/m3 of timber harvested must be included as part of the Social Agreement between the community and the concession holder. Relative to the communities’ needs, however,neither the land rentals nor the volume fees are expected to generate significant benefits.According to the World Bank (2010b), the ground rents are “unlikely to contribute to meaningfulsocial change.” And the volume fees included in the Social Agreements are to be negotiated between the concession holder and the community after the concession is awarded – a situationthat is unfair both to the concessionaire who must make a competitive bid without knowing the

full cost of the Social Agreement, and to the community, which has limited negotiating powerand no control over what aspects of the operation are to be covered by the Social Agreement(USAID 2010). Compared to the revenues accruing to GoL from stumpage and other fees,therefore, communities under this framework receive a disproportionately small share of therevenues while having to absorb the loss of access to land and forest resources and any negativeimpacts of the logging (USAID 2010).

A framework for community compensation in conservation areas is lacking. The NFRL does notinclude provisions to compensate communities around protected areas. Instead, communities areto be provided with alternative livelihood programs. Globally, the track record for developingeffective programs of this nature is not promising. Areas with poor access and that are far frommarkets – which tend to characterize many areas targeted for conservation − are unlikely to present opportunities for market-based alternative livelihoods that are competitive with existingillegal opportunities (DAI 2008)



25. The strategy allocates a total of 4.59 million ha of forest into four categories, as detailed in Table 1.The first two categories, “Multiple Sustainable Use Management” and “Timber Sales Contracts,”comprise those areas that “communities and/or private logging companies will manage…ascommunal forests, timber sales contracts, or forest management contracts.” The “CommunityManagement” allocation comprises eleven target areas for pilot community forest management projects, with the caveat that this limited area is “only meant to be the proposed first stage.” Basedon experience from the pilot phase, the community projects will be scaled up and expanded, withareas allocated to the first two categories assigned to communities for their management. The“Protected Area Network” comprises those areas identified as high priority for biodiversityconservation. A total of fifteen protected areas are expected in the network; two already exist andthirteen additional are proposed.

Table 1. Forest Allocation in the 2007 Forest Management Strategy

Forest Allocation Category Areas (ha)

Multiple Sustainable Use Management 2,490,000Timber Sales Contracts 910,000Community Management 52,000Protected Area Network 1,140,000

Total 4,592,000

26. The Forest Management Strategy also provides guidance to each of FDA’s four principal departmentsas to their objectives and goals, though its definition of each department’s responsibilities is rathervague. The Commercial Department is tasked with restarting and regulating commercial forestryactivities. The Community Department is to assist communities in realizing the benefits of forestresources and managing those resources in a sustainable manner. The Conservation Department is toconserve Liberia’s forest biodiversity and ecological services, regulate wildlife consumption, andcreate and manage Liberia’s National Protected Areas Network. The Research and DevelopmentDepartment is to develop and provide relevant, accurate, and unbiased information to assist in forestmanagement decisionmaking. Specific two-year goals are established for each department, whichserve as operational directives for achieving its individual objectives. The goals are a mix of very broad mandates (e.g., modernize the wood-processing industry); very specific targets (e.g., allocate950 000 h h P d A S ) l i d ( id i



28. The Forest Management Strategy also has other significant gaps and weaknesses:

It is a strategy for the Government’s Forestry Development Authority, not for the forest sector,

and largely ignores the interests of other sector stakeholders, except to the extent that they aresubject to government regulation and authority.

Its specific goals were established only for the period from 2007 to 2009. Since 2009, there has been no subsequent reengagement with sector stakeholders to evaluate progress and develop newshort- to medium-term strategic goals. Arguably, this lack of follow-up on the strategy hascontributed to the weak inter-departmental collaboration and FDA’s difficulty in integrating theThree Cs at the operational level.

The strategy largely ignores production for the domestic market. With the exception of the period2000-2003, Liberia’s historic wood production for domestic utilization has generally exceededexport production on a volumetric basis15 (Figure 1 and Table 4). Current estimates of the forestsector’s contribution to real GDP for the period 2010-2014 show the contribution of the domesticmarket as three or more times greater than that from export. For 2013/2014, the totalcontribution of logs and timber to GDP is projected to be 4.1 percent, and charcoal and wood to be 11.1 percent (GoL 2011).

The strategy identifies issues of land tenure and resource access, but leaves them to be resolvedthrough some unspecified future processes. Given the transcendence of these issues in Liberia, itwould appear to be a major gap that the strategy does not give them more careful consideration,or provide direction on desired outcomes and the sector’s (proactive) role in achieving thoseoutcomes.

By failing to make any strong statements or provide direction on the future role and relationshipof community forestry to commercial forestry, while at the same time proposing to allocate 2.0million hectares to concessions16 within its two-year time horizon, the strategy lent credence tothe concerns that community forestry was being marginalized in favor of commercialconcessions.

29. Several recent developments also have significant implications for the forest sector and its strategicdirection. The first is the Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) with the European Union (EU),signed in May 2011, which aims to prevent both illegal timber exports and illegal domestic logging as

f h F L E f G d T d (FLEGT) S d Lib i i



authority over a community’s forest resources. The Law provides for a Community ForestManagement Body (CFMB) to be appointed by the CA to manage the community’s forest resources;as well as an Executive Committee of the Assembly (ECA) to supervise the CFMB; and for the LandCommission to resolve any issues of land tenure and proprietorship.17 It further establishes the principle of prior, free, and informed consent of communities with regard to any decision, agreement,or activity affecting the status or use of community forest resources. In effect, the Law creates acommunity forestry subsector defined on the basis of security of tenure, access to forest resources,and local governance structures.

Figure 1. Liberia – Historic Domestic and Export Wood Production Volumes



Box 1. The National Forest Reform Law and Community Land

Rights: Is There A Lesson to Learn?

During the drafting of the NFRL, it became clear that writing a forestrylaw without prior legal clarification of tenure and use rights constituted arisk. As pointed out by Wily (2007), considerable “concern [had been]expressed in the public domain that while the new forestry law marks anew era in citizen-friendly forest management, it fails to sufficientlyaddress the rights of populations upon whose traditional lands forestsgrow.” Yet the consensus at the time was to move forward the forestrylegislation in order to restart commercial logging, in hopes of obtainingthe significant economic and employment benefits seen as crucial in that

post-conflict period. A pragmatic decision was taken to separate the

discussion of lands rights from discussion of the law, the adoption ofwhich “was the criterion for the Security Council to lift the sanctions ontimber ” (UN Panel of Experts 2011). As a compromise, the NFRLestablished that a comprehensive law governing community rights withrespect to forest lands would be developed by the FDA and presented tothe Legislature within one year.

While the NFRL became effective in September of 2006, the CommunityRights Law with Respect to Forest Lands (CRL) was not signed untilOctober 2009. In the interim, seven FMCs (concessions) on more thanone million ha of forest land were approved under the NFRL’s provision

that “Where Government has granted permission for the use of Forest Resources, no Land Owner or Occupant has the right to bar that use…”.The CRL, however introduced a different perspective. It definedcustomary land as being owned by the communities living on it – whetheror not there is any formal documentation − and provided that “all forestresources on community lands are owned by local communities.” Whilenot addressing the question of formal ownership − a question left to theLand Commission – it was an important statement of GoL’s emergingland policy; i.e., that customary as well as statutory rights shall beconsidered.

Prior to the CRL, lands allocated for forest concessions had beenallocated under the assumption that all lands that were not deeded were

public lands; i.e., that there were only two types of land: private and public. The emerging policy represented by the CRL, on the other hand,contemplated at least three types of land: private, community or

of community/customary forest landin favor of communities.” 18 Experience in other countries hasshown the importance of the relevantline agencies participation in theregularization of land rights andaccess to resources, but given the potential for conflicts of interest andthe need for a holistic rather thannarrow, sector-driven approach, onlyif they do not lead the process.

33. Other potential issues for communityforest management under theCommunity Rights Law aresummarized below.

The Law requires that members ofthe county’s legislative delegations be included in the CommunityAssembly and have a seat on itExecutive Committee.

The Law is quite detailed and prescriptive on how thecommunities will organize,administer and manage their forestresources and financial benefits thatwould accrue. The procedures arecomplex, and communities may

lack the capacity to meet many ofthe requirements without externalassistance. Unless such assistanceis forthcoming in an appropriate



can undermine customary ownership (USAID 2010).

34. Two local NGOs, expressing their views on these particular issues, concluded that the Community

Rights Law gives “legislators and the state … excessive degree of authority and control …overcommunity forest management institutions” (SDI 2010); and that its “ procedural complexity [is]…excessively burdensome for communities [and likely to]…discourage effective community forestry, [leading to the risk of]…elites, or commercial, conservation or other interest groups‘assisting’ communities to their own advantage” (Draper et al. 2008).

35. With the approval of the CRL regulations (FDA 2011b) in June 2011, new concerns have come to thefore. A recent assessment of the regulations (USAID 2011) concluded that they do not necessarilyreflect the spirit of the Law, and introduce elements not found in the Law itself. Specifically, the

regulations: Grant the FDA powers over access, management, use, and benefits that are not in keeping with

the CRL’s assertion that communities’ rights are based upon their historic rights, not on permitting by the FDA;

Establish principles (i.e., of “Authorized Community” and “Community Forest Agreement”) thatcontradict the fundamental principles of the Law, by casting doubt on whether communitymembers are allowed to access their traditionally owned lands or the forest resources over whichthe community has customary tenure or other forms of proprietorship or guardianship;

Put the FDA in a leadership role rather than the supporting role envisaged by the Law; Substitutes socio-economic surveys conducted by the FDA for substantive participation of

communities in delimiting customary lands – which differs greatly from international best practice;

Establishes requirements not envisaged in the CRL19 that would severely restrict communities’ability to exercise their rights to manage their own forest resources;

Are inconsistent with the CRL’s requirement that communities receive 55 percent of all revenueand income generated from large-scale commercial activities, instead restricting communities;share to 55 percent of the bid premiums and land rental fees; and

Fail to establish procedures to (i) identify customary lands over which communities can claim acommunity forest management right; (ii) establish the forest rights of communities not underformal CF agreements with the FDA; and (iii) procedures for creating and operating Community



Doing so is important for a variety of reasons. First, there is a need to incorporate into the nationalstrategy the new contexts, priorities, and instruments called for in the VPA and CRL. Second,Liberia’s Readiness Preparation Proposal (R-PP, submitted May 30, 2011) proposes to develop aREDD+ strategy that will have major implications for sector policies, priorities, and goals. REDD+constitutes a (principal) cross-cutting theme, and the set of instruments it will bring requires effectiveintegration into the sector’s main strategic pillars (i.e., the Three Cs). An updated strategy is needed both for purposes of integrating REDD+ as an instrument and for providing a clearer context anddirection for REDD+ implementation. Third, the current strategy fails to take into account productionand processing of forest products for domestic markets. This is a major gap, given the domesticmarket’s importance to the national economy, to employment, and to meeting forest conservationgoals and VPA commitments. There are many other compelling reasons for updating the strategy;

three of the more important are as follows: The current strategy from 2007 established specific goals only through 2009. The consensus vision for the sector, developed during the early reform period among sector

stakeholders, no longer appears to hold. Implementation of the strategy has not fully met theexpectations of government, the private sector, or civil society. Among sector stakeholders thereare increasingly divergent views on policy, institutional, regulatory, and sector governance issuesthat require discussion and resolution. Principal among these are issues related to the fiscalframework for forest concessions; the community benefit sharing framework and its

functionality; the need to diversify forest production models to accommodate sector goals andissues of forest tenure, formalization of the informal pitsawing and charcoal productionsubsectors, inclusive forest management; as well as the effective and meaningful participation ofcommunities, the private sector, and other stakeholders in resolving these issues. A newconsensus vision is needed are which a critical mass of stakeholders can coalesce to further thereform and development of the sector.

There are now some five years of experience and lessons from the implementation of the forestsector reforms that remain to be formally assessed and incorporated into an up-to-date national

forest strategy. To not do so would constitute a failure to learn from experience.38. Regarding the CRL regulations, any inconsistencies with the Law are problematic, and undermine the

potential for communities to work with the FDA to develop community forestry. As the regulations



Implementation of REDD+, which – if it is to reach communities as well as large-scaleconcession operators – will also need a platform of secure community forest resource accessrights. Equally, community forestry will need REDD + to bolster local incentives for theconservation and management of forest resources.

Providing complementary options for achieving Liberia’s objective of 30 percent of forest landsunder conservation. Meeting this goal requires not just the participation, but the activeengagement of communities in the management and conservation of forest resources.

In sum, community forestry is where a natural integration of the Three Cs is possible.

Forest Sector Governance

39. There is increasing concern that governance, transparency, and rule of law in the forest sector are notimproving at the desired pace. Significant unresolved issues exist around past bidding procedures forconcession allocation, enforcement of forest concession contracts, and the fiscal framework for forestconcessions (see Box 2). Limited information and opaque decisionmaking processes are stillrestricting effective participation by stakeholders in sector governance, policymaking, andimplementation.

40. More recently, concerns have emerged over the increase in Private Use Permits (PUPs) granted byFDA on private and community lands. As noted in Liberia’s R-PP (FDA 2011a), interest in PUPs as

an alternative to public concessions is growing. The R-PP predicts that a considerable part of futuretimber production, particularly in the northwest, could take place in forest claimed as Private Land orrecognized as Community Forest Lands under the CRL. Twenty-five 25 PUPs have already beenissued for 736,382 ha – about 75 percent of these within the past 18 months. An additional 194,102ha have been approved for Community Forest Management Agreements (CFMAs), of which about18,000 ha are associated with USAID- and FFI-assisted projects that have facilitated some three tofour years of community-level processes to ensure local capacity and ownership. The other 176,000ha are in five large-scale CFMAs whose development was facilitated by the FDA in a few shortmonths. Both the PUPs and the large-scale CFMAs are destined for commercial exploitation bylogging firms through single-source contracting. The PUPs and large-scale CFMAs together compriseabout 90 percent of all forest areas under concession.21

41. The UN Panel of Experts (2011b) has expressed concern that the use of PUPs may undermine sector



Box 2. Current Status of Forest Concessions

As of May 2011, the active permit holders − seven FMCs, nine TSCs, and three PUPs − had been invoiced a total of $0.85

million in stumpage fees. Total fees amounted to $17.4 million on an export volume of about 31,200 m3 (SGS, 2011), ofwhich $3.2 million (18%) had been paid. Six months later, the UN Panel of Experts (2011b) noted that the tax collection ratewas down to 15%, which was “lower than under the Taylor regime.” The payment of the arrears was in doubt. Projections inthe 2008 PRS were that forestry production (export and domestic) would provide a total of $107.6 million in revenues for the

period 2007 to 2011 on a timber volume of 3.3 million m3. As the domestic market was largely unregulated, however, production figures were unknown and revenue collection minimal. Actual revenues were less than 10% of the projectedamount.

Recently, the Liberian Legislature approved an act to abolish the annual land rental bid premium; this legislation has not yet been signed by the President. A recent IMF mission (Baunsgaard et al 2011) noted that enacting this legislation “would havenegative budgetary implications, and could have a detrimental impact on the confidence of donors, NGOs and possibly more

widely in the population,” and that “if the new legislation is enacted…there are good reasons to replace the foregone revenueby alternative fiscal mechanisms.” Communities and counties would be hardest hit by this legislation, as they are to receive60% of the land rental taxes, which account for 96% of the direct cash benefits they would receive from the FMCs.

The reasons for the rather poor performance to date of the FMCs has been variously ascribed to the lack of adequate publictransport infrastructure (roads and port facilities), to a critical and severe shortage of trained and experienced Liberians to beemployed in forestry operations, and to onerous regulations and bureaucracy. While undoubtedly these are all contributingfactors, according to a broad range of actors − private sector, NGO, government, international community − a proximatecause has been the seriously flawed bidding process, which has awarded concessions to companies that lack the knowledge,experience, or financial resources to actually perform on their contracts. These sources have noted:

Non-competitive allocation of the concessions, corruption, and lack of required consultation with county authorities,

district authorities, and affected communities (UN Panel of Experts 2010). A lack of understanding by both bidders and the FDA of how to determine an appropriate bid (Blundell 2008).

Apparent collusion among bidders (Blundell 2008).

7 December 2011. In the final report, the Panel concludes that “reforms in the forestry sector have beencomprehensive and are regarded by many in the international community as a model for sound andequitable post-conflict resource management. However, the implementation of many of the reformsremains inconsistent and piecemeal, and the Panel is of the view that recent developments put the future of reform at a critical juncture.” The final report notes that forest sector reforms are at risk inkey areas. Box 3 summarizes the evolution of the reform process as seen through the Panel’s reports, and provides greater detail on the concerns raised in the final report.



Informed decisionmaking

43. What are the available forest resources? The forest information base used for decisionmaking

(policy, strategy, and operational) is inadequate. Tables 1 and 2 summarize the principal information base available at this time22 – information that was current some 8 to 14 years ago. The numbers inthe tables, and the mapping of forest locations, have remained largely unchanged over the period.This is not the case, however, for other information required for strategic planning and operationaldecisions to achieve sustainable forest management goals. A recent Bank-financed study (GeoVilleGroup and Metria AB 2011) provides an independent, expert opinion on the accuracy of the variousforest resource assessments that have been made in Liberia in recent years. Among the principalconclusions of this study are:

Adequate quality assurance was lacking in all of the assessments. The accuracy of the mappingwas not assessed utilizing independent sources, and thus the level of accuracy of the assessmentscannot be known.

The assessments did not provide any detailed information about forest conditions. They providedinformation useful as a national overview, but not for detailed planning (Table 2).

Table 2. Forest Cover and Usage Summary

Hectares

Categories Bayol &Chevalier, 2004

Forest Policy and

ImplementationStrategy, 2006

National ForestryStrategy, 2007

Current Situation1

Mixed agriculture & forest areas 1,317,873 1,280,000Agriculture degraded forest 949,615 950,000Open dense forest 1,013,993 1,020,000Closed dense forest 2,424,076 2,420,000Forest, total 4,387,684 4,300,000 4,390,000Protected forest 1,700,000Unprotected forest 2,610,000

Allocated for multiple sustainable use management 2,490,000Allocated for Timber Sales Contracts 910,000Allocated for community management 52,000Allocated for protected area network 1,020,140 1,140,000Vision 2032 2: End States



Box 3. A Perspective on the Evolution of the Forest Sector Reform Process: UNSC Panel of Experts on Liberia

In 2001, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) established a Panel of Experts to investigate possible links between the

exploitation of natural resources and other forms of economic activity in Liberia and the intensification of conflict in Sierra Leoneand neighboring countries. The panel was tasked with gathering information on illegal activities, alleged violations, and GoL’scompliance with relevant UNSC resolutions; and submitting bi-annual reports on its findings and recommendations. The Panel ofExperts continued monitoring the situation in Liberia until the end of 2011.

A review of the Panel’s reports shows three distinct phases or periods in the forest sector reforms since 2006:

Finalizing the reform framework: From the lifting of sanctions in mid-2006 until the end of 2007, the sector reform process wasfocused on developing and launching the reform framework. GoL and FDA were receiving significant, continuous, high-leveltechnical assistance from a variety of partners. Satisfactory progress had been made in the years prior to the lifting of sanctions,and this continued to be the case during this period. Among the fruits of the labor of the previous years was the (generally)consensus vision among the sector stakeholder (including the international community) over the direction of the reform, which had

created significant institutional capital that allowed for a reasonably effective and efficient process for finalizing the reformframework. During this period, the Panel of Experts saw progress as satisfactory and generally on track.

Initial implementation and testing: By the beginning of 2008, those aspects of the reform process aimed at restarting industrial-scale commercial logging were ready to be tested. Other key features of the reform − those related to social, environmental, andenforcement aspects − having received less attention, lagged behind. As implementation of the framework for commercial loggingconcessions began, issues of capacity and governance quickly begin to arise. The sector’s weak institutions and as-yet incipientsystem of governance was strained by the pressures of the rapid scale-up of the concessioning process. As GoL and FDA were stillreceiving significant and continuous high-level technical assistance, progress was made on the “Community” and “Conservation”aspects − though these still lagged behind the development of commercial forestry − and on promoting adherence to the new legaland regulatory frameworks. Concerns began to emerge among diverse actors that unrealistic expectations had been createdregarding the short to medium-term economic and revenue generating potential of a sustainably managed commercial forestry

sector. Disenchantment over the concessioning process and its outcomes began to set in due to perceived flaws in the bidding process and to the delays and problems in start-up of the logging, which created very large shortfalls in the revenue and benefitstreams expected by both GoL and communities. The potential contradictions between the concessioning process, the expressed

policy goals for “Community,” and unclear policy on treatment of customary land rights become increasingly apparent as theCommunity Rights Law – meant to provide the way forward − was not delivered within the required timeframe, whileconcessioning moved rapidly forward. Relations between FDA and its partners suffered from contentious issues aroundcommercial forestry and diverging views over how the implementation of the reforms was and should be progressing. By mid-2009, the Panel reported that the international community was reducing its engagement around industrial-scale, commercial loggingat the very time when its support is most critical. At the end of 2009, as GoL struggled to ensure compliance with the new legal andregulatory frameworks, the Panel viewed progress as being less than satisfactory and perceived a growing risk that the reformsmight be getting off track.

Uncertainty: As 2010 began, the entire focus of the Panel was on commercial logging. Concessions had been given out for morethan one million ha of forest. Lack of full compliance with laws and regulations for concession allocation, management, andmonitoring was seen as increasingly problematic. Diverse stakeholders called for significant efforts to strengthen the sector’sinstitutions and governance Massive shortfalls in projected revenues from timber export significantly impacted GoL’s revenues



Box 4. Overlaps between Forest, Agricultural and Mining

Concessions and Protected Areas

A World Bank-financed study, carried out in 2011 (GeoVille Groupand Metria AB. 2011), mapped all existing and proposed concessionsand protected areas utilizing existing Liberian data on FMCs, TSCs,

community forests, Protected Areas, mining and exploration sites, thehydrological network, and road infrastructure. Among the principalfindings were:

The quality of the geospatial data is not secured. Metadata andinformation on the quality of the geospatial data are, to a largeextent, missing. Thus land allocation planning is itself unsecureand will remain so as long the geospatial data quality is unknown.

Protected areas need to be determined for efficient land planning.Uncertainty over locations and boundaries of proposed protectedareas leads to uncertainties in priorities for land allocation.

Several forest management concessions (FMCs B, C, D, H, K, M,ULF) and Timber Sale Contracts have huge overlaps with mineral

project exploration concessions. The overlaps affect, in one case,100% of the mineral concession and, in all identified cases, aremuch more significant than minor overlaps or border problems.

There are also significant overlaps between FMCs and agriculturalconcessions. In addition, FMCs coincide with proposed conservationareas.

not represent the state-of-the-art practices. The reliance on “distance from roads” as a proxy forassumed degree of prior intervention – while practical for mapping types of land cover – was notappropriate for mapping types of forests. Forest typing should be based on natural conditions thatactually influence forest growth (e.g., soil type, elevation, distance from ocean).

The general lack of field data has led to overly speculative conclusions. Timber volumeassessments are based on too fewsample points, and the data fromthese points has beenextrapolated, through the flawedforest classifications, beyondwhat is justifiable.

The FDA’s justificationdocuments for awarding ForestManagement Contracts are basedon sample sizes that are toosmall to allow extrapolation ofannual allowable cuts for theareas under concession.

44. The study (GeoVille and Metria

2011) also looked at issues of landallocation, specifically overlaps between existing concessions, anddeveloped recommendations forfuture work on forest informationand mapping. “Huge” overlaps werefound between forest concessionsand mineral exploration concessions;and “significant” overlaps were

found between FMCs and both agriculture concessions and proposed conservation areas. The studywarned that problems with overlapping concessions could undermine the security of investments andhinder concession development. These findings are summarized in Box 4. The study’s principalrecommendations include the need to set up and maintain a functional forest monitoring scheme; and



be a high priority at this time. Ongoing pilot activities, such as those being supported by USAID,23 arehelping to develop knowledge and experience on how to work with communities to identify theircustomary use forests, and to subsequently put in place a community forest management framework based on secure access to forest resources.

47. To bring these activities to scale in an appropriate fashion will be challenging. According to reports(Lomax 2008; Wily 2007), the lands that might eventually be adjudicated to communities couldrepresent a large percentage, if not the majority, of the areas currently allocated for logging andconservation. In the past, a number of communities have secured their communal areas underAborigines Deeds or Public Land Sales Deeds, which may cover up to 2.8 million ha 24 (Wily 2007).Further, as forested land continues to make up the larger proportion of most community land areas inLiberia’s hinterland, the recognition of communities’ customary rights in addition to their statutoryrights implies that the great majority of forest lands are likely to be defined as either private orcommunal.

48. Ideally, there would be a structured, coordinated process for recognition and adjudication ofcommunity rights to land and forest resources. Unfortunately, this is not what appears to bedeveloping. On the one hand, a careful and thoughtful process for identifying customary ownershipand adjudicating community rights is being led by the Land Commission. Created in 2009, the LC’s“general mandate and purpose…[is] to propose, advocate, and coordinate reforms of land policy,laws and programs in Liberia” (GoL 2009b). All relevant GoL agencies are participating in this process, which enjoys significant support from the donor community.25 One of LC’s goals is todelimit all clan lands within the next three to five years. Once delimited, a process to identify thoselands over which villages and communities exercise customary rights or have statutory claims would be a logical next step. It would be within these lands that what the CRL identifies as “communityforest lands” would be located. That is, delimitation of the clan lands allows for the subsequentdelimitation of community forests.

49. On the other hand, the FDA and the MLME – which ostensibly are following the lead of the LC and participating in the overall land administration and reform process − are carrying forward a totally

separate process of recognizing both private and customary rights of communities, with no referenceto or participation of the LC. The purpose of this process appears to be to allow the letting of loggingcontracts on private lands (PUPs) and customary lands (through CFMAs). MLME is providing

l t th FDA i t l d l i th t b d d t ti ( t ib l l d



properties (PUPs) or given as large-scale CFMAs in five clan areas.27 Unconfirmed reports indicatethat there may be more PUPs in process at this time than are currently formalized. The processes and procedures for adjudicating lands for PUPs and for demarcation of large-scale CFMAs have not beendiscussed or vetted by the LC. The Chairman of the Land Commission has expressed concern aboutthe “lack of rigor” in the MLME approval process.28 Among the many concerns this raises, a principalone is that the Land Commission’s mandate is being undermined while a de facto land reform policyand program are being implemented in the forest sector. This adds another layer of complexity andconfusion to an already extremely sensitive and difficult land tenure situation.

50. An associated issue that will have to be addressed in the context of customary land rights is the factthat government, through the FDA, has let more than one million hectares of forestry concessions onthe basis that the land was “unencumbered.” Increasingly, however, this is appearing to not be thecase. Issues of compensation will undoubtedly arise, and therein lie potentially substantial financialimplications for GoL. Two scenarios that may be likely to develop are (a) demands by customary landowners that past and future rents and fees from forest concessions be turned over to them; and (b)demands for compensation payments by concessionaires, should the customary land owners demandtheir land be removed from the concession area. This problem is not unique to the forest sector;agricultural and mineral concessions are also vulnerable. A good faith process of negotiation andconflict mitigation among all parties (GoL, customary land owners, concessionaires) will likely beneeded in parallel with the process of recognition and adjudication of customary land rights. Such a

process should be systematically prepared in advance in order to avoid further confusion and conflict.51. Forest trends. Various sources29 suggest that deforestation rates have been increasing since the Peace

Accords, as displaced persons have returned to rural areas, putting more pressure on the land andforest resources. Recent estimates of annual deforestation rates range from a low of 0.35 percent(Christie et al. 2007) to a high of 0.69 percent (FAO 2010)30 – the latter representing a loss of 30,000ha/yr. The extent and rate of forest degradation remain to be assessed (FDA 2011a). The recentReadiness Preparation Proposal for REDD (FDA 2011a) identifies what are believed to be the keydrivers of deforestation and forest degradation, but also notes that little is known about their relative

weights and interactions.31

As characterized in the R-PP, the available information and data areinadequate for mounting targeted responses. Too little is yet known about current pressures and the push and pull factors driving deforestation and land use changes. During REDD implementation,studies are to be conducted to fill these information gaps.



communities. This is critical, as in the absence of real data, unverified common assumptions arelikely to drive decisionmaking. Box 5 provides a cautionary note about how the common wisdom – inthis case, about shifting cultivation by communities being among the main drivers of forest loss –may not always be correct.32

53. Productive potential of commercial forests. It is precisely questions about the areas suitable33 forcommercial exploitation, and the estimates of sustainable yield from these areas, that generate muchdebate. The National Forest Management Strategy (FDA 2007c) identifies some 2.5 million ha and0.9 million ha as being areas available for FMCs and TSCs, respectively (see Table 2). The 2.5million ha of “Closed and Open Dense Forest” are of primary interest here, as they comprise theforests where so far the preferred production model has been large-scale, commercial concessions(FMCs). The 0.9 million ha allocated for TMCs are a separate issue, as the TMCs are instruments forland use conversion, not for management orconservation of forest.34

54. As noted by the recent GeoVille Group andMetria AB (2011) review, discussed above,the assessments upon which the strategiesrely for allocation of forest areas – in termsof forest type mapping, timber volumeassessments, and conflicting land uses − are

problematic. Given these findings, coupledwith some additional review of the principalexisting analyses of forest resources inLiberia (see Annex VI), there are clearlygrounds to be cautious about the currentassumption that some 2.5 million ha offorest can be managed sustainably under anexport-oriented, industrial-scale commercial

concession regime.55. A second and related question concerns the

per hectare volumes that may be harvestabled t i bl f t t

Box 5. Drivers of Deforestation: Shifting Cultivation

In Liberia, as in other tropical countries where shiftingcultivation is practiced, the common wisdom is that it isgenerally a major driver of deforestation. While the R-PPnotes that a systematic evaluation of deforestation driversremains to be carried out, a recent look at changes in forestcover by the European Space Agency (2011) raises questionsabout the assumption that shifting cultivation will always bea major driver. Two areas in the northwest that have beenallocated but not yet tendered as forest concessions (FMCs Dand M) were evaluated using 0.5 m resolution imagery. Asthere were no major forestry or mining activities in the area,all changes were attributed to local land uses. In the eight-year period evaluated (2002-2009), change in forest coverwas less than 1%. Results are given in the table below.

In the two years between 2007-2009, vegetative regrowthexceeded losses over the entire eight-year period. Changesoccurred where expected: immediately adjacent to villages.Annual demand for deforestation was lower in the 2002-2007

period than in 2007-2009, supporting the view that regrowthrates may be increasing as people return to the countryside.Even so, annual rates only ranged between 0.03% and 0.12%,and recruitment back into bush fallow was double the



Area (all species, all trees over statutory cutting limits),” (for example, see FDA, 2008) based on a25-year felling cycle. A review of the FDA’s Bid Documents For Forest Management ContractAreas35 F, I, and K found that on this basis, the allowable cuts were set at 21, 9, and 17 m 3/ha,respectively. Shearman’s (2009) review of the documentation on these same concessions concludedthat harvest volumes significantly above 8 m3/ha are unlikely, if the statutory cutting limits for the primary harvestable species, as specified in the “Liberia Code of Forest Harvesting Practices” (FDA2007a), are enforced. This is in line with the current view of SGS (pers. comm.: I. Muir, ManagingDirector, SGS/Liberia) that 7.5 m3/ha is likely to be the average sustainable yield for most of thecurrent FMCs. Bayol and Chevalier (2004) cite official FDA (historic) figures showing an averageharvest yield from logging operations in Liberia of 3 to 5 m3/ha. Applying FDA’s limit of 15 percentof the Reliable Minimum Estimate (RME) to Hess and Trainer’s (2006) findings, there is an implied

average allowable cut of 6 m3

/ha. The 2009 Shearman report notes that the actual reported extractionrates from neighboring countries are in the range of 4 to 11 m3/ha.36 At the other extreme, it is alsoreported that FDA may be allowing as much a 30m3/ha as an upper limit, and that one FMC holder,with a concession that was heavily logged previously, is requesting a waiver to be allowed to harvest60 m3/ha.37

56. Resolving the question of allowable harvest levels is of obvious importance in meeting sustainableforest management objectives. To the extent that allowable cuts would be set towards the reportedupper limit of 30m3/ha, it becomes increasingly critical to ensure that modern silvicultural systems

and practices for SFM in tropical forest are adapted and adopted. For a more detailed discussion, seeBox 6 and the section Sustainable Forest Management, below.

57. No regret decisionmaking. As detailed in the discussions above, the current information base fordecisionmaking in the forest sector is demonstrably weak and full of gaps. With so many unknowns,a “no-regrets” approach is needed in decisionmaking. The NFRL (GoL 2006, section 3.1b) recognizesthe need for such an approach to protect environmental values, stating that a precautionary approachwill be taken with respect to the environment. Going forward, an equally precautionary approachshould be taken with respect to protecting the social and economic values of forest. Where knowledge

is lacking, decisions should be conservative to prevent irreversible harm or impacts. For example,care should be exercised to avoid providing timber harvesting rights to third parties in forests wherethe full implementation of the CRL may reasonably be expected to create community forests andrights. Or, the limits on allowable harvest volumes should not be raised where there is a risk of



was also justified by the priority need to generate revenues and employment. Thus, the majority of theenergy and resources of those working on the reform process were directed towards questions andissues related to the commercial exploitation of forest. The institutional capacity and institutions ofgovernment and civil society were, however, weak and the sector’s absorption capacity low. Therelatively greater attention to commercial aspects within a reform process that sought to “balance”the Three Cs resulted in relatively less attention to community and conservation forestry. Thisoutcome need not have been inevitable. The challenge was, and still is, not to “balance” but to“integrate” the Three Cs. Certain structural obstacles, however, have impeded this goal.

59. Structural obstacles to Three C integration. The parameters for each of the three Cs were never welldefined. Critical pieces of the legal and regulatory framework needed to guide their implementationwere late in being developed or are still missing. The CRL (GoL 2009a) was not enacted untilOctober 2009, two years after the strategy was adopted, and its regulations were not approved untilJune 2011. The National Wildlife Conservation and Protected Area Management Law (CPAML) hasnot yet been ratified. The lengthy delays in enacting the CRL and CPAML have reinforced thewidespread perception that “ Liberia’s Three Cs are of different priority and size, with Commercial asthe big C ” (FDA 2011a). Internally, FDA lacks institutional mechanisms for the type of coordinationand collaboration required to move towards integration. Its departments are largelycompartmentalized, with each focusing on its “separate” mission. FDA’s Strategic Planning Unit,which was created as a principal tool for fostering integration, is marginalized within the planning

and budget processes. As a result, coordination and collaboration among the departments regardingthe Three Cs is weak and, according to the World Bank (2010a), this situation carries the risk of becoming a source of conflict within FDA and between FDA and stakeholder groups.

60. The legal framework is also a contributing factor in the non-integration of the three Cs. It providesonly a fairly narrow set of instruments and options that limit the role and values of forest to beingnational protected areas, production areas or, if degraded, converted to other land uses. While the National Forest Management Strategy labels some 2.5 million ha of forest for “Multiple SustainableUse,” in practice, the principal instruments for forest management are single use and primarily related

to the harvesting of timber (see Table 3). Management and conservation thus tend to be dependentupon and driven by timber values, with other “multiple use” objectives subjugated to timberharvesting. For example, environmental concerns are evaluated from the perspective of mitigatinglogging impacts not from any other conservation or community perspectives or objectives



incentives for forest management and conservation. This, in turn, will require that new instrumentsand incentives be developed to both support and provide for the integration of the Three Cs on theground, in the forests, by non-government forest resource owners. Payment of environmental

services, through REDD, is one incentive that is already under discussion. Others instruments andincentives which integrate cultural, social, environmental values (e.g., protection of potable watersources), and/or economic/productive use (e.g., value-added processing by chainsaw millers, non-timber forest products) into local management and conservation schemes will be required.

Table 3. Forest Resource Licenses and Forest Management

License Where? Forest Management Requirements Comments

FMC Permanent Forest Estate,

within the 2.49 million haallocated for FMCs

Yes. As per Guidelines for Forest

Management Planning, Code of ForestHarvesting, & EIA requirements.

Now understood that significant areas

allocated for FMCs are notunencumbered; i.e., not public lands.TSC Mixed agriculture & forest

lands, “unsuitable formanagement”, within 0.91million ha allocated forTSCs.

No. Harvest plan as per Code of ForestHarvesting, & Environmental Review

These are not part of the permanentforest estate and may be converted tonon-forest uses.

FUP Not stated. No. Permit will define health & safetyrequirements. Not required to meetstandards for FMCs or TSCs.

Small-scale only: charcoal, timber forlocal use, tourism, research,education, wildlife, NTFPs

PUP Private forest lands ( Note

that the “private” lands inquestion areoverwhelmingly communallands to which there is a

private, group deed )

Yes. Demonstrate technical & financialcapacity to manage the forest sustainably,five-year land management plan, complywith Forest Management Guidelines &Code Forest Harvesting Practices.

CFMA Forested lands not allocatedfor concessions, wherecommunities havecustomary use rights (underCRL).

Yes. Community forest management plan;guidelines for remain to be issued by FDA.On areas >5,000 ha as per NFRL & itsregulations.

Concern that use being rapidly scaledup outside of GoL’s formal landadministration process & withoutappropriate governance, transparency& community participationmechanisms in place. Regulatoryframework weak. Neither ForestPolicy nor Forest Strategy explicitlyinclude private forest lands; there areno long term policy objectives asregards private forest lands.

CFC Community forest lands Yes. Community forest management plan;The guidelines for the preparation of such

plans remain to be issued by FDA.

Community Forest Contract, calledfor by CRL. In its stead, “CFMAs”were established by CRL regulation.



techniques and practices extends to FDA as well, impacting its capacity and ability to supervise theforest concessions that have been granted.

64. Another challenge to achieving SFM has to do with the largely unregulated informal sector thatannually harvests the majority of the industrial roundwood in the country. According to FAO data(Table 4), production of timber for export had constituted only about 40 percent of the total industrialroundwood production in the years proceeding 1999. In the 1999 – 2003 period, when concessionoperators were engaged in clearfelling (Outram 2003), exports rose to just over half of that production. As of 2009, FAO estimates implied that some 0.58 million m3/yr of industrial roundwoodwas being harvested annually by the informal sector. This estimate was on the high end of the rangegiven by Blackett et al. (2009), who estimated that chainsaw millers annually harvested between 0.28and 0.65 million m3. The recently approved Chain Sawing Regulations (FDA 2010) are an important

first step in beginning the formalization and regulation of this sub-sector.

Table 4. Liberia’s estimated average annual industrial timber production.

Average Annual Production for Period (cubic meters)

PeriodIndustrial1

Roundwood

Saw &VeneerLogs

OtherIndustrial

Roundwood2ExportQuantity

Export, %Saw &

Veneer Logs

Export, %total

roundwood

1961 - 1969 160,444 87,111 73,333 33,522 38% 14%1969 - 1978 575,889 479,667 96,222 288,356 60% 43%1979 - 1998 682,200 544,400 137,800 305,043 56% 37%1999 - 2003 1,027,400 847,400 180,000 667,919 79% 55%2004 - 2006 340,000 160,000 180,000 NA NA NA

2007 - 2009 400,000 220,000 180,000 1,649 1% 0.3%Source: adapted from FAOSTAT 40

65. Systematic efforts will be required in the coming years to transition to SFM. Areas where priority

attention might be given are detailed below. These areas constitute common ground for moving boththe formal, export-oriented and informal, domestic market-oriented segments of the forest sectortowards a more economically inclusive SFM regime.

l f i ifi ff ill b i d i l h l l l i



in forest sector decisionmaking, local forest governance and management institutions could be linkedhorizontally with other community forest stakeholders through the county forums, and from these,linked vertically to national-level stakeholders in the National Forest Forum.

68. Review of forest production models. The current production models for the development of timberresources are dominated by FDI-driven, large-scale, commercial concessions for timber export.There are compelling reason to question the assumed broad applicability of these models, including(a) recognition of communities’ rights to forest lands; (b) lack of knowledge of the real potential andscale at which this production model could be expected to be viable; (c) the importance of developingalternative models for attending to domestic timber products markets and to the informal sector thatsupplies it; and (d) the failure to date of the models to produce the economic and employment benefitson which their assumed superiority was predicated. A recent IMF (2011) evaluation speaks directly to

this latter point, noting that overall, the concession models in Liberia are not providing for inclusiveeconomic growth:

Liberia has the potential to achieve its long-term strategic objective of attaining middle-incomestatus by 2030. The primary driver of growth is projected to arise from numerous foreigninvestment agreements signed in recent years in mining, rubber, palm oil, and forestry. However,there is a full recognition now on the part of the authorities that the FDI-based economic model,which relies heavily on the extraction of raw materials in “enclave sectors,” may have a limitedbroader development impact and do little to address economic exclusion, which was one of the

root causes of the conflict. Therefore, going forward, it is recognized that the benefits ofeconomic growth have to be broadly shared by the entire population.

69. A review of forest production models would need to respond to government and other stakeholderconcerns that communities will be unable to protect, conserve, and make productive use of theirforests (Box 6). As noted by Karsenty (2007), the track record in the region is not particularly promising. Experiences in Cameroon with institutionalized “community forests,” for example, haveshown mixed outcomes. Local actors, through rights claims, have taken advantage of their social and political connections to benefit themselves without being held accountable for their practices. In other

areas of the Congo Basin, high transport and logging costs have made developing community forestschallenging for economic reasons, and partnerships with neighboring concessionaires were required.

70. On the other hand, questions have been raised about the long-term viability of the concession model



processing, employment) should become a standard practice in order that those values be consideredin the setting of national and sectoral policies and priorities.

72. From an operational perspective, it would also be useful to carry out a systematic assessment of theareas allocated to timber production, in order to evaluate their potential to be managed sustainablyand economically as export-oriented, industrial forest concessions (Box 8). Such an assessment could

Box 6. Can Community Forestry Provide Desired Conservation Outcomes and Economic Benefits?

A synthesis article (Pearce 2012) looked at the growing body of evidence regarding communities and the impacts of themmanaging their own forests. Findings strongly suggest that forests and other ecosystems can be protected by protecting the landrights of local inhabitants, and empowering them to apply their knowledge, priorities, and management skills to maintaining theresource on which they depend.

Forest communities have clear incentives to protect forests. A six-year global study of forest use, deforestation and povertyconducted by the Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) found that harvested natural resources make up the largestcomponent of incomes for people living in and around tropical forests. Among the 8,000 households interviewed in 24countries, nature contributed 31% of household income, more than crop farming (29%), wages (14%), or raising livestock(12%). Forests were important sources of food, firewood, and construction materials that communities wanted to protect. Thisincome is, however, largely invisible in national statistics, as the produce is either consumed in the home or sold in localmarkets, unmonitored by national data collectors.

In forest communities it is the better off, not the poor, who take more from the forests. The same CIFOR study found that it

was the persons with means − those who can assert control of community-run forests − who were more closely associated withdeforestation. For them, deforestation was often a source of wealth, especially in good times. Deforestation was not found to be a coping strategy for the poor, in either good or bad times. The study found that just over a quarter of all households clearsome forest each year, with an average take of 1.3 hectares, mostly to grow crops. In bad times, the poor were more likely toleave the forest in search of wages than to stay and deforest.

Deforestation rates are substantially higher on lands protected by the state than in community-managed forests. A recentmeta-analysis of case studies found that deforestation rates are substantially higher on lands “protected” by the state than incommunity managed forests. There are well-known maps showing that the best-protected parts of the Amazon rainforest, forinstance, are those designated as native reserves, run by the Kayapo Indians and others. This seems to be the rule rather than theexception, Luciana Porter-Bolland, of the Institute of Ecology in Veracruz, Mexico, and others concluded. When the state is in

charge, rules are barely enforced, corruption is frequent, and forest dwellers have little stake in protecting forest resources, because they do not own them. Where the people who live there control the forests, they are much more likely to protect them.This analysis is consistent with a global studyby Ashwini Chhatre of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign who, withArun Agrawal, compared data on forest ownership with the carbon stored in forests and found that community forests heldmore “O fi di h th t i b t ti i l b t f i hi f f t f



be carried out in a reasonable timeframe by an experienced, independent team of forest engineers whowould evaluate such factors as access, terrain, soils, and forest conditions. In addition, economicevaluation work would be useful to inform forest concession policy. The current, largely unexamined

premise is that the 2.5 million ha of forest allocated for production purposes is capable, through large-scale export-oriented concessions, of generating a benefit stream of a magnitude sufficient to: (a)finance FDA/GoL’s direct costs for administering, monitoring, and supervising the concessioncontracts, including LiberFor costs; (b) generate significant economic rent to GoL for purposes of public finance; (c) allow for appropriate social payments (benefit sharing and compensation payments) to be paid to communities affected by logging; (d) finance the sustainable management of

Box 7. The Future of the Concession System?

A 2010 publication by Alain Karsenty of France’s Center for International Cooperation in Agricultural Researchraisesimportant issues regarding the direction and future of the Liberian forest sector and its production models. Karsenty foresees a

future in which large-scale concessions are a thing of the past. In their stead, he predicts a sector characterized by community forests and numerous small and medium-sized logging contractors selling timber either into a predatory export market or thedomestic market. He predicts that these markets may not support the sustainable management of forest resources, resulting in adrop in the value of forest lands and leading to increased replacement of forests by agricultural concessions. In the face of the

predicted changes, the author recommends (i) abolishing the presumption that forests are the “private” or “national” domainof the state, except in those areas already gazette; and (ii) that legislation be put in place that favors a general recognition ofthe property rights of local users, which should be defined through participatory mapping and tenure surveys. Implicit in these

recommendations is that community forestry would need to fill the vacuum left by the concessions and become a sufficientlyconsolidated sector so as to have the leverage and negotiating power to ensure fair pricing and provide an incentive for theconservation of forests. The main arguments presented are:

The concession system is currently characterized by trends toward concentration (at the center) and fragmentation (atits periphery). The shrinking economic rents, the “resource transition” (from primary-like forest to modified ones), and moredemanding legal and commercial standards are leading to the restructuring and concentration of the remaining companies. Sucha shift favors companies positioned in emerging markets, especially in Asia. Further, the evolution of the relative prices and thelow purchasing power of local consumers discourages the industry from supplying domestic market, so the informal sector fillsthis gap. The development of a dual sector will increase.

A new pattern is emerging: escalating costs and growing land needs by rural populations are pushing companies todisengage from logging operations. Outsourcing timber is the alternative for the industry. This strategy of (vertical)“disintegration” is already practiced by SE Asian companies with their myriad “contractors,” and has started in southern Congo.The “community forests” and local African enterprises are to be the contractors supplying the industry. In such a contracting

t i t i d d t th tit f d li d ( t ti d b A i i d



Forest Management Contracts − Prior to further tendering of FMCs, the FDA should, at aminimum: (a) under the guidance of the Land Commission, seek to identify forest areas wherethere is likely to be a “community forest,” as a result of the exercise of either statutory orcustomary rights, in order to redefine areas potentially available for letting of concessions on

Box 8. Commercial Forestry and Sustainable Management: The Need To Moderate Expectations

Popular perception holds that timber exports can provide a considerable source of revenue for the country. This perception is primarily based on observations of the forest sector’s historic importance to the Liberian economy, the implicit assumption thatit regain that importance, estimated extent of Liberia’s production forests. “ In 2002, [the forest sector] accounted for 23.9

percent of GDP” (IMF 2005) and “generated up to 60 percent of the nation's foreign exchange earnings” (USDA 2006). ThePoverty Reduction Strategy’s goals for the forest sector in 2010/11 included having some 2.5 million ha of forest under TSCs,

FSCs, and PUPs, and 0.4 million ha under community forestry, which would produce an estimated 1.42 million m3/yr of timberand US$46.1 million in revenues for the state (GoL 2008). More recent estimates suggest that GoL may accrue benefits inexcess of $300 million/yr from well-managed timber production in 1.9 million ha of forests, by producing 1.1 million m3/yr oftimber (Blundell and Hewitt, 2011). This perception of wealth and the expectations for revenues from timber resources have

been primary drivers of the forest sector reform process and have greatly shaped forest politics, policy, and policyimplementation. How well justified are these perceptions and expectations?

Clearly, based on performance to date of the commercial forest sector, short-to-medium terms expectations have been verymuch overly optimistic. But what about the longer term potential? The short answer is that no one really knows at this time.

To start with, it is problematic that the sector’s historic contributions should be a basis for expectations of its future potential.Past forest exploitation was neither regulated nor constrained, as ostensibly it is today, by sustainable management goals.Historically, Liberia lacked basic information about applying appropriate forest management and harvesting practices; and rulesand regulations governing forest concessions were poorly designed and only weakly enforced (DAI 2008). Between 1979 and2003, successive governments were reportedly unwilling, if not unable, to regulate the timber sector. Logging concessions wereawarded based on political patronage; violations of regulations were widespread, such as clear cutting and cutting of undersizedtrees (GoL 2009). In 2003, during the most egregious period of destructive, over-exploitation of Liberia’s forests, timber

production peaked at about 1.0 million m3 and total revenues from timber and forest products exports reached almost US$400million in constant 2009 US$ (see Graphs 1 and 2). Is it reasonable to assume that, with regulation and sustainable managementrestrictions, annual production could be 10 to 40% greater than when unregulated logging was at its peak? A number ofalternative views suggest that this would not be reasonable; a summary of these are found in Annex VI of this report. One in

particular is worth noting here, that of Mr. Thomas Pichet, formerly Project Manager in Liberia for SGS. In Pichet et al. (2009),

he states: “ If managed sustainably, logging would produce a maximum USD 80 millions of annual revenues of which 15millions should go to GoL in taxes of fees [sic].” Mr. Pichet’s estimation is in stark contrast to past official estimates.

The final answer to this question requires more accurate information than currently exists on remaining forest resources andlocally appropriate silvicultural systems. Until such information is available, the country would be better served by taking a



public lands; and (b) develop and implement a set of operational safeguards to avoid the letting ofconcessions in forests that likely to be turned over to communities in the future.

Timber Sales Contracts – There is a need to reconsider the appropriateness of letting furtherTSCs. As per the Forest Management Guidelines (FDA 2007b), TSCs are utilized to carry outwhat essentially are timber salvage operations in order to convert areas of mixed agriculture andforest lands to agriculture or other uses. They comprise forests that have already beensignificantly impacted by agriculture and other non-forest land uses. Logically, many of theseareas would be lands under significant, long-term occupation and use by communities. Bydefinition, therefore, these areas are among those forest resources most likely to be turned backover to communities under the CRL. Thus, continuing to let TSCs to liquidate timber resourceson lands that in all likelihood will be turned back over to communities in the not-too-distant

future is to expropriate their future assets. Further, while the state may view these forests assufficiently degraded to not warrant management under a commercial forestry regimen, this doesnot mean that degraded forests would not have values that the communities would wish to sustain by keeping the area as forest land rather than converting it to other uses.

74. Private Use Permits (PUPs) are also an issue. Concerns have been raised that they could potentially be used to create large-scale, industrial concessions on community forest lands, contrary to theirintended purpose (Global Witness 2010). These concerns have been echoed by an individual who wasinstrumental in drafting the NFRL and conceptualizing the PUPs.41 As noted above, the UN Panel of

Experts (2011b) has also raised a number of concerns about the rapidly increasing use of thisinstrument. These concerns are realistic, as shown by experience elsewhere. For example, inCameroon, community forests have been used to escape high forest fees and forest managementobligations; and a similar situation in the DRC has prompted a call to limit the area that can beallocated as “community concessions” (Karsenty 2010).

75. One difficulty in regulating PUPs is that they are not mentioned in any of the principal normative andregulatory instruments for forest management and harvesting.42 Another is that PUPs below 50,000 haare negotiated directly between communities and loggers, but there are no procedural or legal

requirements to protect the interests of the communities or to ensure transparency in the negotiation process. Global Witness (as quoted in Karsenty 2010) has noted that no “ process [exists to] separatethose who might meet their obligations from those that cannot [which] may allow very large areas ofLib i ’ f b l ” Gi th k ( i t t) l l t t f



significant revenues. In actuality, it would be the communities losing these revenues. Holders ofthese permits are required to pay to government the same stumpage and forest products fees as fortimber on public land, as well as any permit administration costs. Being on community (private)

land, however, PUPs involve no area-based land rental fees, as required in auctions of public forestresources. According to the critics, non-payment of these fees represents a loss of rents rightfully belonging to the state. However being private lands and resources, not public lands and resources,the rents should belong to the community that owns the forest resources. If the PUP holder retainsthese as unearned income, it is the community that is cheated, not the state. Another potentiallydisturbing implication of the arguments against PUPs would be to limit community rights over theirlands and forest resources − or possibly, simply fail to recognize those rights in order to “protect” theforest. This is the case in the DRC, where a similar situation has resulted in a call to limit the area

that can be allocated as a “community concessions” because of the doubts about the capacity of thecommunities to self-manage such large areas (Karsenty 2010).

77. The solution to PUPs does not lie in strictly emulating the process for large-scale industrialconcessioning, or in reinforcing the historic assertion that forest resources must be controlled by thestate. Rather, there is an immediate need to review PUPs before issuing any new ones. The reviewshould ensure that PUPs comply fully with the legal requirements of the NFRL and the CRL.Support should be provided to communities in order to ensure transparency and good governancewith regard to the existing contracts. Existing regulations should be amended to specifically include

“community forests” under PUPs and CFMAs. Social and governance safeguards should be built intothe regulations to avoid, to the extent possible, corruption and self-dealing, and ensure the transparentuse and distribution of benefits from community forests. Independent monitoring could play animportant role.

78. Technical assistance, research and incentives for SFM in commercial forests. In the short to mediumterm, the best opportunities for introducing and adapting appropriate silvicultural systems and practices for SFM, and building the technical capacity of sector institutions, lie with the formal sector;i.e., the existing FMCs and possibly the large-scale PUPs43 and CFMAs that have been recently

issued. All these have legal and contractual obligations to follow the Forest Management Guidelines(FDA 2007b) and the Code of Forest Harvesting Practices (FDA 2007a). For the FMCs, a concessionaudit process (discussed in greater detail below) should establish with the concession holders theextent to which they are in compliance, and address their concerns and issues about transitioning to a



third-party certification of forest management; cost-sharing on obtaining certification; regulatoryrelief for companies obtaining and maintaining forest management certification; assignment of carbonrights and assistance with marketing and access to REDD+ financing; and assistance for marketing

and promotion in certified timber markets.79. SFM and community forestry. SFM in community forests is a much broader and more complex

challenge. In the short to medium term, however, the challenge is less technical and more one oforganization, capacity building, and developing local forest governance mechanisms and instruments.These needs are summarized above in the Local forest governance section. Beyond the institutional priorities, there are also certain technical issues that would benefit from attention in order to preparefor community management. These are discussed immediately below.

80.

SFM and domestic markets. Currently the domestic timber market is supplied primarily by theinformal sector; i.e., chainsaw millers. Efforts are underway, in the form of the recently approvedChainsawing Regulations (Regulation 115-11, 6 June 2011), to formalize and regulate their forestharvesting activities. The intent of the regulation is to limit chainsaw milling to community forestsand private lands. As previously noted, community forests eventually are likely to comprise a verysignificant percentage of the total potential production forests, and certainly a primary source ofdomestic timber supply. As the informal sector actors are essentially value-added processors that relyto a greater (chainsaw millers) or lesser (charcoal producers) extent on natural forests, theformalization of their activities will require that the private and community forests have in place the

necessary forest management and harvesting plans to allow them to operate.81. Experience from other parts of the world indicates that simplified regulatory frameworks are needed

to allow the development of the community forestry sector; these include simplified planning andmanagement requirements and technical requirements. 45 Given that Liberia has entered into avoluntary partnership agreement with the European Community under the EU's FLEGT initiative(Box 9), the development of policy, regulations, and technical requirements for small-scale forestexploitation in community and private forest lands will need to be done within that framework. It isimportant to note that while the current VPA framework is focused on industrial-scale, export-

oriented commercial logging, it also requires that the market for domestic timber adhere to theagreement. Because the VPA’s focus is on industrial forestry, it assumes a much greater level oftechnical and financial capacity on the part of the forest manager than would be encountered at the

it f t l l U l ifi i t t h i l d l t f k d



Box 9. The EU-Liberia Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA)

The EU and GoL recently signed a Voluntary Partnership Agreement on Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade in

Timber Products to the European Union (European Commission, 2011). The agreement provides a legal framework aimed atensuring that all imports of timber products from Liberia into the EU have been legally produced. The agreement definestimber products as wood in any form (including sawdust, wood waste, and scrap) as well as any and all finished products.Wood from Liberia’s rubber plantations also come under the agreement. In order to avoid any issues of leakage, the agreementextends to all timber products exported from Liberia to any part of the world, and has “ a view to applying and/or extending thelegality requirement to all timber products used on the domestic market.” The agreement is also characterized as an instrumentfor combating climate change, in line with REDD+, by promoting forest law enforcement and governance.

The agreement defines a FLEGT licensing scheme and specifies a set of procedures and requirements for verifying and attestingthat timber products shipped to the EU are legally produced or acquired. No shipments from Liberia into the EU will beallowed unless they are covered by FLEGT licenses. Liberia will establish and designate a licensing authority responsible for

verifying that timber products have been legally produced in accordance with the VPA, and for issuing the licenses. The dateon which the FLEGT licensing scheme will become operational remains to be agreed; however, the current schedule providesfor a preaparatory and organizational phase running through 2013, so the operational phase could begin in 2014. A JointImplementation Committee will be established to facilitate monitoring, review, dialogue, and exchanges of information.

The key activities during the preparation phase include:1. VPA implementation structures established2. Capacity improved (5 year training plan, includes., chainsaw millers, private sector, communities)3. Financial mechanism established and resources secured for effective implementation of the VPA4. Legality assurance system: legality verification established5. Legality assurance system: licensing established

6.

Legality assurance system: independent audit established7. FLEGT license acceptance system in the EU operational8. Civil society monitoring established9. Law enforcement and regulatory framework improved (regulations on community forestry, chainsaws, abandoned logs,

timber transit and imports, confiscated timber, and refinement of social and environmental provisions)10. Regulation and monitoring of domestic market established11. Impact monitoring for the VPA12. Communications (public awareness, trading partners, social agreements, sector stakeholders affected by VPA)

In recognition of a potential need for additional technical and financial resources in order to implement the VPA, there is provision that resources might be programmed through the “normal procedures” of the EU and its Member States. Liberia, for

its part, will “ensure that capacity-building to implement this Agreement is included in its national planning instruments, such as poverty reduction strategies and budgets.” The EU and Liberia are to be jointly for ensuring coordination with relevant existingand future development initiatives such as REDD+ .

Other provisions of interest include:



engaging the relevant ministries47 in identifying options and opportunities for long-term conservationof environmentally sensitive areas and habitat within concessions, and exploring new instruments(e.g., conservation offsets and compensation payments for biodiversity loss) for financing the

conservation of biodiversity; (d) engaging the relevant ministries 48 in identifying options andopportunities for compensating and developing alternative livelihoods for communities affected by protected areas declarations49; and (e) with the above inputs, carry out a systematic process withrelevant stakeholders to finalize the development of a national strategy for conservation, including astrategy for its financing.

84. The first two of these areas are already contemplated to a certain extent within the LandCommission’s 2009-2013 work program. With World Bank assistance, the LC will be reviewing theoverall land policy framework, taking an inventorying existing rural and urban land use, and

developing a National Land Use Plan. This process and framework provides a context and processfor resolving conflicts resulting from the dual allocation of lands for mineral development and forconservation of biodiversity and environmental services. It is also consistent with the Government’sMineral Policy (GoL 2010a), which calls for a mechanism to be put in place for the evaluation andresolution of competing land use options. The LC has also proposed development of a fairlycomprehensive program, in cooperation with the FDA, EPA, MLME, NGOs, and civil society, toestablish the protected area system. The proposed process50 would consist of:

Compiling all information on existing protected and conservation areas; Assessing the legal status of lands; surveying present land use and occupation; identifying and

validating land claims; surveying and registration of rights within the areas; Referring all new requests for protected/conservation areas to a community consultation process; A visioning process with area managers, neighboring communities, and other stakeholders on the

future use of protected areas; Negotiating social/territorial pacts (plans and boundaries) with stakeholders; Drafting and agreeing on area specific management plans; Gazetting areas and developing management plans; Initiating implementation of management plans.

85. It should be through the proposed visioning process that the foundations for achieving conservationgoals are agreed upon. Such a process could provide the overall territorial vision of a conservation



commercial and conservation use as “unencumbered” lands are within existing Aborigines Deeds andPublic Land Sales Deeds (Lomax 2008, Wily 2007).

86.

Where there exists a reasonable likelihood that a particular area proposed for conservation is withinwhat will remain public land, then formally conferring protected area status 51 on that land wouldremain a good option. However, the types of conservation regimes that would be introduced stillneed to be defined − strict conservation, mixed purpose, etc. − through a process that includes the full participation of relevant stakeholders. Where conservation areas conflict with mineral development, priorities could be determined based on (as yet to be) established principals and criteria. However,development of the conservation system strategy could still proceed in the absence of a finalresolution. Where concessions exist (forest, agriculture, mining), these are bound by legalrequirements regarding protection of culturally and environmentally sensitive areas. Options such as

conservation corridors (called for by the NFRL) might provide an opportunity for incorporating theconcessions’ required conservation zones into a broader scheme for landscape-scale conservation.For community forests, set-asides could be established to meet environmental requirements for forestmanagement and/or to protect and conserve zones of cultural, social, environmental, and/or economicimportance to the communities.52

87. Ultimately, the feasibility of the conservation strategy will depend on its financial viability. The issueof system-wide finance has yet to be seriously and systematically analyzed. Most of the attentionseems to be on capturing incremental resources through direct government budget transfers, forest

carbon markets (REDD), and possibilities for local economic alternatives (ecotourism, agroforestry,etc.) – the more traditional sources within the conservation sector. It is reasonable to suspect,however, that revenues from those sources alone would fall far short of what is needed to achieve theambitious goal of having 30 percent of the country’s forests under an effective conservation regime.To achieve this goal, a more diverse range of incentives and funding sources will be required.Developing the strategy and approach for the long-term financing of conservation should be a centralactivity, and be closely tied to discussions of the overall conservation strategy. The question of thelong-term financing of the recurrent costs of management and conservation must be looked at both at

the level of the individual protected or conservation area as well as system wide.

53

There arenumerous options yet to be explored, ranging from negotiating with established international miningcompanies for provision of compensation payments and financing of offsets, to provision ofincentives and empowerment of local forest owners to conserve locally perceived benefits and



be informed by and oriented toward a broader range of opportunities for achieving conservation goalsthan are available at present.

89.

Administration of forest concessions. There are a number of issues with the current system thatrequire attention. The most important are:

Concession bidding processes (discussed in detail in Box 1). Previous FMC auctions havedemonstrated that current oversight mechanisms are not adequate to ensure full compliance withexisting laws, regulations, and procedures. This is confirmed by the IMF’s findings, which led totheir recommendations (Baunsgaard et al 2011) to strengthen the auction process and reestablishits credibility by considering a role for oversight by independent experts. The IMF recommends amoratorium on auctioning additional forest concessions until clear and independent oversight has been established, to ensure that the procedures in the NFRL and regulations are followed.

Non-performance of existing concessions (also discussed in Box 1). A standard clause in FMCcontracts is that the contract can be terminated “if the contract holder fails to meet any monetaryobligations, including payments of bids or fees to the Government or payments to the localcommunities in a timely manner.” With the total arrears in payments approaching 90 percent,some action seems both justified and necessary to allow the concession areas to eventually beoffered in a future auction round. It is critically important that all contractual obligations made by the investors be enforced, including those related to monetary obligations. There is concernamong officials that such an action might lead to FMC holders asserting counterclaims against the

Government for failure to meet its commitments regarding infrastructure.54

However, thissituation is expected to be addressed by the newly created National Bureau of Concessions,established as part of the part Bureau of Concessions Act in July 2011. The new bureau, whichwill absorb both the Bureau of State Enterprises and the Concessions Secretariat (Johnson-Sirleaf2012), will coordinate the development of criteria, guidelines, specifications, templates, andstandards for monitoring and evaluating concession holders’ compliance with the terms ofconcession agreements. It will also provide to advice, technical assistance, and training to theagencies responsible for granting and monitoring concessions, to ensure that functional systemsare in place to effectively monitor compliance (Acosta 2011).55

Concession review. A permanent concession review mechanism is need to ensure adequateoversight and accountability for existing concessions require attention. The FDA’s system for



communities in the ongoing monitoring and oversight of concessions should also be defined, anda system put in place to incorporate their inputs into FDA’s ongoing concession monitoring andannual audit process. Stakeholder advisory groups – comprising private sector, civil society, and

community representatives – would be desirable additions to such a permanent review process. Reform of concession fiscal framework. The Government is under pressure from the industry,

through the legislature, to remove the land rent bid premium (the biddable item in the auction).This would lead to a fiscal loss, provide a windfall to logging companies, and have a detrimentalimpact on the confidence of donors, NGOs, and likely, civil society in general. Among the majorlosers in this scenario would be the communities affected by logging concessions and localcounty governments, each of which is entitled, by law, to 30 percent of the land rent bid premium. In case legislation to abolish the land rental bid premium is enacted as expected, the

IMF has made a series of recommendation on how to minimize the fiscal ramifications(Baunsgaard et al. 2011). As this legislation would also impact the benefit sharing and socialagreement frameworks, as well as the incentive framework for sustainable forest management, afiscal reform process for forest concessions would require a comprehensive approach in order toensure that the social and environmental dimensions receive the same degree of attention as theeconomic.

90. Social agreements and benefit sharing. There are concerns on the part of communities andcommunity advocates, as well as among private sector companies that hold or are seeking

concessions, that the current social agreement and benefit sharing framework is neither effective56

nortransparent. Presently, social agreements are negotiated by communities following the signing ofconcession contracts between the companies and government. This strongly biases the outcome ofthe global benefits distribution in favor of government, and places the concessionaire in a positionwhere underestimating the cost of the social agreement is greatly preferable to overestimating it. 57 Establishing the terms of the social agreements should be moved upstream as part of theconcessioning process, before the actual bidding on the concession begins. The social agreement isnot just a benefit sharing mechanism; it is also a form of compensation payment to the communitiesaffected by both immediate and long-term impacts of logging. Establishing the costs of compensation

and additional benefits up front would be a fairer and more transparent system for communities and bidders. Agreement would need to be reached on a set of standards and criteria for establishingcompensation payments and for the fair sharing of benefits. The consensus-building process should



CFDCs have not yet established the governance and technical mechanisms needed to carry out benefit sharing.

Some social agreements are up for renegotiation within two years, but it would be beneficial to

renegotiate all contracts within a shorter timeframe. The FDA should engage a partner to workwith the CFDCs to ensure that they are fully informed and capable of negotiating an equitable benefit sharing arrangement with concession holders.

The recently formed National Benefit Sharing Trust Board, mandated to disburse and sustainablymanage funds collected from timber concessionaires operating in forest-dependent communities,must finalize its arrangements for the governance, administration, and management of the funds.The trust board will need to follow a careful process to ensure that priorities are established in acoordinated manner with the CFDCs. A robust communication strategy is need to ensure that the

process is fully transparent and keeps community (and FMC) stakeholders fully informed. The CFDCs will need direct assistance from FDA and/or other government agencies to enforce

agreements with concessionaires. Additional useful insights and recommendations on these issues can be found in the 2009 assessmentof social agreements carried out for USAID (WRI 2009). Some of the key findings of this assessmentare presented in Annex IV.

Effective Communication and Stakeholder Participation

92. A common criticism of the present system is the lack of communication and information sharing.The NFRL establishes the public’s right to information and to participate in forest decisionmaking.However, sector stakeholders do not feel able to effectively participate in forest-related decisions dueto lack of information. With the passage of the CRL, which establishes the principle that “anydecision, agreement, or activity affecting the status or use of community forest resources shall not proceed without the prior, free, informed consent of said community,” the absolute need for afunctioning system of communications and information sharing becomes that much sharper. Thegreatest challenges in developing an effective approach to communications and information sharing

are institutional in nature. Presently FDA has neither the facilities (physical or IT) nor the capacity tosystematically provide information or communicate with the broad range of forest sectorstakeholders. The FDA information center, which was to provide a partial solution, remains to bebuilt and put into operation FDA’s website is incomplete almost wholly lacking in documentation



(NFF). These higher-level forums (county and national) can and should also provide the space forcivil society, NGO and private sector stakeholder participation. A main ingredient for success of thehigher-level forums would be FDA’s commitment to actively and systematically participate, work

with and listen to these forums; utilizing them to discuss national and county-level plans, priorities,etc. If so, the incentive will be there to encourage the broad and continued participation of allstakeholders (community, civil society, private sector). Assuming such a commitment, FDA wouldrequire assistance to develop its internal capacity for stakeholder management and how to internalizeinputs obtained through public participation.

Management of the Public Forest Sector

93. The public forest sector in Liberia is on the cusp of a significant transformation that will play out over

the next 10 to 20 years and fundamentally change the way in which the forest sector operates. Thechanges that can be foreseen imply a continuing evolution and redefinition of forest sector policy,strategy, institutional frameworks and implementation arrangements. In the aggregate, these changeshave profound implications for forest management, conservation and, potentially, the livelihoods of asignificant percentage of the rural poor and forest-dependent households. The principal drivers ofchange include:

The emerging policy on recognition of customary land rights and the passage of the Community Rights Law, which introduced a fundamental change in forest land administration and resource

access. The assumption underlying the National Forest Strategy that the lion’s share of forest canadministered and sustainably managed through a relatively small number of long-term ForestManagement Contracts now seems questionable. Over time, a significant percentage of forestlands and resources will be in the hands of communities and private landowners. With this willemerge an increasingly large number of diverse small and medium-sized community forestmanagement schemes and approaches.

The National Policy on Decentralization, to be implemented by 2020, which provides for political, administrative, and fiscal decentralization, all with deep implications for publicadministration of the forest sector and forest resources (see Box 10). The instruments of centralgovernment will be more in the area of policy, regulations, enforcement and incentives than ofdirect administration, management, and execution of forest policy.

Domestic markets and the informal sector. Stakeholders at the community level and small-scale



Box 10. Forest Management and Liberia’s National Policy on Decentralization and Local Governance

In January of 2010, the national policy on decentralization was approved. The policy − which provides for political,

administrative, and fiscal decentralization − is to be incrementally implemented over a period of ten years to allow forneeded capacity building and institutional reorganization. The policy expresses a strong intent that it be implemented,warning that “this incremental approach shall not be construed as a measure to delay the transfer of the powers describedherein.”

Forests and forestry are not specifically mentioned in the policy, however, this should not be construed as meaning that theforest sector will not be affected. The policy describes those powers, authority, and functions that shall be exclusivelyreserved and exercised by the national government. For the forest sector, these are few, and the relevant areas includeauditing, industrial licensing and agreements, and (forest) law enforcement.

Governance and public administration powers and responsibilities will be devolved to local governments, defined ascounties and existing autonomous and statutory districts, cities and other municipalities. County governments will be

responsible for local economic development and administrative decisions, in line with national laws and regulations. Theywill initiate, plan, implement, and evaluate public policies and programs with respect to poverty reduction, quality of life,and all other matters affecting their citizenry. County governments will also participate in all negotiations pertaining toextractive industries and the establishment of such industries. The county legislative assemblies will levy local taxes, rates,duties, fees, and fines, as well as authorize issuance of certain licenses and operating permits to local businesses. They willenact local ordinances, rules and regulations to provide for the delivery of basic public goods and services, includingeconomic and business development, tourism, and parks and their creation. District commissioners will be responsible forimplementing county policies and programs and leading participatory processes that establish local development priorities.

National ministries will develop their goals in consultation with county technical personnel, and design and providetechnical assistance, outreach, and training to the counties. The ministries will also analyze and develop policies and

programs appropriate for county development, and monitor and evaluate the performance of the counties in achievingnational goals in their respective sectors.The national government will implement a program of fiscal decentralization such that all funds, grants, and revenuesallocated by the national government will be shared with county governments and distributed according to a formula basedon population, governance practices, and other factors to be determined by policy and legislation. The national legislaturewill define the county tax base, prescribing the types of taxes, rates, fees, and fines that may be levied. County governmentswill raise and keep as their own the revenues collected from property taxes and other legally established sources such as theissuance of licenses, inspection fees, fines, and operating permits for local businesses.

The implementation of this policy has profound implications for the public administration of the forest sector.Implementation of national policy and strategies will be through the decentralized mechanisms established through this

policy. A substantial portion of public resources for forest conservation and management, as well as their implementation,are likely to be devolved to local authorities under this policy. FDA will require the capacity to work with, through, and insupport of local governments and authorities to achieve its objectives. Its role will become increasingly less operational andmore focused on policy, regulation, norms, and management of incentives. As reforms in forest land tenure and forestresources access proceed over the next decade there will be less and less national land and fewer forests to be administered



sector is greater than the sector’s capacity to respond; and (b) capacity building of sector institutionsneeds to be a priority if reforms are to be effectively implemented. This in its turn implies thatexpectations may be too high, that reforms need to be better sequenced, and that weight of

responsibility needs to be better distributed.95. Long experience with the challenges of institution building has shown that such efforts cannot be

successful when the institutions are required to take on too many tasks at once, Capacity is builtincrementally, based on initially setting modest goals and achieving them. Over time, more and morecomplex tasks can be taken on. But it is the initial successes in setting and achieving goals that areabsolutely critical for building capacity and allowing institutions to evolve. While this is not the onlydetermining factor − others include political will, external pressure and demands, leadership, andresources commensurate with the task – it is a critical entry point. However, until and unless there is

a manageable set of sector priorities around which to build capacity, none of these factors, alone or inconcert, will be sufficient to take the sector forward.

96. Setting priorities for institution building requires:

Effectively engaging national forest sector stakeholders and building consensus on the absolute priorities for which there is broad ownership and commitment.

Building on that consensus to set realistic and achievable goals − not just for the public sector but for

the forest sector as a whole, with clearly identified responsibilities and accountabilities for reachingthose goals.

Avoiding the temptation to set more goals than can be achieved with the present level of resourcesand institutional capacity or commitment.

Developing a clear institutional strategy that involves all key actors and sets out to build theircapacity for the purpose of achieving goals and sustaining outcomes.

Being flexible about how to achieve the goals, and staying focused on those goals unless theconsensus on priorities changes.

Utilizing the legitimacy of a stakeholder-driven process and consensus on priorities to align donorassistance and programs with national and sectoral priorities.

97. The dialogue that has been initiated around the Forest Sector Poverty Reduction Strategy for PRS IIand the proposed “Sanctions Lifting + 6” exercise for 2012 offers an ideal opportunity for effectivestakeholder engagement in seeking a sector-wide consensus on medium-term priorities and an



99. Early on in the implementation of reforms, however, the sector confronted its capacity limits.Institutional and governance mechanisms were new and largely untested, and thus immediatelychallenged by the demands of implementation. The absolute lack of trained and experienced peoplein the public, private, and community sectors quickly became a principal bottleneck.

100. Governance challenges also arose early on. The documented problems and issues with the auctionsof the Forest Management Contracts demonstrated that the oversight mechanisms put in place wereweak and not capable of ensuring full compliance with the new laws, regulations, and procedures.M h i b ilt i t th l d f t t t t t bli t i f ti t

Box 11. Poverty Reduction Strategy II: Medium-Term Development Plan 2012-17 for the Forestry Sector of Liberia

The following was presented by Hon. Moses D. Wogbeh, Managing Director of FDA, on December 12, 2011 at the StakeholderConsultative Workshop for the Poverty Reduction Strategy II-Forestry Component in Lakpazee, Liberia.

The approach to defining strategic objectives and priority interventions [ for the forest sector ] may be viewed through three“lenses” which enables the three policy “C”s to be better integrated:

1. Putting People First: Enhancing stakeholder engagement and participation; Better information sharing and communications; Better forest governance through structures defined by Law.This strategic approach recognizes previous shortcomings and aims to place the community “C” in centre stage of theCommercial and Conservation uses of Liberia’s forests. This will involve: greater opportunity for community co-management of conservation and commercial forests; and more transparent consents and more effective agreements for

communities affected by forest concessions and protected areas.2. Removing Barriers to Sustainable Forest Management (SFM):

Address principal constraints Training and capacity building within FDA, communities, and the private sector; Feeder roads and bridges to overcome infrastructure constraints to community development and forest-based trade; Policy, legal, and regulatory measures, including clarity of tenure of forest land and of ownership of forest resources.

3. Leveraging the Values of Forest: Enabling international trade in forest goods and services through certification, VPA, REDD, etc.; Regulating and managing the domestic production and marketing of timber, bush meat, charcoal, and other forest

products; Encouraging small and medium-size forest enterprises to become the dominant driving force for poverty alleviation; Enforce and augment current regulations and fiscal obligations to favour value-added and employment through

downstream processing.



revealed the contradictions between GoL’s emerging policies on land and community rights and theforest sector’s historic policies and laws, which asserted state ownership of natural forest resources −an assertion that had been restated in the 2006 National Forest Reform Law. Through the CRL, GoL’s

recognition of the customary right of communities to their forest resources (and, implicitly, alsocustomary rights to land) called into question some basic assumptions of the National Forest Strategy, particularly the assumption that industrial concessions owned by foreign investors would generategreat benefits for the country and local communities. As noted by the IMF (2011), national authoritiesnow fully recognize that “the FDI-based economic model, which relies heavily on the extraction ofraw materials in ‘enclave sectors,’ may have a limited broader development impact and do little toaddress economic exclusion, which was one of the root causes of the conflict .”

102. More recently, the issuance of Private Use Permits and large-scale Community Forest Management

Agreements has emerged as a concern. The use of these instruments is rapidly expanding, and appearsto be on track to cover more area than forest concessions. There are many concerns about this trend,the principal ones being that: (a) the process of land and forest allocation by means of theseinstruments constitutes a de facto land use policy and land reform program that bypasses and is inconflict with established policies, laws, and processes; (b) a lack of transparency could underminereforms (UN Panel of Experts 2011b); (c) the legal and regulatory framework governing theseinstruments is ambiguous, creating uncertainty about the social, environmental, and economicobjectives embodied in the forest reforms and policy; and (d) the appearance of a lack of due process

around social, governance, and benefit-sharing aspects could create social unrest.103. Finally, there are a number of emerging policies, needs, and opportunities that in the aggregate will

have profound impacts on how the forest sector is administered in coming years. Among these are (a)the clear trend towards the recognition of customary land rights and forest tenure, which will lead tothe development of a significant community forestry subsector; (b) GoL’s decentralization policy; (c)the growing recognition of the importance of the domestic forest sector, which heretofore has beenlargely ignored; (d) the VPA agreement with the EU, which requires regulation of the domesticmarket and the integration of many existing (informal) small forest and forest resource-dependent

enterprises into formal and regulated trade and commerce; and (e) REDD +, whose ReadinessPreparation Proposal (R-PP) introduces a range of new priorities and instruments for forestconservation and management.

104 It i l th t f th t t f ll f t t d i i d it li th



106. Appendix I contains a summary of the current forest policy (FDA 2006) and implementation strategy(FDA 2007c), and the related issues that have emerged. Other priority issues that have arisen aredetailed below.

107. Sector governance requires attention. Concession allocation mechanisms have proven weak. Seriousconsideration needs to be given to establishing an effective, independent auditing mechanism for theFMC bidding process. A permanent mechanism for concession review/audit is also required, whichshould include a role for local communities; and an independent monitoring entity should be definedand its inputs incorporated into the FDA’s ongoing concession monitoring and annual audit process.

108. Moratorariums should be considered on further tendering and/or approval of (a) FMCs, untilconcession allocation processes are strengthened, the ongoing discussions (and conflicts) aroundrestructuring contracts and the fiscal regime of current FMC holders is resolved (including theassociated benefit-sharing framework), and safeguards are developed to avoid allocation of potentialcommunity forests; (b) TSCs, until safeguards are developed to avoid allocation of potentialcommunity forests; and (c) PUPs and large-scale CFMAs until: the policies, processes, and procedures for the recognition of land and customary rights to forest

resources are vetted and approved by the Land Commission; the legal and regulatory framework for PUPs and sustainable forest management are reviewed

and strengthened as needed; the CRL regulations is reviewed and amended, as needed, to resolve conflicts between the

regulations and the law; appropriate social and governance safeguards, norms, and procedures are established to ensure

transparency, informed decisionmaking, and appropriate forest governance by communities; and a review with the Public Procurement Commission and Bureau of Concessions is carried out on

the proposed single-source contracting of pre-qualified logging companies under CFMAs onlands that are putatively still public lands.

109. Effective forest sector stakeholder participation is impeded by the lack of functional spaces andformal mechanisms for their engagement, and by the lack of transparency resulting from weak anduncoordinated communications and information sharing systems.59 This ongoing problem will presenta serious challenge in the short term, given the need to update the National Forest ManagementStrategy. As in the earlier stage of reforms, a robust process for engagement with sector stakeholders



within those lands. In cooperation with and following the lead of the Land Commission − which is

also charged by the CRL to deal with “all matters related to land tenure and proprietorship” – theFDA will need to enter into the process of identifying community forests (including deeded

community forest lands). In parallel, significant and systematic efforts will be needed to put in placethe institutional and governance arrangements for these forests, to ensure that they are not turned overto communities in a vacuum, i.e., in the absence of clear rules and responsibilities that are compatiblewith local land holding traditions, culture and governance and acceptable to forest-owningcommunities. The conflict between the CRL and its regulations also needs attention, to enable thereform process to move forward with no ambiguity regarding GoL’s intentions towards implementingthe CRL.

112. Community forestry. Two distinct models of community forestry have emerged. One is a smaller-

scale, conservation-oriented model, such as those being piloted with assistance from USAID and FFI.The other is a larger-scale, commercial logging-oriented model based on the issuance of Private UsePermits on community lands, and larger-scale (18,000 to 50,000 ha) Community Forest ManagementAgreements over customary use forest resources. Currently the area under PUPs and larger-scaleCFMAs is nearly as large as the area under concessions, and the rapidity with which this model is being scaling up is noteworthy. Whereas Liberia has several years of experience with communityforestry under the small-scale CFMA model, there is no experience (or strategy, methodology, norms,or capacity) to guide the development of the large-scale, commercially oriented community forestry

model. The most likely outcome, should the FDA continue to facilitate PUPs and large-scale CFMAs,would not be recognizable as community forestry, in which the primary benefits accrue to thecommunity. Rather, the outcome would be the large-scale logging of community lands, with thelogger the most immediate beneficiary.

113. Domestic market for forest products. The domestic markets for timber and non-timber forest productshave been largely ignored. This should not continue, as domestic markets are likely to provide one ofthe greatest opportunities for employment generation and poverty reduction for rural communitiesand forest dwellers in the coming years. The current policies and efforts to formalize the chainsawmilling and charcoal producer subsectors are positive steps forward. The implementation of the VPAand REDD will create additional pressures to bring the informal sector under regulation and integrateit into domestic markets. The development of a genuine community forestry subsector would be acritical outcome of these efforts, as communities would be politically and economically better



dynamics – of sustainable management of production forests. Under these circumstances, long-termmanagement strategies cannot be reliably established. With so many unknowns, a “no-regrets”approach is needed in decisionmaking; i.e., a cautious approach should be taken with respect to

protection of social, environmental, and economic values of forest. Where knowledge is lacking,conservative decisions should be preferred so as not to inadvertently cause irreversible harm orimpacts. For example, care should be exercised to avoid providing timber harvesting rights to third parties in forests where the full implementation of the CRL may reasonably be expected to createcommunity forests and rights. Also, the limits on allowable harvest volumes should not be raisedwhere there is a risk of damaging the forest environment and/or of undermining the long-termeconomic potential of the timber resource. Under current conditions, investments in obtaining theinformation needed for sound decisionmaking will bring high returns, and make it possible to

leverage forest values for poverty reduction and employment generation.116. Three Cs. The lack of clear operational strategies, goals, and roadmaps to deliver on an integrated

Three Cs agenda is an impediment on several levels. For the FDA’s potential partners, it is difficultto coordinate support and identify where and how to contribute. For FDA management, it isconsiderably more difficult to prioritize, plan, and budget in a coherent fashion; or to ensurecontinuity and hold staff accountable for meeting objectives. For the implementing departments, therisks are substantial of being reactive and ad hoc instead of proactive in pursuing agency objectives.Clear policy guidance and criteria are needed to evaluate and resolve tradeoffs among commercial,conservation, and community interests in each specific context. GoL’s emerging land and resourceaccess policies imply that significant areas of forest currently identified for commercial productionand conservation may eventually be adjudicated to communities. This requires serious reflection withregard to tradeoffs and viable strategies for commercial logging and biodiversity conservation.

117. There is a need to develop a conservation strategy and approach that goes beyond the protected areassystem and encompasses the large areas that are now or will be under mineral, agricultural, and forestconcessions and community forest lands. The strategy must address the question of how to financeconservation at the landscape scale. Developing a viable strategy will require the negotiation of newinstruments, incentives, and approaches for conservation in conjunction with a number of differentGoL ministries and institutions: MLME and MOA for conservation offsets and compensation payments; and MOA, MHSW, MOE, and MOT for rural development and livelihood alternatives forcommunities that participate in biodiversity conservation. The legal framework is incomplete as well,



121. Reform takes time and pragmatism. It is important to be realistic about the time needed to buildownership for forest reforms, and to adopt a pragmatic approach that balances consistency withflexibility. Time is needed to learn, build capacity, and adjust institutions and regulatory structures to

be more consistent with the objectives of reform. Strong and consistent emphasis on the reformobjectives needs to be balanced by flexibility on how best to achieve them. Policies and regulationsare more likely to endure if they are simple and easy to enforce. The best way to strengthen publicsector accountability is through practical measures such as simplified regulatory frameworks, limitedentry points for harassment by officials, and improved public information (Topa et al. 2009). At thesame time, care must be taken that “flexibility” and “pragmatism” are not allowed to weaken theoutcomes. One mechanism for mitigating this risk is to have clear, time-bound targets for progress, inorder “to avoid spoilers from stopping at 'good enough.”61

122. Forestry in Africa has often been viewed, much too narrowly, as a source of export revenues fromindustrial timber on the one hand, and of global public goods on the other. In reality, forests andwoodlands play a much broader role – as a diverse source of jobs and livelihoods for Africaneconomies and citizens; and as a provider of ecosystem services, protecting watersheds and stream-flows, controlling erosion and enhancing fertility, regulating the climate, and protecting biodiversity.Export revenues are an important but relatively small subset of these broader roles (World Bank,2011b). Experiences with forest sector reform in other African countries have shown the importanceof:

Support for sustainable management of the domestic timber industry through (a) value chainenhancement (including technical support to processors to reduce wastage and enhance productquality); and (b) broader support to the SME enabling environment to enhance job creation;

Continued monitoring and capacity building to enhance transparency and sustainablemanagement of concession forests for economic and social benefits;

Greater support and more effective approaches to decentralized forest management and forestrevenue management by local communities, with special mechanisms to support thelivelihoods and rights of indigenous peoples;

Grassroots capacity building and local governance reforms to successfully address sector-wideissues, including resource and revenue management and control, effective communitymanagement, tenure reforms, fiscal incentives for more sustainable management of the small-scale logging industry and inventory management



Liberia’s informal forest sector are not available62; however, Liberia’s situation most likely resemblesthat of the more populous countries.63

124. Expand the community forestry framework. The fundamental ingredients for successful communityforestry include cohesive communities (which are not always present); a framework that compareswell with alternatives (that is, communities achieve benefits that cannot be achieved outside thecommunity forestry framework); a relatively reassuring environment where communities are fairlyand democratically run; and public institutions that take all parties’ rights and obligations seriouslyrather than furthering the interests only of administrators and local elites. The community forestryframework should be expanded beyond the boundaries of conventional community forests to supportforest-based income-generating activities in the broader forest and rural space. Extended areasdefined through participatory mapping would create a mosaic of community fields, fallows, and

concessions where different private and community uses would coexist based on negotiatedagreements (Topa et al. 2009).

125. The main constraints to investment and payments for smallholder and sustainable community

forestry are the conditions that prevail in the forest sector, both in the country and internationally. While forest financing mechanisms are needed to ensure sustainable forest management, theirdevelopment must be informed by a holistic strategy for the development of the sector and forexpanding the areas of forest under sound management. The strategy must encompass the public and private sectors and the subnational, national, and international levels. Once the strategy is developed,

funding is often not the biggest problem. Forest financing mechanisms need to operate in an enablingenvironment in order to be able to function well and generate benefits. Thus, investing in creating theenabling environment may be more effective and sustainable than investing in the financingmechanisms themselves (Kamara et al. 2011).

126. Improving technical practice in concessions is much easier than improving social and biodiversity conservation aspects. Social aspects remain weak and socioeconomic benefits for local communitieslow, particularly in those countries where forest tax revenues are not shared with communities.Meanwhile, biodiversity protection measures have mostly focused on anti-poaching measures to

protect large animals. Ultimately, there has been little incentive for private companies to try and dealeffectively with these aspects. Concern for social aspects and biodiversity are said to be outside the profession of forestry and too complex and expensive. Institutionally, while regulations on these

t h l d l ti b t th f t i l t d th i t fi h



role of each party seems all the more necessary, as forestry companies often complain about the‘‘extra’’ demands they are required to fulfill at the local level under social agreements, at the sametime that taxes are increasing (Karsenty et al. 2008).

128. Strengthen capacity of forest institutions. Continued attention to institutional capacity at all levels isimportant. New staff must be selected carefully and must have the training, credentials, funds, andequipment to maintain an effective field presence and perform the more difficult regulatory andsupervisory functions envisaged by the reform. Poor management and failure to secure adequatesalaries and complementary funds (logistical, operational, etc.) will render the next generation offorestry officials susceptible to the corrupt practices of many of their predecessors (Topa et al. 2009).

129. Independent monitoring can greatly improve transparency and the information available to the public. While the process of setting up the monitoring system can initially create tensions, it can alsoenable government, as in the case of Cameroon, to defend itself against “irregularity”. In Cameroon,the monitoring extends to the concession allocation process and is coupled with technical assistanceto improve rules and criteria over the bidding rounds (Karsenty, et al 2008).

130. Pressure from NGOs and civil society, as a result of increased environmental awareness, can becritical to the introduction of forest management planning that combines logging and sustainablemanagement practices, including forest certification (Samyn et al. 2011).

Proposed Policy Options and Actions

131. Given the daunting list of challenges facing Liberia's forest sector, it may be difficult to decide whereto begin. The following entry points are proposed:

132. In the short term: Immediately halt the issuance of PUPs and CFMAs until (a) all policies, processes, and procedures

for recognizing land and customary rights to forest resources are reviewed by the LandCommission; (b) the legal and regulatory framework for PUPs and sustainable forest managementare reviewed and strengthened, as needed; (c) the CRL regulations are reviewed and amended, as

needed, to resolve inconsistencies with the Law; (d) appropriate social and governance safeguards,norms, and procedures are established to ensure transparency, informed decisionmaking, andappropriate forest governance by communities; (e) the Public Procurement Commission andB f C i j i tl i th l f CRMA t i i l



amendments that have been adequately reviewed. In addition, a more robust set of social safeguardsshould be developed to strengthen the benefit-sharing framework of concessions, and correctknown problems (e.g., lack of negotiation capacity by communities, negotiation of benefit sharing

after concession contracts are signed, lack of standards and criteria to allow predictability of benefit-sharing costs). The new arrangements should also mitigate the risk of concessioning landsthat could ultimately be adjudicated to communities under statutory or customary land claims.

Ensure the functioning of the Benefit Sharing Trust Fund mechanism by supporting thedevelopment of viable proposals to the Trust by CFDCs, and the Trust’s capacity to engage withcommunities through the CFDCs. One option may be for government to utilize the LiberianAgency for Community Empowerment64 as a short-term (or permanent) means of filling both ofthese gaps.

133. In the medium to long-term: Strengthen sector governance through (a) increased transparency and effective stakeholder

participation; (b) strengthened oversight of the FDA by a representative Board; (c) effectivecommunication and sharing of public information; (d) permanent mechanisms for concessionreview and audit (including a role for local communities and independent monitoring); (e) permanent forums for stakeholder dialogue and participation in policy and decisionmaking; (f)maintenance of the chain of custody system; (g) development of capacity and instruments for localgovernance by communities, as part of decentralized forest management; and (h) building capacity

among forest sector institutions, especially the FDA, to ensure regulatory compliance at theoperational level. Recognize and safeguard forest resource and land rights. Under the leadership and coordination of

the Land Commission, systematically work towards the recognition and formalization of privateand community/communal rights to land and forest resources. Focus on benefits to communities,identification of tribal lands, definition of “community” and identification and delimitation ofcommunity lands, and issuance of a full bundle of ownership rights (requiring legal reforms). In parallel, significant and systematic efforts will be needed to put in place the institutional andgovernance arrangements at the district, clan, and town levels to enable communities to effectively

manage and conserve forests and forest resources. Regularly update the National Forest Management Strategy, with inputs from PRS II, Sanctions

Lifting +6, and other stakeholder engagement and analytical processes.



Box 12. Youth and the Forest Sector

From Tefft (2005) on vulnerability in the post-conflict period: “There is concern…that there is a risk to the fragile peace

if…sufficient progress is not made in integrating ex-combatants into constructive and legally remunerative activities…thebiggest challenge concerns Liberia’s youth. With approximately 50% of the population under 15 years and a large segmentof the population between the age of 15 and 25 years who know nothing but conflict and violence, addressing the concernsand specific circumstances of this vulnerable group is critical for Liberia to move forward. Discussions with NGOs anddonor agencies underlined the marginalized situation of Liberia’s youth. Uneducated and unskilled, many lacking adequate

family structure and support, exposure to and participation in violence, unrealistic dreams of leading a better life (e.g.,being a computer programmer), many Liberian young people find themselves in an extremely tenuous situation. One of

Liberia’s challenges in the post-war period consists of developing a coherent, multi-faceted youth policy and program. Although there are undoubtedly numerous ideas for developing skills training and apprenticeships for younger men andwomen, particularly those who actively participated in the conflict, it seems difficult to imagine a sustainable situation thatdoes not focus on the agricultural sector as the future motor of the Liberian economy, capable of increasing incomes and

creating jobs for this vulnerable group.”

From Richards et al. (2005) on developing community demand-driven development (CDD) processes: “ At the core of Liberia’s conflict lies a class of marginal young people who currently lack faith in any kind of institutions….assumptions ofsocial cohesion, community participation and consensus…are too optimistic… ‘Community’ in Liberia is a deeply contestednotion…need to invest in local-level conflict resolution and rights-based development activity…devise more inclusivenotions of community and social cohesion….must firmly focus on the inclusion of socially marginalized groups. Furtherentrenchment of personal rule and the privileges of a rural minority will only hasten the return of war…War in Liberiareflects a long-term agrarian crisis based on inter-generational tensions and the failure of rural institutions….Peace willlargely depend on the successful reintegration of ex-combatants and the larger group of dispossessed, uprooted young

people vulnerable to future militia recruitment. Jobs and skills training are only part of what is needed. Processes ofconciliation, and examination of issues of justice and rights, will also be important. ”

management at the field level (communities, logging companies, forest products processing, forest- based SMEs), and for establishing a pathway to independent third-party certification of forestmanagement. The Sanctions Lifting +6 process should inform these priorities.

Strengthen the current information base for decisionmaking in the forest sector so that policy andoperationally relevant information on forest cover and forest quality trends is available and up to

date. This would necessarily include information on livelihoods, forest use systems, and marketlinkages of forest-dependent communities. Develop and implement a conservation strategy and approach that goes beyond the protected areas

system and encompasses the large areas of the country that are or will be under mineral



135. The European Union is supporting VPA implementation in Liberia, including assistance to developthe needed implementation systems and institutional capacity. Approximately €15 million isexpected to be committed by the EU and DFID for the development of laws and regulations, sector

dialogue, and transparency mechanisms. Some of the specific actions contemplated include: (a)support to the current chain of custody system, with the addition of monitoring and reporting oncontract compliance; (b) a permanent concession review mechanism and monitoring system withinthe National Bureau of Concessions; (c) technical assistance for review of legal frameworks andsupport to legal reforms processes; (d) stakeholder participation, communications, informationsharing, and other transparency mechanisms, including a national-level, multi-sectoral, stakeholdercommittee to provide oversight to the implementation of the VPA process

136. USAID is supporting a number of activities in Liberia’s forest sector. The agency recently completed

a five-year Land Rights and Community Forestry Program (LCRFP), which aimed to (a) develop andstrengthen the legal and policy framework needed to support community management, sustainableuse of natural resources, and biodiversity conservation in community forests; (b) craft and improveland tenure and property rights systems for forest lands, to secure rights for natural resource users andowners; and (c) enhance management of community forests and conservation of their biodiversity toincrease economic opportunities for communities and other user groups. The project supported anumber of efforts at the national level, including: (a) development of the Community Rights Law,drafting of the Law’s regulations, and building the awareness and institutional capacity ofcommunities and the FDA to manage forests in a manner consistent with this Law; (b) assistance in developing the Land Commission and its work on rural land issues; (c) institutional assessment forthe reform and restructuring of the University of Liberia’s College of Agriculture and Forestry (CAFUL) and the Forestry Training Institute (FTI); and (d) support for the creation of the National BenefitSharing Trust Board. At four sites, the LCRFP also piloted community forest management activities,including (a) establishment of forest management committees; (b) organizational and technicalcapacity building; (c) development of constitutions and bylaws for local forest governance, and offormal community forest management plans governing the use of forest resources; (d) demarcationand mapping using GPS and participatory mapping methodologies; and (e) promotion of alternative

livelihood activities.137. Ongoing USAID activities include the Governance and Economic Management Support Program

(GEMS), which provides (a) technical assistance to GoL for ongoing policy and institutional reforms



grants for protected area systems 66 ; (b) the Development Forestry Sector Management Project(P104287/TF057090) and the associated PROFOR and FLEG support to the chain of custody system(TF096170/TF096154), all of which closed in December 2011; (c) the CHYAO Community Forestry

grant (TF099452); and (d) the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) preparatory phase activitiesfor the FCPF Readiness Plan.

140. The World Bank is also preparing a US$3.6 million FCPF grant for REDD+ Readiness Preparationfor FY 2013-16, to support Liberia in designing a socially and environmentally sound nationalstrategy to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and to develop a referencescenario of emissions from deforestation and degradation that takes into account nationalcircumstances. A separate US$10 million IDA credit is in the identification stage and underdiscussion with GoL. Notionally, the project would be directed at the community forestry subsector.

Technical assistance is also is being provided to the Land Commission on the technical issues of landadministration, through the US$2.98 million Land Sector Reforms: Rehabilitation and Reform ofLand Rights and Related Land Matters Project (P117010).

141. FAO is providing funding through small grants for a number of initiatives aimed at increasing theinclusion and coordination of all actors in the sector, at both the national and county levels. FAO isalso funding a pilot activity to improve community-based monitoring of logging concessions, toensure that sustainable management practices are being followed by logging concession holders. It isalso providing assistance to multi-stakeholder forums to support VPA legality assurance and law

enforcement systems. In the pipeline is a Technical Cooperation Program (TCP) grant for ForestManagement Information.

142. Fauna & Flora International (FFI) has worked with the FDA to establish a management structure atSapo National Park, and develop community forests in communities located on the park’s periphery.FFI has also supported a review of forestry sector legislation to ensure that it balances community,conservation, and commercial interests. A bush meat study is nearing completion that will presentmore detailed information about current harvesting pressures and the involvement of communities inthis trade. The European Union has been a lead donor for these activities, and may provide additional

funding to FFI to continue this work.

Considerations for Additional World Bank Engagement



or interest might include: forest concessions management, monitoring and audit; forest landadministration, tenure, and access rights; forest concession policy, including social safeguards; forestfiscal systems to promote poverty reduction and sustainable forest management; formalizing the

informal sector, particularly chainsaw milling and charcoal production; stakeholder management andcommunications; decentralization of forest administration and management; mainstreaming ofconservation and biodiversity protection within economic development; management andconservation of biodiversity at the landscape scale; and youth and employment. The Sanctions Lifting+6 process could be a means for prioritizing thematic areas for the Bank’s support for forest sectorknowledge.

145. Third, there are a number of technical and thematic areas where the World Bank would have acomparative advantage in furthering the reforms given its ongoing support for Liberia’s forest sector,

its global knowledge and experience, and opportunities for cross-sector synergies with other Bank projects.67 In particular, at this stage in the country and the forest sector’s development, the Bank cansupport models of sector development that can have broad economic impacts and provide forinclusive growth. The key challenge will be to develop the domestic sector and MSMEs for forest products and services. Current forest policy has largely ignored the domestic forest sector in favor oftimber export, despite the domestic sector’s potential for employment generation and povertyalleviation, as well as the challenges it presents to sustainable forest management over the nextdecades. Additionally, the Bank can facilitate the country’s linkages with global financingmechanisms (such as GEF and the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility) and other Bank instruments toassist GoL in developing approaches and instruments for biodiversity management and conservationwithin the framework of community forestry and rural development. As has been noted, GoL hasalready taken steps to formalize the pit sawyer (chainsaw milling) and charcoal producer subsectors,and use lessons from experience (e,g., the USAID-financed Land Rights and Community ForestryProject) to enhance community access to and management of forests and forest resources.

146. Developing the potential of the domestic sector and MSMEs will require securing communities’access to forest resources. Securing these rights will be the platform and entry point for developingcommunity-based forest MSMEs and community-private sector partnerships. It is also a strategic position from which to support implementation of VPA and REDD+ and achieve GoL’s goals forforest conservation. The VPA requires that the informal sector be brought under regulation andintegrated into domestic markets. Long term, this will be fully possible only if communities are



148. A number of recommendations for the World Bank’s short to medium term engagement with theseissues and processes are provided below. It would not be feasible for the World Bank to effectivelyengage in all of these areas. Rather, these are areas for consideration by the World Bank, both

internally and in future discussions with the GoL and other forest sector partners.149. Institutional Strengthening and Capacity Building. The following areas are suggested for

consideration:

FDA: Cross-cutting areas for strengthening FDA to better position it to respond to theevolving situations with forest land tenure and decentralization include:

improving forest information system to ensure timely and relevant information for policy, planning, and monitoring of trends;

technical assistance for forest policy development and impact monitoring; updating offorest sector strategy and development of operational strategies and programs forintegration/balancing of 3Cs; development of a national strategy to promote domesticforest products processing capacity; support to auditing of concessions, and inter-sectoral coordination;

development of stakeholder management capacities and instruments, includingimproving external communications;

strengthening capacities to carry out management and conservation responsibilities in

a decentralized environment, including assistance to engage in participatory definitionof community forest lands (in coordination with the Land Commission) and developsimplified technical norms for community forest planning and management;

the continued development of the national chain of custody system (CoC), providingassistance for development of its capacities to integrate the domestic market; and

assistance with:a. reform of the fiscal framework for logging concessions; b. strengthening of benefit sharing/social agreements with affected communities;c. establishing monitoring mechanism that includes social agreements and the

Benefit Sharing Trust Fund (BSTF);d establishing a permanent concessions review process in the Bureau of



technical assistance for participatory demarcation and delimitation of communityforest land, and support to local planning processes leading to forest management planning (visioning exercises, land use planning and zoning, 3Cs integration, and

conflict resolution; and support for participation in county and national-level forest sector forums; capacity building support for forest management, including in:

a. negotiations of contracts with loggers (chainsaw millers or commercialloggers) for communities that elect to sell their timber to a third party;

b. developing and implementing community-based monitoring and evaluationsystems for community forest management; and

c. training in forest management planning and forest management; harvestingand small-scale processing, including of NTFPs;

d. principles of REDD and VPA;e. formation of community forestry technicians (youth);f. information sharing with other communities.

Private sector: A number of national-level private sector associations would benefit frommodest assistance to be able to better organize and represent the interests of theirmembers around critical issues, such as:

a. standards for sustainable forest management and certification; industry codesof practice; identification of training and capacity building needs;

b. evaluation of policy, regulations, technical norms, etc.This will be particularly critical for associations representing informal sector interests(e.g., Liberia Chainsaw & Timber Dealers Union, National Charcoal Union of Liberia),given the ongoing efforts to formalize and regulate them.

Community forest enterprise development: This is one of the highest priority areas for

achieving significant employment generation in the rural sector: support to the organized, informal sector actors − primarily chainsaw millers and

charcoal producers − to develop and implement a comprehensive program of training( li i h G L l i f i d d i d i



strengthen organization and seek to create synergies and links between suppliers and buyers;

pilot development of a central database with trade organizations, suppliers, and

buyers; and support pre-investment activities (outreach and promotion; identification of potential

business opportunities; preparation of simple business plans; capacity building oftechnical service providers to enhance the quality of their services to SMEs).

150. Sustainable Forest Management. Support for forest management and conservation activitiesshould be directed to the de facto, on-the-ground managers of the forest resources: Commercial forestry, private sector: Training and technical assistance on tropical

silviculture, forest inventory and planning, low-impact logging systems, chainsaw safetyand maintenance, improved chainsaw processing techniques, environmentalmanagement, cost-sharing on forest certification (including for forest processingfacilities);.

Community forestry and SMEs: Community forest management and harvesting plans;assistance with permitting processes (community and chainsaw millers/charcoal producers); and sub-project funds for development of forest-based SMEs (timber or NTFPS – forest management, small-scale harvesting, value-added processing,

marketing). Conservation: Community forest conservation plans; sub-project funds for development

of alternative livelihoods (forest-based NTFPS or non-forest) in community conservationforests or buffer zones of parks;

Chain of custody: Support for expansion of the CoC, to include piloting of simplifiedsystems for the incorporation of community enterprises and SMEs into the CoC.

151. Youth and a Sustainable Forest Future. The development of the forest sector will depends

greatly on how issues of access to forest resources are resolved through the CRL; how legalsmall and medium-scale forest enterprises are enabled and encouraged; and how the domesticmarket for timber and NTFPs develops, including the integration of the informal sector intol l k Wh h h i bl d ib



Post-Script

Recent Developments

152. Private Use Permits. On 18 February 2012, at the behest of the President of Liberia, theFDA’s Board of Directors placed a moratorium on the further issuance of Private UsePermits for timber harvesting, and directed the FDA to recall all of the Private Use Permits(PUPs) that had been extended, with the exception of four permits under which there wasactive logging taking place. The FDA was further instructed to (a) correct the regulatory gapsand develop guidelines for the application and governance of PUPs, and to do so incollaboration with forest sector stakeholders; and (b) ensure that all property owners andcompanies wishing to operate PUPs have no tax arrears with government. The Board alsocalled for audits of the award process and the legal compliance of all PUPs. At the time ofthe Board’s action, the best available information suggested that between twenty-five andthirty-two PUPs had been issued on somewhere between 736,000 and 861,000 ha. Informalsources within the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, which could not be verified at thetime, placed the number at of PUPs at more than sixty. Official figures of the Ministry ofFinance (MOF 2012) recognized only eleven as of July of 2012.

153. The NFRL requires that PUPs must be supported by legally validated private ownership

rights; i.e., there must be a deed or other valid legal document supporting ownership of theland covered by the PUP. As the Land Commission, per their mandate, had not beenconsulted or involved in any fashion in the process, the PUPs constituted a “red flag.”Specifically, the Commission was concerned “that processes are not being rigorously followed by MLME and FDA” to ensure that the deeds underlying the PUPs were fully legaland unencumbered. There were also concerns that the decisions and decisionmaking processes by the involved communities were neither adequately transparent nor fullyinformed.68

154. In response to the increasing concern over PUPs, the Land Commission carried out its ownevaluation and presented its findings in an April 2012 report, “ Land Rights, Private UseP it d F t C iti ” (L d C i i 2012)



Box 13. The Forest Sector, FDA and PUPS in 2012: A Brief History

January 2012The scale and rapidity of issuance of PUPs becomes a topic of national-level concern. The number and area involved is unclear. Availableinformation suggests that some 25 to 32 PUPs exist on 0.74 to 0.86 millionha.

February 2012The FDA Board, responding to a directive from the President, orders theFDA’s management to place a moratorium on the further issuance of PUPs.The directive also puts in place a series of other requirements to be met

before the further use of PUPs could be considered.

April 2012

Land Commission report “ Land Rights, Private Use Permits, and Forest

Communities” estimates that some 62 PUPs had been given out on morethan 2.2 million ha of land, and notes a number of serious irregularities.

June 2012The SGS/LiberFor “Chain of Custody Financial Update” indicates thatFDA management has continued to provide permissions for an additionalPUPs.

August 2012 An association of national and international NGOs addresses an open

letter to the President of Liberia. The letter (dated 08/03/12) documents

FDA’s non-compliance with its Board’s directive on PUPs and raises aseries of issues associated with poor governance in the forest sector andPUP usage.

The Liberian President (08/06/12), reiterates the decision to suspend theissuance of PUPs and instructs the FDA’s Board to take immediate stepsto ensure implementation of the moratorium, pending a report from theGAC on PUP allocations.

A Liberian Senate Joint Committee holds hearings on PUPs and urges(on 08/23/12) the FDA to reinstate suspended PUPs and restoreoperating rights.

The Liberian President (on 08/31/12) appoints a Special IndependentInvestigative Body to probe the issuance of PUPs and suspends theFDA’s Managing Director.

September 2012

eleven times that of theoriginal deeded area. Innine other cases, the

permits covered all oralmost all of thecommunities’ deeded landarea.

Those cases where PUPcontracts extend beyondthe recognized underlyingdeeded land area constitutean acquisition of publicand/or unregisteredcustomary land by privatelandowners for whichthere is no evidence of due process. Relevant lawswere bypassed and the

moratorium placed on thesale of public land wasviolated.

The practices followed bythe FDA and otheragencies (e.g., Ministry ofLands, Mines and Energy)to extend PUPs beyond the

area of the underlyingdeeds border on illegalityand demonstrate the poor



157. The FDA reacted to these findings by ignoring its Board’s directive and continuing to process PUPs –a fact made evident in the SGS/LiberFor “Chain of Custody FinancialUpdate” for 30 June 2012 (Global Witness et al. 2012). According to that information, FDA

management had either allowed or provided permission for an additional nine PUPs tooperate after the February 18 moratorium. In response, an association of national andinternational NGOs (SAMFU, SDI, and Global Witness) addressed an open letter to thePresident of Liberia. The letter contained a series of allegations regarding fraud and legal breaches in the allocation of PUPs; it also characterized the use of PUPs as a means for bypassing Liberia’s forest laws to permit large-scale, unregulated timber concessions, andnoted the continuing activity and expansion of PUPs despite the moratorium. A number ofother serious allegations in the letter included: (a) the non-transparent transfer of PUPs toconcessionaires, allowing for one foreign company with a dubious track record globally toacquire at least 20 PUPs; (b) the failure by the FDA to enforce requirements that companieswith tax arrears be excluded from PUPs; and; (c) the potential for abuse of PUPs to allow forlarge-scale clearing of land and forest for agricultural use.

158. To date, the Government’s response to the PUP situation has been mixed. The Executive hastaken firm steps to deal with governance issues that have come to light. Most recently (inAugust 2012), the President reiterated that the moratorium on PUPs established in February

of 2012 remains in place, and directed the General Auditing Commission (GAC) toinvestigate the PUPs granted by the Forestry Development Authority. She also establishedan independent body to conduct a comprehensive review of the policies and proceduresregarding the issuance of PUPs. This “Special Independent Investigative Body” includesnotable individuals, representatives of civil society organizations, and the Ministry of Justice.A technical/advisory board was established to assist the investigative body, comprising theUS Forest Service, the European Forestry Institute, and the Liberian EPA. In further action,the President suspended the FDA’s Managing Director and appointed an interim Managing

Director from outside the forest sector. The responses from the Legislative and Judicial branches have not, however, been supportive of the positions taken by the President.

Th Lib i Ti b A i i (LTA) h b hi i l d hi l i



report states that on the one hand the Court directed that the “ parties be returned status quoante” yet, at the same time, the presiding judge is said to have told the parties to “stay all further proceedings pending a full hearing of the case.”

161. Any further action by the Executive is awaiting the final audit report of the GAC and therecommendations of the Special Independent Investigative Body. The GAC has concluded adraft “ Management Letter on Forestry Development Authority (FDA) Private Use Permits for the Period January 2010 to April 2012,” which is under internal review by governmentand has yet to be made public. Informed sources have indicated that among the significantfindings are: (a) the lack of maintenance of a comprehensive database on PUPs, leading touncertainty over the number and area of permits issued, as well as the risk of abuse in the

issuance and use of these permits; (b) the FDA’s management failed to adhere to its Board’sdirectives regarding PUPs; (c) a series of serious irregularities with PUPs issued, includingissuance of PUPs without formal contracts and/or without meeting prequalificationrequirements, and the illegal transfer of PUPs to concessionaires.

162. The Sanctions Lifting +6 Process. In June of 2012, a three-day Sanctions Lifting +6 (SL +6) National Conference was held in Monrovia, with more than 110 persons in attendance.Participants included representatives of the FDA and key forest sector stakeholders fromGoL, international partners and donors, communities, civil society, and the private sector.The purpose of the Conference was to (a) seek consensus among the diverse sectorstakeholders on a broad vision and sense of priorities for continued reform of the sector; and(b) provide a foundation for more precisely defining the future direction, shape, and focus ofthe country’s forestry programs, especially for the next five to ten years. The conference wasseen as largely successful. Among the principle outcomes were:

A draft “roadmap,” developed by all participating stakeholders, that identifies: (a) three priority thematic areas; (b) the specific, critical issues associated with each of those areas;

and (c) the short and long-terms priority actions to be taken to address each of the criticalissues. See Annex IX.

A “Declaration of Intent” (Anon. 2012) signed by eighty-six of the attendees (in their



Establish a task force established to carry out this work; and Carry out evaluation and sensitization.

Allocation of Land Review the entire validation process [for compliance with legal, regulatory and

procedural frameworks] for all contract types to ascertain legality and compliancewith existing regulatory framework (FMC, PUP, TSC, Community, Protected areasand Forests);

Review the current status of all pre-qualified companies and update the listing; Review existing taxes, especially bid premiums; Review the legal frame work related to allocation of forest contracts; and

Review all current social agreements and draft clear guidelines for discussion andimplementation.

Revenue and Operational Planning Community understanding [of financial aspects, fund management, contracts, etc.]; Streamline bureaucracy in disbursing funds; Reduce cost of community board operation; Ensure timely management disbursement of funds for communities;

Revisit bid premium; Establish administration policy framework on issuance of PUPs; Review PUP laws/regulations relating to community participation and resource

management; Prioritize community participation in crafting social agreements; Regularly publish contracts, work plans, and reports in the forest sector; Ensure full disclosure of revenue receipts (community); and Carry out routine performance audits in the sector.

164. The draft roadmap is an important instrument, representing a first step in reestablishing a productive dialogue between the FDA and sector stakeholders on forest sector policy andpriorities Stakeholders agreed to take the draft roadmap back to their respective



issues. It does have a role to play as the sector authority and a major, institutionalstakeholder, but the sector reforms most likely to be effective will be those imposed fromoutside the sector. How that might best be accomplished is a matter of conjecture. However,

the growing body of experience with reform of forest sectors seems to indicate that keyelements for achieving effective reforms often lie outside traditional forestry institutions,requiring work across sectors and, most importantly, strong support from outside the forestsector to compel change within it. Experience also indicates that it reforming sectoralinstitutions often requires more than one major attempt at overhaul. The first attempt, being partial and too beholden to the past, often founders, and in doing so generates the conditionsand political/popular will necessary to effect the more radical reforms that were shied awayfrom in the first attempt.

166. The seeds for furthering reform efforts inside the sector have been sown through the SL+6 process. Effective follow-up and nurturing is critical if the initial momentum provided by theJune conference is to be maintained. However, no entity has been specifically tasked with, orhas committed budget to, ensuring finalization of the roadmap. Therefore, it is yet unclearhow the SL+6 process will be consolidated and put into action. Clearly this should be amajor agenda item for the Forestry Donors Working Group.

167. Finally, the rapid deployment of PUPs across vast areas of the country has created a de factocommunity forestry sector on a scale that was unimaginable only two years ago. In effect,the community “C” is now the dominant one with which the other two Cs of commercial andconservation must learn to coexist and prosper. The medium to long term, dominantcommunity forestry model that Liberia has elected through the scale-up of PUPs is likely to be one of “community/private sector” partnerships. As noted in the Land Commission Report(Land Commission of Liberia 2012) “a management system based on low impact and highlyselective commercial logging on well identified parts of community land under a balanced

partnership with the commercial sector is an opportunity that needs to be explored.” At present, however, the model is non-transparent, exploitative, and unbalanced, with thecommunities as the major losers. In the short term, efforts are needed to raise awareness of

i i b i f i i f l l l d d l



169. Regarding the PUPs, the recommendations contained in the April 2012 Land Commissionreport (Land Commission 2012) are well thought out and offer a systematic approach. They bear repeating here:

Continue the present moratorium on the issuance of new PUP contracts and on loggingunder existing contracts, to prevent land-holding communities from being furtherdisenfranchised on their own land, while allowing the Government to put safeguards into place.

Enact specific PUP regulations through an inter-sectoral process that is not confined tothe FDA only. There are several issues over which other public sector institutions have amuch clearer mandate.

Validate the land ownership rights supporting current PUP contracts. As a cross-cuttinginstitution, it is the Land Commission’s task to coordinate the development of criteria forthese validation exercises. The Commission has already proposed a Concession LandUse and Tenure (CLUT) task force to handle these issues. This task force needs to beofficially approved and activated as a matter of urgency.

Work with the EU on verification procedures under the Voluntary Partnership Agreement. PUPs are included under the VPA recently signed between the Governmentand the EU. The Legality Definition under this agreement provides a mechanism to

monitor whether timber products have been legally produced. Verification proceduresreferring specifically to PUPs include the need to validate the underlying land deed. TheVPA can thus secure compliance [with implementation] of good practices to validate [the] private ownership rights that underpin PUPs.

Explore ways to make the issuance of PUPs part of a good mix of local and national landuse planning. This planning must cover different sectors, and not be restricted to the forest sector only. Commercial timber extraction under PUPs is only one of the severalland use options available to unlock the capital of the rural communities´ land asset

base. Extend assessment of PUPs to the assessment of Community Forest Management

Agreements. Once PUPs are better regulated, there remains a risk of similar poor

Appendix I

Issues Matrix



65

Appendix I. Forest Policy and Implementation Strategies: Emerging Issues

Forest Policy Goal: To conserve & sustainably manage all forest areas, so that they will continue to produce a complete range of goods & services for the benefit of all Liberians & contribute to poverty alleviation, while

maintaining environmental stability & fulfilling Liberia’s commitments under international agreements & conventions.

Policy

Objectives

Implementation

Strategies Commercial forestry:-

Improving forest concession mgmt - Reforestation & plantation

development- Modernization processing industry

Community forestry:- Production of NTFPs & wood energy- Management of forests by local

communities

Forest conservation:-

Wildlife & protected area mgmt.- Mgmt. wetlands & mangroves

- Development of ecotourism & naturetourism

Cross-cutting activities:- Land tenure, ownership & land use

planning/allocation

- Public administration- Research, info., education & training- Legislation & Law enforcement

FDA lacks internal mechanisms to integrate 3Cs; Strategic Planning Unit marginalized within planning and budget processes (ST).

No vision or strategy for implementation of individual Cs or for integration of the Three Cs (ST).

No explicit identification of interdependencies at operational-level within and between Three “Cs” (ST).Balancing and integrating commercial

and community forestry and forestconservation.

Lack detailed & operational strategy/

roadmap for development of

commercial forestry with which tocoordinate/cooperate with other “Cs”

(ST-MT)



community forestry with which tocoordinate/cooperate with other “Cs”

(ST-MT)



conservation system with which tocoordinate/cooperate with other “Cs”

(ST-MT)

Lack FDA-wide strategy for inclusion of environmentally sensitive areas & habitat in forest concessions & community forest within overall conservation strategy & framework.(ST-MT)

Conserving representative samples offorest ecosystems

Current allowable harvest limits may

be incompatible with SFM goals. (ST)

No forests under SFM regime (LT)

Resolution of community forest rights

precursor to effective community- based conservation strategy (MT-LT)

Lack strategy for protected areas

system w/ balance between strict

conservation vs mixed purpose (ST)

Lack strategy for achieving policyobjective of 30% of Liberia’s forest

areas dedicated to conservation. (ST)

Incomplete legal framework, Wildlife

Conservation & Protected AreaManagement Law not ratified (ST)

Development of REDD+ strategy.

Domestic timber and NTFP markets and those relying upon them (primarily informal sector) have b een largely ignored from policy & public investment perspectives to support

development of SMEs & their integration into legal, domestic markets (ST-LT)

Contributing to national poverty

alleviation and food security goals

Social agreements & benefit sharing framework not achieving objectives, issue ofeffectiveness & transparency. (ST)

Inadequate support to communities negotiating social agreements; informed consentand negotiation capacity issues. (ST)

Weak system for enforcement of t erms of social agreements. (ST)

Lack of programmatic efforts to implement CRL & systematically scale-up community forestry as implementation of law requires. (ST-LT)

Lack safeguards to avoid concessioning in potential community forests. (ST)

Granting more equitable access to forestresources

Need to develop, in context of VPA,

simplified regulations for commercial,community forest mgmt, (ST-MT)

Need to reorient approach for forestconcessions in light of the CRL; areas

identified for FMCs & TSCs will become community forest. (ST-MT)

Need to implement CRL: establish CAs

& CFMBs for governance & mgmt. oflocal, forest resources. (ST-LT)

Need to reorient approach for theformal, protected areas system in light

of the CRL; areas identified forconservation will become communityforest. (ST-MT)

Incomplete legal framework, CRLregulations conflict w/ CRL. (ST)

Need to cooperate w/LC to implementCRL: identify clan boundaries &

community forests & adjudicatecommunity forests (ST-MT)

Appendix I

Issues Matrix



66

Policy

Objectives

ImplementationStrategies Commercial forestry:

- Improving forest concession mgmt

- Reforestation & plantationdevelopment

-

Modernization processing industry

Community forestry:- Production of NTFPs & wood energy

- Management of forests by localcommunities

Forest conservation:- Wildlife & protected area mgmt.

- Mgmt. wetlands & mangroves- Development of ecotourism & nature

tourism

Cross-cutting activities:-

Land tenure, ownership & land use

planning/allocation- Public administration- Research, info., education & training

- Legislation & Law enforcement

Forest sector strategy obsolete; need stocktaking & sector stakeholder process to review reform progress & develop consensus on priorities for continuing reform process. (ST)

Lack of effective communication & information sharing t o allow adequate & efficient participation of sector stakeholders (ST-MT)

Lack of functioning mechanisms, organization & spaces for stakeholder participation at national, county, & community-levels (ST-LT)

Lack of consensus on sector priorities such that challenge of broadly implementing reform process overwhelming sector’s capacity to respond & capacity building needs too

extensive to be attended to effectively and efficiently. (ST-LT)

Public forest sector to undergo significant structural changes over next 10 years as CRL & decentralization implemented; role of community, local authorities & private sector

will expand significantly, requiring redefinition of forest sector policy, strategy, institutional frameworks and i mplementation arrangements. (MT-LT).

Stakeholder participation in formulationof policies and in conservation and

management of forest resources Appropriate role for communities &

other stakeholders lacking inmonitoring & oversight of concessions.

(ST-MT)

Require systematic process with

relevant stakeholders to finalize thedevelopment of a national strategy for

conservation, including a strategy forits financing. (ST)

Policy, legal & regulatory frameworks

need updating to internalize CRL,enhanced role community forestry,

VPA, REDD, decentralization,formalization of informal sector (MT)

Maximizing sector’s contributions to

income, employment and trade throughthe development of appropriate

processing activities

Need to formalize, regulate & incorporate chainsaw millers & charcoal producers

into forest mgmt. & domestic market. (ST-LT)

Need to ensure that VPA & REDD provide space & opportunity for community-

based SMEs to develop within formal markets. (ST-LT)

Development of economic alternatives

compatible with conservation/protectedareas regime. (MT-LT)

Resolution of land use allocation

conflicts with other sectors (ST-MT)

Critical lack of capacity among all forest sector actors, at all levels.; bottleneck to investment, implementation & generation of expected benefits from current programs & n extgeneration of programs (i.e., REDD and VPA). (ST-LT)

FDA working largely in isolation from other sectors, weakening GoLs overall ability to d eliver on the goals of th e PRS & making FDA less effective (ST-LT).

No systematic program to develop FDA’s internal capacity over-time, in function of a global strategy for the development of the agencies capacities; demand for FDA capacity

far exceeds actual capacity.

PUPs potentially utilized for unintended purposes; lack procedural & legal norms to

protect community interests & ensure transparency (ST) Significant allocation conflicts between

mineral development & proposed protected areas network. (ST-MT)

Lack engagement w/ MPEA, MOA, MOE, MOHSW to develop programmatic

approaches for rural development in/around protected areas & community forests(ST).

Ensuring forestry development

contributes to national goals andinternational commitments and iscoordinated with other, relevant branches

of government

FMC bidding process oversight

mechanisms vulnerable & incapable ofensuring full compliance with laws,regulations & procedures. (ST)

Permanent concession review/audit

mechanism lacking. (ST)

Lack strategy for domestic market (ST-

MT)

Lack engagement w/ MOF, MPEA,

EPA, MLME, and MOA to id entifyoptions & opportunities for long term

conservation of environmentallysensitive areas & habitat withinconcessions. (ST-MT)

Lack conservation financing strategyw/inclusion of other GoL actors &

alternative instruments (MT-LT).

Strengthening of concession bidding

process requires cooperation w/BOC,LEITI & GAC. (ST)

Lack coordination & dialogue with LC

& MLME to resolve conflict on protected area allocation (ST-MT)

Lack coordination & dialogue w/EPA,

MLME, MOA on role of concessions inconservation system. (ST-MT)

Lack coord. & dialogue w/ MOF &MPEA on alternatives for conservation

financing strategy. (ST-MT).

Current set of instruments for “forest

management” inadequate given CRLreforms to forest tenure, policy goals fordecentralization & for formalizing

informal forest sector (ST-MT).

Appendix I

Issues Matrix



67

Policy

Objectives

ImplementationStrategies Commercial forestry:

- Improving forest concession mgmt

- Reforestation & plantationdevelopment

-

Modernization processing industry

Community forestry:- Production of NTFPs & wood energy

- Management of forests by localcommunities

Forest conservation:- Wildlife & protected area mgmt.

- Mgmt. wetlands & mangroves- Development of ecotourism & nature

tourism

Cross-cutting activities:-

Land tenure, ownership & land use

planning/allocation- Public administration- Research, info., education & training

- Legislation & Law enforcement

Ensuring forest sector activities are basedon sound scientific and t echnical

principles

Need to assess suitability of areas for

new FMCs at operational scale (ST) Need to upgrade inventory practices for

preparation of bidding documents (ST)

Need to assess sustainable timber

yields under prevailing conditions (ST-

LT)

Need to introduce/implement BMPs for

SFM (ST-LT)

Private sector & FDA lack people

w/training & experience in modernSFM practices & techniques. (ST-LT)

Available info inadequate for policy,

strategy & operational decisionmaking; priorities: tenure, forest & land usetrends, drivers of forest loss, forestlivelihoods & domestic markets, SFM

potential w/industrial concessions;silvicultural systems for SFM. (ST)

Lack fully functioning forest

management information system, w/up-to-date & more detailed forest resource

information. (ST-MT)

Lack adequate knowledge of ecology &

forest dynamics for SFM. (MT–LT)

ST = Short-term; MT = Medium-term and LT = Long-term

Bibliography



Bibliography

Acosta, R., 2011. Road Map For Monitoring And Evaluation Systems Design. Consultant Report. Resource

Governance Project of Liberia. GIZ/Government of the Republic of Liberia.Anonymous, 2012. DRAFT Addressing Key Issues In Managing And Leveraging Forest Resources And Benefits In

Liberia. A Comprehensive Report Of The June 2012 Sanction Lifting + 6 Conference. Monrovia City HaMonrovia, Liberia, June 11-13, 2012.

Baunsgaard, T., Caner, S., and A. Watson. 2011. Liberia − Selected Tax Policy Issues: Petroleum, Mining,Forestry, And Indirect Tax Reforms. Fiscal Affairs Department, International Monetary Fund. January 2011

Bayol, Nicolas and Chevalier, Jean-François. 2004. Current State Of The Forest Cover In Liberia. Forest ResourcesManagement. Mauguio, France. 25 June 2004. 48 pp

Birikorang, G. (2007). Summary Overview Report of the Status of Forest Industry and Trade in Central and WestAfrica, RRI background working paper. Hamilton Consulting. Ghana.

Blackett, H., Lebbie, A., and Marfo, E. 2009. Chainsaw Logging In Liberia − An Analysis Of Chainsaw Logging(Pit-Sawing) In The Natural Forests Of Liberia Towards A More Sustainable Production. ForestryDevelopment Authority, Monrovia.

Blundell, A.G. 2008. Scoping Study On The Benefits Of Incorporating Forestry Into The Extractive IndustriesTransparency Initiative, With Specific Reference To Liberia. Natural Capital Advisors, LLC. June 2008. 92

pp.

Bruce, J.W. 2007. Insecurity of Land Tenure, Land Law and Land Registration in Liberia: A PreliminaryAssessment of Issues and Options. Consultant Report. World Bank. 9pp.

Bruce, John W. and Boakai N. Kanneh, 2011. Reform of Liberia’s Civil Law Concerning Land: A ProposedStrategy. (unpublished final version, 16 February 2011).

Cohen, Brian. 2009a. Final Report Of The US Government’s Lead Role In The Liberia Forest Initiative. USDAForest Service. October 2009. 33 pp

Cohen, Brian. 2009b. Summary of the Liberia Forest Initiative Retreat. P.A.’s Ribhouse, Lakpazee, Monrovia. 1

September 2009.16 pp.Christie, T., Steininger, M.K., Juhn, D. and Peal, A. 2007. Fragmentation and clearance of Liberia’s forests during

1986-2000 Oryx Vol 4::539-543 No 4 October 2007

Bibliography



FDA. 2011a. R-PP Country Submission for Liberia - 25th April 2011. R-PP Development Team. ForestryDevelopment Authority. Monrovia, Liberia. 207 pp.

FDA. 2011b. Regulations to the Community Rights Law of 2009 with Respect to Forest Lands. Draft: (Post

National Consultations). June 30, 2011FDA. 2007a. Code of Forest Harvesting Practices. September 2007. Forestry Development Authority. Monrovia,

Liberia. 72 pp.

FDA. 2007b. Guidelines for Forest Management Planning. June 2007. Forestry Development Authority. Monrovia,Liberia. 71 pp.

FDA. 2007c. National Forest Management Strategy, Forestry Development Authority. Monrovia, Liberia. 33 pp.

FDA. 2007d. Ten Core Regulations. September 2007. Forestry Development Authority. Monrovia, Liberia. 115 pp.

FDA. 2006. National forestry policy and implementation strategy: Forestry for communities, commerce andconservation. Republic Of Liberia, Forestry Development Authority. Monrovia, 2006. 29pp.

Fiil-Flynn, M., James, O., and H.G. Hallowanger. 2011. High Expectations - Elusive Benefits: CommercialForestry and Communities in Liberia. 81 pp.

France, M. 2011. Large acquisition of rights on forest lands for tropical timber concessions and commercial wood plantations. Policy Brief, Rights and Resources Initiative: Washington, D.C. March 2011

FREMCOL. 2011. Final Draft − Five-Years Strategic Plan For Priority Capacity Building Needs Of The ForestSector Stakeholders (2011 – 2016). Forest Resource and Environmental Management Consultants of Liberiawith support of the National Forest Programme Facility, FDA, FAO and IUCN. 20pp.

GeoVille Group and Metria AB. 2011. Forest resource assessments in Liberia. Draft report 2011‐07‐30 and presentation December 2011.

Global Witness, SAMFU, and SDI. 2012. Letter to Her Excellency Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, President, Republic ofLiberia on “Concerns over illegality in and abuses of Private Use Permits for logging”. 3 August 2012.

Global Witness. 2010. Liberia: Annual Transparency Report – Making the Forest Sector Transparent.http://www.foresttransparency.info/liberia/2010/

Government Of Liberia. 2006. Executive Order No. 1 GOL Forest Sector Reform. Executive Order #1. February 2,2006.

Government Of Liberia 2006 An Act Adopting The National Forestry Reform Law Of 2006 (Amending The

Bibliography



Government Of Liberia. 2006. An Act Adopting The National Forestry Reform Law Of 2006 (Amending The National Forestry Law Of 2000, As Amended; And Amending An Act Creating The Forestry DevelopmentAuthority, As Amended). September 2006. 54 pp

Hess, P. and S. Trainer. 2006. Forest Inventory in Liberia: Results and Interpretation. Deutsche Forstservice GmbH,Federal Republic of Germany. May 2006. Contract 7135157 for The World Bank Group. 130 pp.

IMF, 2011. Liberia—Seventh Review Under the Extended Credit Facility Arrangement. IMF Country Report No.11/345, December 2011. International Monetary Fund.

IMF, 2005. Liberia: Selected Issues and Statistical Appendix. IMF Country Report No. 05/167

ITTO, 2011. Status of tropical forest management − Liberia. Juergen Blaser, Alastair Sarre, Duncan Poore andSteven Johnson. ITTO Technical Series No 38.

ITTO, 2005. Achieving the ITTO Objective 2000 and sustainable forest management in Liberia. Report of thediagnostic mission. Presented at the thirty-eighth session of the International Tropical Timber Council, June2005. ITTO, Yokohama, Japan.

Johnson-Sirleaf, E., 2012. Annual Message To the First Session of the 53rd National Legislature of the Republic ofLiberia on the Theme: “Reflecting the Past, Claiming the Future” By President of the Republic of Liberia HerExcellency Mrs. Ellen Johnson Sirileaf. Capitol Hill, Monrovia. Delivered Monday, 23rd January 2012

Kamara, J.S., Kamara, E.S., Mosenene, L. and F.K. Odoom. 2010. Chainsaw milling and national forest policy inLiberia. ETFRN News 52: December 2010. pgs. 174 – 180.

Kamara, Y., Ficini, F., and S. Zigouri. 2011. Existing and Potential Forest Financing Mechanisms for Smallholdersand Community Forestry in West Africa. Final Report. 18 March 2011. Initiatives Conseil International. Foodand Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 67 pp.

Karsenty, A., 2010. Large-scale Acquisition of Rights on Forest Lands in Africa. A Report for Rights andResources Initiative. CIRAD, August 2010

Karsenty, A., 2007. Overview of Industrial Forest Concessions and Concession-based Industry in Central and WestAfrica.

Karsenty, A., Garcia-Drigo, I., Piketty, M. and B. Singer, 2008. Regulating Industrial Forest Concessions in Central

Africa and South America. Forest Ecology and Management 256 (2008) 1498-1508.Land Commission of Liberia. 2012. Land Rights, Private Use Permits and Forest Communities. Prepared with the

support of EU Project FED/2011/270957 Paul De Wit Consultant April 2012

Bibliography



Outram, Q. 2003. Liberia − Economy. In: Africa South of the Sahara 2004. 3rd Edition. Regional Surveys of theWorld. Ed: Katherine Murison. Europa Publications. Pages 611-618.

Pearce, Fred. 2012. Busting the Forest Myths: People as Part of the Solution. Yale Environment 360: Opinion,

Reporting & Debate. Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies. 16 February 2012.http://e360.yale.edu/feature/busting_the_forest_myths_people_as_part_of_the_solution/2495/.

Pichet, T., Laval, M., and La Rochefordiere. 2009. The opportunities and challenges of implementing a timberchain-of-custody system in post-conflict Liberia Paper prepared for the XIII World Forestry Congress, BuenosAires, Argentina, 18–23 October 2009. 16 pp

Richards, P., Archibald, S., Bruce, B., Modad, W., Mulbah, E., Varpilah, T. and J. Vincent. 2005. CommunityCohesion in Liberia: A Post-War Rapid Social Assessment. World Bank Social Development Papers. ConflictPrevention & Reconstruction. Paper No. 21. January 2005. 92pp.

Rochow, K.W. James. 2006. Lessons Learned from the Liberia Forest Review. Liberia Forest Initiative. Draft.August 21, 2006. 12pp.

Rothe, D. & Abbot, P. 2011. Strengthening Forest Management in Post-Conflict Liberia: End of programmeevaluation of the impact & lessons learned. February 2011. EC, FDA, FFI

Sachtler, M., 1968. General Report on National Forest Inventory in Liberia - Technical Report No. 1. GermanForestry Mission to Liberia in Cooperation with the Bureau of Forest and Wildlife Conservation, Department ofAgriculture, Republic of Liberia. 177 pp.

Samyn, J., Gasana, J., Pousse, E. And F. Fabien, 2011. Secteur forestierv dans les pays du Bassin du Congo: 20 ansd’interventions de l’AFD. \ Évaluation ex post. Agence Française de Développement (AFD). Septembre 2011.

SGS/LiberFor, 2011. Chain of Custody Financial Update. 11/9/2011

SGS, 2011. Ivan Muir, Managing Director; personal communication: May 30, 2011

SDI. 2010. Liberia – The Promise Betrayed. Sustainable Development Institute. Monrovia, Liberia. 68 pp.

Shearman, P.L. 2009. An Assessment of Liberian Forest Area, Dynamics, FDA Concession Plans, and theirRelevance to Revenue Projections. Rights and Resources Initiative. Washington, DC. 35 pp.

Tefft, J. 2005. Agricultural Policy and Food Security in Liberia. ESA Working Paper No. 05-11. March 2005.Agricultural and Development Economics Division. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 23 pp. www.fao.org/es/esa

Bibliography



United Nations Panel of Experts on Liberia. 2009b. Letter dated 11 December 2009 from the Chairman of theSecurity Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1521 (2003) concerning Liberia addressed to thePresident of the Security Council. S/2009/640. 51 pp.

United Nations Panel of Experts on Liberia. 2008a. Letter dated 12 June 2008 from the Chairman of the SecurityCouncil Committee established pursuant to resolution 1521 (2003) concerning Liberia addressed to thePresident of the Security Council S/2008/371. 89 pp.

United Nations Panel of Experts on Liberia. 2008b. Letter dated 12 December 2008 from the Acting Chairman ofthe Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1521 (2003) concerning Liberia addressed tothe President of the Security Council*S/2008/785. 67 pp.

United Nations Panel of Experts on Liberia. 2007a. Letter dated 7 June 2007 from the Chairman of the SecurityCouncil Committee established pursuant to resolution 1521 (2003) concerning Liberia addressed to the

President of the Security Council. S/2007/340. 50 pp.United Nations Panel of Experts on Liberia. 2007b. Letter dated 5 December 2007 from the Chairman of the

Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1521 (2003) concerning Liberia addressed to thePresident of the Security Council S/2007/689. 53 pp.

United Nations Panel of Experts on Liberia. 2006a. Letter dated 27 November 2006 from the Panel of Experts onLiberia addressed to the Chairman of the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1521(2003). S/2006/976. 65 pp.

United Nations Security Council. 2006b. Security Council resolution 1689 (2006) The situation in Liberia.

S/RES/1689. 19 June 2006.United Nations Security Council, 2005b. Security Council Resolution 1647 (2005) The situation in Liberia , 20

December 2005, S/RES/1647.

United Nations Security Council, 2005a. S ecurity Council Resolution 1607 (2005) on the Situation in Liberia andWest Africa, 21 June 2005, S/RES/1607.

United Nations Security Council. 2003. Security Council resolution 1521 (2003) The situation in Liberia.S/RES/1521. 22 December 2003.

United Nations Security Council. 2001. Security Council resolution 1343 (2001) The situation in Liberia.S/RES/1343. 7 March 2001.

Unruh, J.D., 2007. Land Tenure. In: Comprehensive Assessment Of The Agriculture Sector In Liberia. Vol. 2.2 -S b S i i f A i l 69 96

Bibliography



World Bank. 2010a. Bank Management Response To Request For Inspection Panel Review Of The Liberia:Development Forestry Sector Management Project. November 1, 2010. 46 pp.

World Bank. 2010b. Mainstreaming Social And Environmental Considerations Into The Liberian National Forestry

Reform Process: A Strategic Environmental Assessment For Implementation Of The 3Cs Of The Forest ReformLaw 2006. September 2010. 134 pp

World Bank. 2008. Liberia Insecurity of Land Tenure, Land Law and Land Registration in Liberia. Report No.46134-LR. Environmental and Natural Resources (AFTEN). Africa Region. 134 pp.

World Resources Institute. 2009. Land Rights And Community Forestry Program: implementation of socialagreements an initial assessment. May 2009. Report produced for review by the United States Agency forInternational Development. 40pp.

Annex IMeetings List



Meetings List

Annex I

Meetings Held

Date Sector Organization Title Name19 May 2011 Public EPA Executive DirectorChief of Staff

Hon. Anyaa VohiriMr. Nathaniel T. Blama

19 May 2011 Public FDA Executive DirectorTech. Mgr., Commercial Forestry Dept.

Hon. Moses WogbehMr. Jangar S. Kamara

19 May 2011 Private OLAM Business Mgr., Environmental Services Mr. Lucas Van Der Walt20 May 2011 Public FDA Mgr. Protected Area Network

Mgr. Forest ExtensionMr. Morris Kamara

21 May 2011 Public FDA Int’l Technical Advisor Mr. Peter Lowe23 May 2011 Int’l

CoopUSAID Forestry Advisor Mr. Daniel Whyner

24 May 2011 Various Workshop, Liberia Forest Sector: What Have We Learned? See Annex II

25 May 2011 Public FDA Tech. Mgr., Conservation Forestry Dept. Mr. T. Freeman25 May 2011 Public FDA Tech. Mgr. Research & Development Dept. Mr. John Kantor25 May 2011 Public FDA Tech Mgr. Community Forestry Dept. Mr. Lawrence Green25 May 2011 Public FDA Manager, Strategy & Planning Dept

Strategy & PlanningPlanning Economist

Mr. M. JargbahMr. J.S.E. WeeksMr. M.G.P. Roberts

26 May 2011 Public FDA Dir. Concessions, Commercial Forestry Dept.EIA Manager, Commercial Forestry Dept.

Mr. Tulley

27 May 2011 Public EPA Coordinator, EIAManager, Monitoring & Assessment

Mr. Varney L. ConnehMr. Ben Karmorh

27 May 2011 Int’lCoop

UNMIL Civil Affairs Officer Mr. Paolo Nastasi

27 May 2011 Various Workshop, Infrastructure & Forest Concessions: Energy, Transport, & Ports See Annex II27 May 2011 Nat’l

NGOGreen Advocates President Mr. Alfred Brownell

30 May 2011 Private Liberia Chainsaw &Timber Dealers Union

PresidentMember, Executive Committee

Mr. Shadrach James

30 May 2011 Private SGS Managing DirectorProject Manager

Mr. Ivan MuirMr. Thomas G. D. Francquaille

30 May 2011 Int’lCoop

GIZ Project Manager, Resource Governance Mr. Peter Kluczny

30 May 2011 Nat’l NGO

SDI Messrs. Jacob Hilton, JamesOtto, Titus Zeogar

31 May 2011 Int’l NGO FFI Country Manager Ms. Letla Mosenene

31 May 2011 Int’l NGO

IUCN Forests Project Officer Mr. Abdulai Barrie

bli d i i h i il d




Meetings List

Date Sector Organization Title Name

01 Dec 2011 Public FDA Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist Mr. Saah David05 Dec 2011 Int’l

CoopUSAID Sr. Economic Growth Officer Mr. Michael Boyd

06 Dec 2011 Int’lCoop EC VPA Advisor Ms. Anna Halton

06 Dec 2011 Public FDA Executive DirectorDep. Managing DirectorTech. Mgr., Commercial Forestry Dept.

Hon. Moses WogbehMr. Kendrick JohnsonMr. Jangar S. Kamara

06 Dec 2011 Int’lCoop

World Bank Consultant, PRS II Mr. Steven Webb

07 Dec 2011 Various Workshop, Liberia Forest Sector Stakeholders: Presentation of World Bank Actions – Forest Resource Inventory;Update of Rapid Social Assessment; Poverty and Social Impact Analysis

08 Dec 2011 Public FDA Int’l Technical Advisor Mr. Peter Lowe10 Dec 2011 Int’l

CoopIUCN IUCN Mr. Martin Nganje

12 Dec 2011 Various Workshop, Liberia Forest Sector: Stakeholder Consultation on PRS II13 Dec 2011 Public MPEA Deputy National Coordinator Dr. James F. Kollie14 Dec 2011 Int’l

CoopEmbassy ofSweden/SIDA

Country Manager / First Secretary National Programme Officer

Dr. Gun Eriksson SkoogMr. Jallah Kennedy

03 Feb 2012 Public FDA Executive DirectorTech. Mgr., Conservation Forestry Dept.Tech Mgr. Community Forestry Dept.Tech. Mgr. Research & Development Dept.Tech. Mgr. Commercial Dept.Int’l Technical AdvisorM&E SpecialistPreparation mission focal point

Hon. Moses WogbehMr. T. FreemanMr. Lawrence GreenMr. John KantorMr. Jangar KamaraMr. Peter LoweMr. Saah DavidMs. Gertrude Nynaly

03 Feb 2012 Int’lCoop

USAID Sr. Economic Growth OfficerForestry Advisor

Mr. Michael BoydMs. Jennifer Talbot


World Bank TTL (TA project to Land Commission) Mr. Flavio Chaves

04 Feb 2012 to07 Feb 2012

Various Field Trip Nimba Co.,USAID-financed LandRights & Comm.Forest Mgmt. Project

Project staff, regional level FDA staff, localcommunities’ representative and members

Project staff:Mr. Peter de Waard (COP)Mr. Sam Koffa (Com, Fac.)Mr. Jackson S. Nobeh (Gender)

08 Feb 2012 Nat’l NGOInt’l

NGO

Green AdvocatesForest PeoplesProgramme

PresidentPolicy AdvisorLawyer, Legal & Human Rights Programme

Mr. Alfred BrownellMr. Justin KenrickMr. Tom Lomax


USAID/GEMS -Bureau of Concession

Concessions Expert Mr. Ricardo Acosta

08 Feb 2012 Acadei

University of Liberia Professor Mr. John T. Woods




Meetings List

Date Sector Organization Title Name

Project Officer/Protected ForestAsst. Director/Admin. &TrainingProgram Manager

Ms. Helena G. HallowangerMr. Marian D.VarfleyMr. Peter B. Parteh

15 Feb 2012 Public FDA Executive DirectorTech. Mgr., Conservation Forestry Dept.Tech Mgr. Community Forestry Dept.Tech. Mgr. Research & Development Dept.Tech. Mgr. Commercial Dept.Int’l Technical AdvisorM&E SpecialistPreparation mission focal point

Hon. Moses WogbehMr. T. FreemanMr. Lawrence GreenMr. John KantorMr. Jangar KamaraMr. Peter LoweMr. Saah DavidMs. Gertrude Nynaly


SIDA National Programme Officer Mr. Jallah M. Kennedy

16 Feb 2012 Public FDA Int’l Technical Advisor Mr. Peter Lowe

Annex IIWorkshop Summaries



Workshop Summaries

Annex II

Workshop Summaries

Liberia Forest Sector: What Have We Learned?69

Summary of a Workshop Held May 24, 2011at the World Bank Offices in Monrovia, Liberia

A workshop was held on the 24th of/05/11 at the offices of the World Bank in Monrovia, Liberia. Thegoals of the workshop were to:

Discuss principal areas of progress and priority short-/medium-/long-term issues for the forestrysector, in the context of “Three Cs Strategy” Identify priority areas for attention in the forest sector in the short, medium and long-terms, from

the perspectives of civil society, government, and private sector. Propose priority areas for World Bank intervention in forestry sector viz. the short-/medium-

/long-term issues for forestry sector.

Presentations and discussions within the workshop were organized around four principal questions:

1. What are the primary achievements of the last 5 years?

2. What have been the main gaps (relevant goals not accomplished, previously unforeseen needs,needs emerging from lesson learned)?

3. What opportunities exist in the short to medium terms to substantially advance the goals and/orimprove the impact of the Three Cs strategy?

4. What are the principal challenges that must be overcome to achieve the goals of the Three Csstrategy (short, medium, long terms)?

The workshop agenda and the list of workshop participants are found in Attachment 1.

Session I − Progress & issues in the forest sector

Achievements. There was substantial agreement that the principal achievements in the sector were thoserelated to the development and launching of the implementation of the new legal regulatory institutional




Workshop Summaries

should be taking advantage. It was generally agreed that these concerns need to addressed broadly andequitably − i.e., in private sector, civil society, and local authorities as well as in government agencies −in order to allow the entire sector to come up together.

Another high priority concern for the development of the commercial potential of the sector was the lackof adequate infrastructure − ports, roads, bridges − for the development of export-oriented, commercial production and for efficient supply to domestic markets. It was noted also that the intersectoral linkagesand planning to ensure that the needs of the forest sector are appropriately considered in the prioritizationof infrastructure investments are not in place.

The third area of priority gaps and challenges defined had to do with the concessioning processes and theexisting concessions (FMCs). Lack of a coordinating mechanism and overall policy for concessioningresults in conflicts in land allocation between the mining, agriculture and forestry concessions. Further,

that the FMCs are not generating the expected benefits was seen as a result of a series of factors, some ofwhich are related to the bidding process itself and others related to structural constraints (infrastructure,human resources, limited technical capacity, etc).

Considerable time and attention was also given to discussion of the existing legal, regulatory, normativeand taxation regimes in place for the sector. The main concerns expressed included: (i) the need toreform/adjust the current rule set to attract quality commercial investors; (ii) making socialagreements/benefit sharing frameworks effective and transparent for both communities and investors,including upgrading the process with greater safeguards, standardization and coordination with other line

agencies where social agreement investments would impact their area of mandate (e.g., building ofschools, clinics, etc. that presuppose assumption of cost of staffing and/or maintenance by GoL); (iii)getting the forest taxation regime right so that it is fair and consistent with international best practice; and(iv) more equitable sharing of not just benefits, but also of costs. A final gap and challenge raised was thequestion of how to integrate the “Three Cs” thematically, territorially, in time and space.

Opportunities. The principal opportunities identified by participants were:

Creditworthiness − with Liberia’s completion of the HIPC process there is much greater potential forinvestment in the development of the forest sector.

Forest Resources − that the country is endowed with rich (quantity and quality) of forest resources International Agreements & Programs − VPA to access European markets; and under VPA, EU to

support launching of platforms for civil society stakeholder dialogue in sector REDD + to access




Workshop Summaries

Session II − Identification of priorities

For this session, participants were randomly assigned to three groups. The groups were asked to respondto the four questions defined above, prioritizing their responses to identify for each question the three or

four highest priority areas. The results are summarized in Table1, found on the next page.

Session III − Recommendations on priority areas for World Bank support to the forest sector

A videoconference was held with senior World Bank staff in Washington, DC and Kenya who provided presentations to inform the participants on the World Bank’s current strategies, priorities and experiences both globally and in Africa. The Senior Natural Resources Economist of the World Bank’s ForestryTeam gave a presentation on the World Bank’s Forest Strategy and the Senior Forestry Specialist forAfrica presented on the World Bank’s forestry experiences in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Following the presentations questions from the participants to the World Bank presenters focused on:

Experience in the DRC with forest concessions review and cancellation process (what the processwas, how it was carried out and how was it handled when there were failures on both the parts of theconcessionaires and the government). It was explained that it in the DRC case:

Concessions with weak, ambiguous, or missing agreements for social benefits. Bank financed assessment of concessions and forest management (technical assessment by

independent auditor). Assessment thru inter-ministerial commission (govt., industry, NGOs) 3.5 year process Result was reduction in concession areas from approx. 20 million ha to 10 million ha. No new concessions have been let since, rather government is getting existing concessions in

order first. That concession review should be ongoing process, not one off. Liberia’s 2006 experience

provides basis. On benefit sharing, the Bank financed TA to support (i) negotiations of social agreements by

communities; and (ii) zoning process to identify where concessions feasible. The World Bank’s experience with chainsaw milling. In response, it was noted that the Bank’s

i i SE A i d i b d f h h h i t f th i f l t




Workshop Summaries

Table 1. Results from group discussions

Topic Group 1 Group 2 Group 3

Achievements 1. Greater engagement ofcommunities in forest sector(benefit sharing, policy making,governance)

2. Reform process in place to allowsector to operate legally &transparently.

1. Forest sector reform (govt.)2. Completion of RPP (govt.)3. Community Rights Law (civ. soc.)4. Progress on ENNP/Sapo (civ. soc.)5. Chain of custody (priv. sec.)6. Signing of VPA (priv. sec.)

1. Forest Reform Law 20062. Lifting of sanctions3. Community involvement into

sector

Gaps/Challenges

1. Conservation – how to enforcelaws, build benefits forcommunities (e.g., REDD, others),

promote/create vision forconservation, finance conservation.2. Appropriate training for sector

stakeholders (communities, civilsociety, GoL, private sector); incls.development of forestry educationin Liberia (curricula, teaching, out-

placement)3. FDA role – how to help all

stakeholders.4. Law enforcement & formalization

of informal (pit-sawing) sector.

5. EPA role in environmentalcompliance

6. Inability of logging companies to pay expected revenues and createexpected jobs.

1. Infrastructure – ports, bridges,roads, FDA HQ (govt.)

2. Expectation viz. EPA unrealistic

(govt.)3. Capacity building – univ. &training (All)

4. Benefit sharing – bureaucracy,disbursement. administrat ion (civ.soc.)

5. Lack of information sharing ( (civ.soc.)

6. Global economic downturn (priv.sec.)

7. Under-performance of contractholders (priv. sec.)

1. Forestry stakeholder coordination2. Need for review & revision of

forestry law, regulations & codes

3.

Capacity across all stakeholders4. Infrastructure (incl. incentives so private sector invests in upgradingroads for benefit of all)

5. Definition of land & forest rights6. Conducive legal framework to

attract quality forestry investors7. Underfunding of key investments

needed for management of forest:infrastructure, human resources,transport.

Opportunities/focal areas forshort- tomedium-terms

1. Improve forestry education inLiberia and out-placement

2. On-the-job training for existingforest professionals

3. Access to information forcommunities − all stakeholdershelping out

4. Assistance with inventoryassessment for private sector.

5. Support to complete WildlifeConservation Law

1. Invest in infrastructure2. Link FDA strategy to PRS3. Simplify & coordinate benefit

sharing between mining, ag &forestry concessions to ensure thatlarge-scale investments (hospitals,roads) coherent with sectoral

planning and small-scale well &equitably distributed.

4. Enhance collaboration betweenstakeholders (govt communities

1. Implement VPA2. Create conducive environment

(legal, regulatory, taxation) toattract quality investors into sector.

3. REDD +




p

Infrastructure & Forest Concessions: Energy, Transport, & Ports.

Summary of a Workshop Held May 26, 2011at the World Bank Offices in Monrovia, Liberia

(A workshop organized and lead by the SDD-AFR Joint Private Sector Development and Infrastructure Support Mission)

Attendees. Workshop attendees comprised representatives of the following: (i) private sector firms −Euro Logging, Thunder Bird Int’l, Atlantic resources, Sun-Yeun Corp. Ldt., LTTC, Mandra Forestry,LTA, Geblo Logging, Bassa Logging & Timber, ICC Logging, Bargor & Bargor Enterprises,; (ii) LiberiaTimber Association, (iii) SGS Liberia; and (iv) World Bank.

Principal Conclusions/Results. Power for sawmills: Unlikely to hook to grid due to remoteness of sites; place facilities close to grid

(e.g., Greenville, Bopulu & Zwedru). Roads: In past forestry companies rehabilitated roads for tax credits. MoPW costed and approved

work, MoF assigned tax break. Concessionaires keen this arrangement be restarted.70 Bridges: Poor condition of many important bridges. If companies engage in bridge maintenance may

be liable if subsequent problems. Ports: Most critical infrastructure need; current does not allow for efficient business planning and

halts/limits production. Port handing fees very high relative to services given. Buchanan portcapacity predicted to be unable to cope with future demand. Greenville port rehabilitation is the mosturgent.

Railroads: In past used LAMCO and Bong lines to transport timber to port; railheads at Ganta &Bong (10-20,000 m3/train). Companies interested in restarting this arrangement.

Skill needs/vocational training: FTI does not serve training needs of sector. Lack of trained workersis a major constraint.

Global logging firms unwilling to invest Liberia forestry sector: Among others, unattractiveeconomic conditions and lack of transparency in bidding process .

Taxes: Given the current infrastructural deficits in the country – poor roads and ports- investorsexpressed the urgent need to reassess the tax levies applied to the sector. For example, there wasdisc ssion that ta sho ld be related to prod ction rather than fi ed ann al charges

Annex IIAttachment I

Workshop Agenda



82

Time Topic Presenter Content

0900 - 0930 Workshop Introduction World Bank Welcome, introduction of participants, workshop purpose & goals.

0930 - 0945 FDA

0945 - 1000 NGO & Private Sector Participant CommentsViews on progress, issues, priorities in the Forest Sector

1000 - 1035

Progress & issues in the forestsector

Open Discussion

1035 -1100 Break1100 - 1120 World Bank Summary of morning’s discussions, comments & suggestions

1120 - 1205 Break out groups Three groups (perspectives govt., civil society, private sector)

1205 - 1235 Group Reps. Group summaries.

1235 - 1300

Identification of priorities for“next generation” public forest

sectors reformsOpen Discussion

1300 - 1400 Lunch

1400 - 1500Prioritize areas for World Bank

support to forestry sector.World Bank

Overview of Bank’s global policies, strategies, & comparativeadvantages as relevant to issues in Liberian forest sector.

1500 - 1515 Break

1515 – 1600 Prioritize areas (cont.) Open Discussion

1600 - 1615 Closing World Bank

Annex IIAttachment I

i i i



83

Workshop Participant List

No. Sector Name Title Organization E-mail Phone #

1 Contractor Ivan Muir Managing Director SGS [email protected] 06-874352

2 Contractor Thomas G. D. Francquaille Project Manager SGS [email protected] 06-785992

3 Govt. Andrew Paygar Assistant Minister/Rev MOF [email protected] 06-8386484 Govt. D. Emmanuel Williams Acting Assistant Minister MPEA [email protected] 06-513670

5 Govt. Joseph G. Yeneken P A Officer EPA [email protected] 06-988782

6 Govt. John D. Kantor Technical Manager FDA [email protected] 06-551250

7 Govt. Kedrick F. Johnson Assistant Managing Director FDA [email protected] 06-769107

8 Govt. M. Jargbah Manager FDA [email protected] 06-551250

9 Govt. M.G.P. Roberts Planning Economist FDA [email protected] 06-407229

10 Govt. Moses Wogbeh Managing Director FDA [email protected] 06-513994

11 Govt. Theo V. Freeman Technical Manager FDA [email protected] 06-511776

12 INGO Jessica Donovan Wen Technical Director CI [email protected] 06-64677513 INGO Letla Mosenene Country Manager FFI [email protected] 06-484198

14 INGO Nouhou Ndam REDD Head FFI [email protected] 06-765087

15 Int'l . Coop Carlos Battaglini EU Programme Manager EU [email protected] 07-7731780

16 Int'l . Coop Dan Whyner Forestry advicor USAID [email protected] 077-232-967

17 Int'l. Coop Jim Smyle Consultant World Bank [email protected] 07-6372084

18 Int'l . Coop Joseph K. Boiwu Assistant FAOR FAO [email protected] 08-80416035

19 Int'l . Coop Moses Massah Program Specialist UNDP [email protected] 06-558574

20 Int'l. Coop Oliver Braedt Task Team Leader World Bank [email protected] 06-488247

21 Int'l . Coop Paolo Nastasi UN Civil Affairs Officer UNMIL [email protected] 05-31921322 NGO Ali D. Kaba Project Coordinator SDI [email protected]

23 NGO Titus Zeogar Lead Facilitator SDI [email protected] 06-552417

24 Priv. Sect. Daniel P.M. Kwabo Consultant LTTC/Forestry [email protected] 06-516095

25 Priv. Sect. Eliza Kronyaneh Logger EJ & J [email protected] 06-513241

26 Priv. Sect. John S. Deah Acting President LTA [email protected] 06-510912

Annex IIAttachment II

S i I P & i i th f t t S f C t



84

Session I − Progress & issues in the forest sector. Summary of Comments

Type Observation/Issue

AchievementsInstitutional Institutional reforms and reorganization in public sector (FDA) to implement states role in forest sector.

Institut ional FDA first among the GEMAP-supported institutions to graduate program to strengthen financial management capacity.

Institut ional Framework in place for commercial use of forests and significant experience and learning from implementationOperational PA system re-launched, reactivation of management in Sapo National Park and stabilizing land use situation in park.

Operational Have completed a bidding process on 7 FMCs

Policy, Legal & Regulatory Have launched a regulated commercial forest use system, consistent with legal framework

Policy, Legal & Regulatory First approximation of benefit sharing framework

Policy, Legal & Regulatory First approximation of fiscal framework

Policy, Legal & Regulatory Have created a reasonably robust framework of policies, laws/regulations/norms to allow FS to move forward under rule-of-law

Strategy & Planning FDA has articulated priorities and work program for next 5 years

Gaps and ChallengesExtra-sectoral Infrastructure issues that impact potential for development of export-oriented, commercial production and for efficient domestic market

(especially roads and ports)

Extra-sectoral, Institutional Ensuring that infrastructure needs for forest sector development are given due consideration in infrastructure planning, prioritization and

investment.Extra-sectoral, Institutional Intersectoral linkages lacking so that can bring to bear other public investment to reach forest sector goals (transport, productive ag programs

for PA and concession affected communities)

Institut ional Stakeholder processes weak. Capacity to carry out sector-level dialogue still very limited

Institut ional Severe capacity issues − institutional and technical − across all sector actors a principal bottleneck.

Institut ional Concessioning processes between sectors lack effective coordination, resulting in conflicts in land allocation (mining especially) at nationallevel

Institut ional FMCs have not generated the desired benefits due to a series of factors, some of which are related to the bidding process itself and othersrelated to structural constraints (infrastructure, human resources, limited technical capacity, etc)

Institut ional Concerns about institutional sustainability of support from donor community. Unclear institutional exit strategies within those initiatives to build and transfer capacity.

Institut ional Making CFDCs work. Require orientation, basic knowledge and development of organizational and conflict management skills; links to

information from chain of custody.Institut ional REDD + implementation difficult given lack of capacity to inventory and monitor carbon stocks.

Institutional; Strategy &Planning; Operational

Need to develop and implement a vision of capacity building that brings up all stakeholder in more equitable fashion. It is recognized thatcapacity building is sector wide issue but as yet not much advance in working on. Short-term need is very strong, but building capacity is along term challenge. What is the right approach?

Policy, Legal & Regulatory How to attract the quality of commercial forest investor that country needs to achieve sectoral goals? Must get rules right, clarify public benefits and thus be able to define the costs associated with the provision of benefits.

Policy, Legal & Regulatory Benefit sharing framework too ad hoc, imposing costs on all actors (civil society, private sector, government) . Trying to learn from processand adjust modalities for benefit sharing; this is complicated but ad hoc nature of benefit sharing arrangements, i.e., appropriate modalitieswill also be a function of the benefit sharing scheme and arrangements.

Policy, Legal & Regulatory Fiscal regime requires substantial improvements; critical to forest sector future and benefit generation. Need to establish a forest taxation

Annex IIAttachment II

Type Observation/Issueregime that is fair and consistent ith international best practices M st get the forest ta ation frame ork right



85

regime that is fair and consistent with international best practices. Must get the forest taxation framework right.

Policy, Legal & Regulatory Industry sees need for adjustments in legal/regulatory framework to attract quality investment in sector and in light of VPA; includesrevisiting bidding processes

Policy, Legal & Regulatory Not just equitable sharing of benefits, but equitable sharing of costs as well. The private sector cannot bear the costs imposed by a “trial-and-error” approach

Policy, Legal &Regulatory; Institutional;Extra-sectoral

Employment generation in sector

Policy, Legal &Regulatory; Institutional;Operational

Making social agreements work. Need a better process with greater safeguards, more transparency, greater standardization so that biddersmay accurately estimate and include costs of SA in their bids, ensuring informed negotiations between parties and coordinating with otherline agencies where SA investments would impact their area of mandate (e.g., building of schools, clinics, etc. that presuppose assumption ofcost of staffing and/or maintenance by GoL)

Strategy & Planning;Institutional; Operational;Extra-sectoral

How to integrate 3 Cs thematically, territorially, in time and space

OpportunitiesCreditworthiness Graduation from HIPC, opens possibilities for greater investment

Learning Well recognized that this is learning process and achievements/recognition of gaps and challenges, are evidence that learning is beinggenerated and acted upon.

Resource Base Forest resource base retains both quantity and quality.

International Agreements& Programs

VPA to access European markets; and under VPA, EU to support launching of platforms for civil society stakeholder dialogue in sector.REDD + to access global carbon markets and provide incentives for sustainable forest management and forest conservation.

PRS II Process is opportunity to forge intersectoral linkages and align priorities for forest sector development (e.g., in planning and investments intransport, energy and ports infrastructure).

Annex IIIUN Panel of Experts

Annex III

UN Panel of Experts Summary Timeline: Principal points from letters from the Panel of Experts on Liberia addressed to the Chairman of the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1521 (2003)



86

e e: c pa po ts o ette s o t e a e o pe ts o be a add essed to t e C a a o t e Secu ty Cou c Co ttee estab s ed pu sua t to eso ut o 5 ( 003)

Dec-06 Jun-07 Dec-07 Jun-08 Dec-08 Jun-09 Dec-09 Jun-10 Dec-10 Jun-11 Nov-11

Logging moratorium has been effective.

Mismanagement hampersFDA financial reform

Government continues tomove forward onimplementation offorestry reformlegislation.

Abandoned logsauctioned w/o following

NFRL & FDAregulations.

Changes made in payment terms of 3FMCs after negotiations

3 years since sanctionlifting & no legal timberexports.

Legislature passed CRL;comprehensive wildlifelaw vetted by FDA

Logging companies have paid 66% of fees owed toGoL

Advances in terms oflegal requirements, butsignificant challengeshindering potential

2 of 7 FMCs, 3 of 9 TSCs& 2 of 3 PUPs havecommenced loggingoperations

Tax collection rates fellfrom 25%in FY 2010/11 to 5% inthe 1st Q of current FY.

National Forest ReformLaw (NFRL) passed by

the Legislature. The law provides an "excellentlegal framework” for theforest sector.

Suggest pursuing carboncredits, develop PA

network & border “peace parks” & meet CBD pledge,

FDA continues to moveforward in the right

direction, but progress isslow, planning andmanagement of resourcesremain significantchallenges.

FDA sold > 6,088 m3 ofabandoned logs w/o

auction in contradictionof NFRL & FDAregulations

Progress madeimplementing NFRL;

CRL submitted toLegislature; uneven progress in commercialsector

Only 1 company logging,sector unlikely to provide

significant revenues incurrent FY

Legislature ratified &President confirmed 7

FMCs; only two FMCholders paid all requiredfees

MoF asked BD/FDA toterminate all contracts

with fees unpaid by 8May 2010; BD/FDAagrees.

Concession allocation process not complying

with rules competitive bidding, informedconsent, planning, andrequirements forcertificates of concession.

Rainy season hascommenced, no further

logging is likely until late2011

Implementation of manyof the reforms remains

inconsistent & piecemeal;recent developments putthe future of reform at acritical juncture.

Audits of the ForestryDevelopment Authority(FDA) shows that therewas widespreadcorruption andincompetence during the

period of the NationalTransitional Governmentof Liberia (NTGL).

FDA signed 10 coreforestry regulations intoeffect & vetted NFMS

Logging companies pre-qualified, 6 TSCstendered,recommendations for 3contract awards sent toIMCC.

FDA actions not incompliance w/ NFRL &its regulations in contractawards for commercialtimber concessions

FDA provides overlyoptimistic estimates fortimber revenue

potentials; 64 companies pre-qualified to bid

Awards of 3 of 4 FMCschallenged by companies;

petitions denied withoutexplanation by SupremeCourt justice

Total revenues well below PRS projectionsfor logging sector, willresult in significantrevenue shortfalls overlife of PRS

Some high-level officialsexpressed concerns aboutconcession model: notensuring land rights &food security of Liberian

people; too large &granted for too long

Liberfor indicates thatFMC holders owe over$15 million for area-

based fees for FY2010/11; about $1.5million has been paid.

A prevailing narrativeamong logging companiesand Government quartersis that the reforms andchain of custody wereimposed from outside bythe UN & donorcommunity.

Restructuring of FDA to be carried out, reducingstaff by 50% and firingthat staff that wasinvolved with prior

malfeasance

Panel notes thatexpectations for timberrevenue generation areunrealistic. Suggest thatunlikely that sustainableharvest practices wouldgenerate more than$100m/yr gross revenues,$20m/yr to GoL andemployment of 8,000workers

FDA has established a panel to review pre-qualification applicationsfrom logging companies;82 have registered

3 FMCs advertised, bidssubmitted; evaluation &due diligence on 13 bidsunderway; CoC contractsigned

First 3 FMCs amended toinclude annual bid

premium payment; FDAimproved bid documentsfor next 4 FMCs

Numerous breaches in processes & criteriarelating to awarding ofconcessions

Noted that globaleconomic crisis hasimpacted companiesabilities to pay fees

28,932 m3 exported FY2010/11 (as of 27 April)generating $0.47 millionin stumpage & $0.52million export fees

Appearance of trend byFDA & MoF to relaxregulations to makelogging more profitable.This would undermine

reforms.Illegal pit-sawingunabated

Significant undercollection byFDA of fees from pit-sawyersUnder NTGL

Projected revenues fromtimber sector adjusteddown 63% for 2007-08

FDA making progress inimplementation of NFRL

No investigation resultson changing of contractterms

FDA not meetingtransparencyrequirements

5 additional TSCstendered and bidsreviewed

Panel recommends thatWB, EC & MemberStates redouble &coordinate efforts to

provide assistance to

improve governance ofnatural resources on theground

TSCs & PUPs invoiced$0.49 million, have paid$0.38 million for same

period

The new role of the EU,thru VPA, may increasecapacity, support &

political will to maintainrigorous implementationof reforms

Forest ManagementAdvisory Committee setup as per NFRL

Logging companiesadvise Panel willcontinue to negotiatewith GoL to modify“onerous” payment terms

Problems with SocialAgreements,Environmental ImpactAssessments, and annualoperating plans inconcessions

Plans to extend area ofone FMC holder by over59,000 has. thru twocommunity forest PUPs.

Timber revenues show progress, but stillinadequate to meetoperating costs of theCoC system.

NGOs expressedreservations on NFMS:legal status of landsundefined in respect ofcustomary rights offorest-dependent

communities.

FDA fines loggingcompany $2,000 for logsw/ est. market value of$100,000 taken outsideconcession.

Through CRL, nationallegislators guaranteedselves seats oncommunity forestrymanagement structures.The Panel finds this to be

of great concern.

SGS situation critical,cannot continue tooperate at a loss. WorldBank undertaking todispense DFID funds forCoC as quickly as

possible.

If GoL alterations to[forest concession] taxstructure do not triggerconcession re-bidding,would be a violation ofthe NFRL & the PublicProcurement andConcessions Commissionlaws on competitive

bidding. Bad precedentwith lasting negativeeffects on other sectors as

well.

Annex IIIUN Panel of Experts

Dec-06 Jun-07 Dec-07 Jun-08 Dec-08 Jun-09 Dec-09 Jun-10 Dec-10 Jun-11 Nov-11

The only loggingactivities in Liberia were

Delays & reducedrevenues impact forestry

Concern that CRL createsloophole for largely

Due to lack of revenueflow, SGS has inventoried

LEITI has founderedunder repeated leadership



87

illegal pit-sawingoperations, which arelargely unchecked.

reform systems,especially the CoC

unregulated, large-scalecommercial logging oncommunity land.

only 60% - 70% of prepared areas; Liberforcore functions affected;cannot provide 100%guarantee

changes. A 2010 audit bythe Auditor Generalnoted that key ministriesdid not supplydocumentation, callinginto question the validityof revenue reports.

FDA & UNMIL joint patrols found evidence of pit-sawing in all sectors.

FDA discussing need torevise NFRL asconcession process too

burdensome

Most social agreementshave same provisions &handwriting in

community requestsummaries.

Liberia & EU signedlegally binding agreementto control illegal logging

& improve forest sectorgovernance. Agreementis known as a VoluntaryPartnershipAgreement(VPA) underthe European UnionForest Law Enforcement,Governance and TradeAction Plan.

In 2012, FDA plans tooffer two FMCs on 0.74million ha & re-bid

cancelled FMC F using past procedures. Noimprovements planned toensure compliance,educate bidders &affected communities, orallow time for companiesto prepare bids & realistic

business plans.Where FDA officersmake arrest, judicialsystem & other officialsdo not support actions;

people arrested in Sapo National Park werereleased by courts

Panel notes delays due toother factors: companiesinability to fulfillfinancial obligation; landownership issues; priorillegal changes to bid

payment terms; delays inLegislature.

Report on pit-sawing:total annual harvest est.at 0.28 – 0.65 millionm3/yr

Auditor General ofLiberia report criticizesFDA (among others) forfailing to furnish LEITIwith assessments onconcessionaires and forignoring requests forinformation

Access to information, asrequired by NFRL, still

presents a significantchallenge to civil society& community

participation & oversightin forest managementdecisionmaking.

Deteriorating relationshipnoted between FDA &

international TA & breakdown ofrelationship with NGOs

Forestry sector includedin LEITI to ensure all are

paid, accounted for, &used for benefit of allLiberians.

Auditor General ofLiberia report criticizes

FDA (among others) forfailing to furnish LEITIwith assessments onconcessionaires and forignoring requests forinformation

FDA has issued 16 PUPson 0.7 million ha; these

require no competitive bidding; forest tax isminimal, & regulationsless stringent. Trend

poses risk to reforms toachieve transparency offorest revenues, equity,sustainability, &maximize returns toLiberian people.

Panel notes engagementof internationalcommunity in theindustrial commercialtimber sector isdiminishing at a criticaltime.

Land Commissionestablished & operationalto propose, advocate &coordinate reforms ofland policy, laws &

programs

Lands Commission willreview traditional landcertificates & land claimsaround existingconcessions. Newallocations should be

postponed until thesereviews are completed.

Annex IV2009 SA Assessment



Annex IVUSAID/Liberia Land Rights and Community Forestry Program

Implementation of Social Agreements

An Initial Assessment Main Findings

(a) Local communities (affected) are extremely happy to have been part of the consultation process, forthe first time ever, on issues concerning the forest sector.

(b) One logging company said that the SA provides them, for the first time, with specific guidelinesand a framework enabling them to work collaboratively, and effectively, with local communities.

(c) Affected local communities are not sufficiently informed and did not have enough time to fullyunderstand the nature and scope of the SAs before their signature. The process was rushed. Most ofthe affected communities are also confused between the SA and the benefit sharing scheme fromtaxation.

(d) The obligations of the title holders vis-à-vis the social investments are not clear in the mind of localcommunities—e.g. who assumes the responsibility of actually building the social infrastructures —and need to be clarified.

(e) There are unrealistic expectations from local communities as well as difficulties keeping promisesmade to them by title holders.

(f) While forest management contracts (FMCs) and timber sale contracts (TSCs) should be treateddifferently, expectations (and promises from title holders) are the same for TSCs and FMCs. Thisadds to the unrealistic expectations.

(g) The SAs are not specific enough to be enforceable. They do not have any details as to quantity,standards, locations, or timelines of the social investments or of the in-kind contribution of the titleholders have to provide.

(h) There are no specific SA implementation monitoring tools or process and no valuation tools.(i) The CFDCs do not sufficiently understand the tasks and responsibilities attached to the

management of the SAs (or of the revenues accruing from land rental fee).(j) The CFDCs have limited capacity and skills and most have none in bookkeeping, project planning

and management, financial management, procurement, contract management, public works,i i d b ildi t ti ll kill t b th th SA th b fit

Annex IV2009 SA Assessment



(b) FDA ensures that all stakeholders (e.g. local communities, title holders, local governments, electedrepresentatives, civil society, etc.) understand the exact nature and scope of the legal obligations ofthe title holders under the SAs.

(c) Consideration be given to the hiring and deployment of an independent and knowledgeable third party to serve as an intermediary between title holders and local communities and CFDCs. Such anintermediary could be an ombudsman or independent mediation body and intervene on demand or onthe basis of information received.

(d) Title holders are more forthcoming and more honest on what they can realistically do as part of theSAs and do not make promises they cannot keep. Local communities should be educated on what it isreasonable to demand or to expect from title holders—FDA should play a leading role to that effect.FDA and title holders should work together to identify what are reasonable expectations for FMCsand TSCs.

(e) FDA informs and educates local communities on the difference between TSCs and FMCs andrelevant expectations.

(f) FDA, with stakeholders, assesses the option of replacing the SAs for the TSCs by a per cubic meterlevy—in addition to the $US1.50 already levied.

(g) Revisit SAs to include an investments and social services provision plan with specific quantifiableobjectives (how many), location (where), and timelines (when). To facilitate the process, this could be a general five year plan for FMCs (updated/renegotiated every five years) or three year plan forTSCs accompanied by more detailed annual plans that would be elaborated with and approved by theCFDC, under the overall monitoring and with the assistance of the FDA.

(h) FDA work in collaboration with other Government Ministries and services (such as the Ministry ofTransport, of Education, of Health) and with the title holders to establish and disseminate standards(size, material used, architecture, etc.) and rough cost averages ($ per square meters, $ per LIBERIALRCFP SOCIAL AGREEMENT ASSESSMENT vii kilometers, etc.) for schools, clinics, CFDCoffice, roads, bridges, etc. to all affected communities, title holders, and prospective timber industryinvestors

(i) FDA, with the help of civil society and its international partners, develop and implement a SA

monitoring and reporting system as well as valuation tools to be used by CFDC and FDA. FDA, withthe help of civil society and its international partners should: 1) inform and train CFDC members onmanagement tasks needed to properly uphold their responsibilities; 2) develop implement and

Annex VRecommendations on Forest Resource Assessments



Annex VRecommendations from

Review of Forest Resource Assessments in Liberia71

The recommendations proposed below are based on the review of the different forest assessments anddiscussions with different stakeholders involved in Liberia forests. The Liberia R-PP includes several ofthese recommendations.

Principal Recommendations:

Set up and maintain forest monitoring scheme A forest inventory scheme of a recurrent inventory shall be established including necessary

proportion of field plots. This inventory should produce reliable forest estimates on municipalityor county level. More field plots need to be put in the forest concessions as the forestry activities presumably are vital.

FDA should be responsible for this activity.

Establish a common high-resolution satellite derived forest and land cover/land use database

A common forest and land cover/land use database derived from 10-20 m resolution satelliteimagery serve as a platform for a number of stakeholders in Liberia, but may also be used instratification of the forest inventory.

FDA should lead this activity, but in co-operation with EPA; Ministry of Lands, Mines andEnergy and Department of Agriculture.

Recurrent forest monitoring to be implemented A stratified national coverage every 1-3 years used for change mapping and stratified field

sampling is proposed as an efficient and cost-efficient method to monitor Liberian forests . FDAshould be responsible for this activity.

Set up of a spatial data infrastructure - “clearinghouse” A common spatial data infrastructure for geographical information is urgently required for

making data exchange easier and also accessible for all stakeholders. We propose that LISGIS isappointed as lead organisation for this activity.




Re-current WG on spatial data with clear objectives Working groups on spatial data need to continue. During the Liberia Forest Initiative regular

meetings were held with different stakeholders. This is very valuable in order to discuss

geospatial data, but need a clear objective in the long run. We propose that this approach with thecommon spatial data infrastructure combined with the “one-stop-shop” would make a platformfor these WG meetings where also NGOs and private companies should participate as geospatialdata is a prerequisite also for corporate sustainability. We propose LISGIS to be the leadorganisation for this activity.

Strengthen the IT/GIS capacity at FDA The IT/GIS capacity at FDA needs to be strengthened. The group dealing with IT/GIS should be

at least ten people with unique competence in geospatial data. As the Liberian forests are used for

many purposes the need for geospatial data from FDA is large. A core team at FDA is nowhandling the geospatial data, but as this data is very important we suggest that the IT/GIScapacity at FDA should be enlarged. The group of today is sensitive if the staff leaves and to broaden the platform for handling geospatial data would be beneficial. It might be considered torecruit young people from forest universities or technical forest institutes. The currentcollaboration of FDA with SGS/LiberFor with subsequent hand over of trained staff is anexcellent example.

As far as we understand the co-operation with national universities or technical institutes could beimproved in order to secure technical expertise for the future. Much of the geospatial data

handling is technical and new methods and tools are constantly evolving. This may be improvedwith close co-operation with institutions involved in Earth Sciences and also improve comingrecruitment.

Ensuring high quality of geospatial information and metadata

The establishment of a spatial data infrastructure (cf. recommendation no. 4) will further improveand facilitate the analysis and exchange of geospatial data. It is important that all geospatial datafollows standardised quality criteria and contains descriptive ISO conform metadata, includinginformation on the thematic content, attribute definition, producer, copyrights, cartographic

projection, vintage, location, and more. This is a prerequisite for efficient data management andexchange among various stakeholders.




minimum mapping units. With a more detailed forest mapping perhaps forest land use classesshall be more oriented to describe forest biotopes considering for instance forest conditions thatvary with the elevation and climate together with forest types likes mangrove and cut or burnt

forests.

Annex VI

Overview Of Forest Resources Analyses



Annex VI

Overview Of The Principal Forest Resources Analyses of Liberia

During the last forty-four years there have been a number of attempts to estimate the area of Liberia underforest cover and its potential for timber production. “Potential” has been looked at both in terms of totalarea of forest suitable for commercial logging as well as estimates of sustainable yield, either undersustained yield or sustainable forest management constraints. Table 1 summarizes all of the eightavailable analyses and their conclusions on these forest area and permissible harvest levels. The recentGeoVille Group and Metria AB, 2011 review is not included as its objective was not to develop suchestimates. Below, is a summary from the three principal forest resources analyses of Liberia that reliedon primary data (ground-based inventory, remote sensing, and/or a combination of both).

A 1968 inventory carried out with assistance of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany(Sachtler, 1968) − the most detailed on-the-ground inventory to date − concluded that 43 years ago

there was a total of 2.5 million ha of closed forest but that only 50% of it was exploitable forcommercial production. The other 50% was categorized as unsuited due either to a species mix poorin marketable timber or to terrain being too rough such that logging would be difficult and often nolonger profitable. The suitable forest was described as being located in the southeast (1.1 million ha)and south (0.1 million ha). What few suitable areas remained in the northwest were reported as being

subject to heavy logging and population pressure (in-migration and shifting cultivation) and thereforeunlikely to be viable options for commercial production within a few short years. The 2004 Bayol and Chevalier exercise − upon which the FDA’s current forest allocation strategy is

based − reviewed the 5.95 million ha under concession arrangements at that time. In their review,they considered only 3.43 million ha of “open and closed dense forest” as being potentially suitablefor production forestry; 90% of which was contained within the existing concessions. Within theconcessioned forests, they concluded that only 1.04 million ha maintained “ important forest cover,which seems to remain in a good state” and thus was “harvesting possible”. Another 1.59 million ha

of the concessioned forests were classified as being forests “where intensive logging took placeduring the last years” and therefore prior to any further concessioning or logging were “assessmentrequired ” forests, i.e., field level surveys were necessary on timber stocks, biodiversity, ecologicalh d i l i b f d i i ld b k Gi h i i i

Annex VI

Overview Of Forest Resources Analyses



Table 1. Forest resources of Liberia: Forty-four years of estimates of forest area and sustainabletimber yields

Source Methodology Forest Area Sustainable Yield Other

Sachtler1968 Ground-basedsampling/inventory

Closed forest = 2.5 million ha Exploitable closed forest = 1.25 million ha Southeast: 1.1 million ha South: 0.1 million Northeast: disappearing -shifting cultivation,

logging & increased processing capacity, population pressure.

Exportable timber: 5 - 15.5 m3/ha for trees >

60 cm dbh 9 - 25.9 m3/ha of trees >

40 cm DBH

90% exploitable forests in south-east 75% closed forest in nat’l forests 50% of closed forest unexploitable; poor in marketable

timber or terrain too rough. 40% exploitable outside nat’l forests

FAO, 1984 FDA data & othersecondary sources

Forest estate: 4.85 million ha Undisturbed productive: 1.7 million ha Disturbed productive: 2.18 million ha Commercially exploitable: 1.33 million ha

(32% logged over)

Commercial timber: Undisturbed: 15 m3/ha Disturbed: 5 m3/ha

57% exploitable forest in southeast 25% exploitable forest in northwest 17% exploitable forest in “Others” 1% exploitable forest in north

Bayol &Chevalier,2004

Remote sensing(Landsat, SPOT);no field validation

Forest Area: Agriculture degraded forest: 0.95 million ha Open dense forest: 1.01 million ha Closed dense forest: 2.42 million haExisting concessions, excluding proposed protected

areas: “Harvest possible” areas: 1.04 million ha “Assessment required”, logged areas: 1.59 million

ha “Nonforest objectives, to be cancelled”,

agriculture-affected: 0.45 million ha

Estimate at 3-5 m3/ha fortrees > 60 cm dbh based onexisting studies and FDAhistoric information

2001-2004 imagery for forest area estimation 10 km2 resolution too coarse for regional or local level

analyses & decisionmaking 100% assumed (FDA) to be “forest estate”: 4.4 million

ha Nat’l Forest Mgmt. Strategy estimates 2.75 million ha

forest suitable for commercial exploitation. Study recommendation: potentially 2.62 million ha of

forest concession, of which 61% intensively logged inrecent years & requires prior assessment.

Area estimates incl. exclusion areas (community use,environmental protection)

Hess &Trainer,2006

Ground-basedsampling/inventory

Utilized Bayol & Chevalier (2004) assessment; didnot estimate forest area

Volume above cut limits: 92 m3/ha for commercial

and non-commercialspecies >60 cm dbh; 15%= 13.8 m3/ha

10 m3/ha for obligatoryspecies trees >60 cm dbh;15% = 1.5 m3/ha.

30 m3/ha for futureobligatory species >60 cm

dbh; 15% = 4.5 m3/ha

FDA allows harvest of up to 15% of Reliable MinimumEstimate (RME) of volume > 60 cm dbh. “Volumeabove cut limits” equivalent to RME.

Obligatory species (established species) seriouslyoverused; only limited resource of valuable species areleft.

Future obligatory species (lesser known species) have to be developed for future timber market. Comparison of two main forested regions (NW & SE)

shows NW (Bomi region) closed dense forests heavily

logged in past; volume above cut limits 58% of SE.Christie,Steininger,Juhn and

Remote sensing(Landsat,validation with

4.52 million ha of forest 1998 – 2001 satellite imagery for forest area estimation 76% of forest within 5km of a road.

76% f f t l b t 1986 d 2000 t k l

Annex VIIWood Industry Recommendations

Annex VII



95

World Bank Diagnostic Trade Integration Study

Wood Industry Recommendations




96




97

Annex VIIIForest Sector Partners’ Support




Bi-lateral Support

European Union is supporting the VPA implementation in Liberia. Specifically, the VPA will provideassistance to develop systems and institutional capacity for VPA implementation. Approximately €15million would be committed by the EU and DFID for, broadly, development of laws and regulations, sectordialogue, and transparency mechanisms. Some of the specific actions contemplated include: (i) support tocurrent chain of custody with addition of monitoring and reporting on contract compliance; (ii) a permanentconcession review mechanism and monitoring system with the National Bureau of Concessions; (iii)technical assistance for review of legal frameworks and support to legal reforms processes; (iv) stakeholder

participation, communications, information-sharing and other transparency mechanisms; (v) a national-level, multi-sectoral, stakeholder committee)

GIZ is currently developing a program for support to GoL’s concession monitoring system, thru the National Bureau of Concessions.

Swedish SIDA has expressed its interest in supporting community forestry in Liberia and has sent severalmissions to investigate opportunities for engagement. SIDA is also working with government on landtenure and property rights and supports the work of the Land Commission through a grant to UN Habitat.

USAID has a number of activities of interest in the forest sector. Recently they have completed a five yearLand Rights and Community Forestry Program (LCRFP) in support of community forestry to 1) developand strengthen the legal and policy framework needed to support community management, sustainable useof natural resources, and biodiversity conservation in forests; 2) craft and improve land tenure and propertyrights systems for forest lands to secure rights for natural resource users and owners; and 3) enhancemanagement of community forests and conservation of their biodiversity to increase economic opportunitiesfor communities and other user groups. The project supported a number of efforts at the national level,including: (i) development of the Community Rights Law, drafting of the law’s regulations and building theawareness and institutional capacity of communities and the FDA to manage forests in a mannerconforming to this law; (ii) assistance in the development of the Land Commission and its work in ruralland issues; (iii) institutional assessment for the reform and restructuring of the University of Liberia’sCollege of Agric lt re and Forestr (CAF UL) and the Forestr Training Instit te (FTI); and s pport for the




the country. More specifically, it is to (i) expand educational and institutional capacity to improveenvironmental awareness, natural resource management, biodiversity conservation and environmentalcompliance; (ii) improve community-based forest management leading to more sustainable practices andreduced threats to biodiversity in target areas in Nimba County; and (iii) enhance community-basedlivelihoods derived from sustainable forest-based and agriculture-based enterprises in target areas in NimbaCounty.

Multi-lateral Support

African Development Bank (AfDB) has carried out an assessment of potential support to the forest sector inLiberia. Potential areas for support that were identified included a Forestry Development project that wouldinclude institutional capacity building support for FDA and and Forest Ecosystems ConservationProgramme. No commitments from either GoL or AfDB have been made at this time and it is uncertain if

any such forest sector (loan) projects will result.World Bank has been providing direct support to the reforms and development of the Liberian Forest Sectorsince 2004. This support, which has been coordinated with other development partners and strategicallyaligned with government priorities for the forest sector within the framework of the “Three C's”(Community, Conservation, and Commercial), has comprised technical assistance and a number of projectsand programs, including: (a) three GEF grants for protected areas system: the Sapo National Park project(P076740 / TF55668) closed in September 2010; COPAN, the Consolidation of the Protected Area Network project (P105830 / TF92010), under implementation; and EXPAN, the Expansion of the Protected Area

Network project (P114580), under implementation.; (b) the Development Forestry Sector ManagementProject (P104287/TF057090) and the associated PROFOR and FLEG support to the Chain of Custody(TF096170/TF096154), that all closed in December 2011; (c) the CHYAO Community Forestry grant(TF099452); and (d) the Forest Carbon Partnership (FCPF) preparatory phase activities for the FCPFReadiness Plan.

Currently the World Bank is preparing a US$ 3.6 million FCPF grant for REDD+ Readiness Preparation is being prepared (for FY 2013 – FY2016) to support Liberia to design a socially and environmentally soundnational strategy to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) and to develop a

reference scenario of emissions from deforestation and degradation that takes into account nationalcircumstances. Also, a US$10 million IDA credit is in the identification stage and under discussion withGoL. Notionally the project would be directed at the community forestry subsector. Other relevant support




International Technical Assistance

FAO is providing funding through small grants for a number of initiatives in the forest sector. It supportsthe creation of a national forest platform to increase the inclusion of all actors in the sector as well as

increasing coordination and communication at both the national and county level. It is also funding a pilotactivity to improve community-based monitoring of logging concessions to ensure that sustainablemanagement practices are being followed by logging concession holders. It is also provides assistance tomulti-stakeholder fora to support VPA legality assurance and law enforcement systems. In the pipeline is aTCP for Forest Management Information.

The International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO) is working with the FDA to improve curricula atthe Forestry Training Institute and to develop appropriate reforestation and afforestation policies forLiberia, both of which could involve community forestry support under curriculum development or for

forestry plantations. International NGOs

Conservation International (CI) has undertaken a low-carbon economy analysis that considers the impactsof various policy scenarios to mitigate climate change and provide benefits for Liberians. To test the low-carbon economy strategy, field-level pilots are being developed in the East Nimba Nature Reserve (ENNR).An evaluation of the economic benefits to human populations that the ecosystem services from ENNR provide (including carbon sequestration, biodiversity, non-timber forest products, water, and theconservation economy benefits resulting from Nimba's Protected Area status) is being carried out. Thisanalysis is to inform regional and national policymakers of the tradeoffs that are involved in protected areamanagement, using ENNR as an example of how those tradeoffs play out in a specific landscape.

Fauna & Flora International (FFI) worked with FDA around Sapo National Park to establish a managementstructure at the park and develop community forests in communities located on the park’s periphery. FFIhas also supported review of forestry sector legislation to incorporate and balance community, conservationand commercial interests. A bush meat study is nearing completion that will present more detailedinformation about current harvesting pressures and the involvement of communities in this trade. TheEuropean Union has been a lead donor for these activities and may provide additional funding to FFI tocontinue this work.

International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) funded community resource management activities




Liberia Democratic Institute (LDI) has also worked with communities impacted by commercial loggingconcessions and assists them in negotiations with these operators and the FDA. LDI is involved inadvocacy for increased stakeholder involvement in the natural resources sectors and in defense ofcommunity rights vis-à-vis commercial concessions.

Sustainable Development Institute (SDI), a Liberian NGO that promotes equity in the sharing of benefitsderived from natural resource exploitation, has been working with communities impacted by commerciallogging concessions and assisting them to negotiate with these actors on a more equal footing. SDI hasalso provided training for local people to participate in decisionmaking processes related to naturalresources. SDI participates in national discussions about forest management, including communityforestry, and publishes information about the impact of forest management on communities.

Annex IX

Sanctions Lifting +6 National Conference:Establishing a Roadmap for the Forest Sector



Groups Critical issues Short term Priorities Long term priorities

Land tenureand Use Require Coordination

Issue Moratorium on new concessions and other land use allocations;

Conduct data gathering on all existing allocations; Create map of all concessions and other land use allocation;

Establish an inter-ministerial council to work on the land tenure process;

Task force established to carry out this work ; and

Evaluation and sensitization

Compliance review;

Development/vetting of management plans,strategies, policies on existing allocationsaccording to Liberian laws;

Initiating the adjudication;

Create concession policy; and

Continuing education process

Validation Review the entire validation process for all contract types(FMC,PUP &

TSC Community, Protected areas and Forests Conduct inventories of the forest areas

(Protected/Commercial/ Communities)

Pre-Qualification Review the current status of all pre-qualified companies and update the

listing Due diligence conducted to ensure that companies

are financially and technically capable

Fiscal Regime Government to review existing taxes especially bid premiums and reach a

decision Redesign the fiscal obligation in forest allocation

Legal Framework

Review the legal frame work related to allocation of forest contracts

Amend laws and draft new regulations whererequired

Allocation

Social Agreement Review all current social agreements and draft clear guidelines for

discussion and implementation Incorporate SA implementation in the BID

document.

Capacity Building

Community understanding Government agencies perform regulatory roles

Civil Society performs monitoring roles

UL and FTI to carry out training

Fiscal Regime AndRevenue Sharing

Streamline bureaucracy in disbursing funds

Reduce cost of board operation

Ensure timely management disbursement of funds for communities

Revisit bid premium

AdministrativeOversight

PUP administration policy framework on issuance of PUP

Revisit social agreement Contracts (FMG) performance

Legal RegulatoryFramework

PUP laws/regulations relating to community participation and resourcemanagement be revised

Actions taken on non-performance contracts(FMG, TSG)

Participation andcollaboration

Community participation in crafting social agreement be prioritized Regular and timely informed

Revenue and

Operational planning

Transparency and Regular publication of contracts work plans, and reports in the forest sector

Full disclosure of revenue receipts (community)