Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Promouvoir la gestion multi-usagesdans les concessions forestières d’Afrique centrale : modalités pratiques et prix à payer
Guillaume Lescuyer, Patrice Levang, Mikhail
Mvongo, Boris Elanga, Tito Kakundika, Donald Iponga, Jean-Marie Kahindo
1st International Conference on Biodiversity in the Congo BasinKisangani, 9 juin 2014
Background
A current assertion: logging concessions prevent communitiesfrom increasing their livelihoods by limiting access and use of natural areas and resources (Counsell et al. 2007)
Forest Management Plans must frame and restrict local uses of forest resources; but often with little enforcement (Vandenhaute& Doucet 2006, Lescuyer et al. 2012)
A specific focus on NTFPs:
• To what extent do they contribute to local livelihoods?
• Are they extracted from the logging concession area ?
• Does NTFP gathering often generate conflicts with the concesionaire ?
• How management of logging concession can be improved to maximise the benefit of local population ?
Map of the sites
Process and methods1. Review of forest laws: definition of Multiple Forest Management
2. How MFM is defined into the Forest Management Plans
3. Socio-economic surveys (5 villages per concession):
• Quick census and focus groups (for men and for women) for generalsocio-economic charasteristics
• Confidential interviews with key users
• Participatory mapping of the areas used by communities (and ex post groundtruth control)
• Quarterly based monitoring surveys of the (1) incomes and expenses, (2) uses of forest resources with the sampled households
4. Identification of actual land use conflicts in the concession and of potential innovative uses
5. Conflicts resolution discussed with each stakeholder and thenwith all stakeholders
6. Financial evaluation of the costs of MFM and design of potentialincentives
NTFP gathering areas in the concessions (Cameroon & DRC)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Inside FMU
Outside FMU0%
10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Kaz
om
bo
Agb
oka
nga
Maw
eda
bab
on
guen
ab
atsé
po
bab
um
djé
bat
sian
yoka
kaye
teb
asay
o
Shifting cultivation areas in the concessions (Cameroon & DRC)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Outside FMU
Inside FMU
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Chainsaw milling areas in the concessions (Cameroon & DRC)
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Outside FMU
Inside FMU
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Harvested NTFPs: main harvestedspecies
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Ata
nga
(G
AB
Bay
)
Ata
nga
(G
AB
CEB
)
Cat
erp
illar
(C
AM
su
d)
Cat
erp
illar
(D
RC
CFT
)
Cat
erp
illar
(D
RC
Co
t)
Co
ula
ed
ulis
(C
AM
su
d)
Co
ula
ed
ulis
(G
AB
Bay
)
Lian
as (
DR
C C
ot)
Mab
un
go (
DR
C C
FT)
Man
gun
gu (
DR
C C
FT)
Man
gun
gu (
DR
C C
ot)
Mar
anta
cea
(GA
B B
ay)
Mar
anta
cea
(GA
B C
EB)
Mo
abi (
CA
M e
st)
Mu
shro
om
(C
AM
est
)
Mu
shro
om
(C
AM
su
d)
Mu
shro
om
s (D
RC
Co
t)
Mu
shro
om
s (G
AB
Bay
)
Nku
mu
(G
AB
CEB
)
Pal
m (
CA
M e
st)
Pal
m (
CA
M s
ud
)
Pal
m (
GA
B B
ay)
Rap
hia
(C
AM
est
)
Snai
ls (
DR
C C
FT)
Snai
ls (
DR
C C
ot)
Wild
man
go (
CA
M e
st)
Wild
man
go (
CA
M s
ud
)
€/H
H/y
r
Consumed
Sold
Households annual incomes
36% 37%
42% 66%
32% 31%
13%
2%
5% 17%
5%
12%
3%
2%
1% 1%
0%
1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
CAM Est CAM Sud GAB CEB GAB Bay DRC CFT DRC Cot
Other incomes
Timber - income
NTFP - consumption
NTFP - income
Hunting - consumption
Hunting - income
Agriculture - consumption
Agriculture - income
Which are the actual conflicts?
No real conflict between NTFP harvesters and concessionaires:
• NTFP gathering areas are mainly in logging concessions
• A weak economic dependence on NTFPs
• Only a very few species to be used by both stakeholders
More concern on agricultural, charcoal and chainsaw loggingactivities within the concession:
• Illegal uses and informal sectors
• High economic dependence of rural households
• Land tenure issues
Forest management technical approaches are not adapted to mitigate these local pressures on forest resources. The systematic option is to delineate and exclude shifting cultivationareas.
Building consensual approaches: MFM proposals (in Cameroon)
Concession 1
Concession 2
Who pays? Wholosses ?
Redefining concessions’ boundaries for the benefit of agriculture Company, State
Provide high quality genetic material for plantations (outside the concession)
Company
Coordonate local development committees Company
Allowing artisanal chainsaw milling of the timber left in the concession
Communities
New fees to compensate damage to crops Company
Coordonating and controling subsistence hunting Communities
Technical support to shift from shifting cultivation to agroforestryplantations (inside the concession)
Company
Organizing local markets for agricultural commodities Company
Elaborating a CDM or REDD scheme Company, State
Writing an eco-touristic promotion plan State
Conclusion
Operationalizing MFM remains a challenge
• Forestry regulations do not adequately consider customary local uses (re. trade of forest products)
• Timber harvesting is the main purpose of logging entreprises: no legal or financial advantage to support MFM
• Not an issue for the Forestry Department
• Increasing pressure on concessions with agriculture being a driver of development in national strategies of « emergence »
Some prospects:
• Certification of legality or sustainability
• Ongoing revision of forest and land tenure codes in several Congo Basin countries
• Promotion of the « voix des sans voix » to balance industrial and political interest in the dabte about sustainable forestmanagement
