Presentation of WCF IFM project carried out in Cavally

Classified Forest from 2014

11TH MAY 2017 ACCRA, GHANA

AFRICA SUB-REGIONAL CONFERENCE ON

INDEPENDENT FOREST MONITORINGImproving Forest Governance through effective Independent

Forest Monitoring

THE INDEPENDANT FOREST MONITORING

APPROACH IN THE CONTEXT OF COTE D’IVOIRE

CLASSIFIED FORESTS

The forest context in Côte d’Ivoire: two different estates managed by two different administrations

1. Classified Forests

• Circumscribed and managed forests

• More than 200 Classified Forests

• Around 4.2 million hectares

• Under the responsibility of SODEFOR (State operator)

• Different management objectives: timber production, biodiversity

conservation, recreation, experimentation, etc.

2. Forests in the rural area

• State or private ownership of land

• Large areas allocated as timber concessions = PEF (Périmètres

d’Exploitation Forestière)

• Under the responsibility of the Forests and Waters Ministry (MINEF)

The forest context in Côte d’Ivoire: two different estates

• There are also 10

National Parks and

Wildlife Reserves

• Logging north of 8th

Parallel is prohibited to

prevent desertification

The forest context in Côte d’Ivoire: a strong degradation of the forest cover

Forest cover

• About 88% loss of the forest cover over a century

• Currently less than 2 million hectares

Main causes

• Agricultural development including in Classified Forests

• Weak sustainable practices in forest management

• Political crises leading to important illegal logging

Political commitments at the national level

• New Forestry Code adopted in 2014, implementing regulations currently

being drafted

• Numerous declarations from the Presidency that forests are a priority

(Etats généraux de la forêt November 2015, COP21…)

WCF, IFM and conservation

WCF, Wild Chimpanzee Foundation

• Objective from 2004: conservation of wild chimps and their habitat

• Area of action in Côte d’Ivoire: Western Côte d’Ivoire

Taï National Park

Cavally Classified Forest

WCF, IFM and conservation

WCF range of actions

• Surveillance against illegal land-clearing with governmental institutions and local

communities

• Eco-tourism activities with local communities

• Fauna inventories, bio-monitoring, participation to the drafting of forests

management plans

• Sensitization, environmental education (school programs, theatre) and capacity

building of local communities

IFM AS A COMPLEMENTARY TOOL to achieve conservation

objectivesSustainable management of forests is essential to biodiversity conservation

Cavally: a key Classified Forest for conservation

An important spot for biodiversity

• Important forest cover / but threat of illegal land-clearing for

agricultural purpose

• Endangered species (chimpanzees, pygmy hippopotamus, etc.)

• Taï-Sapo-Grebo forest complex (transboundary complex with Liberia)

A managed forest

• Jointly managed by SODEFOR and by a private operator (STBC) through

a partnership agreement (Convention de partenariat)

• Implication of WCF from 2008

Fauna inventory and bio-monitoring

Forest Management Plan drafting and financing

Supporting surveillance activities with local communities

Cavally: a key Classified Forest for conservation

La Forêt Classée du Cavally : • Département de Taï• 67 596 ha• Classée depuis 1954• Contiguë à 3 PEF

WCF and IFM: a pilot programme in Cavally

• First IFM project in Côte d’Ivoire

• A single Classified Forest as the target : Cavally

• Biodiversity hotspot

• Long-term implication of WCF in this forest

• Support from Forest Legality Advisory Group

• Funding from the FAO-UE FLEGT program (3 phases) – around 300 000

USD from 2014 to 2017

© WCF © WCF © WCF

WCF and IFM: a pilot programme in Cavally

• A mandated IFM approach

Gain knowledge of the peculiar management of Classified Forest

Access to all the forest’s management documents

Access to felling spots

• 1st parternship agreement (Convention de partenariat)

signed in April 2014 for a year

• 2nd partnership agreement signed in April 2016 for 3 years

Mandated IFM methodology

• Checking compliance with norms:

• Forest law and regulations;

• Cavally’s Management Plan;

• SODEFOR technical norms;

• SODEFOR procedures;

• The general partnership agreement between SODEFOR and the private operator

(‘Convention de partenariat’);

• The specific agreements (‘Conventions spécifiques’, felling licenses) between

SODEFOR and the private operator.

• Forest management documents analysis

• On-site missions

• Joint missions

• Autonomous missions

• WFC can be assisted by other entities

Mandated IFM methodology

Including local communities

• Improving forest governance with more knowledge and

transparency on forest management practices

• Renew synergies with the forest

administration

• IFM local communities’ members team

• 2 in-depth training sessions on forest

management and IFM (Nov 2014, June 2016) © WCF

Mandated IFM methodology

Including local communities

• IFM guiding manual drafted

• Always participating in WCF mandated IFM missions

• Good relay of local information on forest management

• Driving force to improve the participation of forest

managers for local development

• Might be able to develop their own IFM activities someday

… and national civil society organisations

• Introduction to IFM (June 2014)

• In-depth training pending

• Gained knowledge fuelling civil society participation in the VPA/FLEGT

process and Ivorian judicial reform process

Mandated IFM results: phase 1

• 6 IFM on-site missions in 3 felling areas (‘blocs’ / annual

allowable cut area)

• Initial difficulties

Reluctance from the operator

Important delays in obtaining management documents and authorisations to

go in the forest

© WCF © WCF

Mandated IFM results: phase 1

Numerous irregularities and infractions observed

• Logging outside authorised area;

• Issuing logging license in areas where the density threshold for the resource is

not reached;

• Logging and issuing authorisations for prohibited species;

• Circulation Slips not signed by the administration;

• Not marking tree stumps and incomplete markings on stumps and logs;

• Logging before the forest inventory and the issuance of necessary

authorisations;

• Logging without the presence of the monitoring agent from the

administration;

• No felling listing on-site;

• Etc.

No legal nor administrative sanctions imposed by SODEFOR

Both SODEFOR and the operator are responsible

Mandated IFM results : phase 1

Reports and reporting procedure

• Two reports drafted and published simultaneously

• Details of findings from document analyses and on-site

missions

• Series of recommendations

• 10 working-days delay for SODEFOR to proof-read the

reports

• Working sessions can later be held if necessary

• If divergent opinion from SODEFOR, it is inserted inside

boxes in the report

Mandated IFM results: ‘in between phase’

• No mandate from April 2015 to April 2016

• Nonetheless, analysis of management documents to assess whether there

has been any change following the IFM reports and recommendations

• Findings have been presented to SODEFOR in September 2016 (end of

phase 2)

• Report currently being drafted

Main findings

• A few improvements (markings, errors in documents corrected, Circulation

Slips are properly signed)

• Infractions and important irregularities still taking place (logging of

prohibited species, logging before the forest inventory, issuing logging

licenses where the resource threshold is not reached, no felling listing on-

site, etc.)

Mandated IFM results: phase 2

• New partnership agreement signed (April 2016) for 3 years

• Adoption of corrective measures

On the basis of IFM recommandation

Adoption by SODEFOR

Precision on the actions to be taken, who is responsible, what is the deadline, the

priority level, etc.

Mandated IFM results: phase 2

• Capacity building workshop for SODEFOR and the operator field agents

(June 2016)

• 3 IFM on-site missions (July – August)

• Findings presented to SODEFOR in September (overview meeting for

phase 2)

• First evaluation of corrective measures’ implementation rather

satisfying

• Weakness in annual management planning (activities other than

logging), more especially in the operator’s commitments for local

development

• 4 felling areas (blocs) have been logged instead of 1 as per the forest’s

Management Plan

• Reports currently being drafted

Mandated IFM results: phase 3

• Started in December

• 3 IFM on-site missions

• Revision of corrective measures (March 2017)

Reformulation + 13 new measures

• Joint activities with SODEFOR

Revision of technical management norms

Revision of law-enforcement procedures & capacity building

• BUT signature of two agreements pending from January 2017

1 agreement to extend IFM activities to 2 new Classified Forests

1 agreement to jointly implement activities

Conclusion: outcomes and specificities of Côte d’Ivoire IFM

• Tool for biodiversity conservation

• Mandated IFM (3 years)

• Inclusion of third party actor, local communities, which are not

mandated

• Two different forest administrations

• SODEFOR is as responsible for irregularities as the operator = difficulty

to pinpoint illegality / governance and sustainable management issues

• Slow change from corrective measures but zero sanctions against the

operator

• Technical role, commercial role, law enforcement role

• Timber coming from Cavally / Classified Forests is at high risk of

illegality – so far no relay with importers / EUTR implementation

Thank you for your attention!

Website: www.wildchimps.org

Regional Representation for Western

Africa

23 BP 238 Abidjan 23

Côte d’Ivoire

Email: abidjan@wildchimps.org

Chloé Viala

chloe.wildchimps@gmail.com

+225 79 66 04 20