Independent Forest Monitoring in the Congo Basin

Taking Stock and Thinking Ahead

2. What Have Independent Forest Monitors Achieved in the Past 20 Years in the Congo Basin?

To assess what independent forest monitors have achieved since 2000 in the Congo Basin, forestry experts and lawyers from the Field Legality Advisory Group (FLAG)8 carried out in-depth research.

2.1 Methodology – Data Compilation

FLAG identified 11 organizations that carry out IFM in the Congo Basin as one of their main activities and publish their IFM reports online (Figure 6). FLAG’s analysis includes mandated and external IFM reports from either independent missions or missions conducted jointly with national inspectors from the ministry. This analysis covers reports available on IFM organization websites, on the Open Timber Portal,9 or from other relevant online sources at the time of analysis, in June 2020.

Table 1 | List of Organizations Whose Mission Reports Have Been Analyzed

Organization

Country

Number of Mission Reports Published between 2001 and 2020

Number of Mission Reports Analyzed

Global Witness

Cameroon

123

123

REM

Cameroon

91

90

AGRECO

Cameroon

65

58

FODER

Cameroon

67a

64

REM

Congo

45

45

CAGDF

Congo

21

21

REM

DRC

5

5

OGF

DRC

13

12

CIEDD

CAR

6

6

Conservation Justice

Gabon

39

39

Brainforest

Gabon

7

6

Total

482

469b

Notes: a. Reports compiled for FODER also include reports produced by FODER’s partners through the Standardized External Independent Monitoring System. b. Thirteen reports were not analyzed because the reports were either missing (six) or not focused on logging (six), or the file was corrupted (one). Abbreviations: DRC = Democratic Republic of the Congo; Congo = Republic of the Congo; CAR = Central African Republic; REM = Resource Extraction Monitoring; FODER = Forêts et Développement Rural; CAGDF = Cercle d’Appui à la Gestion Durable des Forêts; OGF = Observatoire de la Gouvernance Forestière; CIEDD = Centre pour l’Information Environnementale et le Développement Durable.

Source: Based on raw data for years 2001–2020 from Global Witness, REM, AGRECO, FODER, CAGDF, OGF, CIEDD, Conservation Justice, and Brainforest, and modified/aggregated by the Field Legality Advisory Group (FLAG).

FLAG extracted observations reported by IFM organizations in the 469 mission reports and compiled them in a Microsoft Excel file, with one line for each observation. For each line, FLAG recorded the following: year of mission, country, name of IFM organization reporting, name of company visited by IFM organization, title of report, type and name of forest title visited,10facts observed, category of observations,11recommendation made by IFM organization, focus area of this recommendation,12and measures taken by law enforcement officer.

2.2 Methodology – Data Analysis

FLAG analyzed the following variables, using Excel pivot tables:

  • Number of forest titles visited by IFM organizations: A given forest title visited five times by IFM organizations counted as one forest title visited.
  • Number of visits per year (or frequency of visits): Number of visits IFM organizations carried out per year in the various forest titles, and in other forests (Forêts du Domaine National). For example, IFM organizations conducting three missions in a single forest title and visiting two other forests not covered by a forest title in the same year would total five visits for that year.
  • Total number of missions: Cumulative total of all missions carried out by an organization. A mission can cover several titles or areas. The identification of a mission is based on three elements: period, team, and official authorization for the mission, or mission order. When these three elements are common in different reports, these reports are considered to result from the same mission. FLAG counted the number of missions manually.
  • Number of observations and associated recommendations: Each observation and recommendation in a given report was counted only once.
  • Breakdown of observations and recommendations by category and focus area: FLAG used the categories of observations and recommendation focus areas as described in the section above.

2.3 Methodology – Limitations

This analysis does not pretend to be exhaustive, nor does it cover all the IFM mission reports produced in the Congo Basin between 2001 and 2020. It also does not include other types of reports produced by these organizations.13This paper is based on a preliminary analysis that could be expanded by analyzing other types of reports and interviewing IFM organizations. Moreover, some of the analysis in Section 2.4 was impossible to conduct for countries other than Cameroon. Indeed, we were unable to access reliable data on the number of attributed forest titles in Gabon, Congo, the DRC, and CAR from 2007 to 2020 because no such compilation exists at this point. In the future, governments and civil society should work together to record the number of forest titles quarterly to allow for consistent analysis at the regional level.

2.4 What Has Been Accomplished?

IFM organizations studied by FLAG published a total of 482 investigation reports between 2001 and 2020 (Figure 6), representing an average of 24 reports per year. However, the number of investigation reports varied by year, reaching a high of 52 in 2003 and a low of 4 in 2020, when work ended for several grants funding IFM and the COVID-19 pandemic began, preventing fieldwork worldwide.

Figure 6 | Number of IFM Reports Published by Year and Country, 2001–2020

Source: Based on raw data for years 2001–2021 from Global Witness, REM, AGRECO, FODER, CAGDF, OGF, CIEDD, Conservation Justice, and Brainforest, and modified/aggregated by the Field Legality Advisory Group (FLAG).

Note: Abbreviations: IFM = independent forest monitoring; Congo = Republic of the Congo; CAR = Central African Republic; DRC = Democratic Republic of the Congo; Congo = Republic of the Congo; REM = Resource Extraction Monitoring; FODER = Forêts et Développement Rural; CAGDF = Cercle d’Appui à la Gestion Durable des Forêts; OGF = Observatoire de la Gouvernance Forestière; CIEDD = Centre pour l’Information Environnementale et le Développement Durable.

Overall, more reports were published in the early years of IFM, when fewer IFM organizations were active and fewer countries covered. The number of reports published depends on the number of missions and varies depending on funding received by IFM organizations, and other factors such as the presence or absence of political obstacles in various countries. Figures 6 and 7 show that the missions organized between 2001 and 2020 were not equally spread across the Congo Basin.

Figure 7 | Number of Missions from 2001 to 2020, by Country and IFM Type

Note: Abbreviations: DRC = Democratic Republic of the Congo; Congo = Republic of the Congo; CAR = Central African Republic; REM = Resource Extraction Monitoring; FODER = Forêts et Développement Rural; CAGDF = Cercle d’Appui à la Gestion Durable des Forêts; OGF = Observatoire de la Gouvernance Forestière; CIEDD = Centre pour l’Information Environnementale et le Développement Durable.

Source: Based on raw data for years 2001–2020 from Global Witness, REM, AGRECO, FODER, CAGDF, OGF, CIEDD, Conservation Justice, and Brainforest, and modified/aggregated by the Field Legality Advisory Group (FLAG).

Cameroon, where IFM began, is also the country that had the highest number of IFM missions completed from 2001 to 2020. The proportion of forest titles covered by IFM missions in Cameroon varied over time (Figures 8 and 9). Although these data were not available for other countries, we could access the total number of forest titles in Cameroon for years 2007 to 2020. The following graphs show the proportion of active forest management units (FMUs) and active sales of standing volume visited as part of IFM missions between 2007 and 2020. FMUs and sales of standing volume are two types of forest titles that exist in Cameroon; others include community forests, communal forests, and small titles.

Figure 8 | Proportion of Active Forest Management Units Visited as Part of IFM Missions between 2007 and 2020 in Cameroon

Note: Abbreviation: IFM = independent forest monitoring.

Source: Based on MINFOF and WRI (2017) as well as raw data for years 2001–2021 from Global Witness, Centre pour le Développement Local Alternatif (CEDLA), Ecosystèmes et Développement (ECODEV), Programme d'Appui à l'Élevage et de Préservation de la Biodiversité autour des Aires Protégées au Cameroun (PAPEL), Resource Extraction Monitoring (REM), AGRECO, and Forêts et Développement Rural (FODER), modified/aggregated by the Field Legality Advisory Group (FLAG) and World Resources Institute.

Between 2007 and 2013, mandated IFM organizations visited an average of 14 percent of active FMUs per year in Cameroon. Mandated IFM in Cameroon came to a halt in 2013. Between 2015 and 2020, external IFM organizations visited an average of 2.5 percent of active FMUs per year (Figure 8). These figures are not surprising as it is more difficult to access forest titles without an official mandate.

Figure 9 | Proportion of Active Sales of Standing Volume (Ventes de Coupes) Visited as Part of IFM Missions between 2007 and 2020 in Cameroon

Note: Abbreviation: IFM = independent forest monitoring.

Source: Based on MINFOF and WRI (2017) as well as raw data for years 2001–2020 from Global Witness, Centre pour le Développement Local Alternatif (CEDLA), Ecosystèmes et Développement (ECODEV), Programme d’Appui à l’Élevage et de Préservation de la Biodiversité autour des Aires Protégées au Cameroun (PAPEL), Resource Extraction Monitoring (REM), AGRECO, and Forêts et Développement Rural (FODER), modified/aggregated by the Field Legality Advisory Group (FLAG) and World Resources Institute.

Between 2007 and 2012, the proportion of sales of standing volume covered by IFM missions varied between 0 percent in 2008, 2009, and 2016 and 61 percent in 2012 (Figure 9).

Overall, more titles were visited in Cameroon before 2013, when IFM was carried out by mandated IFM organizations (Figure 10). From 2017 to 2020, the EU-funded project Citizen Voices for Change amplified external IFM in Cameroon, increasing the coverage of forest titles by IFM. However, the proportion of forest titles visited by IFM organizations dropped in 2020 due to the end of the project and start of the COVID-19 pandemic (Figure 10).

Figure 10 | Number of Forest Titles Visited by Mandated and External IFM Organizations between 2001 and 2013 in Cameroon

Notes: The category “other titles” represents forest reserves. The category “small titles” includes timber recovery authorizations (autorisation de récupération de bois; ARB), timber removal authorization (autorisation d’enlèvement de bois; AEB), special timber removal authorization (autorisation spéciale d’enlèvement de bois; ASEB), rescue cut (coupe de sauvetage; CS), operating timber license (permis d’exploitation de bois d’œuvre; PEBO), salvage cutting (coupe de récupération), and public auction sales certificates (certificats de ventes aux enchères publiques; CVEP). More information on how forest titles work in Cameroon can be found at https://www.timbertradeportal.com/countries/cameroon/#legality-profile. Abbreviations: IFM = independent forest monitoring; FMU = forest management unit; UTB is the French abbreviation for unité de transformation du bois, meaning a sawmill.

Source: Based on MINFOF and WRI (2017) as well as raw data for years 2001–2020 from Global Witness, Centre pour le Développement Local Alternatif (CEDLA), Ecosystèmes et Développement (ECODEV), Programme d’Appui à l’Élevage et de Préservation de la Biodiversité autour des Aires Protégées au Cameroun (PAPEL), Resource Extraction Monitoring (REM), AGRECO, and Forêts et Développement Rural (FODER), modified/aggregated by the Field Legality Advisory Group (FLAG) and World Resources Institute.

To our knowledge, this is the first time that an analysis has been conducted of IFM activities over the past 20 years in the Congo Basin. While this study is not exhaustive, it shows that the ability of IFM organizations to monitor a significant share of forest titles in Cameroon has varied by forest type and over time due to changes in the conditions for IFM. An important takeaway is the difficulty in accessing the number of forest titles of each type in the various countries for each year. Accessing IFM reports was easier but required an extensive compilation effort that was extremely time consuming. Therefore, a streamlined process is needed to regularly record and compile the content of IFM reports and the number of forest titles for each forest type in each country.

Summarizing accomplishments of IFM requires doing more than looking only at the number of missions or the percentage of forest titles covered. Understanding the key outcomes achieved by IFM organizations is equally important, especially in a context where IFM organizations produce reports based on data analysis in addition to missions.

2.5 Examples of IFM Outcomes

Since 2000, IFM organizations have achieved major outcomes in the Congo Basin (CIDT 2021; FAO 2021). While the purpose of this section is not to list them all, the examples here illustrate the types of outcomes achieved:

  • In the DRC, Ministerial Order 072/CAB/MIN/EDD/ORCE/00/AAN/2018 was adopted on November 12, 2018, building on several observations from Observatoire de la Gouvernance Forestière (OGF). This order clarified and improved implementation rules for the social agreements established between logging companies and local communities. The order helped protect the communities’ socioeconomic rights and ensure that they receive the revenues and infrastructures they are entitled to.
  • In the DRC, forest concession contracts breaching the moratorium14were withdrawn. IFM information compiled led to an audit of the attribution process of these titles by the Inspectorate General of Finance at the request of the prime minister and to a forthcoming EU-funded legal review.
  • In Cameroon, the results of mandated IFM led the ministry to suspend the activities of the company Société Forestière Hazim in 2000, and to fine the company nearly four million euros in 2002 (Greenpeace 2015).
  • In Cameroon, CIDT and FODER (2021) reported that “between 2019 and 2020, authorities responded to 76 per cent of SNOIE denunciations. IFM reports have led to timber seizures, temporary suspensions of logging permits, the opening of legal proceedings against companies for unauthorized logging, formal notices for illegal logging of communal forests—even sanctions against MINFOF [Ministry of Forests and Wildlife] agents that were complicit in illegal logging activities.” Furthermore, external IFM organizations joined forces and advocated for the improvement of legality in the domestic market leading to the signature on December 15, 2020, of a ministerial order15to regulate the use of legal wood in public procurement (CIDT 2021). Overall, external IFM activities contributed to the collection by MINFOF of approximately $125,000 in fees and taxes between 2016 and 2019 (CIDT 2019).
  • In CAR, IFM organizations helped establish a platform that includes representatives of government agencies, the police, and the cabinets of the prime minister and the president. This platform focuses on tackling environmental crime related to forests and fauna. The IFM organization CIEDD helped train platform members on forest laws and the efforts required to pursue forest crimes (CIDT 2021).
  • The IFM work of Conservation Justice, a Gabonese NGO, triggered 15 arrests during the ALEFI project (Infos Gabon 2019).

These significant outcomes were achieved despite many challenges that are detailed in the next section.

Start reading