State of The Forests 2021

The Forests of the Congo Basin
State Of The Forests 2021
Editors:
Richard Eba’a Atyi, François Hiol Hiol, Guillaume Lescuyer, Philippe Mayaux,
Pierre Defourny, Nicolas Bayol, Filippo Saracco, Dany Pokem, Richard Sufo Kankeu
and Robert Nasi
The Forests of the Congo Basin
State of the Forests 2021
Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR)

© 2022 Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR)
Content in this publication is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
(CC BY 4.0), http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
ISBN 978-602-xxx-xxx-x
DOI: 10.17528/cifor/008700
Eba’a Atyi R, Hiol Hiol F, Lescuyer G, Mayaux P, Defourny P, Bayol N, Saracco F, Pokem D, Sufo Kankeu R and Nasi R.
2022. The Forests of the Congo Basin: State of the Forests 2021. Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR.
Translation of: Eba’a Atyi R, Hiol Hiol F, Lescuyer G, Mayaux P, Defourny P, Bayol N, Saracco F, Pokem D, Sufo Kankeu
R et Nasi R. 2022. Les forêts du bassin du Congo : état des forêts 2021. Bogor, Indonésie : CIFOR.
Cover photo by Axel Fassio/CIFOR
CIFOR HQ
Jl. CIFOR
Situ Gede, Sindang Barang
Bogor Barat 16115
Indonesia
T +62-251-8622-622
E cifor@cgiar.org
cifor-icraf.org
We would like to thank all donors who supported this work through their contributions to the CGIAR Trust Fund:
https://www.cgiar.org/funders/
Any views expressed in this publication are those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of
CIFOR, the editors, the authors’ institutions, the financial sponsors or the reviewers.
This publication is dedicated
to the memory of our two colleagues,

Dr. François HIOL HIOL
and
Dr. Alain Marius NGOYA-KESSY
who contributed to the writing of this report but passed
away before its publication
Table of contents
Acronyms v
Acknowledgments xvii
Foreword xxii
Part 1: Central African forests: The state of forest resources and their management 1
1 Distribution of forest types and changes in their classification 3
2 The evolution of the wood subsector in the Congo Basin 35
3 Forest Plantations in Central Africa 77
4 Aligning international financial flows and the COMIFAC Convergence Plan 111
5 Implementation of REDD+ Activities in Central African Countries 137
Part 2: Congo Basin forests in international discourse 163
6 Mainstreaming the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) into Forest Management in Central
Africa: current status, challenges and improvement options 165
7 Central African countries’ international commitments on climate change 183
8 Addressing imported deforestation and zero deforestation commitments 213
Part 3: Emerging issues for Central African forests 239
9 Peatlands of the Central Congo Basin, current realities and perspectives 241
10 Emergence/Re-emergence of Infectious Agents and Epidemic Risks in Central African Forests 265
Part 4: Congo Basin forests: Issues and challenges 289
11 Land Use Planning and Impacts on the Sustainable Management of Forest Ecosystems in
Central Africa 291
12 Forest Landscape Restoration (FLR) in Central Africa 317
13 The rights of local and indigenous peoples in the light of forest and conservation policies 339
State of the Congo Basin Forests in 2021: Overall conclusions 367
Bibliography 385
iv | The forests of the Congo Basin

Acronyms
ABS Access and Benefit Sharing

ACHPR African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights
ADP Amsterdam Declarations Partnership
AfCFTA African Continental Free Trade Area
AFD Agence Française de Développement
AfDB African Development Bank
AFI Accountability Framework Initiative
AFOLU Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use
AFP Agence France Presse
AFR100 African Forest Landscape Restoration Initiative
AFTF Adaptation Fund and other Trust Funds
AGANOR Agence Gabonaise de Normalisation
AGB Above Ground Biomass
AGCD Administration Générale de la Coopération au Développement
(Belgian Administration for Development Cooperation)
AGEOS Gabonese Studies and Space Observations Agency
AIDS Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome
ALOS 2 Advanced Land Observing Satellite
AMS Agroproduce Management Services
ANAFOR Agence Nationale d’Appui au Développement Forestier
(National Forestry Development Agency, Cameroon)
ANOR Agence des Normes et de la Qualité (Standards and Quality Agency)
ANPN Agence Nationale des Parcs Nationaux du Gabon
(National Agency for National Parks of Gabon)
APN African Parks Network
APNC Avant-projets de Normes Camerounaises
(Preliminary drafts of Cameroonian Standards)
APOI African Palm Oil Initiative
AR6 Sixth IPCC assessment cycle reports
ARLI African Resilient Landscapes Initiative
ARSO African Organisation for Standardisation
ASD Association pour la Santé et le Développement
(Association for Health and Development)
ASSECCAF Association des Exportateurs du Cacao & Café de la RD Congo
(Association of Cocoa & Coffee Exporters of the DRC)
ATIBT Association Technique Internationale des Bois Tropicaux
(International Tropical Timber Technical Association)
BAU Business As Usual
BCS Broad Community Support
BDBV Ebola Bundibugyo
BEAU Bureau d’Etudes d’Aménagement et d’Urbanisme
(Planning and Urban Consulting Office)
BFAST Breaks for Additive Season and Trend
The forests of the Congo Basin | v

BGF Biodiversité et Gestion Durable des Forêts
(Biodiversity and Sustainable Forest Management)
BIOPAMA Biodiversity and Protected Areas Management
BMEL Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (Germany)
BMR Black Mountain Riders
BMU Federal Ministry of the Environment, Nature Conservation and
Nuclear Safety (Germany)
BMZ Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (Germany)
BOMBV Ebola Bombali
BOOMING GREEN Name of Forestry Entreprise
BSM Benefit-sharing mechanism
BSP Benefit Sharing Plan
BUR Biennial Update Report
CA Central Africa
CAFI Central African Forest Initiative
CAGR Compound Annual Growth Rate
CAISTAB Stabilization and Equalization Fund
CAR Central African Republic
CARPE Central Africa Regional Program for the Environment
CBD Convention on Biological Diversity
CBFF Congo Basin Forest Fund
CBFP Congo Basin Forest Partnership
CBG Name of forestry company
CBSL IP Congo Basin Sustainable Landscapes Impact Program
CBSP Partnership for Biodiversity Conservation
CCC Citizens’ Convention on Climate
CCI Community Contribution to Integration
CCICED China Council for International Cooperation on Environment
and Development
CCPA Companhia da Celulose e Papel de Angola
(Angola Pulp and Paper Company)
CCUP Companhia de Celulose do Ultramar Portugues
(Portuguese Overseas Cellulose Company)
CDC Cameroons Development Corporation
CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
CDF Congolaise de Développement Forestier
CDM Clean Development Mechanism
CDP Carbon Disclosure Project
CEA Economic Commission for Africa
CEB Compagnie Equatoriale des Bois
CEBAT Corridor Ecologique des Batéké (Batéké Plateau Ecological Corridor)
CED Center for Environment and Development
CEMAC Communauté Économique et Monétaire de l’Afrique Centrale
(Central African Economic and Monetary Community)
CER Certified emissions reduction
CF Community forests
CFA Collaboration for Forests and Agriculture
CFR Central Forest Reserves
vi | The forests of the Congo Basin

CGF Consumer Goods Forum
CHIRPS Climate Hazards Group InfraRed Precipitation with Station data
CHP Combined Heat and Power
CIB Congolaise Industrielle des Bois
CICOS Commission internationale du Bassin Congo-Oubangui-Sangha
(International Commission of the Congo-Oubangui-Sangha Basin)
CIF Climate Investment Fund
CIFOR Center for International Forestry Research
CIRAD French Agricultural Research Centre for International Development
CIRMF Centre International de Recherches Médicales de Franceville
CLD Comités locaux de développement (local development committees)
CNC COMIFAC National Coordination
CNES Centre national d’études spatiales (French Government Space Agency)
CNIAF Centre National D’Inventaire et d’Aménagement des Ressources Forestières
et Fauniques (National Centre for Forest and Fauna Inventory)
CoC Chain of custody
CODELT Conseil pour la Défense Environnementale par la Légalité et la Traçabilité
(Council for the Defense of the Environment through Legality and
Traceability)
CODHOD Comité des droits de l’Homme et Développement
(Human Rights and Development Committee)
COFOR Congolese subsidiary of the French Group FRM
COMIFAC Central African Forests Commission
COMTRADE United Nations Commodity Trade Statistics Database
CONAREF Commission nationale des réformes foncières
(National Land Reform Commission)
COP Conference of the Parties
CORSIA Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation
COVID 19/ SARS-CoV Corona Virus Disease 19
CP Convergence Plan
CSO Civil Society Organization
CSR Corporate Social Responsibility
CTCN Climate Technology Centre and Network
CTD Decentralized Territorial Community
DACEFI 2 Développement d’Alternatives Communautaires à l’Exploitation
Forestière Illégale.
DCRBL Domaine de la Chasse et Réserve de la Boumba Lumene
(Bombo Lumene Game Reserve)
DECAT Ministry of Decentralization and Spatial Planning (DRC)
DFI Development Financial Institutions
DFID Department for International Development (UK)
DIAF Direction des Inventaires et Aménagement Forestiers
(Directorate of Forest Inventories and Management)
DNE Designated National Entity
DRC Democratic Republic of the Congo
EBO-SURSY Viral haemorrhagic fever capacity building and surveillance
EBOV Ebola Virus
ECCAS Economic Community of Central African States
The forests of the Congo Basin | vii

ECO Eucalyptus du Congo
ECOFAC Ecosystèmes d’Afrique Centrale
(Central African Forest Ecosystem Programme)
EEDD Education à l’Environnement et au Développement Durable
(Environmental NGO)
EFC Eucalyptus Fibre Congo
EG Equatorial Guinea
EID Emerging infectious disease
EODA Environmental official development assistance
ERAIFT Regional Post-Graduate Training School on Integrated Management of
Tropical Forests and Lands
ER-P Emission Reduction Program
ERPA Emission Reductions Payment Agreement
ERPD Emission Reduction Program Document
ER-PIN Emission Reductions Program Idea Note
ESA European Space Agency
ESCO Name of coffee grower
ESG Environmental, social and governance
ESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment
ESMS Environmental and Social Management System
ETF Enhanced Transparency Framework
ETM Enhanced Thematic Mapper
EUTR European Union Timber Regulation
EVD Ebola virus disease
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FCDM Forest Canopy Disturbance Monitoring
FCPF Forest Carbon Partnership Facility
FENSED Femme Environnement, Santé et Education (National NGO)
FEODA Forestry and Environmental Official Development Assistance
FFEM Fonds Français pour l’Environnement Mondial
(French Global Environment Facility)
FIP Forest Investment Program
FLEGT Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade
FLR Forest Landscape Restoration
FMS Forest monitoring system
FMU Forest Management Unit
FODER Forêts et Développement Rural (National NGO)
FOLU Forestry and Other Land Use
FONAREDD REDD+ National Fund in RDC
FOREQUAL Project on Forest Inequality
FPIC Free, prior and informed consent
FRA Forest Ressources Assessment
FREL Forest Reference Emission Level
FRL Forest Reference Level
FRMi Forest Ressources Management International
FSC Forest Stewardship Council
GCCA+ Global Climate Change Alliance Plus
GCF Green Climate Fund
viii | The forests of the Congo Basin

GCLP Green Commodities Landscape programme
GDP Gross Domestic product
GEDI Global Ecosystem Dynamics Investigation
GEF Global Environment Facility
GFC Global Forest Coalition
GFG Global Forest Goals
GFW Global Forest Watch
GHG Greenhouse gas
GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit
(German Agency for International Cooperation)
GML Governing Multifunctional Landscapes in Sub-Saharan Africa
GNU Germany, Norway and United Kingdom Initiative
GoC Government of Cameroon
GOC Government of the Republic of the Congo
GoR Government of Rwanda
GoRDC Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo
GPFLR Global Partnership on Forest and Landscape Restoration
GPI Global Peatlands Initiative
GPSNR Global Platform for Sustainable Natural Rubber
GRSB Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef
GS Gold Standard
GSCCP Green Supply Chain Cooperation Platform
GSEZ Gabon Special Economic Zone
GTZ German Technical Cooperation Agency
HCR High Commissioner for Refugees
HCS High Carbon Stock
HCSA High Carbon Stock Approach
HCV High Conservation Value
HDI Human Development Index
HF Haemorrhagic fever
HFHD High Forest High Deforestation
HFLD High Forest Low Deforestation
HIV Human immunodeficiency virus
HLPF High-Level Political Forum for Sustainable Development
HTLV Human T-lymphotropic virus
HTP Humid Tropical Primary Forest
HTS Humid Tropical Secondary Forest
ICC International Coffee Council
ICCN Institut Congolais pour la Conservation de la Nature
(Congolese Institute for Nature Conservation)
ICENECDEV International Center for Environmental Education & Community
ICO International Coffee Organization
ICRAF World Agroforestry Research Centre
ICS Improved cookstoves
IDDRI Institut du Développement et des Relations Internationales
(Independent policy research institute and a multi-stakeholder
dialogue platform)
IDH Dutch Initiative for Sustainable Trade
The forests of the Congo Basin | ix

IDRC International Development Research Centre
IEC Information, education and communication
IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development
IFC International Finance Corporation
IFCO Industrie Forestière du Congo
IFO Industrie Forestière de Ouesso
IGE Institut des Géosciences de l’Environnement
(French Institute of Environmental Geosciences)
IIP Integrated Industrial Platforms
IKI International Climate Initiative
ILO International Labour Organization
INDC Intended Nationally Determined Contribution
INEAC Institut National pour l’Etude Agronomique du Congo Belge
(National Institute for Agronomic Study of the Belgian Congo)
IPBES Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and
Ecosystem Services
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IPLCs Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities
IRD Institut de recherche pour le développement
(French public research institution)
ISABU Institut des Sciences Agronomiques du Burundi
(Institute of Agricultural Sciences of Burundi)
ISAR Institut des Sciences Agronomiques du Rwanda
(Institute of Agricultural Sciences of Rwanda)
ISCC International Sustainability and Carbon Certification
ISFL Initiative for Sustainable Forest Landscapes
ISO International Organization for Standardization
ISPO Indonesian Sustainable Palm Oil
ITPC International Tropical Peatlands Center
ITTO International Tropical Timber Organization
IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature
IWC International Woodland Company
IWGIA International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs
JAXA Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency
JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency
JRC Joint Research Center (European Union)
KFW Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (German Development Bank)
KRC Karisoke Research Center
LAS Legality Assurance System
LCCS Land Cover Classification System
LDC Least Developed Countries
LDN TSP Land Degradation Neutrality Target Setting Programme
LDN Land Degradation Neutrality
LDNF Land Degradation Neutrality Fund
LFHD Low Forest High Deforestation
LFLD Low Forest Low Deforestation
LiDAR Light Detection and Ranging
LKTS Lesser Known Timber Species
x | The forests of the Congo Basin

LLOV Lloviu virus
LOI Letter of Intent
LPG Liquefied Petroleum Gas
LSFLRA Large Scale Forest Landscape Restoration in Africa
LTS Long-term strategies
LULUCF Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry
LUP Land Use Planning
M&A Merger and Acquisition
MANIEMA UNION Name of Forest Concession
MARV Marburg virus
MDF Medium Density Fiberboard
MDG Millenium Development Goal
MECNT Ministry of Environment, Nature Conservation and Tourism (DRC)
MEDDEFCP Ministry of the Environment, Sustainable Development, Water,
Forests, Hunting and Fisheries (CAR)
MEEATU Ministry of Water, Environment, SP and Urban Planning (Burundi)
MERS Middle East respiratory syndrome
MINADER Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (Cameroon)
MINATE Ministry of Spatial Planning, Environment and Tourism (Burundi)
MINDCAF Ministry of State Property, Surveys and Land Tenure (Cameroon)
MINDDEVEL Ministry of Decentralization and Local Development (Cameroon)
MINEE Ministry of Water and Energy (Cameroon)
MINEPAT Ministry of the Economy, Planning and Regional Development (Cameroon)
MINEPDED Ministry of the Environment, Protection of Nature and
Sustainable Development (Cameroon)
MINEPIA Ministry of Livestock, Fisheries and Animal Industries (Cameroon)
MINFI Ministry of Finance (Cameroon)
MINFOF Ministry of Forests and Fauna (Cameroon)
MINMIDT Ministry of Mines, Industry and Technological Development (Cameroon)
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MPV Monkeypox virus
MRV Measurement, Reporting and Verification
MSME Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise
MSPO Malaysian Sustainable Palm Oil
NAMA Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions
NAP National Adaptation Plan
NAPA National Action Plan for Adaptation
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NBESA National Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Assessment
NBSAP National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan
NDC Nationally Determined Contribution
NEPAD Nouveau Partenariat pour le Développement de l’Afrique
(New Partnership for Africa’s Development)
NEPCON Certification organization (now named “Preferred by Nature”)
NER Net Emission Reduction
NFA National Forest Authority
NFMS National Forest Monitoring System
NGO Non-governmental organization
The forests of the Congo Basin | xi

NHP Non-human primate
NICFI Norway’s International Climate and Forest Initiative
NIF National investment framework
NP National Park
NPFDP National Plantation Forests Development Programme
NTFP Non-Timber Forest Product
NTSIO Name of an agroforestry project in DRC
NWP Non Wood Product
NYDF New York Declaration on Forests
OBAPAC Observatoire des aires protégées en Afrique Centrale
(Observatory for Protected Areas in the Congo Basin)
OCDD Observatoire Congolais de Développement Durable
(Congolese Observatory for Sustainable Development)
OCDH Observatoire Congolais des Droits de l’Homme
(Congolese Observatory for human rights)
ODA Official Development Assistance
OFAC Observatoire des Forêts d’Afrique Centrale
(The Central Africa Forest Observatory)
OHHLEP One Health High-Level Panel
OLB Origine et Légalité des bois (Legal Timber Certification)
ONACC National Climate Change Observatory
ONC Office National du Café (National Coffee Office)
ORGE Office Rwandais de Gestion de l’Environnement
(Rwandan Environmental Management Office)
ORTPN Office Rwandais du Tourisme et des Parcs Nationaux
(Rwandan Office of Tourism and National Parks)
P3FAC Public-Private Partnership for the sustainable management of
Central African forests
PA Protected Areas
PACC Paris Agreement on Climate Change
PACEBCo Programme d’appui à la conservation des écosystèmes du bassin du Congo
(Congo Basin Ecosystems Conservation Support Programme)
PADI-DJA Integrated Development and Planning Programme of the Dja Mining
Loop and the Adjacent Border Area
PAFC Pan-African Forest Certification
PALSAR-2 The Phased Array-type L-band SAR-2
PAN/LCD Programme d’action nationale de lutte contre la désertification
(National Action Program to Combat Desertification)
PANARDC Programme d’Action National d’Adaptation au changement climatique
(National Adaptation Programme of Action for Climate Change, DRC)
PCFN Projet de Conservation de la Forêt de Nyungwe
(Nyungwe Forest Conservation Project)
PCIAB Puits de Carbone Agroforestier Ibi Batéké
(Ibi Batéké agroforestry carbon sink)
PDRSO Projet de Développement Régional du Sud-Ouest
(South-West Regional Development Project)
PEA Permis d’exploitation et d’aménagement
(Exploitation and Planning Permit)
xii | The forests of the Congo Basin

PEFC Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification
PES Payment mechanism for environmental services
PFM Plantations Forestières de la Mvoum
PIREDD Programme intégré REDD (REDD Integrated Programme)
PLADDT Plan Local d’Aménagement et de Développement Durable du Territoire
(Local Land-Use Management and Sustainable Development Plan,
Cameroon)
PMU Programme Management Unit
PNA Parc National de l’Akagera (Akagera National Park)
PNAT Plan National d’Affectation des Terres
(National Land Use Plan in the Republic of Congo)
PNEFEB Programme national sur l’environnement, les forêts, les eaux et la
biodiversité (National programme on the environment, forests, water
and biodiversity)
PNG Papua New Guinea
PPECF Programme for the Promotion of Certified Forests
PPP Public-private partnership
PREDICT Reducing Pandemic Risk, promoting Global Health
PRMK Pépinière de Reboisement de Madingo-Kayes
PRONAR Programme National d’Afforestation
(National Afforestation and Reforestation Programme in the Republic of the
Congo)
PRORENA Protection et Réhabilitation des Ressources naturelles de l’Akagera
(Project for the Protection of the Natural Resources of Akagera National
Park, Rwanda)
PROREP Projet de renforcement du potentiel en bois énergie durable en
République du Congo (Project to enhance sustainable fuel potential in the
Republic of Congo)
PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper
RA Rainforest Alliance
RAF Right to Adequate Food
RAPAC Réseau des Aires Protégées d’Afrique Centrale
(Network of Protected Areas of Central Africa)
RCP Representative Concentration Pathway
REAFOR Relance de la Recherche Agricole et Forestière
(programme for Reviving Agricultural and Forestry Research)
REDD+ Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and
enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries
RELUFA Réseau de Lutte Contre la Faim
REPALEF Réseau des populations autochtones
RESTV Ebola Reston
RFD Réserve de Faune du Dja (Dja Wildlife Reserve)
RFUK Rainforest Foundation UK
RIL Reduced impact Logging
RIL-C Reduced impact Logging for Climate
RIOFAC Renforcement et Institutionnalisation de l’Observatoire des Forêts d’Afrique
Centrale (Strengthening and institutionalizing the Central Africa Forest
Observatory)
The forests of the Congo Basin | xiii

RNA Ribonucleic acid
ROAM Restoration Opportunities Assessment Methodology
RoC Republic of the Congo
RPP Readiness Preparation Proposal
RRI Rights and Ressources Initiative
RSPO Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil
RTA Rwandan Tourism Agency
RTRS Round Table on Responsible Soy
rVSV-ZEBOV Recombinant vesicular stomatitis virus–Zaire Ebola virus
RWA Rwandan Conservation Agency
RWE Round Wood Equivalent
SA South Africa
SAFACAM Société Africaine Forestière et Agricole du Cameroun
SAILD Service d’Appui aux Initiatives Locales de Développement
(Local Development Initiatives Support Service)
SAR Synthetic Aperture Radar
SARS-CoV Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus
SCCF Special Climate Change Fund
SDC Série de développement communautaire (Community Development area)
SDG Sustainable Development Goal
SEZ Special Economic Zones
SFV Simian Foamy Virus
SIDS Small Island Developing States
SIGIF Cameroon’s VPA traceability system
SIS Safeguards information system
SIV Simian immunodeficiency virus
SME Small and medium enterprise
SNADDT Schéma National d’Aménagement et de Développement Durable du
Territoire (National Programme for Sustainable Territorial Development,
Cameroon)
SNAT Schéma National d’Aménagement du Territoire
(National Spatial Management Scheme in the Republic of Congo)
SNDI Stratégie Nationale de lutte Contre la Déforestation Importée
(French Strategy to combat imported deforestation)
SNPA/DB Stratégie nationale et plan d’action en matière de diversité biologique
(National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan)
SNR Service National du Reboisement (National Reforestation Service)
SNR-i Sustainable Natural Rubber Initiative
SOCAPALM Société Camerounaise de Palmeraies (Cameroonian Palm Company)
SODEFOR Société de Développement des Forêts (Forest Development Company)
SoF State of Forests
SOS NDD Name of Moroccan company
SP Spatial Planning
SPF Société de Plantation Forestière (Forest Plantation company)
SPGS Sawlog Production Grant Scheme
SPOTT Sustainability Policy Transparency Toolkit
STP Sao Tome and Principe
STUDI STUDI International (an African engineering firm)
xiv | The forests of the Congo Basin

SUDV Sudan ebolavirus
SWAMP Sustainable Wetlands Adaptation and Mitigation Program
SWM Sustainable Wildlife Management
TA Technical assistance
TAFV Tai Forest ebolavirus
TCD Tree cover density
TFA Tropical Forest Alliance
TFCA Tropical Forest Conservation Reauthorization Act
TLAS Timber traceability and legality assurance systems
TLTV Timber Legality & Traceability Verification
TLV Timber Legality Verification
TMF Tropical Moist Forest
TNA Technology Needs Assessment
TNBS Total Nature-based Solution
UAIC Congo Industrial Afforestation Unit
(Unité d’Afforestation Industrielle du Congo)
UCS Union of Concerned Scientists
UE European Union
UMD University of Maryland
UN United Nations
UNCCD United Nations Convention to combat desertification
UN-DESA United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNDRIP United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
UNEA United Nations Environment Assembly
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
UNESCO United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
UNFF United Nations Forum on Forests
UNGA United Nations General Assembly
UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
UNIDO United Nations Industrial Development Organization
UNIKIS University of Kisangani
UNREDD United Nations agencies for REDD+
UNSPF United Nations Strategic Plan for Forests
USAID U.S. Agency for International Development
USFS United States Forest Service
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
UTZ Certification body for cocoa, coffee, tea and hazelnut
VCS Verified Carbon Standard
VCU Verified Carbon Unit
VLC Verification of Legal Compliance
VLO Verification of Legal Origin
VNR Voluntary National Review
VPA Voluntary partnership agreement
VSE Very small enterprise
VSS Voluntary Sustainability Standard
The forests of the Congo Basin | xv

WB World Bank
WCC World Conservation Congress
WCS Wildlife Conservation Society
WDPA World Database of Protected Areas
WHO World Health Organization
WMO World Meteorological Organization
WRI World Resources Institute
WWF World Wildlife Fund
WWI First World War
WWII Second World War
XAF Central African currency
ZEBOV Zaire ebolavirus
ZND Zero Net Deforestation
ZSL Zoological Society of London
xvi | The forests of the Congo Basin

Acknowledgments
Editor-in-Chief
Eba’a Atyi Richard (CIFOR-ICRAF), Yaoundé, Cameroon
Editors
Hiol Hiol François (Department of Forestry, University of Dschang), Yaoundé, Cameroon
Lescuyer Guillaume (CIRAD), Montpellier, France
Mayaux Philippe (European Union), Brussels, Belgium
Defourny Pierre (Université Catholique de Louvain), Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
Bayol Nicolas (FRMi), Mauguio, France
Saracco Filippo (European Commission), Kinshasa, DRC
Pokem Dany (CBFP), Bad Krozingen, Germany
Sufo Kankeu Richard (Le Mans Université), Le Mans, France
Nasi Robert (CIFOR-ICRAF), Bogor, Indonesia
Chapter coordinators
Bourgarel Mathieu (CIRAD), Harare, Zimbabwe
Dalimier Juliette (Université Catholique de Louvain), Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
Guizol Philippe (CIRAD, CIFOR-ICRAF), Yaoundé, Cameroon
Hirsch Flore (FRMi), Mauguio, France
Husson Justine (FRMi), Mauguio, France
Ingram Verina (Wageningen University & Research), Wageningen, Netherlands
Mbairamadji Jeremie (FAO), Kinshasa, DRC
Itsoua Madzous Gervais (COMIFAC), Yaoundé, Cameroon
Sonwa Denis Jean (CIFOR-ICRAF), Yaoundé, Cameroon
Authors
Abanda Ngono Fernande (Université du Québec en Outaouais), Ottawa, Canada
Achard Frédéric (JRC-EU), Brussels, Belgium
Angulo Jessenia (FMO – Dutch Entrepreneurial Development Bank)
Assani Hassan (REDD+ National Coordinating Committee), Kinshasa, DRC
Assembe-Mvondo Samuel (Research Institute for Humanity and Nature), Yaoundé, Cameroon
Awono Abdon (CIFOR-ICRAF), Yaoundé, Cameroon
Baltzer Carla (Groupe FRM), Mauguio, France
Bambuta Jean-Jacques (Ministry of the Environment and Sustainable Development), Kinshasa, DRC
Bele Youssoufa (Independent consultant), Canada
Bertaux Paul (Groupe FRM), Mauguio, France
The forests of the Congo Basin | xvii

Betbeder Julie (CIRAD), Montpellier, France
Bigot Sylvain (Université Grenoble Alpes-IGE), Grenoble, France
Bosworth Charlie (Miro Forestry & Timber Products), London, United Kingdom
Boundzanga Georges Claver (REDD+ National Coordinating Committee), Brazzaville, Congo
Bourgoin Clément (JRC-EU), Brussels, Belgium
Boutinot Laurence (CIRAD), Montpellier, France
Breumier Paloma (CIRAD), Montpellier, France
Bring Christophe (MINEPDED), Yaoundé, Cameroon
Burian Martin (Consultant for Low Carbon Development), Hamburg, Germany
Calmel Marie (ONFI), Cayenne, French Guiana
Carodenuto Sophia (University of Victoria), Victoria, Canada
Caron Alexandre (CIRAD), Montpellier, France
Chia Eugene Loh (University of Pretoria), Pretoria, South Africa - (FOKABS), Canada
Clinquart Pierre (Hanns Seide Foundation), Kinshasa, DRC
D’Annunzio Rémi (FAO), Rome, Italy
Dalimier Juliette (Université Catholique de Louvain), Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
Dargie Greta C. (University of Leeds), Leeds, United Kingdom
De Nys Hélène (CIRAD), Montpellier, France
Defo Louis (PROFOREST), Yaoundé, Cameroon
Delhez Baptiste (Université Catholique de Louvain), Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
Desclée Baudouin (JRC-EU), Brussels, Belgium
Diakhite Mamadou (ENEF), Mbalmayo, Cameroon
Diangana Daniel (ex-ECO s.a.)
Djossi Donald (OFAC), Yaoundé, Cameroon
Doumenge Charles (CIRAD), Montpellier, France
Dubiez Emilien (CIRAD)
Duhesme Caroline (ATIBT), Nogent-sur-Marne, France
Ebuy Jérôme (University of Kisangani), Kisangani, DRC
Essamba Lydie (CIFOR-ICRAF), Yaoundé, Cameroon
Eva Hugh (JRC-EU), Brussels, Belgium
Ewango Corneille (University of Kisangani), Kisangani, DRC
Fleming Timothy (International Woodland Company), Copenhagen, Denmark
Fobissie Kalame (University of Ottawa,) Ottawa, Canada - (FOKABS), Canada
Freeman Olivia E. (USFS), Nairobi, Kenya
Freycon Vincent (CIRAD), Montpellier, France
Gally Michel (FRMi), Mauguio, France
Gapia Martial (University of Bangui), Bangui, CAR
Ghomsi Hervis, (SIRS/CLS), Ramonville Saint-Agne, France
Glannaz Stéphane (Precious Woods), Zug, Switzerland
Goma Maurice (Consultant)
Gond Valéry (CIRAD), Montpellier, France
Gourlet-Fleury Sylvie (CIRAD), Montpellier, France
Guizol Philippe (CIRAD), Yaoundé, Cameroon
Hansen Matthew (University of Maryland), Maryland, USA
Harmand Jean-Michel (CIRAD), Montpellier, France
Henson Michael (PNG Biomass), Morobe, Papua New Guinea
Herbinger Ilka (WWF), Berlin, Germany
xviii | The forests of the Congo Basin

Hervo Cécile (FRMi), Mauguio, France
Howard Mike (Fractal Forestry), Western Cape, South Africa
Hymas Olivier (University of Lausanne), Lausanne, Switzerland
Ifo Suspens Averti (Marien Ngouabi University), Brazzaville, Congo
Istace Vincent (CIB OLAM), Pokola, Congo
Itsoua Madzous Gervais (COMIFAC), Yaoundé, Cameroon
Jori Ferran (CIRAD), Montpellier, France
Jungers Quentin (FRMi), Kinshasa, DRC - UCL
Kalenga Marie-Ange (FERN), Brussels, Belgium
Kamdem Toham Andre (UNEP), Brazzaville, Congo
Kenfack Chrislain Eric (University of Alberta), Edmonton, Canada
Kengoum Felicien (Brithway Consult), Yaoundé, Cameroon
Kevis Kossi Narcisse Landry (University of Bangui), Bangui, CAR
Kibambe Jean-Paul (University of Kinshasa, WCS), Kinshasa, DRC
Kone Youssouf (BAD), Yaoundé, Cameroon
Kopansky Dianna, (UNEP), Nairobi, Kenya
Lahann Petra (GIZ)
Lan Chih-Ching (Independent consultant), Bremen, Germany
Langevin Christine (UNDP), New York, USA
Lawson Ian T. (University of St Andrews), St. Andrews, United Kingdom
Lescuyer Guillaume (CIRAD), Montpelier, France
Lewis Simon L. (University of Leeds), Leeds, United Kingdom
Liégeois Florian (IRD), Montpellier, France
Loyombo Willy (Organisation d’Accompagnement et d’Appui aux Pygmées), Kinshasa, DRC
Lungungu Prince (Jurist and researcher in environmental and local community rights),
Kinshasa, DRC
Majambu Eliezer (Le Mans Université, University of Mbujimayi), Le Mans, France
Marijnissen Chantal (FAO), Roma, Italy
Matkovich Shauna D. (International Woodland Company), Copenhagen, Denmark
Mbaya Christian (REDD+ National Coordinating Committee), Brazzaville, Congo
Mbonayem Liboum (CIFOR-ICRAF), Yaoundé, Cameroon
Mbuyu Kimpesa Kasulo Roger (University of Kinshasa), Kinshasa, DRC
Medjibe Vincent (ANPN), Libreville, Gabon
Milliken Kai (FAO), Rome, Italy
Mitchard Edward T.A. (University of Edinburgh), Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Mokpidie Damas (COMIFAC), Yaoundé, Cameroon
Momo Achile (GIZ), Bafoussam, Cameroon
Monsembula Raoul (University of Kinshasa), Kinshasa, DRC
Mortier Frédéric (CIRAD), Montpellier, France
Moufouma-Okia Wilfran (WMO), Geneva, Switzerland
Mouinga-Ondémé Augustin (CIRMF), Franceville, Gabon
Moukini Régis (Groupe FRM), Mauguio, France
Mushiete Olivier (Ibi Project and Bombo Lumene National Park), Kinshasa, DRC
Nakoe Prosper (Ministry of Water and Forests), Bangui, CAR
Ndabirorere Salvator (FAO), Bujumbura, Burundi
Ndikumagenge Cléto (FAO), Kinshasa, DRC
Ndjatsana Michel (COMIFAC), Yaoundé, Cameroon
Neves Silva Luis (WWF – New Generation Platform), Lisbon, Portugal
The forests of the Congo Basin | xix

Ngobieng Marie Ange (CIRAD), San José, Costa Rica
Ngoya Kessy Alain (Independent forestry consultant), Bangui, CAR
Nguinguiri Jean-Claude (FAO), Rome, Italy
Ntirumenyerwa Mihigo Blaise-Pascal (University of Kinshasa), Kinshasa, DRC
Nuutinen Maria (FAO), Rome, Italy
Ouarzazi Leslie (UNDP), New York, USA
Oyono Phil René (Rights and Resources Initiative-RRI), Yaoundé, Cameroon
Pahkasalo Tapani (Forest Investment Professional), Karega, Burundi
Pasquier Alexandra (FRMi), Mauguio, France
Peltier Régis (CIRAD), Montpellier, France
Philippon Nathalie (Université Grenoble Alpes-IGE), Grenoble, France
Ploton Pierre (CIRAD), Montpellier, France, and IRD
Ratiarison Sandra (FAO)
Réjou-Méchain Maxime (CIRAD), Montpellier, France - IRD
Roman-Cuesta Rosa (Wageningen University & Research), Wageningen, Netherlands
Sannier Christophe, (SIRS/CLS), Ramonville Saint-Agne, France
Sartoretto Eugenio (FAO), London, UK
Schmidt Lars (Independent consultant)
Seka Julien (ENEF), Mbalmayo, Cameroon
Serrano Olman (ATIBT), Rome, Italy
Smith Andries (CDC, Investment Director and Head of Forestry & Wood Products), Canada
Smith Colin (Paperbark Forestry Consulting), Durban, South Africa
Sonwa Denis Jean (CIFOR-ICRAF), Yaoundé, Cameroon
Sufo Kankeu Richard, (Le Mans Université), Le Mans, France
Tabi Pamela (University of Bern), Bern, Switzerland
Tchoumba Belmond (WWF), Yaoundé, Cameroon
Tchuente Valérie (COMIFAC), Yaoundé, Cameroon
Tellro Wai Nadji (Ministry of the Environment, Fisheries and Sustainable Development),
Ndjamena, Chad
Tieguhong Julius C. (AfBD), Abidjan, Ivory Coast
Tsanga Raphael (CIFOR-ICRAF), Nairobi, Kenya
Tsayem Demaze Moise (Le Mans Université), Le Mans, France
Umuziranenge Gloriose (Protestant University of Rwanda), Huye, Rwanda
Van Der Plas Robert (Marge), Brussels, Belgium
Van Loon Tom (Interholco), Baar, Switzerland
Van Offelen Julie (UNEP), Nairobi, Kenya
Vancutsem Christelle (JRC-EU), Brussels, Belgium
Vermeulen Cédric (University of Liège), Liège, Belgium
Villegas Laura (FAO), Rome, Italy
Waitkuwait Wolf Ekkehard (GIZ), Yaoundé, Cameroon
Walters Gretchen (University of Lausanne), Lausanne, Switzerland
Wardell David Andrew (CIFOR-ICRAF), Montpellier, France
Contributors
Berger Violaine (IDH), Amsterdam, Netherlands
Harmand Jean-Michel (CIRAD), Montpellier, France
xx | The forests of the Congo Basin

Tata-Ngome Precillia (IRAD), Yaoundé, Cameroon
Tiobo’o Sédric Edmond (National Institute of Statistics of Cameroon), Yaoundé, Cameroon
Reviewers and revisers

Foundjem Divine (CIFOR-ICRAF), Yaoundé, Cameroon
Hiol Hiol François (Department of Forestry, University of Dschang), Yaoundé, Cameroon
Lescuyer Guillaume (CIRAD), Montpellier, France
Mayaux Philippe (European Union), Brussels, Belgium
Defourny Pierre (Université Catholique de Louvain), Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
Saracco Filippo (European Commission), Kinshasa, DRC
Nasi Robert (CIFOR-ICRAF), Bogor, Indonesia
French-to-English translators
Alsruhe Eric, France
Whyte Holly-Anne, United Kingdom
English-to-French translator and editorial coordinator

of the French version
Beaudin Hélène, France
Map production
Jungers Quentin (FRMi), Kinshasa, DRC
Photo credits
Cover page: Axel Fassio
Chapter 1: UCLouvain-Geomatics
Chapter 2: Mokhamad Edliadi
Chapter 3: Paul Bertaux
Chapter 4: Pilar Valbuena
Chapter 5: Nicolas Bayol
Chapter 6: FAO
Chapter 7: Olivier Girard
Chapter 8: Olivier Girard
Chapter 9: Axel Fassio
Chapter 11: G. Bouka and Charles Doumenge
Chapter 12: Philippe Guizol
Conclusions: Joel Kouam
The forests of the Congo Basin | xxi

Foreword
After a hiatus of several years, the time was ripe to produce a 7th edition of the State of the Forests
report: SOF 2021. The first edition of 2005 was a preliminary assessment of the state of biodiversity,
while SOF 2006 focused on developing a clear vision – essential for policy orientation and strategy
development – of the state of the forest areas. SOF 2008 took stock of forest types in six countries:
Gabon, Republic of the Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Cameroon
and Central African Republic. Two years later, the 2010 edition provided information on regional
synthesis of monitoring indicators, forest landscape management and related challenges. SOF
2013 was more comprehensive in terms of the themes that were addressed (climate change, forest
management, biodiversity conservation and land use). The most recent edition, SOF 2015, was
published prior to the 21st Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Paris; it dealt with climate change, with a focus on forest and
climate dynamics, adaptation, vulnerability and mitigation.
This 2021 edition is therefore a welcome addition in view of the emerging new themes which are
stirring up increasing interest among stakeholders, against a backdrop influenced by the COVID-19
pandemic. SOF 2021 is made up of 4 parts and 13 chapters.
Part 1 is entitled “Central Africa’s Forests: resource status and management” and is made up of
five chapters. Chapter 1 covers the distribution of forest types and Chapter 2 the evolution of the
timber sectors in the Congo Basin. Chapter 3 examines plantations in Central Africa, and Chapter 4
analyses the balance between international financial flows and the implementation of the COMIFAC
Convergence Plan. The final chapter of Part 1 (Chapter 5) addresses the implementation of REDD+
activities in Central African countries.
Three chapters make up Part 2 that is entitled, “Congo Basin Forests in International Discussions.”
The first chapter (Chapter 6) of this part deals with mainstreaming the Sustainable Development
Goals into forest management in Central Africa, the second (Chapter 7) deals with international
commitments by Central African countries in response to climate change, and the third and last
chapter (Chapter 8) of Part 2 focuses on fighting imported deforestation and making commitments
to zero deforestation.
Part 3 analyses emerging themes for Central African forests, including Central Congo Basin peatlands
(Chapter 9) and the emergence/re-emergence of infectious agents and risks (Chapter 10).
The fourth and final part deals with the issues and challenges facing Congo Basin forests and is
made up of three chapters. The first chapter (Chapter 11) analyses spatial planning and impacts
on the sustainable management of forest ecosystems in Central Africa. Chapter 12 focuses on the
restoration of forest landscapes, and the final chapter (Chapter 13) examines the rights of local and
indigenous peoples in the light of forest and conservation policies.
The SOF 2021 report was produced with financial support from the European Union, through the
Strengthening and Institutionalization of the Central African Forest Observatory (RIOFAC) project,
which is implemented by a consortium of scientific and technical organizations (CIFOR-ICRAF,
CIRAD, FRMi and UCL). The German technical cooperation agency (GIZ), via the Congo Basin Forest
Partnership (CBFP), provided additional financial support for translation of the report.
xxii | The forests of the Congo Basin

Some 152 authors, recruited from among experts on forestry issues in the Congo Basin, were involved
in writing SOF 2021. These authors come from research institutions, technical and financial partners,
international organizations, civil society organizations, development organizations, State bodies
and independent researchers.
We wish to thank these authors for the great effort they put into the publication, under the
supervision of the chapter coordinators. Thanks to them, reference documents that will be widely
consulted in the coming years have been produced.
This report is intended for all stakeholders involved in the conservation and governance of tropical
forests in general and those interested in the forests of Central Africa in particular. It will be valuable
reference for policy makers, research institutions, civil society organizations, technical and financial
partners, and all other stakeholders interested in forest management. It is a scientific publication, as
the data and information contained in it are accurate and up to date.
The production of SOF 2021 has given rise to many interactions and meetings between all
stakeholders, both in person and online. The death of Dr. Hiol Hiol François, a member of the
editorial board, was a great loss to the team and created an immeasurable void. We pay heartfelt
tribute to his memory and to the work he accomplished not only in SOF 2021, but also previous
editions, in particular those of 2010 and 2013.
Richard Sufo Kankeu
The forests of the Congo Basin | xxiii

Introduction
The report on the State of the Forests (SOF) of the Congo Basin is published by the Central African
Forest Commission (COMIFAC) through its technical unit, the Central African Forest Observatory
(OFAC). Over the years, it has become a reference document at regional and international levels, for
all those who are interested in the management of Central African forest ecosystems, their role in
the planet’s equilibrium and the issues that guide their future.
This 2021 edition, the seventh in a series published since 2005, comes at a time when the forests
of Central Africa and of the whole world are attracting attention for several reasons. The first is the
Covid-19 pandemic, which saw its peak during the writing of this report and affected its production
process. The pandemic, yet another zoonosis, is a reminder of humanity’s fragility and of our
common destiny. It has highlighted the fact that the relationship between humans and their natural
environment must be given the utmost importance and be paid special attention to by decision-
makers and resource managers.
Second, there is growing awareness of the need to adopt nature-based solutions in which the
management of natural or plantation forests plays a prominent role. This renewed interest in nature-
based solutions is gradually making the Congo Basin forests once again the focus of researchers’
work, policy priorities and the commitments of technical and financial partners. An example could
be seen at the 26th Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change (UNFCCC), held in Glasgow, United Kingdom, in November 2021. This COP was
an opportunity for international donors to make statements in favour of protecting not only the
world’s tropical forests in general, but also those of the Congo Basin in particular, and above all their
local and indigenous populations.
For their part, COMIFAC member states, which hold rights over the Congo Basin forests, have taken
a further step in their commitment to the sustainable management of those forests – good news
considering that they are a common good for humanity because of the goods and services they
provide through global climate regulation.
The renewed and very formal commitments of COMIFAC member countries are illustrated by the
“Declaration of ECCAS/COMIFAC countries on Congo Basin forests and their vicinity,” which was
presented to the entire world at the Berlin symposium of September 2021.
It is up to the international community to find compromises with Central African countries in order
to develop just and equitable solutions to promote the sustainable management of the basin’s
forests, within the context of a legitimate quest for economic and social development.
SOF 2021 is rich in the most recent scientific and technical data on Central Africa’s forest resources and
their management. It addresses all the issues faced by these ecosystems and opens up perspectives
for their improved contribution to human well-being.
xxiv | The forests of the Congo Basin

The quality of the information and reflections presented in this SOF 2021 is backed up by the
reputation of its experts, who come from some of the most renowned institutions in the world,
under the unprecedented auspices of African specialists.
Christian RUCK Jules Doret NDONGO
Facilitator to the Congo Basin Forests Minister of Forestry and Wildlife, Cameroon
Current Chair of COMIFAC
The forests of the Congo Basin | xxv

Central African forests:
The state of forest
resources and their
management
PART 1
CHAPTER 1
Distribution of forest
types and changes in their
classification
Authors: Juliette Dalimier,1 Frédéric Achard,2 Baptiste Delhez,1 Baudouin Desclée,2
Clément Bourgoin,2 Hugh Eva,2 Sylvie Gourlet-Fleury,3,8 Matthew Hansen,4 Jean-
Paul Kibambe,5,6 Frédéric Mortier,3,8 Pierre Ploton,3,9 Maxime Réjou-Méchain,3,9
Christelle Vancutsem,2 Andreas Langner,2 Christophe Sannier,10 Hervis Ghomsi,10
Quentin Jungers,1,7 Pierre Defourny1
1
UCLouvain, 2EU Joint Research Centre (JRC), 3Agricultural Research Centre for
International Development (CIRAD), 4University of Maryland, 5University of Kinshasa,
6
Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), 7FRMi, 8University of Montpellier, 9Institute of
Research for Development (IRD),10Systèmes d’Information à Référence Spatiale (SIRS)/
Collecte Localisation Satellite (CLS)
©UCLouvain-Geomatics
Chapter 1
Introduction
The second largest block of dense moist forest after the Amazon,
Central Africa’s forests are an exceptional reservoir of carbon
and biodiversity for the countries they cover and the planet as
a whole. These forests provide a livelihood to 60 million people
and help to feed 40 million more in nearby towns and cities. They
play an essential social and cultural role in the lives of indigenous
peoples and local communities. The ecological, economic, social
and cultural importance of Central Africa’s forests places them at
the heart of international discussions aimed at preserving these
unique ecosystems, which are vital to the health of the planet.
Forests are dynamic reservoirs of forest resources, carbon and biodiversity that grow as they expand
and mature or shrink as a result of deforestation and forest degradation. To draw up effective
forest management and ecosystem conservation policies, we must define the precise nature of
these tropical moist forests and how they change over time. Doing so will also allow us to quantify
their contribution to global carbon flows and respond to future climate challenges. National and
international efforts to protect these forest ecosystems are based primarily on sustainable land
use planning for both forestry and nature conservation. The international mechanism for reducing
emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) provides a framework for national
efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase the removal and long-term storage of
these gases. The results of REDD+ activities are assessed on the basis of national forest reference
emission levels.
The new generation of satellite imagery is a valuable source of data for the large-scale monitoring
of tropical forests, which are often hard to reach. Inventory data from a large number of forestry
concessions have very recently provided an overview of the functional diversity of forests, while
the operationalization of the first carbon flow monitoring tower in a natural forest is a positive step
forward for our understanding of forest carbon flows. However, mapping the spatial distribution of
forest carbon stocks at the basin level remains a challenge due to the scarcity of field observations.
This chapter summarizes current knowledge on forest mapping in relation to their floristic
composition, physiognomic features and carbon levels. It takes stock of changes in forest dynamics
and analyses the impact of land use on the preservation of forest ecosystems. The last section reports
on countries' engagement with the REDD+ process following the introduction of forest reference
emission level mechanisms and their operational implementation at the provincial level.
1.1 Forest mapping

For decades, scientists have sought to establish a typology of forest formations that reflects
the full diversity of Central African forests. Some typologies have categorized vegetation by
phytogeographical zones, such as Lebrun and Gilbert (1954), Monod (1957), Letouzey (1968) and
4 | The forests of the Congo Basin

Distribution of forest types and changes in their classification
Troupin (1966 ). Others, such as White (1986), are based on large chorological zones. These typologies
often reflect endemic divergence in the floristic composition of the forests. Other typologies, such as
the “Yangambi” typology (Aubréville 1957), differentiate between the different classes of vegetation
on the basis of physiognomic features. Today, the proliferation of data sources and the diversity
of environmental challenges drive the characterization of forest ecosystems according to floristic,
physiognomic and carbon stock approaches to map forests’ functional and structural variety, to
delineate endangered natural habitats and to determine their carbon balance.
The phytogeographical study of forests focuses on their floristic composition, based on the
individuals inventoried in the field. This is the case with the exceptional overview by Réjou-
Méchain et al. (2021) which describes the floristic and functional composition of Central African
forests. In complement to this, high spatial resolution observation data from new satellites have
made it possible to understand the structure of the canopy at the forest stand level. This has, in turn,
enabled the production of new maps as part of a close collaboration between national experts and
Université catholique de Louvain (UCLouvain). Finally, a critical analysis of the cartographic data
available on carbon stocks has allowed us to assess the state of current knowledge.
1.1.1 Floristic and functional composition of tropical

forests in Central Africa
Forest management inventories carried out by 105 forestry concessions throughout Central Africa
(excluding hydromorphic soil and highland areas) provided valuable information on their floristic
and functional composition. Based on more than 180,000 inventory plots (about 90,000 ha total),
6 million trees over 30 cm in diameter were analysed. These trees belong to 193 well identified taxa
and are representative of the majority of the individuals present in these plots.
The abundance distribution of all these taxa, averaged over 10 x 10 km grid areas, was modelled on
the basis of 24 climatic variables, information on soil types (sandy or clay) and a human pressure
index, over an area covering 85% of the dense terra firme forest in Central Africa.
Three major floristic gradients were identified via a factorial correspondence analysis of the predicted
abundances of taxa on a regional scale: (1) the most pronounced floristic gradient strongly correlates
with climate, separating areas with a cool dry season and low light (Atlantic area) from areas with
a high rate of evapotranspiration (northern limit of Central African forests); (2) the second floristic
gradient strongly correlates with seasonality and maximum temperature, contrasting equatorial
areas with a low water deficit and areas with a high water deficit towards the tropical limits; (3) the
third floristic gradient shows more local floristic variation, mainly due to human impacts.
By replacing the floristic composition of the stands taking into account the average values of
three major functional traits – wood density, deciduousness and maximum potential height of the
tree species (voir la figure 1.1) – several trends appear. Average wood density (voir la figure 1.1A)
is highest on sandy soils, on the borders of Cameroon, the Republic of the Congo and the Central
African Republic – an area known for Carnot/Bambio sandstone – where tree species subject to
conservative resource-use strategies predominate. This average value is lower in areas with higher
human pressure, because stands are mainly composed of fast-growing taxa. These disturbed areas
also have a high proportion of trees that can reach a large diameter. These two findings indicate that
forests affected by human activity are dominated by long-lived pioneer taxa, characterized by low
wood density, but high potential volume. Moreover, a marked deciduous gradient extends from the
The forests of the Congo Basin | 5

Chapter 1
Figure 1.1: Predicted functional composition of Central African forests. A-C, predicted
values of community-weighted functional traits. The grey areas represent forested areas
outside of the calibration range.
evergreen forests of the Gabonese coast to the northern limit of the Central African forests (voir la
figure 1.1B), except on sandy soils.
By combining these findings, we identified 10 major floristic types present in the region (see
Figure 1.2). The strongest floristic dissimilarity emerged between Atlantic forests (types 1-3) and
other forest types (types 4-10), within which semi-deciduous forests were clearly distinguished
(types 4-6). Functional convergence was observed between forest types with significant floristic
dissimilarity, as was divergence between those with floristic similarity. For example, although
they have a regional species pool similar to that of semi-deciduous forests (types 4 and 6), Carnot/
Bambio sandstone forests (type 5) have a functional composition closer to remote forest groups (e.g.
types 2, 3, 7 and 8), with high wood density and low deciduousness. The type of soil changes the
relative species abundance, with poor sandy soils favouring certain functional traits. Conversely,
although Atlantic forests (types 1-3) have little taxonomic affinity with forests in the east-central
and southern regions (types 7 and 8), they have a similar functional composition due to more similar
climatic conditions. This confirms that, while the taxonomic composition of stands is linked to
biogeography, their functional composition can converge under similar environmental conditions.
The floristic and functional characteristics of the stands make them more or less vulnerable to
possible future changes in climate and human activity over the coming decades. Modelled to 2085,
the ecological vulnerability of the stands – taking account of their sensitivity, exposure and capacity
to adapt to climate change – appeared to vary independently of human pressure. This means that
Central African stands are subject independently to the dual threats of climate and human activity.
The findings show that this combined vulnerability will be high for the forests of the Gabonese coast,
in large areas of DRC and on the northern frontier of the forest domain. The forests of Cameroon
and the south of the Republic of the Congo appear to be vulnerable mainly due to the high level of
human pressure expected by 2085. On the other hand, the Sangha trinational forest complex and the
north-eastern part of Gabon seem to be the least vulnerable areas in the region. Predictions suggest
that the majority of forests in DRC, comprising the majority of Central African forests, appear to be
vulnerable to climate change, human pressure or both factors combined.
1.1.2 Detailed mapping of forest types

The large-scale mapping of forest types aims to inform a number of national and provincial
applications related to the sustainable management and conservation of forest ecosystems in
the Congo Basin. From 1999 to 2012, several vegetation maps were published based on satellite
observations; their resolution gradually increased from 1 km to 300 m (Mayaux et al. 1999; Mayaux

Figure 1.2: Main types of forest in Central Africa based on functional composition. A,
Classification of forest types obtained via hierarchical clustering of predicted floristic
gradients. The colours represent the averages of the three functional traits of the species
in each type of forest, namely wood density (red), deciduousness (green) and maximum
diameter (blue). Similar colours therefore indicate a similar functional composition. B,
Taxonomic relationships between forest types illustrated by a dendrogram (top) and a
boxplot of standardized predicted functional composition (bottom), with wood density
in red, deciduousness in green and maximum diameter in blue. Names of forest types:
(1) evergreen Atlantic highland, (2) evergreen Atlantic coastal, (3) evergreen Atlantic
inland, (4) semi-deciduous marginal, (5) evergreen/semi-deciduous on sandstone, (6)
semi-deciduous, (7) central evergreen, (8) mixed evergreen, (9) degraded evergreen, (10)
transitional semi-deciduous/evergreen. Deciduousness (simultaneous loss of all leaves in
one year) is an individual-level botanical characteristic. Country boundaries are shown in
black and forests outside the calibration range are shown in grey.
Source: Réjou-Méchain et al. (2021)
et al. 2004; Vancutsem et al. 2006; Verhegghen et al. 2012; Gond et al. 2015), providing a preliminary
synoptic overview of the forest on a regional scale. The new mapping techniques, which are detailed
both spatially and semantically, improve our spatial knowledge of forests. This has been made
possible by the new Earth observation capabilities available since the launch of the European
Copernicus programme. Unlike previous satellite missions, the Copernicus programme will run over
the long term, ensuring the redundancy of the technology (several satellites) and open access. Using
a continuous acquisition strategy with spatial resolutions of 10-20 m and temporal resolutions of
5-12 days, Sentinel satellites 1 and 2 are the new go-to instruments for regular long-term monitoring
of forest ecosystems. In parallel, the increasing availability of Planet mosaics with very high spatial
resolution, but of more variable quality, also constitutes a new source of data that is particularly
well suited to the visual interpretation of samples distributed across the entire basin.
Within the framework of the Central African Forest Observatory (OFAC), a harmonized regional
typology of forest types covering the 10 Central Africa Forest Commission (COMIFAC) countries
was developed in 2018 through several regional workshops bringing together national experts. The
13 forest categories under this typology are defined using the ISO 19144-1 Land Cover Classification
System (LCCS), as illustrated in Figure 1.4.

Chapter 1
This regional mapping was undertaken as part of a collaboration between national experts
and UCLouvain. It shows the spatial distribution of the different types of forest described on a
physiognomic basis, based on variables such as the percentage of vegetation cover of the different
vegetation strata, cover seasonality, the flood regime and altitude.
Thanks to the development of a new image correction method and an algorithm that improved cloud
detection (see Figure 1.3), a coherent annual composite was produced using Sentinel-2 satellite data
acquired in 2020 in the different spectral bands. The data on cloud zones were complemented by
observations from 2018 and 2019. Observations from the Sentinel-1 radar satellites, which are not
affected by atmospheric disturbance, were also used to classify forest types where the Sentinel-2
image time series was very cloudy.
At the classification stage, the classification algorithms are trained using data collected by the
national experts applied to the spectro-temporal metrics from Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 data. The
forest type map produced at a resolution of 20 m provides information on forest types at a level
of spatial detail never before attained at this geographic scale. Figure 1.4 shows the regional map
generated with the full range of forest classes identified and three zoomed in images of the Republic
of the Congo.
The Congo Basin has three major moist forest complexes; the most typical is made up of edaphic
forests and covers the centre of the basin. The maps show that edaphic forests include permanently
flooded swamp forests (flooding > 9 months) (see Figure 1.5), periodically flooded swamp forests
(4–9 months flooding) and riparian forests (see Figure 1.6). The tree layer covers more than 60%
of periodically or permanently flooded swamp forests and 30%-60% of riparian forests. Riparian
forests are found at the bottom of valleys or on shallow slopes along riverbanks. A large majority of
the basin is covered by dense moist forests with an irregular age distribution (see Figure 1.7). This
forest type is defined by a dense tree layer (> 60%), that is rich in species and markedly deciduous,
with many emerging trees with imposing canopy. In the eastern half of the basin, dense moist
forests with a regular age distribution (see Figure 1.8) – with fewer large crowns than forests with
an irregular age distribution – seem to be gaining ground. Groves of monospecific evergreen dense
Figure 1.3: Cloudless Sentinel-2 mosaic of the Central African moist forest area, 2020.
The innovative colour composite makes it possible to identify the functional types of the
forest, which was not previously possible using satellite imagery.

moist forests (see Figure 1.10), most often of the species Gilbertiodendron dewevrei, punctuate these
large blocks. Finally, mountane and sub-mountane forests border the great lakes region, where
altitudes exceed 1100 m. Across the basin, open forests (see Figure 1.9), characterized by a density of
30% to 60%, are also identified, often on the margins of a degradation gradient.
Figure 1.4: Map of forest types in the Congo Basin at 20 m resolution with the level of
detail shown in three zoomed in images of the Republic of the Congo.

Chapter 1
Figure 1.5: Permanently Figure 1.6: Riparian forests. Figure 1.7: Dense moist
flooded forests. forests with an irregular
age distribution.
Figure 1.8: Dense moist Figure 1.9: Open forests. Figure 1.10: Evergreen dense
forests with a regular age moist forests.
distribution.
1.1.3 Distribution of forest carbon stocks in Central

Africa
Central African forests sequester about 40 Gt of carbon (Saatchi et al. 2011). These forests have
structural characteristics that distinguish them from Amazonian forests: the density of trees per
hectare is lower, but there are more large-diameter trees and trees at a similar diameter are larger.
This results in a higher average level of carbon or biomass per hectare than that of Amazonian forests
(Sullivan et al. 2017). Finally, while the atmospheric carbon absorption capacity of undisturbed
Amazonian forests has been declining for around 30 years due to an increase in tree mortality
attributed to climate change (Brienen et al. 2015), this trend has not yet been observed in Central
Africa (Hubau et al. 2020). Currently, despite their comparatively smaller area, undisturbed forests
in Africa are now absorbing more carbon than those in the Amazon. An increase in carbon loss after
2010 has however been observed (see 1.2.3 Estimation des taux de changements), which suggests
the absorption capacity of intact forests in Central Africa will become saturated, despite the stability
observed to date (Hubau et al. 2020).
However, the spatial distribution of forest carbon stocks across Central Africa remains largely
unknown, mainly due to the lack of field observations – especially in the eastern half of the region
(www.afritron.org) – and the difficulties of extrapolating carbon stocks using remote sensing.
There are no satellite sensors able to “measure” carbon or forest biomass directly. Maps produced
using remote sensing are therefore generated based on the indirect relationships identified between
what the sensors actually measure (for example, forest stand reflectance) and reference biomass
estimates, often derived from forest inventories. However, the vast majority of satellite signals are
currently very insensitive to variations in biomass if they exceed 100 to 200 t/ha-1 (called signal

Figure 1.11: Comparison of above-ground biomass (t/ha-1) of Central African moist forests
from maps produced by Avitabile et al. (2016), Baccini et al. (2012), Saatchi et al. (2011) et
Santoro et al. (2020). a. Spatial distribution of biomass. b. Density histograms representing
aerial biomass values per hectare by country (X axis) and map (colour code). The average
of each distribution is represented by a coloured dot and the cumulative biomass (in Gt)
across all the moist forests in each country is given (upper-right quadrant).
“saturation”), which characterizes a large majority of forests in Central Africa. Moreover, the Atlantic
coast of Central Africa is characterized by high cloud cover that interferes with optical satellite
signals and further complicates large-scale biomass mapping.
These difficulties have not been overcome by the studies currently available on the spatial distribution
of forest biomass in the region. These studies use satellite remote sensing data to extrapolate
reference biomass measurements estimated in the field, except for Santoro et al. (2020), which did
not use reference measurements and instead used purely physical models. Despite taking similar
approaches, the various maps produced show very different types of distribution (see Figure 1.11-
a), which led to radically different country estimates (see Figure 1.11-b). In Gabon, for example, the
average above-ground biomass per hectare for moist forests is about 375 t/ha-1 according to the map
produced by Avitabile et al. (2016), compared with only 210 t/ha-1 according to Baccini et al. (2012),
with estimates of total biomass ranging from single to double digits (10 Gt for one, 5.7 Gt for the
other, see Figure 1.11-b). Highly accurate local biomass maps, based on aerial LiDAR, showed that all
these maps provided only very poor predictions of observed biomass variations (Réjou-Méchain et
al. 2019). These regional maps also fail to reflect changes in biomass obtained from forest inventory
data (Ploton et al. 2020). These maps should therefore be regarded with an appropriate level of
caution.
In the absence of adequate satellite data to extrapolate forest biomass, only approaches that rely
on representative statistical sampling of different forest types are currently able to provide reliable
estimates with the associated level of uncertainty. Aerial LiDAR can also provide reliable biomass
estimates. Based on a large random sample, Xu et al. (2017) were able to use LiDAR data to map the
distribution of carbon in DRC at the national level. They also used LiDAR data collected in DRC for the
Central African area, in combination with other samples at the global level, from a range of studies,
to monitor global above-ground biomass between 2000 and 2019. The quality of these different

Chapter 1
biomass estimates will likely increase through the use of large samples and LiDAR data. Together,
these approaches, based on representative statistical sampling of different forest types and the use
of LiDAR data, show that biomass maps based solely on optical data can, despite their large systemic
errors, substantially improve the accuracy of average height and above-ground biomass estimates
at the local level (for example, Næsset et al. 2020). Moreover, a global map of forest canopy heights
was produced at 30 m resolution using the GEDI and Landsat satellites (Potapov et al. 2021).
The reliability of large-scale above-ground biomass maps should improve significantly with NASA's
GEDI space mission (2020-2022) and the expected launch of the ESA's Biomass radar satellite
(P-band) in 2022. Unlike previous satellite data, these new sensors were specifically designed to
map forest biomass. They are particularly sensitive to biomass even in the highest values (Minh et
al. 2016). GEDI LiDAR data, which are currently being collected and analysed, provide, among other
things, measurements of canopy heights across the tropics, with a sampling density that should
provide several measurements per square kilometre (Patterson et al. 2019). The strong relationship
between forest height and biomass will make it possible to produce biomass mapping models that
will very likely outperform regional models.
To make the best use of these new satellite data, Central African countries will face the major
challenge of setting up measurement “supersites”, where highly accurate forest biomass estimations
are made (Chave et al. 2019). This will make it easier to adjust and evaluate the maps produced at
the local level.
1.1.4 Complementarity of the different approaches

The three approaches to characterizing forests, namely using floristic characteristics, currently
at 10 x 10 km, physiognomic characteristics, at 20 x 20 m, and carbon characteristics, should be
gradually combined given their clear complementarity.
For example, in the centre of the Republic of the Congo, floristic class 7 (central evergreen)
corresponds to the class “open dense moist forest” on the detailed physiognomic map. Forests with
a cover density of 30–60% appear to correspond to taxa with a low potential maximum diameter,
but with a high wood density. By combining these two products we can identify a degraded forest,
composed of species with high wood density suggestive of slow growth and high carbon stock in
the remaining trees.
Similarly, in northern Congo, floristic class 6 (semi-deciduous) aligns with the classes “dense moist
forest with a regular age distribution” and “dense moist forest with an irregular age distribution”
on the detailed physiognomic map. Class 6 is defined by species with a medium wood density, an
average maximum diameter and a mixture of deciduous and evergreen species. The constituent
species of this class are split between fast-growing taxa with lower wood densities and high potential
volumes, and slow-growing taxa with the opposite characteristics. The physiognomic approach is
consistent with this description, but distinguishes between two classes in this region based on the
higher presence of trees with large crowns in forests with an irregular age distribution compared
with forests with a regular age distribution.
The wealth of information produced at the different scales demonstrates the importance and
complementarity of using different approaches to manage local land use and forest conservation
in the face of regional and global challenges. The vulnerability of forest communities to change can
be predicted by combining climate change scenarios, human pressure projections and the detailed

spatial distribution of the forest. Such predictions can then inform conservation strategies. In this
way, by preserving the evolving functional potential of existing forests, or at least maintaining their
connectivity, it might be possible to limit the regional and global impacts of expected changes.
1.2 Dynamics of dense moist forests

Beyond the characterization of each forest type, it is essential to regularly monitor forest cover
to quantify and pinpoint the location of the change processes observed, including deforestation,
degradation and reforestation. Below, we discuss the relative influence of the change factors
affecting these different dynamics and analyse the impact of land use on them.
Through a comprehensive wall-to-wall mapping of tropical moist forest (TMF) covering the
last three decades (from year 1990 to year 2020) at fine spatial resolution, new information on
TMF are provided (see Figure 1.12). TMF extent and the related disturbances (deforestation and
degradation), and post-disturbances recovery are documented on an annual basis (Vancutsem et
al. 2021). TMF product and Global Forest Watch data (Hansen et al. 2013) available since 2013, are
the only consistent and up to date products for monitoring deforestation of Central African forests
from the year 2000. The consistency of the method is a key point for forest monitoring and the
annual worldwide product is GFW and JRC’s major advantage. The TMF product of Vancutsem et
al. (2021) is very detailed on the thematic aspect; it documents deforestation in Central Africa in
an unprecedented manner by including deforestation after degradation and deforestation followed
by a regrowth, by identifying specific forest conversion to commodities or water, and by including
changes within the mangroves. This has been achieved thanks to the analysis of each individual
valid observation of the Landsat satellite archive allowing to capture short-term disturbances such
as selective logging and severe weather events. Today, TMF products and GFW data are the main
sources that alert us regarding deforestation activities and are used to stratify a sampling design in
the field. The major advantage of a sampling approach is the opportunity to quantify uncertainties
in estimates.
1.2.1 Stages of forest development in the Congo Basin

Although no ecosystem may be considered truly undisturbed, because some degree of human
impact is present everywhere (Sanderson et al. 2002), the undisturbed moist forests in the TMF
product are defined as undisturbed (degradation or deforestation) tropical moist forest coverage
observed over the Landsat historical record since 1983.
A deforested land is defined as a permanent conversion from moist forest cover to another land
cover whereas a degraded forest is defined as a moist forest cover where disturbances (canopy
opening in a 0.9 ha Landsat pixel) were observed over a short period of time. Here the duration
of the disturbance (and consequently the period over which the disturbance is detected with
satellite imagery) is assumed as a proxy of the disturbance impact, i.e. the higher the duration of
the detected disturbance, the higher the impact on the forest cover, and the higher the risk to have a
permanent conversion of the TMF. All disturbances for which the impacts were observed over more
than 2.5 years (or 900 days) were considered as deforestation processes. Short-term disturbances
include logging activities, fires and natural damaging phenomena such as wind storms and extreme
drought. This definition is close to the definition of forest degradation adopted by Thompson et al.
(2013) that consider the following criteria: a loss of productivity, depletion of biodiversity, unusual
disturbances (droughts, windfalls), and a reduction of carbon sinks.

Chapter 1
Figure 1.12: Map of undisturbed tropical moist forests in Central Africa (top) with three
zoomed in images: northern Republic of the Congo (left), Equatorial Guinea/Gabon
(middle) and eastern DRC (right), for 1990 (top) and 2019 (bottom).

Two levels of degradation were empirically identified: degradation with short-term impacts
(observed within a 1-year maximum duration), which includes the majority of logging activities,
and degradation with long-term impacts (between one and 2.5 years) which mainly corresponds
to strong fires (forest fires). 50 percent of the degradation are observed over less than six-months.
For disturbances for which the impacts were observed over more than 2.5 years and that were
therefore considered as deforestation processes, 68 percent of such deforestations were observed
over more than five years.
A forest regeneration is a two-phase transition from moist forest to (i) deforested land and then
(ii) vegetative regrowth. A minimum 3-years duration of permanent moist forest cover presence is
needed to classify a pixel as forest regeneration (to avoid confusion with farms).
The collection of 30 maps derived from Landsat data provides the surface area of the TMF and
disturbance categories fo each year, from 1990 to 2020 (Figure 1.12). These maps are used to document
annual disturbances over the whole period, with ten transition categories for each annual statistic:
(i) degradation that occurs before deforestation, (ii) short-term degradation not followed by
deforestation, (iii) short-term degradation not followed by deforestation, (iv) long-term degradation
not followed by deforestation, (v) direct deforestation (without prior degradation) not followed by
forest regeneration, (vi) direct deforestation followed by forest regeneration, (vii) deforestation after
degradation followed by forest regeneration, (viii) deforestation after degradation not followed by
regrowth, (ix) forest conversion to water bodies and (x) forest conversion to tree plantations.
1.2.2 Method for monitoring forest dynamics

In order to deal with geographic and temporal breaks of the Landsat archive and the persistent
presence of clouds in some areas like the Gulf of Guinea, (i) a reference initial period (baseline) for
mapping the initial TMF surface area and (ii) a monitoring period for detecting the changes are
determined at the pixel level. In addition, thanks to additional datasets, commission errors in the
baseline map of tropical moist forests are reduced by taking into account possible confusion with
commodities, wetlands, bamboos, and deciduous forest.
The disturbances are monitored on a single-date basis with a classification on each image of the
Landsat archive. This allows (i) to capture the disturbances that are visible from space only over
a short period, such as logging activities, and (ii) to record the time and number of disturbances
observed. A disturbance observed refers to lack of tree foliage cover within a Landsat pixel. The
number of disturbances observed constitutes an indicator of disturbance intensity.
Finally, in order to produce a more conservative map of undisturbed forests by excluding areas
impacted by logging activities and possibly undetected, disturbance buffer zones using a threshold
distance of 120 m around disturbed pixels are created. This distance corresponds to the average
observed distance between two lumber yards and is consistent with the distances used in previous
studies for assessing intact forests (Qie et al. 2017).
1.2.3 Estimating rates of change

The surface area of evergreen and semi-deciduous forests of Central Africa is estimated at about
200 million ha in January 2020 including 184.7 million ha with no visible sign of disturbances
(Vancutsem et al. 2020). Overall close to 9 percent of the tropical moist forest area of Central Africa
have disappeared since 2000, i.e. 18 million ha.

Chapter 1
Forest Non forest
Degraded
forest
Plantaons Water
Figure 1.13: Annual change in deforestation (red bar) and degradation (yellow bar) in
Central African tropical moist forests, 2001–2019.
Source: Vancutsem et al. 2020
The results underline the importance of the degradation process in these ecosystems with two key
outcomes: degraded forests represent in Central Africa about 7 percent of the remaining surface
area of TMFs (up to 30 percent when considering disturbance-edge-affected forests), and about 40
percent of all forest disturbances (deforestation, regeneration and degradation).
The analysis of changes shows a considerable increase of the annual disturbance rate in tropical
moist forests of Central Africa during the last 5 years (2015-2020) that has reached 1.79 million ha per
year compared to 1.36 million ha per year during the previous decade (2005-2015) (see Figure 1.13).

Table 1.1: Annual rates of undisturbed forest loss over 5 year timeframes by country,
according to the TMF product, 2000–2020 (annual rates in %). Rates from other countries
are not available in the study.
Study Timeframe Cameroon CAR Republic DRC Gabon
of the
Congo
2000–2005 -0.25 -1.63 -0.25 -1.05 -0.12

TMF
2005–2010 -0.08 -0.93 -0.25 -1 -0.08
Vancutsem et al. 2021
2010–2015 -0.12 -0.98 -0.56 -1.3 -0.13
(undisturbed tropical moist forests)
2015–2020 -0.21 -2.1 -0.71 -1.46 -0.21
Figure 1.14: Proportion of intact forests (dark green), degraded forests (light green)
and non-forests (orange) at the second administrative level (districts, sub-prefectures,
departments or communes), according to the TMF product for 2019. In the figure, areas
deforested before 2019 are classed as non-forest.
The Democratic Republic of the Congo is the African country with the largest remaining expanse
of undisturbed moist forest with 105.8 million ha, and it is the second largest in the tropical world
behind Brazil and before Indonesia. Gabon, Cameroon and the Republic of Congo have similar areas
of remaining intact forests (between 19.8 and 23.4 million ha in 2019). The Republic of Congo and
Gabon show very low rates of decline for the period 2000–2019 (0.03-0.1 million ha/year) compared
to the DRC (1.4 million ha/year) (Vancutsem et al. 2020). In all Central African countries, there has
been an increase in annual rates of disturbances since 2009. Without a slowdown in the present

Table 1.2: Annual rates of forest loss by country according to different sources (annual rates in % and confidence interval in brackets).
Study Timeframe Burundi Cameroon CAR Chad Republic DRC Equ. Gabon Rwanda Sao Tome and
Chapter 1
of the Guinea Principe

Congo
GFC by Hansen et al 2013

-0.27 -0.22 -0.089 -0.6 -0.16 -0.38 -0.23 -0.093 -0.36 -0.029
(forest cover) 2001–2019
/ -0.17 -0.11 / -0.079 -0.24 -0.14 -0.058 -0.032 /
(primary forest)
2000–2005 -1.78 -1.02 -0.07 -0.59 -0.08 -0.2 -0.67 0 2.28 0
FAO. (2015). FAO Forestry Paper
No. 1. Global forest resources 2005–2010 6.93 -1.07 -0.07 -2.15 -0.05 -0.2 -0.71 0 2.99 -0.87
assessment 2015.
2010–2015 1.76 -1.13 -0.07 -2.41 -0.07 -0.2 -0.72 -0.89 1.48 0

National studies
2000–2010 -0.176 -0.273 -0.082 -0.022
(Tritsch et al. 2020)
2000–2005 -0.175 -0.052 -0.01
National studies
(de Wasseige et al. 2014) 2005–2010 -0.175 -0.096 -0.01
de Wasseige et al. 2014 -0.06 -0.05 -0.07 -0.19 0.01 -0.01

2000–2010
(Tropical moist forest) (±0.04) (±0.02) (±0.02) (±0.04) (±0.02) (±0.01)
Tyukavina et al. 2018
2000–2014 -0.53 -0.39 -0.43 -0.52 -0.46 -0.25
(All forest types)
Potapov et al., 2012. 2000–2005 -0.25

(HTP+HTS**) 2005–2010 -0.272
Tyukavina et al. 2013 -0.47
2000–2010
(HTP+HTS**) (±0.4)
HTP**: Humid Tropical Primary Forest

HTS**: Humid Tropical Secondary Forest
(last 10 years) disturbance rates, the Democratic Republic of the Congo would lose 22 percent of its
moist forests by year 2050 (from 116.9 million ha in 2020 to 91 million ha in 2050) and 33 percent of
its undisturbed moist forests by same year (from 105.8 to 71.4 million ha).
For all major sources, annual deforestation rates vary significantly from one study to another
(Table 1.2). TMF is chosen as the reference because it is the only consistent and up-to-date study
that differentiates deforestation and degradation since the year 2000 (Table 1.1). On the one hand,
country data reported for the FAO-FRA corresponds to official national statistics. On the other hand,
the GFC and TMF are sources of global data based on a standardized method. GFC and TMF publish
annual rates from remote-sensing approaches, while FRA collects national statistic evaluating
forest surface areas every 5 years and then gets forest loss surfaces at national scale. Table 1.1
provides information on annual loss rate of undisturbed tropical moist forest from 2000 to 2020 per
country. Other national remote sensing studies provide results of forest loss assessment. However,
because of disparaging methods, unrepeatable measurements, different forest cover considered
and different forest definitions, a careful strategy is required for comparing results over time and
between countries.
Figure 1.14 presents the proportion of undisturbed forest, degraded forest and non-forest area at
the sub-national level. Administrative territories with a smaller proportion of undisturbed forests
usually have a larger proportion of degraded forests, highlighting the fragility of these areas.
Finally, most of the forest area converted to tree plantations over the last 30 years in Africa are
located in DRC, Cameroon and Gabon (80,000 ha, 70,000 ha and 40,000 ha respectively).
1.2.4 Drivers of deforestation

Unlike other tropical regions, small-scale processes rather than large-scale agriculture mainly
cause deforestation and forest degradation in Africa. Deforestation here is more closely related to
subsistence agriculture, small-scale charcoal production and gathering of wood for fuel. According
to Curtis et al. (2018), shifting cultivation is a widespread driver of forest disturbance in sub-
Saharan Africa. About 60 percent of new farmlands came from intact forests in the 1980s and 1990s,
and was mainly used for small-scale and subsistence farming and breeding (Gibbs et al. 2010).
Forest degradation is not always a precursor of deforestation, in particular in many woodland areas
of Africa where the main drivers of forest degradation are wood gathering for fuel and charcoal
production (Brink et al. 2014).
The expansion of farmland areas, a growing population and the expansion of urban infrastructure
bring African moist forest areas closer to urban areas, which increases human pressure on them – in
fact, all three factors are key drivers of deforestation (Mayaux et al. 2013). Deforestation increases
dramatically when rural population density exceeds 8.5 people per km2, and declines as time to get
to cities increase.
1.2.5 Analysis of changes in forest cover by land use, at

the country and regional level.
Land-use policies are a valuable tool for managing human pressure on forest resources. They can
be used to create protected areas, establish forestry concessions, convert such concessions into
conservation concessions and designate community forests. Given the limited resources available

Chapter 1
and the importance of Central African forests to biodiversity conservation, there is an urgent need to
prioritize the protection of the most important areas and to focus conservation efforts by studying
landscapes locally and analysing their strengths and weaknesses. In their study, Grantham et al.
(2020) applied a method for identifying priority conservation areas to maximize the biodiversity
return on investment. Despite the greater resilience of intact forests compared with degraded forests,
it is important to consider factors other than the “intactness” of the forests when identifying priority
conservation areas to avoid overlooking vital ecosystems. The biodiversity present in an ecosystem
should also be considered where determining how an ecosystem is prioritized for conservation,
as should patch size and connectivity. According to their findings, DRC has the highest number of
priority areas in the region, followed by Gabon, the Republic of the Congo and Cameroon. Community
participation in conservation efforts is a necessary condition for success, not just for joint efforts to
combat illegal logging, the expansion of subsistence agriculture and forest clearing for housing, but
also for raising awareness of the need for forest conservation. The expansion of conservation areas
will, moreover, reduce the resources available to local populations. It is therefore essential to ensure
they benefit from the introduction of conservation measures. Ensuring local people are invested in
the management of the forests around their villages, that they receive funds from the sale of carbon
credits and that they have exclusive use of forests and access to non-timber forest products is one
way to achieve a win-win for forest conservation and the economic development of remote villages
(Djomo et al. 2018).
Community forests have existed in Central Africa since the late 1990s and were first introduced in
Cameroon. Recognising the customary rights of forest communities, including their land rights, is
considered one of the best ways to effectively protect forests while reducing poverty (Rainforest
Foundation UK 2019). Unfortunately, the results in Cameroon are not very convincing, in particular
due to the level of bureaucracy and the difficulty of organizing collective action within Cameroonian
villages. Gabon, which authorized the assignment of community forests a few years ago, has
faced similar challenges. DRC passed its own legislation on community forests in 2016 to allow
communities to manage their forests according to their ancestral customs in perpetuity, which,
according to Ewango et al. (2019), ensured better forest management. In CAR, the first community
forest was created in 2019 and covered an area of about 15,000 ha. Equatorial Guinea has its
own specific tenure categories, but because they do not grant the holder the right to use specific
resources, they are not considered community forests. The Republic of the Congo, for its part, has
still not authorized community forests. However, “Community Development Areas” have been set
up around remote villages in concession areas to allow local people to farm, hunt and collect timber
for local needs (Karsenty and Vermeulen 2016). Companies can still log in these areas if they pay the
communities for the privilege.
Many protected areas have been created in Central Africa over the past two decades in an effort
to reduce pressure on forests, preserve ecosystems rich in fauna and flora and benefit local
communities (Bowker et al. 2016). However, a lack of financial, technical and human resources,
alongside the political instability, corruption and conflicts present in many countries in the region,
make it difficult to properly manage these protected areas. The question of whether protected areas
effectively reduce deforestation is at the heart discourse in this area (Aubréville 1957; Troupin 1966;
White 1986; Bowker et al. 2016; Vancutsem et al. 2020). It is difficult to make firm conclusions about
the role protected areas play in forest conservation. Some studies (Joppa and Pfaff 2011; Bowker
et al. 2016; Bruggeman et al. 2018) show that they are generally located in areas at low risk of
conversion to another land use and that they are therefore at low risk of deforestation due to their
characteristics. Bowker et al. (2016) argue that the effectiveness of forest protection measures differs
enormously between protected areas in the same country. While good governance does play an

important role in the management of these protected areas, it is not the only factor that determines
the effectiveness of forest protection measures. Size and accessibility are other decisive features.
Larger parks are more effective than smaller ones, likely due to their lower perimeter-to-area ratio.
Indeed, the likelihood of the perimeter being breached is lower than for a protected area the same
size. In DRC in particular, more remote parks have greater conservation potential. Some protected
areas perform well mainly because of their difficult terrain, while others are particularly threatened
and hard to protect because they are easy to access and closer to inhabited areas (Joppa and Pfaff
2011). These findings underscore the need to optimize which areas are subject to protection, taking
into account the risk of degradation and the cost of protecting them (Joppa and Pfaff 2011).
Designating certified or uncertified forestry concessions makes it possible to delineate logging areas
and curb illegal logging. If they are sustainably managed and established outside the boundaries of
high conservation value areas, production forests can play a crucial role in biodiversity conservation
(Duveiller et al. 2008). Selective logging has also been shown to have a low impact on biodiversity
loss and, at an FSC-certified harvesting intensity, the majority of taxonomic groups have shown
resilience (Lhoest et al. 2020). However, local disturbances (logging, hunting, poaching), made
easier by the increased accessibility of remote areas, can impact conservation.
Mining, the last land use type we discuss here does not seek to conserve biodiversity or protect forest
resources at all; to the contrary, mining concessions – prone to radically transform the landscape
– are a major threat to forests.
The total area figures for the different land use classifications at the national level (see Figure 1.15)
were calculated based on data from the 2020 IUCN World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA)
for protected areas and from the 2019 survey for forestry concessions. The data on Cameroon's
Burundi 42,9 12,0
Cameroon 6,469,9 3,214,2 7,946,1 7,241,3

8 9 2 09
Rep. Congo 13,168, 10,098, 4,782,3
Gabon 13,684, 4,971,5 10,594, 3,249,5
Equ. Guin. 72087 501,1 1,042,8 937,0
CAR 298,43 1,963,8 4,158,2
DRC 22,693, 37,887, 49,973,

136524
Rwanda 117,6 8,5 36,5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Forestry concessions Protected areas
Mining concessions Community forests (Cameroon)/national forests (Equ. Guinea)
Communal forests (Cameroon and Equ. Guinea) Unclassified
Figure 1.15: Forest cover (intact and degraded) by land-use classification by country (ha).
NB: Some countries have a total forest cover higher than 100 percent because there was forest regrowth between some land uses.

Chapter 1
community and communal forests and that on Equatorial Guinea's national and communal forests
come from the World Resources Institute (WRI). Mining permit data come from the SNL Metals
& Mining database (accessed 2 December 2020). The level of forest disturbance in the different
land-use classifications was calculated using the Joint Research Centre’s TMF product (Vancutsem
et al. 2021), which maps intact tropical moist forests, forests that have never been degraded over
the observation period (2000–2019), degraded tropical moist forests and forests that have suffered
visible degradation for up to 2.5 consecutive years over the timeframe studied.
The figures on forest disturbances by type of land use and by country (see Tables 1.3 to 1.6) highlight
the magnitude of forest degradation and deforestation in forestry concessions in DRC and CAR
compared with those observed in Cameroon or Gabon. Differences between countries are partly
explained by different demographic contexts. In DRC, for instance, high population density near
concessions leads to the blurring of the boundaries between the industrial and informal logging
areas in a concession (Karsenty 2016). Concessions in DRC are usually very large, making them
difficult to manage and leading to the gradual encroachment of smallholder farmers, illegal loggers
and charcoal producers into the forest (Karsenty 2016). How areas are delimited may, in some cases,
be another reason for differences between countries. For example, unlike DRC, Cameroon has a
policy of excluding areas close to settlements from concessions. The most recent findings presented
Table 1.3: National annual rates of deforestation, degradation and regrowth in forestry
concessions in dense forest areas in Central Africa, 2000–2010 and 2010–2020.
2000–2010 2010–2020
Country Deforestation Degradation Regrowth Deforestation Degradation Regrowth

rate (%) rate (%) rate (%) rate (%) rate (%) rate (%)
Cameroon 0.02 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.16 0.01

Congo 0.04 0.11 0.00 0.13 0.30 0.01
Gabon 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.02 0.07 0.00
Equ. Guinea 0.01 0.10 0.00 0.06 0.24 0.01
CAR 0.25 0.17 0.00 0.27 0.33 0.03
DRC 0.19 0.32 0.00 0.46 0.54 0.05
Table 1.4: National annual rates of deforestation, degradation and regrowth in protected
dense forest areas in Central Africa, 2000–2010 and 2010–2020.
2000–2010 2010–2020

Cameroon 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.04 0.08 0.01

Congo 0.04 0.06 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.13
Gabon 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.06 0.00
Equ. Guinea 0.02 0.06 0.00 0.03 0.08 0.01
CAR 0.27 0.22 0.02 0.28 0.43 0.06
DRC 0.17 0.13 0.03 0.18 0.25 0.07

Table 1.5: National annual rates of deforestation, degradation and regrowth in mining
concessions in dense forest areas in Central Africa, 2000–2010 and 2010–2020.
2000–2010 2010–2020

Cameroon 0.11 0.22 0.00 0.19 0.45 0.03

Congo 0.04 0.20 0.00 0.19 0.44 0.01
Gabon 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.03 0.12 0.00
Equ. Guinea 0.02 0.25 0.00 0.14 0.74 0.02
CAR 0.39 0.46 0.02 0.32 0.65 0.08
DRC 0.65 0.60 0.04 0.70 0.93 0.23
Table 1.6: National annual rates of deforestation, degradation and regrowth in

unclassified dense forest areas in Central Africa, 2000–2010 and 2010–2020.
2000–2010 2010–2020
Country Deforestation Degradation Regrowth

Deforestation Degradation Regrowth rate rate rate
rate (%) rate (%) rate (%)
(%) (%) (%)
Cameroon 0.23 0.34 0.01 0.53 0.95 0.05

Congo 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.48 0.04
Gabon 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.27
Equ. Guinea 0.05 0.28 0.00 0.16 0.49 0.01
CAR 0.64 0.61 0.06 0.65 0.13 1.22
DRC 0.51 0.42 0.02 0.61 0.65 0.15
here are based on a 30 m resolution and are consistent with the study by Davis et al. (2020). This
study concludes that forestry concessions benefit forest conservation in the majority of Central
African countries with forests, with the possible exception of CAR and the Republic of the Congo
(Davis et al. 2020). Panlasigui et al. (2018) have shown how the presence of forest concessions has
significantly reduced forest loss on the Cameroonian coast where forests are under high pressure
due to their proximity to the port city of Douala. Conversely, Karsenty and Hardin (2017) note that
in regions where population pressure on forests is already high, the presence of forestry concessions
can worsen forest loss. Moreover, when access to forests is improved as part of industrial activities, it
becomes easier for subsistence farming, poaching or hunting to reach previously inaccessible areas
(Karsenty and Hardin 2017; Tyukavina et al. 2018). It is therefore likely that hidden local factors
influence whether forestry concessions have a positive or negative effect.
Deforestation and degradation rates in protected areas (see tableau 1.4) follow the same trends as
rates in forestry concessions, i.e. there are more forest disturbances in CAR and DRC than in other
forested countries. While deforestation rates in both types of area tended to increase between
2010 and 2020, deforestation rates in Equatorial Guinea and DRC are over twice as high in forestry
concessions as in protected areas. In CAR deforestation rates remain very slightly higher in protected
areas than in forestry concessions. Nevertheless, degradation rates are lower in protected areas than
in forestry concessions (except in CAR) for the two timeframes studied.

Chapter 1
The similarity of deforestation rates between protected areas and forestry concessions in some
countries is surprising given that protected areas do not have logging routes, which are the main
source of forest disturbances within the concessions. This suggests that some of the forests in
protected areas have been degraded by illegal activities. In an effort to capture the diverse realities
of protected areas, the Central Africa Forest Observatory (OFAC) analytical platform provides
more detailed analyses of each protected area (https://www.observatoire-comifac.net/analytical_
platform).
Across the whole Congo Basin, 5% of protected areas are overlapped by mining titles, of which 65%
are occupied by forests (intact or degraded). Although currently prohibited in Cameroon, it was
previously permitted for mining titles and conservation areas to overlap, which partly explains why
mining concessions are found in 24% of the country’s protected areas. In the Republic of the Congo,
7% of protected areas are overlapped by mining titles, with figures of 6% in Gabon and 3% in DRC.
For the two timeframes covered, the rates calculated here show that forest degradation and
deforestation are greater in unclassified areas than in mining concessions for all forested countries,
except in DRC, where the opposite is true. Forest regrowth rates follow an inverse trend and are
higher in unclassified areas for all countries over both timeframes, except in DRC. In DRC, forest
growth has been observed in mining concessions. However, in the absence of information on the
mining activity carried out under the permits, it is difficult to quantify the impact of mining on
forest disturbance. According to the 2018 WWF report, very few sites have entered the production
stage. Therefore, the discovery of significant reserves could lead to major environmental damage
(Grantham and Tibaldeschi 2018).
DRC and CAR have the highest rates of forest degradation and deforestation related to the mining
sector (see Table 1.5). Excluding artisanal operations, 11.6% of DRC is covered by mining titles, of
which 35% – almost 10 billion ha – cover forests. The impact of artisanal and small-scale mining is
difficult to measure and monitor. Individual operations generally cause only minor damage, as they
are short-term and affect very small local areas, but the cumulative effect of these negative impacts
on the local area significantly increases the pressure on the forests. In addition to its impact on
deforestation, artisanal mining also fuels conflicts in eastern DRC and feeds into the insecurity in
that part of the country (Hund et al. 2017).
A 2017 WWF study on Cameroon, DRC, Gabon and the Republic of the Congo analysed the current
state of mining and its impact on biodiversity conservation in the Congo Basin (Noiraud et al.
2017). Mining is more widespread in the forest region than oil and gas extraction (Hund et al. 2017).
Countries in the subregion see mining as a key driver of their economic development. The direct and
indirect risks of mining for the environment include deforestation – mainly due to the construction
of the infrastructure required –, biodiversity loss and the pollution of aquatic environments. Large-
scale mining operations tend to encourage the movement of large numbers of people seeking to
benefit from the economic assets generated by mining. This situation leads, in turn, to a rise in
poaching and subsistence agriculture (Hund et al. 2017; Noiraud et al. 2017). In Cameroon, the
industrial mining sector is still in its infancy and mainly causes degradation through its exploration
activities. Non-industrial operations, which also cause degradation, are however widespread.
Countries would benefit from drawing up national land use plans to enable different sectors
to coordinate. This would help to avoid conflict over the use of the forest for production and
conservation activities, mining and forestry concessions, the development of agribusiness and the
protection of local populations’ livelihoods.

1.3 Forest reference emission level of

countries in the subregion
1.3.1 What is a forest reference emission level?
Context
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) encourages countries to
mitigate climate change by taking voluntary steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase
the removal and long-term storage of greenhouse gases. The mechanism for reducing emissions from
deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) guides these efforts in the forest sector, targeting five
activities in particular: (1) reducing emissions from deforestation, (2) reducing emissions from forest
degradation, (3) conserving forest carbon stocks, (4) managing forests sustainably and (5) enhancing
forest carbon stocks. Countries participating in REDD+ are also eligible to receive payments if they
can demonstrate the effectiveness (or “results”) of the REDD+ activities implemented.
Box 1.1: REDD+ and the Copernicus land monitoring service

Baudouin Desclée, Andreas Langner, Hugh Eva, Hervis Ghomsi,
Christophe Sannier
The REDDCopernicus project (https://www.reddcopernicus.info) was launched in 2019 to

incorporate forest monitoring into the European Copernicus programme. It formed part
of the EU Horizon 2020 programme. With a view to supporting REDD+ processes, this
research and development project aims to coordinate and consolidate the EU's existing forest
monitoring capacity, which relies on the Copernicus earth observation services.
The team has prepared a preliminary design for the planned Copernicus REDD+ services that
incorporates the main technical and organizational components. A list of potential products,
methods and data that might be suited to forest monitoring were subject to comparative
assessment and nine products were selected covering four components: (1) analysis-ready
satellite data (Sentinel-2 Global Mosaic 2 (S2GM-2) and JRC-L1C-S2 composites); (2) forest/
tree cover status maps (tree cover density (TCD), Forest Type (FTY) and TMF products);
(3) forest cover change maps( (TMF) and Breaks for Additive Season and Trend (BFAST)
products) and (4) forest disturbance and alert maps (Forest Canopy Disturbance Monitoring
(FCDM) and BAYTS products). In addition to the above data components, the project also
incorporates platform and service solutions for processing, downloading and analysing data.
Two online workshops were organized for users from the Congo Basin in September and
October 2020 to further develop the initial design of the Copernicus REDD+ component and
to collect feedback from users. Initially planned as face-to-face meetings, the workshops
were successfully reorganized as webinars with interactive sessions using specialist online
tools combining a geoportal and expert surveys. Participants included several national
Continued on next page

Chapter 1
Box 1.1: continued
Sentinel-2 Global
Mosaics Tree Cover Density
RADAR Forest (TCD)
Cover Loss Alerts
(BAYTS)
Tropical Moist Forest

Breaks For (TMF)
Additive Season
and Trend
(BFAST)
Forest Canopy
Disturbance
Monitoring
(FCDM)
Data and products selected for the preliminary design and presented at
REDDCopernicus workshops.
actors working in the field of forest monitoring and management (National Climate
Change Observatory (ONACC), STREDD+, CNC, Gabonese Studies and Space Observations
Agency (AGEOS), National Centre for Forest and Fauna Inventory (CNIAF), Marien Ngouabi
University/Geomatic and Applied Tropical Ecology Laboratory (UMNG/LGETA), Directorate
of Forest Inventories and Management (DIAF), Regional Post-Graduate Training School
on Integrated Management of Tropical Forests and Lands (ERAIFT)) and regional or
international institutions (OFAC/COMIFAC, FAO, WRI).
Case studies on example sites were presented at these workshops using a geoportal,
developed specifically for the REDDCopernicus project. To evaluate how useful these
products would be for monitoring and reporting on national REDD+ forests, feedback was
collected from users using an online questionnaire.
Using the positive feedback collected from users during these online workshops, the
products and services designed for the potential REDD+ component of the Copernicus land
monitoring services will be refined to better meet national reporting needs.

Objectives
The performance of REDD+ activities is assessed using a baseline called the forest reference emission
level, which only takes account of greenhouse gas emissions, or the forest reference level, which
takes account of both greenhouse gas emissions and removals. To conduct a REDD+ performance
assessment it is therefore necessary to measure the difference between the forest carbon flows
observed after the implementation of measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the flows
that would have occurred without these interventions (business-as-usual or status quo scenario).
The forest reference emission level is used for this purpose and is therefore a key pillar of the REDD+
mechanism. Establishing its forest reference emission level enables a country to (1) measure its
contribution to climate change mitigation through its interventions to limit the negative impact
of human activity on forest resources, (2) present this contribution in the context of the UNFCCC,
(3) evaluate the effectiveness of the policies and measures implemented, and (4) receive payments
based on its greenhouse gas emissions reduction results (CO2, CH4, N2O).
Technical overview
There are a number of technical aspects to consider when establishing forest reference emission
levels. They vary in complexity and are often interrelated. Some very general aspects will be covered
below (readers can refer to the literature on the subject for more detail, e.g. Sandker et al. 2016).
Countries may decide how to establish their forest reference emission levels, but the method used
must meet certain criteria: transparency (concerning, for example, the methods and data used);
accuracy and precision (following Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) good
practices: IPCC 2003; IPCC 2006; GFOI 2016)); and completeness (to allow independent assessors
to re-construct the reference level (see Sandker et al. 2016)). It is also imperative that the method
used to construct the forest reference (emission) level includes information on its parameters, for
example, on how forests are defined, the scope (e.g. which REDD+ activities or which carbon and
gas reservoirs are considered), the scale (e.g. national, provincial or biome level), the reference
period (or historical period) and the accounting period. This information provides a framework
for developing a method for monitoring greenhouse gas flows (often limited to measuring CO2
emissions). The method chosen is used to quantify “historical” emissions over the reference period
(2000–2014 in the illustrative forest reference emission level in Figure 1.16), i.e. before interventions
began to be implemented to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the forest sector. Historical
emissions are used as a benchmark to estimate what the level of emissions would have been over
the accounting period – i.e. the period following the implementation of interventions – if these
interventions had not occurred (the business-as-usual scenario). The level of emissions over the
accounting period can be projected using the average of the historical emissions (as shown in
Figure 1.16). If a country considers past greenhouse gas emissions to be a poor predictor of its future
emissions from the forest sector, especially where emissions have been planned before the national
forest reference level is established (e.g. forestry concessions, national and local development plans,
etc.), an “adjustment” to the national reference level may be considered. National reference levels
are deemed to have been “adjusted” when criteria other than historical emissions are taken into
account.
The performance of REDD+ activities can then be assessed by comparing current emissions with
the national forest reference level established for the accounting period, expressed in tonnes of CO2
equivalent (tCO2e) per year.

Chapter 1
Figure 1.16: Example forest reference emission level
Calculating activity data and emission factors

How emissions are calculated to determine each historical data point (blue points in Figure 1.16) is
a direct determinant of the reliability of national reference level estimates. The number of historical
data points corresponds to the number of times a change was observed over the period studied.
The calculation of emissions generally consists of two components: activity data and emission
factors. Activity data relate to the spatial extent of a change in land use over a given time interval (for
example, conversion from moist forest to cropland). Activity data are usually obtained by analysing
satellite images to detect these changes and categorize them (e.g. from moist forest to cropland,
in the example above) according to specified land use classes. Emission factors are an estimate of
the difference between the carbon stock in forest biomass and the carbon stock in the land as used
after conversion, and are typically estimated from inventory data (Sandker et al 2016). Multiplying
activity data by the associated emission factor provides an estimate of the carbon flow over the time
interval considered, which can be converted directly into CO2 equivalent. A major challenge when
establishing forest reference levels is minimizing uncertainties about activity data and emission
factors, which together determine the accuracy of emission estimates.
1.3.2 Submission status of forest reference emission

levels for Central Africa
At the time of writing, four Central African countries have submitted a forest reference emission
level to the UNFCCC: the Republic of the Congo (2016), DRC (2018), Gabon (2021) and Equatorial
Guinea (2020). CAR finalized its forest reference emission level in 2020, but has not yet submitted
it to the UNFCCC. As the two most recent drafts have not yet undergone a technical evaluation,
they are not commented on here, but do appear, for information, in Table 1.3. The forest reference
emission levels of the Republic of the Congo, Gabon and DRC offer points of comparison, but also
have salient differences in terms of the definitions, methods and data used.
Parameters of forest reference emission level submissions

While all three countries’ forest reference emission levels cover their entire national territory, DRC’s
reference level is unique in that it is calculated by aggregating the estimated activity data for each
of the country’s 26 provinces. The calculation of activity data by province is justified in DRC by
the country’s large size and by the desire to be able to assess the impact of the various emission

Table 1.7: Overview of forest reference emission levels in Central Africa.
Democratic
Republic of the Central African
Country Gabon Equatorial Guinea Republic of the
Congo Republic
Congo
Official & Technical Official & Technical Official Technical Official Technical Official & Technical
Area 0.5 ha 1 ha 0.5 ha 1 ha 0.5 ha 0.09 ha 0.81 ha
Definition of forest
Height 3m 5m 5m 5m 3m - 5m
Canopy cover 30% 30% 10% 30% 30% 50% 10%
Deforestation Deforestation Deforestation Deforestation Deforestation
Activities
Degradation Degradation Degradation - Degradation
Above-ground Above-ground
Above-ground biomass Above-ground biomass Above-ground biomass
biomass biomass
Reservoirs Below-ground Below-ground
Below-ground biomass Below-ground biomass Below-ground biomass
biomass biomass
Scope
Deadwood biomass Deadwood biomass Deadwood biomass - Deadwood biomass
Litter and soil organic Litter and soil organic
carbon carbon
Harvested wood
products
Gases CO2 CO2 CO2 CO2 CO2, CH4, N2O
Scale National National National National National
Reference period 2000–2012 2000–2009 2014–2018 2000–2014 2011–2018
Periods
Accounting period 2015–2020 2010–2018 - 2015–2019 -
Sample-based
(870 points) Sample-based
Sample-based Sample-based Sample-based
Methodology (665 points (primary
Activity Data & Bookkeeping (pixel (1,832 points) (21 323 points) (1,200 points)
sampling unit))
archiving)
Data points 1 1 1 2 4
Pre-dating the
National forest National forest National forest
Source: IPCC (2006) national forest
Emission Factors inventory inventory inventory
inventory
Number of strata 5 7 7 6 4
The forests of the Congo Basin |

Forest reference Approach used Historical average Historical average Historical average Linear projection Historical average
29
emission levels Adjustment Yes Yes - Yes -

Chapter 1
reduction policies and interventions implemented at the provincial level, in view of the local
context. However, this choice has serious implications in terms of the work required to calculate
activity data. Similarly, the Republic of the Congo and Gabon use the same official and technical
definitions of forest, but DRC has introduced an “operational” definition that differs from the official
definition of forest for technical reasons (see Table 1.3). This operational definition allows for the
area of the reference samples to be adjusted to the spatial resolution of the map showing land use
change (i.e. 30 x 30 m), given that this method uses the reference sample areas to describe the
extent of the forest. Unlike the Republic of the Congo and Gabon, DRC does not consider forest
degradation. However, the operational definition of forest in DRC means that emissions associated
with tree cover loss that is much lower than that considered in the Republic of the Congo or Gabon
will be taken into account. This should make it possible to more accurately quantify the country's
forest-related emissions, which are often linked to small-scale land use changes (in particular,
slash-and-burn agriculture). In addition to above-ground and below-ground biomass, the Republic
of the Congo and Gabon include dead wood as a carbon reservoir when calculating their forest
reference emission levels. Moreover, the Republic of the Congo and Gabon use the historical average
to determine their forest reference emission levels, while DRC uses a linear projection. In line with
the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) methodological framework, existing carbon stocks
may be adjusted upward by up to 0.1% per year. The Republic of the Congo, Gabon and DRC all take
advantage of this possibility.
Calculation of activity data

Two main methodological approaches can be used to calculate activity data. For the first method,
considered state of the art, random reference samples from the whole territory are interpreted and
stratified using the pixel change map (Olofsson et al. 2014). This sample-based approach was used
to calculate the forest reference emission levels of the Republic of the Congo, Gabon, and DRC, with
a respective 870, 665 and 21,323 samples interpreted using satellite images. The very high number
of samples used in DRC is a direct result of the decision to quantify the activity data for each of the
country’s 26 provinces.
An alternative method, not adopted at the time, involves mapping changes in land use using
satellite images to produce a map of changes. Activity data are then obtained by adding together the
area of the pixels showing the transitions (from dense moist forest to cropland, for example). This
pixel-based approach, based on data from Global Forest Watch, leads to seriously flawed results that
underestimate cover loss in tropical moist forests in Africa by around 90% (Tyukavina et al. 2015).
Calculation of emission factors

All three countries use inventory data to calculate their forest reference emission levels. The Republic
of the Congo uses data taken from the National Forest Inventory (NFI). This inventory, carried out
between 2007 and 2015, covers the entire country, except the swamp areas in the east of the country.
These data are converted to biomass estimates using a pan-tropical allometric equation that fails
to account for variations in height-diameter allometry. This weakness is noted as a possible point
of improvement in the forest reference emission level documentation. Gabon began collecting
new inventory data in 2017 and in 2020 covered 104 non-mangrove forest sites. The pan-tropical
allometric equation used converts tree diameter into above-ground biomass and takes account of
variables like wood density and tree height. In DRC, the inventory data predate the national forest
inventory, given that the first national inventory only started in 2018. While the country’s emission

factors were calculated using an allometric equation for estimating biomass that takes account
of tree height, and therefore of variations in height-diameter allometry, using data from the first
national forest inventory would significantly improve these estimates.
1.3.3 Forest reference emission levels at the provincial

level: Case study of Maï-Ndombe province in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Activity data and the associated emissions were estimated for Mai-Ndombe province in DRC for
a 2005–2014 reference period and for an initial 2018–2019 accounting period in line with DRC’s
Programme Document and the Emission Reductions Payment Agreement (ERPA). The end date of
the reference period aligns with that of the national forest reference emission level, but the start
date is set at 2005 because the Carbon Facility’s methodological framework requires a duration of
around 10 years. The method used was based on good practices recommended by the IPCC. Such
approaches use statistically unbiased estimators with known uncertainty. Strata were established
using maps produced from remote-sensing data, making it possible to take a stratified random
sample for the probabilistic analysis of Landsat and Google Earth time series reference data. The
maps produced showed relevant forest cover transitions, in particular the dynamics of dense moist
forest loss and the dynamics of secondary forest loss and gain. Landsat imagery was used to map
the province. The reference data interpreted were used to calculate net activity data in relation to
forest change with a target margin of error of ± 20 percentage points at the 90% confidence level for
each activity class, which was achieved using 2,000 reference samples. The resulting area estimates
were combined with national emission and removal factors to estimate emissions and removals
at the province level. A reference level was calculated for emissions and another for removals to
account for the inherent effects of removals.
The reference emission level was derived from the averages for shorter periods, 2005–2009 and
2010–2014, and was calculated based on annual emissions of 28,917,393 tCO2/year and annual
removals of -1,680,533 tCO2/year, resulting in an average of 27,236,859 tCO2/year. To this total,
5,788,886 tCO2/year were added following the 0.1% adjustment (see Contours des soumissions NERF)
giving a total of 33,025,746 tCO2/year (see Tables 1.4 to 1.7 and Figure 17 for all figures). Over the
reference period, there was a significant upward trend in emissions, with the 2005–2009 emission
level of 18,092,216 tCO2/year doubling to 36,971,610 tCO2/year in 2010–2014. This situation justifies
the inclusion of an alternative reference emission level based on a business-as-usual scenario.
Although many business-as-usual adjustments are possible, a scenario that is conservative
compared with other options was established by projecting a straight line between the first and last
years of the reference period using the average emissions in the sub-period. Any other line between
the two periods would be less conservative.
Estimated net emissions for the first two years of the accounting period, 2018–2019, were calculated
based on emissions of 42,854,387 tCO2/year and removals of -2,855,028 tCO2/year, the latter
calculated on the basis of projected rates of forest gain. This calculation results in net emissions
of 39,999,359 tCO2/year, well above the FCPF reference level, but below the conservative business-
as-usual adjustment of 44,523,368 tCO2/year for the same period. The business-as-usual scenario
therefore shows an emission reduction of more than 4 million tCO2/year over the 2018–2019
accounting period. This suggests that an upward trend in emissions over the reference period could
justify a business-as-usual adjustment when assessing the performance of the emission reduction
programme in Mayi-Ndombe province in DRC.

Chapter 1
Table 1.8: Revised activity data from the University of Maryland for the reference period
(2005–2014).
90% confidence interval
Land use change Activity data (ha) (+/- ha) Uncertainty
Deforestation, primary forest 154,643 18,685 12.1%

Deforestation, secondary forest 381,344 47,602 12.5%
Degradation 144,756 23,176 16.0%
Regrowth, primary forest N/A N/A N/A
Regrowth, secondary forest 239,234 31,151 13.0%
Table 1.9: National emission factors (submission to UNFCCC).

Emission factors (tCO2/ha)
90% confidence
Land use change Removal factors (tCO2/ha/year) Uncertainty
interval (+/- tCO2/ha)
Deforestation, primary forest 688.30 58.74 8.5%

Deforestation, secondary forest 351.23 104.14 29.6%
Degradation 337.07 61.64 18.3%
Regrowth, secondary forest -17.56 5.21 29.6%
Table 1.10: Revised reference emission level based on University of Maryland activity data
and national emission factors.
90% confidence
Land-use change Emissions / Removals (tCO2/year) interval (+/- tCO2/year) Uncertainty
Deforestation, primary forest 10,644,095 1,574,557 14.8%

Deforestation, secondary forest 13,394,055 4,308,914 32.2%
Degradation 4,879,243 1,185,873 24.3%
Regrowth, secondary forest -1,680,533 524,297 -31.2%
Forest reference level 27,236,859 4,767,300 17.5%
Adjustment 5,788,886 569,825 9.84%
Adjusted forest reference level 33,025,746 4,801,234 14.54%

Table 1.11: Results of the emission reduction programme for the first reporting period.
Forest reference (emission) levels and Emissions / Removals 90% confidence
Uncertainty
emissions, 1st reporting period (tCO2/year) interval (+/- tCO2/year)
FCPF forest reference level - emissions 34,706,279 4,801,234 14.5%

FCPF - Baseline removals, 1 accounting period
st
-1,680,533 524,297 31.2%
(2018–2019)
FCPF forest reference level 33,025,746 4,829,776 14.6%
Emissions, 1 accounting period (2018–2019)
st
42,854,387 18,814,673 43.9%
Removals 1 accounting period (2018–2019)
st
-2,855,028 738,285 -25.9%
Net emissions, 1st accounting period (2018–

39,999,359 18,829,152 47.1%
2019)
Business-as-usual (BAU) emissions (2018–2019)
44,523,368
Emission reductions, 1st accounting period

-6,973,613
(2018–2019) with FCPF adjustment
(21 Sep 2018 - 30 Jul 2019) with FCPF -5,977,382
adjustment
4,524,009
(2018–2019) with BAU adjustment
(21 Sep 2018 - 30 Jul 2019) with BAU 3,877,723
adjustment
Figure 1.17: Graph showing the reference emission levels and accounting period for Mai-
Ndombe province, DRC. Reference emission levels are shown as black lines, estimated
emissions in the accounting period are shown in blue, and FCPF and business-as-usual
adjusted reference emission levels are shown in green and purple, respectively. Gross
annual emissions are shown in grey in two-year intervals and mirror the increasing
emissions rate over the reference period.

Chapter 1
Conclusions and outlook for forest

monitoring in the Congo Basin
Since 2000, the loss of intact forests has accelerated in all Central African countries, with
deforestation rates reaching highs over the past five years. If the current pace of deforestation and
forest degradation continues, 27% of the undisturbed moist forest in Central Africa (including
Angola and Uganda) that existed in 2020 will have disappeared by 2050.
Land-use policies are a valuable tool in the fight against deforestation and forest degradation.
Protected areas, forestry concessions and community forests can significantly reduce forest loss and
engage local people in the conservation of forests, while securing their livelihoods.
When it comes to monitoring deforestation and degradation at the national or sub-national level,
methods for monitoring forest cover and the associated biodiversity will undoubtedly improve.
New opportunities for monitoring forest ecosystems have opened up thanks to the launch of the
Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 satellites in recent years and the availability of free Planet data through
Norway's International Climate and Forest Initiative (NICFI). The spatial and temporal resolution of
these data makes it possible to accurately monitor Central Africa’s tropical forests. The redundancy
of the observation system and the long-term nature of the Sentinel satellite mission mean that
remote sensing is likely to be the main operational source of information for monitoring forest
change in the coming decades.
The GEDI and Biomass satellites will improve the quality of biomass mapping, which still has
many weaknesses. The development of networks for the collection of field data will continue to be
essential for the adjustment and evaluation of the relationships between sensor measurements and
biomass reference estimates made on the ground.
Finally, it is important to significantly increase the transparency and traceability of monitoring

systems and to ensure the independence of national authorities when they produce their reports.
The disconnect between the people monitoring the forests and the countries conserving them
negatively affects the legitimacy, effectiveness and dissemination the information generated. It is
therefore important to hand over the leadership of forest monitoring efforts in the Congo Basin to
national experts from COMIFAC member countries, while also harmonizing the methods and forest
type definitions used in the region.

CHAPTER 2
The evolution of the wood
subsector in the Congo Basin
Coordinator : Nicolas Bayol1

Authors : Caroline Duhesme,2 Michel Gally,1 Stéphane Glannaz,3
Cécile Hervo,1 Youssouf Kone,4 Guillaume Lescuyer,5 Liboum
Mbonayem,5 Prosper Nakoe,6 Alain Ngoya Kessy,7 Petra Lahann,8
Alexandra Pasquier,1 Olman Serrano,2 Tom van Loon9
FRMi, 2ATIBT, 3Precious Woods, 4AfDB, 5CIFOR-ICRAF, 6CDE, Central African Ministry of
1
Water and Forests, 7Independent Forestry Consultant, 8GIZ, 9Interholco
Photo by Mokhamad Edliadi/CIFOR

Chapter 2
2.1 State of the knowledge: Figures and

trends
2.1.1 The management of production forests in Central
Africa
Areas and concessions

Forest area
Of the 200 million hectares of dense moist forest in Central Africa (Vancutsem et al. 2020), just
under 30 million hectares are classified as protected area and nearly 54 million hectares (27 percent)
are classified as production forest of various types, mainly in the form of forestry concessions.1
It follows that more than 100 million hectares of forest in Central Africa have not been assigned
any specific classification. Such forests are located mainly in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
(DRC), as well as in Cameroon. Land-use policies must classify these vast areas to reconcile, as far as
possible, the conservation of forest ecosystems, the sustainable use of their resources, differing local
demands and economic development.
In DRC in recent years, many conservation concessions have been created, either by converting
production forest concessions (reducing the area presented in Table 2.1) or by creating new
concessions. There are no comprehensive public data on these concessions, which were thought
to cover several million hectares at the end of 2021 (more than 6 million hectares according to an
estimate by FRMi). These concessions aim to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Table 2.1: Classification of dense moist forest in the Congo Basin

Country Total area of Area of forest Area of forest Area of
dense moist cover used for cover used for unclassified
forest (ha)1 production2 conservation3 forest cover
Cameroon 21,500,000 8,740,404 2,938,825 9,820,771
Congo 23,300,000 13,411,074 2,995,833 6,893,093
Gabon 23,900,000 15,722,201 3,570,894 4,606,905
Equatorial Guinea 3,300,000 1,035,921 502,030 1,762,049
CAR 8,700,000 3,084,409 1,687,578 3,928,013
DRC 116,900,000 11,743,873 15,760,600 89,395,527
Total region 197,600,000 53,737,883 27,455,760 116,406,358

1 Vancutsem et al. 2020
2 Estimate based on Central African Forest Observatory (OFAC) data
3 World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) – IUCN 2020
1 https://www.iucn.org/theme/protected-areas

The evolution of the wood subsector in the Congo Basin
Forestry concessions
In the Congo Basin, except in Equatorial Guinea, natural forests used for the industrial production
of timber are managed according to a single model, founded on five basic principles:
• Natural forests are public property;
• The government grants private operators the right to harvest wood within forest areas covering
tens of thousands to a million hectares (averaging 116,000 hectares) over 20 to 35 years;2
• The holder of a forestry concession is obliged to manage the forest and preserve the integrity of
the concession in line with certain standards, following a management plan that specifies the
rules for logging in the forest and how it will be managed;
• Concessionaires are required to draw up forest management plans on the basis of (multi-
resource) forest management inventories and socioeconomic studies; The government must
approve the documents and monitor their implementation;
• Concessionaires are required to contribute to the local development of the region where they
operate.
The forest management standards that flow from this model are therefore substantially the same.
They were conceived in the 1990s with the support of projects financed by international assistance:
• Forestry activities are planned based on field surveys and studies;
• Concessions are divided into sub-divisions called ‘series’;
• Logging activities extend across the entire area over a 20-to-35-year harvest cycle;
• Minimum cutting diameters are set for each species, subject to the satisfactory renewal of
the resource between two cutting cycles;
• In addition to sustainable wood production, social and environmental sustainability must
also be considered.
This forest management process, which is now mandatory, has become more widespread since
the 2000s. This pattern is set to continue considering that almost 70% of forestry concessions are
equipped with a management plan. Beyond finalizing the management process in the outstanding
30 percent, we now face the challenge of ensuring that the resulting plans are implemented
properly in all forestry concessions. Indeed, proper implementation is not guaranteed given the
governance situation in the region, where states fail to monitor compliance with management
documents.
The forest management model used in Central Africa has proven able to respond effectively
to the need for sustainable resource management. It has in part compensated for the lack of
comprehensive classification and weak government capacity around forest management.
Nevertheless, it is governments that are responsible for establishing the rules for forest
management and for verifying that management plans comply with those rules.
In parallel, certification standards have been developed that enable producers, on a voluntary
basis, to have their operations certified and guarantee compliance with government-defined forest
management principles.
2 Only CAR’s legislation grants logging and forest management permits for the lifetime of the beneficiary company.

Table 2.2: Summary of concession areas in the Congo Basin
All forestry concessions Assigned forestry concessions Managed concessions Certified concessions
Chapter 2
Area (ha) Number Average Area (ha) Number Percentage Productive Average Area (ha) Percentage Area (ha) Percentage
area (ha) of area area (ha)
productive
area
Cameroon 8,354,856 192 43,515 8,017,016 169 90% 7,220,957 47,438 7,647,610 95% 3,163,340 39%
UFA 6,732,048 120 56,100 6,620,388 117 90% 5,963,992 56,585 6,250,982 94% 3,163,340 48%
Communal forests 1,622,808 72 22,539 1,396,628 52 90% 1,256,965 26,858 1,396,628 100% 0 0%

Rep. Congo 14,800,000 59 250,847 14,471,917 56 65% 9,377,387 258,427 8,597,046 59% 3,380,692 23%
North/central Rep. Congo 9,523,777 21 453,513 9,523,777 21 71% 5,724,725 453,513 6,145,321 65% 2,989,168 31%
South Rep.Congo 5,264,497 38 138,539 4,948,140 35 74% 3,652,662 141,375 2,451,725 50% 391,524 8%
Gabon 15,999,498 116 137,927 14,688,311 108 92% 13,513,246 136,003 13,800,000 94% 3,023,140 21%
Equatorial Guinea 1,064,900 98 10,866 1,064,900 98 90% 958,410 10,866 0 0% 0 0%
CAR 3,706,106 14 264,722 3,249,505 12 68% 2,201,449 270,792 3,249,505 100% 0 0%
DRC 17,410,017 182 209,952 14,124,506 132 55% 7,809,267 225,336 8,500,000 60% 749,753 5%
Forestry concessions 15,370,392 81 189,758 12,780,086 62 55% 7,065,954 206,130 8,500,000 67% 749,753 6%
Community forests 2,039,625 101 20,194 1,344,420 70 55% 743,313 19,206 0% 0 0%
Total 61,335,377 661 92,792 55,616,155 575 74% 41,080,716 96,724 40,397,533 73% 10,316,925 19%
Of which are long-term 57,672,944 488 910,221 52,875,107 453 74% 39,080,438 116,722 40,397,533 76% 10,316,925 20%
concessions
Data sources:
• On certified concessions: ATIBT 2021
• Cameroon: WRI 2020
• Republic of the Congo: FRMi 2022
• Gabon: FRMi 2022
• Central African Republic: South-West Regional Development Project (PDRSO) 2020
• DRC: Support Project for Sustainable Forest Management in DRC (AGEDUFOR) 2018. Update FRMi 2021
• Equatorial Guinea: FRMi-African Development Bank (AfDB) 2018
The Central African forest management model is not at issue, though there is room for improvement,
which will happen over time. It is a major asset for the preservation of these forests and their
sustainable use. However, more than 15 years after the first management plans were approved, it
remains crucial to assess how these documents have been implemented.
Box 2.1: Log production sharing contracts: New challenges for the
forestry sector in the Republic of the Congo
The Republic of the Congo’s new Forestry Act (No. 33-2020 of 8 July 2020) has revolutionized
contracts between the government, which owns the forests, and forestry concessionaires.
The current concession regime is temporary and governs the transition, within three years, to
a new “production sharing” system inspired by the contracts signed in the oil sector.
The Forestry Code states that “the procedures for establishing production sharing
arrangements shall be laid down by law” and also provides for production sharing contracts
to be negotiated by the Minister for Forests and then approved by the government (Council
of Ministers and Parliament). The introduction of the production sharing system will be
accompanied by certain forestry tax exemptions, which should be offset by the income the
state generates from timber sales.
The main objectives of this production sharing system are to significantly increase the
forestry sector’s contribution to the country’s GDP (currently 5-6 percent) and to increase
government revenue streams. To achieve these objectives, the production sharing system
will divide the logs produced between the state and the forestry operator. The state’s log
allocation will be used to supply new specialized industries. These new industries will be
able to set up in Special Economic Zones (SEZs). SEZs are industrial hubs offering attractive
conditions for new investments and are another pillar of the Republic of the Congo’s forestry
policy.
The legal provisions governing this production sharing system remain to be clarified.
During the transition to the production sharing system, care should be taken not to
jeopardize industrial investments already made by concessionaires. This is particularly
important where these investments are intended to increase the marketability of well-known
species that, in some cases, already benefit from optimal mobilization.
The forest management role already entrusted to concessionaires should also be recognized
and maintained.
If the challenges described above are overcome, this new contract type will offer an
opportunity for the wood sector in the Republic of the Congo to progressively diversify its
harvests, add more value to the sustainably managed resources available, better supply the
legal timber market and, ultimately, increase the positive economic effects of this sector.

Chapter 2
Other production forest management models: Community and communal

forests
The majority of countries in the Congo Basin have adopted regulations governing the development
of community forestry. Some frameworks have been introduced more recently, as is the case for
DRC, which adopted its national community forestry strategy in 2018, and for the Republic of the
Congo, which revised its forestry code in 2020, clarifying the definition of a community forest.
The specifics of the legislation adopted in each country do nevertheless have significant differences
(see Box 2.3).
Box 2.2: The community forest management model implemented

in Maniema with the support of GIZ
GIZ has been working in Maniema province, DRC, in the area of community forestry since
2011 within the framework of the national Forestry Code and the 2014 regulations on Local
Community Forestry Concessions (LCFC), and as part of its biodiversity conservation and
sustainable forest management programme. An LCFC covering 47,013 ha of natural forest
was set up and formally established in the Bisemulu community area. It is co-managed with
local people in the Lomami National Park.
To set up this LCFC it was necessary to undertake a number of preparatory activities:

participatory mapping, forest inventories, completing the concession application
documents, drawing up a simple management plan and establishing the bodies responsible
for managing the concession. The community set up a cooperative, primarily responsible
for managing the cutting, transport and sale of the trees. Two logging operations have
been undertaken since 2019 and the income invested into a community development fund.
These funds will be used to implement specific community projects as set out in the local
development plan.
Based on this experience, there are plans to create nine additional LCFCs in 2021–2026.
Four potential sites have already been identified through the analysis of satellite imagery.
An awareness campaign will be conducted in the local communities to ensure that local
people are interested in participating in the initiative and to explain the process of creating
an LCFC. This campaign aims to obtain the formal agreement of local communities and
to gather their initial opinions on how the concessions should be used. From this starting
point, the boundaries of the local community’s forest and the LCFC will be mapped with
the participation of local people and the available resources inventoried (wood, non-timber
products and wildlife). Finally, agreement will be sought among all major stakeholders
concerning the purpose of the LCFC.
Experience to date has highlighted several important points:
• Involving local people in mapping reduces conflicts over territorial boundaries;

• Provincial, local and community governments need to be strengthened;
• Other actors should be kept in the loop to combat illegal logging and to upgrade roads.

Box 2.3: Regulatory framework for local authority forests in the

Congo Basin
In Cameroon, Forestry Act No. 94/01 of 20 January 1994 lays down the arrangements
for managing communal forestry, the bedrock of decentralized forest management. It is
supplemented by Act No. 2004/019 laying down the rules at the regional level. These two
acts are accompanied by a regulatory framework that specifies where these areas can be
established and how they should be managed. Cameroon is the only country in the Congo
Basin that has seen its communal forests grow in size since the 2000s, reaching nearly
2,356,807 ha in 2019.
In the Republic of the Congo, Act No. 33-2020, establishing the Forestry Code, provides for
the creation of local authority forests in Articles 24 to 26. The implementing decrees have
not yet been drawn up and the majority of forests have already been assigned, making the
creation of these forests uncertain. These forests will be privately owned by local authorities.
The CAR’s Forestry Code establishes a forest domain for public authorities, but the status of
forests under this classification is poorly defined. Though they do not yet exist, the decrees on
this classification are expected to assign these forests to public authorities’ private domain
and specify what management rules should be applied.
In September 2015, DRC introduced an “artisanal forestry unit” status allowing for an area
of up to 500 ha to be assigned within the protected forest domain. These units are managed
by a decentralized territorial entity (sector/chiefdom/municipality) and an agreement is
entered into with the local community which has customary ownership rights. Part of the
income from the logging activities is paid to decentralized territorial entities to fund local
development.
In Rwanda, the forestry policy, laid down in Act No. 47/1988, stipulates that decentralized
authorities must involve local communities in the management of forest resources. They are
mandated, among other things, to partner with the private sector to facilitate investment.
The Environment Code makes districts responsible for protection, reforestation and forest
management (Article 61 of Framework Act No. 04/2005 of 8 April 2005).
In Chad, local authorities were first granted the right to create and manage departmental or
communal forests within the framework of decentralization. The Forestry Act also provides
for the decentralized management of natural resources. The forest domain is therefore
comprised of state forests and those of the decentralized local authorities, as part of their
respective private domains.
Local authority forestry in the Congo Basin mainly takes the form of ineffective legal
statements (Republic of the Congo, CAR, Chad), a flawed legal framework (Rwanda, Burundi)
or one that is only in its infancy (DRC). However, a number of countries are willing to
reform or implement regulations in this area (Republic of the Congo, DRC). Cameroon, the
most advanced country when it comes to the creation and management of local authority
forests, has improved how the financial resources generated by logging are used to build
infrastructure to promote local development, in particular through Order No. 76/2012 and its
finance acts. It is hoped that these forests will make a more marked contribution to the local
economy in the future and that all Central African countries will engage more proactively
with this process.

Chapter 2
While community forestry does seem to be gaining ground across the subregion, it was first
introduced in Cameroon 20 years ago. This initial model faced challenges around implementation,
resulting in a large volume of illegal timber being taken from community forests. It contributed
little to the national economy and was linked to unsustainable forest management. These
challenges, coupled with land grabbing and the misappropriation of funds, prevented the
legislation from achieving its aim of improving local people’s standard of living.
Community forestry does however remain an avenue for communities to guarantee access to
the land, carry out customary activities, harvest timber for local needs and gather firewood and
non-timber forest products. Some of these activities are also permitted in forestry concessions.
Experience has shown that, as in the case of Cameroon, logging in the context of community
forestry faces a number of technical and organizational challenges. Forests can be used in other
ways that may be conducive to sustainable development.
Conservation is one possibility, although it might only be accepted by communities as part of

a wider rural development project. Other productive activities can also be identified within
communities such as creating tree plantations, collecting non-timber forest products, and
conducting agroforestry or REDD+ community projects. However, positioning these activities
within viable economic models that can fund forest management and provide an income to the
community remains a challenge.
Community-based artisanal logging could serve the local legal wood market and could facilitate
the development of an artisanal wood value chain with the associated socioeconomic benefit
of meeting local communities’ basic needs (construction of housing, firewood, supplementary
household income). Requiring significant technical capacity, such an initiative would involve
equipping communities with the skills needed for forest management and logging, or developing
partnerships with management or logging operators. It would primarily target the very local
market, focusing on nearby towns, given the significant logistical barriers to supplying more
distant markets. Tailored implementation approaches should be used, like that proposed by the
Developing Community Alternatives to Illegal Logging Project (DACEFI2) in Gabon. Under this
model, the forest is managed sustainably by rural people who are legally permitted to harvest
forest resources and who will see their incomes rise. The classification of land in community
forests is decided by the community with areas assigned to agriculture, logging and conservation.
While community forestry in the Congo Basin has had mixed results and the initial aim of
allowing local communities to benefit directly from forest management has not yet been
realized, this model is continuing to gain ground in the subregion. It has been heralded as a way
to strengthen communities’ livelihoods, to contribute to the protection of forests and to achieve
climate objectives, though these benefits still remain to be seen in practice. All stakeholders have
a role to play in ensuring that the community management of forests contributes to the health of
forested areas and supports inclusive development (FERN 2019).

Legal timber production: Certification and inspection mechanisms

(in particular, Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade
(FLEGT))
Initiatives to promote legal and responsible forest management
Following awareness campaigns and major international debates, distributors and some importing
states are more alert to the issue of responsible forest management and take greater care to determine
the origin of the wood they buy and the conditions under which it was produced. To ensure that
producers follow legal and sustainable forest management practices, incentive schemes have been
set up to encourage better adherence. Such schemes include private certifications and institutional
mechanisms, such as FLEGT.3
Third-party forest certification
The idea of sustainable forest management certifications emerged in the early 1990s as an innovative
way to promote sustainable forest management by bringing different stakeholders together.
Forest certification initiatives have faced a slow and difficult road in Africa, particularly Central
Africa, despite the forests of the Congo Basin forming the second largest tropical forest block in the
world.
Following Gabon’s early efforts dating back to 1996, companies really began to take notice of
forest certification in 2004. At first the focus was on legality (OLB, Timber Legality & Traceability
Verification (TLTV), Verification of Legal Origin (VLO)/Verification of Legal Compliance (VLC)),4 but
later shifted to sustainable management, such as the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification,
first issued in 2005. In parallel to these advances, a certification system that more closely reflected
the realities of logging in Central Africa was developed through national Pan-African Forest
Certifications (PAFCs) (recognized by the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification
(PEFC) system), with the first certificate issued in Gabon in 2018.
Following steady growth between 2004 and 2010, forest certification initiatives encountered a
number of difficulties, resulting in a slowdown in new requests for certification. These difficulties
included high implementation costs, low-paying markets, pressure from stakeholders, flawed
governance and difficulties complying with regulatory requirements. 2018 marked a turning point
in the evolution of certification processes. Two leading certification groups ended their activities in
Cameroon, terminating their FSC certificates, while – around the same time – PAFC Gabon issued its
first certificate and various countries introduced incentives (see Table 2.3).
The situation then began to gradually improve, thanks in part to the support of the Programme for
the Promotion of Certified Forests (PPECF) and its certification support programme. DRC joined the
movement with two certificates of legality and the outlook is good for 2021, particularly in Gabon.
This trend is further bolstered by measures and incentives adopted to promote certification.
3 Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade

4 OLB certification from Bureau Veritas; TLTV was proposed by SGS and subsequently withdrawn; the VLO (VLO/VLC) certification was replaced
by the LegalSource certification from Preferred by Nature (formerly NEPCon).

Chapter 2
Box 2.4: The Pan-African Forest Certification (PAFC) Congo Basin

Initiative
Since 2019, ATIBT has been developing a Pan-African Forest Certification (PAFC) system for
the Congo Basin recognized by the Board of the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest
Certification (PEFC).1
By taking a regional approach, the costs of PEFC certification will be minimized in the three
target countries, as they can pool their resources to pursue certification through their national
PAFC bodies.2 This will make it easier to implement and reduce the associated cost for
businesses.
In the first phase, the application file was prepared and submitted to PEFC International
requesting recognition of the PAFC scheme.
A key document included in the application file was the forest management standard approved
by stakeholders in November 2020. This reference document, which has stimulated intense
debate, proposes to introduce innovative requirements, such as a management system, social
and wildlife management plans, greenhouse gas assessments and carbon stock estimations.
1 It is funded by the Programme for the Promotion of Certified Forests (PPECF), PEFC International and IDH The Sustainable Trade Initiative.
2 There are currently three national PAFC initiatives: PAFC Gabon, PAFC Cameroon and PAFC Congo.
8.000.000
7.000.000
6.000.000
5.000.000
Area (ha)
4.000.000
3.000.000
2.000.000
1.000.000
0
2010 2012 2016 2018 2020 Target value
FSC PAFC Legality
Figure 2.1: Change in area covered by FSC, PAFC and legal timber certifications in the Congo
Basina
a Legal timber certifications include OLB (Bureau Veritas), VLO/VLC then LegalSource (Preferred by Nature, formerly NEPCon), Timber
Legality Verification (TLV) (Control Union), CW/FSC (Controlled Wood FSC Forest Management) certifications. Source: ATIBT 2021
Table 2.3: Change in area of FSC certified forests, in hectares
Country 2009 2010 2011 2012 2014 2015 2017 2018 2020
Cameroon 564241 705064 818726 639560 1013374 870647 1130301 341703 341708
Rep. Congo 1907843 1907843 2430996 2478943 2053205 2443186 2478943 2410693 2989168
Gabon 1873505 1873505 1873505 1873505 2053505 282494 204,2616 1,165,365 2061190
Source: https://fsc.org/en/facts-figures

Table 2.4: Incentives promoting third-party certification in the Congo Basin
Cameroon Republic of the CAR Gabon DRC

Congo
Type FLEGT and FLEGT and legal FLEGT Policy and fiscal
fiscal
Incentives Certification- Procedures for Recognition of 2018 Presidential Advocacy to

based FLEGT issuing certification- certification Declaration: incorporate
certificate based FLEGT provided for requirement to be recognition of
of legality certificate of legality in the FLEGT FSC certified by certification into
(operational, (undergoing Voluntary 2022 (regulatory the VPA (under
but not very approval, planned for Partnership text pending) negotiation)
effective) 2021) Agreements
(VPA)
Plan to New Forestry Code: Amending

introduce Article 72: Logging Finance Act 2020:
different export companies may seek area-based tax
tax bands certification of their with certification-
depending on forest management based bands
the level of practices or of (uncertified,
certification of the legality of the legality, FSC/
the products products harvested PAFC)
exported (under and processed
discussion) (+ Articles 65 and
257)
Advocacy to
incorporate
recognition of
certification into
the VPA (under
negotiation)
The FLEGT process
The European Union published its FLEGT Action Plan in the early 2000s. It takes a pioneering
approach to the issue and includes requirements for timber-consuming and timber-producing
countries. It proposes political and regulatory tools, as well as innovative and experimental ways to
encourage countries to improve governance in the forestry sector with a view to combating illegal
logging and the trade in illegal timber. These measures aim to prevent illegal timber and timber
products from entering the European market, to improve the supply of legal timber and to increase
demand for legal products. The action plan has two main threads: the Voluntary Partnership
Agreements (VPAs) and the European Union Timber Regulation (EUTR).
Three countries in the subregion have signed VPAs with the European Union (the Republic of
the Congo and Cameroon in 2010 and CAR in 2011) and two are under negotiation (Gabon
and DRC).
Given that few VPAs are in force a decade after implementation,5 it is too early to judge to what
extent VPAs have made forest management more sustainable. Nevertheless, efforts to align
legislative frameworks with FLEGT are expected to have a significant positive impact.
5 In force here means that countries are able to guarantee that timber exported to the European Union is legal, by issuing a FLEGT
licence

Chapter 2
Table 2.5: VPAs in the Congo Basin
Cameroon Republic of the CAR Gabon DRC

Congo
Status In force In force In force Under Under

negotiation negotiation
Signed 6 October 2010 17 May 2010 28 November 2011 N/A N/A
Ratification 09 August 2011 4 July 2012 1 July 2012 N/A N/A
Implementation 1 December 2011 1 March 2013 1 July 2012 N/A N/A
Status Implementation Active Resumption of Negotiation Negotiations

implementation implementation resumed in resumed in 2016
2019
Progress Legality grids to Legality grids CAR VPA website Legality Draft legality
be revised to be revised Implementation of grid drafted grids tested
Two certification Verification the collaborative National and validated
standards procedures database system traceability Legality
recognized approved (1st (SGBDC) system drafted verifiers manual
and 2nd level) Preparation of
Digital LAS the instruments
(SVIL) deployed annexed to the
Certification Agreement.
recognition
manual to be
jointly approved
It is however possible to assess the initial effects of the work undertaken, such as improved
governance due to a clearer definition of legal timber based on stakeholder input, ongoing efforts to
make regulatory reforms and adopt public policies in participating countries, and the engagement
of stakeholders who had not previously been heard.
The implementation of these agreements varies and progress on VPA negotiations and
implementation is slow in all countries. This is the case for several reasons, including weak
political will, the tendency to underestimate the magnitude of the changes required by VPAs,
technical difficulties related to the development of a legality assurance system (LAS) and delayed
implementation of the different aspects of these systems.
2.1.2 Current status of production: data, developments,

market positioning
Log production
Generally speaking, log production has been relatively stable in Congo Basin countries for the past 25
years. Production was not impacted by the Covid crisis and even grew in 2020 to over 8 million m3.
However, this overall trend obscures differences between countries.
In Gabon, production fell sharply between 2008, when log exports were banned, and 2012, when
production began increasing again. By 2019, production in Gabon had returned to its average
over 1991–1998. While the country’s production statistics are unreliable, export data recorded by

Box 2.5: TraCer due diligence system for logs entering the Nkok
Special Economic Zone
The Nkok TraCer agency was set up in October 2018, at the request of the Nkok Special
Economic Zone management entity (GSEZ). It is an independent agency, run as part of a
collaboration between FRM Gabon (subsidiary of the FRM group) and the Gabonese non-
governmental organization (NGO) Brainforest. The Nkok TraCer agency aims, among
other things, to ensure that all logs entering the Nkok Special Economic Zone have a low or
negligible risk of illegality. All timber suppliers are subject to a due diligence mechanism
based on evaluation grids developed by the Nkok TraCer agency and tailored to different
types of suppliers (loggers, traders). Six main risk types have been identified and are
assessed using documentary evidence. They relate to: the supplier’s legal status, the
payment of any applicable taxes and fees, access rights over the resource, traceability and
social obligations. A field audit is also conducted to evaluate practices at production sites. If
the evaluation grid requirements are met, the Nkok TraCer agency will issue a certificate to
the supplier for a defined harvesting area. These certificates must be renewed every year.
customs and other data sources suggest that in 2020 production recovered to pre-ban levels, i.e.
3 million m3.
In Cameroon, production trends can be broken down into three distinct periods. Over 1991–2009,
production dropped to below 2 million m³/year. From 2009 to 2015, production hit a peak of
3 million m³ and has since fallen to stabilize at around 2.5 million m³.
Official production figures for the DRC remain fairly low and stable (at around 300,000 m³/year).
In the three remaining countries, production increased steadily during this period, by around
60 percent for Equatorial Guinea (800,000 m³/year, with uncertainties in the data) and CAR
(550,000 m³/year) and by 85 percent for the Republic of the Congo (1.8 million m³/year).
Production remains heavily concentrated on “flagship” species with seven species accounting for
50 percent of production in the Congo Basin. Production from hardwood species (tali, okan, Azobé)
has grown and the range of species harvested has become slightly more diverse over recent years.
For the majority of countries, only the volumes of the ten highest production species are included.
Production from a species could, therefore, be slightly underestimated at the regional level.
Industrial production
The processing rate, i.e. the share of the volume harvested that is processed domestically, varies
greatly between countries. Gabon has banned the export of logs and therefore requires all logs
harvested to be processed in the country. Cameroon has a processing rate of almost 70 percent.
DRC, CAR and the Republic of the Congo have a processing rate of around 55 percent, even though
their regulations stipulate that only 15–30 percent of production may be exported as logs. In
Equatorial Guinea, less than 20 percent of production is processed. Cameroon and Gabon are the
main commercial producers in the Congo Basin thanks to their high production levels and very
good processing rate.

Chapter 2
3 500 000
3 000 000
2 500 000
Production nationale (m³)
2 000 000
1 500 000
1 000 000
500 000
0
moyenne moyenne 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
1991-1998 1999-2008
Cameroun Congo Gabon Guinée équatoriale RCA RDC
Figure 2.2: Change in wood production in Central Africa

Source: South-West Regional Development Project (OFAC) 2022
Table 2.6: Annual log production by country, 2009–2020
Cameroon Republic of Gabon Equatorial CAR DRC Total

the Congo Guinea
average 2,800,125 608,559 2,099,875 344,156 283,807 289,564 6,426,086

1991–1998
Average 2,150,015 1,113,814 3,064,607 500,936 570,753 149,140 7,549,265

1999–2008
2009 1,875,460 973,277 2,665,946 13,760 347,559 373,284 6,249,286
2010 2,348,150 1,314,281 1,841,396 309,849 323,308 249,539 6,386,523
2011 2,440,605 1,437,529 1,590,152 337,223 424,447 293,096 6,523,052
2012 2,437,300 1,405,421 1,221,804 514,052 309,089 275,000 6,162,666
2013 2,708,242 1,623,374 1,613,990 354,799 341,978 208,503 6,850,886
2014 2,747,380 1,509,727 1,625,044 463,524 226,260 238,986 6,810,921
2015 2,249,255 1,536,840 1,364,815 561,261 315,154 234,811 6,262,136
2016 2,966,971 1,581,653 1,451,050 665,747 418,250 206,706 7,290,377
2017 2,500,484 1,663,213 1,756,975 799,285 536,599 237,597 7,494,152
2018 2,521,373 1,819,613 2,052,590 990,000 543,394 306,327 8,233,297
2019 1,812,000 2,139,802 490,000 572,757 326,693
2020 1,703,195 3,064,221 190,000 602,224 288,292
Sources: The majority of the production data come from the OFAC website.
For CAR, data for 2020 are from the Forest Data Centre.
For Equatorial Guinea, data from 2018 to 2020 have been extrapolated from data uploaded to the website: resourcetrade.earth.

Table 2.7: Log production by species, 2017/2018 (top 10 species in each country)
The species that appeared in the top 10 between 2017 and 2018 are shown in green.
Species Cameroon Republic Gabon Equatorial CAR DRC Total

of the Guinea
Congo
Okoumé 431,268 1,179,587 345,379 1,956,234
Sapelli 536,780 249,944 27,313 814,036
Tali 206,767 59,557 72,585 24,065 37,373 32,061 432,407
Okan 160,109 63,942 5,434 36,811 266,296
Azobé 57,554 163,909 12,680 7,064 241,207
Beli (Awoura) 110,541 85,672 196,213
Padouk 32,069 47,951 6,700 18,605 16,303 121,628
Dabéma 48,758 8,998 24,768 232 82,756
Ayous 25,630 48,849 74,479
Kosipo 49,748 8,040 15,145 72,933
Wenge 22,329 44,643 66,972
Iroko 24,562 36,276 60,838
Bilinga 34,198 23,803 970 58,971
Naga 50,951 50,951
Mukulungu 46,509 46,509
Afrormosia 32,658 32,658
Mahogany 5,971 24,243 30,214

(Acajou)
Doussié 26,698 26,698
Nieuk 26,394 26,394
Bossé 6,784 18,618 25,402
Wamba 20,193 20,193
Tiama 1,137 15,259 16,396
Andoung 16,006 16,006
Tola 15,267 15,267
Sipo 14,336 14,336
Dibétou 9,372 9,372
Aleppo 9,350 9,350
Kévazingo/ 9,198 9,198

Bubinga
Essia 5,951 5,951
Ilomba 4,964 4,964

- continued on next page

Chapter 2
Table 2.7 : Continued
Species Cameroon Republic Gabon Equatorial CAR DRC Total

of the Guinea
Congo
Fraké 5 5
Other 1,780,278 566,558 497,453 312,611 16,031 64,816 3,237,746
Total 2,521,373 1,819,613 2,052,590 799,285 543,394 306,327 8,042,582
Source: Cameroon, Republic of the Congo, Guinea, DRC: 10 highest production species, OFAC. CAR: All species produced, 2018
Annual Yearbook. Gabon: For okoumé, OFAC, for other species, estimates from 2017 data (same proportion of each species in the
total production of Miscellaneous Wood)
Products that have undergone primary processing dominate exports, mainly in the form of
sawnwood, as well as veneer in Gabon.
Following a decline in 2009, Gabon’s production increased throughout the period studied to reach
1.1 million m³ of product/year. Production also increased in Cameroon, but fluctuated before settling
at 0.9 million m³ of product/year. In the Republic of the Congo, production increased slightly until
2016 before falling below 200,000 m³ of product/year. Production in CAR and DRC was fairly stable
over the period studied, with an average of 45,000 m³ and 36,000 m³ of product/year respectively.
Having tried implementing quota policies and restricting log exports, with little success, in 2020
countries in the region decided to ban the export of logs as of 1 January 2022 (postponed to 1 January
2023). The arrangements and timetable for the implementation of this measure in practice remain
to be clarified, but this decision signals that there is a strong desire to cease all log exports in the
medium term.
1600000
1400000
Total volume produced (m³)
1200000
Cameroon
1000000
Gabon
800000
CAR
600000 DRC
Rep. Congo
400000
200000
0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Figure 2.3: Change in product volumes in the Congo Basin (all product types), 2008–2019)
Source : OFAC

1.200.000
1.000.000
Volume produced (m³) 800.000
600.000
400.000
200.000
0
Cameroon Gabon Equatorial CAR DRC Rep. Congo
2019 2019 Guinea 2019 2019 2018
2017
Country and reference year
Sawnwood Plywood Wood veneer Others
Figure 2.4: Breakdown of processed product volumes by type and country
Structure of the sector

Since the 1990s, governments in the region have sought to develop their timber industries to
increase the volume of the raw material processed in its country of origin. In CAR, DRC and the
Republic of the Congo, potential concessionaires must commit to process the logs they harvest to
be awarded a concession.
This requirement has had knock-on effects for the entire sector:
• Concessionaires are obliged to source personnel with a wide range of skills (forest management,
logging, primary processing), which requires significant financial resources and acts as a barrier
to investment more generally.
• Specialized industries cannot develop because they cannot access sufficient resources and
logging becomes more selective to meet the needs of the concessionaires’ own processing
plants, rather than those of third parties;
• Medium-sized companies fail to supply local markets, in which they are not present, encouraging
illegal logging.
In Gabon, industrial operators are encouraged to specialize and focus on a single aspect of the
supply chain. Consequently, half of the logs produced in Gabon are now sold on a national log
market and processed by a different company from the company that harvested them. This shift
is conducive to the development of highly specialized subsectors, which share the market with
traditional integrated tree-to-timber companies and specialist loggers like Rougier Gabon, which
split from its plywood plant in Owendo in 2021 to focus on logging.
Nevertheless, production throughout the Congo Basin is concentrated on a small number of

concessionaires, often supported by foreign capital.

Chapter 2
Table 2.8: Most productive enterprises
Country Year Number of Most productive companies

referenced registered
concessionaires Number Percentage of Percentage
of companies registered companies of domestic
production
Cameroon 2018 61 12 20% 48%
Rep. Congo 2017 15 4 27% 46%
Gabon 2017 82 7 9% 49%
CAR 2019 8 2 25% 59%
DRC 2019 14 2 14% 49%
Box 2.6: The Nkok Special Economic Zone management entity

(GSEZ)
Ten years ago, GSEZ (the management entity for the Nkok Special Economic Zone) was born
from a public-private partnership between Arise Integrated Industrial Platforms (IIP) and
the Government of Gabon to create more value added and local jobs.
Located 27 km from Libreville, the Nkok Special Economic Zone is a 1,126 ha multisector
industrial park. It is divided into three zones: industrial, commercial and residential. It hosts
164 sectors, from wood to health, steel and plastic recycling. Thanks to the development
of the wood industry, in 2015 Gabon moved from being a log exporter to being the leading
exporter of veneers in Africa, ranking second worldwide. In 2020, the Nkok Special
Economic Zone was named the best global free zone for wood products by the Financial
Times fDi Intelligence ranking.
GSEZ owes its success to the early construction of infrastructure (building plots, water
supply and electricity), favourable taxation arrangements and an attractive administrative
environment that brings together 23 government departments (customs, water and forests,
immigration, social security, etc.). GSEZ aims to guarantee the continuous supply of
responsibly-sourced roundwood through its FSC chain of custody (CoC) certified landing
areas and the due diligence conducted by the independent Nkok TraCer agency.
While the economic benefits of sector-wide industrialization are indisputable, GSEZ is now
working to improve the sustainability of its activities. To this end, GSEZ has committed to
supporting companies to integrate environmental, social and governance (ESG) standards
into their business strategies and models. It is working to make the Special Economic
Zone the number one industrial area for providing safe, high-quality jobs and working
conditions, and environmentally-friendly practices.

Table 2.9: The Nkok Special Economic Zone: Key figures
13,000 Direct jobs created in the Special Economic Zone
17 Industrial sectors represented
164 Companies in operation
19 Different countries represented among investors
775,000 m3 of roundwood processed in 2020
300,000 m3 of wood veneer exported to more than 50 countries
80,000 m3 of sawnwood exported to more than 25 countries
50% Gabonese timber exported from the Special Economic Zone
1,767,000 m3 of roundwood inspected by the Nkok TraCer agency from October 2018 to February 2021
Private sector actors in the Congo Basin forestry and wood

subsector
Case study of the Republic of the Congo, DRC, Cameroon and Gabon (summary of the
situation analyses carried out in 2019–2020 by ATIBT)
Republic of the Congo. With around 30 companies operating in the country, the forestry sector
is the Republic of the Congo’s second largest employer. The country is divided into two large
blocks. In the north, large concessions are held by highly industrialized companies that often have
certifications (CIB and IFO have the FSC forest management certification and Thanry and Mokabi
SA have an OLB or LegalSource certificate of legality). In the south, concessions are more fragmented
and often in their second or third harvest cycle. There is more pressure from local populations and
only one company, Taman, has a certificate of legality. Sustainable forest management provisions
apply to 57 percent of concessions and the application of planning rules to small concessions was
under development in 2018.
Efforts have been made to improve road infrastructure to facilitate the movement of wood
(upgrading the RN1 road, upgrading and extending the RN2 road to the north of the country).
A new Forestry Code was adopted in 2020, introducing new elements, such as the production
sharing system (see Box 2.1), the ban on the export of logs (except hardwoods that are difficult to
process) and the requirement to obtain a certification with the creation of a national certification.
DRC. In 2019, there were 27 industrial companies, of which about 15 were active. Sodefor, Maniema
Union, Forabola and Booming Green account for 50 percent of the area logged.
There has been significant progress in relation to forest management compared with previous
years. Management plans are in place for more than 58 percent of forest titles, of which 40 percent
have been approved and 18 percent are in the process of being approved, with a large majority of
production now coming from managed concessions. The holders of the rest of the titles, which have
been assigned more recently, do not seem to be participating in any forest management processes.
Two companies, CFT and IFCO, have a LegalSource certificate of legality issued by NEPCON, and
some progress has been observed in respect of other companies.

Chapter 2
Artisanal chainsaw loggers are different in that they tend to operate informally and illegally and use
rudimentary logging equipment. Informal production, although difficult to measure, is estimated
at 4 million m³, with artisanal loggers playing a major role in supplying local and regional timber
markets (Uganda, Kenya, Rwanda and Sudan).
Formal timber production has never exceeded 400,000 m³, and has been stagnating for several
years between 200,000 m³ and 300,000 m³, barely 5% of regional production. More than 60 percent
of DRC’s dense moist forest is not yet classified; classifying these forests could increase the legal
production of logs. Formalizing existing artisanal activities presents a genuine opportunity to
reduce poverty among local populations.
In DRC, the wood industry is underdeveloped due to significant constraints, related in particular to
the need for energy and investment. Companies limit themselves to primary processing with little
added value.
Gabon. Gabon’s wood sector is composed of three key stakeholder groups: industrialized
concessionaires, concessionaires without industrial equipment and processing units not tied to a
concession. This is a peculiarity of Gabon’s wood subsector. Traders can sell their wood to processors
without needing to have industrial equipment and operators specialize in one activity.
With the market set up in this way, managing supply and demand is key. Existing logging areas are
located in the interior of the country, while 47 percent of processing units are located in the province
of Estuaire. Defective road and rail networks make it difficult to move the logs produced, leading
to higher prices. Under these conditions, some traders scale their production to meet the needs of
their own facilities and some harvest tree species and those individuals with qualities that are more
profitable. Processing units not tied to a concession therefore face enormous difficulties securing
and maintaining their supply of logs. The ban on discretionary permits, which were a source of
illegal wood, has exacerbated this phenomenon.
While this can cause major problems for large and medium capacity facilities, this barrier is
insurmountable for small facilities supplying the local market, which regularly turn to the
informal sector.
The creation of the Nkok Special Economic Zone and its log purchasing centre has made it possible
to maintain the supply of logs to the companies located there (see Box 2.6). It does not, however,
address the needs of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) outside the zone.
Processors bemoan the lack of training centres teaching primary and secondary processing skills,
which negatively impacts the quality of the products on the local market. These processing units are
often small, making it impossible for them to invest in the equipment and drying units needed to
produce high-quality products. The country has very few splitting plants and no tertiary processing
plants.
In 2018, the President of DRC announced that all concessions would have to be FSC certified by 2022.
However, to date, no regulations have been adopted to implement this statement, and although a
few companies have signed up to the process, many have declined to do so due to the cost involved.
Cameroon. The private forestry and wood subsector is made up of 21 large, 92 medium-sized and
thousands of small and very small operators.

Upstream operators hold the titles granting access to the resource. In 2019, there were 93 forestry
concessions, 65 percent of which were in the east of the country, with the remainder in the south.
There were 38 communal forests, 142 sales standing volume and around 50 approved community
forests. These titles are managed by large companies (59), medium-sized companies (46) and rural
municipalities (38). There are 191 processing units distributed fairly evenly across the country, with
24 percent engaged in primary processing, 47 percent in secondary and 29 percent in tertiary.
One peculiarity of Cameroon’s wood sector is its highly fragmented trade union network. There are
14 unions for large companies, over 20 for artisanal operators, and over 50 for very small enterprises
(VSEs). Collective action is, therefore, not very effective and suffers from logistical difficulties.
2.1.3 International markets
Central African share of wood market and requirements of different

markets
The global market for Central African wood is estimated at USD 178 billion for the 440 million tons
produced. Central African countries only account for USD 2.2 billion for a volume of 4.2 million tons
(i.e. 1 percent). The total value of exports has changed very little in the last 10 years despite volumes
increasing by 35 percent. This suggests that the average price per ton has decreased for all products
on aggregate.
Over the same period, European imports from Central Africa fell by more than half (to USD 600 million
from USD 1.4 billion), as products were increasingly exported to China, which has become the
region’s largest trading partner. This growing trend can be explained by the introduction of stricter
European controls, and more likely by the declining competitiveness of products from primary and
secondary processing.
European importers of logs, square-edged timber and boules now prefer competing semi-finished
products from South-East Asia or from plantations in South America. These ready-to-use products
are very competitive (less manufacturing costs and material loss). They are also easily delivered by
container throughout the year, limiting storage costs.
Despite the steps taken to encourage forestry operators to increase their production of higher added-
value products, Central African countries are lagging far behind due to a lack of infrastructure,
high transport costs and a failure to train people in processing trades. Many operators are seeking
markets that are less demanding in terms of quality (Middle East, China) to tap into new income
streams, explaining their relatively competitive prices.
Given the region’s large reserves and growing global demand, pressure on Central African forests will
undoubtedly intensify. Sustainable management models, which are essential for the sustainability
of these resources, may not be able to withstand the increasingly competitive prices offered by
plantations (e.g. eucalyptus, rubber, pine, teak).
Given that operating and logistical costs tend to be so high, operators mainly concentrate on
the most profitable species, such as: high-density species for outdoor uses and flooring (azobé,

Chapter 2
Figure 2.5: Illustration showing trade flows from Central African countries in 2009
and 2019
Source: https://resourcetrade.earth/
afrormosia, doussié, etc.), species with high added value for carpentry (sapelli or sipo), and veneer
species (ayous or okoumé) which are present in large quantities and offer good yields.
Although there are about a hundred species that meet these criteria, limiting production to around
fifteen has a major impact on the cost price of the volumes harvested, jeopardizing the sustainability
of this economic model in the medium to long term.
Producers were likely impacted by sluggish markets in 2019 (due to the China-US trade war knocking
Chinese importers’ confidence) and by the Covid crisis in 2020. Nevertheless, markets recovered
very well in 2021, with extremely high prices and sustained demand that the market cannot meet
due to logistical constraints.

Figure 2.6: Change in wood product exports from Central African countries and value of
imports to the five largest importers, 2019
Source: https://resourcetrade.earth/
Figure 2.7: Change in wood product exports from Central African countries (tonnage), the
five largest trade flows in 2019, and the five fastest growing and fastest declining flows
between 2014 and 2019
Source: Resourcetrade.earth/Chatham House (https://resourcetrade.earth/?year=2019&exporter=eccas &category=3&units=value)

Chapter 2
Although requirements are becoming increasingly demanding from a social and environmental
standpoint, there is still strong competition on international markets from operators who do
not comply with these standards and who therefore have price policies that severely undercut
responsible forest managers.
A first line of defence comes in the form of partnerships between operators and experienced
manufacturers, enabling them to optimize their processes or increase the added value of their
products. However, to remain competitive, these operators will have to increase their harvesting
rate. To do so while respecting sustainability standards, they will have to diversify the species
they harvest and, without doubt, supplement their supply with plantation species to lower their
materials costs.
Price changes
Average prices barely increased in the five years to 2020, before increasing significantly in 2021 in
the post-Covid recovery. Several factors can explain this stagnation. An increase in the number of
operators in Asia led to an increase in supply, often at lower cost prices than those of traditional
operators. Buyers have also changed their behaviour and now prefer glue-laminated products,
sourced mainly from Asia. More competitive and more reliable, they are produced from plantation
wood, and therefore cheaper, thanks to ever more effective techniques. The quality of these products
is able to satisfy a customer base that is increasingly aggressive on price.
The sector has so far been relatively unaffected by the Covid-19 pandemic. Prices even experienced
strong growth in 2021, although this is less pronounced in other production regions and does not
affect all species. Sapelli prices in particular have remained stable.
450
400
Prix du m³ de grume de qualité LM, marché asiatique (euros)
350
300
250
200
150
100
01/01/2016
01/02/2016
01/03/2016
01/04/2016
01/05/2016
01/06/2016
01/07/2016
01/08/2016
01/09/2016
01/10/2016
01/11/2016
01/12/2016
01/01/2017
01/02/2017
01/03/2017
01/04/2017
01/05/2017
01/06/2017
01/07/2017
01/08/2017
01/09/2017
01/10/2017
01/11/2017
01/12/2017
01/01/2018
01/02/2018
01/03/2018
01/04/2018
01/05/2018
01/06/2018
01/07/2018
01/08/2018
01/09/2018
01/10/2018
01/11/2018
01/12/2018
01/01/2019
01/02/2019
01/03/2019
01/04/2019
01/05/2019
01/06/2019
01/07/2019
01/08/2019
01/09/2019
01/10/2019
01/11/2019
01/12/2019
01/01/2020
01/02/2020
01/03/2020
01/04/2020
01/05/2020
01/06/2020
01/07/2020
01/08/2020
01/09/2020
01/10/2020
01/11/2020
01/12/2020
01/01/2021
01/02/2021
01/03/2021
khaya Ayous (wawa) azobe beli dibétou iroko okoume moabi movingui niove okan padouk sapeli sipo tali
Figure 2.8: Change in the price of first and second GMM sawnwood, January 2016 to
March 2021 (International Tropical Timber Organization)
Source: https://www.itto.int/fr/mis/

1100
1000
900
800
Prix du m³ de sciages FAS GMM (euros)
700
600
500
400
300
200
01/01/2016
01/02/2016
01/03/2016
01/04/2016
01/05/2016
01/06/2016
01/07/2016
01/08/2016
01/09/2016
01/10/2016
01/11/2016
01/12/2016
01/01/2017
01/02/2017
01/03/2017
01/04/2017
01/05/2017
01/06/2017
01/07/2017
01/08/2017
01/09/2017
01/10/2017
01/11/2017
01/12/2017
01/01/2018
01/02/2018
01/03/2018
01/04/2018
01/05/2018
01/06/2018
01/07/2018
01/08/2018
01/09/2018
01/10/2018
01/11/2018
01/12/2018
01/01/2019
01/02/2019
01/03/2019
01/04/2019
01/05/2019
01/06/2019
01/07/2019
01/08/2019
01/09/2019
01/10/2019
01/11/2019
01/12/2019
01/01/2020
01/02/2020
01/03/2020
01/04/2020
01/05/2020
01/06/2020
01/07/2020
01/08/2020
01/09/2020
01/10/2020
01/11/2020
01/12/2020
01/01/2021
01/02/2021
01/03/2021
Ayous (wawa) bilinga okoume sipo padouk sapeli iroko khaya moabi movingui
Figure 2.9: Change in the price of LM quality logs, January 2016 to March 2021
(International Tropical Timber Organization)
Source: https://www.itto.int/fr/mis/
The European market remains highly selective, with demand focused on around ten species, while
the Asian market is more accessible if prices are attractive.
An African market is also emerging for low quality – and therefore cheap – products (South Africa,
Morocco, Mauritania, Senegal).
Certified timber rarely demands a premium price, which holds back the growth of this segment.
Only government procurement bodies in countries like the Netherlands, Belgium or the United
Kingdom are willing to pay more for these certified products.
2.1.4 Informal production and local markets

Urban timber markets in Central Africa are primarily supplied by informal sources. As a result, the
volume and value of these timber flows are not recorded by the government and are not reflected
in national production statistics. It is not, therefore, possible to use such secondary data sources to
evaluate the current situation of domestic sawnwood markets in the Congo Basin. The most recent
comprehensive estimate of sawnwood sales to domestic and neighbouring markets dates back to
2013 (Lescuyer and Cerutti 2013) and is presented in Figure 2.10.
Several sources of more recent, though incomplete, data serve to both support and amend this
overall assessment. On the one hand, an assessment by Lescuyer et al. (2016) shows that the
volumes of sawnwood traded on the Yaoundé markets changed little between 2011 and 2016. This
suggests that this economic activity will continue in the subregion in response to the unavoidable
demand for timber that goes hand in hand with urban development. The sector is now firmly
embedded in the economic landscape of Congo Basin countries. The fact that the overwhelming

Chapter 2
1.800.000
1.600.000
1.400.000
1.200.000
DRC
1.000.000
800.000 CAR
600.000 Gabon
400.000 Rep.Congo
200.000 Cameroon
0
Domesc Export Domesc Export
consumpon consumpon
arsanal (informal) industrial (formal)
Figure 2.10: Breakdown of domestic consumption and exports of formal and informal
production in the Congo Basin, 2013
Source: Lescuyer and Cerrutti 2013
majority of this sawnwood is sourced from the informal sector does not seem to be a pressing
concern for policymakers. Indeed, informal sources successfully supply cities with competitively-
priced building materials, supporting tens of thousands of people in rural areas.
While domestic timber markets appear to be relatively stable and their activity likely correlates
with national economic growth rates,6 exports of artisanal sawnwood to neighbouring countries
have increased significantly over the past decade. This is especially true in DRC, where exports to
East Africa are now estimated at around 120,000 m³ of sawnwood (Eba’a Atyi et al. 2016) and in
Cameroon, wh In 2020, the Covid-19 pandemic impacted levels of economic activity, negatively
affecting the volume of sales on wood markets, which decreased by around 30 percent according to
an ongoing study for the FAO-EU FLEGT programme. ere exports of informal sawnwood to Nigeria
reached 27,000 m³ per year in 2016. The most notable increase was observed between Cameroon
and Chad: in 2015, around 210,000 m³ of sawnwood crossed this border (Lescuyer and Tal 2016),
very often with falsified documents from community forests. This is more than double previous
estimates made in 2009.
2.1.5 Benefits of the subsector
Contribution to local employment

The contribution of the wood sector to employment is not regularly monitored by countries,
particularly with regard to the informal sector, which nevertheless has a significant impact on their
economies. Data are therefore sorely lacking.
6 In 2020, the Covid-19 pandemic impacted levels of economic activity, negatively affecting the volume of sales on wood markets, which
decreased by around 30 percent according to an ongoing study for the FAO-EU FLEGT programme.

60.000
Number of jobs (last available 50.000
40.000
esmate)
30.000
20.000
10.000
0
Cameroon Gabon Equatorial DRC Rep. Congo CAR
Guinea
Logging Processing Informal
Figure 2.11: Estimated number of formal and informal jobs in the wood subsector,
based on the latest available estimatesa
a No data on the informal sector for CAR and Equatorial Guinea
16 000
nombre d'emplois directs formels
14 000
12 000
10 000
8 000
6 000
4 000
2 000
0
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Industries du bois Exploitation forestière
Figure 2.12: Change in the number of jobs in the wood subsector in Gabon, 2007–2019
Source: Economic dashboard, Minister of the Economy of Gabon
In Cameroon and DRC, a very high proportion of jobs are in the informal sector. These jobs
do not contribute to government finances, but are essential for supplying growing local and
regional markets.
Except in Gabon, jobs are mainly concentrated in the logging segment of the subsector due to the
low rate of wood processing at the local level. This drives the export of logs and products resulting
from primary processing. The more processing undertaken, the more jobs are needed to produce
one cubic metre of product.
More regular data are available on Gabon. Following a significant decline in jobs in the wood sector
when log exports were banned, numbers then increased, mainly in processing.

Chapter 2
Contribution to the economy
Table 2.10: Contribution of the wood subsector to GDP at current prices, Gabon (XAF
billion)
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Logging 72 79 96 89 79 54 51 51
Wood processing 33 37 46 44 43 62 79 93
Total 105 117 142 133 122 116 130 144
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Logging 51 65 75 91 107 119 123
Wood processing 85 114 140 153 160 197 199
Total 135 179 215 244 267 315 322
Contribution to land-use planning: Agricultural management blocks

and local development funds: two levers of land-use planning and
local development
The Republic of the Congo’s land-use plan designates ‘community development areas or blocks’
(SDC), earmarked for agriculture and focused on the forest-farm interface. These areas are
characterized as “a set of village plots and areas, centred around the tree, forests and other natural
resources that can support the development of rural economies and poverty reduction”. Equivalent
classifications exist in the land-use policies of DRC (but for areas outside concessions), Gabon, CAR
and Cameroon (but zoning has already assigned most agricultural areas).
Their overarching aim is to meet the needs of local people for forest products and to improve
their incomes.
The size of a community development area is calculated based on current and future
requirements for agricultural land and timber, and may also constitute a reserve for community
forests. The location of a community development area is identified on the ground with the
local and indigenous communities, who approve it as part of a process ensuring free, prior and
informed consent.
The designation of these areas could be seen as imposing limits on usage rights. However, their
main aim is to avoid uncontrolled clearing along logging routes and to secure agricultural land
around villages. Community development areas are a component of land-use planning that seeks
to reconcile the need for land for environmental purposes (ecosystem protection), socioeconomic
purposes (rural development) and economic purposes (forestry).
According to the rules on forest management, the benefits of forestry must be shared with the
indigenous peoples and local communities as set out in the specifications defining companies’
social obligations and through companies’ contributions to the local development fund.
Operators must contribute XAF 200 per m³ logged, around 70 percent of which is used to directly
fund projects. Similar mechanisms exist in Gabon and DRC.

350
300
PIB au prix courant (MdFCFA)

250
200
150
100
50
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Industries du bois Exploitation forestière
Figure 2.13: Change in contribution of the wood subsector to GDP at current prices,
Gabon (XAF billion)
Community development areas and local development funds are managed by a consultation
council that brings together the indigenous peoples and local communities, NGOs, the local
government and the forestry company. Communities are given technical support to choose and
implement projects, which are proposed and planned as part of a five-year management plan.
Projects must be community-oriented, but may also be confined to a few families. While projects
were initially agricultural in nature, they are now shifting more towards building individual
houses or housing for teachers, reopening roads, supplying medicines and paying teachers not
paid by the government.
Managing local development funds is not always straightforward. Conflicts can arise, fuelled
by the funds at stake, and certified companies must invest heavily in conducting meetings and
implementing projects with the indigenous peoples and local communities.
The need for rural development in the Congo Basin is enormous in proportion to the technical and
financial support available. It would therefore be unrealistic and risky to shift the entire burden of
development onto the shoulders of forestry concessionaires.
While donors do put forward support projects aimed at improving the management of local
development funds, they often take a long time to materialize. The Northern Congo Landscapes
Project funded by the French Development Agency (AFD), for example, was finally launched after
8 years of preparation.
Anti-poaching efforts
In the Republic of the Congo, agreements between a logging company and the government include
a clause requiring the company to contribute to an anti-poaching unit.
This anti-poaching unit monitors hunting activities and works to combat poaching via fixed
checkpoints, often at the entrance to logging routes, and patrols. The presence of these ‘eco-guards’
reduces poaching and makes it easier to monitor hunting activities. However, it is difficult to
monitor the trade in game and there are still a number of barriers to doing so. In particular, local

Chapter 2
authorities oppose the enforcement of ‘closed seasons’ and legislation on hunting unprotected or
partially protected species.
In the north of the Republic of the Congo, certified concessions have active anti-poaching units of
30 to 50 people (eco-guards and supervisory staff). Often, a tripartite cooperation arrangement
is set up between the Ministry of the Forest Economy, a conservation NGO – such as the Wildlife
Conservation Society (WCS) or the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) – and the concessionaire.
In uncertified forestry concessions, the anti-poaching units have few resources and are not
very effective.
Role in maintaining ecosystem services, in particular carbon storage

In selectively managed forests in Central Africa, the reduction in carbon stock during harvest is low,
on average less than 10% of the initial Carbon stock in the annual harvest area. With a 25 to 30 years
rotation, this represents only about 0.3 to 0.4% of the total annual carbon stock and is well below
the annual growth in tropical forests (about 1.5%).
The maintenance of forest biomass and forest cover will also ensure that the functions of regulation
of the water regime, soil protection and regional and global climate are maintained.
Wetlands and peatland areas are protected in forest management plans and excluded from harvest.
A recent publication (Dargie et al. 2017) finds that the central basin of the Congo river is the largest
tropical peatland complex, representing an underground biomass equivalent to that of the entire
Congo Basin. Concessionaires who exclude these areas from their operation are therefore excellent
stewards of the integrity of these significant carbon stocks
Thus, Sustainable Forest Management can assure the production of a renewable product, wood,
with a Carbon neutral or Carbon positive impact in the long term. Tropical wood produced
from sustainably managed forests is the better option compared to alternative products (steel,
plastic, concrete)!
2.2 Major forest management issues for the

coming years
2.2.1 Forest management plans: How have they fared
after 15–20 years of implementation? How can they be
brought up to date?
The oldest managed forestry concessions still active in Central Africa are entering their last five-year
cycle (forest management plans drawn up in the early 2000s). Generally speaking, first-generation
management plans have proved to be an effective tool for planning harvests, with forecast harvests
(in gross volume) aligning with the production volumes recorded. The difficulty here lies in creating
demand for a range of species, which can be a challenge for companies (market orientation).
Moreover, the range of species harvested remains fairly narrow, because few integrated companies
have succeeded in commanding profitable prices for so-called ‘secondary’ or ‘lesser-known’ species.

The solution lies in further industrialization, with national strategies that can be tailored as needed
(outsourcing to specialized industrial operators like in Gabon or the development of companies’
existing processing operations).
The forest management system was introduced alongside specific measures to promote local
development while respecting customary practices and involving local populations. Areas within
forestry concessions are assigned to local communities to allow them to farm. Each country has
a different name for these areas: agricultural blocks, community development blocks, etc. Under
national legislation, development funds have been transferred to local communities in proportion
to the volumes/areas harvested. Specific measures to preserve ecosystems during logging
operations have also been implemented. Lessons must now be learned from the last 15 to 20 years
of implementation to assess whether these measures are fit for purpose (does the size of the
agricultural management blocks meet local needs in practice? Have the protection and conservation
management blocks actually helped to preserve species and ecosystems?)
The first-generation of forest management plans were drawn up on the basis of technical
procedures used across the subregion (harvest cycles, setting a minimum cutting diameter, parcels
of similar volume, etc.). That they are simple to implement and monitor remains a substantial
benefit. However, not all forest management plans are of the same quality or are implemented in
full. The forest management model would therefore benefit from fine tuning. It is important to
tailor forest management strategies to the specificities of the concession (in terms of stands, area,
history of logging), the country and the economic operators involved (e.g. how engaged they are
in sustainable management). That is not to say that forest management should take a “lowest-
common-denominator approach”. Alternatives could be considered, by pooling knowledge, to
simplify technical procedures (e.g. by setting minimum cutting diameters for each ecological zone).
When renewing these forest management plans, it will also be necessary to establish a normative
framework for the arrangements proposed.
New legal and regulatory frameworks should be drawn up based on an assessment of the progress
of the forest management plans, their implementation during the first rotation and the lessons
learned. Proposals should then be made on the forest management rules and the procedures for
drawing up the forest management plans for the second harvest cycle. These proposals will need to
be discussed with the forestry administrations so they can be taken into account when regulations
and standards are drafted.
2.2.2 Resource management and development

The natural forests of Central Africa are characterized by a very high diversity of species. There are
approximately 150 species, able to provide at least 15,000 m³ logs/year. However, some species are
more abundant. Indeed, the top five most populous species account for 26 percent of the available
volume and the top 15 for 50 percent.
However, due to current market conditions, the low level of industrialization and the state of
transport infrastructure, which weighs heavily on government budgets, operators tend to focus on
a few species and those individuals with the best qualities, leading to total harvesting rates far
below potential yields from sustainably managed forests.

Chapter 2
Figure 2.14 : Breakdown of net realizable volume by species in Central Africa

(excluding Equatorial Guinea and the two Cuvette départements in the centre of
the Republic of the Congo)
Table 2.11: Realizable volumes for the most abundant species (minimum net volumes over
250,000 m³/year)
Species group Species Gross Min net vol m3/y Max net vol m3/y
volume m3/y
( “2018” baseline scenario) (“2030” high vol scenario)
A : Most logged species

1a : Sawnwood Sapelli 2.390.000 1.440.000 1.730.000
Dabema 1.950.000 760.000 1.030.000
Padouk S 1.420.000 560.000 750.000
Beli 680.000 260.000 260.000
Bahia 660.000 260.000 350.000
1b : Hard sawnwood Tali 1.860.000 730.000 980.000
Niove 1.080.000 420.000 560.000
Azobe 1.000.000 390.000 520.000
Okan 740.000 290.000 390.000
1c : Veneer Frake 3.650.000 1.420.000 1.920.000
Ayous 3.430.000 1.340.000 1.800.000
Tchitola 1.100.000 490.000 610.000
Aiele 700.000 270.000 370.000


Species group Species Gross Min net vol m3/y Max net vol m3/y
volume m3/y
( “2018” baseline scenario) (“2030” high vol scenario)
1d : Veneer and Okoumé 4.830.000 1.880.000 2.710.000

Sawnwood
Total species most logged among 25.480.000 10.500.000 13.970.000
most abundant species
B : Species with potential for development

2a : Sawnwood Limbali 2.930.000 1.140.000 1.540.000
Essia 1.650.000 640.000 870.000
Ohia / Diana 1.350.000 530.000 710.000
2b : Hard Eveuss 1.410.000 550.000 740.000
sawnwood
Alep 1.000.000 400.000 460.000
Manilkara 910.000 360.000 480.000
Omvong 820.000 320.000 430.000
2c : Veneer Ilomba 2.030.000 790.000 1.070.000
Fromager 1.260.000 490.000 660.000
Essessang 940.000 370.000 490.000
Ozigo 760.000 290.000 290.000
Total species with potential for 15.060.000 5.880.000 7.740.000
development among most abundant
species
C : Species with little potential in the medium term
3 : Hard-to-market Sorro 3.360.000 1.090.000 1.410.000
species
Emien 1.670.000 650.000 880.000
Total species with little potential in 5.030.000 1.740.000 2.290.000
the medium term among the most
abundant species
Overall total (A + B + C) 45.580.000 18.120.000 24.000.000
Source: AfDB/FRMi 2018. Vision Stratégique et industrialization de la filière Bois dans les six pays du Bassin du Congo, Horizon 2030
– Rapport stratégique Régional.
In 2018,7 FRMi sought to assess two harvest scenarios to determine what impact improving
industrialization and establishing a larger market would have. Put simply, the 2018 scenario reflects
current typical practices extended to all concession areas and the 2030 scenario presents diversified
harvests – both in terms of quality and species diversity –, improved processing and the creation of
more diverse international markets and a strong local market.
Moving from the 2018 scenario to the 2030 scenario would increase harvests by 3.5 m³/ha (i.e. more
than 33 percent) from currently logged species and by 2.5 m³/ha from newly added species.
Harvests do not currently reach the very conservative 2018 scenario. Cameroon realizes more of its
potential available volume than other countries, while CAR and DRC are extremely underexploited.
7 Vision Stratégique et industrialization de la filière Bois dans les six pays du Bassin du Congo, Horizon 2030 – Rapport stratégique Régional. 2018

Chapter 2
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
CAR Gabon Cameroon North South Rep. DRC Region
Congo Congo Congo
Figure 2.15: Current realization rate: Comparison of potential production (2018 scenario)
and log production for all abundant species (groups 1 to 3)
2.000.000
1.800.000
1.600.000
1.400.000 Regional producon achieved
1.200.000
Volume (m3/y)
1.000.000
800.000
600.000
400.000
200.000
Figure 2.16: Current realization rate by species: Comparison of potential (2018 scenario)
and realized log production for the 25 most abundant species (in m³/year)
At the regional level, harvest rates reach just over 40% of the potential available volume for the
most commonly logged species and only 20% for the most abundant species.
Among the most abundant species, only sapelli and okoumé are harvested at levels close to the
potential volumes laid down in the forest management plans.
To reach the 2018 scenario, it will be necessary to improve infrastructure and reduce the
parafiscal burden.

To reach the 2030 scenario, it will be necessary to follow forest management plans more closely.
Currently, only an estimated 70 percent of assigned forest are actually harvested annually. Higher
levels of industrialization will be required to increase harvests and specialized operators will need to
be set up. Formal supply chains will also require access to local and regional markets.
2.3 The future of the wood subsector

2.3.1 The challenge of industrialization
Sustainable industrialization of the wood subsector in the Congo

Basin: Recommendations of a regional study by the African
Development Bank
Despite the enormous potential offered by forests in the Congo Basin, over the past 60 years
their wood has been harvested and exported in its raw form to countries outside Africa, while
African countries have imported finished wood products. The missed economic opportunities are
incalculable. The Congo Basin operates on the fringes of the global wood subsector, accounting for
1 percent of global sawnwood production, 6 percent of tropical sawnwood production, 5 percent of
tropical logs, 7 percent of tropical veneers and 1 percent of tropical plywood and little to no secondary
or tertiary wood processing.
The poor performance of countries in the Congo Basin can be attributed to the under-industrialization
of the wood-processing sector. Indeed, most wood is still exported in the form of logs. Knowledge
of what forest resources are available is also inadequate, there are few plantations, production fails
to make the most of the diverse range of tree species available and operators are slow to remove
standing and felled trees.
As a pillar of Africa’s structural transformation, industrialization is a key priority for the African
Development Bank (AfDB). The diversification of African economies for inclusive and green growth is
a key objective for both countries and the Bank. Given that the majority of Central African economies
depend on finite natural resources like oil, they have been advised to change their industrial structure
to diversify their economies and take advantage of the opportunities offered by renewable natural
resources like timber. Following this advice will put them on a trajectory of sustained growth and
long-term human development.
The AfDB’s regional study on the sustainable industrialization of the wood subsector recommends
that countries take 10 key steps to establish an operational framework for the implementation of this
vision by 2030. These steps are:
• Ban log exports;
• Increase the area of sustainably managed forests from 50 million to 75 million hectares;
• Intensify forestry concession harvests from the current 7 million m³ to 15 million m³;
• Transition to a new industrial model, in which all logs undergo primary processing and
secondary and tertiary processing increases by 50 percent;
• Expand plantations outside forests;
• Strengthen the legal regime and management rules applicable to forestry concessions;
• Reduce tax distortions between countries and increase intra-African trade;
• Strengthen institutions and legislation;
• Invest heavily in logistics and energy infrastructure;
• Foster a new climate of trust between the banking sector, forestry investors and the wood
subsector.
Chapter 2
Box 2.7: Recent decisions taken by the Economic and Monetary

Community of Central Africa (CEMAC)
While there are already various restrictions on logs exports in every country of the region, in
September 2020, the Central African Economic and Monetary Community (CEMAC) decided
to impose an export ban of logs by January 2023 (originally set for January 2022, the decision
was postponed for a year). The Democratic Republic of Congo also joined this decision. While
this decision needs to be ratified by the countries, it is certain that sooner rather than later, log
exports will be banned in the region. Forest industries are not prepared to adapt in the short
term to the implementation of this measure. The capacity is not available to transform the whole
volume locally, like is the case today in Gabon and there are no government strategies to develop
the sector in the short to medium term. Furthermore, with a log export ban, the importance to
develop wood products and find new markets for lesser used species, also called “lesser known
timber species”, is becoming urgent, the logs will no longer be exportable to the Asian markets.
On the one hand, the private sector must be quite innovative in its business model, for example
looking for new markets and investing in new wood processing units, to ensure its sustainability
in the long term. Other options to consider may include: payment for environmental services,
pharmaceutical industry, partnerships with medium and small-scale enterprises, collaboration
with universities and research institutes and last but not least, training the local workforce, from
machine operators to sector managers.
On the other hand, governments need to put in place a wide range of tools and measures
to enable the processing industry to develop. Every country of the Congo Basin has its
own characteristics, but there are common elements that require joint efforts involving all
stakeholders.
Governments are urged to create an enabling environment to attract new investments in wood
processing units, developing in the first place a solid strategy to further develop the forest and
wood industry sector: policy makers have to create attractive fiscal incentives with a transparent
structure and with efficient administrative processes to access those incentives; access to
financing at affordable and competitive interest rates; fight against illegal logging and trade
of wood products; invest in the development of skilled human resources at all levels; promote
the use of legal and sustainable wood for public procurement; encourage the construction of
wooden houses; implement necessary measures to participate in the African Continental Free
Trade Area (AfCFTA); continue investments in infrastructures, such as in the road network,
railway, seaports, but particularly for the interconnection of inter-African markets. Policy
makers should also remember that it is not realistic to force investments in value added
products, such as wooden furniture, because Asian markets will always be more competitive in
the medium term.
Government and the forest industry should work together in the development of wood products
standards for local and regional markets. National research institutes should invest in the design
of furniture for the local small and medium scale enterprises and provide training opportunities
for their production.
The above mentioned elements needed to further develop the wood industry in the Congo Basin
are only achievable if the governments, the private sector, the civil society and the international
donor community work together towards the same objective: to develop a sustainable, legal
forest based industry.

If this vision is implemented successfully, jobs will be created in the primary processing sector,
increasing from 40,000 today to over 100,000 by 2030, with more jobs in the secondary and tertiary
processing sectors. The wood subsector’s contribution to national GDP will also double. This will
not however happen without substantial investment. It will be necessary to inject EUR 3 billion of
private funds into the regional economy. The AfDB plans to invest USD 35 billion over 10 years as
part of its industrialization strategy. This will help Africa to increase its GDP from industry from just
over USD 700 billion to over USD 1,720 billion by 2030.
Box 2.8: The wooden eco-house and wood frame subsector

Zero log exports from CEMAC countries by 2022: Towards the development of the
wooden eco-house and wood frame sector in the Republic of the Congo, for a more
advanced and diverse approach to wood processing
In the Republic of the Congo, houses in poorer neighbourhoods are built using (often
untreated) boards or sapwood. These houses therefore are quick to build and cheap, but
fragile.
The construction of wooden houses dates back to colonial times, but it was in 2010 that the
authorities first decided to make a sustained effort to promote this type of construction.
There are three main reasons for this:
• To promote the use of local materials in response to the scarcity and rising price of
cement;
• To undertake all stages of wood processing locally, an objective set out in the country’s
legislation;
• To help combat climate change.
Wood does not conduct heat well, so wooden dwellings remain liveable during increasingly
frequent periods of intense heat and help to limit injuries and damage in the event of a fire.
When developing its wooden eco-house project, the Republic of the Congo drew inspiration
from countries with a proven track record, such as Russia and Guyana, whose capital,
Georgetown, has a similar climate to the Republic of the Congo and is constructed primarily
from wood (80 percent). Representatives from the Ministry for Forests, and the companies
CIB and IFO visited these countries in 2010 and 2011 to see what they could learn.
Thanks to the government’s efforts, forestry companies have made significant investments
in this sector. CIB is currently taking a leading role in this project, which has now built more
than 150 eco-houses.
Prices vary depending on the type of house and on patterns of supply and demand. It should
also be noted that the lifetime cost of construction largely tips the balance in favour of
wooden eco-houses and, moreover, delivery times are short.

Chapter 2
Promoting the production and consumption of legal sawnwood on

national markets
While the economic and social importance of domestic wood consumption in Central Africa is now
recognized, demand is mainly met by sawnwood from informal sources. This sector will continue
to play an active role in Central African economies and will only grow with the implementation of
policies that support them to flourish. Taking advantage of the growth of domestic markets to put
these operations on the path to legality and sustainability is therefore a major challenge.
While suppliers are generally seen as the main drivers of better efficiency and sustainability, buyers
also play a decisive role in the evolution of markets. It is necessary to analyse the practices of both
suppliers and buyers to propose meaningful changes that will improve the performance of a market.
Among Central African countries, Cameroon has without doubt engaged most actively in
comprehensive discussions about how its internal wood market operates and has analysed both
wood consumption patterns and production methods (Lescuyer et al. 2016), which has allowed it
to propose promising and sustainable solutions.
On the demand side, public and private demand can be split into four market segments:
1. Urban markets: 830,000 m3 of sawnwood is sold per year, mainly in the form of planks,
formwork boards, battens and rafters (Cerutti and Lescuyer 2011), of which 12–18 percent are
thought to be from legal sources. The average price of one cubic metre on these markets is
around XAF 80,000. Half of the buyers surveyed would agree to pay 10 percent more to buy
sawnwood from legal sources. The buyers surveyed also stated that they could bear a 45 percent
increase in the current price of sawnwood before turning to alternative products.
2. Carpentry workshops: Cabinets, beds and doors are the highest selling products. Almost all
urban consumers are looking for the best value for money and there is little interest in sourcing
legal or sustainable sawnwood.
3. Furniture shops: Beds are the main items of furniture sold by these shops. Buyers in Yaoundé
and Douala are rarely concerned about the legality of the material used to make the furniture
sold at retail.
4. Public procurement: Domestic and international public bodies are yet to develop an effective
strategy to promote the procurement of legal sawnwood. However, the Cameroonian
Government is the main buyer of sawnwood and furniture on the domestic market. Classrooms
are the subject of the majority of its calls for tenders.
To meet demand from these segments, there are four supposedly legal sources of sawnwood and
furniture on Cameroon’s domestic market:
1. Community forests (CF): While these forests were a success in the 2000s, they have ultimately
had little impact on the legal production of sawnwood and the multitude of requirements
imposed by the administration have hindered the growth of this sector. The total production of
community forests has languished below 10,000 m3 of sawnwood per year, at a cost of at least
XAF 150,000 per cubic metre of cut wood.
2. Timber Logging Permits: These permits allow operators to log around 160 m3 of sawnwood
each. Following a decade-long suspension, the Ministry of Forests approved 51 permits in 2012,
covering a maximum volume of 8,000 m³ of sawnwood. The use of timber logging permits is
expensive, resulting in an estimated cost of XAF 280,000 for one cubic metre of sawnwood.

3. Industrial processors: Though this market segment is small, 145,000 m³ of sawnwood was
produced by industrial sawmills. While this sawnwood is low quality, it is priced 30–50 percent
higher than other sawnwood. In addition to official sales, scrap from industrial sawmills can be
found on urban markets and is not monitored.
4. Imports of wooden furniture: Imports have doubled since 2007, reaching a volume of around
10,000 m3.
This analysis of the demand for and supply of sawnwood shows that there are two major obstacles
to the emergence of a domestic market for legal sawnwood in Cameroon. On the one hand,
buyers’ willingness to accept higher prices for legal timber is not sufficient to cover the current
cost of sawnwood from legal sources. On the other, the maximum production volumes of artisanal
sawnwood from legal sources is currently only able to meet a small proportion of consumers’ needs.
Reducing the cost of producing legal sawnwood is the most frequently cited solution and has to a
certain extent been tried. It remains difficult to implement policies to boost the supply for many
reasons (cost of implementing timber logging permits, poor community forest governance or
weak interest from industrial processors). The government has, however, designed and trialled
measures to force companies to increase their supply to urban markets, particularly from their
managed concessions.
A complementary approach could be to boost private and public demand for legal sawnwood.
Some consumers are already willing to pay more for legal products. Moreover, the Cameroonian
Government has shown its support for requiring all public contracts to source legal sawnwood,
which could have a symbolic impact on public perceptions and act as a catalyst for change in the
wider economy.
In view of this, there are several measures that Congo Basin countries could consider implementing
in the short term: (1) better identifying and publicizing the volumes of legal sawnwood available on
the domestic market; (2) removing regulatory barriers that hinder the formalization of the sector
and that reduce the volume of legal timber on the domestic market; (3) continuing to promote
domestic demand for legal sawnwood; and (4) facilitating transactions between buyers and sellers
of legal sawnwood.
Table 2.12: Summary of annual volumes, prices and turnover for sawnwood and furniture
sold on Cameroon’s domestic market
Sawnwood Furniture
Community Logging Industrial Informal Carpentry Retail Imports

forests permits processors (2010) (sample in (sample in (Customs
(2012, (2012, (2010) 2015) 2015) stats
maximum) maximum) 2015)
Cut volume 9,060 8,000 144,156 668,354 22,000 6,946 10,600

(m3)
Cost price 150,000 281,250 80,993

at market
(XAF/ m3)
Turnover 1,359 2,250 49,647 8,000 3,992 5,300

(XAF
million)
Source: South-West Regional Development Project (CIFOR) 2021

Chapter 2
Towards the development of intra-African trade in tropical timber:

A case study on the Republic of the Congo
Exports of forest products from Central African Forest Commission (COMIFAC) countries to other
African countries are low, coming in at less than 5 percent of the volume exported. Most exports
to the continent are destined for North Africa. Exports mainly take the form of dry and green
sawnwood as well as veneer, prepared logs, chips (mainly in the early 2010s) and finished products
in lower quantities.
There are several reasons for the low volume of exports to African countries south of the Sahara:
• Purchasing power is low in the region;
• Asian and European markets are more attractive than African markets;
• Production and market structures are similar across COMIFAC countries and there is no need to
import goods similar to those available locally;
• There is a lack of transport infrastructure between African countries (road, rail, maritime);
• Some countries are very high risk due to conflict and terrorism; There are administrative and tax
barriers to exporting.
Several factors could improve the trade in wood products between African countries in the medium
term:
• Establishing a free trade area and improving trading arrangements;
• The emergence of a middle class;
• The development of new products, both in terms of species and processing, making it possible
to create niche markets;
• The development of long-distance communication infrastructure, which has proven effective in
the case of the DRC-East Africa road and the increase in exports.
Increasing the popularity of ‘promotional’ species and increasing buyers willingness to accept
products that have minor defects will reduce the pressure on flagship species and on the forest in
general, which would be more conducive to sustainable management.
Conclusions
Production forests are, for the most part, managed on the basis of management plans, which have
proven to be a valuable tool for planning harvests. This management model still needs to be refined
and tailored to the specificities of each concession (ecological diversity, area, history of logging),
while upholding management rules that ensure sustainability.
Despite the very high diversity of marketable species, demand from the wood subsector is focused
on a fairly small range of species (50 percent of production in the Congo Basin is provided by
around 15 species, while about 150 species could be utilized). This situation is linked to the fact
that integrated companies (that both harvest and process the wood) have not succeeded in
commanding profitable prices for these so-called ‘secondary’ species. One major challenge for the
wood subsector is increasing the industrialization of the wood-processing segment (following the
model in Gabon, which, after banning the export of logs, has set up a Special Economic Zone where
around a third of Gabon’s logs are processed). Industrializing this subsector will however require
better infrastructure and a more skilled workforce.

Managing and formalizing production for the domestic market is also a challenge because it is
mainly served by illegal operations. Given that this segment accounts for a significant proportion
of harvests, the sustainability of forests as a resource is therefore jeopardized without contributing
to state coffers. To formalize this sector governments will have to amend national regulatory
frameworks, increase demand for legal sawnwood and facilitate transactions between buyers
and sellers.

CHAPTER 3
Forest Plantations
in Central Africa
Coordinators: Paul Bertaux,1 Carla Baltzer1
Authors: Paul Bertaux,1 Carla Baltzer,1 Jessenia Angulo,2 Charlie Bosworth,3
Pierre Clinquart,4 Daniel Diangana,5 Emilien Dubiez,6 Timothy Fleming,7
Vincent Freycon,6 Maurice Goma,8 Jean-Michel Harmand,6 Michael Henson,9
Mike Howard,10 Shauna D. Matkovich,11 Régis Moukini,1 Olivier Mushiete,12 Cléto
Ndikumagenge,13 Salvator Ndabirorere,14 Tapani Pahkasalo,15 Régis Peltier,6
Robert Van Der Plas,16 Andries Smith,17 Colin Smith,18 Luis Neves Silva,19 Julius C.
Tieguhong,20 Richard Eba’a Atyi21
1
FRM Group, 2FMO, 3Miro Forestry & Timber Products, 4Hanns Seidel Foundation, 5ex-ECO s.a.,
6
Agricultural Research Centre for International Development (CIRAD), 7International Woodland
Company, 8Consultant, 9PNG Biomass, 10Fractal Forestry, 11The Forest Link, with International
Woodland Company at the time of writing, 12Project Ibi and Domain and Reserve of the
Bombo Lumene, 13FAO DRC, 14FAO BURUNDI, 15Forest Investment Professional, 16Marge, 17CDC,
Investment Director and Head of Forestry & Wood Products, 18Paperbark Forestry Consulting,
19
WWF - New Generation Platform, 20African Development Bank, 21CIFOR -ICRAF
Photo by Paul Bertaux

Chapter 3
Introduction
Demand for wood is growing worldwide and this trend is set to
accelerate through the remainder of the 21st century. This is the case
not just for traditional markets, but for other sectors like construction
(responsible for 36 percent of greenhouse gas emissions), bioenergy
and green chemistry seeking to de-carbonize and go biobased in
an effort to move into the emerging sustainable, green economy
in which companies are located closer to their raw materials and
local markets.
This landscape offers more opportunities than threats for the forestry sector and sustainably
managed wood products, which are carbon neutral by nature. But to harness these opportunities,
the sector must be prepared to adapt, to rise to the challenges it faces and to fundamentally change
the way it operates.
Globally, the gap will widen between the production capacity of natural forests – whose size and
productivity are inherently limited – and different types of forest plantations.
Countries will therefore only be able to maintain their status as forestry economies (i.e. the sector
accounts for a significant share of GDP) if they take decisive steps to develop their plantation
activities. Much more generally, it would be a grave strategic error to assume that any sector could
continue with business as usual in the coming years.
This chapter of the latest edition of the State of the Forests of Central Africa focuses on forest
plantations and agroforestry plantations intended for production. It does not discuss assisted
natural regeneration, enrichment plantations or agro-industrial plantations (e.g. palm or rubber).
Forest plantations are human-made forests grown from seeds or saplings for the purpose of
producing wood or non-timber forest products (production plantations) or for boosting various
types of ecosystem services (protection plantations).
The term ‘plantation’ covers a broad continuum of techniques and situations, tailored to the specifics
of the local context.
There are usually seven stages to the production of timber or biomass from a plantation: seeds/
nurseries, planting/establishment, tending/management, harvesting and one or more stages of
processing, transportation and marketing.
Jobs and wealth are created at each node of the supply chain and costs are incurred. Various actors
work at the different nodes, whether in a specific node or across the different nodes depending on
a range of factors relating to: the legal/policy environment and institutional arrangements, support
services, extension agents, service providers, inputs and financial institutions.

Forest Plantations in Central Africa
3.1 Situation analysis of plantations in

Central Africa
3.1.1 Policy measures and the role of the state
Given the diversity of national contexts, legislative provisions on plantation forestry vary significantly
across Central Africa, both in terms of their content and how they are implemented. It therefore
remains difficult for governments to agree common or harmonized rules on forest management.
3.1.2 Forest plantation size in Central Africa

Forest plantations in the subregion tend to be very small, both in terms of area and production
volumes. Updated figures on the size of forest plantations in Central Africa are presented in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1: Forest plantation size in Central African Forest Commission (COMIFAC)
countries
Country Area planted (ha) Source
Cameroon 30,000 Atyi and Mbonayem (2018)

Gabon 46,800 Bayol et al. 2010, no notable change
Equatorial Guinea 13 Bayol et al. 2010, no notable change
Fonds de Développement Forestier [Forestry
Development Fund]
2020 + Communication from South-West
Central African Republic 3,900 Regional Development Project (PDRSO) 2020
+ Communication from CentraForest 2020
(unpublished data from the FRM engineering
database, updated 2022)
Democratic Republic of Congo Unpublished data from the FRM engineering
30,000
(Kinshasa supply basin) database, updated 2022
Briefing Note on EU-ROC FLEGT VPA, 2010 +
Republic of the Congo 74,500
Communication SPF2B 2020
Rwanda 301,500 Nduwamungu 2011
Burundi 146,000 Nduwamungu 2011
Chad - No data
Sao Tome and Principe - No data
3.1.3 Case study on forest plantations in the Republic

of the Congo
Development of clonal eucalyptus plantations in the Republic of the

Congo: 1950–1996
A number of scientific innovations were made in the Eucalyptus subsector in the 1950s to respond to
the need for fuelwood in Pointe-Noire, which was in the midst of a boom. For instance, the National
Office for Forests established plantations using Eucalyptus terticornis, the product of joint forestry
research between France and the Republic of the Congo (yield = 7 m3/ha/year).

Chapter 3
From 1963 to 1986, the Congolese Industrial Afforestation Unit (UAIC) planted 25,000 ha with
these two natural hybrids (yield = 12–20 m³/ha/year). From 1989 on, Congolaise de Développement
Forestier (CDF), a subsidiary of Shell, funded UAIC to establish 17,000 ha of clonal plantations in
Pointe-Noire. The plantations grew to cover 42,000 ha.
The growth of a subsector with ECO s.a.: 1997–2001

In 1997, CDF merged with UAIC to create the company ECO s.a. (Eucalyptus du Congo s.a.).
The company was active until 2001, with Shell as the majority shareholder and the Congolese
Government as the minority shareholder.
By 2001, ECO s.a. was a major economic player in the Republic of the Congo, employing 3,500
workers and generating a turnover of around XAF 15 billion.
When the price of wood fell, ECO s.a. ran into financial difficulties. Its performance was unsatisfactory
and bioenergy – Shell’s real strategic target – was a long way from making its breakthrough, costing
USD 20 per barrel.
Shareholders over time and the uncertainty of the subsector: 2001–

2018
In June 2001, Shell exited ECO s.a. The Congolese Government took over Shell’s shares for a symbolic
amount and continued to honour the sales contracts agreed and complete replanting programmes
while seeking another private sector partner.
The plantations in Pointe-Noire, some of which are in peri-urban areas, were threatened by problems
linked to urbanization, leading to persistent illegal logging affecting almost 10,000 hectares. A
presidential decree designating areas for reforestation in the department of Kouilou somewhat
alleviated the situation, which had been exacerbated by the fast growth of the city of Pointe-Noire.
In 2005, the South African group Chartwell Carbon Ltd, replaced soon after by Canadian group
MagIndustries, signed a long-term lease with the Republic of the Congo for a concession covering
the 40,000 ha previously held by ECO s.a., 7,000 ha from the National Reforestation Service (SNR)
and 20,000 ha from the extension zone.
Eucalyptus Fibres Congo (EFC) was created to manage these 70,000 ha and positioned itself on the
woodchip market given that there was little profit in prepared logs. Poles were still harvested from
pines in Loudima (200 km from Pointe-Noire), but transporting them to the port in Pointe-Noire
by rail was difficult and the road impassable. An XAF 16 billion woodchip factory was built in 2008
in the port, with an annual capacity of 500,000 tons. The Republic of the Congo is the first sub-
Saharan African country to have a factory of this type.
Weakened by the 2008 global economic crisis, which disrupted the international wood and wood
products market, EFC was not able to get back on its feet.
At the end of 2011, the Chinese Evergreen Holdings Group became the majority shareholder of
MagIndustries, and EFC subsequently ceased almost all its operations until the groups’ departure.
At the end of 2016, the government signed a new long-term lease with the Moroccan group SOS
NDD, which withdrew due to a lack of financing in 2017. Finally, Romanian group ZEBRA TESAF
CONGO took over the 25,000 ha southern section of the forest in 2018, but little is known about the
company’s strategic intentions.

New developments with COFOR in Madingo-Kayes

In 2019, a long-term lease was signed between the Republic of the Congo and the company COFOR,
a Congolese subsidiary of the French FRM group, covering almost 38,000 ha. This area forms the
Madingo-Kayes Reforestation Area (PRMK) and comprises 8,000 ha of eucalyptus plantations,
6,000 ha of extension zone, natural forests and protected areas.
Due to the degraded state and advanced age (10 to 30 years) of the eucalyptus plantations, it is
necessary to implement several replanting and forest restoration strategies aligned with different
strategic objectives.
The PRMK forest management project led by COFOR has a number of objectives:
• Regenerate the underdeveloped area around the plantation – where unemployment and
rural depopulation take a heavy toll – by creating jobs on the plantations and increasing
agricultural production within those areas assigned to agroforestry;
• Reduce the deforestation and degradation of natural forests with a high biological value,
which is mainly caused by shifting agriculture, wildfires and forest fires, and the production of
charcoal from illegal wood;
• Offer an alternative source of charcoal and timber, from sustainably managed plantations;
• Support climate change mitigation efforts by dynamically managing plantations to sequester
CO2 and by reducing the risk of forest fires.
The strategy for managing the forest is geared towards a multifunctional mosaic plantation made
up of geographically coherent blocks organized into several new forests, nature reserves and
agroforestry areas.
New forests will be grown or regrown by implementing afforestation, reforestation and agroforestry
techniques using different species (Acacia auriculiformis and mangium, Eucalyptus UxG and PF1).
The commercial products produced by these forests are destined mainly for the local market
(including fuelwood in the form of charcoal, timber in the form of veneer, plywood, engineered
timber and electricity poles, and food crops).
In 2020, COFOR launched a preliminary pilot to establish a tree nursery and an initial acacia
agroforestry plantation. Implementation was delayed by the outbreak of Covid-19 and did not take
place until 2021.
The PRONAR and SNR plantations

In addition to the forests described above, tens of thousands of hectares have been planted across
the Republic of the Congo by the National Reforestation Service (SNR) and the National Afforestation
and Reforestation Programme (PRONAR), which now manage them. PRONAR is a robust policy
initiative by the Government of the Republic of the Congo to launch, support and develop different
types of plantations.
It aims to promote forestry and agroforestry plantations, to encourage and support stakeholders to
undertake afforestation and reforestation to supply national and international markets with timber
and non-timber forest products (such as essential oils, resins, biofuels, honey, fruits, vegetables and
medicinal plants).

Chapter 3
It seeks to relieve human pressure on natural forests by reducing deforestation, to develop land not
suited to crop or animal farming, and to improve the country’s supply of wood for manufacturing,
construction, energy and industry. Feasibility studies for the programme were conducted with the
support of international partners (World Bank and FAO). It aims to plant over 1 million ha of forest
by implementing a range of components intended to mobilize public and private sector actors and
rural communities (Lignafrica 2014).
Lessons learned
In contrast to the industrial success observed in South America and South Africa, which use similar
technologies, the plantation forestry subsector has not grown as expected in the Republic of the
Congo. This is the case despite the succession of managers, the large areas planted, high yields, the
Congo’s world-renowned experience in the sector (plant material, research and development, local
know-how) and the proximity of the forests to the port of Pointe-Noire.
Table 3.2: Distribution of forests across the three PRONAR components

ha (plantations +
PRONAR objective 1,000,000
infrastructure)
% infrastructure (tracks, firebreaks, etc.) 15%

Area actually planted/productive 850,000 ha planted/productive
Areas not suitable for planting (protection, human occupation, etc.) 30%
Area required to be allocated to PRONAR (with land title) 1,300,000 ha with a land title
50%
Component 1: Industrial forest plantations
425,000 ha planted/productive
80%
Short-rotation plantations (for industry/fuelwood)
20%
Medium-rotation plantations (timber)
40%
Component 2: Agro-industrial plantations
10%
Component 3: Rural agroforestry plantations
Source: Lignafrica 2014
The markets and subsectors are shown in the figure below.
This situation can be explained by:
• Proximity to a city that has doubled in population size over 15 years (600,000 to 1.2 million
inhabitants);
• Insecure land titles, an issue partially resolved by a presidential decree following long
disruptions;
• The lack of genuine product diversification and high dependence on the paper manufacturing
sector, which has become very concentrated and highly competitive;
• The lack or absence of industrial strategies on the part of various investors over the years.
The withdrawal of Shell, which had many similar companies in its portfolio, was not directly
tied to the context in the Republic of the Congo, but was rather a consequence of the strategic
decision to exit the biomass energy segment, which was deemed too new in 2000.

Table 3.3: Possible processing subsectors for different types of plantation using the example of PRONAR, Republic of the Congo
PRONAR segments
PLANTATIONS
Logging (cung, skidding)
EUCALYPTUS PINE ACACIA TECK PINE EUCALYPTUS
Industrial wood Timber Roundwood Fuelwood
1st Processing stage Pulping Fiberization Sawmilling Peeling Sawmilling Sawmilling Sawmilling Shaping Shredding Shaping Shredding
Mechanical / Bonding, Drying,

Drying, cung, Gluing, pressing, Shaping, Drying, cung, Drying, cung, Drying, Burning, hear, Burning,
2nd Processing stage chemical pressing, compacng,
profiling shaping notching profiling dressing treang steam carbonization
processing shaping sizing
Assembly, Assembly, Energy mech,

3rd Processing stage Assembly
finishing finishing heat/electricity
ACTIVITIES 1 2 3 5 3 4 11 6 6 8 9
Pulp MDF Furniture Plywood Carpentry Joinery Flooring Poles Cogeneration Charcoal Pellets
SUBSECTORS PAPER FURNITURE CONSTRUCTION EXTERIOR ENERGY
Source: Lignafrica 2014

Chapter 3
Box 3.1: A 40,000-hectare plantation project led by Total and FRM

has recently launched in the Republic of the Congo within the
framework of PRONAR
In March 2021, within the framework of PRONAR, the Republic of the Congo signed a
partnership agreement with Forest Neutral Congo (FNC), a subsidiary of the FRM group, and
Total Nature Based Solutions (TNBS), a subsidiary of the Total group, for the implementation
of a large-scale afforestation project on the Batéké plateau, to the north of the Léfini River,
250 km from Brazzaville.
The 40,000-hectare forest will form a carbon sink that will sequester more than 10 million
tons of CO2 over 20 years and will be certified to international standards. The initiative,
financed by Total, includes agroforestry farms (charcoal production and crop farming) and a
carbon sink, with timber production, offering social, economic and environmental benefits.
Planned to run until 2040, it will employ the selection cutting system to promote the natural
regrowth of local species and supply Brazzaville and Kinshasa with sawnwood and plywood.
The 50,000-hectare property will comprise:

• 15,000 ha of infrastructure and protected areas, allowing sites with high biological value
and patches of natural forests (gallery forests, slope forests) to recover and even expand in
buffer zones.
• 2,000 ha devoted to the agroforestry component with crops (cassava, etc.) grown
between rows of acacia trees by local farmers.
• 38,000 ha planted over 10 years under the carbon component, which combines carbon
sinks and timber production. Over 20 years, 10 million tons of CO2 will be sequestered
and the growth will then be harvested annually and processed into timber. This forest
will supply 160,000 m3 of wood per year for processing into three products: sawnwood,
veneer and plywood. A biomass cogeneration plant will also be supplied with wood
waste for electricity generation (and heat for drying) for nearby industrial facilities and
villages.
For more information see: https://www.makanisi.org/congo-une-foret-de-40-000-ha-

dacaciasa-vocation-ecologique-et-agro-forestiere/?fbclid=IwAR0IySsogN63T0sGoK2_0UeGp
J6hWB5C 6fGWTzc5dnAmQcEvijBwexnCTdE
With nearly 50 years of experience, a unique industrial heritage and large areas of savannah land
available (few farms and few inhabitants), the Republic of the Congo has immense potential for the
development of plantations.
The monospecific, single product/market-oriented planting model, which prevents the land being
used for other purposes, has also shown its limitations. Highly inclusive models that involve local
people (beyond basic silvicultural operations) and target a range of markets, including local markets,
are a much more promising, resilient and effective option, given that they are capable of generating
multiple revenue streams from locally processed products simultaneously.

The end of the globalized, highly concentrated and specialized fossil fuel model is set to disrupt
economic activity and many industrial sectors. It offers many opportunities for local models that
are integrated with modestly sized industrial hubs, located precisely at the source of decarbonized
resources and serving mainly local markets.
3.1.4 The acacia-cassava agroforestry system

developed in DRC
Agroforestry
Agroforestry combines the time and/or space dedicated to trees with crops and/or livestock (agro-
sylvo-pastoralism) by optimizing the agronomic, ecological and economic synergies between the
various components of the system. It has several benefits:
• It enriches the soil with organic matter and nutrients;

• It regulates and ensures the availability of water;
• It protects against erosion;
• It acts as a windbreak and shades crops;
• It increases biodiversity;
• It diversifies revenue streams.
Among the many agroforestry models currently available, the ‘sequential’ agroforestry system (also
called ‘cyclical’, ‘productive tree fallow’ or ‘Taungya’), as opposed to the ‘permanent’ agroforestry
system, has become the dominant model in Central Africa.
Box 3.2: Problems related to slash-and-burn agriculture and the

demand for charcoal on the Batéké plateau
Shifting agriculture on cleared and burned land is the predominant model in Central
Africa, whether in forested or savannah areas. It is relatively productive for a few years,
but soil depletion drives farmers to move on to new land. This practice, together with the
concomitant production of charcoal, is the main driver of deforestation.
On sandy savannahs, it delivers only modest yields for 1 to 3 years, following which a fallow
period of 5 to 10 years is needed to allow the soil to slowly recover.
The Batéké plateau is made up of sandy savannahs fragmented by valleys, many of which are
lined by gallery forests. They cover 12 million hectares from south-eastern Gabon to north-
eastern Angola, on both sides of the Congo River north of Brazzaville and Kinshasa.
This ecosystem is characterized by a complex mosaic of savannah and forest. The

consequences of slash-and-burn agriculture and charcoal production to supply the two
capitals are dramatic, both for the equilibrium of the forest and for the food security of rural
populations. Indeed, Kinshasa requires 2.14 million tons of charcoal each year (Dubiez et al.
2022) and Brazzaville more than 100,000 tons.

Chapter 3
The acacia-cassava agroforestry system developed in Mampu

To meet the high demand for charcoal from Kinshasa, an innovative agroforestry system was
designed and deployed on the Batéké plateau in the DRC in the 1980s, as part of the Mampu project.
This system combined Australian acacias (mangium and auriculiformis), which have a natural
capacity to enrich the soil and high-quality wood, with cassava, the main food crop.
Under the supervision of the Hanns Seidel Foundation, this agricultural system, which performs
well on poor savannah soils, was deployed over 8,000 hectares between 1987 and 1993 with the
voluntary settlement of indigenous farming families from the wider region. The plantations were
then divided into 25-hectare farms and allocated to independent farmers between 1995 and 2001.
Sequential agroforestry
In sequential agroforestry systems, the crops (cassava, maize, peanuts, market garden produce, etc.)
are planted at the same time as the acacia trees. They benefit from the way the land is prepared for
planting (clearing and ploughing) and are farmed for the first two years in the spaces between the
rows of trees.
Acacia can be mixed with other trees, local species (Maesopsis, Pentaclethra, Milletia, Afrormosia,
Terminalia) and even fruit trees. Beekeeping can also be introduced into this agroforestry system.
From the third year, the plantation enters the ‘productive tree fallow’ phase for 5 to 6 years until the
trees are harvested.
A new agroforestry cycle then begins on the loosened soil, which is naturally weed free and enriched
with nitrogen and organic matter, without the use of chemical products. The acacias are regrown by
replanting or using controlled burning to activate dormant seeds present in the litter. Food crops are
replanted between the rows of trees.
Figure 3.1: Diagram of the sequential agroforestry cycle (Boldrini et al. 2017)

Figure 3.2: Comparison between productive tree fallow (agroforestry) and traditional bare
fallow
Source: Paul Bertaux, FRM
Subdividing agroforestry estates into the same number of plots as years of the harvest cycle (for
example 8 plots) has the benefit of ensuring that both food (1 to 2 out of 8 plots) and forest products
(1 out of 8 plots) are both produced every year.
The tree fallow system offers an effective alternative to the traditional bare fallow system in
savannah areas. The period of natural soil restoration (but with regular burning) required by the
latter is replaced by a productive period of tree growth that accelerates the enrichment of the soil
with organic matter and nitrogen.
Lessons learned from Mampu

The Mampu agroforestry system has proven effective. Three hundred farming families have been
living on 25 hectares of acacia trees each for 20 years now, in a plantation zone that is home to
several thousand people centred around a residential and commercial hub.
One reason for the project’s success is the incorporation of traditional slash-and-burn practices into
the agroforestry system, allowing for the natural regeneration of the acacia trees. This technique,
which farmers know well, has facilitated the adoption and therefore the sustainability of this
agroforestry system.
The Mampu project also has a major environmental dimension in that it replaces charcoal obtained
via illegal logging – a major driver of deforestation around Kinshasa – with charcoal from sustainable
plantations. Twenty years after the establishment of the plantation, Bisiaux et al. (2009) estimated
that the area produces around 10,000 tons of charcoal annually, 10,000 tons of cassava, 1,200 tons
of maize and various non-timber forest products, including 2 tons of honey.
With an annual turnover of 10 percent of its initial investment, the project has also demonstrated its
economic viability and its positive impact on social development. Mampu is now an autonomous
peasant farming system. It does not rely on funding or support from international donors and
stands as a valuable example in the field of agroforestry.
The success of this agroforestry system has encouraged international donors and technical
cooperation bodies to promote it across the Congo Basin.

Chapter 3
The Ntsio agroforestry project
The Ntsio project (‘savannah’ in the Teke language), implemented by the Hanns Seidel Foundation
200 km from Kinshasa, has incorporated the recommendations from the institutional, technical
and sociological reports on the Mampu project:
• Resolve the issue of customary claims over the land by obtaining a ministerial subdivision
order that sets out the conditions for acquiring the land;
• Consider whether there is a water source in the area suitable for the implementation of an
agroforestry project;
• Reduce the size of the areas assigned to farmers.
The Ntsio project covers 5,500 hectares comprising 260 17-hectare agroforestry farms and
the infrastructure required by the participating associations (covered meeting area with an
office, warehouse and water tower), materials for which come from timber plantations (mainly
Eucalyptus sp.).
The project area is served by a water supply network. In addition to increasing farmers’ ownership
of irrigation activities and maintenance, this infrastructure has allowed for the establishment of
a central nursery (1 million plants/growing season, up to two seasons per year, diversification of
plantations with Pinus sp., Eucalyptus sp., Maesopsis, palm trees, etc.).
Farmers are grouped into four associations, which hold land titles over the project area, monitor
compliance with operating standards for the farms and coordinate the community’s management
of the infrastructure and the sale of the goods produced.
Economic performance, challenges and opportunities

In Ntsio and Gungu, average incomes are around USD 2,600/ha at the start of acacia harvesting,
equivalent to USD 200/month. It is estimated that Mampu and Ntsio each produce about 1 percent
of the charcoal required by Kinshasa.
Cassava yields have also increased due to wider adoption of improved varieties. The introduction of
cereals and legumes to the agroforestry system is currently under way.
Table 3.4: Estimated average incomes per hectare from the first round of acacia farming
Yield Local selling price Income
Product
(t/ha) (USD/kg) (USD)
Charcoal 10 0.1 1,150

Maize 0.6 0.2 150
Cassava (cossettes) 3.2 0.2 800
Cowpea 0.3 0.3 100
Honey* 0.1 4 400
TOTAL 2,600
* From five hives at a rate of 20 kg of honey per hive
Source: Hans Seidel Foundation database, 2021 (data provided by author Pierre Clinquart)

Encouraging producers to plant acacias in cultivated areas is an effective way to gradually convert
farms to this system. The creation of sustainable resources through agroforestry encourages the
rural population to organize and manage their local environment. This opens up opportunities
for rural people, discouraging rural depopulation and reversing the trend of the city feeding the
countryside.
The Ibi Batéké agroforestry carbon sink (PCIAB)

Based on the same agroforestry model, the Ibi Batéké agroforestry carbon sink (PCIAB) was
established in 2008. In 2015, it produced nearly 500 tons of cassava tubers, 100 tons of maize and
almost 900 tons of makala (charcoal) annually on 80 hectares of land.
These activities employ 900 workers on a daily basis and provide 1,200 indirect jobs throughout the
value chain.
Table 3.5. Overview of the Ibi Batéké agroforestry carbon sink

Plantation area 1,500 ha
Plantations recognized as a ‘carbon sink’ 800 ha
Carbon stock officially reported to the UNFCCC in 2020 (Tariff = 4 USD/tCO2) 46,700 tCO2
Area of forest logged each year for the production of sustainable green makala 900 t
Cassava (fresh 500 t
Average annual production tubers) 500 t
Maize 100 t
Makala 900 t
Number of jobs (daily)
Direct jobs (±900)
Indirect jobs > 1,200
Source: PCIAB internal database
Scaling up the Batéké Plateau Ecological Corridor (CEBAT)

The Mampu, Ntsio, Gungu and Ibi Batéké agroforestry carbon sink programmes cover a total of
almost 18,000 ha of plantations across a very large area.
At the end of 2020, the Congolese Institute for Nature Conservation (ICCN), DRC, resumed its the
activities in the Bombo Lumene Game Reserve in the province of Kinshasa. This initiative opens
up new opportunities through the implementation of a large-scale sustainable community-based
agroforestry project. The project builds on previous models and aligns with the fundamental
principles for the management and conservation of protected areas set out under Congolese law.
In this context, a public-private partnership bringing together ICCN, scientific partners and the
sponsors backing the Ibi Batéké agroforestry carbon sink is in the process of launching the Batéké
Plateau Ecological Corridor (CEBAT).
This initiative aims to establish a protected area covering 3.5 million hectares, stretching from the
Angolan border at an altitude of 1,000 m to the northern edge of the Kwamouth Territory (Mai-
Ndombe province) at an altitude of less than 400 m. It will directly impact nearly 18 million people.

Chapter 3
Figure 3.3: Location of the Batéké Plateau Ecological Corridor (CEBAT)

Source: Regional Post-Graduate Training School on Integrated Management of Tropical Forests and Lands (ERAIFT)
The Bombo Lumene Game Reserve is located in the centre of the Batéké Plateau Ecological Corridor
and will link nearly 300 villages within the ‘Mboka Mayele’ network. The project aims to create tens
of thousands of jobs. Investments will focus on agroforestry programmes, processing agricultural
and forestry products and strengthening basic social and economic infrastructure.
The Batéké Plateau Ecological Corridor is designed to create a green bulwark against the human
pressure exerted by Kinshasa and, in 2021, ICCN and its partners began the process of registering the
Batéké Plateau Ecological Corridor as a UNESCO World Heritage Site.
Carbon impact
Acacia agroforestry plantations create carbon sinks based on two components:
• The permanent stock of the plantations, on harvest cycles of 8 years to more than 20 years
depending on the cycle and markets chosen (charcoal, bioenergy, timber);
• The annual replacement of wood, which would otherwise come from unsustainable illegal
logging, deforestation or trees from natural forests, with sustainable plantation wood.
This dual benefit can be used to generate carbon credits once a project has been certified to carbon
standards that guarantee a project’s concrete environmental benefits. Certification then makes it
possible to capitalize on the environmental services delivered by a project in the form of payments
for the amount of CO2 sequestered.

Box 3.3: Factors affecting the agricultural sustainability of the

acacia-cassava model
Emilien Dubiez, Vincent Freycon, Régis Peltier, Jean-Michel Harmand (CIRAD)
Fallow land planted with acacia has proved to have high productive capacity over relatively
long periods. Remarkable results have been achieved on plateaus characterized by sandy,
acidic and very nutrient poor soils with a very low water retention capacity (Kasongo et al.
2009).
Nevertheless, although this method represents real progress and avoids vast areas of forest
being destroyed by slash-and-burn agriculture, Dubiez et al. (2018) found contrasting
changes in the chemical composition of the soil after 22 years of farming using the Mampu
acacia agroforestry system.
Soils under this system had higher levels of carbon and nitrogen as a result of nitrogen
fixation by the acacia trees, but were more acidic and had lower levels of exchangeable bases
(calcium, magnesium, potassium and sodium) than the original savannah soils.
The depletion of the mineral content of the soil over the 22-year period, for all acacia
management models (unlogged plantations, one or two harvest cycles of acacia and food
crops), can be explained by the transfer of cations from the soil to the plants and their
removal when the products are harvested.
To rectify soil acidification, the depletion of exchangeable bases and the general decline in the
productivity of the system, it is necessary to propose new practices and study their impacts
on the chemical composition of the soil.
The undesirable effects observed could be reduced by removing the bark from trunks before
carbonizing the wood, returning small branches to the ground and adding natural phosphate
rocks or liming.
These preliminary findings suggest that further studies are needed to improve the techniques
used to manage A. auriculiformis stands and increase the sustainability of the system by
managing soil fertility more effectively.
Forest carbon is primarily traded on voluntary carbon markets. The Verified Carbon Standard (VCS)
is one of the most widely used standards on voluntary markets, with nearly 1,800 projects certified
in 2022. This corresponds to sequestration or emissions reductions equivalent to 468 million tons
of carbon.1 Once a project has been certified and verified according to the rules and requirements of
a standard, it can receive carbon credits (Verified Carbon Units or VCUs).
In DRC, the Ibi Batéké agroforestry carbon sink is the only project registered under the UNFCCC
Clean Development Mechanism. The 2020 Ibi Batéké carbon sink verification report (experts
commissioned by the World Bank) approved a final stock of 46,700 tCO2 over an area of 800 ha
(58.45 tCO2/ha). The 2009 greenhouse gas emission reductions agreement between the World Bank
and the sponsors of the Ibi Batéké carbon sink project provides for a fixed payment of USD 4/tCO2
1 https://registry.verra.org/app/search/VCS

Chapter 3
on the basis of temporary credits, valid for 5 years. Carbon payments also go to local family-run
agroforestry farms, which have recently organized into cooperatives, such as the Cooperative and
Economic Interest Grouping of the Teke Territory, which was established in 2015 with the direct
involvement of customary chiefs.
The Ntsio project, for its part, did not initially plan to go as far as trading the carbon it sequestered.
Internal studies have shown that producer communities do not have the know-how for carbon
trading, both in terms of their technical and administrative capacity. It may however be possible
through a specialized third-party organization, depending on the standard chosen, the target market
and changes in the market value of carbon. While there are plans to register the project with DRC’s
REDD unit to lay solid foundations for Ntsio to pursue carbon trading, this has not yet been done.
3.1.5 Case study on forest plantations in Burundi

and Rwanda: Complexity and complementarity of
stakeholders and management methods
The history of plantations in Burundi

As early as 1907, Burundi was described as a degraded landscape without many plantations. In
1933, the authorities decided to implement legal measures to protect the last remaining fragments
of forest.
Fifteen years later, the Burundian forestry sector had grown significantly: the forested area had
reached around 90,000 ha, with 40,000 ha of tropical montane forest, 25,000 ha of savannah
woodland and gallery forests, 20,000 ha of artificially afforested land and 5,000 ha of trees outside
forests (FAO 1999).
In 1978, following increasing pressure on natural forests and timber shortages, Burundi, supported
by donors, launched a vast reforestation programme to ensure the supply of timber and reforest
denuded ridges. Between 1978 and 1992, the country’s forest cover increased from 3 percent to
7 percent (from 25,428 ha to 146,000 ha). More than 30,000 ha were decimated during the crisis of
October 1993.
In 2010, plantations occupied 146,055 ha, where 66 species were grown, 52 percent of which were for
sawnwood and 48 percent for fuelwood. The species used were mainly fast-growing, multipurpose
and low-cost exotic species in protection plantations, such as: Eucalyptus sp. (36 percent), Grevillea
(3 percent), Pinus sp. (15 percent), Callitris calcarata (30 percent), other softwood (10 percent)
(Nduwamungu 2011).
Main challenges
Plantation forestry is tied to a number of socioeconomic and environmental challenges:
• In a country like Burundi with a population density of more than 400 inhabitants per km²,
the availability of forest resources for multiple uses remains a major issue. The biggest
challenge is finding species that meet different needs, such as for fuelwood, livestock feed and
watershed protection.

• Strengthening the role of forest plantations in soil protection to prevent sediment runoff
and improve carbon storage.
• Dependence on fuelwood, which is mainly used in rural areas (76 percent of national
consumption). The diversity and complexity of the stakeholders involved is a major challenge.
Owners of afforested areas (the state, municipalities, private sector), coal miners, transporters,
wholesalers and major consumers (bakeries, restaurants, etc.) do not coordinate and operate
without a framework for consultation.
• The impact of internal and external migration on plantations. Successive wars and
sociopolitical unrest in Burundi have caused massive flows of refugees and internally
displaced persons. This takes a heavy toll on plantations, given that these people tend to take
refuge in state or communal forests and protected areas, near Lake Tanganyika for its rich fish
resources, in the Rumonge and Nyanza region for its fertile land (oil palm) and on the Bururi,
Kigwena and Rumonge reserves.
• Issues related to land tenure and the promotion of private forests and agroforestry
systems linked to securing land rights.
• Dependence on external funding allocated through the government budget and
national actors in partnership with the government. The government has committed to
fund reforestation efforts in full, through the national reforestation programme ‘Ewe Burundi
Urambaye’ (‘a well-dressed Burundi’ in English), thereby reducing dependence on external
funding.
Gaps and opportunities

The current annual rate of deforestation is estimated at 2 percent, whereas reforestation rates
remain below 1 percent (Ministry of the Environment, Agriculture and Livestock 2019).
To address these problems, Burundi should launch new research and development efforts,
pilot projects on industrial value creation and assess plantations’ impacts on water and soil
(pines, eucalyptus).
In terms of initial and ongoing training, modules on monitoring natural and artificial forests using
satellite data could be strengthened to enable degradation and deforestation to be closely monitored.
The role of the forestry sector in the implementation of the Paris Climate Agreement should
be strengthened. In its Nationally Determined Contribution, Burundi committed to reduce its
greenhouse gas emissions from 2016 to 2030 by increasing the country’s forest cover by at least
60,000 ha at a rate of 4,000 ha/year over 15 years from 2016, and up to 120,000 ha at a rate of
8,000 ha/year (subject to conditions). By 2030, the government also aims to replace all traditional
charcoal kilns and all traditional cooking stoves.
Since 2019, Burundi has financed efforts to delay land degradation through national programmes
fully funded by national budgets.
This trend should be encouraged and existing efforts should be strengthened with the support
of other technical and financial partners, as well as the financing mechanisms advocated by the
Paris Agreement.

Chapter 3
Box 3.4: Fuelwood in Africa today: A case study on Rwanda

Robert J. van der Plas (www.marge.eu)
In most African countries, wood still makes up a significant proportion of the energy mix,
which has evolved without government oversight.
Although the consumption of electricity, gas and petroleum products is increasing, the
consumption of fuelwood is not declining at an equivalent rate; indeed, firewood and
charcoal remain widely used energy sources (Owen et al. 2013). Nevertheless, the increasing
volume of fuelwood and charcoal purchased even in rural areas opens up opportunities for
farmers and landowners to sell trees as a cash crop.
Rwanda offers a case in point. Here the strong demand for fuelwood continues unabated,
even though wood from natural forests had virtually disappeared decades ago. It is relatively
difficult to obtain wood from public plantations and there is very little land available for
additional large-scale plantations (whether private or public) due to the high population
density. Farmers saw a business opportunity in this situation and planted large numbers of
trees on their land to sell to the fuelwood market.
In doing so, they compensated for the loss of natural forest and the majority of fuelwood
now comes from trees planted for this purpose. However, this situation is generally poorly
recognized, given that the government has recently taken steps to shut down the production
of charcoal, which predominantly uses wood from purpose-planted trees. Much of the
population will continue to use fuelwood as its main source of energy for some time to come,
because it is still cheaper than electricity, gas or petroleum products for an equivalent energy
yield. Wood from farmers' fields has a lower production cost than that from large plantations
and can be obtained without having to navigate administrative barriers.
Although the government asserts that it can plant more trees on marginal land, it is unclear
whether this wood will be easy to sell. Indeed, the cost per m3 is substantially higher than
for wood from farmers' land. There are no reliable data on the actual production and use
of fuelwood that could be used to reliably determine whether this will be a problem in the
future. The supply of fuelwood has met demand for energy without major government
intervention and it appears that this will not change in the near future.
Despite alarmist rhetoric about an imminent wood shortage in Africa, fuelwood is still widely
used in many African countries. Progress has been slow on improving access to electricity
for most people and population growth often outpaces the number of new connections. If
the use of electricity and liquefied petroleum gas is not incentivized by generous subsidies,
fuelwood will remain the cheapest source of energy for cooking and likely the main source of
energy in many countries.

3.2 Challenges and opportunities for

the development of plantation forestry in
Central Africa
3.2.1 Funding
Despite strong potential and attractive opportunities, investment in commercial forestry plantations
in Africa has stalled due to 20 years of sluggish economic growth.
According to the literature, financing is generally available for commercial operations that will
generate a positive cashflow in three to five years and that have an acceptable level of risk.
For this reason, banks may be less interested in financing the production side of plantation forestry
projects, but more interested in downstream segments like processing or adding value. Indeed, the
fastest time to positive cashflow reported by plantation forestry investments is 5-8 years (Harwood
and Nambiar 2014).
In Central Africa (with differences between countries), investments are complicated further by
unclear land tenure and land-use arrangements, weak industrial infrastructure, poor technology
and low productivity, as well as serious funding gaps.
Some authors note that different stakeholders are hindered by different barriers to investing in
plantation forestry in Africa: local investors and financiers are opportunistic, strategic investors face
barriers to entry, financial investors have demanding investment criteria (mainly risk related) and
development financing projects seek enabling conditions (Indufor 2016).
However, investment in the forestry sector may take the form of greenfield investments in plantation
establishment, processing or forestry, within the framework of official development assistance.
This category of investments can be broken down into five main groups, shown below with a few
examples that could be scaled up:
• Development finance institutions, such as the African Development Bank and the World Bank,
with the possibility for them to compensate for the long lead times and social risks associated
with plantation forestry;
• Donors with incentive schemes for local tree growers and farmers (Global Environment Facility
(GEF), Climate Investment Funds (CIF), Adaptation Fund and other trust funds);
• Governments with innovative policies on leasing land to responsible investors;
• Governments and donors jointly providing support, sharing risk, developing infrastructure
to facilitate forest investments or providing complementary financial guarantees (forest
investment programmes);
• Strategic and financial investors who partner with local actors and take advantage of
opportunities in Africa.

Chapter 3
3.2.2 Investments
A sector with specific challenges in need of enabling conditions for

investment
Compared to other land-use options, the majority of investments in commercial plantation forestry
are, at best, marginally profitable. It is therefore imperative to be fully aware of the key challenges
affecting African forestry, which, if addressed, can become enabling conditions for successful
investment. Poor understanding of these challenges has led to the current suboptimal state of the
majority of greenfield plantation investments.
The African forestry sector can be regarded as high risk from an environmental, social and
governance, business integrity and financial returns perspective. The main risks relate to land use
and loss of livelihoods, occupational health and safety skills, social acceptability, negative impacts
on biodiversity, the potential for bribery and corruption, an uncertain investment environment,
inadequate infrastructure and illegal logging of natural forests.
Though there is significant opportunity for investment growth in the African forestry sector, progress
is hindered by a risk-averse investment climate, the limited availability of financing and the lack of
successful forestry business models (outside South Africa).
Investing in Africa’s forests is a bold undertaking, but one the continent urgently needs, for the
sustainability of its wood supply, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and rural development.
Agroforestry and carbon markets could therefore offer a solution to these challenges, if not be a
game changer.
Investment structures
Debt vs equity
African forestry is generally not developed or liquid enough to carry commercial debt.
The basic long-term internal rate of return of forestry projects is usually somewhere between
6 percent and 9 percent. In very specific imperfect market conditions, more can be achieved, but
not usually in the long term. Engaging in downstream processing can improve returns, but is not
without its challenges.
Financing solutions are becoming more complex in the face of these return metrics and equity from
committed investors would be the most appropriate option. Commercial investors often demand
more than a 15 percent return on investment to offset the risk profile.
If an investment project succeeds in raising some form of concessional debt, this is very valuable.
However, it is difficult to find and often comes with near impossible strings attached.
Many development banks take a commercial approach to the African forestry sector and often
demand a return on investment that exceeds the potential internal rate of return. Project leaders are
then encouraged to be optimistic when estimating profitability in order to raise the necessary funds.
Project leaders who have obtained debt financing then find themselves urgently trying to reach
profitability before debts become too large to service.

Equity financing, on the other hand, comes with its own challenges. For example, assessing the
value of a project is difficult for investors who enter a long-term investment at different stages.
Avoiding the need for mid-cycle capital

The lack of a positive track record is a significant challenge for the African forest investment space.
If a project ends up needing to raise capital before it is generating significant return on investment,
it will most likely find itself in a tenuous position. The project will need to prove to capital providers
that it is one of the few success stories and that it is close to turning a profit.
This will require a strong business plan, convincing management, a track record of meeting budgets
and a bit of luck.
If the project is indeed successful in raising funds, the original investors will usually find their stake
either heavily diluted, subsidizing a high interest rate or both. The only way to avoid this mid-cycle
risk is to have sufficient funding to reach positive cashflow from the outset.
3.2.3 Partnership models to support plantations

The various financial and investment options available for the development of plantation forestry can
be grouped into three partnership models: public-private partnerships, private sector-community
partnerships and partnerships between financial institutions and countries.
Public-private partnerships for establishing forest plantations

Public-private partnerships have proven to be a model for economic prosperity in many sectors and
there are a number of examples in Central Africa relating to the establishment of forest plantations.
Case study on Gabon

In Gabon, since the end of 2011, the company Plantations Forestières de la Mvoum (PFM) has been
working to develop a 40,000-hectare area about 100 km from Libreville awarded by the Gabonese
Government.
Approximately 17,000 hectares of existing 30-55-year-old okoumé plantations are expected to

produce 100,000 m3 of logs per year. These plantations are scheduled to be harvested over 20 years
and replaced with clonal teak.
To finance part of its investment programme, PFM carried out a capital increase in 2013 reserved for
Gabon’s Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations, allowing it to acquire 15 percent of the capital.
Since 2014, work has focused on establishing the first teak plantations and harvesting the existing
okoumé plantations. By the end of 2016, the nursery had about 100,000 teak plants and 100 hectares
of clonal teak had been planted.
At the same time, PFM continued its applied research programme on tropical forest plantations,
focusing on the genetic improvement of plant material.
In 2016, PFM signed a partnership agreement with Gabon Special Economic Zone, which will
purchase almost all of the okoumé produced from its plantations.

Chapter 3
New avenues for creating value will be explored, working with partners where relevant. PFM’s
ambition is to meet the growing need for timber and fuelwood in Africa, against a backdrop of
strong demand for renewable products and rising fossil fuel prices.
Case study on the Republic of the Congo

The ten-year partnership between the Government of the Republic of the Congo and Société
Plantations Forestières Batéké Brazzaville (SPF2B) aimed to plant 10,000 hectares of forest to supply
the Brazzaville market with charcoal from sustainable plantations and partially replace the charcoal
currently obtained by cutting natural forests.
According to the agreement, SPF2B is responsible for financing the project, while the government,
with PRONAR, facilitates access to improved plant material and technical exchanges on plantation
management.
Planting started in October 2018 with an annual planting target of 500 to 1,000 ha. The project is
expected to create 500 direct jobs in neighbouring communities and to catalyse the development
of village plantations, thereby contributing to the national objective of planting trees over
1 million hectares (ATIBT 2019).
Private sector-community partnerships

Lessons can be learned from Uganda’s Supporting Timber Plantations through the Sawlog
Production Grant Scheme (SPGS).
Before the launch of this project in Uganda, a long history of underfunding forest operations and
poor management had contributed to the degradation of forestry plantations that were originally
publicly managed.
Productive plantations on degraded forestland were seen as a way to meet the growing demand for
timber while relieving the pressure on the remaining natural forests.
The objective of the EU-supported SPGS programme is to promote private sector investment in
timber production by supporting plantation development on degraded forestland with much-
needed financial and technical support.
Financial assistance is provided as a direct grant paid within two years of planting. The total grant is
USD 330 per hectare, but will only be paid if the growers meet the conditions set out in the contracts
that must be agreed in advance. No money is paid up-front.
The main conditions are: sound species choice, using only improved seed, with at least 80 percent
survival after planting, and ensuring the plantation is weeded and protected for two years. The
principle is to ‘grow trees’ rather than simply ‘plant trees’.
SPGS offers farmers sound technical support and two forestry companies also provide training to
Ugandan foresters. Through field meetings, practical training courses and publications, the SPGS
team has begun to convince people that commercial forestry is a serious business opportunity for
those with suitable land in Uganda.

SPGS has funded 10,000 ha of plantations to date, from small community-based tree planting
associations to large-scale commercial operations. The programme has also supported communities
to plant seedlings, led to the establishment of the Uganda Timber Growers Association and created
5,000 jobs.
So far, growers have used degraded land in forest reserves leased by the National Forest Authority,
but interest in using private land is now growing. Support to plant an additional 25,000 ha has been
requested.2
Partnerships between financial institutions and countries

The issue of independent businesses launching development projects and social inclusion in the
forestry sector must not be overlooked if we want to improve the livelihoods of small-scale tree
farmers by encouraging them to plant trees on small plots, despite challenges linked to land tenure.
Agroforestry appears to be a relevant approach to relieving the pressure on natural forests. The World
Bank is working with partners in Mai-Ndombe province, DRC, on an integrated REDD+ initiative
built around investments and performance-based payments (World Bank 2018). Since 2014, the
Forest Investment Programme (FIP) has been supporting farmers to implement agroforestry
activities, such as planting several million acacia trees under the agroforestry model described in
this chapter.
This programme is reported to have improved the living conditions of thousands of farmers,
sequestered carbon in planted forests and reduced carbon emissions. Participants also receive
payments from the Carbon Fund of the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) under an
Emissions Reduction Payment Agreement (ERPA) signed by the World Bank and the Government of
DRC. The average cost of establishing one hectare of this type of agroforestry plantation is estimated
at USD 1,000.3
The African Development Bank (AfDB) recognizes the economic and development potential of a
thriving large-scale forestry sector on the continent. Furthermore, the Climate Investment Funds
have already invested substantial resources to attract investment to the sector, which is growing in
importance as its role in climate change mitigation and adaptation has recently been highlighted.
The Climate Investment Funds are currently working to encourage the private sector to invest in
transforming the African forestry sector (AfDB et al. 2019).
The Green Zones Development Support Project in Kenya (the Mau Forest Reforestation Project) was
financed by the AfDB (2007–2016) to the tune of USD 38.8 million, which led to the reforestation of
14,300 ha. The project led to the creation of 3,000 permanent and sustainable jobs in communities
bordering forests and increased the income of 17,100 households (40 percent headed by women)
(AfDB 2018). Over the ten years of the project, the average cost of establishing one hectare of forest
was estimated at USD 2,713.
2 https://spgs.mwe.go.ug/
3 Dr Clement Vangu Lutete, Coordinator of the Forest Investment Programme in DRC, personal communication.

Chapter 3
3.2.4 Enabling conditions for plantation investments
Management, staff, labour and expatriate presence

When it comes to management and staffing, setting up a plantation project in Africa from scratch is
not an easy task. There are a number of possible approaches, but all face the challenge of balancing
overhead costs and maintaining an adequate skill base.
In the early years, many projects require the presence of expatriate staff to get them off the ground.
Planning how to minimize the use of expatriate staff should be a priority early in the project
life cycle. Effective high-quality staff training is one of the single most important hallmarks of a
successful project. Gradually shifting responsibility from expatriate managers to local staff is more
cost effective and ensures sustainability.
Plantation development and management is a science, developed and practised successfully in

many countries around the world. Some argue that it is important to incorporate traditional farming
practices into plantation management. However, care should be taken not to ‘reinvent the wheel’
where very simple and successful established practices exist.
Health and safety does not often come naturally to developing markets. Having a healthy and safe
workforce requires considerable investment in the early days, but is indispensable for success in
the long term. Third-party forest management certification can also be a helpful framework to
support the integration of health and safety measures. A skilled, healthy and safe workforce will be
motivated to come to work, keen to improve their skills and share the company’s values.
Silviculture and forest management

Genetics
It is best practice to use improved genetic material regardless of the type of plantation forestry.
There is however some debate around whether to use clonal or non-clonal species and there are
many valid arguments on both sides. Clonal forestry using a sufficiently wide genetic base offers the
best return on investment for many traditional plantation species. Unfortunately, many plantation
projects in Africa have not used high-quality genetic material from the outset. The composition
and growth rate of early plantations often has a significant impact on their commercial viability.
Many large professional companies have however begun to pay greater attention to genetics more
recently. When implementing a project, time and logistical constraints are often cited as reasons
for the use of poor-quality genetic material. It is however risky to rush this essential step when
establishing a plantation.
Site and species compatibility

The success of a forestry project relies on the compatibility of the site and the species used. While
this may seem obvious, many still get it wrong.
To match a site with the rights species, the soil must first be analysed and long-term meteorological
data collected (including consideration of climate change-related risks). As those of us who have
been caught out know, with rainfall, it is not just long-term averages that matter, but the magnitude
of annual variation.

Fire risk
In most African countries outside South Africa, forest owners are on their own in the event of a
fire. Fire is a serious risk in most plantation regions in Africa. There are four main ways to manage
this risk:
1. Manage the forest to reduce the fuel load during fire seasons (weeding plantations) and by
creating firebreaks;
2. Set up rapid response fire detection and suppression capacity;
3. Work with neighbours to prevent fires across the wider landscape and develop community
safety plans;
4. Consider buying insurance.
Biodiversity
A major criticism of plantation forestry is the risk of biodiversity loss when planting large areas with
a small number of non-native species.
However, in the case of Uganda, for example, the International Woodland Company (IWC) invested
in pine and eucalyptus plantations in an area where the landscape had become highly degraded due
to slash-and-burn agriculture and unmanaged grazing. Here, the plantations restored productivity
to the landscape and protected vast natural forests and riparian areas from encroachment and
further degradation.
As part of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification process, IWC hired an external partner
to carry out biodiversity studies twice a year. These studies continuously reported that plantation
activities were not harming conservation or biodiversity and that more species of birds and mammals
had been observed at all sites surveyed. These plantations are more biodiverse than neighbouring
farmland (without responsibly managed plantations scenario).
Processing and markets

In Africa, many markets for forest products are informal and underdeveloped. Understanding the
market is crucial in the planning stage. Some organizations have the skills to move downstream into
processing, while others may simply wish to remain plantation owners.
To be able to plan for the future, it is crucial that project leaders understand both current trade
restrictions and the political will behind them.
Tenure
Land tenure is one of the most contentious issues affecting plantation forestry investments in Africa.
Intractable challenges can arise when a land-intensive resource like a forest is combined with poorly
defined and enforced land tenure legislation and a local population of marginalized subsistence
farmers who are highly dependent on the land.
In Uganda, IWC was able to navigate these challenges through strong leadership, by drafting a
company code of conduct, hiring a dedicated community engagement team, consulting regularly
with communities, developing and managing a grievance redress mechanism and delivering

Chapter 3
community co-benefit activities. Despite the perception that tenure poses one of the biggest risks
for plantation forestry investments in Africa, IWC’s approach has substantially minimized this risk.
Valuable lessons have been learned about land tenure over the investment period. It is necessary to:
• Only invest in a project once the land tenure is clear. Doing so saves precious time and allows
investment capital to get to work immediately.
• Have a thorough understanding of the plantable land before investing, not only in terms
of biological capacity, but also with respect to conflicting land rights. Not having such an
understanding from the outset could negatively impact the expected return on investment.
• Navigating land tenure enforcement with the relevant authorities is challenging, especially
while upholding the company code of conduct. Nevertheless, maintaining positive relationships,
frequent engagement and collaboration with relevant civil society organizations can be effective.
Frameworks for environmental and social risk management

There are a wide range of stakeholders involved in African timberland investments: investors, sector
stakeholders, governments (local, national and foreign), non-governmental organizations (NGOs),
research organizations, media representatives and local communities.
Fast-growing forest plantation projects — like any large-scale land purchase — must comply with
the minimum requirements imposed by the host country to limit environmental and social harms.
Virtually all countries require projects to conduct an environmental and social impact assessment
(ESIA) and adopt an impact management plan, obtain free, prior and informed consent and
provide evidence of widespread community support; however, the conditions and guidelines for
the establishment, monitoring and application of the measures adopted vary from one country to
another.
Given private sector companies’ growing interest in commercial plantations and their arrival in
complex and vulnerable environments, it is important to recognize weaknesses in the host country’s
formal risk management frameworks.
In jurisdictions where enforcement is weak, voluntary forest management certification has proven
to be a valuable tool for ensuring that forestry investments meet the high environmental, social and
governance standards advocated by investors.
Plantation managers are not simply required to ensure a return on investment; they must also
secure community and government benefits, manage investments in or support for regional
resilience frameworks, and participate in initiatives to build the capacity of local institutions and
regional economic communities. The private sector must moreover comply with existing national
and international laws and good practices, if its presence is to have a positive impact over time.
Successful investments in plantation forestry in Africa:
• Are actively involved in relevant local and wider networks. This includes tree growers’
associations, various local NGOs, the European Commission (or other multinational bodies),
the FAO, FSC and various platforms bringing together other plantation operators in the region.
• Develop a process for obtaining the free, prior and informed consent of community stakeholders.

• Establish a flexible community engagement, grievance redress and outreach strategy based on
regular and responsive engagement with neighbouring communities.
• Engage in positive media communication and share success stories.
• Establish a company policy on how to address media, research and other indirect stakeholder
enquiries, and ensure key staff are informed on how to respond to such enquiries. Enquiring
parties with a pre-existing negative agenda pose significant reputational risk.
Managing community expectations can be very challenging. From the outset and through frequent
engagement, make it clear what the programme will look like, what both sides expect and how they
will benefit. Do not overpromise. Have a support plan for programme co-implementers.
External funding (outside of investment funds) plays an important role in initiating community
outreach programmes, which work to reduce risk, secure value and create lasting impact.
Nevertheless, investment overheads must still include funding for maintaining community buy-in
through continuous engagement activities that outlive external project financing.
Development finance institutions have a range of tools to support private sector actors to
make sustainable investments in plantation forestry and agriculture. One of these tools is the
implementation of the voluntary sustainability standards or performance standards introduced in
the private financial sector. Major financial institutions have committed to apply the International
Finance Corporation (IFC) performance standards, which provide a clear framework for managing
social, environmental and biodiversity-related risks.
Forestry and carbon credits

Continuing with the example of IWC in Uganda, the initial company that received the investment
was founded in the late 1990s with the goal of pursuing sustainable forestry through the sale of
carbon credits. The voluntary carbon market and associated revenues did not materialize as
expected and IWC’s investors undertook to purchase the project and develop a commercially viable
plantation.
The company has maintained its Gold Standard certification throughout the investment holding
period and the project is expected to generate more than 1.5 million tons of certified carbon credits
over its 50-year lifetime.
Although the certification is relatively low maintenance, since the Gold Standard accepts the FSC
certification/audit procedure as a proxy (except for the carbon inventory component), carbon
forestry is not without its challenges.
Carbon forestry has been the subject of extensive criticism and significant managerial resources
have been required to maintain the project’s credibility. There was also a potential liability on exit,
given that the land is required to be held in continuous cycle forestry for the 50-year duration of the
certification (this did not however prove to be a problem). Ultimately, there has been little appetite
for carbon credits and prices have not achieved the level expected.
Various lessons can be learned from this experience:
• Until the factors affecting carbon prices shift significantly, it is perhaps best to consider carbon
credits sales as an upside to investments in plantation forestry, rather than as a foundational
component.

Chapter 3
• The question of carbon ‘tenure’ has become a hot topic following the signature of the Paris
Agreement and the adoption of its nationally determined contributions. It is therefore advisable
to ensure project leaders have a good understanding of the national government’s position on
forest carbon ownership and transferability.
• Long-term carbon supply agreements with large buyers should be considered.
• Engaging with critics of carbon forestry is recommended, both to understand the risks and
concerns related to engaging in this sector and to take steps to mitigate them, while building
positive working relationships.
3.3 Lessons learned from plantation

experiences in Africa and other parts of the
world
The development of plantation forestry in Africa, particularly in Ghana, Malawi, Mozambique,
Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, South Africa, Eswatini and Uganda, has been undertaken by the
private sector since the 1980s when government initiatives were constrained by limited resources
and budgets.
This is in direct contrast to earlier patterns of plantation development (1930s to 1970s) when
governments were the dominant developers of commercial plantation forestry.
Box 3.5: Enabling conditions for successful investments

Andries Smith – Forestry Investment Consultant
1. Appropriate allocation of financial capital
• Readily available patient (not time bound) risk tolerant equity capital
» Suited to the gradual increase in forestry's economic capacity over the long term
» Recourse to debt is advised only once in the “brownfield” stage and operating
cashflow is positive
• Appropriate allocation of capital and phasing
» Based on a robust strategic business plan that integrates wood products and is
supported by forest management measures
» Initially focused on adding value through organic growth
» Appropriate mergers and acquisitions considered only when there are clear cost and/
or revenue synergies
• Leverage non-returnable technical assistance capital to deepen the development impact and
address barriers to market development
• Consider alternative revenue streams - such as carbon credits - for additional (but not deal-
breaker) income, particularly in the form of forward purchase agreements to cover some of the
initial costs of establishment

Box 3.5 : Continued
IFC, World Bank Group 2016, Ethiopia Commercial Plantation Forestry Industry
Investment Plan
2. Environment and social inclusion

• An ESG management plan and budget should form an integral component of the
strategic business plan
• Forestry projects should be developed on the basis of an inclusive landscape approach,
perhaps as part of a mosaic encompassing commercial plantations, communities,
agriculture/small woods and high conservation areas
• Incorporate FSC principles from the outset, covering both the internal and third-party
supply chain
• Inclusive and influential stakeholder roundtable, whose representatives should at a
minimum include the company CEO, community groups (including young people,
women and men, and minority groups), ESG and farming-related NGOs, and local
government
• Encourage and support ‘out grower’ schemes to help neighbouring smallholders by
providing seedlings and/or assistance with tree growing, to enable them to potentially
become reputable independent wood suppliers
• Encourage and support the development of non-timber product projects where
appropriate
• As regards land tenure, seek transparent win-win agreements without areas of conflict
• A strategic business plan should also include a reputational risk management plan
3. Forest management capacity

• Senior management: Experienced managers, implementing an exceptional programme of
skills development and safety measures
• Market and product alignment: Planting regime aligned with wood product strategy
(pulpwood/logs/poles/veneer)
• Enhanced profitability: Target lowest cost of wood delivered per m3 (not lowest cost per
hectare) [+cost per ha / + mean annual increment per ha = low wood cost/m3]

Chapter 3
Box 3.5 : Continued

» Climatic and edaphic matching of site species to optimize mean annual increment per
m3/ha/year
» Advanced nursery practices and tree genetic improvement, using those clones
or seedlings best suited to the site – considering hardiness and pest and disease
resistance
» High-quality and effective methods for establishing and maintaining the site
» Effective management of fire, pest and diseases (good community relations are
important)
» Safe, efficient, low impact harvesting and transport system suited to local conditions
and tailored to the wood product
4. A defined strategy for wood products

• Senior management: Experienced managers, implementing an exceptional programme of
skills development and safety measures
• Market and product development: Wood products tailored mainly to domestic and
regional markets
» Target the highest possible value add, with a plan to shift from primary to secondary
products
» Collaborate with industry actors and governments to optimize the sector’s value
chain
» Wherever possible, consider the potential for industry clusters and/or strategic
alliances, without forgetting micro, small and medium enterprises
» Supply chain logistics: leverage existing knowledge in the forestry sector and take
advantage of strategic partnerships
» Market intelligence on competitors: imports and unregulated local low-cost products
• Enhanced profitability: Target the highest capacity to pay for wood
» Minimize transport distance from the forest and maximize dollar value recovery at
processing plants
» Develop an optimized wood processing flow from the outset based on the target
future processing capacity
» Affordable and reliable energy supply: If the energy supply network is unreliable,
consider combined heat and power generation during the initial cost-benefit analysis
Interventions supporting the development of plantation forestry in Africa have acted directly and
indirectly to varying degrees:
• Direct interventions via the provision of financial assistance: grants or reduced taxation and/
or the provision of seedlings and equipment directly to growers;
• Indirect interventions: advice, training, promotional campaigns and support to set up bodies
representing the sector and growers’ associations.

3.3.1 Lesson 1: Programme objectives, target

participants and incentives must be transparent and
aligned
Among programmes aimed at rapidly developing the sector to reach significant industrial scale,
those focused on large companies have been most successful, as evidenced by the Chilean and
Uruguayan schemes where plantations have reach millions of hectares in size.
The example of Chile is interesting: the sale of large tracts of government-owned land at attractive
prices, tax breaks and the provision of cheap and long-term credit were very attractive to corporations,
as were the clear and simple procedures for accessing these measures. In contrast, where incentives
have been aimed at supporting the development of small or medium-size plantations, the size of
the areas planted was far smaller than under the South American programmes, but there was far
wider participation by rural people.
The Sawlog Production Grant Scheme (SPGS) in Uganda provides insight into the balance that
can be achieved between the various scales of growers, if the needs at each scale are recognized
and appropriate incentives proposed. For example, large-scale growers were less interested in the
indirect services offered by SPGS and far more focused on monetary grants (for improving in-house
skills and sending staff on training courses), while small (<10 ha) and medium-size (10-100 ha)
growers were dependant on SPGS for these indirect support services.
The example of SPGS in Uganda has also demonstrated the need for ongoing and detailed
technical support in the area of forestry for small and medium growers to enable them to meet
technical performance standards. Grower field days, plantation visits by skilled extension officers,
environmental education and safe working practices are essential prerequisites for the successful
establishment and management of these new plantations.
3.3.2 Lesson 2: Ensure the availability of suitable land

for forest plantations
Access to land with secure tenure for a period of at least two to three harvest cycles of timber (25
to 50 years) is an irreplaceable prerequisite to attract growers to establish commercial timber
plantations.
In Chile, government-owned land was sold to growers at very attractive prices on the condition that
the growers would hold the land for a set time and establish plantations on it. As a consequence of
the development of the forestry sector, the value of this land has increased considerably, thereby
increasing growers’ assets. This has allowed them to obtain additional financing for processing
facilities, for example, based on the strength of their balance sheets.
In Uruguay, land was specially zoned for forestry and the purchase of this land for plantations was
incentivized by grants to subsidize the cost of establishing a plantation. Like in Uganda, the grants
were only paid out after a site inspection by the authorities had confirmed that the trees had been
successfully established.
In Uganda, growers have been licensed by the National Forest Authority (NFA) to use land on
government-owned Central Forest Reserves (CFRs). Subject to a performance review after two
years, the licences are issued for a period of 25 years. Initially medium and large-scale growers were

Chapter 3
given preference when applying for licences, as it was thought that small-scale growers would not
be able to meet the performance criteria. These small-scale growers objected to the 50-hectare
minimum area requirement and the NFA acknowledged the importance of including them. Small-
scale growers were subsequently granted licences to establish plantations in CFRs.
It is now widely accepted that forest plantation interventions that include farmers at all scales
are more stable, subject to less conflict and far more socially acceptable. There has been strong
opposition to plantation development in Chile, Uruguay and Brazil where plantation ownership
is dominated by large corporations, many of them foreign owned. In contrast, where participation
has been more broad based, such as in Tanzania and Uganda, there has been far less opposition to
timber plantations and in many instances the general public views their creation as very positive.
Competitive tender processes for assigning land for commercial forestry plantations, such as those
used in Chile and Uganda, are seen as fair, provided that small growers are protected by a system
guaranteeing that a fair proportion of the land is allocated to them.
3.3.3 Lesson 3: Ensure the availability of appropriate

funding accompanied by clear and achievable
procedures
Access to appropriate financing mechanisms is as important as access to land. The types of funding
available and how this funding is accessed and disbursed needs to be aligned with the participants
of the plantation development programme, its objectives and the funders involved:
• Grants, which recipients are not required to repay, are most important for small and medium-
size growers. Without them, these growers would not have the resources to plant the trees.
Where grant disbursements have been subject to performance criteria, access to other sources
of funding have been used, typically loans from family members or village saving schemes.
• Equity funding, which comes in various forms, allows funders to take a stake in the
shareholding of the company or venture. There are a number of examples in Uganda where
family members have provided equity funding to enable the applicant to access the minimum
plantation size required by the licence agreement. Larger companies, on the other hand, have
all leveraged equity funding from various sources, including high net-worth individuals,
family offices and development finance institutions (e.g. Green Resources, New Forests
Company and Global-Woods, which are all active in East Africa). The shareholder agreements
signed by these large companies are far more sophisticated and formal than those used
by the family businesses that have established plantations in Uganda. Greenfield forestry
development requires ‘patient capital’ due to the long lead time between establishment and
the generation of revenues from the sale of the forest products.
• Loans have to be repaid at some point and typically attract interest. Loan funding is really only
accessible to larger, formal companies. All actors that have established plantations in the East
Africa region have indicated that loan funding must have the following characteristics:
» Have a term aligned with the harvest cycle length of the plantations.
» Allow for an interest deferral period, typically the first few years of the loan when the
business does not have the cashflow to service the loan.

» Carry an interest rate that is aligned with the typical returns offered by commercial forestry
plantations. Interest rates in excess of 10 percent have been extremely challenging for
forestry companies. A nominal interest rate of 1 percent or 2 percent above inflation seems
to be the maximum that greenfield plantation projects can realistically afford.
Financial support can also take other forms, such as tax breaks or the sale of land by the government
at very affordable prices, as in Chile, but these measures are more attractive to large companies.
3.3.4 Lesson 4: Ensure access to high-quality plants

The value of high-quality planting stock has been proven in many cases where forestry plantations
have been developed or extended.
One of the most effective ways to secure high-quality plants is by buying seed from tree improvement
programmes that have been in operation for a number of years. Growers in Chile drew on the New
Zealand Pinus radiata breeding programme that had been running for many years.
The SPGS programme in Uganda not only helped to source improved seed from South Africa,
Australia and other counties, but also introduced a nursery certification system to accredit nurseries
as suppliers of high-quality plants grown from improved seed. Buying seedlings from an accredited
nursery was made a prerequisite for the disbursement of grant funding to growers, ensuring that
they would plant only the best plants available. Given that neither seeds nor young plants have
any particular visual characteristics that indicate the quality of the trees that will be produced, it is
essential that seed is obtained from known and reputable sources.
To accelerate the development and deployment of improved planting material, another option is to
join or form a tree improvement cooperative to screen and develop new seeds and plants. Plantation
companies in Lichinga province in Northern Mozambique joined the CAMCORE cooperative, which
operates out of North Carolina State University, to access a wide range of genetic material to select
that most suited to the area.
Increased temperatures due to global warming are already affecting the use of Pinus patula and
Eucalyptus grandis, two of the most common plantation species grown in Africa. These species are
becoming increasingly susceptible to pests and diseases. The development and use of hybrids (P.
patula x tecunumanii, P. elliotii x caribaea and various hybrids of E.grandis x urophylla, E. grandis x
pelita) offers a potential solution, as these hybrids are far superior to the pure species in that they
have faster growth rates, better wood properties and greater resistance to pests and disease.
3.3.5 Lesson 5: Ensure programmes are designed to be

long term
For support programmes to be most effective, it is essential that they are designed to run over
extended timeframes given the typical harvest cycle length of forestry plantations. It takes time
to get programmes up and running to the point where they are both effective and efficient. A
long-term programme must have a long-term vision and a funding stream to match. Consistency
and continuity are important aspects of successful programmes, because uptake by growers is
dependent on growers understanding how the support arrangements work and having confidence
in their ability to benefit from the incentives on offer.

Chapter 3
3.3.6 Lesson 6: Launch a national forest inventory to

track the progress and development of the sector
The old adage ‘you can only manage what you measure’ is particularly relevant to the development
of the plantation forestry sector. The absence of a National Forest Inventory in Uganda is hampering
the further development of the sector as there are no publicly available statistics on the extent of the
commercial forestry estate. This information gap concerning the raw materials makes it difficult for
investors to support downstream processing initiatives. It is common knowledge that there are vast
areas of plantations, but details about them — such as their geographic location, region, species
or age-class distribution — are not known. It is strongly recommended that a national forestry
inventory be launched in tandem with or as an integral component of any plantation development
programme.
Conclusions
Fast-growing tree plantations could make a significant contribution to the conservation and
sustainable management of forest ecosystems and people’s livelihoods in Central Africa.
Nevertheless, they come with significant controversy related to the alteration and homogenization
of ecosystems and the loss of access to land and resources for indigenous communities and local
rural populations (who depend on forest services and products).
Given the private sector’s growing appetite for commercial plantations and commercial players’
entry into complex and fragile contexts, it is essential to ensure all stakeholders’ needs are considered
and environmental and social risks carefully weighed. Finance institutions have a range of tools to
support private sector actors to invest sustainably in plantation forestry and agriculture.
Interconnected regional and national policy approaches remain imperative to regulate regional and
local priorities and to adopt laws and regulations that promote responsible investment.
In Central Africa, such investments are complicated by unclear land tenure and land-use
arrangements, weak industrial infrastructure, poor technology, low productivity and serious
funding gaps.
Compared to other land-use options, the majority of investments in commercial plantation forestry
are, at best, marginally profitable. It is therefore imperative to be fully aware of the key challenges
affecting African forestry, which, if addressed, can become enabling conditions for successful
investment. Poor understanding of these challenges has led to the current suboptimal state of the
majority of greenfield plantation investments.
The various financial and investment options available for the development of plantation forestry can
be grouped into three partnership models: public-private partnerships, private sector-community
partnerships and partnerships between financial institutions and countries.
The sustainability of plantation forestry in Central Africa depends on the decisions taken at each
stage of the project: selecting managers and staff, establishing the plantation, determining the
forestry or forest management techniques to be used, and managing land tenure and marketing,
stakeholder engagement, carbon impact assessment and certification standards.

CHAPTER 4
Aligning international financial

flows and the COMIFAC
Convergence Plan
Authors : Richard Eba’a Atyi,1 Valérie Tchuente,2 Dany Pokem3
CIFOR, 2COMIFAC, 3Congo Basin Forest Partnership (CBFP)

1
Photo by Pilar Valbuena

Chapter 4
Introduction
Central African forests, including those in the Congo Basin, play an
essential role at the global level. They help to regulate the global
climate, in part through the exchange of gases, which has led to
them being designated the planet’s ‘second tropical forest lung’.
The carbon stock held in their biomass and peatlands is estimated
at 80 billion tons, equivalent to almost 10 years of global carbon
dioxide emissions.1 Central Africa’s undisturbed forests now
sequester more carbon than those in the Amazon (Dalimier et
al. unpublished) and South-East Asia, and currently constitute
the world’s largest tropical carbon sink.2 According to recent
estimates by Global Forest Watch (GFW) researchers, forests in
the Congo Basin sequester 600 million tons of CO2 more than they
emit annually. On average, these forests emit 530 million tons of
carbon each year – a figure that has remained stable – and remove
1.1 billion tons.3
Central Africa is a priority conservation region for biodiversity, considering its exceptional natural
heritage and high level of endemism. Its ecosystems constitute a common good for both present
and future generations (Pierre Proces et al. 2021). The forests of Central Africa are integral to the lives
of around 100 million people, who live within or around their borders. They perform essential social
and cultural functions for the local and indigenous peoples who thrive there.
However, the forests of Central Africa seem to attract less attention than those of the Amazon or
South-East Asia, whether from official or private international actors or philanthropic initiatives.
For example, one analysis by the Central African Forest Observatory (OFAC) found that, over the
10 years from 2008 to 2017, Central African forests received only around 11 percent of international
financial flows for the sustainable management and conservation of the planet’s tropical forests.4
In response to this situation, the Central African Forestry Commission (COMIFAC) has drawn up
a Convergence Plan and an accompanying business plan. These documents provide figures on the
funding needed to support the sustainable management and conservation of forest ecosystems
in Central Africa. The Convergence Plan and the corresponding business plan serve as a strategic
1 https://www.lemonde.fr/planete/visuel/2021/10/29/le-bassin-du-congo-deuxieme-puits-de-carbone-du-monde-entre-preservation-et-
exploitation_6100375_3244.html
2 https://www.africamuseum.be/fr/research/discover/news/tropical_forests_carbon_sink
3 https://www.globalforestwatch.org/blog/climate/forests-carbon-emissions-sink-flux/
4 https://www.observatoire-comifac.net/docs/policy_brief/OFAC-Brief-03-fr-web.pdf

Aligning international financial flows and the COMIFAC Convergence Plan
framework for attracting funding and organizing the implementation of activities aimed at the
sustainable management and conservation of Central African forests.
This chapter highlights the funding needs of Central African forests and identifies possible ways to
overcome the challenge of funding their sustainable management and conservation, with particular
emphasis on funding from sources outside the region.
4.1 An overview of the COMIFAC

Convergence Plan
The COMIFAC subregional Convergence Plan serves as a reference and coordination framework for
all interventions relating to the conservation and sustainable management of forest ecosystems and
the fight against climate change in Central Africa. The Convergence Plan was adopted in February
2005 in Brazzaville, Republic of the Congo, and revised and approved in July 2014 by the COMIFAC
Council of Ministers for the 10 years from 2015 to 2025.
The Convergence Plan is rooted in the international, regional and subregional conventions, treaties
and agreements that COMIFAC countries have signed up to (including the Sustainable Development
Goals for 2030). It must therefore be implemented in accordance with the fundamental values set
out in the Yaoundé Declaration, including:
1. Respect for human rights and the rights of indigenous peoples;
2. Gender mainstreaming;
3. Cooperation, partnership and solidarity;
4. Good governance.
The Convergence Plan is divided into six priority areas:

1. Harmonization of forest and environmental policies;
2. Management and sustainable exploitation of forest resources;
3. Conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity;
4. Combating the effects of climate change and desertification;
5. Socioeconomic development and multi-stakeholder participation;
6. Sustainable financing.
The plan also sets out three cross-cutting themes:

1. Training and capacity building;
2. Research and development;
3. Communication, awareness raising, information and education.

Chapter 4
4.2 Current sources of funding for the

sustainable management and conservation
of forests in the COMIFAC area
Part of the funding for the forestry sector in Central Africa, whether from the subregion’s governments
or external partners, is currently channelled through the COMIFAC Executive Secretariat. A
significant portion is also disbursed by donors to countries directly through bilateral channels. In
all cases, the Convergence Plan is rarely mentioned as a framework for mobilizing funding.
4.2.1 Funding through the COMIFAC Executive

Secretariat
The COMIFAC Executive Secretariat receives three types of funding: the Economic Community of
Central African States (ECCAS) grant, contributions from Member States and funding from partners.
Contributions from ECCAS and its Member States are generally assigned to operational costs, while
those from partners are allocated to the implementation of the activities under the Convergence
Plan and the Annual Work Plan of the COMIFAC Executive Secretariat and Office of the Presidency.
Contributions from ECCAS and Member States

To finance its own operations and activities, ECCAS has designed and implemented a self-financing
mechanism called the “Community Contribution to Integration” (CCI). The CCI is funded by
a levy – set at 0.4 percent – on products imported from third countries into the ECCAS area. The
Extraordinary Conference of Ministers of ECCAS-COMIFAC held in Kinshasa in September 2009
adopted a resolution to automatically direct 0.1 percent of the CCI to COMIFAC for its operations, as
part of the self-financing mechanism. However, the amounts agreed have not been paid consistently
and ECCAS has struggled to collect the levy itself. To date, the Central African Republic is the
only country that has implemented this resolution. Nevertheless, the ECCAS contribution could
constitute an important source of funding for COMIFAC operations. Indeed, ECCAS did contribute
XAF 320 million in 2018.5 The outlook in terms of stabilizing this funding source is all the more
encouraging given the institutional reforms at ECCAS in 2020, which reflect policymakers’ growing
interest in this institution, on which COMIFAC depends. The implementation of this self-financing
mechanism is one of the best routes to consolidating COMIFAC’s achievements.
Member States contribute XAF 45 million per country each year. However, most do not contribute
regularly. Although the Council of Ministers designated the self-financing mechanism as COMIFAC’s
primary source of funding, it is not operational in the vast majority of countries in the subregion.
Contribution arrears amounted to nearly XAF 3 billion in 2021 and only Cameroon has paid in full.
In contrast, Sao Tome and Principe has not paid any dues since joining COMIFAC.
This low level of direct contributions makes it difficult for COMIFAC to fulfil its missions. The fact
that there are no sanctions for countries that do not contribute and no benefits for those that pay in
full prevents COMIFAC from reaching its potential.
5 Approximately EUR 487,805

Funding for subregional initiatives from partners

Partners and other development actors have set up initiatives (projects, programmes and platforms)
to support the implementation of the Convergence Plan. In 2020, a dozen subregional programmes
and projects were implemented under the coordination and/or supervision of the Executive
Secretariat. Among these partners, Germany plays a major role (from the Federal Ministry for
Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) and German national development bank KFW
often channelled through the German Agency for International Cooperation (GIZ)). Germany’s
financial commitments to Central Africa for 2005–2022 total EUR 147 million.
The European Union (EU) is another particularly important partner. European funding under the
theme of information management totalled EUR 14 million from 2007 to 2022. This funding has
been used to support the Central African Forest Observatory (OFAC) in various ways.6
The most emblematic EU initiative in the Central Africa subregion is however implemented through
the Central African Forest Ecosystem (ECOFAC) programme. This funding is channelled through
ECCAS and not COMIFAC because the ECOFAC programme pre-existed the establishment of
COMIFAC. Established in 2007 under the Lomé Convention (EU-Africa, Caribbean and Pacific),
the ECOFAC programme has gone through six successive phases, the last of which alone required
funding of nearly EUR 85.5 million (Brugiere and Donfack 2021).
In addition to those benefiting from German and EU funding, several other subregional projects
under initiatives spearheaded by the COMIFAC Executive Secretariat have received funding over
the past 5 years:
• Congo Basin Ecosystems Conservation Support Programme (PACEBCo) (AfDB);
• Regional REDD+ Institutional Capacity Building project (Global Environment Facility – GEF);
• COMIFAC support project (Japan International Cooperation Agency – JICA);
• CBSP-Partnerships for Biodiversity Conservation: Sustainable financing of Protected Areas in
the Congo Basin-PIMS 3447 (United Nations Development Programme – UNDP);
• Public-Private Partnership for the sustainable management of Central African forests (P3FAC)
(French Facility for Global Environment (FFEM) – France).
These projects or programmes support COMIFAC to achieve its objectives through their activities on
the ground. Under a resolution passed by the Council of Ministers, partners must pay a share of the
budget of any programme or project to COMIFAC as a management fee to facilitate the institution’s
operations. However, several projects carried out under the auspices of COMIFAC do not comply
with this requirement. Partners often justify their failure to pay COMIFAC management fees for
projects and programmes based on the internal rules imposed by donors to satisfy the requirements
governing the management of public funds in contributing countries. Unpaid management fees,
combined with the difficulty of collecting Member States’ contributions, make it difficult for
COMIFAC to operate effectively.
6 African Forests (FORAF), Consolidating the Central African Forest Observatory (CEOFAC), Observatory of Biodiversity and Protected Areas of
Central Africa (OBAPAC), Strengthening and institutionalizing the Central Africa Forest Observatory (RIOFAC), Biodiversity and Protected Areas
Management (BIOPAMA), Joint Research Centre Convention

Chapter 4
4.2.2 Analysis of international financial flows to the

Central African forest and environment sector
A study was conducted by Favada et al. (2019) on international financial flows for the sustainable
management and conservation of forest ecosystems in Central Africa covering 2008–2017.
The main results of the study by Favada et al. (2019) are that, the bilateral and multilateral financial
flows to forests and the environment totaled approximately USD 2 billion from 2008 to 2017. EODA
aid accounted for more than three-quarters of the total FEODA aid. Over the study period, the
evolution of bilateral and multilateral flows was very irregular. Since 2015, both flows have steadily
decreased (see Figure 4.1).
The top five of all FEODA donors, in descending order, were Germany, EU, GEF, United States and
World Bank. The top five FEODA bilateral aid donors, in descending order, were Germany, United
States, France, Japan and Sweden. Finland and Denmark were completely absent in Central Africa
during the study period. The top five FEODA multilateral aid donors, in descending order, were EU,
GEF, World Bank, CIF and AfDB. GCF and the Adaptation Fund were completely absent in Central
Africa during the study period. Figure 4.2 shows that Germany is top 1 overall donor of FEODA, both
bilateral and multilateral.
The top five recipients of all FEODA aid, in descending order, were DRC, Chad, Cameroon, Rwanda
and Gabon. Equatorial Guinea and Sao Tome and Principe accounted for less than 1 percent each of
all FEODA aid. The top five recipients of FEODA bilateral aid in descending order, were DRC, Chad,
Cameroon, Rwanda and Gabon. The top five recipients of FEODA multilateral aid, in descending
order, were DRC, Chad, Cameroon, Rwanda and Congo. Equatorial Guinea and Sao Tome and
Principe each accounted for the lowest share (0.1 percent) of multilateral and bilateral FEODA aid.
The top five areas financed by all FEODA aid, in descending order, were biodiversity, environmental
policy and its administrative management, forestry policy and its administrative management,
350,0
300,0
250,0
Million USD
200,0
150,0
100,0
50,0
0,0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Figure 4.1: International funding flows to Central Africa Forest and Environment (Favada
et al. 2019)

Germany 24,7
EU 19,4
GEF 10,9
United States 10,2
WB 9,1
France 4,9
CIF 3,5
Japan 3,1
AfDB 2,5
Sweden 2,2
Norway 2,0
Belgium 1,8
UNDP 1,5
Canada 1,3
United Kingdom 1,0
0,0 5,0 10,0 15,0 20,0 25,0 30,0
Share, %
Figure 4.2: Share of total Forest and Environment Official Development Assistance
(FEODA) per donor
Source: Favada et al. 2019
environmental research and biosphere protection. The top five areas financed by FEODA bilateral
aid, in descending order, included biodiversity, environmental policy and its administrative
management, environmental research, forestry policy and its administrative management, and
forest enhancement. The top five areas financed by multilateral financial flows, in descending order,
were environmental policy and its administrative management, biodiversity, biosphere protection,
forest policy and its administrative management, and forest enhancement.
The top five areas financed by all FEODA aid accounted for 89% of the total amount of the FEODA.
This constitutes a thematic imbalance of the total FEODA to CA.
Bilateral donor presence was high in Rwanda, Cameroon, DRC and Congo, and lowest in Equatorial
Guinea. Bilateral donor absence was high in Equatorial Guinea, Sao Tome and Principe, Chad and
Gabon. Cameroon and Rwanda recorded the highest number of donor presence. Fourteen donors
were absent in Equatorial Guinea and 12 absent in Sao Tome and Principe. Seventeen bilateral
donors financed 470 ODA projects in Central Africa from 2008 to 2017. The DRC received the largest
share, followed by Rwanda and Cameroon. Equatorial Guinea and Sao Tome and Principe received
less than 5 percent of all bilateral ODAs to Central Africa. On average, the DRC received ODA funding
for 9 projects per year, followed by Cameroon and Rwanda (8 each), Congo (5), Chad and Gabon
(4 each), Burundi and CAR (3 each), Equatorial Guinea (2), and Sao Tome and Principe (1). Burundi
did not receive bilateral ODA in 2017 and Sao Tome and Principe did not receive any ODA in 2010,
2011 and 2015.
Multilateral donor presence was high in Rwanda, Congo, DRC and Cameroon. Equatorial Guinea
recorded the lowest number of multilateral donors. Equatorial Guinea recorded the highest number

Chapter 4
of multilateral donor absences, followed by Burundi and Sao Tome and Principe. Ten multilateral
donors were absent in Equatorial Guinea. Twelve multilateral donors financed 189 multilateral
ODA projects in Central Africa. Cameroon received the highest number of multilateral ODA flows,
followed by DRC, Congo and Chad. On average, Cameroon, Congo and DRC received about three
multilateral ODAs, followed by Burundi, CAR, Chad, Gabon and Rwanda receiving 2 each, and
Equatorial Guinea and Sao Tome and Principe received 1 each. Burundi did not receive multilateral
ODA in 2010. CAR did not receive multilateral ODA in 2015. Equatorial Guinea did not receive
multilateral ODA from 2014 to 2017. Gabon did not receive multilateral ODA in 2008. Sao Tome
and Principe did not receive multilateral ODA in 2009, 2010 and from 2014 to 2017.
4.2.3 Thematic areas supported by international

funding for the conservation and sustainable
management of Central African forests
According to Favada et al. (2019), the top five thematic areas supported by international financial
flows from 2008 to 2017 were: biodiversity (27 percent of all ODA for forests and the environment to
Central Africa); environmental policies and their administrative management (26 percent); forest
policies and their administrative management (15 percent); environmental research (11 percent);
and biosphere protection (10 percent).
Forestry administration and environmental education and training accounted for the lowest
share, with less than 0.03 percent each. Environmental research, forestry education and training,
fuelwood and forestry research received negligible amounts.
4.2.4 Differences between Central Africa and other

tropical regions
Central Africa recorded the lowest share of all FEODA aid directed to the three tropical zones, the
Amazon Basin, Central Africa and South-East Asia. South-East Asia received the highest share.
In Central Africa, the top five areas financed by bilateral aid, in increasing order, were biodiversity,
environmental policy and its administrative management, environmental research, forestry policy
and its administrative management, and forest enhancement. In the Amazon Basin, the top five
areas financed, in increasing order, were environmental policy and its administrative management,
biodiversity, biosphere protection, forestry policy and its administrative management, and
forestry enhancement. In South-East Asia, the top five areas financed, in order of importance, were
environmental policy and its administrative management, flood prevention or control, biodiversity,
forestry policy and its administrative management, and biosphere protection.
Comparing the top five areas financed by bilateral aid in Central Africa, Amazon Basin and South-
East Asia, the common areas financed by bilateral aid are biodiversity, environmental policy and its
administrative management, and forestry policy and its administrative management. Biodiversity
ranked first for Central Africa, it was second for the Amazon Basin and third for South-East Asia.
Environmental policy and its administrative management ranked second for Central Africa, first
for Amazon Basin and South-East Asia. Forestry policy and its administrative management ranked
fourth for Central Africa, Amazon Basin and South-East Asia.

Biodiversity 26,5
Environmental policy and administra�ve… 26,3
Forestry policy and administra�ve management 14,7
Environmental research 10,9
Biosphere protec�on 10,4
Forestry development 3,3
Flood preven�on or control 2,8
Forest educa�on or training 2,6
Site preserva�on 1,5
Fuelwood or charcoal 0,5
Forestry Service 0,2
Environmental educa�on or training 0,2
Forestry research 0,1
0,0 5,0 10,0 15,0 20,0 25,0 30,0
Share, %
Figure 4.3: Thematic areas supported by international funding received by Central Africa ,
2008–2017
Source : Favada et al. 2019
In Central Africa, the top five areas financed by multilateral aid, in increasing order, were
environmental policy and its administrative management, biodiversity, biosphere protection,
forestry policy and its administrative management, and forest enhancement. In the Amazon Basin,
the top five areas financed by multilateral aid, in increasing order, were biodiversity, environmental
policy and its administrative management, forestry policy and its administrative management, flood
prevention or control and forest enhancement. In South-East Asia, the top five areas financed by
multilateral aid, in increasing order, were environmental policy and its administrative management,
flood prevention or control, biodiversity, forestry policy and its administrative management, and
forest enhancement.
Comparing the top five areas financed by multilateral aid in Central Africa, the Amazon Basin and
South-East Asia, the common areas financed by multilateral aid were environmental policy and
its administrative management, biodiversity, forestry policy and its administrative management,
and forest enhancement. Environmental policy and its administrative management ranked first for
Central Africa and South-East Asia, and second for the Amazon Basin. Biodiversity ranked first for
the Amazon Basin, second for Central Africa and third for South-East Asia. Forestry policy and its
administrative management ranked third for Amazonian Basin and fourth for Central Africa and
South-East Asia. Forest enhancement ranked fifth for the three tropical zones.
In Central Africa, the top five areas financed by all FEODA aid, in increasing order, were biodiversity,
environmental policy and its administrative management, forestry policy and its administrative
management, environmental research and biosphere protection. In the Amazon Basin, the top five
areas financed, in increasing order, were environmental policy and its administrative management,
biodiversity, biosphere protection, forestry policy and its administrative management, and flood

Chapter 4
prevention or control. In South-East Asia, the top five areas financed, in increasing order, were
environmental policy and its administrative management, flood prevention or control, biodiversity,
foresryt policy and its administrative management, and biosphere protection. In comparing the
top five areas financed by FEODA aid in Central Africa, the Amazon Basin and South-East Asia,
the common areas financed by FEODA aid were environmental policy and its administrative
management, biodiversity, forestry policy and its administrative management, and biosphere
protection. Environmental policy and its administrative management ranked first for the Amazon
Basin and South-East Asia, and second for Central Africa. Biodiversity ranked first for Central Africa,
second for the Amazon Basin and third for South-East Asia. Forestry policy and administrative
management ranked third for Central Africa and Amazon Basin, and fourth for South-East Asia.
Biosphere protection ranked fourth for Amazon Basin and fifth for Central Africa and South-
East Asia.
In Central Africa, the top five bilateral donors, in increasing order, were Germany, the United States,
France, Japan and Sweden. In the Amazon Basin, the five top bilateral donors, in increasing order,
were Norway, Germany, France, the United States and Japan. In South-East Asia, the top five bilateral
donors, in increasing order, were Japan, France, the United States, Germany and Norway.
In Central Africa the top five multilateral donors, in increasing order, were the EU, GEF, WB, CIF
and AfDB. In the Amazon Basin, the top five multilateral donors, in increasing order, were GEF, the
EU, CIF, GCF and World Bank. In South-East Asia, they were: the World Bank, GEF, CIF, the EU
and UNDP.
4.3 Funding needed for the effective

implementation of the Convergence Plan
As part of the preparation of the operational plan for the Convergence Plan, COMIFAC commissioned
a study that estimated the financial needs for 2021–2025 (COMIFAC 2021). The study estimated
that USD 191,290,000 will be needed to implement the priority actions between 2021 and 2025.
An estimated USD 4,500,000 will need to be mobilized from governments over the period in
question, with each contributing equally to the COMIFAC Executive Secretariat budget.
An estimated total of USD 120,349,800 will need to be sought from development partners over the
five years. This will cover the administrative costs of implementing the operational plan for the
Convergence Plan (2021–2025), estimated at USD 8,914,800, i.e. 8 percent of the total from partners.
The operating costs of the COMIFAC Executive Secretariat, the COMIFAC National Coordination
(CNC) units and other related bodies are expected to reach USD 12,441,200 (i.e. 6.79 percent of the
total budget for activities under the ‘low budget scenario’). Table 4.1 shows a breakdown of the
funding needed for the COMIFAC Convergence Plan priority areas and cross-cutting themes.
Table 4.1 also shows that the most resource-intensive priorities are the management and sustainable
exploitation of forest resources (priority 2), combating the effects of climate change (priority 4)
and the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity (priority 3). It should be noted that these
funding needs mainly concern subregional activities under the supervision of COMIFAC, possibly in
the form of support for several Member States, and do not include the needs of individual countries
identified at the national level.

Table 4.1: Funding needs of the COMIFAC Convergence Plan by priority or cross-cutting
theme (in USD), 2021–2025
Priority or theme Heading Amount (USD)
Priority 1 Harmonization of forest and environmental policies 4,260,000

Priority 2 Management and sustainable exploitation of forest resources 83,390,000
Priority 3 Conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity 30,090,000
Priority 4 Combating the effects of climate change and desertification 49,400,000
Priority 5 Socioeconomic development and multi-stakeholder participation 5,950,000
Priority 6 Sustainable funding 7,900,000
Theme 1 Training and capacity building 4,000,000
Theme 2 Research and development 2,800,000
Theme 3 Communication, awareness raising, information and education 3,500,000
Total 191,290,000
Source: Adapted from the operational plan of the Convergence Plan (COMIFAC 2021)
Research and development and capacity building are among the priority areas requiring the least
funding. This is likely the result of underestimation, given that the subregion is generally recognized
as lacking capacity in this respect. However, recent figures put forward by leading scientists and
policymakers estimate that research, development and training needs across all Congo Basin
countries will amount to USD 150 million over 10 years.7
4.4 Current and potential sources of

international funding for the Convergence
Plan
Activities in the forest, environment and conservation sector in COMIFAC countries can access
funding from several sources, including:
1. Multilateral ODA from organizations such as: (a) United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC) funds managed by the World Bank; (b) UNFCCC funds managed
by the United Nations; (c) funds managed by various accredited agencies; (d) EU funds; and
(e) funds managed by AfDB;
2. Bilateral ODA, including from: (a) Germany, Norway and the United Kingdom (known as the
GNU initiative); and (b) bilateral donors such as: Norway, Germany, France and the United
States;
3. Private international funding for tropical forests, which covers: (a) private sector funding
mobilized by NGOs to combat deforestation; (b) other private funding initiatives such as
impact investing, carbon markets, green bonds and foundations.
Table 4.2 provides a detailed map of the potential sources of funding for tropical forest management
that Central Africa could access.
7 https://www.jeuneafrique.com/1258572/societe/cop-26-150-millions-de-dollars-pour-le-bassin-du-congo/

Table 4.2: Mapping potential funding sources for forest ecosystem management in Central Africa
Source Type of funding Role of COMIFAC Comments on intervention areas
Chapter 4
Multilateral ODA
Funds managed by the World Bank
Global Environment Facility (GEF) Grants with co- Partner of national GEF interventions prioritize sustainable forest and land management, conservation of
financing requirements projects protected areas and biodiversity protection. All COMIFAC Member States are eligible.
Least Developed Countries Fund and Grants with co- Partner of national Interventions focus on climate change adaptation.
Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF) financing requirements projects
managed by GEF
Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) Grants The aim of the FCPF is to prepare countries for the REDD+ incentive mechanism
(Phase 1) and to compensate them for the forest greenhouse gas emissions reductions

they achieve through financial incentives (Phase 3).
Climate Investment Funds (CIF) Grants/loans The CIF works to help governments adopt sustainable forest management practices
Investment plan and achieve measurable reductions in carbon emissions linked to deforestation and
required forest degradation.
UNFCCC funds managed by the United Nations
United Nations REDD Fund Grants Beneficiary and/or Funding programmed until 31 December 2020 (expected end of Phase 1). The fund
partner exclusively supports REDD+ Phase 1 activities, including the development and
implementation of national REDD+ programmes and capacity-building activities.
Central African Forest Initiative (CAFI) Grants Partner Designed to respond to the fragmentation of aid, the fund aims to mobilize additional
Multi-Partner Trust Fund funding for the region. Preparation for REDD+ and development of Investment Plans
(in partnership with FCPF and the Forest Investment Programme (FIP))
Funds managed by the World Bank
Green Climate Fund (GCF) Grants mainly/ Beneficiary/partner Focused on reducing carbon emissions, but also on adaptation (improving the living
possibility of loans standards of vulnerable populations, food security and access to water, ecosystem
resilience and ecosystem services)
The Adaptation Fund Grants mainly Beneficiary/partner Focused on the implementation of national adaptation plans
Land Degradation Neutrality Fund (LDNF) Grants mainly Beneficiary/partner Focused on the regeneration of forest landscapes
European Union funds
Global Climate Change Alliance Plus Grants Beneficiary/supporter Capacity-building on mitigation and adaptation, access to the carbon market
(GCCA+) Promotion of national, regional and international projects and programmes that
support climate change adaptation and mitigation and the transition to low-
emissions and climate-resilient societies.
EU REDD+ initiative Grants Beneficiary/partner This initiative aims to reduce deforestation by improving land-use governance.
EU FLEGT initiative Grants Beneficiary/partner The FLEGT fund finances the EU Action Plan adopted in 2003, which aims to strengthen
the legal framework around and governance of forests and combat the trade in illegal
timber.
Bilateral ODA
GNU initiative (Germany, Norway and the Grants Germany, Norway and the United Kingdom have jointly pledged USD 5 billion over
United Kingdom) 2015–2020, or USD 800 million per year, with the aim of reaching USD 1 billion per
year by 2020. The conditions for accessing these funds have not yet been announced.
Norway's International Climate and Forest Grants Beneficiary, partner, The aim of Norway’s bilateral NICFI programme, launched in 2008, is to: (i) create
Initiative (NICFI) supporter effective tools to support the implementation of the UNFCCC; (ii) contribute to
measures to prevent deforestation and forest degradation; and (iii) promote the
conservation of primary forests given their role (carbon storage and biodiversity).
USA: Central Africa Regional Program for Grants Partner This programme aims to slow the rate of deforestation and biodiversity loss in DRC
the Environment (CARPE), with USAID as and the Republic of the Congo. In light of the budget guidelines imposed by the
lead implementing agency and other US current administration, ODA for forests and the climate has been restricted.
agencies, including the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service, and the United States
Forest Service
France via the French Development Agency Grants/loans Beneficiary, partner AFD has focused mainly on the application of sustainable forest management
(AFD) and FFEM practices through technical and financial support for forest policy reform in
Congo Basin countries. Its interventions cover the thematic areas of biodiversity
preservation, forest carbon and the application of the REDD+ mechanism.
French Facility for Global Environment Grants Beneficiary, supporter The FFEM takes a holistic approach that addresses the issues of climate change,
(FFEM) biodiversity and desertification. Its objective is to promote an integrated strategy
for the conservation and management of natural resources through a ‘landscape’
approach (agroecology).
Germany through the Federal Ministry for Grants Beneficiary, supporter Biodiversity protection, conservation, climate change and local community
Economic Cooperation and Development engagement. Three pillars: forest conservation and climate change mitigation, forest
(BMZ), the Federal Ministry for the landscape restoration and deforestation-free supply chains.
Environment (BMU) and the Federal
Ministry of Food and Agriculture (BMEL).
The implementing agencies are GIZ and
German national development bank KFW.
Federal Ministry for the Environment Grants Beneficiary, supporter Idem
(BMU) – International Climate Initiative
(IKI)

123
Chapter 4
The United Kingdom through CAFI and the Grants Beneficiary, supporter Idem
Forest Governance, Markets and Climate
Programme
Japan with the Japan International
Cooperation Agency (JICA)
Canada
Private international funding for tropical forests
Funding mobilized through NGOs Grants Partner In the Congo Basin, NGOs do not form a single homogeneous block. On the one hand,
there are major conservationist NGOs such as Conservation International, Wildlife

Conservation Society (WCS), World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) and World Resources
Institute (WRI), which are more willing to build partnerships with governments and
concessionaires in support of a sustainable approach to forest management. On the other
are the advocacy NGOs, which are more reserved when it comes to this type of approach
(Greenpeace).
Impact investment Investments Partner Impact investors target agroforestry, sustainable land and agricultural development,
and deforestation-free production and supply chains.
Carbon market Purchase of carbon Partner, supporter Transactionsa are carried out on the primary markets, i.e. directly from seller to buyer,
credits or on the secondary market through intermediaries.b
Green bonds See comments See comments Green bonds are debt instruments issued on a financial market and are intended to
finance projects to combat global warming and support the energy transition.
Few green bonds are issued for the forest sector at the global level and mainly relate to
emissions from major North American and European (Scandinavian) forestry actors.
Philanthropic foundations Grants Advocacy, information A small number of foundations – mostly based in the United States – provide funding
for the environment and forests and for REDD+ in particular. They include: Betty
and Gordon Moore Foundation, Bezos Earth Fund, ClimateWorks Foundation, Ford
Foundation, David and Lucile Packard Foundation, Good Energies Foundation, Oak
Foundation, Sobrato Philanthropies, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the
Christensen Fund, the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation, the Protecting Our
Planet Challenge, the Arcadia Fund, Bloomberg Philanthropies, Nia Tero, Rainforest
Trust, Re:wild, the Wyss Foundation and the Rob and Melani Walton Foundation.
However, funding from the majority of these foundations is directed to Latin America.
Private international funding for tropical forests
Leaf Coalition: Lowering Emissions by The aim of this coalition is to halt deforestation by funding the large-scale protection
Accelerating Forest finance (LEAF) of tropical forests.
In 2021, the coalition mobilized USD 1 billion of funding. This level of funding was
unprecedented for a joint public and private sector initiative for tropical forests.
Agricultural Commodity Companies In this statement, which is supported by the Tropical Forest Alliance (TFA), the 12
Corporate Statement of Purpose: https: signatory agrifood companies undertake to draw up a roadmap by COP27 to intensify
/ ukcop26.org/agricultural-commodity- their efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C.
companies-corporate-statement-of-
purpose/
a The market is not very transparent because carbon credits are traded directly between the buyer and seller
b https://pfbc-cbfp.org/news-partner/Carbon-Pricing.html

125
Chapter 4
4.5 Aligning potential sources of funding

and funding needs
Table 4.3 maps the links between potential (and current) sources of funding and funding needs for
the sustainable management and conservation of forests in Central Africa. In order to access the
funds available to Central Africa, the region’s governments, under the supervision of COMIFAC, must
build diplomatic ties and sign agreements with donors. This requires Central African governments
to identify sustainable management, biodiversity conservation, combating climate change and
related issues as priorities for their development.
The table also shows that the capacity to draw up convincing proposals is crucial for these countries
and all actors in the Central African forest management space. Governments must be able to
mobilize the national expertise at their disposal from government bodies, academic and scientific
institutions, and civil society to develop integrated programmes that include the forestry sector.
While developing project and programme proposals is necessary, it is not sufficient as they need
to be set within a persuasive system of governance. For example, funds managed by the Green
Climate Fund and the Adaptation Fund must be managed by accredited entities. However, in the
entire COMIFAC area, only Rwanda has an accredited entity. For subregional activities, it would
be preferable to have a body whose governance practices are recognized as meeting international
standards. Access to some financial mechanisms is subject to the same requirements for all
countries. In this context, Central African countries are allocated fewer resources when compared
with countries in the other two tropical basins (this is the case for FFEM, for example).
Countries can also seek support from international organizations within and outside the United
Nations system to build the capacity of national actors. Examples include: the AFR100 Initiative,
and the NDC Partnership whose technical partners can provide expertise for the development of
forest landscape restoration programmes.
Efforts to raise funds for the management and conservation of Central African forest ecosystems
has been hindered by weak communication about their importance for addressing the global
challenges posed by climate change and global biodiversity loss. The forests of the Congo
Basin, which are relatively well conserved compared with those in the Amazon Basin, have
attracted less attention from philanthropic organizations, for example. There are a number of
initiatives in place to gradually address this communication gap. OFAC is working to disseminate
information and the COMIFAC Declaration on the subject was presented in September 2021.
This declaration was negotiated within the framework of the Congo Basin Forest Partnership
and facilitated by Germany, following a multi-stakeholder consultation that lasted over a
year. As a result of these efforts, a group of donors pledged USD 1.5 billion for forests in the
Congo Basin at the 26th Conference of the Parties (COP26) of the UNFCCC (see Box 4.1).8
8 https://ukcop26.org/cop26-congo-basin-joint-donor-statement/

Table 4.3: Links between sources of funding and funding needs for forest ecosystem management in Central Africa
Thematic area in need of funding Potential source of funding Main actor Type of measures
COMIFAC Executive Secretariat Governments of Member States ̵ Countries Improving the collection of contributions
operations Implementing the COMIFAC self-financing mechanism
Projects’ financial partners (project ̵ COMIFAC Executive Drawing up regional project proposals
management fees) Secretariat
Adopting policies and governance Central African Forest Initiative (CAFI) ̵ Countries Letter of Intent – preparation of a national investment framework
practices for forests, the environment (NIF) – donor coordination framework
and sustainable land use
European Union ̵ Countries Negotiations of FLEGT Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPAs)
and bilateral agreements with the European Development Fund
German Cooperation (BMZ) ̵ Countries Negotiating regional and national projects
̵ COMIFAC Executive
Secretariat
World Bank ̵ Countries Negotiating bilateral agreements, loans
Sustainable management and Central African Forest Initiative (CAFI) ̵ Countries Letter of Intent – preparation of a national investment framework
exploitation of forest resources (NIF) – donor coordination framework
European Union ̵ Countries Negotiating bilateral agreements, national projects
̵ COMIFAC Executive
Secretariat
French Development Agency (AFD) ̵ Countries Negotiating bilateral agreements, PROPARCO loans for private
̵ Private companies sustainable forest management initiatives
African Development Bank (AfDB)
Private banks
Biodiversity conservation in Central African Forest Initiative (CAFI) ̵ Countries Letter of Intent – preparation of a national investment framework
countries (NIF) – donor coordination framework
European Union ̵ Countries Negotiating bilateral agreements
GEF ̵ Countries Drawing up project proposals, mobilizing co-financing, identifying
implementing agencies, validation by the administration
All donors ̵ Civil society Establishing partnerships with international environmental NGOs
Philanthropy ̵ Countries Running information campaigns, drawing up project proposals

̵ Civil society actors
127

Table 4.3: Continued
Chapter 4
Private sector ̵ Local actors Local communities can benefit from payments for environmental
services to enable them to carry out biodiversity conservation
activities. This can be done as part of infrastructure development
projects and with the support of civil society organizations.
Forest landscape restoration BMZ ̵ Countries Countries need to demonstrate political will and seek technical
̵ Decentralized local authorities support from AFR100 Initiative technical partners to design
(communes) development programmes and projects for submission to financial
̵ Civil society actors partners.
AfDB ̵ ̵Countries Designing and negotiating forest landscape restoration

programmes and projects – AfDB loans
Forest Investment Programme – Climate ̵ Countries Countries can use climate finance instruments (for adaptation and
Investment Funds mitigation) to develop programmes that include forest landscape
restoration.
Private sector ̵ Local communities Local communities can benefit from payments for environmental
services to enable them to carry out forest landscape restoration
activities. This can be done as part of infrastructure development
projects and with the support of civil society organizations.
Cross-border biodiversity European Union ̵ Countries Drawing up and negotiating partnership agreements
conservation initiatives ̵ COMIFAC Executive
Secretariat
̵ ECCAS
̵ Civil society
Global Environment Facility (GEF) Drawing up project proposals, mobilizing co-financing, identifying
Climate change mitigation Central African Forest Initiative (CAFI) ̵ Countries Letter of Intent – preparation of a national investment framework
(NIF) – donor coordination framework
Green Climate Fund ̵ Countries Drawing up competitive project proposals, identifying accredited
̵ ̵COMIFAC Executive entities, validation by the relevant government bodies (national
Secretariat authorities)
Global Environment Facility (GEF) ̵ Countries Drawing up project proposals, mobilizing co-financing, identifying
Table 4.3: Continued
Climate change adaptation Central African Forest Initiative (CAFI) ̵ Countries Letter of Intent – preparation of a national investment framework
Green Climate Fund ̵ Countries Drawing up competitive project proposals, identifying accredited
̵ ̵COMIFAC Executive entities, validation by the relevant government bodies (national
Secretariat authorities)
The Adaptation Fund ̵ Countries Drawing up project proposals, identifying accredited entities,
validation by the relevant government bodies (national
authorities)
Global Environment Facility (GEF) ̵ Countries Drawing up project proposals, mobilizing co-financing, identifying
Land-use planning Central African Forest Initiative (CAFI) ̵ Countries Letter of Intent – preparation of a national investment framework
French Cooperation (AFD) ̵ Countries Negotiating bilateral agreements
German Cooperation (BMZ) ̵ Countries Negotiating bilateral agreements
Community resource management German Cooperation (BMZ) ̵ Countries Negotiating bilateral agreements, drawing up project proposals
̵ National NGOs
̵ Decentralized local authorities
British Cooperation (Department for ̵ Civil society organizations
International Development – DFID)
Capacity-building and research European Union ̵ Countries Monitoring information on available funding, drawing up
̵ Universities competitive funding proposals, incorporating research and
DFID development activities in development projects, building
̵ Research centres
All donors partnerships with regional and international scientific and
̵ Network of Forestry and academic institutions
Environmental Training
Institutions of Central Africa
(RIFFEAC)
̵ Research Network on Central
African Forests (R2FAC)
Communication, information and European Union ̵ Countries Negotiating bilateral and regional agreements, proposals for
awareness raising ̵ COMIFAC Executive national and regional projects
Secretariat

129
Chapter 4
Box 4.1: Joint Donor Statement at COP26 on supporting the

protection and sustainable management of the Congo Basin
forests
Congo Basin Joint Donor Statement at COP26
Supporting the protection and sustainable management of the Congo Basin
forests
With reference to the Glasgow Leaders Declaration on Forests and Land Use of 2 November
2021 and its commitment ‘to working collectively to halt and reverse forest loss and land
degradation by 2030 while delivering sustainable development and promoting an inclusive rural
transformation’, we, the Ministers and representatives from the countries and organizations
listed below make the following statement, that we:
Recognize the ecosystem goods and services derived from Central Africa’s Congo Basin forests,
the world’s second largest tropical rainforest region. This includes their critical contribution
to global climate change mitigation, provision of rainfall to large parts of African agriculture,
hydropower production, biodiversity preservation and helping meet the goals of the Paris
Agreement, including the pursuit of efforts to limit the global temperature increase to 1.5°C above
pre-industrial levels. They provide a foundation for sustainable development and are critical to
the livelihoods and culture of Indigenous Peoples and local communities.
Welcome the political leadership of Central African countries that have sustained
forest cover in the face of mounting pressures, including but not exclusively through the
commitments set out in the 2021 COMIFAC Declaration and in national Letters of Intent
signed with CAFI under the 2015 CAFI Joint Declaration, noting the need to support efforts by
working in partnership with Central African countries and regional organizations, to achieve
jointly defined objectives.
Recognize that progress on tackling the systemic drivers of forest loss in Central Africa
will continue to require high-level, cross-sectoral leadership from Central Africa’s forested
countries, measured through reductions in forest loss whilst meeting local sustainable
economic development needs and implementing principles of sustainable management of
natural resources. This will require substantial domestic resource mobilization and long-
term financial support from the international community, both public and private sector, also
noting the importance of business and governance frameworks conducive to investments.
Acknowledge that maintaining and enhancing protection, sustainable management, and

restoration requires scaled up finance, from both public and private sources, in light of the
goods and services provided by the Congo Basin forests and their critical importance in
achieving local, regional and international climate, biodiversity and development objectives.
Also recognizing that more effective, efficient and accessible forms of support will be required
to help countries in this region implement development strategies rooted in sustaining these
precious forests.

Box 4.1: Continued
We are demonstrating our commitment to this important region today by announcing an

initial collective pledge of at least $1.5 billion of financing between 2021–2025 to support
ambitious efforts and results in the region to protect and maintain the Congo Basin forests,
peatlands and other critical global carbon stores. We intend to build on this in subsequent
years, by seeking increased finance and investment from a wide variety of public and private
sources while also improving coordination, effectiveness and accessibility. We also call
on other donors to significantly increase their support for the protection and sustainable
management of the Congo Basin forests.
Supported by:
• European Commission on behalf of the • Kingdom of Norway
European Union • Kingdom of Sweden
• Federal Republic of Germany • Republic of Korea
• French Republic • United Kingdom of Great Britain and
• Japan Northern Ireland
• Kingdom of Belgium • United States of America
• Kingdom of the Netherlands • Bezos Earth Fund
4.6 Recommendations
In order to attract funding commensurate with the role played by the forests of the Congo Basin
in regulating the global climate and conserving the planet’s biodiversity, we make the following
recommendations.
For COMIFAC
COMIFAC should improve its communication and participation in international debates to attract
the attention of international actors to the importance of Central African forests and place them at
the centre of discussions about combating climate change and conserving biodiversity. COMIFAC
could also use more appropriate terminology to talk about its priorities to better reflect the latest
funding priorities. This could include adopting the ‘fair deal’ and ‘fair share’ approach taken at
COP26. This approach was also taken throughout the process that led to the COMIFAC Declaration,
at the Tropical Forest Symposium and the Congo Basin Forest Day in Berlin in September 2021, and
by the United Kingdom as part of preparations for the Glasgow Declaration published jointly by
donors for the protection of Congo Basin forests. Governments should advocate for payment for the
ecosystem services delivered by Congo Basin forests as a global matter of urgency. COMIFAC should
talk more about ‘combating deforestation’, an issue not yet on COMIFAC’s agenda, but which has
become a global concern. Another example concerns Priority 4 of the Convergence Plan, which refers
only to the effects of climate change (adaptation), even though the forests of Central Africa are also
recognized for their potential contribution to mitigation.

Chapter 4
COMIFAC should also strengthen its capacity to mobilize international funding (political advocacy,
lobbying financial mechanisms) and to draw up project proposals to enable it to submit high-
quality proposals to competitive processes and bankable programmes and projects. This capacity
building should also extend to the governance of the institution to improve its credibility and
enable it to become an internationally recognized accredited entity. Another area for improvement
at the subregional level is the promotion of public-private partnerships, which are an effective way
to attract structural investors to the Congo Basin.
In order to address the range of problems facing the forestry sector, including deforestation,
COMIFAC should open communication channels with other land-intensive sectors in Central
Africa, such as agriculture and mining. This could be achieved through better integration with the
framework developed by ECCAS.
For countries
COMIFAC Member States should make the financial contributions necessary to implement the
Convergence Plan by paying their dues to COMIFAC regularly. One solution could be to tie Member
States’ contributions to the value of exports of timber and non-timber forest products and to design
mechanisms to require private exporters to pay these levies via a subregional payment platform.
Member States should also coordinate to create an international negotiation unit to attract more
funding to the subregion. Each country should also have at least one credible institution whose
governance practices meet international fund management standards to enable them to receive
funds raised at the international level. Currently, only Rwanda has such an institution.
For partners
Technical and financial partners of the COMIFAC area should ensure their interventions support
the implementation of the 2005 Paris Declaration and the 2008 Accra Agenda for Action on
Aid Effectiveness, by incorporating the COMIFAC Convergence Plan into their work. Technical
and financial partners should also coordinate their activities to harmonize project funding
(areas of intervention, targets, etc.). They should endeavour to comply with the terms of project
implementation contracts, in particular by paying management fees to COMIFAC for the projects
it coordinates. An innovative approach would be to assess the value of the ecosystem services
performed by Central African forests and to propose that donors provide funding representing a
small proportion of the value of these services to Central Africa, a fraction of which would go to
COMIFAC.
The Congo Basin Forest Partnership (CBFP) partners have taken significant steps to improve
communication and raise the international political profile of Central African forests. They should,
however, do more to make Central African forest ecosystems a global priority. A college of donors
established within the CBFP should serve as an intermediary for accessing the various funding
opportunities identified at the international level.

Conclusions
Recognition of the role played by Africa’s forests in global climate regulation is increasing. Indeed,
they rank first among global tropical forest blocks for carbon sequestration. Moreover, Central
Africa is a priority conservation area, considering its natural heritage and the endemism of its
forest ecosystems. Its forests are a common good of humanity, both for current generations and
those to come. Central African forests should, therefore, be the focus of global efforts, including the
mobilization of financial resources, to conserve and sustainably manage them.
In order to coordinate their forest management activities, Central African governments established
COMIFAC, a unique initiative to harmonize and coordinate at the subregional level. In terms of
technical progress, COMIFAC has adopted a Convergence Plan that defines both priorities and
cross-cutting themes to underpin the coordinated management of forest ecosystems.
Notwithstanding their importance and the framework developed to manage them, Central African
forests are finding it difficult to attract the same level of funding as the other tropical forest blocks
in South America and Asia. Over the decade from 2008 to 2017, the Central African forest and
environment sector received only 11.5 percent of the funding made available for the conservation
and sustainable management of tropical forests. Moreover, COMIFAC’s ability to operate is impeded
by the difficulty of collecting Member States’ contributions. Financial flows consist mainly of ODA,
while contributions from the private sector, foundations and philanthropic organizations remain
very low. The main financial contributors are Germany, the European Union and the GEF. New
funding opportunities emerged at COP26 – embodied in the declarations made by philanthropic
organizations and actors in the private agricultural sector9 – and must now be harnessed. Indeed, a
striking number of philanthropic organizations committed to mobilize USD 1.7 billion for indigenous
peoples and local communities for the protection of tropical forests (see Box 4.2).10
A significant share of the international financial flows to Central Africa for the conservation and
sustainable management of forests is allocated to individual countries. There are however some
noteworthy initiatives of subregional scope, including: the ECOFAC programme funded by the EU
over 30 years, the German COMIFAC support project, the Congo Basin Ecosystems Conservation
Support Programme (PACEBCo), and others including the Central Africa Regional Program for the
Environment (CARPE), CAFI and GEF 7.
Financial partners should strive to align their subregional initiatives in the forest and environment
sector with the COMIFAC Convergence Plan in the spirit of the 2005 Paris Declaration.
The thematic areas that attract the most funding are biodiversity conservation, environmental
policies and forest management policies. Conversely, training and research are neglected, with
serious consequences for the subregion, which is severely lacking capacity in this respect.
Central African forests are gradually rising on the international political agenda, thanks
in part to the CBFP, which is stepping up diplomatic efforts to promote their essential
role in regulating the planet’s climate. At COP26, for example, a collective declaration by
twelve of the richest countries, and the Bezos Earth Fund, pledged to mobilize at least
USD 1.5 billion for the protection and sustainable management of Congo Basin forests.
9 https://ukcop26.org/agricultural-commodity-companies-corporate-statement-of-purpose/
10 https://ukcop26.org/cop26-iplc-forest-tenure-joint-donor-statement-french/

Chapter 4
Box 4.2: Donor Statement for Indigenous Peoples and Local

Communities for Tropical Forest Protection
Advancing Support for Indigenous Peoples’ and Local Communities’
Tenure Rights and their Forest Guardianship.
With reference to the Glasgow Leaders’ Declaration on Forests and Land Use of
2 November 2021 and its commitment ‘to working collectively to halt and reverse forest loss and
land degradation by 2030 while delivering sustainable development and promoting an inclusive
rural transformation’;
We, the Ministers and representatives of the countries and organizations listed below:
Recognize the critical guardianship provided by Indigenous Peoples and local communities
in protecting tropical forests and preserving vital ecosystem services, and the global
contribution they make to climate change mitigation, biodiversity preservation, and inclusive
and sustainable development.
Acknowledge the land and resource rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, in
accordance with relevant national legislation, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples, and other international instruments, as applicable, and that, despite the important
role they play in protecting forests and nature, only a small fraction of these communities
enjoy secure rights to own, manage, and control land and resources and have access to
the support and services required to protect forests and nature and pursue sustainable
livelihoods.
Note with concern the rising cases of threats, harassment and violence against Indigenous
Peoples and local communities.
Welcome the political leadership and steps taken by many countries to recognize and protect
Indigenous Peoples’ and local communities’ land and resource rights, in accordance with
relevant national legislation and international instruments, as applicable.
Welcome the initiatives and efforts of Indigenous Peoples and local communities in securing
the legal recognition of land and resource rights and in strengthening their institutions,
organizations and networks to support concerted action to protect their land, forests and
resources.
Commit to renewed collective and individual efforts to further recognize and advance
the role of Indigenous Peoples and local communities as guardians of forests and nature,
in partnership with governments and other stakeholders, with a particular focus on
strengthening land tenure systems, protecting the land and resource rights of Indigenous
Peoples and local communities, and protecting indigenous and community defenders of
forests and nature.

Box 4.2: Continued
Commit to promote the effective participation and inclusion of Indigenous Peoples and
local communities in decision-making and to include, consult and partner with them in the
design and implementation of relevant programmes and finance instruments, recognizing
the specific interests of women and girls, youth, persons with disabilities and others often
marginalized from decision-making.
We are demonstrating our commitment today by announcing an initial, collective pledge

of USD 1.7 billion of financing, from 2021 to 2025, to support the advancement of Indigenous
Peoples’ and local communities’ forest tenure rights and greater recognition and rewards for
their role as guardians of forests and nature. We call on other donors to significantly increase
their support to this important agenda.
This financing will be directed at:
• channelling support to Indigenous Peoples and local communities, including through

capacity building and financial support for group activities, collective governance
structures and management systems, and sustainable livelihoods;
• activities to secure, strengthen and protect Indigenous Peoples’ and local communities’
land and resource rights, including, but not limited to, support to community-level tenure
rights mapping and registration work, support to national land and forest tenure reform
processes and their implementation, and support to conflict resolution mechanisms.
Endorsed by:
• Federal Republic of Germany • The Christensen Fund
• Kingdom of Norway • Children’s Investment Fund
• Kingdom of the Netherlands Foundation
• United Kingdom of Great Britain and • The Protecting Our Planet Challenge
Northern Ireland • Arcadia
• United States of America • Bezos Earth Fund
• Ford Foundation • Bloomberg Philanthropies
• Good Energies Foundation • Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation
• Oak Foundation • Nia Tero
• Sobrato Philanthropies • Rainforest Trust
• The David and Lucile Packard • Re:wild
Foundation • Wyss Foundation
• The William and Flora Hewlett • Rob and Melani Walton Foundation
Foundation

Chapter 4
Central African countries must now seek to clarify the commitments of each donor country, and the
mechanisms and arrangements for effectively managing the funds pledged.
COMIFAC must mobilize in pursuit of equitable financing, for a fair deal and a fair share for the
Congo Basin. Such funding should amount to USD 6 billion/year to bring in funding commensurate
with the contribution of Congo Basin forest ecosystems to the global climate.
There are many opportunities and potential sources of international funding for the Central African
forest and environment sector. To benefit from them, capacity building will be required to enable
the subregion to draft high-quality proposals and build the credibility of Central African financial
institutions in terms of governance, whether at the country or the subregional level. As a first step,
Member States must make COMIFAC a priority and pay their agreed annual contributions.

CHAPTER 5
Implementation of REDD+
Activities in Central African
Countries
Coordinators : Nicolas Bayol,1 Flore Hirsch,1 Justine Husson,1
Richard Sufo Kankeu2
Authors : Hassan Assani,3 Christian Mbaya,4 Georges Claver Boundzanga,5
Paloma Breumier,6 Martin Burian,7 Marie Calmel,8 Gervais Itsoua Madzous,9
Vincent Istace,10 Willy Loyombo,11 Eliezer Majambu,2,12 Achile Momo,13
Lars Schmidt,14 Moise Tsayem Demaze2
1
FRMi, 2Le Mans University, 3DRC REDD+ National Coordinating Committee, 4Congo
Brazzaville REDD+ National Coordinating Committee, 5CIRAD, 6Consultant for Low
Carbon Development, 7ONFI, 8COMIFAC, 9CIB OLAM, 10University of Mbujimayi, 11GIZ
Cameroon, 12WWF, 13Organisation d’Accompagnement et d’Appui aux Pygmées (OSAPY),
14
Independent consultant
Photo by Nicolas Bayol
Chapter 5
Introduction
Several countries in the Congo Basin are aware of the importance
of forest potential and have embarked on the REDD+ process.
Consequently, they are making institutional arrangements in sectors
that are drivers of deforestation (e.g., agriculture, land tenure, land
use, energy, forestry, governance) and are developing a national
framework to harmonize and facilitate REDD+ implementation.
But while the countries of the Congo Basin are all keen to reduce
emissions related to deforestation, their levels of commitment differ.
Indeed, while some are sidestepping the REDD+ process, others are
considered “good students” of the process and are thus involved in
all the initiatives (Sufo Kankeu 2019).
At the same time, the development of the carbon market, voluntary compensation at international
level, and investor enthusiasm (from Europe in particular) for forest carbon projects lead us to
expect that nature-based solutions will gain momentum.
This chapter provides an overview of national policies and the various types of REDD+ activities
being put into action in Central African countries. Among other things, it will take stock of existing
actions to reduce emissions or increase GHG removals in forests and then focus on a few REDD+
flagship programmes and projects implemented on the ground. It will also present the regulatory
incentive and remuneration mechanisms for stakeholders in the field. Lastly, the chapter will discuss
prospects for the REDD+ process in Central African countries and make some recommendations.
5.1 What action should be taken at the

national level?
The COMIFAC countries have adopted a holistic and integrated approach when implementing the
REDD+ process: their strategic options in this area are a mixture of cross-cutting programmes and
integrated sector-by-sector programmes to promote harmonious and sustainable development.
In addition to these two types of programmes, each country considers land-use planning and land
management as a strategic policy crucial to the success of the REDD+ mechanism. The far-reaching
goal of these countries is to set up a real forest governance policy in order to better manage, over
time and spatially, the human activities likely to have an impact on forest cover.
These national processes of forest zoning and land-use management make it possible both to clarify
the distribution of different uses and to organize and spatialize the forest estate, thereby helping to
make operational the National Forest Monitoring System (NFMS), which is essential for monitoring
138 | The Forests of the Congo Basin

Implementation of REDD+ Activities in Central African Countries
REDD+ activities. These various clarifications help to distinguish Intact Forest Landscapes1 from
degraded areas or areas likely to experience more anthropogenic pressures due to their status given
by land-use management. Activities to conserve carbon stocks could, for example, be carried out in
protected areas by strengthening means of protection or by extending the existing network to include
the conservation of new forest areas. This type of action may, however, require prior work to obtain
accurate mapping and assessment of the exact legal status of the existing network. In contrast, other
activities that could be carried out are those in sustainable management, such as promotion of RIL2
techniques in production forests under concession (Bodin et al. 2014), and those to increase carbon
stocks in areas of undeveloped savannas.
Box 5.1: The importance of land sector reform in the REDD+ process
Reform of the land sector is of paramount importance, as it will make it possible to pool
the customary and modern land systems. The permanent dualism between legality and
legitimacy in the land sector is a source of many conflicts. Land reform will therefore
reduce frequent conflicts, especially in rural areas (Ibanda Kabaka 2020). Under the REDD+
mechanism, land reform will have to determine the forms of access to and methods of use
of land, because current land law in each of the Congo Basin countries does not sufficiently
empower local communities and indigenous peoples to reduce emissions from deforestation
and forest degradation. This situation is due to the fact that, in these countries, registration
(Cameroon and Republic of Congo) or the registration certificate (DRC) remain the only legal
documents that secure the rights of ownership of any land, even though the State recognizes
the rights of enjoyment of those who claim land ownership by customary right (Mpoyi et al.
2013; Kengoum Djiegni et al. 2020).
To create an institutional framework conducive to the implementation of the REDD+

mechanism, the Congolese government initiated a project to reform the land sector in 2012.
However, the project lacked financial resources and could be relaunched only in 2014, when
the National Land Reform Commission (CONAREF) was established. This process enjoys
a budget of USD 7 million as part of the letter of intent signed with the Central African
Forest Initiative (CAFI) in 2016. The main expected outcomes of this process are a national
land policy document and the drafting of a land law and its decree of application. To date,
CONAREF is working on the advanced version of the policy document that integrates the
dimension of climate change and rights of local communities and indigenous peoples.
Despite ongoing land reform initiatives in the countries of the Congo Basin, land insecurity
persists and is likely to be a barrier to the effective implementation of REDD+ (Client
Earth 2020).
The contribution of land tenure to the success of REDD+ is undoubtedly linked to

clarification of the distribution of benefits among the various stakeholders, who include
the State, local communities and indigenous peoples, and those leading REDD+ projects or
initiatives.
1 Intact Forest Landscapes (IFLs) are defined as an “unbroken expanse of natural ecosystems within the zone of current forest extent, showing
no signs of significant human activity, and large enough that all native biodiversity, including viable populations of wide-ranging species, could be
maintained.” (Potapov et al., 2008).
2 Reduced-impact Logging
The Forests of the Congo Basin | 139

Chapter 5
Implementation of the REDD+ process in the Congo Basin also requires some national sectoral
policy reforms, so that a more enabling framework for the programmes determined in the various
countries can be created. These sectoral reforms are crucial to the success of the process, given the
cross-cutting nature of REDD+. The land sector is the one most in need of reform, as other sectors
are dependent on it.
For example, Table 5.1 shows four previously mentioned possible courses of action at the national
level for four COMIFAC countries.
Gabon stands out from other countries in the subregion. As a country with high forest cover but
very low historical deforestation (an HFLD country), Gabon was long opposed to REDD+. Today, it
is engaged in several innovative approaches:
• Since 2019, CAFI has been prepared to contribute up to USD 150 million for the maintenance
of high forest cover and a low deforestation rate in Gabon, by setting the carbon floor price at
USD 10/tCO2 when results are certified and USD 5/tCO2 otherwise.
• The forest reference emission level (FREL) submitted by Gabon to the UNFCCC in February 2021
indicates that it is the only country in the subregion whose national forests absorb more than
they emit. According to this FREL, Gabonese forests are thus a net carbon sink, absorbing more
than 100 million tCO2/year.
• In September 2021, the Government of Gabon issued an ordinance establishing the creation of
an emissions trading market between all the major economic players in Gabon. This ordinance
obliges them (i) to reduce their emissions according to the allowed quotas, and (ii) if necessary,
to offset them by financing primarily Gabonese forest carbon projects.
5.2 What action should be taken on the

ground to reduce emissions or increase GHG
removals in forests?
For all these actions implemented or planned at the national level to have an impact, they must
be rendered into local and concrete actions on the ground. We can distinguish two main types of
actions: 1) those linked to the maintenance of stocks already present in natural forests (reduction of
emissions linked to deforestation and degradation, conservation concessions, forest management,
RIL and RIL-C3 practices, etc.), and 2) those consisting of an increase in forest stocks (forest and
agroforestry plantations, prohibitions on cutting and grazing practices in savannas, assisted natural
regeneration, etc.).
5.2.1 Reducing emissions from deforestation: changing

agricultural practices
In the countries of the Congo Basin, subsistence farming is ranked as the top driver of deforestation
(MINEPDED 2017; RDC-MECNT 2012; Ciza et al. 2015). The expansion of subsistence farming in
forest areas is mainly due to population growth and lack of alternative livelihoods. In their national
3 Reduced-Impact Logging for Climate

Table 5.1: Objectives and programmes of national REDD+ strategies of several COMIFAC countries
Country Cameroon Republic of Congo Central African Republic Democratic Republic of Congo
Objectives ̵ Reduce the carbon footprint By 2030, sectors concerned Support the CAR in the economic ̵ Organize, plan and quantify the
of its development without by REDD+ significantly and social development of the institutional, technical, financial and
slowing down its growth, via its contribute to diversification Forestry and Other Land Use (FOLU) human needs, which are required to
Intended Nationally Determined and economic growth, as well sector while limiting impacts on define and implement REDD+ through its
Contribution (INDC); as to the fight against poverty forest ecosystems through its National REDD+ Framework Strategy.
̵ Reduce projected emissions via implementation of practices National REDD+ Investment ̵ Proposal for an Investment Plan, for the
from deforestation and forest promoting the sustainable Framework. 2015-2020 period, for implementation
degradation by 50% by 2025 and management of forest ecosystems. of a set of sectoral and integrated
achieve net zero deforestation programmes with national scope.
by 2035.
Cross-cutting ̵ Improving land management ̵ Strengthening governance ̵ Integrated and inclusive planning 4 enabling pillars that seek to trigger sectoral
programmes aspects by incorporating of the national territory and reforms:
̵ Improving land governance by
promoting land security, gender REDD+ principles into policies securing land tenure; ̵ Governance;
and social equity; and regulations; ̵ Increased access to “green” ̵ Population growth;
̵ Payments for environmental ̵ Strengthening intersectoral financing for sustainable ̵ Land-use management;
services (PES); coordination through the investments in the FOLU sector.
National Land Use Plan ̵ Land.
̵ Financing of REDD+
implementation; (PNAT) and a National Spatial
Management Scheme (SNAT);
̵ Improving governance
framework, for better ̵ Improving land ownership
institutional coordination. management;
̵ Implementation of sustainable
financing mechanisms.
REDD+ sectoral ̵ Agricultural sector: promoting ̵ Agricultural sector: developing ̵ Agricultural sector: making subsistence
programmes sustainable agricultural remunerative, job-creating, farming in rural forest areas sedentary
systems with low potential sustainable and deforestation- and improving productivity through
for deforestation and forest free agriculture; effective coordination between the
degradation; ̵ Forestry sector: adopting MECNTa and the MAPEb;
̵ Forest sector: sustainable forest practices for the sustainable ̵ Forest sector: improving sustainable
management and bolstering use and management of forest management of permanent production
forest and wildlife resources at ecosystems and restoring forests; management, development
the national level; degraded landscapes; and extension of classified forests; and
̵ Mining sector: incorporating ̵ Mining sector: adopting good afforestation and reforestation activities;
environmental criteria to reduce practices for environmental and ̵ Energy sector: reducing demand for
impact on forests and designing social impact management; firewood, increasing the offer of forest
of compensation systems for ̵ Energy sector: reducing wood products and alternative energy
inevitable emissions. unsustainable woodfuel products for households, and limiting the
harvesting. impacts of extractive industries (mining
and hydrocarbons).


Table 5.1: continued
Country Cameroon Republic of Congo Central African Republic Democratic Republic of Congo
Chapter 5
Land-use planning, Developing regional and local Developing and implementing Developing and implementing land- Finalizing the macrozoning of national
both a potential land-use plans and strengthening a National Land Use Plan use plans for rural areas with the territory, to better delimit the forest estate
source of reduction effective application of zoning (PNAT) and a National Spatial objective of determining new forms and thus to identify and delimit a long-
through the in southern areas by the various Management Scheme (SNAT) for organizing and managing agro- term objective of maintaining forest cover
choices made and stakeholders for better land and whose aim is to strengthen sylvo-pastoral areas. regardless of the legal status of the land.
a framework for forest management in Cameroon, as intersectoral coordination to
field activities well as harmonized implementation harmonize and optimize land use
of the various REDD+ activities. and allocation.
Other sectoral ̵ Agricultural sector: transition Agricultural sector: adoption, Agricultural sector: setting up a ̵ Agricultural sector: defining agricultural
policies: forestry,

from extensive to intensive publication and popularization framework law on agriculture sustainability criteria which incorporate
conservation, agriculture. of (1) the new agricultural law incorporating a national definition REDD+ objectives and which will be
agriculture, mining, (and its decree of application) of agroecology and agroforestry, mainstreamed into the new agricultural
̵ Forestry sector: 1) revising
infrastructure, taking into account the objectives and adoption of agroecological policies.
the Forest Law to improve the
family planning of REDD+ and (2) decree of intensification as a pathway to the
definition of “forest” and 2) ̵ Energy sector: decrease in the share of
strengthening cooperation application of Law No. 25-2008 development of “deforestation-free” unsustainably produced woodfuel, all the
between REDD+ and FLEGT of 22 September 2008 on the agriculture. while meeting national energy demand.
initiatives at national level to agricultural land regime.
promote forest governance
reforms.
Sources: MINEPDED 2017, UN-REDD 2012, Ministry of Forest Economy of Congo 2018, Karsenty and Vermeulen 2016, Topa, et al. 2009; CN-climate CAR 2019
a Ministry of the Environment, Nature Conservation and Tourism.

b Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Livestock.
REDD+ strategies, most Central African countries unanimously recognize the need to promote new
agricultural practices that would spare forests. These new practices must be defined by agricultural
policies, which in turn must take into account the dimension of climate change. We should note
that few Central African countries have updated their agricultural policies.
By definition, subsistence farming is family farming, which is the main source of income and
livelihood for the population. Emissions reduction therefore cannot take place without the
involvement of rural households. As a result, it is important to understand the outlook of these
stakeholders and to ask how they will welcome any proposed REDD+ support.
This issue has all the more significance for people in areas where pressure on the forest environment
is strong and where the traditional slash-and-burn agricultural system is undergoing crisis.4
In these areas, it is in people’s short-term interest to change practices and try to focus on savanna
areas. There is thus an appetite for change, but it must be maintained by a system of regular payment
according to results, to compensate for the opportunity costs.
In forest-dominated areas, where this pressure is less strong and where the agricultural system is
not yet in crisis, people are more reluctant to change practices.
Obviously, to preserve these forest environments it is more advantageous to change system before the
crisis occurs, but it should be noted that this approach requires increased resources for awareness-
raising and supervision and, above all, monetary incentives for much more limited impacts.
In general, setting up a payment mechanism for environmental services (PES) – after assessment
and verification of achievements – is essential to encourage people to continue a REDD approach.
Indeed, experience shows that increasing people’s income is not enough to reduce deforestation.
On the contrary, people may use this increase in income to expand crop areas at the expense of
forests. Sustainable management of natural resources thus requires good governance and the ability
to manage one’s land.
5.2.2 Conservation of stocks: conservation concessions

in the DRC
Conservation concessions based on PES are being tested in several Central African countries, as
part of integrated projects in areas of importance to REDD+. They are a lever for promoting forest
carbon storage.
A conservation concession involves the payment of allowances to the people and the State so that
they forgo income from logging. In addition to the controversial transformation of farmers into
conservation rentiers, evaluation of financial compensation raises the question of equity, and the
hypothesis of buying out traditional rights through contracts is unrealistic (Karsenty and Nasi
2004). Several investments have been made by bilateral and multilateral institutions in the past
15 years or so. These investments have received support from CAFI.
4 The PIREDD Maï-Ndombe project deals with savanna-forest mosaic areas where the local populations have seen their forests shift further from
the village.

Chapter 5
Methodological approach and implementation framework in the DRC

Forest conservation concessions must be the outcome of land-use planning at various administrative
and customary levels. The process consists mainly of supporting local populations in the
development of Simple Land Use Plans or Simple Natural Resource Management Plans that result in
different ways in which land is used. Forest conservation concessions are one of these ways. In this
approach, a total restriction on all human activity is imposed on identified and mapped portions of
primary forest. It is backed up by PES paid to landowners and to local or indigenous communities of
the territories or forest lands around which they live. These payments are intended to reward efforts
and motivate landowners to respect their respective plans.
In the case of Simple Natural Resource Management Plans, the following steps are carried out:
• Awareness-raising, communication and signing of a collaboration agreement on forest
conservation with local communities (represented by local development committees under the
authority of the land chiefs)
• Demarcation of the boundaries of the forest conservation concession
• Signing of the PES conservation contract, based on these payments; implementation and
monitoring
The clauses of the conservation contract are summed up as follows:

• The Local Development Committees (LDCs), which enforce the protection and conservation of
the forests described in the Simple Natural Resource Management Plan, shall take all necessary
steps to detect and control the outbreak of fires and to stop all illegal activities (charcoal burning,
artisanal exploitation, etc.).
• New fields in the conservation areas shall no longer be created.
• Existing fields in these protected areas shall be abandoned for two years from the signing of the
contract. If necessary, fields for which allocations have been provided for in the Simple Natural
Resource Management Plan will be created.
• Conflicts of interest, by engaging in the same activities as those covered by contracts proposed
by any other stakeholder, and thereby jeopardizing the outcome expected by that stakeholder,
shall be avoided.
• Management of conflicts or any incident that would jeopardize compliance with the terms of
the contract shall be facilitated.
• LDCs shall be compensated for their forest conservation efforts at a rate of USD 1 per hectare per
year, if there are no deforestation or illegal activities.
Lessons learned from the conservation concessions approach

The experience of conservation concessions has met with mixed success in the DRC: since 2020,
the country has been developing and granting many decommissioned concessions.5 Nevertheless,
several lessons can already be learned.
This approach has several strengths: 1) the forming of carbon sinks; 2) preparation for the carbon
offset market; 3) restoration of endemic fauna and flora; and 4) the granting of PES funds to help
5 Six new conservation concessions were awarded to TradeLink Sarl in September 2020: four in Tshuapa Province and two in Tshopo Province.
Source : https://medd.gouv.cd/contrat-de-concession-forestiere-de-conservation-pour-la-valorisation-des-services- environnementaux-associes-
a-un-projet-redd-en-reppublique-democratique-du-congo/

carry out community development actions in villages, such as the construction/repair of facilities
(e.g., schools, health centres, markets, drinking water wells).
On the other hand, the approach also has weak points: 1) the weakness of legal and regulatory
securement provisions in the face of competition with other resources such as oil or other extractive
resources, 2) uncertainty about sustainability of the approach without PES support, and 3) the
lack of community expertise in quantifying the efforts made and the CO2 stored. To sum up, while
the management of conservation concessions undoubtedly presents many challenges, it can also
provide interesting opportunities.
5.2.3 Sustainable forest management: forest

development, RIL / RIL-C, etc.
About 30 percent of the forest area in Central Africa is used for timber exploitation, yet the overall
impact of logging on GHG emissions remains poorly understood. Several Central African countries
Box 5.2: Pilot study on low-impact forestry in the SODEFOR forest

concession in Madjoko, DRC
This study was implemented by WWF-DRC, WWF Germany, GFA and KfW and funded by
the International Climate Initiative of the German Federal Ministry of the Environment. Its
aim was to conduct a set of RIL activities on an operational scale, to test whether advanced
RIL measures (RIL+) and their emission-reduction potential are feasible and cost-effective
compared to an already high standard of logging practices.
Several RIL activities (see Table 5.2) were thus implemented in an area of 502 ha and carried
out over a period of five months during the rainy season (beginning of November 2016 to end
of March 2017). In a control area of 765 ha, logging took place for four months (beginning of
July 2016 to end of October 2016), without any specific RIL measures.
In the end, this pilot study did not identify any reduction in emissions in the RIL area
compared to the control area (see Figure 5.1). This result appears to be due to logging
being carried out during the rainy season. Indeed, rainy season conditions required the
construction of an additional secondary road in the RIL area: without this, emissions would
have been about 25 percent lower there (as had been planned) than in the control area.
Table 5.2: List of forestry activities
Category RIL activities
Roads • Reduction of road network density

• Replacement of secondary roads with skid trails
• Reduction in road strip width
• Reduction in solar strip width
Skidding Reduction in skid trail density using GIS planning
Log landings Reduction in log landing surface area

Chapter 5
Box 5.2: continued
Figure 5.1: Emissions in the RIL area and the control area by category
In this pilot study, emissions due to road building represent between 79 percent (in the RIL
area) and 81 percent (in the control area) of total emissions. Reduction in road density, as
initially expected, is thus essential to reduce logging-related emissions. The fact that one
metre of road (road strip and solar strip) leads to about 50 to 70 times more emissions than
one metre of skid trail confirms this approach. Replacing secondary roads with skid trails is
thus entirely justifiable from the angle of reducing emissions, even if we consider that several
metres of skid trail are necessary to replace one metre of secondary road.
However, while it is theoretically possible to reduce the impact of roads by designing them
to be shorter and narrower and by replacing secondary roads with skid trails, there are
operational constraints. Longer skid trails are an option for dry-season logging, but not
necessarily for year-round operations. Furthermore, there is a limit to the extent to which
road width can be reduced. In other words, the forestry companies that have taken measures
relatively early will benefit only a little from RIL. RIL+ can thus contribute to the reduction of
CO2 emissions.
have recently introduced compliance with RIL rules in their laws and regulations.6 Nonetheless, RIL
practices have been developed and implemented by some forestry companies in the region since the
early 2000s. Various studies have thus been carried out to assess the impact of these practices on
the damage suffered by the residual stand.
These techniques lead to a reduction in waste left in the forest and to a reduction in operating costs
thanks to better planning of machinery use and better sizing of infrastructures. While studies have
been carried out to clarify the costs of implementing RIL measures, very few have focused on Central
Africa (Nitcheu Tchiade et al. 2016). But we do know that companies that have developed RIL
techniques – sometimes outside of legal or forest-certification constraints – continue to implement
them, suggesting that the financial impact of such techniques is either null or positive.
6 See in particular Order No. 6515/MEF setting the standards for reduced-impact logging in the Republic of Congo.

The impact of logging on carbon stocks has become an issue more recently. RIL-C measures are
one ecosystem management strategy for reducing emissions and/or increasing carbon storage. The
RIL-C measures include practices similar to those of RIL, but they also incorporate techniques to
quantify the carbon savings resulting from the implementation of these specific measures.
Large differences in carbon emissions per unit volume of timber can be observed by location, ranging
from 4.8 mg cm-3 in one concession in Gabon to 0.63 mg cm-3 in another in the Republic of Congo.
In addition to their impact on maintaining carbon stock, RIL techniques also reduce the effects on
flora and fauna.
Implementing RIL and RIL-C measures is one of the quickest solutions for reducing the impact of
logging on forest carbon stock depletion. Recognition of the role of logging companies in the fight
against global warming has promoted the dissemination and popularization of these measures over
the last two decades. But even though most RIL and RIL-C measures are an integral part of good
management measures to improve both logging performance and savings in operating costs, their
increasing complexity requires support from the scientific and NGO sectors.
5.2.4 Increasing stocks: forest and agroforestry

plantations, savanna protection, assisted natural
regeneration, etc.
The expansion of agriculture, generally slash-and-burn, is the primary driver of deforestation in
Central Africa. Population growth results in hundreds of thousands of new farm households moving
into forest areas each year. This increases the need for new agricultural land and in turn puts pressure
on forests and reduces forest stocks.
Agroforestry in savanna areas, sustainable agriculture in degraded forests in combination with

perennial crops, and prohibitions on cutting and grazing practices in anthropogenic savannas have
been shown to relieve pressure on gallery forests and urban peripheries. All these activities are
financed by PES to local communities. The aim is both to encourage farmers to move agricultural
activities from the forest to the savannas using sustainable and innovative agricultural techniques
and to ensure the reconstitution of forest fallow land by introducing perennial crops.
In the case of agroforestry in savannas and sustainable agriculture in degraded forests in association
with perennial crops, the technical itinerary includes a two-phase rotation between agriculture (the
planting of food crops), and forest (the planting of tree species, such as acacia, Dacryodes edulis,
citrus, etc.) Perennial forest crops, such as coffee, cocoa, banana and oil palm are being developed
through sustainable forest agriculture without changing forest use.
When prohibitions on cutting and grazing practices are imposed on anthropogenic savannas, the
methodological approach is the same as that determined for conservation concessions. The objective
here is to restore the fertility of the land on abandoned fallows or to encourage forest colonization in
savannas that are frequently subject to fires. The approach includes:
• Awareness-raising and communication (signing of a collaboration agreement on prohibitions
on cutting and grazing practices with local communities represented by LDCs under the
authority of the land chiefs)
• Demarcation of the boundaries of the anthropogenic savanna
• Setting up bushfire control systems

Chapter 5
• Setting up assisted natural regeneration techniques

• Signing of a PES contract for prohibitions on cutting and grazing practices in anthropogenic
savannas.
We can draw several lessons from the agroforestry approach in the DRC. First, it contributes to
better ownership of the technical itinerary by farmers, and it also provides better social, economic
and environmental benefits at the same time. Moreover, it facilitates access to land ownership in
agroforestry areas. Challenges for the Acacia agroforestry model, however, can be observed: between
8 and 10 years of technical support for the agroforestry process are required to reach an autonomous
and functional system, and the management process must be established beforehand. In addition
to these advantages, PES paid in cash to farmers provide a significant additional incentive for
convincing producers to engage in a new activity.
5.2.5 Accounting for emission reductions: scientific

methods and knowledge
In order to carry out the variety of payments related to GHG emission-reduction efforts, stakeholders
need real data on carbon stocks in the various types of land use. Many methodologies have been
proposed by researchers based on destructive experiments. The research by Djomo et al. (2010)
and Alipade and Dimandja (2011) on volume tables provides a scientific basis, but other allometric
equations available on the GlobAllomeTree platform7 highlight other methods and knowledge on
carbon accounting. Three major studies have been carried out to assess the equations.
The study by Fayolle et al. (2018) recommends use of the following regional model for future
estimates and/or monitoring of REDD+ in the Congo Basin forests: AGB = 0.125 x WSG 1.079 x D
2.210 x H 0.506 (AGB being the aboveground biomass in kg, WSG the specific density in g/cm3, D the
DBH in cm and H the total height in m).
In cases of inventory data where height has not been measured, the following equation is
recommended in the Congo Basin forests:
AGB = exp [0.046 + 1.156 x ln(WSG) + 1.123 x ln(D) + 0.436 x (ln(D))² - 0.045 x (ln(D))3].
Martin et al. (2018) argue that existing estimates of the carbon fraction are wrong by 4.8 percent on
average and up to 8.9 percent in tropical forests. The carbon fraction varies from species to species
and is negatively correlated with the specific density. Furthermore, Umunay et al. (2019) estimate
that, in the case of selective logging in the Congo Basin, emissions from logging average 2.1 tC/
m3 (amount of dead organic matter generated per m3 of logs removed from the forest) or 18.4 tC/
ha (amount of dead organic matter generated over 1 ha of logging block). These emissions can be
reduced by an average of 51 percent through implementation of RIL-C measures.
7 http://www.globallometree.org/

5.3 Presentation and feedback from REDD+

projects and programmes in the field
Despite the fact that many actions have been set up and developed at the national level, and that
there are many possible actions on the ground, implementation of REDD+ projects and programmes
in the countries of the Congo Basin is not always easy, especially because of sometimes difficult
local situations. In fact, many of the projects that have materialized have turned out to be open-air
laboratories, with their results shedding light on the actions for recommendation in the future to
maximize the chances of success.
What lessons can be learned from the various REDD+ projects and programmes implemented in
recent years? What are the strategies envisaged – for ongoing projects and programmes – and to be
considered for the future?
5.3.1 List and presentation of AFOLU projects

registered in COMIFAC countries with the UNFCCC or
carbon standards
Several AFOLU projects have been registered since 2008 in the COMIFAC countries (or, for the
most recent ones, are still in the process of being registered) with the UNFCCC Clean Development
Mechanism (CDM) or with carbon standards such as the VCS (Verified Carbon Standard), Gold
Standard, or Plan Vivo. This registration provides them not only international recognition, but also
value by earning certified emission-reduction credits that can be sold, each equivalent to one metric
ton of CO2. Table 5.2 presents these different projects.
In addition to these AFOLU projects, there are many projects working on the production and
distribution of energy-efficient improved cookstoves (ICS) to households, so that they can reduce
their consumption of firewood and thus the need for wood. Ultimately, this reduces deforestation
and forest degradation. These projects are for the most part registered (or in the process of being
registered) with the Gold Standard. They are especially located in Rwanda and Cameroon, but also
in the DRC, Burundi and Congo. Slightly less than 2,500,000 carbon credits have been issued as part
of these projects (see Table 5.3).
5.3.2 Presentation of the Emission Reduction

Programme Documents (ERPDs) of the Congo and DRC
The Sangha Likouala Emission Reduction Programme (ERP) in the

Republic of Congo
The Republic of Congo is home to approximately 23.5 million hectares of Congo Basin forest (CNIAF
2015). The country is committed to implementing its low-carbon development policy through the
Emissions Reduction Programme (ERP) in the country’s two most forested administrative districts
(départements): Sangha and Likouala.
These two départements (see Figure 5.2) cover an area of 12.3 million hectares and include abundant
rainforests, peatlands, protected areas rich in biodiversity, and the country’s highest point (Mount
Nabemba, about 1,020 m).

Table 5.3: AFOLU projects implemented in Central Africa and registered with carbon standards or the UNFCCC. Sources: Plan Vivo, VCS,
GS and CDM
Estimated/
Project delivered
Chapter 5
Country Project name Date Surface area Main activities of the project Project status
leader(s) emission
reductions
DRC Isangi REDD+ Jadora and 2009 187,571 ha (i) Termination of planned legal logging and 1,391,622 VCUs Registered
SAFBOIS reduction of unplanned illegal logging. (ii) delivered
Agricultural improvement activities.
DRC The Maï-Ndombe REDD+ Wildlife Works 2011 248,956 ha (i) Termination of planned legal logging and 13,322,277 VCUs Registered
Project and ERA reduction of unplanned illegal logging. (ii) delivered.
Ecosystems Agricultural improvement activities.

Congo North Pikounda REDD+ CIBa 2012 92,530 ha Conservation of a forest area subject to selective 56,209 VCUs Registered
mechanized logging. delivered.
Congo Agroforestry plantation SPF2Bb 2018 7,454 ha Agroforestry plantations, carbon sinks and 1,158,190 tCO2 Registration in
Batéké Plateaus sustainable charcoal production to supply the (estimated) over 33 progress
capital (Brazzaville). years.
Verified Carbon Standard (VCS)

Congo Batéké project Total Energies 2021 40,000 ha Plantations, carbon sinks. 10,000,000 tCO2 Under
Nature Based (estimated) over 20 development
Solutions years.
Carbon Fund to Reduce Fondation (i) Sustainable and profitable agricultural

14,891 ha in
Deforestation and Improve pour le Tri- practices (agroforestry) to reduce expansion of
Cameroon Cameroon No information Certification in
Living Conditions of National de 2017 agricultural land (ii) Community involvement
and CAR and 4,000 ha currently. progress
population in the Sangha tri- la Sangha in efforts to protect forest resources from illegal
Plan Vivo
in CAR
national forest complex (FTNS) logging.
EcoMakala Virunga CO2logic et Community forest plantations and sustainable 224,018 VERs
DRC 2009 4,200 ha Certified
GSc
Reforestation project WWF RDC charcoal production. delivered.
Ibi Batéké degraded

Fast-growing forest plantations on savannas and 1,178,670 tCO2
savannah afforestation
DRC Novacel Sprl 2008 4,226.53 ha sustainable charcoal production to supply the (estimated) over 30 Registered
CDMd
project for fuelwood
capital (Kinshasa). years.
production
a Compagnie Industrielle du Bois

b Société Plantations Forestières Batéké Brazzaville
c Gold Standard
d Clean Development Mechanism of the UNFCCC.
Figure 5.2: Map of the forest cover of the Sangha Likouala ERP area
The programme was finally approved in 2018 by the members of the Forest Carbon Partnership
Facility (FCPF). Through it, the Republic of Congo is committed to demonstrating the feasibility
of large-scale alternative development approaches to: (i) reduce greenhouse gas emissions, (ii)
enhance sustainable ecosystem management, (iii) improve and diversify local livelihoods and
preserve biodiversity, and (iv) diversify the national economy and increase government revenues
from forests.
The reduction in gross emissions via the implementation of this programme, over a five-year period
(2020 to 2024), has been estimated at 13,093,084 tCO2. Most emission reduction comes from the
implementation of RIL practices in forest concessions. Indeed, one of the main objectives of the
programme is to demonstrate that it is possible to reduce the impact of logging without reducing
timber production.
Taking into account uncertainties and risks of reversal, net emission reductions would be around
9,794,699 teCO2. It should be noted, however, that these are provisional estimates: work is underway
to refine the baseline scenario, which will affect the potential net emissions reductions.
The strategy envisaged under the Sangha Likouala ERP will be to harvest forests sustainably using
RIL, promote Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) certification, improve governance, and
provide payments for environmental services.
The conceptual phase of this programme involved extensive consultation and information-sharing
at local, regional (département level) and national levels with various stakeholders including the
private sector; local communities and indigenous populations; civil society; and local, departmental
and national government bodies.
This very ambitious programme seeks to test REDD+ on a large scale, as a model for sustainable
development in a country with high forest cover and low deforestation rates. It is one of the major
REDD+ programmes in Africa. It will start in 2021, following the signing of the Emission Reductions
Purchase Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Congo and the World Bank, which
administers the Carbon Fund.

Chapter 5
Box 5.3: Participation and respect of the rights of local

communities and indigenous peoples in REDD+ in the DRC
Since the DRC’s REDD+ readiness phase, indigenous peoples and local communities have
been regularly consulted. Several REDD+ pilot projects (financed by the African Development
Bank, as part of the Congo Basin Forest Fund, and by other donors) were carried out prior to
the investment phase. These made it possible, between 2012 and 2013, to collect the opinions
of local and indigenous communities to inform the REDD+ process and finalize the drafting
of the DRC’s National Strategy.
Indigenous peoples and local communities are fully involved in the ongoing initiatives and
participate in the implementation of the various existing programmes. For example, WWC
is developing a REDD+ project with the local and indigenous communities of Maï-Ndombe,
in Inongo territory. In addition, the Maï-Ndombe Emissions Reduction Programme seeks to
provide opportunities for local communities and indigenous peoples within the programme
area to develop nested REDD+ subprojects, and for those outside the area to develop
PES activities.
However, many challenges remain with regard to respect for the customary land rights of
indigenous peoples and women in particular. Clarification is needed on the use rights and
customary possession rights of land and forests in the Maï-Ndombe region. Land chiefs
and their clans are customary owners of land and forests under the provisions of the DRC’s
Forestry Code and Land Law. They have the right to alienate land and forests that they own
by custom.a Women enjoy full customary use rights to land and forests belonging to their
clan, but they do not have the right to alienate or lease them. Migrants who have lived in
a community for a long time have rather restrictive use rights, limited to the collection of
dead wood or straw, and extending to the possibility of temporarily leasing land for survival
activities. They are not part of the lineage of land chiefs, and as such they are not customary
owners.
The approval order recognizes that the State is the owner of the forest carbon. However,
in the case of nested projects, the State transfers carbon asset rights to private project
developers and communities upon registration of the projects, in accordance with the
approval order.
Note:
a REPALEF-GTCRR, Report on consultations with indigenous peoples and local communities in the jurisdictional area of the Emissions
Reduction Programme of Maï-Ndombe in the Democratic Republic of Congo, on key aspects of the benefit-sharing plan within the framework
of its finalization, Kinshasa, April 2020, p.22. https://bit.ly/2Feh3NE
Presentation of the Maï-Ndombe Emission Reduction Programme

Documents (ERPDs) in the DRC
The DRC has been engaged in a REDD+ process since 2009. In anticipation of the results-based
payment – corresponding to the third phase of the REDD+ process – the DRC has been preparing,
with support from the World Bank, the design of the Maï-Ndombe jurisdictional Emissions
Reduction Programme (ERP) since 2012. This ERP was formally included in the FCPF portfolio in
November 2016, and an Emission Reductions Payment Agreement (ERPA) was signed between the
World Bank and the DRC on 21 September 2018.

During this process, the DRC was able to secure several financing sources including 1) secured
financing of USD 2.2 million (through CAFI or other financing sources) to operate and improve
the implementation conditions required for the ERP and 2) financing of USD 5 million through the
World Bank for making the ERPA operational.
The far-reaching goal of the Maï-Ndombe ERP is to implement a province-wide green development
model offering alternatives to deforestation and providing performance incentives to mitigate
climate change, reduce poverty, manage natural resources sustainably and protect biodiversity.
The programme is designed to bring together different sources of financing, such as the Forest
Investment Program (FIP), the Congo Basin Forest Partnership (CBFP) and CAFI, as well as to
leverage private financing to scale up pilot activities and facilitate the shift to a large-scale land-use
planning approach.8
Among the activities planned in the programme, the following should be mentioned as enabling
activities: (i) strengthening the means of action of decentralized government services; (ii)
strengthening the means of multilevel action and the design of Sustainable Development Plans;
and (iii) promoting family planning.
As for sectoral activities, the following can be mentioned: (i) agroforestry and improved cultivation
techniques, (ii) development of perennial crops in non-forest areas (coffee, cocoa, palm oil and
rubber), (iii) strengthening of agricultural value chains, (iv) assisted natural regeneration for charcoal
production (v) afforestation/reforestation for charcoal and timber production, (vi) reduced-impact
logging, (vii) formalization and strengthening of the woodfuel sector, (viii) conservation of local
community forests, etc.
To date, the DRC has met all the conditions for implementation of this project, with the exception
of the Benefit Sharing Plan (BSP), the finalization of which depends on revision of the baseline.
It is important to recall the legal obligation to revise the baseline of the Maï-Ndombe Programme,
which was requested by the FCPF donors when the ERPA was signed. Indeed, the DRC had to review
the accuracy of net emission reductions (NERs), estimated at 48 million tCO2/year in the ERPD
document. There was thus a need for an internationally recognized independent assessment, and
this was conducted by the University of Maryland (UMD) with support from DIAF and OSFAC. The
provisional results were presented to the DRC stakeholders on 23 October 2020. The estimates,
developed in strict compliance with the FCPF Methodological Framework, indicate that the NERs of
the Maï-Ndombe Jurisdictional Programme are 33,025,746 tCO2/year.9
The programme’s performance would thus be more than 4 million tCO2/year10 over the 2018-2019
monitoring period. The Programme could thus benefit from results-based carbon payments, under
the terms of the ERPA, without putting into question the environmental integrity of the system.
5.3.3 Presentation of the DRC’s PIREDD programmes

PIREDD Maï-Ndombe is one of the Integrated Programmes funded by CAFI. The project is run,
under World Bank supervision, by the Coordination Unit of the Forest Investment Programme (UC-
PIF) of the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development, under the delegated project
management of the FRMi/WWC Consortium.
8 DRC, Emission Reductions Program Document, November 2016.

9 These figures are provisional pending submission of the final report of the study.
10 Idem.

Chapter 5
The programme budget is USD 30 million over a five-year period (2018-2023), divided into two
phases (USD 20 million for the initial 2018-2022 phase and USD 10 million for the second 2022-
2023 phase).
This is a multi-sectoral project with the aim of improving people’s living conditions through the
implementation of activities to reduce GHG emissions from deforestation and forest degradation.
Located in Maï-Ndombe Province, 200 km from Kinshasa, it comes in addition to the investments
made under the PIREDD Plateaux project in the same province.
PIREDD Maï-Ndombe is putting into motion a set of activities (see Table 5.4) to address the direct
and indirect causes of deforestation. The various REDD+ investments made as part of this project
are framed by enabling activities, such as governance and family planning, which seek to create
favourable conditions for their implementation and sustainability. The investments are also covered
by a PES mechanism that encourages people to continue to adhere to the REDD+ approach.
The support provided to reduce household pressure on the forest has been adapted to the environment
and to people’s requests. For example, in areas where there are savanna zones,11 the project provides
for dissemination of practices such as the establishment of acacia-manioc agroforestry systems that
allow for migration of agriculture to these zones. In areas where forest is dominant, the systems
disseminated seek to establish sendentarized fields by introducing perennial crops.
After three years of implementation, the achievements of PIREDD Maï-Ndombe have grown in scale:
• Governance bodies are operational at the provincial, territorial and sectoral levels, as well as in
some 480 village lands.
• Nearly 480 communities have been supported in their land-use development.
• Nearly 175 communities have been assisted in implementing their planning document for the
dissemination of sustainable agricultural practices.
• Six indigenous villages receive support via implementation of microprojects to develop new
income-generating activities.
• A priority road has been identified in collaboration with the provincial government, and an
agreement has been signed with the Roads Authority for the repair or construction of bridges,
gutters and dykes.
Lessons have been drawn from the difficulties encountered, thereby providing guidance for the
implementation of REDD+ integrated projects.
The first is that the multi-sectoral nature of the project can be restrictive. Second, its range of actions
is very broad and covers isolated areas. This sometimes leads to dissipation of efforts, thereby
impeding behavioural change, which is a long-term process requiring a regular presence. Third, the
project’s results framework was scaled based on REDD+ projects in savanna areas. Fourth, rural
communities, which live on a day-to-day basis, lack the means for behavioural change if they do not
receive frequent monetary compensation.
11 An environment traditionally rarely farmed by local people

Table 5.4: Activities implemented as part of the PIREDD Maï-Ndombe project
Action component Geographic scale Expected results
Strengthening of governance and Province, local areas, ̵ Natural-resource governance bodies are
support for land-use planning sectors, village land operational.
̵ Land-use planning documents are produced.
Support for implementation of land- Village land ̵ More sustainable agricultural practices are
use plans disseminated.
̵ Forest protection zones are created and
monitored.
̵ Savannas are protected via fire barriers.
̵ Alternative income-generating activities are
developed.
Road infrastructure improvement Province: priority roads Movement of goods and people on the priority road
is improved.
Awareness-raising in family planning Province, village land Rural households have greater awareness about
family planning.
Support for development of income- Targeted lands The targeted indigenous populations have
generating activities for indigenous improved incomes.
populations
Finally, the process of determining, verifying and disbursing these payments is cumbersome to
administer. Indeed, a large number of rural households participate in the efforts, and it must be
ensured that each receives a payment commensurate with the effort they have made.
Among the various stakeholders, there are multiple and varying opinions of what represents a
“deforestation avoidance effort” that should be remunerated. This difference in perception leads to
difficulties in project implementation, as well as to a gap between the actual situation and the way
in which the project results are made use of.
Can we already talk about reduction in CO2 emissions at the end of a five-year project when it
involves improvement of agricultural practices via the development of perennial crops that will be
productive only three to seven years after planting? And simply creating a plantation of perennial
crops is not enough to keep a family from using the forest, if that plantation is not yet productive.
Plus, there is no guarantee that the plantation will be maintained or farmed in the future after
the results-based payments end. The duration of the PIREDD Maï-Ndombe project is too short to
support this type of momentum and to ensure that the investments made will be sustainable and
will enable real reduction in CO2 emissions.
The ERP could thus be an interesting prospect for consolidating the results that will have been
achieved by the PIREDD Maï-Ndombe project, since these will generate income if they lead to
emission reductions. However, this requires a benefit-sharing mechanism that allows for direct
benefits to individual farm households that have made an effort. REDD+ projects and the sale of
avoided emissions thus represent a real opportunity to finance the development of the Maï-Ndombe
region while preserving its forest capital.

Chapter 5
5.3.4 Lessons from REDD+ implementation

It has been nearly 14 years since the Bali COP, and assessment of REDD+ project implementation
is needed so that we can draw lessons from it. The pilot projects discussed here are veritable
“laboratories” of such implementation. Around 15 different pilot projects have been identified in
Central Africa. They have helped convince the most reluctant governments regarding the feasibility
of REDD+ mechanism implementation, promote the incentives associated with this process
(Sunderlin et al. 2014), and highlight the complexity of their implementation.
Mixed success for the pilot projects

Despite the standards’ commitment to clarify the procedures for implementing AFOLU projects,
initial findings have revealed malfunctioning on the ground. Some project initiators realized that
sustained efforts to reduce forest emissions require enabling conditions that have not yet been
systematically set up, and they consequently discontinued their initiatives (Sunderlin et al. 2014;
Awono et al. 2014).
Hardly any REDD+ project in Central Africa received their long-awaited payments, which are not
immediate (in most cases, five years after submission of the Project Design Document). For this
reason, a long-term monitoring budget is needed, without which the project cannot continue.
In addition, the reluctance of donors and the price per metric ton of carbon greatly impacted the
success of the pilot projects.
Box 5.4: World Bank guidance on REDD+ benefit sharing

We will consider four key themes proposed by the World Bank (2019) on good practices
in results-based benefit sharing for land-use programmes, including under the Forest
Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) and the BioCarbon Fund Initiative for Sustainable Forest
Landscapes (ISFL).
i. Beneficiaries and benefits: The identification of beneficiaries and the types of benefits
they receive depends heavily on understanding the key stakeholders and the types of
incentives most conducive to achieving the overall objectives.
ii. Stakeholder participation: Stakeholder participation is necessary in all phases of benefit
sharing, especially in the design and management of a benefit-sharing mechanism
(BSM), as this leads to a greater sense of ownership and mutual trust.
iii. Institutional, financial and governance agreements: The effectiveness, efficiency
and equity of REDD+ projects in delivering benefits depend on the ability to design
provisions on institutional, legal, financial and governance aspects that meet the needs
and capacities of all stakeholders. Governance agreements are moreover fundamental in
terms of impartiality and inclusion.
iv. Monitoring, evaluation and adaptive management: situations regarding regulations,
demography, threats and other aspects can be expected to change. It is therefore crucial
to examine the potential that a monitoring and evaluation system has to adapt to such
changes, so that effectiveness and efficiency can be improved.

What mechanisms are needed for REDD success at the local level?
We must rethink the system of biodiversity conservation through carbon markets. Encouragement
of stakeholders can be considered, for example, by instituting a reward for efforts made. To overcome
these difficulties, one approach is to identify the knowledge present on the pilot sites in order to find
out the capacities of the stakeholders.
COMIFAC, as a subregional integration body for the environment and forests, must strengthen
negotiation capacities and also provide capacity building for local technicians. In addition, the
pooling of capacities, which has been undertaken in recent years, should be updated.
The organizations involved in the design of the REDD+ mechanism at the international level need
to understand developing country perspectives, and institutions at all levels must work together to
develop concrete strategies to improve overall outcomes (Brown et al. 2011). This approach requires
synergy among stakeholders and between scientific and indigenous knowledge (Sufo Kankeu 2019;
Sufo Kankeu et al. 2020).
5.4 Regulatory, incentive and remuneration

mechanisms for stakeholders in the field
(local communities and private operators)
5.4.1 Design, development and implementation of
benefit-sharing mechanisms
The countries in the subregion that are engaged in the REDD+ process are using the guidelines issued
by international REDD+ financing mechanisms to develop and implement benefit-sharing guidelines
at both national and project levels. These guidelines are proposals, leads and policy advice for designing,
developing and implementing REDD+ benefit-sharing mechanisms (CIFOR 2014).
REDD+ benefit sharing can be defined as the distribution of direct and indirect net gains stemming
from REDD+ implementation.
Thus, benefit sharing refers to the sharing of monetary or non-monetary benefits with beneficiaries
under the ERP and in accordance with the benefit-sharing plan (GoI 2019).
The notion of a BSM is defined as the system(s) or channel(s) through which monetary or non-
monetary profits are distributed. This mechanism must take into account all sensitivities, implying
that the beneficiaries and the type of benefits be clearly defined and that agreements be established.
Of all the REDD+ initiatives and projects in the Congo Basin, the Maï-Ndombe Emissions Reduction
Programme in the DRC (led by Wildlife Works) is the most illustrative case of existing experiments
with a benefit-sharing mechanism framed by a national regulation.

Chapter 5
Box 5.5: ERs of voluntary carbon markets and their accounting

under the Paris Agreement
The Paris Agreement commits all Parties to the UNFCCC to reduce their emissions, including
the “non-Annex 1” countries not subject to quotas under the Kyoto Protocol. In this context,
the carbon market projects pose a risk to the Parties, and especially to those that are
developing countries, in that they may monopolize all the ERs that can be achieved “easily”
and at a reasonable cost, thereby making it very difficult for the countries to achieve the
targets they have set themselves.
Approaches are being examined (1) to reassure investors (future as well as current, as the issue
also concerns projects already in progress, including former CDM projects under the Kyoto
Protocol) and (2) to enable host countries to recover some of the ER benefits produced on
their territory. This second approach would enable those host countries to claim these ERs
under their NDC) while ensuring that they cannot at any time be double-counted (i.e., claimed
simultaneously by two different Parties) and thereby risk weakening the environmental
integrity of the Paris Agreement.
This raises the question of who can claim to have carried out an ER. Is it the host country
where the ER is made? Or is it the country that provided the financing enabling the ER? The
ongoing discussions on the rules of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, and in particular of 6.4 on
the Sustainable Development Mechanism are focusing precisely on this issue.
For voluntary market projects led by the private sector, one approach proposed is to
disconnect the commercial benefit of an ER from the claim to it. See the ICROA paper on this
subject: https: /www.icroa.org/resources/Documents/ ICROA_Voluntary_Action_Post_2020_Position_
Paper_July_2019.pdf
5.4.2 Example of benefit sharing for the Maï-Ndombe

Emission Reduction Programme
The legal basis and procedures for any REDD+ project or programme, including the Maï-Ndombe
ERP, are established in Ministerial Order No. 47/CAB/MIN/EDD/MML/05/2018 of 9 May 2018. The
Order specifies several categories of potential beneficiaries, including sectoral ministries (forestry,
agriculture, environment), administrative actors (FONAREDD) and indigenous peoples.
Indigenous peoples are taken into account in the benefit-sharing process at the local level, both
because they are the guarantors of the success of the projects and because of their historical
contributions to the conservation process. A set amount of 2 percent of the benefits was discussed
with the indigenous peoples’ network (REPALEF) and unanimously accepted by all stakeholders
(see Table 5.5). However, no payments can be set up without institutional and practical provisions
for the implementation of benefit sharing within the PIREDD framework. These provisions are
currently being worked out.

Table 5.5: Analysis of the benefit-sharing mechanism of the Maï-Ndombe project, and of its
strengths and weaknesses in relation to international requirements
Size of area concerned: 12 million hectares

The DRC’s REDD+ benefit-sharing mechanism in the context of its Emission Reductions Payment Agreement (ERPA)
within the FCPF Carbon Fund will be managed by FONAREDD (the REDD+ National Fund). Approximately 85.9
percent will go to performance-based payments for subprojects, and approximately 14.1 percent will be used as an
advance payment for the management of the ERP. Payments for project management will be made before payments
for performance by the subprojects (PIREDD project funded by FIP, PIREDD project funded by CAFI and conservation
project funded by Wildlife Works).
Within programme management, the benefits will be shared as follows: about 4.1 percent will go to activities on
involvement with indigenous peoples and local communities as an advance payment, about 9.4 percent will go to
advance payment of programme administration, and about 0.6 percent in advance payment will be used for risk-
mitigation activities.
The programme management will take into account the following:
1. A Programme Management Unit (PMU), which will strengthen the capacities of the provincial government and assist
it in ERP management (coordination of subprojects, implementation of a benefit-sharing plan, safeguards and MRV,
etc.). In compliance with the benefit-sharing plan, the ERPA and ER payments will be supervised by the PMU and
monitored by the transactions registry.
2. Indigenous peoples and local communities will receive payments over five years, based on programme performance,
in recognition of both their historical role and their current efforts in sustainable forest management, and as
encouragement for their involvement as potential subproject developers.
3. Risk mitigation: The operations of national-level REDD+ institutions and infrastructure established during the
REDD+ readiness phase will also be supported in advance by ERPA payments and other funds to support and ensure
the continuity of national-level REDD+ operations.
The subprojectsa will be subject to the following:
4. Payment ceiling: No private subproject will be allowed to receive more than 17.5 percent of the ERPA’s nominal value.
The purpose is to redirect payments to community activities outside of the limits of the private subproject, even if
their performance is inferior. The remaining ERs not purchased by the FCPF Carbon Fund will go into a pool of in-
kind ERs, which can be provided to individual subprojects for performance achieved.
5. Reference levels: subprojects will be rewarded in relation to subreference levels validated by the regulator. The PMU
should develop guidance and information on how to develop future baselines.
6. Legacy projects: an existing legacy project has apparently been approved. If the project is integrated and rewarded for
performance over the ERPA period (2018-2023), it would reduce its baseline by 33 percent.
Theme Strengths Weaknesses
Beneficiaries and ̵ There were a total of 50,000 beneficiaries.

benefits ̵ Several socioeconomic benefits seemed to result
from project activities such as school construction,
a mobile medical clinic, an immunization
programme, distribution of school supplies
and ongoing capacity-building workshops for
employees and communities in the project area.
̵ Income from the sale of carbon credits will be
channelled directly to the project area. A “Local
Development Fund” will be managed by a
committee of villagers, who will decide how the
income will be spent.
Stakeholder The stakeholders involved in the project include ̵ No CLIP for REDD+ activities
participation most of the local communities and the government ̵ Low level of community inclusion and
(represented by the Ministry of Environment). ownership
̵ Insufficient involvement by the
private sector
̵ Lack of clarity on the available
procedures
Institutional, ̵ The BSM is managed by the PMU along with Local government capacity to oversee the
financial and support from local stakeholders (communities), jurisdictional REDD+ programme is still
governance the private sector (WWC, SODEFOR, SOGENAC) lacking, despite years of so-called “REDD
agreements and international actors (CAFI and FIP). readiness” activities.
̵ The main documents governing the operating
of FONAREDD, which manages the BSM, are
available on their website and easily accessible.

Chapter 5

Theme Strengths Weaknesses
Monitoring, The mechanism set up by the FONAREDD Secretariat Monitoring and evaluation are
evaluation has improved overall (FONAREDD Forum in 2020). fragmented, as they focus on the interests
and adaptive and approaches of the different donors.
management
Analysis by principle
Equity and All stakeholders are represented, i.e., local

inclusion communities, civil society representatives and
the government (represented by the Ministry of
Environment).
Legality and We were not able to obtain access to the
legitimacy founding documents of FONAREDD,
whose activities began in 2016.
Land rights The rights and tenure of the trees are still
holders not clear.
Transparency Most of FONAREDD’s internal documents (related to Lack of updating of the FONAREDD
its activities) can be consulted on its website. website
Economic Several socioeconomic benefits have resulted from the
and social project activities at the community level.
development
Sources: Iwerk and Toroskainen 2017; World Bank 2019; Nature Bank 2019; WWC 2019; Transparency International 2020; Lang 2021;
DRC 2018; WWF 2021.
a There continue to be disagreements among stakeholders on these subprojects in particular.
5.5 Conclusions and outlook

Through various activities over the past ten years or so, Central African countries have been
preparing for implementation of the REDD+ mechanism on their territory. They are investing in
various activities, and some countries, thanks to support from the FCPF Carbon Fund, are gradually
entering the third and final phase of the mechanism’s implementation: that of results-based
payments. This notion of positive incentives has been part of the initial design of REDD+ since
its official launch (UNFCCC 2007).12 It was confirmed in the Warsaw Framework (UNFCCC 2013),
which sets out the core elements for REDD+ implementation for results-based payments, and then
reinforced by the Paris Agreement (UNFCCC 2015). But today REDD+ implementation must adapt to
the new climate governance framework of the Paris Agreement. This voluntary agreement is based
on the submission of national climate plans (Nationally Determined Contributions - NDCs). While
the NDC content is freely determined by each country, it also commits REDD+ recipient countries13
(Aykut 2017). This development has several implications for REDD+ implementation and financing
(Angelsen et al. 2018) and provides new perspectives for the mechanism.
Since 2007, several technical and financial support initiatives have been developed to help countries
prepare and start implementing REDD+ (in particular the FCPF Readiness Fund, UN-REDD, as well
12 The mechanism was first introduced in 2005 at the Montreal COP by member countries of the future Coalition for Rainforest Nations and
officially launched in 2007 as part of the Bali Action Plan.
13 This is in contrast to the Kyoto Protocol, which, reflecting the principle of common but differentiated responsibility, obliged only those
countries considered historically responsible for climate change.

as the FIP, the REDD+ window of the Green Climate Fund, and others). Thanks to this support,
mainstreaming of climate change mitigation issues has taken on an unprecedented dimension,
particularly in the Central African countries that have benefited from these funds (Cameroon, CAR,
DRC, Republic of Congo and Gabon), but also – by rebound effect – in the other countries of the
region. However, this mainstreaming remains relatively limited to the forest sector, and REDD+ has
not achieved the expected results in terms of intersectoral coordination. Today, it is crucial to link
REDD+ to more comprehensive green growth and/or low-carbon development policies (Thu Thuy
et al. 2018), in order to drive the sectors that cause deforestation and forest degradation (agriculture,
mining, land, energy, etc.) and ensure its sustainable and effective implementation. In this respect,
CAFI is an important source of financing.
Similarly, countries need to harmonize carbon monitoring tools and instruments on their territory.
Theoretically, insofar as REDD+ targets are included in the NDCs, the Measurement, Reporting and
Verification (MRV) systems developed under REDD+ should feed directly into a broader carbon
accounting system that would meet the requirements of the Enhanced Transparency Framework
(ETF) of the Paris Agreement.
In practice, the REDD+ MRV is often available before the global accounting tool into which it should
be included. And it is not uncommon to observe semantic and methodological inconsistencies (often
due to anachronisms14) between the information submitted to the UNFCCC (GHG inventories, NDCs,
etc.) and the REDD+ MRV instruments (some of which are also submitted to the UNFCCC, such as
the FREL). At this time when countries are preparing to submit their second NDC, it is important to
correct inconsistencies and harmonize methodologies.
Finally, this dual effort of perspective and harmonization should help align REDD+ commitments
(i.e., the NDCs as well as the commitments made regarding the forms of implementation
of the mechanism, including with regard to compliance with the Cancun safeguards)15
and REDD+ projects and programmes. As part of the Paris Agreement and the universality of
climate commitments, this alignment (which we can also call moving closer together, linking or
interlocking) has become necessary. Countries must be able to ensure that the REDD+ activities
implemented on the ground contribute to achieving their NDCs and, in doing so, to what
extent they do so. This alignment is not without its problems, both technical (FREL allocations,
additionality, etc.) and related to the claim of emission reductions achieved under a REDD+
project or programme. With the entry into force of the Paris Agreement, several voluntary market
standards have questioned the role of voluntary market projects in the post-2020 context.16
They have revised their rules to make the nesting of REDD+ projects in national strategies mandatory
and effective17 or are considering new rules to avoid the risk of double accounting.18
At their own level, countries can develop tools and instruments complementary to those required
by the Warsaw Framework, for example:
• REDD+ certification guidelines to ensure that REDD+ activities implemented in the country
comply with the national strategy and commitments made by the country
14 For example, the definition of “forest” used in the CAR’s GHG inventories (which act as baseline data for setting NDCs) is not the one used
by the stakeholders consulted in the development of the MRV system – and for good reason, as the consultation took place in 2020, after the
finalization of the IGES project (2019).
15 UNFCCC 2011.
16 https://www.goldstandard.org/our-work/innovations-consultations/operationalising-and-scaling-post-2020-voluntary-carbon-market
17 https://verra.org/project/vcs-program/rules-and-requirements/redd-nesting-public-consultation/
18 https://verra.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Proposal-for-Scaling-Voluntary-Carbon-Markets-and-Avoiding-Double-Counting.pdf

Chapter 5
• A National REDD+ Registry, or even a Transaction Registry, to ensure the monitoring and carbon
accounting of all activities and ERs implemented in the country
• A national FREL allocation tool
• Measures for support and capacity building as well as benefit-sharing mechanisms to guarantee
attractiveness, universal accessibility and inclusion
Today, one of the major challenges of REDD+ is to succeed in mobilizing financing to implement
the activities. In fact, the main source of financing that had been envisaged for REDD+ (a binding
carbon market) never materialized (Angelsen et al. 2018). Instead, a voluntary carbon market has
taken over. Its development has been both explosive and substantial. In 2019, forestry projects
accounted for 36.7 million metric tons of CO2e on the voluntary carbon markets, worth around USD
160 million. In financial terms, it is by far the biggest category of voluntary market projects, not only
in terms of tCO2e, but also in average sales price per metric ton, which exceeds all the other project
categories (4.3 USD in 2019).19
Today, this voluntary market remains one of the main ways to capture private financing. But, as
mentioned earlier, several questions remain unanswered with regard to the relationship between
these voluntary markets and the Paris Agreement. Furthermore, financing does not cover needs
(Atmadja, et al. 2018), and new avenues of financing must be explored. Their application is not
exclusive and depends mainly on the type of REDD+ activity that is implemented. These avenues
for financing and redistribution instruments include the following:
• Establishment of national programmes such as PES or forestry funds, financed through carbon
taxation or taxation on forestry or agricultural production.
• Programmes to support the development of low-carbon or green-growth strategies.
• Bilateral aid programmes, in particular targeting the cooperation mechanism under Article 6.2
of the Paris Agreement. This mechanism provides for a simple transfer of emission reductions
achieved by one Party to another Party, with a reliable accounting system.
• Fund-type mechanisms that enhance environmental assets and/or are dedicated to the full
implementation of the REDD+ mechanism, such as the FCPF Carbon Fund or the Green Climate
Fund (via its budget dedicated to REDD+ results-based payments in particular).
• Private investments, via carbon markets (whether voluntary markets or the Sustainable
Development Mechanism provided for in Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement). Although
postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the “CORSIA” (Carbon Offsetting and Reduction
Scheme for International Aviation) initiative makes it possible to offset emissions from the
aviation sector by using REs produced by REDD+ programmes. This provides a new opportunity
for REDD+ projects and programmes.
• Establishment of domestic carbon markets that can be developed in conjunction with a carbon
or other taxation system and that would capture local financial resources.
• Private investments, through “zero deforestation” strategies or commitments made by
companies as part of the Science Based Target Initiative.20
19 Forest Trends’ Ecosystem Marketplace. The Only Constant is Change. State of the Voluntary Carbon Markets 2020, Second Installment
Featuring Core Carbon & Additional Attributes Offset Prices, Volumes and Insights. Washington, DC: Forest Trends Association, December 2020.
20 https://sciencebasedtargets.org/

Congo Basin forests
in international
discourse
PART 2
CHAPTER 6
Mainstreaming the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs)
into Forest Management in
Central Africa: current status,
challenges and improvement
options
Coordinators: Jeremie Mbairamadji,1 Gervais Itsoua Madzous2
Authors: Jean-Claude Nguinguiri,1 Valérie Tchuente,2 Donald Djossi3
Contributors: Sédric Edmond Tiobo’o,4 Tata-Ngome Precillia5
FAO, 2COMIFAC, 3OFAC, 4National Institute of Statistics of Cameroon, 5IRAD

1
Photo by FAO
Chapter 6
Introduction
The forests of the Congo Basin play a crucial role in regulating
the climate system of not just Africa, but the entire world. These
forests also provide a livelihood for the 60 million people who
live in them or nearby; perform essential social and cultural
functions for local and indigenous populations; and, more
indirectly, help feed the 40 million people living in nearby
urban centres, as pointed out by Marquant et al. (2015). When
these forests are managed sustainably, they have the potential
to provide “sustainable nature-based solutions” to many issues
related to water, energy, food and nutritional security, poverty
alleviation and others. In this way, they contribute to achieving
several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Nonetheless, the
question of how to harness this huge potential remains.
In September 2015, the 193 member states of the United Nations (UN) adopted the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development. This programme, known as “Agenda 2030,” consists of 17 Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) and 169 targets. It is a people-centred development agenda that seeks
to eradicate poverty in all its forms and dimensions, preserve the environment and ensure more
peaceful and inclusive societies.
Agenda 2030 recognizes the following: “Targets are defined as aspirational and global, with each
government setting its own national targets guided by the global level of ambition but taking into account
national circumstances. Each government will also decide how these aspirational and global targets should
be incorporated into national planning processes, policies and strategies.”
The Central African Forests Commission (COMIFAC) Convergence Plan for the conservation and
sustainable management of Central African forest ecosystems comprises six priority action areas
and three cross-cutting areas. It serves as a reference framework for actions in the forestry and
environmental sector in Central Africa.
To better guide Central African countries in implementing Agenda 2030, it is crucial to ensure that
the Convergence Plan aligns with the SDGs. The nine action areas of the Convergence Plan and the
17 SDGs of the UN Agenda 2030 will serve as a framework for the analyses to be carried out. The
mainstreaming of the SDGs into sustainable forest management in Central Africa will consist of
reviewing the ways in which the COMIFAC Convergence Plan action areas are linked to the SDGs.
This mainstreaming will make it possible to monitor the contribution of Central African forests to
the SDGs, via reviews of the voluntary national reports produced by countries and of the efforts
made by these countries and the challenges encountered. This review will also facilitate exploration
of options for better mainstreaming of the SDGs into the sustainable management of forests in
Central Africa.

Mainstreaming the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) into Forest Management in
Central Africa: current status, challenges and improvement options
The first part of this chapter deals with the alignment of the COMIFAC Convergence Plan with
the SDGs. It provides an overview of the SDGs and targets that can be prioritized in light of the
expected results of the priority action areas of the Convergence Plan. The second part focuses on
national ownership of the SDGs through voluntary national reviews (VNRs) and the inclusion of
forest contribution to the SDGs in national reports. Contrary to the findings on the Convergence
Plan’s alignment with the SDGs, the contribution of efforts to the SDGs – as reflected in the
country ownership exercises – is still limited to one or two forest-related SDGs. This practice does
not sufficiently take into account the range of forest contributions to the SDGs. The third and last
part of this chapter presents the options for improving SDGs mainstreaming into the sustainable
management of forests in Central Africa.
6.1 COMIFAC Convergence Plan:

a reference framework for SDG alignment
Application of the SDGs to sustainable forest management is not yet a common practice. Up to now,
focus has been on analyses that show that forests and their related policies contribute to achieving
many of the goals and targets of Agenda 2030 in addition to SDG 15, which specifically addresses
the sustainability of forest ecosystems (De Jong et al. 2018; Baumgartner 2019; FAO 2018). Generally
speaking, application of the goals and targets to local circumstances and priorities involves
mainstreaming the SDGs into national agendas.1 In recent years, other levels of SDG ownership
have emerged, at both the territorial and theme-based levels.
Cities and regions in particular are viewed as the most suitable level for grassroots work to achieve
the SDGs. Having cities and regions mainstream the SDGs has thus become a major concern of
urban governance (UN-HABITAT 2018) and of local development (Thibault 2017).
In contrast, the theme-based approach to SDG ownership has been explored mainly at the global
level, as evidenced by the discussions at the High-Level Political Forum for Sustainable Development
(HLPF) held in July 2018. With regard to forests, this approach is key to the global objectives on
forests of the United Nations Strategic Plan for Forests (2017-2030). The 6 goals and 26 related targets
of this Strategic Plan were adopted by the General Assembly in 2017. Their aim is to contribute to
achieving the SDGs, the Aichi Biodiversity Targets and the Paris Agreement reached as part of the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.2
The Congo Basin forests provide many ecosystem goods and services. For this reason, it is important
to provide the resources needed to monitor and enhance the contribution of these forests to the
SDGs. However, it should be noted that aligning the SDGs with the cross-border governance of a
forest ecosystem as important as the Congo Basin is a painstaking exercise and that the lack of a
joint reference framework for sustainable forest management is very often the first obstacle to be
removed. It is for these reasons that the COMIFAC Convergence Plan is essential.
1 This is stipulated in UN General Assembly Resolution 70/1 of 25 September 2015, paragraph 55.
2 https://www.un.org/esa/forests/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Global-Forest-Goals-booklet-Apr-2019.pdf
The Forests of the Congo Basin 167

Chapter 6
6.1.1 Convergence Plan priority action areas

The Central African countries have agreed to the SDGs and have undertaken monitoring of the
progress made towards achieving them. These countries have also signed a treaty3 committing
them to the conservation and sustainable management of Central African forest ecosystems and
establishing COMIFAC as the subregional reference institution for the harmonization of forest and
environmental policies. COMIFAC has a Convergence Plan which defines the action strategies of the
subregion’s countries and of other stakeholders in the conservation and sustainable management
of forest ecosystems in Central Africa.
Box 6.1 presents the priority action areas, the cross-cutting action areas and the main impacts
expected from the Convergence Plan.
6.1.2 Alignment of the Convergence Plan with the SDGs

An exercise was carried out to see how the Convergence Plan aligns with the SDG targets; this
work made it possible to prioritize 31 targets of 10 SDGs.4 The main findings from this analysis are
presented below.
• SDG 1 “End poverty in all its forms everywhere” is closely linked to the concerns addressed
in priority action area 5 “Socioeconomic development and multistakeholder participation”
of the Convergence Plan. Through its operational objective 5.1.3. “Fostering the development
of job- and income-generating activities in forest environments,” the Convergence Plan seeks
to increase the incomes of forest dependent populations and the number of jobs for men,
women and young people in the forest sector. Forests offer income-generating opportunities
via collection and sale of wood and non-wood forest products, as well as through the sharing
of logging benefits with nearby communities (see operational objective 5.1.2). In the Central
African Republic (CAR) and Gabon, the forestry sector is the country’s largest private employer and
the second-largest employer after the State. In Cameroon, nearly 8,000 jobs are provided by the
formal forestry sector. However, women are poorly represented in the sector: 281 out of 8,047 workers
in 2008 (Eba’a Atyi 2013). Sustainable forest management is helping to alleviate poverty by
creating wealth and protecting the essential functions of forests that underpin the livelihoods
of poor people.
• SDG 2 “End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable
agriculture” is consistent with the Convergence Plan’s priority action areas 5 “Socioeconomic
development and multistakeholder participation” and 3 “Conservation and sustainable use of
biological diversity.” The forests of Central Africa offer a wide range of food products of plant
and animal origin (Ndoye 2016; Tata-Ngome 2016). In some places, hunting meat accounts for
up to 80 percent of people’s protein intake; about 5 million tonnes of bushmeat are harvested
each year (Van Vliet et al. 2012). Forest foods contribute to household resilience by providing a
safety net in times of crisis (Tata-Ngome 2016). According to COMIFAC’s strategic orientations,5
3 The treaty is available online: https://comifac.org/images/documents/traitecomifac_français.pdf

4 The prioritized SDGs: SDG 1, SDG 2, SDG 5, SDG 6, SDG 7, SDG 8, SDG 12, SDG 13, SDG 15 and SDG 16.
5 These guidelines are spelled out in the Subregional Guidelines on the sustainable management of non-wood forest products (NWFPs) of plant
origin in Central Africa (http://www.fao.org/3/ak414f/ak414f.pdf), the toolkit on integrating the Right to Adequate Food (RAF) in plant-based NWFPs
in Central Africa (http://www.fao.org/forestry/42451-0dea 893d3253a87ad78abcad1833ff739.pdf), the subregional strategy for the sustainable use
of wildlife by indigenous and local communities in COMIFAC countries, the COMIFAC strategy on access to biological and genetic resources and
fair and equitable access and benefit sharing (ABS) arising from their utilization, and the sub-regional programme on forests for food security and
nutrition in Central Africa, etc.

Box 6.1: COMIFAC Convergence Plan for the sustainable

management of Central African forest ecosystems (2015–2025)
The revised Convergence Plan is divided into six priority action areas and three cross-cutting
action areas. The priority action areas:
1. Harmonization of forest and environmental policies
2. Sustainable management and exploitation of forest resources
3. Conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity
4. Combating the effects of climate change and desertification
5. Socio-economic development and multistakeholder participation
6. Sustainable financing
The cross-cutting action areas:

• Training and capacity building
• Research and Development
• Communication, awareness, information and education
The expected impacts of the revised Convergence Plan:

• The deforestation and forest degradation rate is stable compared to the current level within
each country of the COMIFAC area.
• The integrity of protected areas and transboundary protected areas is maintained.
• The living conditions of the local populations are improved.
The Convergence Plan also clearly states the values on which efficient implementation of
the priority actions should be based, as well as basic assumptions for ensuring that the
framework conditions for success are met.
COMIFAC Convergence Plan 2015–2025
three priorities can be considered in the SDG 2 indicators. The first relates to access to forest
foods (SDG target 2.1). The second relates to improving the productivity and income of small-
scale food producers (SDG target 2.3), and the third relates to the conservation of forest genetic
resources (SDG target 2.5).
• SDG 5 “Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls” is aligned with the core
values to be respected during the implementation of the Convergence Plan. In addition to good
governance, the other three values are respect for human rights and the rights of indigenous
peoples; gender mainstreaming; and cooperation, partnership and solidarity. This SDG is
also related to the concerns addressed in priority action area 1 “Harmonization of forest and
environmental policies” of the Convergence Plan. Even though the laws in force often grant
equal rights to men and women, there are still gender-based differences that are rooted in
traditional norms and practices. A subregional strategy for mainstreaming gender into the
sustainable management of natural resources in Central Africa has been adopted by COMIFAC

Chapter 6
member countries.6 It especially focuses on gender equity in the distribution of social roles and
responsibilities, as well as on gender mainstreaming into national policies and subregional
programmes (in line with target 5.5). It also deals with securing rights and access to forest
resources for women (in line with target 5.a).
• SDG 6 “Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all”
(in particular target 6.6 “By 2020, protect and restore water-related ecosystems, including
mountains, forests, wetlands, rivers, aquifers and lakes”) partially overlaps with priority action
areas 2 “Sustainable management and development of forest resources” and 3 “Conservation
and sustainable use of biological diversity.” In addition to forests, the Congo Basin is also
characterized by its wealth of water resources. The Congo River Basin, for example, accounts
for about 30 percent of Africa’s water resources and covers an area of about 4 million km2, 85.3
percent of which is covered by tropical rainforests in Cameroon, the Central African Republic
(CAR), the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and the Congo. The relationship between forests
and the watercourse system that criss-crosses them is both complex and highly interdependent.
Not only is water fundamental to the life of trees and therefore of forests, but forests also play a
crucial role in maintaining the quality and quantity of water (Betti 2011).
• SDG 7 “Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all” (in
particular targets 7.1 “By 2030, ensure universal access to affordable, reliable and modern
energy services” and 7.2 “By 2030, increase substantially the share of renewable energy in
the global energy mix”) is synonymous with the strategic guidelines of priority action area 4
“Combating the effects of climate change and desertification.” Even today, millions of people
in rural areas and large cities depend on firewood and charcoal to cook their food. Woodfuel
is the main source of energy for 90 percent of Kinshasa’s population (Schure et al. 2013). The
turnover of the woodfuel sector is estimated at more than 186 billion CFA francs per year in
Cameroon (Eba’a Atyi et al. 2016), where nearly 16 million people depend on this energy for
cooking. Because of its great economic importance, supply of woodfuel to large cities is one of
the main drivers of deforestation. The Convergence Plan seeks to better deal with this threat via
guidelines to establish the conditions needed to make woodfuel a clean and renewable source of
energy. Several initiatives have been taken in recent years to take up this challenge. One example
is the “Sustainable Management of Woodfuel Resources in Central Africa” project (Marien et
al. 2013). Another that can be mentioned is the PREFOREST Initiative, which aims to reduce
greenhouse gases (GHGs). It was recently financed by the Green Climate Fund (GCF) and receives
co-financing from the Central African Forest Initiative (CAFI) and the International Fund for
Agricultural Development (IFAD) to overcome the barriers and constraints to the sustainable
production and consumption of woodfuel in five administrative divisions (départements) of
the Congo. See https://www.greenclimate.fund/project/fp159 for PREFOREST and https://mptf.
undp.org/factsheet/project/00130492 for PROREP Bois-Energie (project to enhance sustainable
woodfuel potential in the Republic of Congo).
• SDG 8 “Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive
employment and decent work for all” is in line with the values pursued in the Convergence
Plan, including respect for human rights and the rights of indigenous peoples, and operational
objective 2.2.3 “Enhance legality and promote certification.” This objective contributes to the
fight against forced labour and child labour in all its forms at forestry sites (in line with target 8.7),
and it aims to promote safety in the workplace and protection for all workers (in line with target
8.8). Forest certification programmes launched more than a decade ago are already making a
6 https://www.comifac.org/documents/directives-strategies-accords

remarkable contribution to improving working conditions in the formal forestry sector (Cerutti
et al. 2017). At the policy level, the national industrialization strategies for greater processing
of forest products and the strategies for the development of ecotourism as part of the economic
enhancement of protected areas and the wildlife sector are promoted in operational objectives
2.2.2 and 3.1.3 respectively. They contribute to targets 8.3 and 8.9.
• SDG 12 “Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns” has a number of targets
that are fully aligned with the Convergence Plan. This is the case of target 12.2 “By 2030, achieve
sustainable management and sustainable use of natural resources,” which is largely in line
with priority action areas 2 “Sustainable management and development of forest resources”
and 3 “Conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity.” Another example is target 12.5
“By 2030, substantially reduce waste generation through prevention, reduction, recycling and
reuse,” which addresses similar aspects to those addressed in the national industrialization
strategies for more advanced processing of forest products promoted by the Convergence Plan.
In the forest industry, measures have already been taken to ensure reduced-impact logging,
improve raw-material productivity in wood processing, and recover waste and other residues
from forestry, etc. Perhaps the most significant variation of the circular economy concept is the
adoption of cogeneration in wood processing industries (Crehay 2012). Operational objective
2.2.3 “Enhance legality and promote certification” also contributes to target 12.7 “Promote
public procurement practices that are sustainable, in accordance with national policies and
priorities.” Making legal timber an obligation in public procurement in Central Africa is already
making headway (Eba’a Atyi et al. 2018) and has even become a reality in Cameroon.
• SDG 13 “Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts” corresponds in general
terms to priority action area 4 “Combating the effects of climate change and desertification” of
the Convergence Plan. Nature-based and especially forest-based solutions for climate-change
mitigation and adaptation are those that have been explored the most in Central Africa. Over the
past decade, emphasis has been placed on combating deforestation in order to reverse the trend
of emissions from forests. Several countries have developed national strategies and REDD+7
investment plans and are committed to establishing national systems for forest monitoring.
Most of these countries are conscious of the fact that climate change affects Central Africa,8 and
they have developed both national plans and investment plans to promote adaptation to climate
change. All these measures are provided for in the Convergence Plan, in particular in operational
objective 4.1.1, which is to develop and implement national strategies for adaptation to climate
change, and operational objective 4.1.2 “Develop and implement measures to mitigate the
effects of climate change.” While the former is linked to target 13.1 “Strengthen resilience and
adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters in all countries,” the latter fits
in well with target 13.2 “Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and
planning” and target 13.3 “Improve education, awareness-raising and human and institutional
capacity on climate change mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction and early warning.”
• SDG 15 “Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably
manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt
biodiversity loss” cross-cuts all the Convergence Plan priority action areas. The Central African
countries have been committed to sustainable forest management for nearly 30 years (Nasi
et al. 2006). They have made remarkable progress: the surface area of natural forests with a
management plan has more than quadrupled between 2005 and 2010, reaching more than
7 Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation.

8 See State of the Forest 2015 (https://www.cifor.org/knowledge/publication/5884), in particular chapter 4, devoted to the vulnerability and
adaptation of forests and communities.

Chapter 6
31 million ha, including 10.2 million with certification (OFAC9 2019). Further, at least 11 percent
on average of the surface area of each Central African country has been made protected areas,
thereby allowing for the establishment of networks of protected areas that cover biodiversity
better in each country (Doumenge et al. 2019).
• SDG 16 “Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access
to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels” touches
on aspects that are core to forest governance in Central Africa. These include the fight against
corruption, participation and gender-based discrimination. The first aspect is addressed in
priority action area 1 “Harmonization of forest and environmental policies” of the Convergence
Plan. Nearly all the Central African countries have made the fight against corruption in the forest
sector one of their priorities, by creating specific units or services to tackle this scourge. The fight
against corruption in the forest sector is part of target 16.5 “Substantially reduce corruption
and bribery in all their forms.” The second aspect, in this case participation and inclusive
forest management, occupies a prominent place in priority action areas 1 and 5. Subregional
Guidelines on the “Participation of Local and Indigenous Peoples and NGOs in the Sustainable
Management of Forests in Central Africa” have been adopted10 and contribute to target 16.7
“Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.”
The third aspect is related to the fight against gender-based discrimination in the forestry sector.
Indigenous peoples in particular are quite often victims of discriminatory practices, as recent
reports on human rights violations in biodiversity conservation projects show.11 Measures have
been taken in some countries to protect these vulnerable groups. This is the case, for example,
of (1) the CAR, which on 30 August 2010 ratified the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention
of the International Labour Organization (ILO No. 169); (2) the Congo, which promulgated
Law No. 5/2011 of 25 February 2011 on the promotion and protection of the rights of indigenous
peoples; and (3) the DRC, where on 7 April 2021 the National Assembly adopted the law on the
protection and promotion of the rights of indigenous Pygmy peoples. These measures are in
line with target 16.b “Promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws and policies for sustainable
development.”
Of the 10 SDGs considered in FAO’s State of the World’s Forests 2018 report, only SDG 11 “Make cities
and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable” has not been prioritized and
mainstreamed in this analysis focused on Central Africa. Concerns related to urban forestry, to trees
in the city and to green spaces are indeed not specifically addressed in the COMIFAC Convergence
Plan 2015–2025. However, this observation should not diminish the efforts made in certain
COMIFAC countries to maintain, for example, the integrity of the Raponda Walker arboretum and
the Sibang forest reserve in Libreville (Gabon), the Patte d’Oie forest reserve in Brazzaville (Congo),
and green spaces in Kigali (Rwanda). Conversely, SDG 16, which is prioritized in this analysis, was
not included among the 10 SDGs considered in FAO’s State of the World’s Forests 2018 report. The
implementation of the SDGs in forest governance in Central Africa has made it possible to obtain a
subregional package of 31 prioritized targets (see Annex 6.1).
9 The Central Africa Forest Observatory

10 See: http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/Ecc189705.pdf
11 See, for example, the documents available at https://www.survivalinternational.fr/actu/12540; https://www.buzzfeednews.com/collection/
wwfsecretwar; https://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/wwf_independent_review_/droits_humains_en_matiere_de_conservation/

6.2 National ownership of the SDGs

6.2.1 Production of voluntary national reviews
The countries produce voluntary national reviews (VNRs) as part of the monitoring and review of the
2030 Development Agenda (Agenda 2030). Preparation of the VNRs by the countries is governed by
a manual12 which sets out the different steps to be followed. These VNRs make it possible to monitor
the progress made by countries in their Agenda 2030 implementation and in the challenges and
lessons that emerge from it. Emphasis will be put on (1) monitoring the contribution of forests to
the SDGs through the analysis of national voluntary reports produced in 2019 and/or 2020 and (2)
ongoing subregional efforts and initiatives to address the challenges encountered.
6.2.2 Mainstreaming forest contribution into the

national voluntary reports on SDG monitoring
The Central African countries have undertaken to mainstream the SDGs into their national agendas.13
The approach adopted by these countries is very often inspired by the guidelines circulated by
the UNDP (2016) for mainstreaming Agenda 2030. Three main outcomes are expected from this
approach: analysis of how to put the SDGs into context, the prioritized targets and indicators,
and the resource mobilization strategy for the implementation of Agenda 2030. The targets and
indicators from the prioritized SDGs guide national SDG ownership efforts to integrate them into
global and sectoral strategies. They also act to monitor the progress made towards achieving the
SDGs and to prepare the national voluntary reports.14
The forest-related indicators are an integral part of nationally prioritized SDG targets and indicators.
To this effect, review of the mainstreaming of forest contribution will focus on the national voluntary
reports of the following seven Central African countries15: Burundi, Cameroon, Congo, Rwanda,
DRC, CAR and Chad.
It should be kept in mind that each country chooses its own targets according to its priorities and
their relevance to the achievement of the SDGs. For example, Cameroon has selected 153 targets and
52 priority targets to reduce poverty, catch up in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and
improve the resilience of its population. In the DRC, the awareness and outreach process targeting
stakeholders has helped the country’s commitment to achieving the 17 SDGs take on concrete shape
and led to the selection of 38 priority targets and 59 indicators. Congo adopted 14 objectives, 74
targets and 113 indicators. The CAR has prioritized 37 targets and 245 indicators, and Chad has
prioritized 70 out of the 169 targets identified. It should be noted that the national reports of the
Central African countries have focused more on progress in monitoring the achievement of SDG 15
and secondarily on SDG 13.
Alignment of the SDGs with national agendas provides an overview of the forest-sector contribution,
which very often remains focused on the natural characteristics of the forest. This approach hides
12 See: https://sdgs.un.org/sites/default/files/documents/20872VNR_hanbook_2019_Edition_v4.pdf
13 Under UN General Assembly Resolution 70/1 of 25 September 2015, paragraph 55.
14 These reports are presented to the High-Level Political Forum of the United Nations Economic and Social Council.
15 The national voluntary reports of the countries not mentioned (Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, and Sao Tome and Principe) had not yet been
published on the United Nations website at the time of writing of this chapter.

Chapter 6
the many benefits that other sectors derive from sustainable forest management without bearing
the costs. In fact, in the national reports that have been analysed, the multiple strengths and
potentialities of forests are not sufficiently highlighted when monitoring achievement of the SDGs.
Indeed, the countries of the subregion are making huge efforts in the conservation and sustainable
management of their forests. These efforts should be capitalized so that they contribute to the
achievement of most of the targets and indicators of all the SDGs. This capitalization should focus
on taking into account the efforts made by these countries, particularly in achieving the following
goals: combating poverty (SDG 1); combating hunger and food security (SDG 2); gender equality
(SDG 5); clean water and sanitation (SDG 6); decent work and economic growth (SDG 8); and peace,
justice and strong institutions (SDG 16). The positive externalities of forest management are as
important as the health of the forest.
At the subregional level, OFAC is currently compiling information to monitor the implementation of
the COMIFAC Convergence Plan.
6.3 Options to enhance the monitoring

of forest contribution to the SDGs in
Central Africa
6.3.1 Towards subregional guidelines for monitoring
forest contribution to the SDGs
The synergies between the SDGs and the COMIFAC Convergence Plan clearly show that forests
contribute to achieving most of the SDGs by providing various social, economic and environmental
benefits. If we focus primarily on SDG 15 indicators and somewhat on SDG 13 (as can be seen in
the targets and indicators prioritized by countries), we gain only a partial picture of the range
of the forest contributions to the SDGs. In fact, a sector as important as the forests of the Congo
Basin contributes to resolving a wide range of development problems and, in turn, contributes to
several SDGs. It is against this backdrop that COMIFAC has initiated an inclusive process to develop
subregional guidelines to monitor forest contribution to the SDGs. This process, which FAO is
facilitating with technical assistance,16 has shed new light on forests and their contribution to the
SDGs. It has also made it possible to provide Central African countries with guidance on how to
achieve harmonious tracking and reporting on 31 targets of the prioritized SDGs.
The Subregional Guidelines17 are formed by 5 principles, 12 guidelines and the priority action areas
associated with them. The principles are derived from the four areas of action common to the
Convergence Plan and the SDGs: forest governance, inclusive and responsible economic growth,
sustainable livelihoods of forest-dependent populations, and the biophysical results of forest
management and its externalities. Figure 6.1 presents the four areas of action common to the SDGs
and the priority action areas concerned.
16 http://www.fao.org/3/ca9261fr/CA9261FR.pdf (consulted on 14/06/21).

17 These Guidelines were reviewed and approved during a subregional workshop held in Libreville on 26 and 27 November 2019. They will be
submitted to the COMIFAC Council of Ministers for adoption.

The first draft of the Guidelines was reviewed and approved from a technical angle during a
subregional workshop held in November 2019 in Libreville, Gabon. These Guidelines will be
submitted for adoption by the COMIFAC Council of Ministers, prior to the launch of outreach
activities and support for country ownership.
To facilitate the implementation of these Guidelines, a set of indicators has been identified as a directory
of “thematic actions” associated with each indicator. With these new Guidelines, countries will be better
equipped to fill the above-mentioned reporting gaps and to monitor progress towards achieving the
SDGs, particularly with regard to forest contribution. A better assessment of the contribution of forests
to the SDGs will provide policymakers, technical and financial partners, and the general public with new
insights into the value and importance of Central African forests to the SDGs.
The Subregional Guidelines can also be used for awareness-raising, ownership and mainstreaming of
“forest-based solutions” into sectoral policies and programmes on water, energy, food, employment,
poverty alleviation and other issues. For example, by highlighting, SDG 6 target 6 on the protection
and restoration of water-related ecosystems, the Subregional Guidelines draw attention to the role
of forests as a regulator of fresh water and also as an alternative to the “grey infrastructure” on
which countries are still heavily dependent. Moreover, by prioritizing targets 7.1 and 7.2 of SDG 7, the
Subregional Guidelines also highlight the solutions that forests can provide in the energy transition.
The alignment of these Guidelines with the global objectives on forests of the United Nations Strategic
Plan for Forests (2017–2030) can serve as a harmonized framework for the monitoring of the contribution
of Central African countries to these global objectives and of forest contribution to the SDGs.
Finally, taking into account the wide range of forest functions, as set out in the Subregional Guidelines
for monitoring the SDGs, also offers an opportunity to explore and consider emerging issues such as
internationalizing the concept of “nature-based solutions.”
Figure 6.1: Fields of action common to the Convergence Plan and the SDGs

Chapter 6
6.3.2 Facilitating enhanced monitoring of the forest

contribution to the SDGs
Ownership of the SDG themes makes it possible to monitor the forest contribution from the various
angles, such as economic, social and environmental. However, in doing so, various types of barriers
are encountered: insufficient coordination between sectors, administrative red tape that hampers
periodic review of public policies, and weak statistics systems, etc.
a) Insufficient coordination between sectors

Forests affect a number of other sectors and vice versa, in particular agriculture, energy, infrastructure
and extractive industries (Pouakouyou and Mayers 2015; Buttoud and Nguinguiri 2016). Stakeholder
involvement in forest management is a recurrent concern in forestry. Coordination among
stakeholders in different sectors is crucial.
Lack of coordination between sectors thus appears to be a major obstacle to proper monitoring
of forest contribution to the SDGs in Central Africa. Some countries in the subregion are trying to
find solutions to this problem by setting up bodies to promote coordination between sectors. One
Table 6.1: Principles and guidelines for reporting the forest contribution to the SDGs in
Central African countries
Principles Reporting guidelines

Principle 1: Availability Guideline 1: Consistency, reliability and credibility of the national statistics system
of sufficient good-
quality, up-to-date and Guideline 2: Adaptation of the institutional framework for forest statistics management to
accessible statistical new demands, including the monitoring of forest contribution to the SDGs
data that meet SDG
monitoring needs
Principle 2: Biophysical Guideline 3: Highlighting the role of forests in maintaining water quality and watercourse
results of sustainable systems as part of monitoring SDG 6
forest management
Guideline 4: Outreach on climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts and their impact
on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and on strengthening the resilience of forest-
dependent populations as part of the follow-up to SDG 13
Guideline 5: Highlighting the biophysical results of sustainable forest management,
biodiversity conservation, and the fight against desertification and land degradation in
national SDG 15 monitoring reports
Principle 3: Sustainable Guideline 6: Highlighting the forest contribution to the eradication of poverty, especially
livelihoods of forest- among local and indigenous communities, within the framework of monitoring SDG 1
dependent populations
Guideline 7: Highlighting the role of forest-derived foods in ensuring food security and in
improving nutrition within the framework of monitoring SDG 2
Guideline 8: Quantifying and disseminating the results of efforts to make woodfuel clean and
renewable, within the framework of monitoring SDG 7
Principle 4: More Guideline 9: Assessing and disseminating the impact of measures taken to promote decent
inclusive and employment in the forest sector within the framework of monitoring SDG 8
responsible economic
growth Guideline 10: Highlighting the impact of actions taken to improve productive use of forest
resources, within the framework of monitoring SDG 12
Principle 5: Forest Guideline 11: The values system based on ethics, equity and social justice that underpins
governance forest governance should be periodically evaluated, and these results should be highlighted
in monitoring SDG 16.
Guideline 12: Efforts to make forest policies and programmes gender-responsive should be
made as part of monitoring SDG 5.

example is the Congolese Observatory for Sustainable Development (OCDD) in the DRC. It was
created within the Ministry of Planning and is working towards an inclusive process of ownership,
implementation and monitoring of the SDGs.
b) Insufficient mainstreaming of forest multifunctionality

A silo approach is unsuitable for the multifunctional nature of forests. Responses by individual
sectors to forest degradation or biodiversity loss have shown their limitations. It is largely because of
pressures from other sectors of activity that forests are threatened by degradation and deforestation
in Central Africa (Tchatchou et al. 2015). From this angle, enhancing the monitoring of forest
contribution to the SDGs cannot be done in isolation by forest-sector stakeholders alone. It is thus
clear that work with other sectors on joint projects is necessary.
There are several issues raised in the COMIFAC Subregional Guidelines that should not be addressed
from a forestry perspective alone. For example, woodfuel is the main source of energy for 90 percent
of Kinshasa’s population (Schure et al. 2013), and responses to woodfuel supply problems should
not be compartmentalized into activities by individual sectors. Rather, these problems should be
addressed as an integral part of a coordinated energy policy that takes into account the main players
in the biomass energy sector.
c) Lack of an adaptive management culture

In the countries of the subregion, most of the public administrations involved in development sectors
(agriculture, forestry, fisheries, livestock, economy, etc.) use traditional management approaches
rather than ones that are more flexible and that adapt to various circumstances (e.g., results-based
management, ecosystem approach, nature-based solutions). Moreover, these countries lack an
organizational culture in which periodic review of policies and strategies is carried out so that they
can be updated and adapted to new situations and requirements. It is highly likely that the targets
prioritized by Central African countries in their voluntary national reports will not be revised by
their 2030 deadline, as is the case of several of their forest and environmental policies.
Box 6.2: Monitoring SDG implementation in the DRC

Since 2016, the DRC has been implementing Agenda 2030 via a participatory, transparent
and in-depth approach at the provincial, national, regional and international levels.
The creation of the Congolese Observatory for Sustainable Development (OCDD) within the
Ministry of Planning has enabled not only ownership, but also steering and monitoring of
the Agenda 2030 SDGs. For this reason, the awareness-raising and dissemination process
targeting all stakeholders was launched in 2016, with 38 priority targets and 59 priority
indicators from among 105 targets and 159 indicators.
The DRC’s VNR report assessed the progress made in achieving the SDGs and the impact of
the policies and strategies that had been implemented. However, this report did not address
the details of each sector’s contribution to achieving the SDGs nationally. Indeed, the report
on the forest sector did not present specific data on forest contribution to the SDGs in
the DRC.

Chapter 6
d) Weaknesses in statistics systems

To implement the Subregional Guidelines to monitor forest contribution to the SDGs, reliable data
is required to establish baselines for the identified indicators and to report on progress made in
reaching the priority targets. However, in the Central African countries, national statistics systems
lack sufficient capacity to produce forest data that are timely, systematic, accurate, relevant and
comparable. Lack of reliable data is one of the risks of failure in SDG implementation, as pointed out
in the Africa Sustainable Development Report (2017).18 In nearly all the countries of the subregion,
national statistics institutes face a shortage of financial and human resources. Given this situation,
the task of monitoring the SDGs seems out of proportion compared to their capacities (Roca and
Letouzé 2016). These difficulties can be explained primarily by differences in methodologies, lack of
coordination within the national statistics system, lack of funding and human resources, inadequate
infrastructure and somewhat of a lag in data technology (CEA et al. 2017).
Several countries in the subregion recognize that it is urgent to meet the growing need for harmonized
and good-quality data for monitoring the SDGs and the African Union’s Agenda 2063. Chad, for
example, in its 2019 VNR report on SDG implementation, announced launch of reforms to enhance
statistics production. In Cameroon, meanwhile, work is under way to develop the third generation
of its National Strategy for the Development of Statistics.
6.3.3 Recommendations for enhancing the monitoring

of forest contribution to the SDGs
a) Strengthen capacities of national statistics units

The units in charge of statistics in the countries of the subregion face both a shortage of suitable
work equipment for analysing and processing statistical data and a lack of qualified personnel to
produce reliable statistical data, this despite the existence of several large statistical training schools
in the subregion. To deal with this situation, functional and operational capacity building for the
countries’ statistics units is a prerequisite, as is capacity building (1) for the staff of those units,
for mastering the tools, software, approaches and techniques currently in use for data collection,
analysis and processing; and (2) for identification and coding of indicators and targets related to
the SDGs. These two types of capacity building for national statistics units are needed to enable the
countries in the subregion to produce reliable statistical data and to facilitate the monitoring of the
contribution of forests and other development sectors to the SDGs.
b) Strengthen the countries’ capacity to implement the Subregional

Guidelines for monitoring forest contribution to the SDGs
The disparities observed in the voluntary national reports of the countries analysed in this research
have highlighted the shortcomings in identification of indicators and targets and in reporting on
the contribution of forests and other development sectors to the SDGs. These shortcomings justify
the need in the countries of the subregion for capacity building in proper use of the Subregional
Guidelines for monitoring forest contribution to the SDGs. This capacity-building work can be
carried out once the Subregional Guidelines are adopted by the COMIFAC Council of Ministers.
18 A joint publication of the African Union, the Economic Commission for Africa, the African Development Bank and the United Nations
Development Programme.

c) Improve institutional coordination

Because forest-related SDGs cut across several development sectors that fall under the responsibility
of several government ministries, the production of voluntary national reports on forest contribution
to the SDGs requires good coordination between the different sectors involved. Coordination via
the establishment of an inter-sector platform will allow contribution by the various sectors to the
SDGs to be better taken into account in the national reports. Such a platform can be facilitated by
a government ministry in charge of planning or development issues. Lack of good institutional
coordination leads to the production of national reports that do not necessarily reflect all the
contributions of the different sectors to the SDGs. Furthermore, institutional coordination will make
it possible to better harmonize approaches to data collection, analysis and monitoring of forest
contribution to the SDGs in national reports and thereby facilitate comparisons between countries.
To achieve this, strategic policy guidelines for sectoral ministries are crucial for guiding the choices
of the ministries in charge of institutional coordination, so that they will not be challenged by other
ministries.
d) Strengthen the capacities in the assessment of forest ecosystem

services, among technical staff in the ministries responsible for
forests and the environment
The sectoral ministries in charge of forests and the environment in the countries of the subregion lack
expertise in assessing forest ecosystem services. However, this expertise is essential for assessing
the range of the contributions of forests and their ecosystem services to the SDGs. Capacity building
in this area of expertise will equip the technical staff of these ministries to better assess forest
contributions to the SDGs in Central Africa and to produce national reports that will better reflect
these contributions.
e) Strengthen the capacities of OFAC

OFAC is already compiling information to help monitor the implementation of the COMIFAC
Convergence Plan. It would be useful to strengthen OFAC’s capacities so that it can process data on
the SDGs in addition to the data which the countries are collecting to inform the indicators of the
COMIFAC Convergence Plan that OFAC is already processing.
Conclusions
Our research shows that the COMIFAC Convergence Plan can serve as a frame of reference for
assessing the contribution of Central African forests to the SDGs. It highlights fields of action
common between the Convergence Plan and the SDGs.
The exercise of aligning the COMIFAC Convergence Plan with the SDGs has once again highlighted
the multiple functions performed by the forests of the Congo Basin and the many services they
provide to humans and the planet.
Our research also shows that the range of forest contributions to the SDGs has not been sufficiently
understood or reflected in the voluntary national reports produced by the countries of the subregion.
Indeed, few of the countries provided detailed information on forest contribution to the SDGs, and
the national voluntary reports which were analysed did not highlight forest contribution to SDGs

Chapter 6
other than SDG 15 and SDG 13. In fact, nearly all the countries tracked forest contribution only to
these 2 SDGs out of the 10 prioritized SDGs.
The multifunctional approach employed by COMIFAC in monitoring forest contribution to the SDGs
goes beyond just an environmental function. This approach pays as much attention to the economic
and social functions of forests as to their environmental function. The multifunctional approach
should be used more, in order to identify the range of services that forest ecosystems provide to
achieve the SDGs.
Our research also explored options for enhancing the monitoring of forest contribution to the SDGs
and has made recommendations for improving the monitoring of forest contribution.
As for future prospects, the production of the Subregional Guidelines for monitoring forest
contribution to the SDGs in the COMIFAC countries is a significant step towards improving the
reporting of forest contribution to the SDGs. Once these Guidelines are adopted by the COMIFAC
Council of Ministers, they can be adopted internally by the countries. To this end, the capacities
of the countries of the subregion should be strengthened, in order to help them obtain better
ownership and implementation of the principles, guidelines and priority actions needed to improve
their reporting on the SDGs and on forest contributions to the latter.

Annex
Annex 6.1: Subregional package of prioritized targets to enhance forest contribution to
the SDGs
SDGs TARGETS
SDG 1. No poverty 1.1 By 2030, completely eradicate extreme poverty for all people everywhere.
1.4 By 2030, ensure that all men and women, in particular the poor and the vulnerable, have
equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to basic services, ownership and control
over land and other forms of property, inheritance, natural resources, appropriate new
technology and financial services, including microfinance.
SDG 2. Zero hunger 2.1 By 2030, end hunger and ensure access by all people, in particular the poor and people in
vulnerable situations, including infants, to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round.
2.3 By 2030, double the agricultural productivity and incomes of small-scale food producers,
in particular women, indigenous peoples, family farmers, pastoralists and fishers, including
through secure and equal access to land, other productive resources and inputs, knowledge,
financial services, markets and opportunities for value addition and non-farm employment.
2.5 By 2020, maintain the genetic diversity of seeds, cultivated plants and farmed and
domesticated animals and their related wild species, including through soundly managed
and diversified seed and plant banks at the national, regional and international levels, and
promote access to and fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of
genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge, as internationally agreed.
SDG 5. Gender 5.5 Ensure women’s full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership at
equality all levels of decision-making in political, economic and public life.
5.a. Undertake reforms to give women equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to
ownership and control over land and other forms of property, financial services, inheritance
and natural resources, in accordance with national laws.
SDG 6. Clean water 6.6 By 2020, protect and restore water-related ecosystems, including mountains, forests,
and sanitation wetlands, rivers, aquifers and lakes.
SDG 7. Clean and 7.1 By 2030, ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all.
affordable energy
7.2 By 2030, increase substantially the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix.
SDG 8. Decent 8.3 Promote development-oriented policies that support productive activities, decent job
work and economic creation, entrepreneurship, creativity and innovation, and encourage the formalization
growth and growth of micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises, including through access to
financial services.
8.7 Take immediate and effective measures to eradicate forced labour, end modern slavery
and human trafficking and secure the prohibition and elimination of the worst forms of child
labour, including recruitment and use of child soldiers, and by 2025 end child labour in all
its forms.
8.9 By 2030, devise and implement policies to promote sustainable tourism that creates jobs
and promotes local culture and products.
SDG 12. 12.2 By 2030, achieve sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources.
Responsible
consumption and 12.5 By 2030, substantially reduce waste generation through prevention, reduction, recycling
production and reuse.
12.7 Promote public procurement practices that are sustainable, in accordance with national
policies and priorities.

Chapter 6
SDGs TARGETS
SDG 13. Measures 13.1 Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural
to combat climate disasters in all countries.
change
13.2 Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning.
13.3 Improve education, awareness-raising and human and institutional capacity on climate
change mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction and early warning.
SDG 15. Life on earth 15.1 By 2020, ensure the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and
inland freshwater ecosystems and their services, in particular forests, wetlands, mountains
and drylands, in line with obligations under international agreements.
15.2 By 2020, promote the implementation of sustainable management of all types of forests,
halt deforestation, restore degraded forests and substantially increase afforestation and
reforestation globally.
15.3 By 2030, combat desertification, restore degraded land and soil, including land affected
by desertification, drought and floods, and strive to achieve a land degradation-neutral
world.
15.5 Take urgent and significant action to reduce the degradation of natural habitats, halt the
loss of biodiversity and, by 2020, protect and prevent the extinction of threatened species.
15.6 Promote fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilization of genetic
resources and promote appropriate access to such resources, as internationally agreed.
15.7 Take urgent action to end poaching and trafficking of protected species of flora and fauna
and address both demand and supply of illegal wildlife products.
15.8 By 2020, introduce measures to prevent the introduction and significantly reduce the
impact of invasive alien species on land and water ecosystems and control or eradicate the
priority species.
15.9 By 2020, integrate ecosystem and biodiversity values into national and local planning,
development processes, poverty reduction strategies and accounts.
15.a Mobilize and significantly increase financial resources from all sources to conserve and
sustainably use biodiversity and ecosystems.
SDG 16. Peace, 16.5 Substantially reduce corruption and bribery in all their forms.
justice and strong
institutions
16.7 Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all
levels.
16.b Promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws and policies for sustainable development.

CHAPTER 7
Central African countries’

international commitments on
climate change
Coordinator: Denis Jean Sonwa1
Authors: Richard Sufo Kankeu,2 Gervais Itsoua Madzous,3 Eugene Loh Chia,4,5
Vincent Medjibe,6 Christine Langevin,7 Leslie Ouarzazi,7 Sophia Carodenuto,8
Wilfran Moufouma-Okia,9 Philippe Guizol,10 Michel Ndjatsana,3 Jérôme Ebuy,11
Nadji Tellro Wai,12 Moise Tsayem Demaze,2 Felicien Kengoum,13 Chrislain Eric
Kenfack,14 Youssoufa Bele,15 Kalame Fobissie,16,5 Martial Gapia,17 and Narcisse
Landry Kevis Kossi17
1
CIFOR-Cameroun, 2Le Mans University, France, 3Central African Forest Commission (COMIFAC),
4
University of Pretoria, South Africa, 5FOKABS, Canada, 6National Agency for National Parks
(ANPN), Gabon, 7United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), New York, 8University of
Victoria, Canada, 9World Meteorological Organization (WMO), Geneva, 10Agricultural Research
Centre for International Development (CIRAD), 11University of Kisangani (UNIKIS), Democratic
Republic of the Congo, 12Ministry of the Environment, Fisheries and Sustainable Development,
Chad, 13BrightWay Consult, Cameroon, 14Consultant from Canada, 15Consultant from Canada,
16
University of Ottawa, 17University of Bangui, Central African Republic
Photo by Olivier Girard/CIFOR

Chapter 7
Introduction
Article 4 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC) sets out the main commitments of the Parties,
“taking into account their common but differentiated responsibilities
and their specific national and regional development priorities,
objectives and circumstances”. As Central African countries work
to revise their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under
the Paris Agreement and strengthen their efforts to meet their
international climate change commitments, it is important that
we take stock of the current situation.
This chapter presents all these commitments and provides an overview of how well Central African
countries have upheld their commitments under the UNFCCC and on combating climate change
more generally. These commitments include binding commitments (e.g. National Communications,
Biennial Update Reports (BURs) and NDCs) on the one hand and voluntary commitments on the
other (e.g. National Action Plans for Adaptation to Climate Change (NAPAs), REDD+, Nationally
Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs), Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF), UN-REDD,
Central African Forest Initiative (CAFI), AFR100 Initiative, Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and
Trade (FLEGT), Forest Investment Programme (FIP), and high forest/low deforestation (HLFD)).
We will conclude by identifying lessons learned and the outlook for these commitments.
7.1 Binding commitments within

the framework of the UNFCCC
7.1.1 Obligations under the UNFCCC
National Communications and Biennial Update Reports

Under Article 4 of the UNFCCC, National Communications from countries must provide up-to-date
information on:
• Greenhouse gas inventories;
• Adaptation;
• Mitigation measures and their effects;
• Challenges and gaps;
• Support needed and received, as well as other information relevant to the achievement of the
Convention’s objectives.

Central African countries’ international
commitments on climate change
Article 12 of the UNFCCC provides that developing country parties to the UNFCCC must submit
their first communications within three years of the entry into force of the Convention for them
or of the availability of financial resources. In 2010, the 16th Conference of the Parties (COP16)
determined that National Communications must be submitted every four years in line with the
revised guide on preparing the National Communications of non-Annex I Parties. Biennial Update
Reports must be submitted every 2 years and must update the information provided in the National
Communications, in particular with regard to national greenhouse gas inventories, mitigation
actions, challenges and gaps, including support required and received, based on the biennial update
reporting guidelines.
The main obligation of Central African countries not listed under Annex I to the UNFCCC is to
submit a National Communication. Below, we examine the extent to which each country has
fulfilled this obligation.
Figure 7.1 shows that all Central African countries have submitted their first National Communication
and that the majority of countries did so on average 5 years after the UNFCCC entered into force
for them. A second National Communication was submitted by nine out of the ten countries, an
average of 9 years after the submission of their first communication. Four countries (Burundi,
Rwanda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Sao Tome and Principe) have already
submitted their third National Communication, on average 6 years after the submission of their
second. Therefore, every Central African country party to the UNFCCC except Equatorial Guinea has
submitted at least two National Communications. There is a large gap, of close to a decade, between
the submission of countries’ first and second communications, mainly due to administrative delays
and a lack of technical capacity. The gap between the submission of their second and third National
Communications is, however, shorter, because teams have become more familiar with the guidelines
and technical capacity has improved over time.
Figure 7.1: Submission of National Communications by Central African countries

Legend: CNI: First National Communication; SCN: Second National Communication; TCN: Third National Communication

Chapter 7
Even so, Central African countries are lagging behind. To date, 85 non-Annex 1 Parties have submitted
their third National Communication, 12 have submitted their fourth and one has submitted its sixth.
Table 7.1 details the date that each Central African country reached each UNFCCC National
Communication milestone.
Only Rwanda has submitted a Biennial Update Report to date, even though – according to the
decisions adopted at the 17th Conference of the Parties (COP17) held in 2011 – the first reports were
expected by 31 December 2014. This deadline is, naturally, dependent on national capacity and how
much support countries have been provided to prepare the reports. Globally, 64 non-Annex 1 Parties
have submitted their first Biennial Update Report and 5 have submitted their fourth.
Table 7.1: National Communications and Biennial Update Reports under the
UNFCCC: Status of Central African countries’ submissions
Date of Years National Year Biennial Update Report

No. Country
ratification Communications submitted submitted
1 Burundi 1997 First: 2001 0

Second: 2010
Third: 2019
2 Cameroon 1994 First: 2005 0
Second: 2016
Third:
3 Republic of the 1996 First: 2001 0
Congo Second: 2009
Third:
4 Gabon 1998 First: 2004 0
Second: 2011
5 Equatorial 2000 First: 2019 0
Guinea Second:
Third:
6 Central African 1995 First: 2003 0
Republic Second: 2015
Third:
7 DRC 1995 First: 2000 0
Second: 2009
Third: 2015
8 Rwanda 1998 First: 2005 December 2021
Second: 2012
Third: 2018
9 Sao Tome and 1999 First: 2005 0
Principe Second: 2012
Third: 2019
10 Chad 1993 First: 2001 The process has started, but has
Second: 2012 been marred by irregularities that
Third: remain to be resolved.
The process has started, but has
been marred by irregularities that
remain to be resolved.
Source: Data compiled from countries’ first, second and third National Communications.

Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs)

At COP17 (Durban, South Africa), the Parties to the UNFCCC recognized the need for all countries
to take urgent action to address the serious and potentially irreversible threat of climate change.
Following COP17, steps were taken to prepare a post-2020 agreement under the Convention,
another legal instrument or legally-binding text agreed by and applicable to all parties, as described
in Decision 1/CP.17 and recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
to keep the increase in global average temperature below 2°C or 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. In
this spirit, 2 years later at COP19 (Warsaw, Poland) the Parties were invited to begin or step up the
preparation of their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions. These contributions were then
communicated the day before COP21, held in Paris, and would become the Nationally Determined
Contributions (NDCs) of each party to the Paris Agreement once they had deposited their ratification
instrument.
All Central African countries submitted their first NDCs under the Paris Agreement in accordance
with this process (see Table 7.2). A regional plan of action for the implementation of the Paris
Agreement was prepared by COMIFAC and approved by an extraordinary session of its Council of
Ministers in May 2016. Unfortunately, this plan has not yet been implemented.
Table 7.2: Summary of Nationally Determined Contributions submitted by Central African

countries in 2015 and date of submission of updates
Emissions Date of
reduction Mitigation Adaptation Outlook, submission
No. Country commitment (focus and (focus and specific of improved
(percentage by priority sectors) priority sectors) measures versions of
2030) first NDCs
1 Burundi Between Energy, forestry, Water, energy, Continuation of 5 October 2021

3 percent agriculture, forestry, the traditional
(unconditional technology agriculture, development
reduction) and transfer livestock model, greener
20 percent measures subject
(conditional to external
reduction) assistance,
valuation of
ecosystem
services,
request for
compensation
2 Cameroon 32 percent Sectoral policies National Continuation of 11 October 2021
(by 2035) subject (forestry, resilience plan the traditional
to international agriculture, (agriculture, development
funding energy), livestock, model, greener
technology fisheries, land use, measures subject
transfer, energy, industry, to external
agriculture, forestry, water, assistance,
fisheries, forestry, health, social) reducing carbon
energy, waste footprint
without slowing
down economic
growth
Continued on the next page

Chapter 7

Emissions Date of
2030) first NDCs
3 Republic of Between 48 Energy, industrial Risk management, Continuation of 2 August 2021

the Congo percent (by 2025) processes and protection the traditional
and 55 percent waste treatment, of assets and development
(by 2035) with mining and production model, greener
conditions cement systems, measures subject
production, technology to external
agriculture and transfer assistance. Must
livestock, forestry not jeopardize
and land use socioeconomic
development,
“green economy”
4 Gabon Between 50 Improving the National strategy Continuation of Not yet
percent (by 2025) energy efficiency focused on coastal the traditional submitted
and 65 percent of the economy, areas development
controlling model, greener
emissions within measures subject
the context of to external
development assistance
5 Equatorial Between Forestry, National plan Continuation of Not yet
Guinea 20 percent agriculture, targeting the traditional submitted
(unconditional land use, waste, planning policies development
reduction) and energy, transport and processes, model, greener
50 percent risk reduction, measures subject
(conditional technical capacity to external
reduction) building assistance,
“green
economy”,
economic
diversification,
REDD+
6 CAR Between 5 Reducing Agriculture, Continuation of 24 January 2022
percent (by vulnerability health, the traditional
2030) and 25 and increasing infrastructure, development
percent (by resilience and forestry, energy, model, greener
2050) with sustainable natural resources, measures subject
conditions management waste, water to external
(agriculture, assistance
livestock, forestry, (low-carbon
land use, natural development)
resources, waste,
planning, health)
7 DRC 17 percent Agriculture, National Continuation of 28 December
(conditional forestry, energy programme of the traditional 2021
reduction) action to secure development
livelihoods, model, greener
rational resource measures subject
management, to external
coastal zones assistance
8 Rwanda Reducing Reducing Continuation of 20 May 2020
emissions vulnerability the traditional
with external and increasing development
assistance. resilience and model, greener
Renewable sustainable measures subject
energy, transport, management. to external
industry, waste, Agriculture, assistance: green
forestry forestry, tourism, growth, low-
water, land use carbon economy,
green industries


Emissions Date of
2030) first NDCs
9 Sao Tome and 24 percent Renewable Reducing Continuation of 30 July 2021

Principe with external energy, all sectors vulnerability the traditional
assistance of the economy and fragility and development
achieving resilient model, greener
development. measures subject
Agriculture, to external
livestock, forestry, assistance.
soil, water, energy, Carbon market
coasts, health,
education
10 Chad Between Technology National plan Continuation of 19 October 2021
18.2 percent transfer. targeting the traditional
(unconditional Energy, priority areas development
reduction) agriculture, and vulnerable model, greener
and 71 percent livestock, land sectors (water, measures subject
(conditional use, forestry, agriculture, to external
reduction) waste. agroforestry, assistance.
livestock and Technical needs
fisheries) and recourse
to the Clean
Development
Mechanism
(CDM) and
REDD+
Source: https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/NDCStaging/Pages/All.aspx
Altogether Central African countries’ commitments shown in Table 7.2 should deliver a reduction of
455.4 MtCO2e (conditional and unconditional) and represent funding needs of USD 117,882 billion
for the commitment period to 2030 in most cases (Fobissie et al. 2016; Eba’a et al. 2018). A recent
study has shown that the implementation of these commitments requires greater coordination
between sectors within countries (Eba’a et al. 2018).
Under Article 4(2) and (9) of the Paris Agreement, the Parties must submit an NDC every five years.
Countries’ commitments and their progress towards achieving their NDCs should grow in ambition.
Five years after the adoption and ratification of the Paris Agreement by all Central African countries,
they embarked on the process of revising their NDCs or preparing new ones for submission to the
UNFCCC Secretariat by the end of July 2021. Rwanda and Sao Tome and Principe met this deadline. In
March 2022, the UNFCCC website showed that eight countries had submitted an updated NDC (see
Table 7.2). Gabon and Equatorial Guinea had not yet done so. These updated NDCs were submitted
in preparation for COP26 in Glasgow, Scotland. These commitments will need to be monitored
closely and a new regional plan of action for the implementation of the Paris Agreement in Central
Africa should be drawn up following the submission of the revised or updated NDCs.

Chapter 7
7.1.2 Voluntary commitments within the framework of

the UNFCCC
Adaptation-related commitments (NAPAs and NAPs)

In accordance with Article 4.9 of the UNFCCC, the Conference of the Parties (COP) drew up a
programme of work in 2001 to support least developed countries (LDCs) to respond to the challenges
climate change poses for them due to their vulnerability. This programme of work incorporates,
among other things, countries’ National Action Plans for Adaptation to Climate Change (NAPAs),
which seek to identify the urgent and immediate needs of LDCs for adapting to current climate
change-related threats. To meet these needs, these countries aim to increase their resilience and their
capacity to adapt to climate vulnerability, current extreme climate events and future climate change.
In 2010, the National Adaptation Plan (NAP) process was launched under the Cancun Adaptation
Framework, adopted at COP16. This process was intended to support the transition from one-off
project-based interventions focused on short-term needs to more strategic approaches. It aimed to
help countries put adaptation at the heart of their decision-making around development to ensure
it would not be treated as an isolated environmental issue.
The Central African LDCs engaged willingly in the voluntary process of drawing up NAPAs (see
Table 7.3). All countries in the subregion also recognized the need to prepare NAPs, to identify and
respond to medium and long-term adaptation needs.
The NAPAs and NAPs assessed COMIFAC member countries’ level of vulnerability for each climate-
sensitive sector and resource. Priority activities were identified to enable each country to improve
its resilience. In LDCs, NAPAs act as a focal point for the preparation of NAPs. This process is already
under way in some countries, such as CAR. Cameroon, on the other hand, which is not an LDC,
submitted its NAP directly. Six of the ten Central African LDCs (Burundi, Rwanda, CAR, DRC,
Sao Tome and Principe, and Chad) have upheld their commitments and submitted NAPAs to the
UNFCCC. These documents outline their urgent and immediate needs, which, if addressed, will
enable them to respond to climate change. Equatorial Guinea has also drawn up a NAPA. Three
countries (Cameroon, CAR and Chad) have a National Adaptation Plan (NAP), of which two (CAR
and Chad) had first drawn up a NAPA. Gabon and the Republic of the Congo, however, have not yet
submitted their NAPs to the UNFCCC.
To support countries to access climate finance, as part of its Readiness scheme, the Green Climate
Fund has made a funding envelope of USD 3 million available to each developing country to help
them prepare their NAPs. COMIFAC has worked with some countries in the subregion, including
CAR and Equatorial Guinea, to prepare project documents for the mobilization of these funds. It
would be worth examining how much funding has been mobilized for NAPs and the challenges
countries face in this regard.

Table 7.3: Policy documents on adaptation under the UNFCCC: Status of Central African countries’ submissions
Year National Action
Year National Adaptation Plan Number of priority projects submitted under the
No. Country Plan for Adaptation Support under the NAP
(NAP) submitted NAPA and budgets
(NAPA) submitted
1 Burundi February 2007 - 12 projects

Urgent and immediate needs estimated at USD 7,294,000
when the NAPA was submitted in February 2007
2 Cameroon Non-least developed 26 October 2015 Needs for five cross-cutting
country (non-LDC) projects estimated at USD
21,547,140, 15 sectoral projects at
USD 100,931,340.
3 Republic of the Non-LDC -
Congo
4 Gabon Non-LDC -
5 Equatorial January 2013 - Urgent and immediate needs estimated at

Guinea USD 76,934 when the NAPA was submitted in January 2013
6 CAR June 2008 February 2022 Ten projects Five projects in the first
Urgent and immediate needs estimated at adaptation plan, not budgeted
USD 3,000,000 when the NAPA was submitted in June 2008
7 DRC September 2006 - Three projects
Urgent and immediate needs estimated at
USD 16,475,654 when the NAPA was submitted in September
2006
8 Rwanda May 2007 - Seven projects
Urgent and immediate needs estimated at USD 8,110,000
when the NAPA was submitted in May 2007
9 Sao Tome and November 2007 - 22 projects

Principe Urgent and immediate needs estimated at USD 11,239,500
when the NAPA was submitted in November 2007
10 Chad February 2010 October 2021, date of submission of Ten projects with needs of USD 14,000,000 when the NAPA
Chad’s first NAP was submitted in February 2010

Sources: https://unfccc.int/files/cooperation_support/least_developed_countries_portal/napa_project_database/application/pdf/napa_index_by_country.pdf
https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/NAPC/Pages/national-adaptation-plans.aspx
Chapter 7
Mitigation-related commitments (NAMAs and REDD+)

While developing countries were not required to reduce their emissions under the Kyoto Protocol,
the Bali Action Plan, adopted at COP13 in 2007, marked a decisive turning point. It invited developing
countries to engage in sector-specific emissions reduction efforts and pledged substantial support
to those who committed to do so. These provisions were strengthened and clarified at COP15, 16
and 17.
Nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs) are measures implemented by developing

country governments to reduce their emissions. They are submitted to the UNFCCC, as described
in Decision 1/CP.16, paragraph 50, and aim to help countries transition from the traditional high-
emissions model to a low-carbon model.
Pursuant to Decision 4/CP.15, countries must prepare four key documents to ensure their readiness
for the REDD+ process: a national forest monitoring system (FMS); a forest reference (emission)
level (FREL/FRL); safeguards and a safeguards information system (SIS); and national strategies
and/or action plans for REDD+. Countries may also deliver a communication plan for their REDD+
activities. Table 7.4 shows the progress countries have made on their commitments in this regard
(data collection: 2021).
Table 7.4: Climate change mitigation: Central African countries’ response

REDD+ (four documents and date)
Nationally https://redd.unfccc.int/fact-sheets/
Appro- forest-reference-emission-levels.html Comments
priate (countries that have submitted a forest
Mitigation reference (emission) level (FREL))
Actions
NFM
(NAMAs)
No. Country inc.
(docu- National
moni- Safe-
ments strategy Commu- https://redd.unfccc.
toring, FREL/ guards
submitted or action nication int/fact-sheets/un-
report- FRL informa-
to the UN- plan, year strategy fccc-documents-rele-
ing year tion sys-
FCCC) submit- and plan vant-for-redd.html
and tem (SIS)
ted
verifi-
cation
1 Burundi 2019
2 Cameroon 8 June 2010 a
2018 2014 2018 2020 2016 National reference
emissions level to be
established. Not yet
submitted to the UNFCCC
https://unfccc.int/
files/meetings/
cop_15/copenhagen_
accord/application/
pdf/cameroon_
cphaccordapp2.pdf
3 Republic of 3 February 2018 2016 2016 2013 http://cog.registreredd.
the Congo 2010b org/outils-REDD/SIS-
Redd?l=fr
https://unfccc.int/
files/meetings/cop_15/
copenhagen_accord/
application/pdf/
congocphaccord.pdf


REDD+ (four documents and date)
Nationally https://redd.unfccc.int/fact-sheets/
Appro- forest-reference-emission-levels.html Comments
priate (countries that have submitted a forest
Mitigation reference (emission) level (FREL))
Actions
NFM
(NAMAs)
No. Country inc.
(docu- National
moni- Safe-
ments strategy Commu- https://redd.unfccc.
toring, FREL/ guards
submitted or action nication int/fact-sheets/un-
report- FRL informa-
to the UN- plan, year strategy fccc-documents-rele-
ing year tion sys-
FCCC) submit- and plan vant-for-redd.html
and tem (SIS)
ted
verifi-
cation
4 Gabon 24 February 2021 2021 https://redd.unfccc.

2010c int/submissions.
html?country=gab
FREL/FRL under review by
the UNFCCC assessment
team
https://unfccc.int/
files/meetings/cop_15/
copenhagen_accord/
application/pdf/
gaboncphaccord_app2.pdf
5 Equatorial 2020 2020
Guinea
6 CARd 1 March 2010 2014 https://unfccc.int/files/
meetings/cop_15/copen-
hagen_accord/applica-
tion/pdf/centralafricanre-
public_cphaccord_app2.
pdf
7 DRC 30 January 2012 2019 January 2013 http://www.rdc-snsf.org/
2010 2018
(Copenhagen
Accord
declaration)
8 Rwanda 2012 https://unfccc.int/docu-
ments?f%5B0%5D=coun-
try%3A1436
9 Sao Tome In progress http://www.
and fao.org/3/a-ax427f.pdf
Principe
10 Chad 25 August https://unfccc.int/
2010e files/meetings/cop_15/
copenhagen_accord/
application/pdf/
chadcphaccord_app2.pdf
a https://unfccc.int/files/meetings/cop_15/copenhagen_accord/application/pdf/cameroon_cphaccordapp2.pdf
b https://unfccc.int/files/meetings/cop_15/copenhagen_accord/application/pdf/congocphaccord.pdf
c https://unfccc.int/files/meetings/cop_15/copenhagen_accord/application/pdf/gaboncphaccord_app2.pdf
d https://unfccc.int/files/meetings/cop_15/copenhagen_accord/application/pdf/centralafricanrepublic_cphaccord_app2.pdf
e https://unfccc.int/files/meetings/cop_15/copenhagen_accord/application/pdf/chadcphaccord_app2.pdf

Chapter 7
In short, countries are at different stages of submitting documents on their emissions reductions.
Even those forested countries that are ‘undertaking’ the REDD+ process are not up to date with the
documentation they need to submit to the UNFCCC Secretariat. The COMIFAC PREREDD 2 project
should help all countries in the subregion fulfil the requirements of the Warsaw Framework for
REDD+. This project is being developed by COMIFAC for submission to the Green Climate Fund
with the support of the United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF) and UNDP.
Commitments related to both adaptation and mitigation

Green Climate Fund (GCF) commitments
The GCF is a global fund designed to help developing countries reduce their greenhouse gas
emissions and increase their capacity to respond to climate change. It was set up by the UNFCCC in
2010. It focuses on the needs of countries that are highly vulnerable to the effects of climate change,
in particular LDCs, Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and African countries. Five Central African
countries have submitted their projects to the GCF; the other five are still at the project preparation
stage (see Table 7.5).
Table 7.5: Green Climate Fund (GCF) and Climate Technology Centre and Network (CTCN)
policy documents within the framework of the UNFCCC: Status of Central African
countries’ submissions, December 2020
GCF CTCN
Number Total GCF Number of Number of

No. Country Grant Amount
of funding (USD preparation requests for
amount transferred
projects million) activities technical
(USD) (USD)
assistance
1 Burundi 1 9.1 1 2 50,000 -

50,000
2 Cameroon 3 25.5 4 1 9,982,000 -
3 Republic of the 1 29 1 - - -
Congo
4 Gabon 2 - 5 - - -
5 Equatorial - - 3 - - -
Guinea
6 CAR - - 2 - - -
7 DRC 2 21.0 5 1 9,999,909 1,996,677
8 Rwanda 3 45.3 4 2 25,000 9,969,619
9,969,619
9 Sao Tome and - - 2 - -
Principe
10 Chad 1 7.3 3 1 47,449 -
Total
Source: https://www.ctc-n.org/ www.ctc-n.org (accessed 2 March 2022)

Cameroon and Rwanda have the most projects, more than DRC, Burundi and Chad, and far more
funding has been allocated to Rwanda than Cameroon and DRC. All countries are actively engaging
in preparatory activities. Cameroon and Rwanda have the same number of GCF activities, followed
by Gabon and DRC, while Burundi and Rwanda rank first ahead of Cameroon, DRC and Chad for the
number of requests for technical assistance (CTCN). Three countries in the subregion must make a
concerted effort to catch up: Equatorial Guinea, CAR and Sao Tome and Principe.
Climate Technology Centre and Network (CTCN) commitments
The CTCN is mandated by the UNFCCC to assist developing country Parties and to disseminate
environmentally sound technologies. These technologies should help address climate-related
challenges, and promote low-carbon and climate-resilient development. Countries must nominate
a Designated National Entity (DNE) that will be responsible for preparing requests for climate
technology-related technical assistance for submission to the CTCN. COMIFAC has supported all
Central African countries to nominate their DNEs and four countries in the subregion to prepare
their Technology Needs Assessments (TNAs). COMIFAC, in partnership with the CTCN, organized
an awareness-raising workshop in Douala on in September 2019 on the opportunities that the CTCN
offers to private sector actors and development banks in West and Central Africa.
The countries mentioned above (see Table 7.5) also submitted projects to the CTCN requesting
grant funding for their planned activities. Only Rwanda has received the full grant expected for
one of its activities, while DRC has so far received only around 20 percent of the expected grant for
its project activity. In the whole subregion, only Rwanda and Burundi have two activities. Rwanda
provides technical assistance for gender studies and is also engaged in reducing climate change-
related vulnerability in the north-west of the country through community-based adaptation
efforts. Burundi and Chad are prioritizing South-South cooperation, while Cameroon is seeking to
increase the resilience of local communities to climate change through youth entrepreneurship and
the integrated management of natural resources. DRC, on the other hand, plans to strengthen the
adaptive capacity of vulnerable communities living in the Congo Basin.
Table 7.6: Number of lead authors of the sixth IPCC assessment cycle reports (AR6):
Status of Central African countries
Congo Basin
IPCC reports Africa All report authors
Men Women
Working Group 1 20 1 0 235

Global warming of 1.5°C 12 1 0 91
Climate change and land 18 3 0 107
Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere
5 0 0 103
in a Changing Climate
Total* 4 0 743**
*The total is not necessarily the sum of the rows, as several authors have contributed to several IPCC reports.
**For the Sixth Assessment Report, 743 experts were selected as coordinating lead authors, lead authors or reviewers out of the
2,827 individuals put forward. The number of authors may increase or decrease slightly during an assessment due, for example, to
the addition of an author with complementary expertise or to the resignation of another for health reasons or due to unavailability
(https: /www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2021/07/AR6_FS_select.pdf, accessed 15 February 2022)

Chapter 7
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) commitments
The IPCC is an intergovernmental body established in 1988 to advance global scientific, technical
and socioeconomic knowledge on climate change, its causes and potential impacts, and strategies
for combating it. The IPCC began its sixth assessment cycle in 2016. Countries are invited to
nominate an IPCC Focal Point and make their network of scientists and experts available to the
assessment process (drafting, reviewing and validation). Few experts from the Congo Basin have
been nominated and appointed to IPCC reporting teams. Indeed, only four experts from the region
are included in the sixth IPCC assessment cycle (see Table 7.6), none of whom are women.
7.2 Voluntary commitments or

participation in related structural initiatives
7.2.1 Forest Carbon Partnership Facility
Launched in 2008, the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) is a global partnership of
governments, businesses, civil society and indigenous peoples’ organizations centred around
REDD+1. This initiative enables countries to effectively coordinate their REDD+ activities. The FCPF
works with 47 developing countries: 18 from Africa, 11 from Asia and 18 from Latin America and the
Caribbean. It supports the REDD+ process through two separate, but complementary, funds:2
• The FCPF Readiness Fund, which helps countries lay the foundations for the implementation
of REDD+;
• The FCPF Carbon Fund, which is piloting performance-based payments. These payments
are made to countries that are working to prepare for and implement REDD+, and that have
achieved verifiable emissions reductions in their forestry sector and more broadly in relation
to land use.
In Central Africa, of the ten COMIFAC Member States, five have fully committed to the Readiness
Fund process and three have progressed further to engage with the Carbon Fund (see Table 7.7).
Both Cameroon and the Republic of the Congo have expressed their intention to receive payments
from the Carbon Fund for measurable emissions reductions in the forestry and other land-intensive
sectors. This follows the submission of their Emission Reductions Program Idea Note (ER-PIN).
The Republic of the Congo has made more progress than Cameroon, given that it has submitted
its ERPD. In addition to submitting its Letter of Intent, DRC has signed an ERPA. Countries have
mobilized financial resources for the initiative at different levels and at different times. However,
despite these differences, they have a common interest in completing their REDD+ preparations and
reaping the benefits of carbon emissions reductions and non-carbon benefits through performance-
based payments.
1 https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org
2 https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org

Table 7.7: FCPF commitments: Status of Central African countries
Readiness Emission Reductions Payment
Readiness Total grants
Plan Idea Agreements (ERPA)
No. Country Preparation Strategy received for Comments
Note
Plan (R-PP) Area, tCO2 and expected amount preparation (USD)
(R-PIN)
1 Burundi* - Yes - - - -
2 Cameroon Yes Yes Yes 2019 2010: USD 200,000 Letter of Intent signed in 2016 and preparation of an
Area: 9.34 million ha 2012: USD 3,600,000 Emission Reductions Program Document (ERPD)
Carbon: 11,949,000 tCO2 for strategy planned with USD 650,000 of assistance
preparation
3 Republic of Yes Yes Yes 2018 2009: USD 200,000 Letter of Intent signed, ERPD drawn up with USD
the Congo Area: 12.35 million ha 2012: USD 3,400,000 650,000 of assistance and ERPD contract signed for
Carbon: 11,700,000 tCO2 the Sangha and Likouala area
2015: USD 5,200,000
Tranche A: USD 41,795,000
Tranche B: USD 42,795,000
Each tranche generates 8,359,000 certified
emissions reduction (CER) credits
4 Gabon Yes Yes No Area: 15.09 million ha 2019: USD Gabon is currently the last Central African country
1,946,122.50 to engage in the REDD+ process. Revised R-PP
submitted to FCPF and preparation of ERPA in
progress
(R-PP Gabon, July 2017)
5 Equatorial - Yes Yes - - -
Guinea*
6 CAR Yes Yes No -0 2017: USD 3,600,000 The development of the REDD+ strategy is under
way
7 DRC Yes Yes Yes 2009: USD 200,000 DRC received USD 650,000 of assistance for
2018 2010: USD 3,400,000 the preparation of its ERPD. ERPD signed. The
Area: 12.8 million ha emissions reductions programme only covers the
2012: USD 200,000 province of Maï-Ndombe.
Carbon: 10,000,000 tCO2
5 million received from additional FCPF funds
8 Rwanda* - Yes - - - -
9 Sao Tome and
- Yes - - - -
Principe*
10 Chad* - Yes - - - -
* Countries that have not committed to the FCPF initiative.

Source: https://forestcarbonpartnership.org/countries
Chapter 7
7.2.2 UN-REDD
The UN-REDD Programme is the United Nations Collaborative Programme on Emissions from
Deforestation and Forest Degradation. It supports national REDD+ processes and promotes the
informed and meaningful involvement of all stakeholders, including indigenous peoples and
forest-dependent communities, in the implementation of REDD+3. It was launched in 2008 and
benefits from the technical expertise of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
(FAO), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP).
In Central Africa, seven countries (Cameroon, CAR, Chad, DRC, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon and the
Republic of the Congo) have signed up to this partnership process and some have received targeted
support (see Table 7.8).
Table 7.8: UN-REDD commitments: Status of Central African countries

Amount
No. Country Type of support Expected country commitments Comments
(USD)
1 Burundi - - -
2 Cameroon National capacity- 35,800 • Awareness-raising among
building on relevant stakeholders on the links
stakeholder between REDD+ and FLEGT and
participation in encouraging them to coordinate
forest governance the processes;
– FLEGT interface, • Facilitating regular information
REDD+ sharing between the REDD+
and FLEGT processes and
stakeholders.
3 Republic of the Programme 4,000,000 • The national REDD+ process Funding for
Congo to support the is well managed and fully 2012–2015
REDD+ process in participatory.
the Republic of the • The country is ready for the
Congo implementation of REDD+
structural and investment
reforms, with safeguards taken
into account.
• A comprehensive REDD+
information and monitoring
system is operational.
4 Gabon - - - Member in
October 2010
5 Equatorial - - - Joined in May
Guinea 2014
6 CAR Support for - - Joined in August
the REDD+ 2010.
preparation plan Request rejected
(R-PP) due to lack of
funding
3 https://www.unredd.net/about/un-redd-programme.html


Amount
No. Country Type of support Expected country commitments Comments
(USD)
7 DRC UN-REDD support 7,383,200 • A national strategy under the Financial support
for the REDD+ REDD+ mechanism is being in 2009, in
preparation plan prepared for 2030 with the partnership
(R-PP) participation of stakeholders and with UNDP, the
is ready to launch. United Nations
• A draft institutional framework Environment
for the implementation of REDD+ Programme
was drawn up for 2013. (UNEP) and
• A comprehensive monitoring, the Food and
reporting and verification system Agriculture
developed under REDD+ is Organization
operational. (FAO).
Support for the 335,354 • Definition of forest: clarifying Financial support

development, certain elements of the definition; obtained in 2015
establishment and • Scale: determining which regions
submission of a will be part of the FREL, based on
forest reference certain technical and institutional
emissions level selection criteria;
(FREL) in the DRC • Scope: (i) including deforestation-
related activities; (ii) submitting a
conservative estimate of historical
emissions from activities related
to forest degradation;
• Data: centralizing and
standardizing activity data and
emissions factors;
• Approach: studying historical
emissions and identifying
possible trends;
• Adjustment: calculating an
adjustment that takes account
of certain factors like expected
population growth, accessibility
and territorial development plans;
• Submitting the FREL at COP21.
8 Rwanda - - -
9 Sao Tome and - - -
Principe
10 Chad Establishing 60,000 • Identifying the activities/work
a Safeguards streams needed to develop a
Information tailored approach for Chad that
System (SIS) will guarantee REDD+ activities;
• Improving understanding of the
risks and benefits of REDD+.
Total 11,814,354
Source: https://www.un-redd.org/our-work/partners-countries
More generally, UN-REDD has helped several countries implement REDD+-related activities:
FLEGT in Cameroon; a national forest monitoring system (FMS) and Sustainable Development Goal
(SDG) 13 in the Republic of the Congo; an R-PP in CAR; a REDD+ strategy/action plan and FMS in
DRC; and an SIS in Chad. The range of activities carried out in the different countries illustrates the
importance of this initiative for Central African countries.

Chapter 7
7.2.3 Central African Forest Initiative

Launched in 2015 via a Joint Declaration,4 the Central African Forest Initiative (CAFI)5 is a collaborative
partnership that brings together six Central African countries with high forest cover (DRC, Gabon,
CAR, Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea and the Republic of the Congo) and a range of donors (Germany,
France, the Netherlands, Norway, South Korea, the United Kingdom and the European Union). CAFI
works to place Central African forests at the heart of the global climate agenda, supporting strategic
and holistic national investments that reconcile forest conservation with low-emissions economic
and human development. It aims to recognize and protect the contribution the region’s forests can
make to mitigating climate change, reducing poverty and supporting sustainable development.
CAFI is a unique initiative that drives high-level political dialogue and increased funding to support
ambitious reforms and activities on the ground.6 These activities are implemented through a
steering mechanism designed to mediate intersectoral decision-making within the framework of a
country’s vision for development.7 To participate, partner countries are invited to develop National
Investment Frameworks (NIFs) that address all the causes of deforestation and forest degradation,
and to propose an ambitious multi-sectoral theory of change, aligned with their development
objectives.
Letters of Intent, which take the place of agreements between CAFI and partner countries, set
out ambitious commitments on priority strategic issues, such as sustainable land management,
strengthening land tenure arrangements, redirecting agriculture towards savannah areas, forest
management, reducing unsustainable fuelwood consumption, and participatory and transparent
governance of the mining and hydrocarbon sectors.
To date, three Letters of Intent have been signed with DRC, Gabon and the Republic of the Congo
and USD 465 million has been pledged for these three countries (see Table 7.9). Preparatory grants
have also been allocated to Cameroon, CAR and Equatorial Guinea to help them draw up their
National Investment Frameworks.
CAFI also seeks to support countries through results-based payment mechanisms. An unprecedented
agreement on payments for forest preservation in Gabon, amounting to USD 150 million, was
reached at the UN Climate Action Summit in 2019. It aims to stimulate and reward the achievement
of the country’s ambitions.
4 www.cafi.org/content/cafi/fr/home/our-work/how-we-work/the-cafi-declaration.html
5 www.cafi.org
6 https://www.cafi.org/content/cafi/en/home/our-work/our-portfolio.html
7 The Heads of State and Government of the partner countries, such as President Tshisekedi of the DRC or Prime Minister Mouamba of the Republic of the
Congo, have personally committed to make the partnerships a success, assuring their international partners that they are determined to achieve the results
promised (www.cafi.org/content/cafi/en/home/events/side-events/takeaway-from-the-climate-action-summit.html).

Table 7.9: CAFI commitments: Status of Central African countries

Net amount
Expected amount financed
Country Current situation
(USD million) (USD
million)a
DRC Letter of Intent (LoI) signed in April 2016 for 2016–2020 220 152
Implementation of a portfolio of 16 programmes 190 (LoI, 2016) + 30
Discussions on the continuation of the partnership post- additional
2021 under way
Gabon LoI signed in June 2017 for 2017–2021 180 14.4
Implementation of three programmes (one approved in 30 (LoI, 2017) + 150
2018 and two approved in 2020) (results-based
Amendment to the LoI signed in 2019 covering a results- payments,
based payment partnership for 2016–2025 addendum to the
LoI, 2019)
Republic of the LoI signed in September 2019 for 2019–2025 65 1
Congo Programming framework adopted in January 2020 and 45 (CAFI funds,
investment framework decision adopted in October 2020 LoI 2019) + 20
Nine programmes under preparation (parallel funding)
CAR National investment framework drawn up for 2020–2025 Not applicable 1
Programme to support the development of the LoI under way
Equatorial Guinea National investment framework drawn up for 2020–2030 Not applicable 1.2
Cameroon Finalization of the national investment framework under way Not applicable 0.6
Source: https://www.cafi.org/what-we-do/countries-and-topics
a Net amount funded by the CAFI trust fund as at September 2020 (source: http://mptf.undp.org/factsheet/fund/afi00)
7.3 Other climate change-related

commitments
7.3.1 Convention on Biological Diversity and
Convention to Combat Desertification
Beyond their commitments directly related to combating climate change, Central African countries
have mobilized under the other two Rio Conventions – the Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD) and the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) – enabling them to
link up and strengthen their climate initiatives.
Efforts made under the Burundi National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) to preserve
protected forest areas, for example, contribute to maintaining forest carbon stocks. This is beneficial
to the local climate and supports both mitigation and adaptation efforts (REDD+). Several Central
African countries have made efforts to maintain the natural landscape of a proportion of their
territory. Similar to reforestation efforts, initiatives to restore degraded areas in desert zones to
combat desertification contribute to both climate change mitigation and adaptation.

Chapter 7
7.3.2 AFR100
Only seven COMIFAC countries have signed up to the AFR100 landscape restoration movement
(see Table 7.10). Rwanda and Burundi are working to restore more than 70 percent of their territory,
Cameroon a quarter, and CAR, Chad, DRC and the Republic of the Congo less than 10 percent.
Countries do tend to recognize the link between this commitment and early commitments on
climate and the management of natural resources. Actions taken on climate change adaptation and/
or mitigation are usually included among countries’ commitments.
Table 7.10: Central African countries’ commitments under the AFR100 process and links
with other commitments (including climate-related commitments)
Commitments
Percentage
No. Country in millions of Alignment with national objectives
of ha country
area
1 Burundi 2 72 % ̵ Vision Burundi 2025

̵ Burundi National Strategy and Action Plan for Land
Degradation Control
̵ Burundi National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan
(NBSAP)
̵ Burundi National Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan
̵ Burundi National Agriculture Strategy
̵ National Strategy and Action Plan for reduction of disaster
risks and management of disasters
̵ National Forest Landscape Restoration Programme
̵ National REDD+ Strategy and intended NDC of Burundi
̵ National Poverty Reduction Strategy and Action Plan
2 Cameroon 12 25 % ̵ Cameroon’s forest landscape restoration process is linked to
Cameroon’s commitment to the 2030 Agenda (SDGs) and the
three Rio Conventions (UNFCCC, CBD, UNCCD).
̵ Successful restoration in Cameroon’s Nationally Determined
Contributions (NDC) would aim to reduce greenhouse
emissions to mitigate and adapt to climate change.
̵ Restoration and reforestation were key areas identified in
Cameroon’s development strategy to reduce emissions from
deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+)
̵ The Government of Cameroon is involved in the Land
Degradation Neutrality (LDN) process and is defining
LDN targets
̵ Through the signature and national validation of the FLEGT
Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA), Cameroon has
committed to combating illegal logging and to the sustainable
management of forestry concessions through management
plans (including restoration activities)
̵ Several national plans and strategies aim to restore
degraded land and forests, such as the National Plantation
Strategy, the National Plan to Combat Desertification and
the National Emergency Plan to Combat Deforestation and
Forest Degradation
̵ The cross-sectoral, multi-stakeholder land-use planning
process has been identified as a promising approach to the
coordination of various land-related political interests.


Commitments
Percentage
No. Country in millions of Alignment with national objectives
of ha country
area
3 Republic of 2 6% ̵ Alignment with COMIFAC Convergence Plan on sustainable

the Congo forest management, protection, resilience and achieving the
Aichi Biodiversity Targets/CBD
̵ Alignment with the affordable energy strategy
̵ Alignment with the National REDD+ Strategy and climate
response mechanisms
4 CAR 3.5 6% ̵ International commitments on climate and sustainable
development
̵ Intended NDC targets under the UNFCCC, focusing mainly
on land-use change and forestry and to a lesser extent on
agricultural and energy development
5 DRC 8 3% ̵ International commitments on climate and sustainable
development
̵ National programme on the environment, forests, water
and biodiversity (PNEFEB-2) formulated in 2011, which
constitutes the guiding strategic document on natural resource
management
̵ CAFI under which it aims to reduce the loss of forest cover from
the current 300,000 ha/year to 200,000 ha/year by 2020
̵ Four programmes will focus on the key reforms needed in the
areas of land-use planning and a national land-use plan
̵ A tenure policy to better secure tenure in the rural sector
̵ Investments will enhance existing actions at the provincial and
territorial level in high-deforestation REDD+ areas (Orientale
province and Sud Ubangui province) where local communities
and territorial entities will be supported to sustainably
manage and use resources
6 Rwanda 2 76 % ̵ Widespread implementation of landscape restoration
would contribute to Rwanda’s Vision 2020, its Economic
Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy, the Ministry of
Natural Resources’ results-based management initiative, its
District Development Plan, and its District Forest Management
targets. Forest landscape restoration would also contribute
to the NDC and multiple SDGs, including monitoring and
reporting for SDG target 15.3 on land degradation and
indirectly to SDGs 1 and 2 on poverty and food security.
7 Chad 1.4 1% Chad’s restoration target contributes to the following initiatives:
̵ Vision 2030 Strategy: “The Chad that We Want” (Vision 2030)
̵ Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems around Lake
Chad covering 4,000 ha
̵ National Action Program to Combat Desertification (PAN/LCD)
and land degradation neutrality target
̵ National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (SNPA/DB)
̵ Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC)
̵ Great Green Wall initiative and 3 million ha target
Total 30.9 6%

Chapter 7
7.3.3 United Nations Forum on Forests

Efforts to manage forests sustainably within the framework of the United Nations Forum on
Forests (UNFF), established in 2000, take account of the three Rio Conventions (CBD, UNCCD,
UNFCCC). These efforts also work to combat climate change. Countries are currently being invited
to submit voluntary reports on their progress towards the goals and targets set out under the United
Nations Strategic Plan for Forests (2017–2030). These goals and targets relate to different aspects
of sustainable forest management. For example, Central African countries efforts as part of the
REDD+ process are supported by Global Forest Goal 1 (“Reverse the loss of forest cover worldwide
through sustainable forest management, including protection, restoration, afforestation and
reforestation, and increase efforts to prevent forest degradation and contribute to the global effort
of addressing climate change.”) and targets 1.1 (“Forest area is increased by 3 percent worldwide.”),
1.2 (“The world’s forest carbon stocks are maintained or enhanced.”), 1.3 (“By 2020, promote the
implementation of sustainable management of all types of forests, halt deforestation, restore
degraded forests and substantially increase afforestation and reforestation globally.”) and 1.4 (“The
resilience and adaptive capacity of all types of forests to natural disasters and the impacts of climate
change is significantly strengthened worldwide.”).
As at June 2020, no Central African countries have submitted a report to UNFF on their forest
commitments for 2017–2030.
7.3.4 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Some of the commitments made by Central African countries under the SDGs will work to combat
climate change. SDG 13 is to “take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts”. A careful
review of the indicators under all the SDGs can, however, provide useful information about how a
country is responding to climate change.
The most illustrative indicators are: SDG 9.4.1: CO2 emissions per unit of value added; 9.5.2
Researchers (in full-time equivalent) per million inhabitants; 13.1.1 Number of deaths, missing
persons and directly affected persons attributed to disasters per 100,000 population; 14.5.1 Coverage
of protected areas in relation to marine areas; 15.1.1 Forest area as a proportion of total land area;
15.1.2 Proportion of important sites for terrestrial and freshwater biodiversity that are covered by
protected areas, by ecosystem type; 15.3.1 Proportion of land that is degraded over total land area.
These indicators show just how many climate change initiatives are linked to development efforts.
Countries can, therefore, implement measures that enable them to meet their development needs,
while at the same time avoiding, reducing or absorbing greenhouse gas emissions and building
climate resilience.
7.3.5 FLEGT VPAs (progress and link with forest

protection)
Forest degradation, largely caused by timber harvesting (legal and illegal), has been shown to
be an important contributor to global greenhouse gas emissions (Pearson et al. 2017). In the
Congo Basin, timber harvesting takes a diversity of forms ranging from multinational companies
operating in multiple forest concessions to individual or small-scale chainsaw logging enterprises
operating “informally” (Carodenuto and Cerutti 2014). Although Congo Basin countries have sound

legal frameworks based on principles of sustainable forest management, the limited regulatory
governance capacity of both state and non-state actors has resulted in widespread illegalities in
the forest sector. The problem of illegal logging was considered so severe that the European Union
introduced the Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) Action Plan in 2003 with
the aim to harness the power of its timber-consuming markets as an incentive for timber-exporting
countries to enforce their own rules and eliminate illegal forest activities within their territories.
Through FLEGT, the EU requests Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPAs) with its timber trading
partners whereby both parties outline how capacity will be reinforced and forest governance
improved to promote and eventually assure legality compliance across the forest sector. From
a global perspective, the Congo Basin has a high number of VPAs, with six countries in different
phases of VPA negotiation and implementation (see Table 7.11).8
Although the FLEGT Action Plan does not cite climate change as a main objective, the efforts to
better regulate unsustainable and illegal logging in Central African countries have significant
potential to contribute to climate adaptation and mitigation. This is because the FLEGT approach
recognizes the importance of improving governance, which is critical for mitigating climate change
through forest sector interventions (Dooley and Ozinga 2011; Levin et al. 2008). More specifically,
adherence to legal requirements such as forest management plans has been shown to reduce carbon
emissions from forest operations (Cerutti et al. 2017). The full potential of a FLEGT approach to
mitigate climate change has not been realized, however, due to the ineffective implementation of
VPAs in most of the countries concerned. Based on a recent meta-analysis of institutional capacities
of VPA countries, most Central African countries have significant capacity gaps and limited political
will to effectively regulate illegal logging through their VPAs, although the Republic of Congo has
achieved noticeable progress in information transparency and multi-stakeholder participation
(Adams et al. 2020). The central way in which FLEGT-VPAs aim to fight illegalities in the forest
sector is through the development of timber traceability and legality assurance systems (TLAS).
Although the Agreements include additional mechanisms such as independent forest monitoring,
Table 7.11: FLEGT VPA: Status of Central African countries

Phase
Country 1: Information and

2: Formal 3: Development of 4: FLEGT
pre-negotiation
negotiation traceability system licence issued
phase (period)
Cameroon X
Republic of the
Congo
X
Gabon X
Equatorial Guinea* X
Central African
X
Republic (CAR)
DRC X
* Note: After a FLEGT workshop in 2016, the VPA process seems to have completely stalled in Equatorial Guinea, as in most countries
in the Congo Basin.
8 According to data from the European Forest Institute (EFI) FLEGT programme (https://www.euflegt.efi.int/home), a total of 16 countries are
involved in a VPA process. NB: Equatorial Guinea is not on the EFI list and progress seems to have completely stalled there.

Chapter 7
they have attracted less attention as compared to the funding and development focus on the design
and operationalization of TLAS guarantee systems. However, these systems have proven difficult
to operationalize in practice, and no country has been successful in delivering a FLEGT legality
certificate to demonstrate compliance with the EU Timber Regulation. For example, Cameroon’s
VPA traceability system (SIGIF) has never been operational beyond a pilot phase and the whole
system has been in « deadlock » since 2018 (CIFOR 2020; EFI 2018).
As we approach the 20-year anniversary of the EU FLEGT Action Plan, it is important to take stock
and assess lessons learned, as the European Union is considering a similar approach for regulating
deforestation in agriculture supply chains, such as cocoa or palm oil. Although VPAs are lauded
for their contribution to improved transparency and stakeholder participation (Hoare et al. 2020),
there are serious concerns that the FLEGT-VPA approach in the Congo Basin is leading to power
consolidation amongst the already dominant and internationally-financed logging industry while
further marginalizing the most vulnerable segments of the sector: the smaller logging companies
marketing their products domestically (Carodenuto and Cerutti 2014). More attention should be
placed on the critical question of how best to distribute legal access to the last remaining forest
resources in the region and which segment of the sector should be prioritized for forest-based
economic development and poverty reduction.
7.3.6 Forest Investment Programme

The Forest Investment Programme (FIP), initiated by the World Bank, is one of three climate
programmes and trust funds grouped under the Climate Investment Funds (CIF) banner. This
programme aims to provide pre-financing for the implementation of REDD+ readiness reforms and
other activities that seek to influence forest policies in developing countries. Countries embarking on
this process must produce forest investment plans that target priority investment areas with a view
to curbing deforestation. Donor-funded projects are then developed for the priority areas identified.
Table 7.12 shows the implementation status of the plans and related efforts in Central Africa.
In total, only four countries have produced their forest investment plans: Cameroon, DRC, the
Republic of the Congo and Rwanda. The World Bank approved USD 232 million for the development of
these plans.9 Additional funding has been requested from the World Bank, the African Development
Bank (AfDB) and other bilateral (AFD, GCF) and multilateral (EU) partners. Cameroon and Rwanda
pledged to contribute 7.61 percent and 10.21 percent, respectively, reflecting a clear commitment
by both countries. Conversely, DRC and the Republic of the Congo have not made any financial
commitments. The remaining Central African countries have not produced forest investment plans
(60 percent). Very few countries in the Congo Basin have the capacity to complete this process
without the support of external experts (Sufo Kankeu 2019). The countries’ differing levels of
commitment reflect the different positions taken by politicians and civil society (Sufo Kankeu 2019).
9 https://climatefundsupdate.org/data-dashboard/regions/

Table 7.12: Forest Investment Programme (FIP): Status of Central African countries
Number
Description of projects/programmes +
No. Country Year of projects Funding
total budget
implemented
1 Burundi
2 Cameroon 2017 3 projects ̵ P1. Reducing emissions from USD 315,177
deforestation and forest degradation on million of which
the southern plateau of Cameroon (USD USD 24 million
130,177 million) from the
̵ P2. Climate change resilience and Government of
adaptation in northern forested areas Cameroon
(USD 115 million)
̵ ̵P3. Watershed management in the
western uplands (USD 70 million)
3 Republic of 2018 2 projects P1- Project to support the establishment USD 24 million
the Congo of agroforestry plantations in north Congo
(USD 11 million)
P2- Community agroforestry and fuelwood
programme in the departments of Pool and
Plateaux (USD 8 million)
Or P4 Gabon
5 Equatorial
Guinea
6 CAR
7 DRC 2011 5 projects P1- Kinshasa supply basin programme (USD USD 60 million
13.7 million) No government
P2- Karanga and Mbuji-Mayi supply basin contribution
programme (USD 11.7 million)
P3- Kisangani supply basin programme (USD
99.8 million)
P4- Programme for private sector
engagement in REDD+ (USD 5.05 million)
P5- Small grants programme in support of
innovative and high co-benefit initiatives
(USD 18.15 million)
8 Rwanda 2017 3 projets ̵ Development of agroforestry and USD 94 million
sustainable agriculture (USD 60 million) of which 9.6
̵ Sustainable management of forests and million from the
landscapes (USD 21.5 million) Government of
̵ Wood supply chain, improved efficiency Rwanda
and added value (USD 12.5 million)
9 Sao Tome and
Principe
10 Chad
Total USD 493 million
Source: GoR (2017), GoC (2017), GOC (2018), GoRDC (2011)a
a GoC: Government of Cameroon, GoR: Government of Rwanda, GoRDC: Government of DRC, GOC: Government of the Republic of the Congo

Chapter 7
7.3.7 Congo Basin Forest Fund

The Congo Basin Forest Fund (CBFF) is a multi-donor fund created in 2008 and managed by AfDB.
A total of EUR 123 million in funding was provided by the United Kingdom, Norway and Canada.10
Activities are mainly implemented in Central Africa (see Table 7.13). The CBFF seeks to work with a
wide range of development partners and its main objective is to “alleviate poverty and mitigate climate
change by reducing the rate of deforestation in the Congo Basin through sustainable forest management”. The
2018 assessment found that, while the overall performance of the CBFF was satisfactory, projects
were not implemented effectively and yielded results that are unlikely to be sustainable, particularly
in the absence of complementary funding.
Table 7.13. Congo Basin Forest Fund (CBFF) commitments: Status of Central
African countries
Amount
Last Number of Number of
received Target
No. Country document Comments national multinational
(EUR period
submitted projects projects
millions)
1 Burundi 0.12 2009- 1 3

2014
2 Cameroon 4.18 2009- 9 8
2015
3 Republic of the 1.92 2009- 1 7
Congo 2016
4 Gabon 4.11 2009- 1 6
2015
5 Equatorial Guinea 0.51 2009- 1 3
2016
6 CAR 0.21 2012 2 6
7 DRC 22.79 2009- 13 5
2017
8 Rwanda 4.35 2009- 1 3
2017
9 Sao Tome and - - 0 1
Principe
10 Chad - - 0 3
Total 29 45
Source: GoR (2017), GoC (2017), GOC (2018), GoRDC (2011), https://cbff.afdb.org/fr/pays-partenaires, https://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/
uploads/afdb/Documents/Policy-Documents/Congo%20Basin%20Forest%20Fund%20-%20Operational%20Procedures%20FR.pdf
10 https://www.afdb.org/fr/topics-and-sectors/initiatives-partnerships/congo-basin-forest-fund/topics-and-sectors/initiatives-partnerships/
congo-basin-forest-fund/climate-change

7.3.8 Initiatives of High Forest, Low Deforestation

countries
Da Fonseca, Rodriguez et al. (2007) define High Forest, Low Deforestation (HFLD) countries as those
with forest cover above 50 percent in 2015 and an annual deforestation rate below the world average
of 0.22 percent over the 1990–2000 emissions period. This classification was originally developed
to identify which countries could potentially qualify for REDD+ and the Clean Development
Mechanism (CDM). This definition, which was used at that time (2007), crystallized the debate on
the subject and excluded countries that did not meet these criteria. It divides forested developing
countries into four quadrants: countries with low forest cover and high deforestation (LFHD);
countries with low forest cover and low deforestation (LFLD); countries with high forest cover and
high deforestation (HFHD) and countries with high forest cover and low deforestation (HFLD). The
last group, HFLD countries, is of particular interest to many donors, who are now focusing on how
to prevent deforestation. Megevand et al (2013) put all countries in the Congo Basin in the HFLD
category. However, the literature and the dynamics of Central African countries show that very few
can really claim to belong to this category, because the rate of deforestation in these countries is
still fairly high. Considering the categorization used by Da Fonseca, Rodriguez et al. (2007), we find
differences between countries in terms of forest policies, deforestation rates and forest cover, as
shown in Table 7.14.
With the advent of REDD+ and the new definitions of forest adopted over the last decade, most
countries in the Congo Basin still fit the profile of HFLD countries. Nevertheless, there are clear
signs that these forests are under increasing threat. Indeed, these countries are now in a precarious
position due to growing pressure from different sources, including: mining, road development,
agrifood and biofuels, in addition to expanding subsistence agriculture and charcoal collection
(Megevand et al. 2013).
Gabon was the first Central African country to be admitted to the HFLD group. It is also the first
HFLD country to sign a Letter of Intent with CAFI for results-based payments for reduced emissions,
amounting to USD 150 million.
Table 7.14: High Forest, Low Deforestation (HFLD): Status of Central African countries
Deforestation
No. Country Forest cover Category
rate
1 Burundi 16.8% 9% LFHD

2 Cameroon 66% 0.16% HFLD
3 Republic of the Congo 65.52% 0.1% HFLD
4 Gabon 89.3% 0.05% HFLD
5 Equatorial Guinea 93% 0.3% HFLD
6 CAR 45.6% 0.26% HFHD
7 DRC 67% 0.20% HFLD
8 Rwanda 29.8% 0.02% LFLD
9 Sao Tome and Principe 9.8% 1.6% LFHD
10 Chad 11.1% 1.55% LFHD
Source: https://www.fern.org/, https://www.cafi.org/what-we-do/countries-and-topics, https://www.fao.org/countryprofiles/en/

Chapter 7
However, given the significant controversy over recent years regarding the redefinition of ‘forests’,
most Central African countries have chosen to use the default definition provided by FAO. They
have done so because, for them, it is important to show that forests cover over 50 percent of their
territory and because some donors have set up specific programmes that these countries can benefit
from. A case in point: Rwanda is in the LFLD quadrant and Cameroon in the HFHD quadrant, yet
both countries’ governments claim that they are HFLD countries under the new definition of forest.
7.3.9 The Ramsar Convention and peatland-

related trends
The recent discovery/rediscovery of peatlands along the border between DRC and the Republic of
the Congo has highlighted the important role played by specific wetland ecosystems as carbon
sinks (see Chapter 9 on Peatlands). Mangroves are also known to store significant amounts of
carbon, mainly in the soil. The different carbon reservoirs in these wetland ecosystems need to be
conserved and/or sustainably managed, as part of both adaptation and mitigation efforts. Properly
managing these wetlands offers a nature-based solution and the valuation of these ecosystems and
their biodiversity is regularly highlighted as one of the best ways to combat climate change. At the
international level, the Ramsar (or Wetlands) Convention governs wetland ecosystem management.
All ten COMIFAC countries have signed up to this convention. Two countries, DRC and the Republic
of the Congo, have joined the International Tropical Peatland Center, so they can benefit from the
experience of other tropical countries with peatlands.
7.4 Other trends with the potential to

impact countries’ UNFCCC commitments
7.4.1 Reducing or eliminating deforestation in private
sector value chains
Many companies, mainly timber and agrifood multinationals, source their raw materials from
Central Africa. To reduce their carbon footprint, these industries are working to ensure that their
value chains stop contributing to the destruction of the environment, and of forests in particular.
Other than timber, the moist forest-based sectors most affected are cacao and rubber. Given their
willingness to act, the issue then becomes what type of responses countries should put in place with
regard to their climate commitments.
In Central Africa, the private sector has barely engaged with the REDD+ process, the main
mechanism for coordinating the fight against deforestation as part of countries’ response to climate
change. On the other hand, cocoa companies have begun to participate in certification processes,
albeit gradually. These processes are not, however, specifically concerned with the sector’s carbon
footprint. Moreover, production in this sector tends to be the remit of small farmers. In Cameroon,
IDH, The Sustainable Trade Initiative- and WWF-led initiatives have been launched.
It may be possible to optimize Central African countries’ commitments under the REDD+ process by
taking proactive steps to harness this private sector commitment.

7.4.2 Reducing or eliminating imported deforestation

Many Western countries are trying to reduce their carbon footprint. To this end, the EU and
European countries are working to reduce imported deforestation and are making some progress.
Deforestation has, therefore, become a cross-border issue and Central African countries need to
decide how to manage the requirements placed on their timber and agricultural product exports.
These requirements relate mainly to REDD+ and the arrangements for coordinating between
countries, the private sector and various other stakeholders must still be defined to meet these new
requirements.
So far, there has been little response from countries in the region on this issue.
Conclusions
The principle of common but differentiated responsibility has enabled Central African countries,
which have low greenhouse gas emissions in comparison with other countries, to sustainably manage
their forest resources as a way to support international efforts to limit climate change. However,
their ambitions do not necessarily translate into commitments that are effectively implemented at
the national level and that would enable them to better fulfil their obligations under the UNFCCC.
While international funding is available to developing countries, including those in Central Africa,
these countries’ failure to submit the required national documentation at the international level
means their access to certain funding is severely curtailed.

CHAPTER 8
Addressing imported
deforestation and zero
deforestation commitments
Coordinators : Richard Eba’a Atyi,1 Verina Ingram,2
Authors : Guillaume Lescuyer,3 Chih-Ching Lan,4 Belmond Tchoumba,5 Louis Defo,6
Sylvie Gourlet-Fleury,3 Philippe Guizol,1,3 Denis Sonwa,1 Liboum Mbonayem,1
Contributors : Violaine Berger,4 Jean-Michel Harmand3,1
1
CIFOR-ICRAF, 2Wageningen University & Research, 3Agricultural Research Centre for
International Development (CIRAD), 4Independent Consultant, 5World Wide Fund for Nature
(WWF), 6Proforest
Photo by Olivier Girard/CIFOR

Chapter 8
Introduction: The challenges of zero and

imported deforestation
Over a quarter of deforestation (27 percent) is caused by land

use change attributed to the production of commodities (Curtis
et al. 2018). Estimates of tropical forest lost attributed to
expanding cropland, pastures and forest plantations range from
between 62 to 80 percent (Pendrill et al. 2019, Hosonuma et al.
2012) with 26 percent of tropical forest loss attributed to the
international demand for commodities (Pendrill et al. 2019).
Deforestation has thus been seen as a worldwide responsibility,
since products linked to deforestation in a specific location
are sold and consumed worldwide. It has been estimated that
10 percent of deforestation is linked to the consumption of
unsustainably sourced commodities within member countries
of the EU, caused by imported commodities since deforestation
within Europe is negligible (Cuypers et al. 2013). This
phenomenon results in what is currently known as forest-risk
commodities and commodity-driven deforestation. Commodities
associated with imported deforestation produced in Central
Africa are palm oil, cocoa, coffee, natural rubber, timber and
cotton.
The concept of “zero deforestation”, which implies that no forest areas are cleared or converted to
other land uses, originated at the end of the 2010s. Civil society organizations began linking the
production of agricultural commodities entering international trade - such as palm oil, soybeans,
paper and cocoa - with deforestation, and pressuring large companies producing these commodities
to eliminate deforestation from their value and supply chains.
The similar term “imported deforestation” is defined as the production of imported agricultural
goods that drives tropical deforestation. A considerable share of agricultural commodity production
intended for export results in countries such as those in the European Union (EU) “importing
deforestation” (IDDRI 2017) as imports of raw materials or processed products whose production
has contributed, directly or indirectly, to deforestation, forest degradation or the conversion of
natural ecosystems outside the national territory (Gouvernement France 2017).
Direct drivers include the production and extraction of commodities when production involves land-
use change and so directly affects forest cover.

Addressing imported deforestation and zero deforestation commitments
Focusing on direct drivers in decision-making process and policy design – shown in Figure 8.1 –
can be pragmatic but can limit the vision and the success of policy implementation, and needs
to be contextualized within debates about indirect drivers, commodity value chains and their
impacts. Indirect drivers of deforestation include multiscale social, economic, political, cultural and
technological processes affecting commodity production and extraction (Kissinger, Herold, and De
Sy 2012; IPBES 2018).
National economies in Central Africa exhibit little diversification and are heavily dependent on
the export of agricultural commodities and mining products. Strategies to combat imported
deforestation, most of which are designed by importing countries, therefore risk negatively affecting
the development trajectories planned and implemented by countries in the subregion, if due care
is not taken. While strategies to combat imported deforestation are expected to have positive
environmental impacts on forest ecosystems in Central Africa, their potential socioeconomic
impacts on the region’s people and governments are less well understood. Commodities like cocoa,
whose production involves hundreds of thousands of small farmers, are of particular concern.
This chapter aims to better inform stakeholders in the value chains of the Central African products
affected (palm oil, cocoa, coffee, wood, rubber and cotton) about ongoing efforts to combat imported
deforestation and their current and potential impacts. It also explores the feasibility of different
approaches to implementing strategies to combat imported deforestation in Central Africa.
8.1 Technical concepts related to zero

deforestation and imported deforestation
Debates around zero and imported deforestation embrace diverse disciplines and concepts which
use different terms and methodologies, leading to diverse definitions. The main concepts used here
are defined below (see also Chapter 1).
Figure 8.1: Direct and indirect drivers of deforestation and forest degradation
Source: Ingram et al. 2020b

Chapter 8
8.1.1 Defining forests and deforestation

In the sense often used by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), a forest is not necessarily a
forest as we might ordinarily understand it; rather it is the carbon stock and a set of environmental
services (see also Chapter 1).
Since its creation in 1945, the FAO has carried out a Forest Resource Assessment every 10 years and
since 2000, every 5 years. Given that definitions of ‘forest’ differ over time and by location, the FAO
has developed its own definitions over the years. It eventually adopted a single definition based on
the 2000 Forest Resource Assessment, which it still uses today. This definition has been adopted by
several stakeholders.
It is based on four variables: (1) the percentage of the ground area covered by the projection of the tree
crowns (canopy cover); (2) the minimum area used to calculate this percentage; (3) the minimum
width of the area used to calculate this area; 4) the minimum height of the trees (in adulthood).
According to the FAO definition, a forest must have: a canopy cover of 10 percent (previously
20 percent for forests in Western countries) over at least 0.5 ha, with a minimum width of 2 m, and
a minimum adult tree height of 5 m (Gold 2003).
Other definitions are however used at the international level. The United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) definition was adopted in 2001 as part of the Marrakesh
Accords on the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). This definition is based on ranges rather
than specific values for three of the four variables: canopy cover of 10–30 percent over at least 0.05–
1.0 ha, with a minimum tree height of 2–5 m (UNFCCC 2002).
The EU definition (Joint Research Centre – JRC) was adopted as part of the Global Land Cover
2000 project. It is based on remote sensing and specifies that forests must have: canopy cover of
at least 15 percent and a minimum tree height of 3 m. This definition has been relaxed in later work
by the JRC, which claims to use a ‘flexible’ interpretation of the UNFCCC definition (subject to
technical constraints). A team from the University of Maryland working with remote-sensing data
has developed a configurable tool that allows users to measure the area covered by tree formations
depending on the percentage tree cover required by their chosen definition of forest.
In parallel, many countries have adopted their own definitions. A 1999 compendium listed 69
countries that had quantified one of the four variables used by the FAO. By 2011, a further 16 countries
had adopted a definition of forest and 10 had either refined or modified their existing definitions.
Since 2007, countries wishing to participate in the UN REDD+ process have been required to adopt
a national definition of forest (COP13 2007, Bali Action Plan). To date, 58 countries have signed up to
the process and around 20 have adopted a quantified definition for the first time. Another 30 or so
have reviewed and/or modified their definition, while the rest are still deliberating. In Central Africa,
only four countries have defined their forests (Cameroon, the Democratic Republic of the Congo
(DRC), Equatorial Guinea and the Republic of the Congo), with the remaining seven countries
still deliberating.
The numerous challenges.....

Depending on the definition used by an organization or a country, a forest might be physically
present when the data is collected (‘land cover’) or physically absent, but counted in an area legally
designated as forest (‘land use’), making comparisons difficult. Even when a clear definition has
been established, forest cover estimates for a given country can vary widely depending on whether

they are primarily based on forest inventories conducted on the ground, satellite imaging or a
combination of the two.
Oil palm plantations are usually excluded from these definitions, as (to a lesser extent) are most tree
plantations whose primary purpose is to produce a commodity other than wood, such as cocoa or
rubber. Nevertheless, the area they cover is sometimes included as forest area, because it is difficult
to distinguish on the satellite imagery widely used to support or replace field inventories.
This satellite imagery provides highly variable information depending on its spatial resolution, the
spectral bands used by the sensors, the spectral indices that they make it possible to calculate and
analyse, and the time series available.
.... make it difficult to define and quantify deforestation. So what is

deforestation?
The ambiguities that cloud the definition of ‘forest’ find their parallels in the definition of
‘deforestation’. Indeed, deforestation can only be quantified with careful reference to the chosen
definition of ‘forest’ and the method used to estimate forest area. Deforestation as estimated by the
FAO for each country will not match that estimated by the University of Maryland using satellite
data, nor indeed that estimated by the approximately 75 percent of countries whose national
definition differs from the FAO’s.
It is especially important to consider the concepts of ‘land cover’ and ‘land use’. Taking a land-cover
approach, deforested describes an area from which the forest has disappeared, regardless of the
reason. This could be due to clear-cutting followed by the establishment of a new tree plantation
or farmland, or due to the natural disappearance of the forest after a storm, which will be followed
by natural regrowth. Following the land-use approach, using the same examples, only land on
which an agricultural crop has actually been planted would be classed as deforested. However, land
that is still covered with forest may also be described as deforested, if its land-use designation has
changed and it is explicitly destined to be transformed into farmland or a built-up area. The land-
use approach is also tied up with questions around the existence and demarcation of permanent and
non-permanent forest domains, and issues related to legal and illegal logging. While legal logging
in the permanent or non-permanent forest domain might not be considered deforestation, illegal
logging would be considered deforestation, except perhaps in the non-permanent forest domain.
‘Gross deforestation’ and ‘net deforestation’ are two more key concepts in discussions on
deforestation. Gross deforestation describes the area of forest cover that has disappeared, whereas
net deforestation refers to the (negative) difference between the forest area destroyed each year
and the forest area planted or that naturally grows. Reducing net deforestation will certainly have a
positive impact on forest carbon stocks, but will not prevent biodiversity loss. Current discussions
aimed at achieving “zero imported deforestation” in countries producing and consuming products
like soybean, palm oil, cocoa, rubber, beef, wood or paper pulp tend to focus more on net deforestation,
whereas, ecologically speaking, gross deforestation should be of greater concern.
Towards a standardized definition?

Each country currently uses its own definition of forest (and therefore of deforestation) to justify and
quantify its international commitments, without any real consideration of their ecological relevance.
The four Central African countries that have adopted their own definition of forest have not opted
for the same rules, despite their forest formations being very similar in terms of their structure and

Chapter 8
floristic composition. The same intensive logging activities might be termed deforestation in DRC,
but only degradation in Cameroon, with different consequences for the countries’ deforestation
statistics and the funding mobilized in response.
Adopting a standardized definition based on the recognized ecological characteristics of these

forests should be a priority for the region, where population growth is increasing demand for
farmland. Considering the risk to exports to countries committed to zero deforestation, the
Economic Community of Central African States (ECCAS) deemed this a matter of urgency and, in
2021, the ECCAS secretariat organized a regional discussion workshop on the definition of the terms
‘forest’ and ‘deforestation’.
8.2 Commodities driving deforestation in

Central Africa
Currently, coffee, cocoa and cotton are the main export crops that continue to be linked to imported
deforestation from Central Africa, and whilst palm oil is not a major export crop, its production
in mono-plantations is associated with deforestation. The following short descriptions show how
these cash crops are associated with significant, historical deforestation and continue to embody
imported deforestation. The increased production of timber, cocoa, coffee and rubber is expected,
in both large scale and smallholder systems, which given previous trends and current land use, is
expected to take place in lowland, moist forest zone, and cause deforestation directly and directly.
8.2.1 Timber
Timber is both an export and domestic commodity, with the majority of tropical hardwood in
Central Africa currently extracted from natural forests and forest concessions (Nasi, Billand, and
van Vliet 2012; de Wasseige et al. 2014). In this section the focus is on planted timber as an agro-
commodity. In colonial times, large-scale planted timber plantations were developed on savannahs
around Pointe-Noire in Congo (Feintrenie 2014) and in Cameroon (Kollert and Cherubini 2012).
Since the 1990s there has been renewed interest and national and international investment in
timber plantations for wood and as carbon sinks for the carbon market in Cameroon (Ayous in
Batouri, teak in Bazzama), Congo (eucalyptus in Brazzaville and EFC in Pointe Noire), DRC (acacia
in Goma and plateau Bateke) and Gabon (Rougier/Lignafrica/Okume in Plantations Forestières de
la Mvoum), mainly on degraded and already deforested land, and as part of afforestation programs
(Marien and Gourlet-Fleury 2006; Hawkins and Wigglesworth 2018). Stable timber production is
expected from the region in general.
8.2.2 Palm oil

Palm oil has been produced for centuries in Central Africa from the indigenous oil palm (Elaeis
guineensis), primarily for domestic consumption. Oil palm plantations cover less than 0.5 million
ha, mainly located in the DRC, Gabon and Cameroon. Oil palm grown in agroforestry systems is not
included in these figures. In plantations, productivity is quite low: the highest rates in Cameroon are
around 14 tons of fruit per hectare and 6 t of oil per ha, compared to average productivities of 16 to 18
t of fruit per ha in Asia1 (FAOStat 2021). The main palm oil exporting countries are the DRC, Gabon,
1 https://www.fao.org/countryprofiles/index/en/?iso3=CMR accessed June 2021

Cameroon. Gabon and Cameroon export to Europe, and to West African countries Côte d’Ivoire
and Benin. Regional production does not meet demand, shown by the import volumes with CEEAC
countries (COMIFAC plus Angola) being net importers of palm oil: in 2018, they exported 19,000 t
and imported 375,000 t mainly from Malaysia and Indonesia. Gabon is a net importer of palm oil
from Malaysia and Indonesia and over time it has imported less and exported more. In 2018, Gabon
exported 7,200 t and imported 8,900 t of palm oil. The size of plantations in Gabon have increased
over the past decade and it is possible it will become a net exporter in the future. In 2018, Cameroon
imported 31,700 t of palm oil from Southeast Asia and exported 3,700 t to Europe. Cameroon’s
palm oil production is insufficient for its domestic needs. In Cameroon, industrial scale production
started around 1907 under German colonization in Littoral region. Today, production continues
with a large agro-industrial sector and milling, smallholders in contract with agro-industries and
traditional, artisanal independent smallholders with family farms, and rural and urban investors
in rural plantations. Smallholders with less than 5 ha of oil palm represent over 75 percent of oil
palm growers but account for less than half of national production due to very low yields. However,
national production is insufficient to cover domestic consumption. The government considers the
oil palm sector (both artisanal and industrial) as important to alleviate poverty and to generate
national revenues (Lyabano et al. 2014). The DRC is also net importer of palm oil, importing 47,600
t and exporting 6,300 t to Burundi and Uganda, its neighbors and probably also to Rwanda. But
cross-border statistics are imprecise and highly likely underestimated. Increased production is
expected in the region generally.
8.2.3 Cocoa
Cocoa is mainly an export crop, cultivated in Cameroon, the DRC, RoC, and Gabon since the late
19th century, with larger colonial, larger scale plantations developed directly from forested land in
the 1920s and 1930s (Battini 1999; Kaberry 2005; Wessel and Quist-Wessel 2015). Cameroon has
long been and is currently the main Central African producer, exporting mainly to Europe via the
Netherlands. Productivity at 416 kg/ha is the best in the Central African region, but is lower than
Ghana (549 kg/ha) and Côte d’Ivoire. Cameroon’s objective to increase production from 300,000
to 600,000 tons by 2020 was postponed to 2030 as it was not achieved. As yields per hectare have
remained stable, the prospect of expansion into forest areas in response to government and partners
support programs is likely. However, except for Cameroon, the cocoa export trade from Central Africa
faded into insignificance after independence and has been subject to boom-bust-boom cycles. When
coffee growers in DRC were hit by disease, many such as ESCO in Eastern DRC switched to cocoa in
the 1980s. The Association of Cocoa & Coffee Exporters ASSECCAF estimates that North Kivu and
Ituri (estimated 50,000 ha) is now the main cocoa region, with 15,000 ha from Equateur and Bas
Congo, where yields vary from 500 to 1,200 kg/ha. Exports have grown from 600 tons in 2000 to
10,000 in 2015, although production maybe higher than official figures, at around 35,000 tons due
to smuggling to Uganda where export taxes are lower. Most DRC cocoa is double certified UTZ and
organic, or aimed at fine flavor markets via traders such as Olam and specialty chocolate makers
such as Theo Chocolate, Japanese Tachibana, Elan RDC and Original Beans. DRC has no large scale
grinding capacity, with most exports via Kenya to Switzerland, Belgium and growing US and Asian
markets.2 A few companies, such as Original Beans, produce chocolate in country. In Gabon, after
independence, the sector was neglected in favor of higher income generating extractive industries.
In 1970 over 6,000 tons of cocoa were produced, decreasing to 1,920 in 1990 and by 2010 to 370
2 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cocoa-congo-chocolate-factory-idUSKBN2425A8

Chapter 8
tons.3 Industrial plantations were introduced in the 1980s. Since then production has been steady at
around 500 tons. The decrease in oil prices around 2014 led to an economic diversification strategy,
with the Stabilization and Equalization Fund (CAISTAB) investing USD 8.63 million/EUR 7.63 million
since 2017 in restarting abandoned cocoa plantations and training new cocoa growers via the Jeunes
Entrepreneurs Café-Cacao (Young Coffee and Cocoa Entrepreneurs). In 2018, sales and exports of
cocoa fell 38.7 percent and 40.3 percent respectively, despite increased production of 21.2 percent to
115 million tons.4With the corona crisis, CAISTAB has sought to protect growers by setting a national
purchase price.5 Global food manufacturer Nestlé has been purchasing Gabonese cocoa via traders
since the 2000. Local entrepreneurs and diaspora increasingly produce and export small quantities
of specialty chocolate, such as Julies Chocolate. In Sao Tomé, cocoa is the nation’s largest earner
accounting for 79 percent of total exports, with cocoa and cocoa preparations exported to Gabon.
Production has decreased from a peak in 2013 of USD 20 million to USD 6 million in 2019 (United
Nations COMTRADE database).6 Increasing cocoa production is expected in most countries.
8.2.4 Coffee
Coffee is primarily an export crop in Central Africa, with some domestic consumption. Around
1 percent of the global coffee (Robusta and Arabica beans) production comes from Central Africa
(OCDE 2007) Coffee was introduced in colonial run plantations in the DRC, Congo, Gabon and
Cameroon (Clarence-Smith and Topik 2003). All Central African countries produce some coffee
except Chad. Small countries like Rwanda and Burundi hold a relatively important place among
the region’s coffee exporters. In 2010, Cameroon was the region’s main coffee exporter, accounting
for about 2 percent of global production in 2015 and producing around 32,000 tons in 2015 (Conseil
international du Café (ICC) 2015), since then exports have plummeted, exacerbated since 2017
by the conflict in the Anglophone regions. In the DRC coffee production was nationalized in the
1970s, and by the early 1980s, coffee was DRC’s second-largest export after copper, with coffee
production coordinated under the state Office National du Café (ONC). Production peaked in
the 1980s with around 250,000 tons and declined significantly in the 1990s due to conflict and
instability, a transition to small holder systems, liberalized market and lack of government support,
with around 120,000 tons of Robusta a year produced in the mid-’90s (Cafe Imports Europe 2021),
accounting for about 1.8 percent of global production in 2015 (Conseil international du Café (ICC)
2015). Export focused production now occurs in the North and South Kivu, and some traditional
production in Kongo Central, Equateur, Kasaï and Ituri. About 250,000 coffee farmers produce
around 600 tons of Robusta and arabica in mainly smallholder farming systems with varying
amounts of shade and intercropping, selling largely to specialist coffee buyers and roasters, some
larger scale buyers such as Starbucks (Wilkins 2019) and unrecorded exports to neighboring Uganda
and Rwanda (Cafe Imports Europe 2021). An unknown quantity of coffee has been certified since
around 2010 under VSS such as organic, UTZ and Fairtrade (Cafe Imports Europe 2021). In 2012,
the government launched the Strategy Document for the Recovery of the Coffee Sector 2011–2015
with USD 100 million earmarked in South Kivu province. The private sector has lobbied for looser
regulations and market liberalization (Coffeehunter.com 2021). In the CAR, internal conflict and
the covid pandemic have dramatically decreased production of coffee, one of the country’s major
3 https://ressources-magazine.com/focus-en/gabon-breathing-new-life-into-the-cocoa-sector/
4 https://www.cairn.info/revue-geoeconomie-2014-3-page-85.htm
5 https://cemac-eco.finance/cocoa-and-coffee-farmers-in-gabon-reassured-of-good-prices-despite-coronavirus-shocks/
6 https://tradingeconomics.com/sao-tome-principe/exports/gabon/cocoa-cocoa-preparations

export products7, accounting for about 0.5 percent of gross domestic product in 2010, down from
1 percent in 2000 (Conseil international du Café (ICC) 2015). In general, stable or slightly increased
production is expected, among these producing countries.8
8.2.5 Cotton
Cotton is produced mainly in smallholder farms, as a cash crop combined with other crops and
economic activities in degraded savannah forest areas of the region, and is largely exported.
There was a large increase in the land area planted with cotton in Central Africa from 1960 to
2009 mainly in response to market liberalization, falling global yields and to maintain incomes
due to the long term downward price trend on international markets (Hussein 2005) and climate
change negatively affecting production. Cameroon now exports to China, and Chad to Turkey.
The CAR produces some cotton but conflict and the covid pandemic have dramatically decreased
production.9 Before 2005, Central African countries exported to Europe and Asia, thereafter mainly
to Asia. The decline in Cameroon’s cotton exports in 2018 was quite steep, and the decline in Chad
slower, producing around 200,500 tons in 2015. It is not expected that cotton production will
increase from the region.
8.2.6 Rubber
Wild or red rubber (Landolphia, Funtumia, etc.) exports experienced a boom in the 1880s
particularly in DRC followed by a massive drop, as wild resources became over-exploited (Gewald
2006). In 1940s, wild rubber for industrial use and export recommenced and rubber (Hevea
brasiliensis) plantations started in Gabon, Central African Republic, DR Congo and Cameroon. In
Gabon, despite intercropping experiments (Enjalric and Ngoua Assoumou 1998) most rubber
is grown in large scale plantations by government and private companies, with a tendency the
region towards privatization of state plantations and joint ventures (Assembe-Mvondo et al. 2016).
Prices and expansion in the 1970s were halted by the 1980s financial crisis, and in the 2000s Asian
investment became more prominent. In Gabon international trader Olam has been active since 1999
and engaged in joint ventures with the government in 2012. In the South, Centre and southwest
regions of Cameroon, production is dominated by two private agro-industrial entities Hevecam
(54,000 ha) and Sudcam (45,000 ha), both owned by Halcyon, with expansion in the Sangha region
associated with deforestation (Orozco and Salber 2019; Seale 2019; Assembe-Mvondo et al. 2016).
In 2017, 53,000 tons of natural rubber were produced from Cameroon.10 In Cuvette in Republic
of Congo, the expansion of plantations in the 1970s and the last decade is linked to deforestation
(Orozco and Salber 2019; Seale 2019; Assembe-Mvondo et al. 2016). In the CAR, rubber production
has steadily increased since a dip due to the financial crisis, to 1200 tons in 2019 (FAOStat 2021).11
Rubber production in the region is expected to increase slightly.
7 http://iaco-oiac.org/sites/default/files/docspage/seudieu-session_2-women_youth-iaco.pdf et https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-
release/2020/11/30/perspectives-economiques-en-republique-centrafricaine-diversifier-leconomie-pour-renforcer-la-resilience-et-favoriser-la-
croissance
8 http://www.ico.org/
9 https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2020/11/30/perspectives-economiques-en-republique-centrafricaine-diversifierleconomie-
pour-renforcer-la-resilience-et-favoriser-la-croissance
10 http://www.rubberstudy.org/Cameroun
11 https://www.tilasto.com/en/topic/geography-and-agriculture/crop/natural-rubber/natural-rubber-production-quantity/central-african-
republic

Chapter 8
8.3 Initiatives taken by Central African

countries to combat deforestation
Faced with this new situation, stakeholders involved in the production and export of forest-risk
commodities have taken steps to mitigate the impact of anti-deforestation initiatives on their
operations. In counterpoint to this needless controversy, citizens and consumers in the global North
are making their own demands, as demonstrated by European countries through the Amsterdam
Declaration.
It is extremely reductive to present this initiative as a threat to development in the global South.
Deforestation also poses an existential threat to local communities (e.g. ecosystem services, including
water and food). These measures, which often involve different types of actors (government,
NGO and private sector), range from participation in anti-deforestation initiatives to promoting
certification, and from awareness raising to capacity building and regulatory measures.
8.3.1 Central African discourses and public policies on

commodity-driven deforestation
To understand the past, current and potential future impacts of imported deforestation and zero-
deforestation commitments and initiatives in COMIFAC12 and Central African countries, we must
first consider how farmers, the public and private sectors, and NGOs define imported deforestation
and zero deforestation in relation to commodities and their value chains.13 This can be seen in the
public discourses different actors use. A discourse is “an ensemble of ideas, concepts, and categories
through which meaning is given to social and physical phenomena, and which is produced and
reproduced through an identifiable set of practices” (Hajer 2006). Different actors have different
views on if, and how deforestation is caused, if deforestation is a problem and if so, which approach
can be used to solve the problem. These discourses shape the approaches actors such as governments,
business and NGOs use and justify in their “theory of change” or “impact logic”, i.e., why they prefer
a certain approach. These determine the interventions they make on the ground, and resulting
expected outcomes and long-term, high level impacts of these interventions. The main approaches
are described in Box 8.1.
A summary of the impact logics - showing outputs, outcomes and anticipated impacts - for different
approaches used in commodity chains perceived to drive deforestation in the Congo Basin, is shown
in Figure 8.1.
Shown in Table 8.1, globally six main discourses have been identified driving the approaches and
interventions used in forest-risk commodity value chains (Ingram et al. 2020a). In Central Africa,
four different discourses can be recognized. Multi-stakeholder initiatives that involve most relevant
stakeholders play an important role in reproducing discourses by referring to a common goal and
strategy. Discourses are often interrelated and combined together by commodity trading companies.
12 COMIFAC Member States: Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, DRC, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Republic of the Congo,
Rwanda and Sao Tome and Principe.
13 The term ‘value chain’ is used in preference to ‘supply chain’, as value chain emphasizes the value that can be built into chains (Ingram 2014).

8.3.2 Initiatives by COMIFAC Member States

To better position themselves to combat ‘illegal’ deforestation linked to the production of agricultural
and forestry commodities, Congo Basin governments have signed up to several bilateral and
multilateral forest protection initiatives. For timber, these initiatives include Voluntary Partnership
Agreements (VPAs) under the EU Action Plan for Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade
(FLEGT), the Central African Forest Initiative (CAFI) and the Tropical Forest Alliance (TFA). The
Republic of the Congo (2010), Cameroon (2010) and CAR (2011) have signed VPAs with the EU
while Gabon and DRC are currently negotiating a similar partnership framework with the EU.
These agreements are at various stages of implementation in those Congo Basin countries that have
Box 8.1: Main approaches used to tackle deforestation by actors in

Central Africa
1. Regulatory - state regulations and government policies governing commodity value

chains and the landscapes which the commodities originate from
2. Landscape & jurisdictional – refer to initiatives at a scale that match administrative
boundaries of local, regional, sub-national or national governments in commodity
producing countries or production and ecosystem areas. These approaches tend to cover
actors at different stages of one commodity chain, with producers most widely represented
numerically.
3. Voluntary sustainability standards (VSS) - standards to which producers voluntarily
adhere, requiring them to improve their production practices across a variety of
sustainability indicators, used in all stages of commodity value chains, such as FSC and
PEFC (timber, rubber), RSPO (palm oil), Better Cotton Initiative (cotton), Rainforest
Alliance, Organic and Fairtrade (coffee, cocoa, cotton) and the Global Roundtable for
Sustainable Beef (GRSB).
4. Corporate pledges - corporate social responsibility, self-regulation and declarations,
whereby a business (or association thereof) pledges and then monitors and ensures active
compliance with the spirit of the law, ethical standards, and national or international
norms on CSR. These include actions that appear to further a social or environmental
goods beyond the interests of the firm(s) and what is required by law. Often in the trading,
manufacturing and retailing stages of value chains.
5. Public-private partnerships (PPPs) - Platforms, networks, associations, partnerships
and agreements between private sector and public sector, and often also research, civil
society (CSO), and non-governmental (NGO) organisations collaborating on a common
goal of sustainability with a declared policy or programme and plan of action. Many PPPs
include governments in producer and consumer countries, and large companies in trading,
manufacturing and retailing stages of value chains.
6. Due diligence mechanisms - include individual and joint actions, investigations or the
exercise of care by companies to avoid committing an offence. The offence maybe due to a
legal obligation or a voluntary initiative on taking responsibility in chains. These include
traceability mechanisms, third-party campaigns and investigations, voluntary disclosure
initiatives and moratoriums – which commonly occur at the supply and consumer ends of
commodity chains.

Chapter 8
Figure 8.2: Impact logic of zero-deforestation approaches applied to Congo Basin

commodity value chains
Source: Ingram et al 2020
signed them. Finally, on the economic front, Congo Basin countries are striving – more so now than
before – to diversify the destination of the wood they export. Consequently, over recent years, timber
exports from the subregion to China, countries in South Asia (e.g. India and Vietnam) and the Middle
East14 are gaining momentum, in particular at the expense of EU countries. It should be noted that
apart from tentative efforts to organize the domestic timber market, such as in Cameroon, virtually
nothing has yet been done by signatory states to alleviate the problem. Efforts have also been made
to raise awareness and build stakeholder capacity as regards the characteristics and requirements of
FLEGT VPAs (awareness-raising and capacity building on procedures and traceability, for example).
On the economic front, countries in the subregion appear committed to reducing their log exports
and promoting more advanced local wood processing15 (second and third-stage processing), thereby
generating more added value. Moves in this direction include the recent (September 2020) decision
by Central African Economic and Monetary Union (CEMAC) Member States to ban log exports from
2022 and to launch special economic zones for wood processing, such as the Nkok Special Economic
Zone in Gabon.
CAFI is a partnership that brings together countries in the subregion (DRC, CAR, Cameroon, Republic
of the Congo, Gabon and Equatorial Guinea), a coalition of donors (Germany, France, Norway,
United Kingdom, EU) and Brazil with the aim of preserving the subregion’s forests, mitigating
climate change and contributing to sustainable development. Among other things, it supports the
measures taken by countries in the subregion to promote:
• Sustainable farming practices with less conversion of forest land,
• Sustainable forest management,
• Land-use planning aimed at preserving forests,
14 http://www.euflegt.efi.int/fr/web/apv-a-z/qu-est-ce-un-apv
15 See Convergence Plan for the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Forest Ecosystems in Central Africa 2015–2025; measures taken by
Cameroon (1990) and Gabon (2010s), for example.

Table 8.1 Discourses on zero deforestation at the global level and in Central Africa
Discourses
Discourses Solutions to commodity-
in Central Main focus Espoused by
globally driven deforestation
Africa
Neoliberal Zero- Confidence in the role of Market mechanisms PES “Moderate” NGOs,
deforestation markets to find solutions to schemes, REDD+, emissions the private sector, and
as a market environmental problems. trading, carbon caps, liberal governments
requirement voluntary sustainability
mechanisms, individual
Productivity Land sparing via business and sustainable
for protection productivity increases. investments.
protecting (forested)
protected areas.
Legality and Support for the rule of law Effective interactions Governments, EU,
responsibility and proper and careful between legal frameworks, NGOs focusing on
management of sourcing corporate responsibility for corporate transparency
and procurement practices implementing due diligence and financial
to reduce the impact of principles, active civil organizations
commodity production. society organizations.
Limits to Calls for global governance, Stronger governments and “Conscience
growth argues against privileging regulatory approaches to set keeping” NGOs, local
traditional market players boundaries to expanding agroecological and
and embraces efforts for economy, worldwide peasant movements,
global burden sharing, and transformative, systematic indigenous
fair and equitable shares in change in consumption and associations, some
global consumption. production patterns. scientists, climate
activists, youth
activists, and the slow
food movement.
Local Recognizes the need Land tenure as legal Farmers and
livelihoods for land use practices condition for deforestation communities,
in forested areas and free commodities. PES development
government support for schemes, REDD+, legal organizations and some
the development of decent/ protection of farmers, voluntary standards
acceptable livelihoods agricultural extension schemes.
of local farmers and services
communities.
Commodities Belief that some REDD, Climate activism,
for the future commodities can be grown agroforestry & mixed
sustainability, supporting cropping
needs of future generations
New Learning from Commodity production Consumer behavioral Governments in
colonialism mistakes considered as a change through Cameroon and Gabon,
development engine information and awareness, Brazil, Indonesia, India
threatened by Western regulations, and economic and among palm oil
sanctions under the guise compensation and meat producers.
of nature conservation
and environmental
awareness. This discourse
rejects negative impacts of
commodity production as
an unfair limiting factor to
development.
Learn from mistakes VSS, agroforestry & mixed Traders, governments
made in large commodity cropping in high forest land cover
supplying countries with areas eg Cameroon,
now small forest areas, DRC and
e.g., Ghana, Cote d’Ivoire, MSP eg IDH, some
Indonesia, Brazil environmental
NGOS eg WWF, CI,
researchers
Sources: Ingram et al. 2020a, Masselot 2020

Chapter 8
• More secure land tenure, which discourages forest conversion,

• Better governance frameworks, resulting in permit and tax regimes that do not incentivize
economic actors to convert forests or carry out illegal activities.16
The TFA, meanwhile, is a multi-stakeholder partnership platform set up in 2012 to support key
actors in the production of commodities like palm oil, soybean, beef, cocoa and paper to transition
to deforestation-free supply chains. DRC, CAR, Cameroon, Republic of the Congo and Gabon have
been members of the TFA since 2015, in particular through its flagship initiative, the African Palm
Oil Initiative (APOI). The APOI aims to promote the sustainable development of the oil palm sector
in accordance with countries’ ambitions for emergence, while respecting good environmental and
social practices. With technical and financial support from TFA-APOI, these countries have drawn up
national principles and action plans for the sustainable production of palm oil, which are now being
implemented. Going further, three countries (CAR, Republic of the Congo and DRC) have signed
the Marrakesh Declaration (2016), which sets out regional guiding principles for the responsible
development of the palm oil sector.
Beyond the initiatives described above, which involve almost all countries in the subregion, there are
other country-specific initiatives, such as, Gabon’s certification standards initiative and Cameroon’s
Roadmap to Deforestation-Free Cocoa.
In September 2018, Gabon made FSC certification mandatory for all its forestry concessions
from 2022. This shift from a private and voluntary governance instrument to a binding national
instrument aims to combat unsustainable logging practices, including deforestation. The approval
of the RSPO standard as a national standard for palm oil production by the Gabonese Standardization
Agency (AGANOR) in 2019 is also part of the Gabonese Government’s commitment to combating
unsustainable commodity production practices, including deforestation. Moreover, as part of
recent efforts to revise Gabon’s national interpretation of the RSPO (December 2019–July 2020),
the government has shown political will despite the RSPO being, in essence, a civil society and
private sector-led mechanism. Through these initiatives, the Gabonese authorities hope, among
other things, to ensure that Gabonese goods have access to markets aware of the need to combat
imported deforestation or to avoid Gabonese goods being boycotted by consumers and NGOs. This
motive also drives the Cameroonian authorities adoption of the Roadmap to Deforestation-Free
Cocoa in Cameroon. This roadmap provides a shared framework for action and was developed by
stakeholders in the cocoa value chain from 2019 through a participatory process supported by IDH,
The Sustainable Trade Initiative. The objective of this action plan is to promote the production of
deforestation-free cocoa that meets the government’s production ambitions and sustainability
standards, compliance with which is increasingly required to access certain international markets.
Through the Standards and Quality Agency (ANOR), the Cameroonian Government is also working
to standardize agricultural and forestry commodities. Such standards include APNC 2895-96-97 on
sustainable and traceable cocoa and ARSO/AES 2014 on timber, which are currently being revised or
adopted and could help the country to adjust to the requirements of deforestation-free value chains.
In addition to the actions taken above, governments in the subregion are engaged in projects
or processes not explicitly aimed at mitigating the impacts of initiatives to combat imported
deforestation, but that are likely to help them comply with the requirements of deforestation-free
agricultural value chains or manage the effects of initiatives seeking to prevent the destruction of
forest cover for agricultural purposes. Such initiatives include REDD+ processes (DRC, Republic of
16 https://www.cafi.org/content/cafi/en/home/

the Congo, Cameroon, CAR), diversifying agricultural production (Republic of the Congo, Cameroon,
Gabon), promoting climate-smart agriculture (Republic of the Congo), land-use planning (Gabon,
Cameroon, Republic of the Congo, DRC) and the decision to focus large-scale agricultural projects
on savannah areas (Republic of the Congo).
8.3.3 NGO actions

Imported deforestation is of interest to several international and national environmental NGOs
working in the region. Such international environmental NGOs include WWF, World Resources
Institute (WRI), Greenpeace, Forest People’s Programme, Proforest, Earth Worm Foundation, FERN,
Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and the Rainforest Alliance. National NGOs include the Center
for Environment and Development (CED), Brainforest, Education Environnement Développement
Durable (Education, Environment, Sustainable Development – EEDD), Comité Des Droits De
L’Homme et Developpement (Human Rights and Development Committee – CODHOD), Femme,
Environnement, Santé et Education (Women, Environment, Health and Education – FENSED),
Service d’Appui aux Initiatives Locales de Développement (Support Services for Local Development
Initiatives – SAILD), Forêts et Développement Rural (Forests and Rural Development – FODER),
International Development Research Centre (IDRC) Africa, Muyissi Environnement, ASD and
Observatoire congolais des droits de l’homme (Congolese Human Rights Observator – OCDH).
Between 2017 and 2020, several international environmental NGOs, often in collaboration with
national environmental NGOs, organized or facilitated workshops in a number of countries in
the subregion to raise awareness or build capacity among stakeholders involved in producing
or trading commodities. They covered different aspects of imported deforestation and the
requirements imposed by initiatives to prevent it. Beyond building the technical capacity of these
stakeholders, some of these NGOs sought to support stakeholders – including small producers – to
build their organizational capacity. These awareness raising and capacity building efforts aimed to
help stakeholders avoid or mitigate the negative consequences of measures to combat imported
deforestation by enabling them to comply with the requirements of organizations, governments,
investors and consumers in buyer countries. They also aim to help these stakeholders to harness the
opportunities offered by organizations, governments, investors and consumers in buyer countries
as part of efforts to combat imported deforestation.
Key imported deforestation initiatives implemented or supported by environmental NGOs include:

• TFA-APOI facilitated by Proforest, WWF, WRI, CODHOD, EEDD and Brainforest in the subregion.
• The Roadmap to Deforestation-Free Cocoa in Cameroon, facilitated by IDH and supported by
around a dozen environmental NGOs.
• The Green Commodity Landscape Programme (GCLP) launched in Cameroon in 2018 by IDH
and WWF. The GCLP is a multi-stakeholder programme operating at the landscape level. It aims
to support sustainable commodity production while contributing to the protection of forests
and improving the livelihoods of farmers and their communities. It uses cocoa production as
an entry point into the landscape. The GCLP seeks, among other things, to help growers and
the Cameroonian Government to produce commodities in a way that maintains access to major
European markets through compliance with the commitments made by private companies
(Cargill, Olam, Barry Callebaut, Mars, etc.) and other requirements of consumer countries.
• The Accountability Framework Initiative (AFI) is a collaborative effort to create and scale up
ethical supply chains for agricultural and forestry products. Led by a diverse global coalition of
environmental and human rights organizations under the leadership of the Rainforest Alliance,
the AFI strives to build a ‘new normal’ where commodity production and trade truly protect

Chapter 8
natural ecosystems and human rights.17 It has been active in the subregion (DRC, Cameroon,
Gabon, CAR, Republic of the Congo) since 2019 under the leadership of WWF and the Rainforest
Alliance, which handle promotion.
Finally, with regard to voluntary certification initiatives, environmental NGOs tend to focus on three
key lines of action:
• Supporting the development of standards. Between 2005 and 2018, WWF supported the regional
and national FSC interpretation initiatives; WWF, Proforest, Brainforest, FENSED and other
environmental NGOs launched and/or supported Gabon’s national RSPO interpretation efforts
(RSPO Principles & Criteria 2013 and 2018); WWF, Proforest, the Zoological Society of London
(ZSL) and Forest Peoples Programme helped launch and/or support Cameroon’s national RSPO
interpretation process, which is currently under way.
• Awareness raising among the private sector and producer groups to encourage companies to
engage in the FSC (wood), RSPO (palm oil) or Rainforest Alliance (cocoa) certification process.
WWF, Proforest and Rainforest Alliance have been highly active in this field for years.
• Technical and financial support for the private sector to undertake the certification process. For
example, for several years, WWF has supported a number of forestry companies engaged in the
FSC certification process (such as Palisco and Wijma in Cameroon, and CBG in Gabon).
These interventions aim, on the one hand, to help stakeholders to defend against the negative
consequences of measures to combat imported deforestation by enabling them to comply with
the new requirements and, on the other, to help them to harness the opportunities offered by
organizations, governments, investors and consumers in buyer countries as part of efforts to combat
imported deforestation.
8.3.4 Private sector initiatives

Policies on imported deforestation adopted by countries in the global North impact commodity-
producing countries, and private sector companies that produce and sell raw materials in particular.
The private sector in Central Africa has responded to these policies in two main ways. Companies
either take steps to comply with the requirements of the deforestation-free production and sale of
commodities through sustainable production commitments or they circumvent them and reorient
themselves towards alternative markets. These commitments to sustainable production mainly
take the form of corporate sustainability policies, on the one hand, and the certification of their
forestry and agricultural operations, on the other.
Commitments to greater sustainability in forestry and industrial agriculture operations in Central

Africa remain modest, as illustrated below. In response to the introduction of increasingly strict
anti-deforestation policies by countries in the global North, some companies (especially forestry
companies operating in Central Africa) are diversifying their markets and shifting to more permissive
markets in Asia, in particular China, India and Vietnam. This trend has been fuelled by, among other
things, the intensification of multisectoral cooperation between Congo Basin countries and China
over recent years and the massive influx of Chinese capital into the Central African forestry sector.
A case in point: between 2005 and 2019, the number of Chinese-owned forestry companies in
Cameroon increased from 4 to 12 and the forest management unit area controlled by them increased
17 https://accountability-framework.org/about/about-the-initiative/

from around 50,000 ha to 110,000 ha (Zongang 2019). This shift means that countries in the global
North can ease their conscience by not importing products that contribute to deforestation, while
not actually doing anything to prevent it in producer countries.
8.4 Initiatives taken by importing countries

to tackle imported deforestation
In response to increasingly vocal pressure from NGOs, civil society and consumer groups, a number
of public policies and market-based, private sector initiatives (including voluntary sustainability
standards for agricultural commodities and timber) have emerged at the international level,
especially in Europe, North America and China.
European countries are currently considering several possible ways to implement a policy to
combat imported deforestation. They range from government regulations enforced by national or
supranational public bodies to private governance mechanisms under which companies voluntarily
work to produce commodities without causing deforestation or severe forest degradation.
Over the past 20 years, private sector actors have increasingly defined and monitored their own
performance when it comes to sustainability, either via certification standards or by developing
their own procedures and criteria. These voluntary approaches have often been criticized for only
covering a minority of companies and failing to reach other producers who supply markets that are
less sensitive to the sustainable production of agricultural commodities. These voluntary private
approaches are also criticized because a large number of companies fail to fulfil their commitments,
particularly when they commit to deforestation-free production practices. Year after year,
multinationals make little to no progress towards the goals set by the New York Declaration or the
Bonn Challenge.
Companies’ lacklustre performance on combating imported deforestation should not, however,

overshadow the significant progress made by certification standards over the past 15 years as regards
their operational content on sustainability. The place of standards is relatively settled in some
sectors, such as FSC and PEFC certification for wood and Rainforest Alliance certification for coffee
and cocoa. This has not however been the case for other tropical agricultural products. Though now
accepted, standards and certification procedures applicable to such products were largely absent over
the past decade and often controversial. The overarching goal of private standards is sustainability.
But so far they have failed to incorporate substantial provisions to prevent deforestation or limit
forest degradation. Moreover, some standards underperform on a number of social criteria, the
implementation of which is often criticized.
As importing countries consider how to implement policies to combat deforestation, it is useful to

examine how far existing sustainability standards could help them move towards this goal. To this
end, Table 8.1 presents four sectors that have a worrying impact on Central African forests (palm oil,
cocoa, rubber and wood) and, by way of example, the requirements set out in the French Strategy to
Combat Imported Deforestation (SNDI). These requirements are grouped into three categories: (i)
environmental impacts, such as forest and peatland degradation, the use of the High Conservation
Value (HCV) and High Carbon Stock (HCS) approaches; (ii) social impacts, such as labour law, free,
prior and informed consent, respect for the legal and customary status of land; and (iii) how the
standard is applied, including access to certification for small producers.

Chapter 8
8.4.1 European Union public policy

Deforestation and forest degradation contribute to some of the major global sustainability challenges
such as biodiversity protection, climate change, human rights, peace and security, good governance
and the rule of law. The European Union (EU) has made tackling these global challenges one of its
priorities, to ensure that EU meets its international commitments and contributes significantly to
solving and mitigating the problems.
The Amsterdam Declaration of December 2015 – with separate declarations on deforestation

and palm oil- was made on the sidelines of the COP21 Paris Agreement on Climate Change. Since
2021, the Amsterdam Declaration Partnership includes Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany,
Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Italy and the United Kingdom and advocates political commitments
and public policies to achieve sustainable and deforestation-free agricultural commodity
supply chains in Europe and facilitate national level multi-stakeholder initiatives, working
in partnership with private sector companies and producer countries. Eliminating deforestation
associated with agricultural product value chains was made a point of political dialogues and trade
negotiations with producer countries (Karsenty, 2019). These efforts have driven policy changes
and commitments among partner countries and at EU-level. The French Strategy for the Fight
against Imported Deforestation (Stratégie nationale de lutte contre la déforestation importée,
SNDI), uses the term imported deforestation. The national territory in this case is France or any
other European country, and outside implies countries in Central Africa or other tropical country
since it is considered that deforestation occurs mainly in tropical regions.
On a European level, following an analysis of the impact of EU consumption on deforestation

(European Union 2013), and complementing to the EU Timber Regulation (EUTR) (Regulation
(EU) No 995/2010) and the Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) Regulation
(Council Regulation (EC) No 2173/2005), in 2018 a feasibility study18 on EU options to step up
action against deforestation was published. In July 2019, the European Commission adopted the
EU Communication on Stepping up EU Action to Protect and Restore the World’s Forests.19 Five
priority areas for action were set out: EU demand side measures, partnerships with producer
countries worldwide, international multilateral cooperation and redirecting finance and advancing
information. The proposals for action were developed as an integral part of the overall EU initiative
of a European Green Deal (2019)20 linking this set of actions on forests to other relevant initiatives,
such as the European Biodiversity Strategy21 and the Farm to Fork Strategy22. In 2019 the European
Commission considered how to step up EU Action to protect and restore the world’s forests and
set up an open public consultation on “Deforestation and forest degradation – reducing the
impact of products placed on the EU market” (European Commission 2019). In October 2020, the
European Parliament adopted a resolution with recommendations to the Commission on an EU
legal framework to halt and reverse EU-driven global deforestation (European Parliament 2020).
This legislative initiative looks at the feasibility and effectiveness of creating mandatory rules based
on due diligence, similar to the EU Timber Regulation and Forest Law Enforcement, Governance
18 European Union (2018) Feasibility study on options to step up EU action against deforestation. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the
European Union. DOI: 10.2779/75460. Available at: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/84b3bef5-2d86-11e8-b5fe-
01aa75ed71a1/language-en
19 European Commission, Directorate-General for Environment (2019) Stepping up EU Action to Protect and Restore the World’s Forests. Available at
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:52019DC0352
20 https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en
21 https://environment.ec.europa.eu/strategy/biodiversity-strategy-2030_en
22 https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal/actions-being-taken-eu/farm-fork_en

and Trade (FLEGT) Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPAs) system, for forest risk commodities in
addition to timber, as well as promoting voluntary third-party certification and labels.
Since the launch of the communication in 2019, the focus and discussions have been centered
around the preparation for additional measures related to the EU demand side, particularly
regarding measures to minimize the risk of deforestation and forest degradation associated with
products placed on the EU market, including mandatory labelling, certifications schemes, legality
standards, country benchmarking, carding systems, et cetera. Based on experiences with the EU
Timber Regulation, a more comprehensive understanding has been gained of how the due diligence
approach can be applied on a wider range of commodities, such as cocoa, coffee, palm oil, soy, beef
and timber. A legislative proposal to minimize the risk that products linked to deforestation be sold
in the European market was published in 2021.
As the European Commission carried out a fitness check of EUTR and FLEGT Regulations in 2021,
the experiences from Central African countries are of critical importance to help evaluate the
functioning of both regulations to combat illegal logging and to provide insights into how a similar
system can be applied for commodities other than timber. The demand side public policy making
in Europe should be ensured to contribute to impacts on the ground and reflect, service the needs of
producer countries.
8.4.2 Public policy in the United States

The United States is a major consumer of forest-risk commodities, such as beef, soybeans, palm oil
and wood products, although compared to Europe and China, the total imported volume of these
commodities from tropics is less significant.23
Since 2008, the U.S. Lacey Act, which previously applied only to wildlife trade, was amended to
include the banning of imports and the trade in illegal timber and wood products from foreign
countries. The imported volume of wood product has declined and prices for tropical hard wood
has increased, as the country shifts to domestic wood sourcing. In the meantime, since the Lacey
amendments took effect,24 China has become a major exporter of timber to the United States.
However, the amount of tropical wood in these imports which originated from China has dropped.
Research has shown that the impacts of Lacey Act mainly result from avoiding high-risk area and
high-risk products.25 Hence the exact effects on the ground in tropical timber producer regions is
unclear. More global measures and research have to be carried out to better understand its global
impacts on solving illegal logging and protecting world’s forests.
Another relevant action was the enactment of the Tropical Forest Conservation Reauthorization
Act (TFCA) of 2019,26 which is a debt-for-nature swap initiative (established in 1998) that mobilizes
funding for tropical forest conservation. A USD 15 million fund was made available in 2020 and
USD 20 million is expected to be provided in 2021. Several TFCA agreements have been signed
23 See import volumes in Beckman, Jayson, Ronald D. Sands, Anne A. Riddle, Tani Lee and Jacob M. Walloga. International Trade and
Deforestation: Potential Policy Effects via a Global Economic Model, ERR-229, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service,
April 2017. Available at: https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/83299/err-229.pdf?v=1569.1
24 UCS (2015) The Lacey Act’s Effectiveness in Reducing Illegal Wood Imports. Available at: https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/
attach/2015/10/ucs-lacey-report-2015.pdf
25 ibid.
26 https://www.usaid.gov/tropical-forest-conservation-act

Chapter 8
with several governments since 1998. According to the Congressional Research Service,27 USD
233.4 million has been used in 14 countries for 20 forest projects, and more than USD 339 million
has been leveraged through congressional funds and donations for tropical forest conservation.
Approximately 67 million acres (around 27 million hectare) of tropical forest were conserved
in countries such as Indonesia, Brazil, Paraguay, Botswana and Peru.28 Nonetheless, so far little
systemic academic research on the effectiveness and impacts of TFCA has been conducted.
8.4.3 Public policy in China

The sustainability agenda in China has been slow moving in the last decades. However, although
still in nascent stage, in the past few years, enabling factors in both public and private sectors
emerged which create a promising environment to speed up and scale up current efforts to address
deforestation linked to commodity imports. China is the largest importer for tropical timber, soy
and beef, and second or third largest importer of palm oil.29 Hence the sustainability of commodity
trade and related forest protection agendas cannot be discussed without looking at the huge Chinese
market.
In 2017, China included ‘ecological civilization’ into its constitution as the framework for its
pathway to sustainable development.30 The government committed to be a responsible power on
tackling climate change and biodiversity loss. Some green supply chain policies and guidelines31
have been enacted. The ongoing formulation of the China green value chain strategy combined with
the South-South cooperation and partnership through Green Belt and Road Initiatives could have
positive implications for Central African Countries. China’s intention to ensure legal timber imports
and future deforestation-free palm oil imports could create synergies and align with global efforts.
In June 2020, the draft of an updated “Green Bonds Endorsed Projects Catalogue” was published by the
People’s Bank of China, the National Development and Reform Commission, and the China Securities
Regulatory Commission for public consultation. This draft includes the recognition of sustainable
agricultural commodities certified by international certification schemes, such as Roundtable on
Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), Round Table on Responsible Soy (RTRS), Forest Stewardship Council
(FSC). This marks a significant step for the official regulation to include international standards. It
sends a strong signal to the private sector and reflects that the Chinese market actors are changing
to align more with international environment as many Chinese companies and investment sector
start to expand their operations overseas.
A policy study report to greening China’s soft commodity value chains was published by the China
Council for International Cooperation on Environment and Development (CCICED, 2020).32 In
addition to a national green value chain strategy, the Council suggested that the government to
adopt mandatory and voluntary measures to reduce the import of commodities that are illegally
harvested and to strengthen due diligence and traceability systems. This could be built upon the
27 https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31286.pdf
28 https://www.nature.org/en-us/about-us/who-we-are/how-we-work/policy/tropical-forest-conservation-act/
29 CCICED (2020) Global Green Value Chains – Greening China’s ‘Soft Commodity’ Value Chains. Available at: https://cciced.eco/wp-
content/uploads/2020/09/SPS-4-2-Global-Green-Value-Chains-1.pdf
30 Hansen, M. H., Li, H. Svarverud R. (2018) Ecological civilization: Interpreting the Chinese past, projecting the global future, Global
Environmental Change, volume 53, pp. 195-203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.09.014.
31 Such as the Guiding Opinions on Promoting a Green Belt and Road Initiative (2017), Belt and Road Initiative Green Supply Chain Cooperation
Platform (2018), Notice on Supply Chain Innovation and Application Pilot (2018), and other relevant documents and guidelines released in 2019.
32 ibid

latest revision of the China Forest Law,33 that prohibit the use of illegal timber. Similar regulations
could expand gradually to cover other soft commodities.
8.4.4 Private sector commitments

International companies made commitments to move towards Zero Net Deforestation (ZND)
through the Consumer Goods Forum (CGF) in 2010. The objective was to eliminate net deforestation
from their value chains by 2020. These commitments were reinforced in 2014 by the New York
Declaration on Forests (NYDF), through which 190 organizations including 57 multinationals
committed to eliminate deforestation from their production and supply chains by 2020.
In the cocoa sector, NGO pressure has stimulated companies to avoid risk, take collective action
and mitigate negative publicity. NGOs pressured major traders buying from the region such as
Cargill, Olam and Barry Callebaut and the chocolate manufacturers they supply to, to adopt
corporate pledges and sustainability programs, and to engage in public-private partnerships, such
as landscape approach embodied in a Framework for Action for the Roadmap to Deforestation-
free Cocoa in Cameroon34 led by the Dutch Initiative for Sustainable Trade (IDH) in 2019. In 2021
companies operating in Cameroon joined the World Cocoa Foundation’s (an alliance of major cocoa
and chocolate companies worldwide) Cocoa & Forests Initiative between private and public sector
in 2021.
The private sector, as part of corporate social responsibility or sustainability commitments, has
made public commitments to sustainable development and, specifically concerning biodiversity,
human rights, deforestation and climate change. Many multinational industrial agribusinesses
operating in Central Africa have committed to eliminate deforestation from their supply chains,
either through certification or through their internal sustainability policies. For example, the Cargill
Group, alongside its Cameroonian partner Telcar Cocoa Ltd, has committed to, among other things,
reduce greenhouse gas emissions from its supply chains by 30 percent by 2030.35 Similarly, the Olam
Group, which has a major presence in Gabon’s palm oil sector and Cameroon’s cocoa sector, has
set itself the objective to develop responsible and sustainable agricultural supply chains, in which
prosperous farmers and producers, flourishing rural communities and healthy ecosystems can
coexist.36 Halcyon, the parent company of SudCam and Hevecam, has committed in its sustainability
policy to avoid deforestation in all its operations by applying the High Conservation Value (HCV)
and the High Carbon Stock (HCS) approaches.37 Many multinationals operating in the Congo Basin
have committed to combat deforestation, mainly in response to the anti-deforestation regulations
and campaigns implemented by governments, international environmental NGOs and consumers
in those countries importing the commodities. In a similar vein, private sector companies are also
engaging in multi-stakeholder platforms aimed at protecting natural ecosystems and promoting
sustainability in the production and marketing of agricultural commodities, among other things.
This is the case for several companies that have joined the TFA (e.g. Olam, Socfin, Feronia, Cargill,
Nestlé).38 In committing to this initiative, companies undertake, among other things, to reduce
33 https://www.atibt.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/China-Forest-Law-Amendment-2020-20191228.pdf
34 https://www.tropicalforestalliance.org/en/news-and-events/news/press-release-Camerounian-cocoa-stakeholders-sign-a-roadmap-
towards- sustainable-and-deforestation-free-cocoa
35 https://www.cargill.com/sustainability/priorities/climate-change
36 https://www.olamgroup.com/sustainability.html
37 https://www.halcyonagri.com/publication/sustainable-natural-rubber-supply-chain-policy-snrscp/ (1 November 2020)
38 https://www.tropicalforestalliance.org/ (21 October 2020)

Chapter 8
deforestation in their supply chains. However, it is still too early to assess how effective this
commitment has been when it comes to reducing deforestation in practice.
8.4.5 Voluntary sustainability certification standards

for commodities
Voluntary sustainability standards are used to demonstrate commitments and sustainable
production processes to suppliers and consumers. The Central Africa region has lower coverage
of sustainability certification both in terms of volume and hectares certified than other major
commodity-producing regions.
There are a number of certification schemes for wood that could impact forest conservation. They
have emerged on the market in response to increasing pressure from consumers concerned about
the environmental credentials of products entering their markets. This is the case for the FSC, PEFC
and other certificates of legality (OLB, LegalSource, etc.) for wood and RSPO for palm oil. At present,
3,653,948 ha of forest are FSC certified in the Congo Basin (in Cameroon, RoC and Gabon), while
596,822 ha39 are PEFC certified and 9,543,857 ha40 have a certificate of legality. The FSC and PEFC
certification systems are also championed by Fair&Precious, a collective and collaborative brand
created by the International Tropical Timber Technical Association (ATIBT) and its members, whose
objectives include the sustainable management and protection of tropical forests.41 As regards the
certification of other agricultural products, currently only Olam Palm Gabon has an RSPO-certified
palm oil plantation (112,455 ha) and the company plans to certify all its operations in Gabon by
2021.42 In Cameroon, the Socapalm (around 70,000 ha) and Safacam (around 9,000 ha) plantations
are in the process of obtaining RSPO certification. In DRC, Feronia (Plantations et Huileries du
Congo S.A., with 107,301 ha)43 has stated that it is also undertaking RSPO certification.44 Current
debates centre on the sustainability and legality of tropical timber and the slow growth in demand
for certified tropical hardwood (Tropenbos International 2014).
For rubber, only Hevecam (21,140 ha planted), a subsidiary of the multinational Halcyon, is
undertaking the FSC certification process. There are no other similar initiatives for rubber in the
Congo Basin, but it should be noted that Olam Rubber Gabon (11,000 hectares planted) is working
to combat deforestation at its plantation in northern Gabon, in particular by protecting nearly
25,000 ha of HCV land.45
For cocoa in the Congo Basin, 11 producer groups have been certified by UTZ/Rainforest Alliance,46
with the support of several buyers/exporters (Olam, Telcar/Cargill, Sic Cacaos/Barry Callebaut,
Agroproduce Management Services LTD (AMS)/Theobroma, Ferrero). Certification gives these
growers access to a niche market offering premium prices to stakeholders in these value chains.
Certification should also enable them to maintain their access to consumer markets where anti-
39 http://pafc-certification.org/gabon/pafc-gabon-intro
40 Programme for the Promotion of Certified Forests (PPECF), Personal communication (Cameroon 3,609,931 ha; Republic of the Congo
3,211,003 ha; Gabon 2,033,627 ha; DRC 689,296 ha)
41 https://www.fair-and-precious.org/en/p/10/managing-and-protecting-forests-to-combat-global-warming (1 November 2020)
42 https://www.olamgroup.com/sustainability/sustainable-supply-chains/sustainable-palm-oil.html
43 https://www.feronia.com/plantations (1 November 2020)
44 https://www.feronia.com/sustainability/view/sustainability-strategy (1 November 2020)
45 https://www.olamgroup.com/locations/west-and-central-africa/gabon.html (1 November 2020)
46 https://utz.org/

deforestation requirements apply. No Rainforest Alliance certified coffee is produced, but organic
and Fairtrade certified coffee is grown in the Kivu region of DRC.
8.4.6 Voluntary sustainability certification standards:

Compatibility with efforts to combat imported
deforestation
Existing private certification systems have enabled several sectors to make significant progress
towards deforestation-free production. This is the case for timber, for which the PEFC and FSC
standards meet most of the demands of France’s National Strategy to Combat Imported Deforestation
(SNDI), although the application of certain criteria could be improved. The RSPO certification for
palm oil is also largely compatible with the SNDI criteria, but there are still issues around product
traceability and the treatment of forest degradation. These two shortcomings are also found in the
Rainforest Alliance standard for cocoa, but most of the SNDI criteria are covered.
Despite the mixed performance of these standards across these sectors, they share several weaknesses
when it comes to compliance with public policies aimed at preventing imported deforestation:
• These sustainability standards are still ill equipped to estimate deforestation, forest degradation
or impacts on peatlands;
• The HCS approach is still not used to full effect, unlike the more common approach of identifying
HCV areas, although monitoring of HCV areas is still inadequate;
• Most of the social criteria included in the SNDI are also included in most of the standards, but
they are poorly monitored in practice, according to NGOs, among other stakeholders;
• Product traceability is almost always a challenge, because it is rarely possible to trace products
back to where they were grown;
• The independence and transparency of certification audits are often questioned;
• Small-scale producers in the global South still struggle to access certification.
Private sustainability standards, in their current form, are not therefore able to take a leading role
in efforts to stop imported deforestation. Two aspects must be addressed to better equip them to
support the implementation of the SNDI policy. On the one hand, in the short term, the content
and implementation arrangements must be revised, and many standards are currently in the
process of doing this. On the other, their linkages with other approaches that could complement the
implementation of this policy should be considered. These approaches could include the negotiation
of bilateral or multilateral agreements between producer and consumer countries, the management
of geographic risk in production areas, or the territory-level certification of areas that are firmly
committed to sustainable development.
8.4.7 NGO actions

Globally, international, national and local NGOs such as Global Witness, Forests 500, Supply
Change by Forests Trends, Tropical Forest Alliance 2020 (TFA 2020), CDP Disclosure Insight Action,
the Accountability Framework, WWF’s Collaboration for Forests and Agriculture (CFA) and SPOTT
have developed traceability mechanisms to spotlight and assess negative environmental and social
impacts, show legality and forest-risk along value chains and demonstrate the (lack of) exercise
of due diligence in commodity value chains. Third-party campaigns and investigations have
sought to reveal the (lack of) due diligence at corporate, chain and sector scale (Ingram et al. 2018)

Chapter 8
disclosing practices based on field research which are published in reports, via the media and on
interactive websites.
Specifically focusing on the Congo Basin moist forests, NGO investigations into timber related
deforestation have been the most common, often with a focus on illegal logging, such as Global
Forest Watch and Obster. In the cocoa sector, the Cocoa Barometers (Fountain and Hütz-Adams
2018) campaign by Mighty Earth (Higonnet et al. 2018) have created negative publicity about the
deforestation due to cocoa production in West and Central Africa generally. Campaigns, reports
and websites directed at consumers and companies on illegal expansion and deforestation due to
palm oil plantations in Cameroon by Greenpeace,47 CED,48 Reseau de Lutte contre la Faim (Fight
Against Hunger Network – RELUFA)49 and ICENECDEV50, and on the rubber sector in Cameroon
and Republic of the Congo (Seale 2019, Orozco and Salber 2019) have led to disinvestment, free,
prior and informed consent processes and changes to corporate policy.
Conclusions
There appears to be consensus around the need to combat deforestation among different direct
and indirect stakeholders involved in land management in Central Africa. Nevertheless, the policies
and approaches adopted and implemented to this end can have serious social and economic
consequences for producer and exporting countries in this region.
Importing countries in Europe and America adopt binding consumer-side policies under the
influence of activist civil society organizations. By the end of 2021, the EU is expected to adopt binding
legislation prohibiting the importation of products suspected of contributing to deforestation,
the underlying assumption being that deforestation is only a tropical phenomenon, linked to the
production of commodities traded on international markets. The products most affected in Central
Africa are palm oil, cocoa, rubber, wood and, to a lesser extent, coffee. The technical arrangements
for implementing these policies and measures to combat imported deforestation in importing
countries are still unclear or not yet defined. Barriers to the development of credible implementation
strategies include the lack of consensus on how to define forests and, therefore, deforestation.
Nevertheless, the certification approach has been applied to timber products for around 20 years
and is increasingly applied to palm oil and cocoa. It offers a technical solution, both in respect of the
production units and the territorial entities that have made commitments.
Central African producers and exporters are increasingly aware of and compliant with the new
requirements of zero-deforestation policies and measures to combat imported deforestation
adopted by developed importing countries. This is all the more relevant, given that Central African
countries understand the threat that such policies pose to their national economies. Central African
stakeholders have responded in two ways:
1) by diversifying their markets to export more to less demanding markets, and 2) by adopting
sustainable management practices for the production of the commodities concerned, by increasing
efforts to eliminate deforestation from production chains. Central African approaches are led not
just by governments, but also by private sector and civil society actors.
47 https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/wp-content/uploads/legacy/Global/usa/planet3/PDFs/HeraklesCrimeFile.pdf
48 http://www.cedcameroun.org/projets/reducing-footprint-of-palm-oil-on-forests/
49 https://news.mongabay.com/2020/06/if-they-take-our-lands-well-be-dead-Cameroun-village-battles-palm-oil-giant/
50 https://www.icenecdev.org/Land-Grabbing-in-Cameroun.pdf

To limit the negative economic impacts of the adoption and implementation of policies on imported
deforestation, particularly in Europe, Central African governments should prioritize negotiation
activities, possibly as part of discussions between ECCAS and the EU. Such negotiations should
encourage the adoption of more realistic implementation schedules and relevant support measures
both for governments and other stakeholders in these commodity chains. The experience of FLEGT
in Central Africa could serve as a model (with room for improvement). Given that they share similar
ecosystems, Central African countries could, as a starting point, seek to harmonize their technical
approaches, for example, by agreeing a definition of forest and how to monitor deforestation.

Emerging issues for
Central African forests
PART 3
CHAPTER 9
Peatlands of the Central Congo
Basin, current realities and
perspectives
Authors : Denis Jean Sonwa,1 Simon L. Lewis,2 Suspens Ifo Averti,3 Corneille
Ewango,4 Edward T.A. Mitchard,5 Greta C. Dargie,2 Ian T. Lawson,6 Sylvie
Gourlet-Fleury,7 Charles Doumenge,7 Valéry Gond,7 Julie Betbeder,7 Andre
Kamdem Toham,8 Julie Van Offelen,8 Dianna Kopansky,8 Rémi D’Annunzio,9
Raoul Monsembula,10 Maria Nuutinen,9 Laura Villegas,9 Kai Milliken,9 Nathalie
Philippon,11 Sylvain Bigot,11 Olivia E. Freeman,12 Jean-Jacques Bambuta,13
Quentin Jungers,14, 15 Rosa Román Cuesta1, 16
1
CIFOR-ICRAF, 2University of Leeds, 3Marien Ngouabi University, 4UNIKIS, 5University of
Edinburgh, 6University of St. Andrews, 7CIRAD, 8PNUE, 9FAO, 10University of Kinshasa,
Greenpeace Afrique, 11University of Grenoble Alpes-IGE, 12USFS, 13Ministry of Environment
and Sustainable Development (DRC), 14FRMi, 15Université Catholique de Louvain,
16
Wageningen University & Research
Photo by Axel Fassio/CIFOR

Chapter 9
Introduction
Globally peatland ecosystems -- wetlands with an accumulation
of partially decomposed organic matter in the soil -- store the
largest amount of terrestrial carbon per unit area (Rydin and
Jeglum 2006; Leifeld and Menichetti 2018). Globally peatlands
cover almost three percent of the global land surface (Yu et al.
2010; Page et al. 2011; Dargie et al. 2017), representing more than
the total carbon stored in Earth’s vegetation and almost twice
as much carbon as found within the world’s forests (Crump
2017). Drained and degrading peatlands are a major source of
greenhouse gas emissions, annually releasing 5 percent of global
anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (IPCC 2014), which
is expected to increase. Therefore, protection and sustainable
management of peatlands and urgent action to restore peatlands
including through rewetting can avoid carbon emissions and
maintain the carbon stored in the peatland ecosystem (Leifeld
and Menichetti 2018; FAO 2020b).
Healthy peatland ecosystems are important to populations everywhere not only for the carbon they
store, but also for their significant role in hydrological and nutrient cycling and storage, including the
provision of clean drinking water, mitigating flood and climate risks, and supporting the livelihoods
of communities living within these landscapes (Crump 2017).
In Central Africa, the Central Congo peatlands are estimated to cover 145,500 km2, located across
both the Republic of the Congo (RoC) and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), making
them the world’s largest tropical peatland complex (i.e., near contiguous peatland) (see Figure 9.1)
(Dargie et al. 2017). They are estimated to store approximately 30 gigatonnes of carbon (Dargie et
al. 2017) which is approximately as much carbon as all of the above-ground forest biomass in Congo
Basin (Verhegghen et al. 2012; Saatchi et al. 2011b), or equivalent to 15 years of the carbon emissions
from the US economy.
To date, this vast peatland area has remained relatively intact, but several potential pressures
threaten to disturb these highly sensitive ecosystems (Dargie et al. 2019). Increases in logging,
hydrocarbon exploration, and expansion of agriculture all have the potential to cause degradation
and destruction of these critical habits (Dargie et al. 2019). Disturbances and drainage will not only
release a large amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere contributing to global heating, but
can also have severe impacts on the regional climate. Once disturbed, it is challenging and costly

Peatlands of the Central Congo Basin, current realities and perspectives
to restore such ecosystems, particularly in the tropics, as evidenced by experiences in Indonesia

(Suryadiputra et al. 2005; Crump 2017; Hansson and Dargusch 2017).
Given the ecological importance regionally and globally, the sustainable management and good
governance of the Central Congo peatlands is of paramount importance. Identifying strategies to
protect the peatlands and facilitate low-emission and biodiversity-friendly economic development
for the two Congos is essential for the provision of sustainable, long-term community livelihoods
and protection of these vast peatland areas and the freshwater ecosystem of the Congo River basin.
This chapter outlines the current state of knowledge of Central Congo peatlands including: their
extent and characterization, ecological importance and socio-economic status; current research
approaches and gaps; threats; governance and policy frameworks; current initiatives and programs;
and key management challenges. This overview aims to help guide future research, investment in,
and management of, the world’s largest tropical peatland complex.1
Figure 9.1: Map of the Central Congo peatlands (areas in purple and red) spanning the
RoC and the DRC
Source: OFAC 2020; Dargie et al. 2017
1 Indonesia has a larger overall area of peatland, but these are spread across several islands.

Chapter 9
9.1 Central Congo peatlands

9.1.1 Characterization and extent
The Congo Basin drains an area of approximately 3.7 million km2, within which lies a central
depression, known as the Cuvette Centrale overlaid mostly by swamp forest, with smaller areas of
herbaceous swamp, seasonally flooded forest, terra firme forest and savanna (Léonard 1952; Evrard
1957; Kadima et al. 2011; Dargie et al. 2017; Betbeder et al. 2013).
Over this region, the Congo River drops just 115 m over 1,740 km, with year-round waterlogging.
Mean annual rainfall in the Cuvette Centrale is just 1700 mm yr-1 (varying from 1600 to 2200 mm
yr-1) (Mohymont and Demarée 2006), markedly lower than the 2000-3500 mm yr-1 and 2000-
4000 mm yr-1 in the peatland regions of Western Amazonia and South East Asia, respectively (Dargie
et al. 2017). Precipitation inside the Cuvette Centrale is an important element of the hydrological
balance of the Congo river, accounting for more than 30 percent of its water supply during low
water periods (Datok et al. 2020).
The spatial pattern and spatial extent of peat was mapped in 2017, with field samples showing
deep peat deposits for the first time (Dargie et al. 2017). This spatially explicit map of peatlands
in the Central Congo Basin reveals it to be the most extensive tropical peatland complex (i.e., near
contiguous), with a 95 percent confidence interval of 131,900–156,400 km2. This work builds on past
efforts mapping vegetation, from the 1950s onwards (Evrard 1957; Betbeder et al. 2013; Kadima et al.
2011; Dargie 2015; Bwangoy et al. 2010). The peatland area occupies about 40% of the total wetland
area of the Cuvette Centrale, using Bwangoy et al. (2010) for wetland area. Maps using satellite data
and no ground observations of peat have also been published (Gumbricht et al. 2017; Xu et al. 2018).
Ground sampling shows that the peatlands that occupy large interfluvial basins form modest domes
(Davenport et al. 2020), with peatlands beginning to form in the very early Holocene, at least 10,500
years B.P. (Dargie et al. 2017). The peatlands have actively sequestered carbon including the past
2,000 years (Dargie et al. 2017). Peat also forms “corridors” of peat, adjacent to rivers flowing east to
west into the Congo River in the DRC (Figure 9.1; Dargie, Ewango, Lewis, pers. obs.).
Extensive peat deposits have, so far, been discovered under two common vegetation types: hardwood
swamp forest (in which Uapaca spp., Carapa procera and Xylopia rubescens are common) and a palm-
dominated, Raphia laurentii swamp forest. Peat was also usually found under a much rarer palm-
dominated, Raphia hookeri swamp forest that occupies some old river channels (Dargie et al. 2017;
Bocko et al. 2017; Bocko 2018). Peat was not found beneath terra firme forest, seasonally flooded
forest or savanna. The peatlands are largely intact, as local peoples’ impact on this ecosystem is
broadly sustainable and is still low at present (Dargie et al. 2019).This large freshwater ecosystem
plays a crucial role in provisioning water, nutrients and food locally and downstream.
The vast Central Congo peatland complex contains the highest densities of western lowland gorillas
(Gorilla gorilla gorilla) in the world, as well as chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), forest elephants
(Loxodanta cyclotis) and endemic bonobos (Pan paniscus) (Fay and Agnagna 1992; Rainey et al. 2010)
and Allen’s swamp monkeys (Allenopithecus nigroviridis), the latter which is found only in swamp
and inundated forests (Gautier-Hion et al. 1999; McGoogan et al. 2007).
These peatlands also harbour a diversity of fish, crabs, freshwater molluscs and other water
species such as Odonata (Brooks et al. 2011); it is estimated to shelter more than 200 fish species,

Figure 9.2 : Probability map of vegetation types derived from 1,000 runs of a maximum
likelihood classification using eight remote sensing products (three ALOS PALSAR; two
SRTM-derived variables; three Landsat ETM+ bands) and jack-knifed selections of training
data. Peat is located under palm-dominated swamp and hardwood-dominated swamp,
reproduced from Dargie et al. 2017.
Source: Dargie et al. 2017
many of which are endemic (Inogwabini and Lingopa 2013). Characins, Cyprinids, Cyprinodonts,
Mormyrids and Catfishes, which are numerous in the forested Central Congo peatlands, require
specific ecological conditions known only in large, stable and relatively undisturbed forests (Roberts
1975). Many fish found in these peatland forest ecosystems have developed specialized adaptations
such as the emission of electric signals and organs that allow them to breathe air in hypoxic waters
(Roberts 1972; Hopkins 1981).
The Central Congo peatlands are also important to crocodiles, turtles, amphibians, and birds though
data are scarce due to insufficient inventory efforts, especially in the peatlands (Thieme et al. 2008;
Hanssens 2016; Harrison et al. 2016; Diamond and Hamilton 1980; Chifundera 2019). Given the
limited data further research is needed to properly characterize this rich biodiversity.
Instruments installed in the peatlands to monitor water table levels indicate that the interfluvial
peatlands are predominantly rainfed, rather than receiving flood- or ground-water (Dargie et al.
2017). It is assumed that the DRC riverine peatlands will be impacted by river flooding as well
(Lewis S.L., Dargie G.C., Ewango C., Crezee B., pers. obs.), but confirmation of this with instruments
is needed. The role of the relatively low rainfall in peatland maintenance is reflected in the peat
itself, as it is more decomposed and has a higher carbon density compared to tropical Asian and
American peat (Dargie et al. 2017).

Chapter 9
In the Likouala Region, in the RoC, the maximum depth found by coring peat is 5.9 m depth, with
a median of 2.0 m depth and mean of 2.4 m depth (peat defined as soil containing ≥ 65 percent of
organic matter) (Dargie et al. 2017). More recent field campaigns in the DRC, in the process of being
published, have also discovered peat deposits with maximum depths > 5 m. Finding peat across the
DRC portion of the Dargie et al. (2017) map gives increasing confidence that there is indeed a large
area of peatland in the Cuvette Centrale (Lewis S.L., Dargie G.C., Ewango C., Crezee B., pers. obs.).
In the future, better high resolution maps of the peatlands, wider wetlands and surrounding
non-wetland land areas will help to better manage the area through improved land use planning.
Increased laboratory analyses on field-collected peat samples for peat depth, bulk density and
carbon concentration will also help to refine estimates of carbon storage and potential greenhouse
gas emissions if peat is drained or disturbed.
9.1.2 Carbon storage

By combining the areas of peatland area in the Central Congo with field measurements of peat
depth, bulk density and carbon concentration, Dargie et al. (2017) made a first estimate of the
median carbon storage in peat 30.6 gigatons of carbon (Gt C). Total below-ground carbon storage is
greater than the peat-only estimates because a layer of organic-matter-rich (<65 percent of organic
content) occurs beneath the peat (≥ 65 percent organic content). The carbon stored in the peat is
much greater than that stored in the living vegetation overlying the peatland (median, 1.4 Gt C;
Dargie et al. 2017), and is estimated to be similar to the above-ground carbon stocks of the entire
Congo Basin tropical forests (Verhegghen et al. 2012; Saatchi et al. 2011a).
The Central Congo peatlands are estimated to harbour approximately 29 percent of the total tropical
peat carbon stock, and approximately 5 percent of the estimated global peat carbon stock, although
additional fieldwork is needed to refine both total tropical peat and Central Congo peat carbon
stocks (Dargie et al. 2017). If all the carbon stored in the Central Congo peatlands were released
to the atmosphere, this amount of carbon is equivalent to three years of the current annual global
emissions of carbon from all fossil fuel use. This stored carbon is vulnerable to land-use change,
including drainage for agriculture, roadbuilding, damming of rivers for hydropower, selective
logging, plus the impacts of climate change, particularly any future reduction in precipitation
(Dargie et al. 2019). See Section 4 on threats.
9.2 Improving the state of knowledge of

the Central Congo peatlands
9.2.1 Advancing peatland mapping in Central Africa
Dargie et al. (2017) show that there is a clear relationship between vegetation type and peat presence
in the Central Congo peatlands. For the production of peat, areas need to have sufficiently productive
vegetation to provide carbon inputs to the soil surface, and condition to inhibit decomposition,
typically being inundated most of the year (i.e., in which the water table does not fall far below
the surface). To delineate these permanently flooded areas, studies generally use satellite Synthetic
Aperture Radar (SAR) imagery (Betbeder et al. 2013; Dargie et al. 2019). SAR data sends microwaves
from satellite sensors that penetrate through the canopy to interact with the tree stems and palm
fronds, with the amount of radiation returning to the satellite depending strongly on how wet the

ground is: wetter ground means more returns to the satellites. However, the use of SAR data has
limitations, as some imagery covers only a part of the Cuvette Centrale, and/or a single time period,
and its spatial resolution for long-term assessments can be coarse (1 km).
Additional efforts to delineate the Congo Basin peatlands have been provided by pantropical studies.
For example, Gumbricht et al. (2017) used a combination of hydrological modelling and soil wetness
to map wetland and, by extension through vegetation data, peatland extent across the tropics.
While in many locations, particularly in South America, this study predicted peat covering much
larger areas than other methods have predicted, over the Central Congo Basin area the Gumbricht’s
map total peatland area is similar to the total peatland area mapped by Dargie et al. (2017) , despite
the different methods used by these two authors. While the total area is similar spatially, there are
striking differences in the Gumbricht et al. (2017) map and the Dargie et al. (2017) map, they both
together provide confidence that there is a large area of peatland in the Cuvette Centrale.
Efforts to improve the mapping of forest types and peatland areas are currently underway. CIRAD
scientists’ use of time series imagery acquired using SAR sensors (the Jason-2 Poseidon altimeter
SAR sensor, jointly developed by NASA and CNES and the SAR PALSAR-2 sensor from the JAXA
ALOS satellite) is allowing a new characterization of the different forest types according to their
flooding over time (Betbeder et al. 2013; Frappart et al. 2021). Previous efforts to characterize peats
using RADAR data include through detecting dome formation (Siegert and Jaenicke 2008). This
approach only guarantees wetland presence and not peatland formation. Thus, peatland mapping
requires field data to calibrate and validate remote sensing derived products. Fieldwork, which is
the most expensive and logistically complex part of mapping and estimating carbon stocks, remains
a necessity.
Figure 9.3: Mapping of swamp forest types in Central Africa based on MODIS, PALSAR
satellite images and LiDAR data
Source: Betbeder et al. 2013

Chapter 9
The CongoPeat project funded by the UK’s Natural Environment Research Council, is collecting new
field data from sites across RoC and the DRC, to reduce the key limitation on mapping the peatland
by greatly expanding the field-based vegetation, peat depth and bulk density data reported in
Dargie et al. (2017), which will significantly improve the maps of vegetation types that overlie peat
and estimates of peat depth. Beyond this, the project is also using remote sensing data in three new
ways to gain additional insights. Firstly, the project collected high-resolution LiDAR data from a
drone to reveal peatland topography for the first time, showing that a large interfluvial peatland in
this region has formed a dome (Davenport et al. 2020). The project is now expanding these findings
across the Central Congo basin using satellite LiDAR data from ICESat-2. Secondly, the project is
using JAXA’s ALOS-2 PALSAR-2 satellite data to characterize the flooding regime over the basin,
to provide improved maps of peat presence/absence and peat depth. This work will also assist in
understanding how these dynamics influence peat formation and stability, assessed using field
data. Finally, CongoPeat are using new satellite sensors combined with more extensive field data
and high throughput cloud computing facilities, to provide a new reference map of the peatlands to
supersede the (Dargie et al. 2017) map.
Minasny et al. (2019) have underlined that the proliferation of satellite data available in an open-
access format, the availability of machine learning algorithms in an open-source computing
environment and the high-performance of available computing facilities could enhance the way
peatlands are mapped (see Greifeneder et al. (2019) for a recent Indonesian example). Furthermore,
the Norwegian government has agreed with the PLANET/KSAT/AIRBUS consortium for publicly
available monthly data high-resolution 3-metres optical data for the period 2020-2024. This dataset
will be particularly useful for monitoring changes to the peatland area due to land-use change.
Additionally, it may be possible to apply longer wavelength SAR datasets that penetrate the canopy
such as ALOS 2, which may improve our capability to monitor soil moisture changes through time,
on a very regular (weekly) and fine-scaled (10 m) basis. This has the potential to improve maps of
peatland areas when combined with other remotely sensed data and field measurements.
In all of the approaches outlined above, one of the biggest limiting factors is collection of field
data, which is costly especially in the difficult to access Central Congo peatlands. Such field data
is essential for the calibration and validation of peatland maps to reduce uncertainty as well as
providing additional information regarding vegetation typologies, carbon stock stored in the peat
soil, biodiversity and local community presence in and use of these areas.
Beyond the Central Congo peatlands, findings in Gumbricht et al. (2017) and Xu et al. (2018) suggest
there may be additional isolated peat patches throughout tropical Africa albeit on a much smaller
scale than that found in the Central Congo. There is a need to also map and collect field data in these
areas to estimate extent and characterize these ecosystems.
9.2.2 Field measurements

To understand the genesis, development, contemporary function and extent of the Central Congo
peatlands requires field data. Field measurements to define the peatland area include peat cores to
characterize the soil type and peat thickness, characterization of the vegetation (species composition
and structure), topographic studies and hydrologic characterization to identify high water tables
(Dargie et al. 2017; FAO 2020a). In the Central Congo peatlands, collection of data is costly and time
consuming given the difficulty to access sites due to limited transportation infrastructure, the same
dynamics which has, in part, resulted in low peatland degradation to date.

Estimating peat carbon stocks requires data on peat thickness, bulk density and carbon content
(Dargie et al. 2017; Minasny et al. 2019). These have been obtained by Dargie et al. (2017) from the
northern RoC and additionally now from across the DRC, as part of the CongoPeat project.
Some of these peat cores have been sampled and analysed to date the peat. The oldest published
age of the base of a peat core is 11,000 years, suggesting the region began accumulating peat in
the African Humid Period, when the region warmed and got wetter (Dargie et al. 2017). More dates
from the base of peat cores from the region will help understand the genesis of the peatlands of the
Central Congo basin.
Vegetation characteristics that have been collected in peatland and adjacent regions show long
shallow gradients of changes in species composition within the interfluvial basin peatlands of the
RoC (Bocko 2018; Bocko et al. 2017; Dargie 2015; Dargie et al. 2017). New field data on vegetation
characteristics from the DRC is being conducted as part of the CongoPeat project to understand if
the Congo River is a significant barrier to peat swamp tree species and if tree species composition
differs in peatlands on either side of the River.
Understanding the contemporary function of the peatlands can be improved by field measurements
of the water table, to show if inundation levels follow rainfall events, or if flood waves from rivers
are observed overtopping their banks. Field data collecting water table data every 20 minutes for
two years across several locations in an interfluvial peatland in the RoC show that there were no
floodwaves and the water table depth both closely followed rainfall events, but also the water
budget can be closed by only accounting for rainfall inputs. This suggests that for the interfluvial
basin studied, it is a rainfed system, and hence sensitive to future climate change. Measurements
under the CongoPeat project are investigating if other peatlands in the region are rain-fed.
Peatlands are important sinks for carbon dioxide and sources of the greenhouse gases methane and
nitrous oxide. The CongoPeat project is also collecting in situ ground data from both the wet and dry
seasons for these key greenhouse gases, in peatlands across the Central Congo region. In addition
to investing in local expertise, investment in laboratory facilities in the RoC and DRC for processing
peat samples to estimate carbon stocks, and analysing samples of greenhouse gases, could help to
further assist in building local research capacity and infrastructure. Some local laboratories already
are equipped to complete some of the soil analyses required, which can further be built upon.
Finally, social science data is necessary to understand local communities’ relationship to and
use of peatland areas as well as the impacts of different sectors’ activities impacting ecological
functioning and access to peatlands. This detailed on-the-ground research in the region has been
limited to date.
9.2.3 Current key research gaps

Despite recent advancement of the knowledge of the Central Congo peatlands (Bocko 2018; Bocko
et al. 2017; Dargie 2015; Dargie et al. 2017; Davenport et al. 2020), research still remains limited
and many knowledge gaps exist. Maps of the Central Congo peatlands can be improved by
collecting additional field data and creating maps at finer resolution. Further field data will allow
for improved understanding of peatlands state, if they are drying, drained, or otherwise managed,
if they have been disturbed or are pristine, as well as the relationship between vegetation types and
peat location, depth and other characteristics.

Chapter 9
Box 9.1: Ecosystems services of the Central Congo peatlands

Provisioning services: Peatlands are vital sources of food and income for local communities.
Most local populations draw on peatlands resources to feed their families and gain a
source of income. This includes harvesting medicinal plants, shrimp, crustaceans, fish,
wildlife, firewood and timber and producing charcoal. More than two thirds of the peatland
population living in wetland areas source 80 percent of animal protein consumed from
fisheries for direct consumption or sold in local markets.
Some compounds derived from peatland ecosystems have antimalarial, antibiotic, antiviral,
and antioxidation properties which can provide great value to the pharmaceutical sector.
Furthermore, Raphia sese fruits pulp, roots of Lasimorpha senegalensis are edible and are still
eaten by the peatland communities of Central Africa wetlands, and surrounding zones. Some
peatland species have long leaves that can be used as raw material for handicrafts. In both
Congos, palm species, particularly Raphia lauretii and R. sese, in addition of providing palm
wine, have leaves, which are used for roofing and palm liana species for handicraft products
such as handbags, baskets and building raw material. This could be one potential income
generating activity that could be further developed with local communities (Quintela et
al. 2004).
Regulating services: Peatlands regulate water flows, provide clean water, reduce sediment
and erosion events, cycle nutrients and store carbon in the rich organic soils. Peatlands are
very important stores of carbon sequestered often over thousands of years, which in the case
of the Congo Basin peatlands, help to regulate climate at micro, regional and global scales.
Furthermore, the Central Congo peatlands play key roles in water cycling and provision in the
region, feeding into the Congo Basin River.
Supporting services: Peatlands accumulate matter and paleo-information within peat

layers. Peatlands across the globe are refuge to a multitude of fauna and flora species, with a
broad spectrum of morphological forms across various temporal and spatial zones.
Cultural services: Communities living around the Central Congo peatlands have traditional
knowledge and cultural practices that should be learned from and protected alongside
biodiversity conservation. Such cultural heritage and practices can be attributed, in part
for the conservation and protection of these peatland areas. In some villages, peatland
areas are declared sacred and constitute an important part of the identity of the people.
These sacred spaces represent for the local populations “the cornerstone of the vision of
the world, their cultures and philosophies”. Traditional rules, based on local knowledge
passed down through the generations ensure their conservation. Some popular beliefs such
as the existence of supernatural beings in the wetland forests have also played a key role in
conservation of peatlands. It is believed that some mysterious creatures inhabit the peatlands
(e.g., Monama in the DRC, Mokelembembe in the RoC) requiring respect for anyone venturing
into the peatland forests.

Box 9.1 : Continued
Local customary tenure, culture and tradition must be respected and can provide invaluable
in efforts to sustainably manage peatland forests. For example, fishermen can have
substantial knowledge of the ecology of freshwater fishes and animals, their characteristics,
habitats, breeding areas, etc. Thus, like the traditional practices of many indigenous peoples,
these practices are an important means of securing and sustainably managing resources
(Artaud 2014). Equally, efforts should be made to preserve cultural heritage and knowledge,
i.e., oral traditions, traditional methods of landscape management and forestry, and related
rural crafts activities.
In addition to advancing mapping and ground truthing efforts to improve understanding on the
location and characterization of peatlands in the Congo Basin, better understanding peatland
ecosystems’ biological functioning can inform the assessment of potential future management
decisions within these landscapes. Hydropedology and hydrological functioning need to be
better understood alongside structure and floristic and fauna composition of the peatlands. More
specifically, a working model of the gain and loss of organic material in the peatlands is needed to
estimate change in soil carbon. This requires data on the productivity of the vegetation, how much
carbon is transferred from the vegetation into the peat, the decomposition rates of organic matter
in the peat, and the environmental drivers of these processes from weather station and hydrological
monitoring data, particularly water table data. Modelling these processes can provide projections of
different possible future scenarios and provide the basis for establishing both monitoring and early
warning systems.
On the social science side, little is currently known about how local communities and indigenous
peoples use and interact with these peatland ecosystems. It is essential this understanding is
improved and that local communities are properly informed and consulted, in line with Free, Prior
and Informed Consent, before any management decisions are made in respect to the land which
would fall under customary land tenure. Any change to the contemporary broadly sustainable
management of these ecosystems requires the full engagement and support of local populations.
Therefore, studies on customary use as well as the development of sustainable livelihood options
will be key to inform future approaches and programming in the region. Further understanding of
the local populations that live adjacent to the peatlands, and the different types of existing land uses,
will be a key prerequisite.
Finally, studies are needed on how to incentivize the protection of peatland landscapes from local
to national levels. Given that peatlands are easily impacted by changes to the hydrology of the area
where they are located, it is important to manage these areas through an integrated landscape
approach (FAO 2020b). Incentives could include further exploration of results-based payments
based on their carbon storage and sequestration and/or biodiversity. Policies that protect peatland
landscapes should include incentives to ensure enforcement of laws and regulations will be
essential. Development of strong cross-sectoral policies are still needed. An initial review of the legal
framework for peatland management in the DRC outlines some recommendations for strengthening
existing legislation and developing a national peatland policy (SWAMP 2021).

Chapter 9
9.3 Threats to peatlands

Across the tropics, peatlands have been subjected to widespread degradation and destruction.
Yet the Central Congo peatlands remain largely intact. But as witnessed in South East Asia, where
47 percent of peatlands were deforested in 25 years (Miettinen et al. 2016), the situation can change
rapidly and a number of threats to the Central Congo peatlands have already been identified. Peatland
drainage alters vegetation cover, threatens wetland biodiversity, decreases water quality, causes
land subsidence (and subsequent heightened risk of floods and loss of riverine areas), increases
fire frequency and other negative impacts on people, their livelihoods, and the environment. After
peatland damage has occurred efforts to re-wet and restore peatlands can be very costly and may
not succeed in restoring original levels of ecosystem services provisioning. Therefore, prevention
is essential especially in the relatively intact Central Congo peatlands. Threats identified range
from climate change to infrastructure development, industrial land conversion to compounding
interlinked activities.
9.3.1 Climatic threats

Climate change is one threat which has the potential to destabilise the entire region. The continued
accumulation and preservation of organic matter within a peatland is largely dependent on
maintaining saturated, anoxic conditions. Any changes in the peatland’s hydrological balance
which results in a drop of the water table can increase decomposition of the organic matter,
potentially transforming peatlands from a carbon sink to a carbon source, releasing carbon dioxide
into the atmosphere.
Ombrotrophic (rain-fed) peatlands are particularly vulnerable to changes in climate, whereas

minerotrophic peatlands, which receive additional inputs from fluvial or ground waters, are in
part buffered against changes in precipitation. Whilst on-the-ground data is available for only
a small proportion of peatland sites in the Central Congo, there is evidence that the large peat
filled interfluvial basin between the Likouala-aux-herbes River and the Ubangui River are rain
fed peatlands (Dargie et al. 2017) and has a shallow domed surface topography, which is a classic
indication of ombrotrophic conditions (Davenport et al. 2020).
Even under the moderate Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 2.6 scenario of the CMIP6
exercise, mean annual temperatures within the Congo Basin are projected to rise by ~0.85°C by the
end of 2050 relative to the period 1980-2010 (IPCC 2021). Increases in temperature can increase
rates of evapotranspiration within the peatlands, which would negatively impact the hydrological
balance. However, a more dramatic impact would be from a change in rainfall, such as an
intensification of the dry season. Yet how climate change will affect rainfall, both in terms of amount
and seasonality, is highly uncertain. Lack of meteorological data across the region and the peatlands
especially, makes it hard to assess how well the different earth system models represent the present-
day climate within the Basin, let alone future projections. However, a number of model ensembles
show a slight wetting trend across the basin (Creese et al. 2019). Yet in other model ensembles, the
wetting trend is accompanied by an intensification of seasons, with an increase in rainfall extremes
and an increase in the intensity and frequency of dry events (Dosio et al. 2019). Meanwhile, analyses
at the scale of the whole Congo Basin rainforest show over the past two decades a recent increase
in the length of the boreal summer dry season to the northeast, i.e., upstream of the peatlands,
hence it is unclear if dry season intensity is increasing or not over the peatland region (Jiang et al.
2019). Over the past four decades, the Congo Basin peatlands have recorded an approximate mean

annual temperature of 25.5°C which is slightly warmer than temperatures recorded over open-
water areas, but similar to savannah areas (Figure 9.4). According to the most pessimistic scenario
(RCP 8.5) of the CMIP5 exercise, temperatures in the Congo Basin peatland area could reach 27°C by
the middle of the century, i.e., an increase of about 1.5°C compared to 1980-2010. Such temperatures
may reduce the productivity and carbon stocks of the swamp forests (Sullivan et al. 2020), reducing
carbon inputs and increasing decomposition which may decrease peat carbon stocks.
Mean annual rainfall amounts (Figure 9.5) as estimated by CHIRPS data (Funk et al. 2015) for
the period 1981-2019 are around 1758 mm for peatland. The bimodal annual cycle pictures the
SON (September-October-November) rainy season as the wettest one which is concordant with
observations at the scale of the Central Africa region. The rainfall annual cycle evolution over the
last four decades (Figure 9.5, difference 2011-2019 minus 1981-1990) is characterized by significant
decreases in rainfall during the dry seasons especially in July and December (-16 and -24 mm
respectively) as well as in September (-33 mm) suggesting a shortening of the wettest rainy season.
The RCP6.0 and 8.5 scenarios of the CMIP5 exercise predict much larger rainfall amounts (+300
mm) over the Congo Basin for the three coming decades than what has been observed since the
80’s. This is especially marked during the two rainy seasons, with for example ~65 mm gained by
the middle of the century in April and ~40 mm in October. These significant potential changes in
the regional hydroclimatic cycle could have major consequences on the ecological functioning of
peatlands, although there is great uncertainty in this. If dry season trends continue, then a loss of
peat may be expected, but if rainfall increases, then continued or even increased peat accumulation
could occur. Such changes would also likely change the species composition of the trees of the
peatland as they track the changing environmental conditions. Furthermore, policy decisions could
exacerbate changes if parts of the Ubangi and other Congo river tributaries are diverted into Lake
Chad as has been under discussion, it could result in significant negative impacts in the Central
Congo peatlands, particularly those connected to these rivers, due to changes in the water table
(Dargie et al. 2019; Inogwabini and Lingopa 2013; Lemoalle and Magrin 2014).
Figure 9.4: Temperature’s recent evolution (1981-2019, TerraClimate data at 2 m and ERA5)
measured for three land cover types (peatland, open water and savannah, located on the
map at bottom right; calculated from ecological data of Dargie et al., 2017) in the Central
Congo Basin: the linear trend for peatland is shown as long-dashed line; projections for
2050 according to scenarios RCP 6.0 and 8.5 of the CMIP5 exercise are shown as short-
dashed and dotted lines.

Chapter 9
Figure 9.5: a) Comparison of mean annual rainfall regimes (in mm) for the Congo Basin’s
three land cover types and the period 1981-2019 (monthly totals are calculated using
CHIRPS data; the 1981-2019 reference average for the entire Congo Basin, as well as
those for Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) projections 6.0 and 8.5, are
also provided); b) mean annual rainfall cycle (1981-2019) of the Congo Basin (line) and
differences between decades 2011-2019 minus 1981-1990 (bars); significant differences
according to a Student’s t-test are indicated by a bold box (90 percent) or a double box
(95 percent).
9.3.2 Threats of conversion

There are also more direct anthropogenic threats from socioeconomic activities. Much of the Central
Congo peatlands coincide with logging and hydrocarbon concessions (Dargie et al. 2019). These
activities themselves pose potential threats, such as deforestation, and, in the case of oil extraction,
pollution. But they also require infrastructure such as roads, and a work force, which often requires
people to migrate into the region. The roads, if built directly across the peatlands, can impact and
interrupt the hydrology of the peatlands, while also permitting access to areas of forest which
were previously relatively inaccessible. This in turn could facilitate defaunation and deforestation,
especially when combined with an increase in population from migratory workers (Finer et al.
2008; Laurance et al. 2017). That being said, current threat of conversion is relatively low given the
challenges in operation and access, but this context can always rapidly change.

Roads
Forestry concessions cover a much larger area of peatlands in the DRC than in the RoC (Gourlet-
Fleury et al. 2017; Dargie et al. 2019). In RoC, a limited number of concessions (7) are located on
the edge of the Central Congo peatlands, whereas in the DRC about 30 concessions entirely or
partially cover around 4.5 million hectares, i.e., 26 percent of the peatlands in the country (Gourlet-
Fleury et al. 2017), though not all are operational at the time of writing. In both countries, the law
authorizes the inclusion of peatlands in forest concessions, but officially no logging is allowed in
permanently waterlogged areas, and peatlands must be incorporated into a “protection series”.
However, logging can occur in inundated forest, which is periodically waterlogged, during the dry
season, though these areas are generally not preferred for extraction and have not been exploited to
date. This provides a critical loophole, as in the dry season the water table in the peatlands is below
the surface, so could be argued to be inundated forest. The potential risk of logging, whether legal or
illegal, in these forests is opening access to the peatland area, possibly disrupting the natural water
drainage network. Furthermore, there are potential risks that are yet to be studied, including how
the removal of the trees will result in opening the understorey to sunlight, more evaporation, and
potentially slowing or reversing carbon accumulation. See Interlinked challenges below.
Hydrocarbon concessions
Both the governments of the DRC and the RoC have opened hydrocarbon (oil and gas) concessions
within the Cuvette Centrale for bidding (Goodrich 2019; Ministère Des Hydrocarbures 2019). Oil
deposits have long been known and researched for extraction in the Cuvette Centrale (Cornet 2012).
First commercial oil explorations were conducted between 1970 and 1984 by SHELL, TEXACO and
the Japan National Oil Company (Kadima et al. 2011). In 2019 the RoC (re)announced that oil had
been found beneath one of the peatland hydrocarbon concessions (Le Monde/AFP 2019). One
controversial industry calculation suggested that this oil field has the potential to quadruple national
production (Noiraud et al. 2017; Tchoumba et al. 2021). Exploiting this resource has high risks of
disrupting the peatland hydrology, polluting the sensitive ecosystem, increasing greenhouse gas
emissions and having negative socio-economic impacts, such as the displacement of communities.
Examples of hydrocarbon pollution in tropical peats can be found in the wetlands and peatlands
of Tabasco in Southern Mexico (Cram et al. 2004), as well as in tropical forests in Peru, where 474
oil spills occurred between 2000 and 2019 (Oxfam Peru 2021). Linked to this is the challenge of the
national energy policy, ensuring that the country’s energy needs can be met through more renewable
or low carbon sources, and whether there will be a large market for oil in the future. It is unclear at
this time if and when either government will advance with further exploration and extraction.
Agriculture
Currently across the Congo Basin, present day forestry and agricultural activities, whether industrial
or subsistence scale, occur mainly on land that does not flood, known as terra firme. Slash-and-burn
farming or shifting agriculture is the main technique used on terra firme but more intensive raised-
field agriculture has been practiced in various open floodplains. While some raised-fields have been
abandoned, others are still active. They are more labour intensive than terra firme slash-and-burn
agriculture or flood recession agriculture, but they produce high yields and decrease flooding risks
(Comptour et al. 2020). Currently, communities’ activities within the peatland areas consist mainly
of hunting, fishing and harvesting of forest products such as palm fronds for roof construction.

Chapter 9
Based on the available information, current impact of local inhabitants on or around the peatland
ecosystems is minor and relatively sustainable in present form (Dargie et al. 2019), as seen in
the very low deforestation rates within the peatlands. That said, population densities have been
increasing in and around the Central Congo peatlands, which may result in future degradation.
At the moment, a lot of food production for cities such as Mossaka or Mbandaka are coming from
outside areas implying: 1) deforestation pressure around more urban areas is transferred elsewhere,
and; 2) there is a need for local population to generate income through various activities in order to
buy these products. Therefore, efforts to promote sustainable agriculture outside the peatland areas
as well as develop alternative livelihood income sources are both important for the protection of the
peatlands. Applying landscape approaches for peatland management and preservation can help to
address such complex dynamics and linkages.
Palm oil
Another cause for concern is the rise of palm oil production across Africa (Ordway et al. 2017).
Globally Indonesia and Malaysia are the two biggest palm oil producers (FAO 2020a) and it is this
industry that is responsible for the majority of peatland destruction in South East Asia (Miettinen et
al. 2016). It is feared that with increasingly strict regulations and less available land to expand into,
the companies will look to expand into central Africa (Ordway et al. 2017).
In order to successfully grow palm oil in peatland areas it is necessary to lower the peatland water
table (although palm oil also grows well on terra firme land). It is this drainage of the peatlands,
which results in peat decomposition through oxidation and an increased vulnerability to fire as the
peatland dries out. Whilst the carbon dioxide emissions from oxidation are considerable, with 2.5
Gt C being released over the period of 1990 to 2015 across South East Asia (Miettinen et al. 2017a),
peatland fires in some years have released up to 0.9 Gt C in a matter of months.
In the context of the National REDD+ strategy in the DRC, the Letter of Intent on the establishment
of a long-term partnership with the Central African Forest Initiative (CAFI) (see Table 9.1), promotes
the protection and sustainable management of peatlands, and prevents their drainage and drying
out. These provisions will be included in the upcoming investment program, which will encourage
industrial agricultural expansion to occur in open and degraded ecosystems on terra firme land to
prevent destruction of intact forest ecosystems including the peatlands forests.
9.3.3 Interlinked challenges

The above-mentioned threats are unlikely to occur in an isolated context. The extent to which
these threats are realised will depend on numerous political and socioeconomic factors, both at a
national and international level and synergies between threats can exacerbate the negative impacts
on the peatlands. A South-East Asian example of this is the vast peatlands fires in El Niño years.
Increased temperatures and reduced rainfall led to fires which are more severe than the average
year (Miettinen et al. 2017b; Page et al. 2002). These fires, which were often started as a way to
clear an area of land, spread particularly easily through the peatlands which have been deforested
and drained (Page et al. 2009), leading to millions of hectares of peatland being burned (Vetrita
and Cochrane 2020). Without proper investment to ensure the preservation of the Central Congo
peatlands, a scenario where hydrocarbon exploration or industrial agriculture are allowed to
expand into the region, against the backdrop of climate change, leading to widespread peatland
degradation, is not implausible.

9.4 Institutional arrangements and

governance of the Congo Basin peatlands
Several international and regional agreements and conventions exist with implications for the
management and service provision of wetlands and peatlands, see Table 9.1. Both Congos are
signatories of several international agreements, notably the Ramsar Convention whose mission is
“the conservation and wise use of wetlands through local and national actions and international
cooperation, as a contribution towards achieving sustainable development throughout the world”
(Ramsar Convention 2021). Additionally, despite the signature of several regional agreements
and commitments from 2016 to present related to the protection and sustainable management
of peatlands, concrete action and implementation has, generally, been slow to materialize. There
Table 9.1: Select international agreements, conventions and resolutions with implications
for Congo Basin peatland ecosystems.
Agreements / Document / Detailed Inclusion of peatlands

Initiative / Meeting plans
International
2030 Agenda Sustainable Relevance of peatlands to address following SDGs:

for Sustainable Development Goals SDG 2 Zero Hunger
Development (SDGs)
SDG 6 Clean Water and Sanitation
SDG 13 Climate Action
SDG 15 Life on Land
IUCN World Resolution 043- Calls for better protection and restoration of the world’s peatlands.
Conservation Securing a future for
Congress, 2016 global peatlands
Ramsar Convention COP 6 1996 Recommendation 6.1: Conservation of peatlands
COP 7 1999 Recommendation 7.1: A global action plan for the wise use and
management of peatlands
COP 8 2002 Resolution VIII.17: Guidelines for global action on peatlands

Resolution VIII.11: Additional guidance for identifying and
designating underrepresented wetland types as Wetlands of
International Importance
COP 12 2015 Resolution XII.11: Peatlands, climate change and wise use:
Implications for the Ramsar Convention
COP 13 2018 Resolution XIII.13: Restoration of degraded peatlands to mitigate

and adapt to climate change and enhance biodiversity and disaster
risk education.
Resolution XIII.12: Guidance on identifying peatlands as Wetlands
of International Importance (Ramsar Sites) for global climate
change regulation as an additional argument to existing Ramsar
sites.
UN Framework Paris Climate Change Two articles are of relevance to peatlands:

Convention on Agreement Article 4 (1): New long-term goal to achieve “a balance between
Climate Change anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of
(UNFCCC) greenhouse gases in the second half of this century.”
Article 5: (1) Parties should take action to conserve and enhance, as
appropriate, sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases as referred to
in Article 4, paragraph 1(d), of the Convention, including forests.

Chapter 9
Agreements / Document / Detailed Inclusion of peatlands

Initiative / Meeting plans
Convention on Post-2020 Global Concrete goals under negotiation at the time of publishing; https://
Biological Diversity Biodiversity Framework www.cbd.int/conferences/post2020
(CBD)
UN Decade Strategy Highlighting importance of wetland restoration

on Ecosystem
Restoration
The Sendai 30 (g) To promote the mainstreaming of disaster risk assessment,

Framework for mapping and management into rural development planning and
Disaster Risk management of, inter alia, mountains, rivers, coastal flood plain
Reduction areas, drylands, wetlands and all other areas prone to droughts and
flooding, including through the identification of areas that are safe
for human settlement, and at the same time preserving ecosystem
functions that help to reduce risks.
United Nations UNEP/EA.4/RES.16: The resolution urges Member States and other stakeholders to give
Environment Resolution for greater emphasis to the conservation, sustainable management and
Assembly (UNEA) 4 the Conservation restoration of peatlands worldwide. It further acknowledges the
and Sustainable contributions of the Global Peatlands Initiative and further requests
Management of UN Environment “to coordinate efforts to create a comprehensive
Peatlands and accurate global peatlands inventory.”
Regional
Global Peatlands Brazzaville Declaration The Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Republic of the Congo
Initiative 3rd and Indonesia jointly signed the Brazzaville Declaration on
Partners Meeting, Peatlands to work together to protect the Central Congo peatlands
2018 in the Congo Basin from unregulated land use, and prevent its
drainage and degradation.
Central Africa Forest Letter of Intent: France Signed by heads of State from France and Republic of the Congo
Initiative (CAFI) and Republic of the on September 3, 2019, the LOI constitutes a strong commitment
Congo to protection and sustainable management of RoC’s peatlands by
prohibiting all drainage and drying.
Letter of Intent: CAFI The LOI in the Democratic Republic of the Congo was signed
and Democratic in April 2016 establishing a cooperative partnership for the
Republic of the Congo implementation of the DRC’s National REDD+ Framework Strategy
and REDD+ Investment Plan. Increased awareness about peatlands
resulted in the inclusion of peatlands in the Country’s Investment
Plan.
Lake Tele MOU and Plan of Action In July 2017, an MOU and Plan of Action on the sustainable
Lake Tumba transboundary management of Lake Tele and Lake Tumba, was
Memorandum of signed between the Republic of the Congo and the Democratic
Understanding Republic of the Congo in Kinshasa.
(MOU)
Ramsar Convention Transboundary In 2017, three existing Ramsar sites located in the two Congos were
declaration joined together to make the Complexe Transfrontalier Lac Télé -
Grands Affluents - Lac Tumba, the largest transboundary Ramsar
site comprising 45 percent of peatland area in the Cuvette Centrale.
MOU between RoC South-South In October 2018, the Republic of the Congo and Indonesia signed
and Indonesia collaboration MOU the first MOU of collaboration on peatlands between an African
between Republic of the and an Asian country. Both countries committed to develop sound
Congo and Indonesia on management systems for peatlands and cooperate in promoting
peatlands best practices in sustainable peatland management in this five-year
MOU.

are several ongoing regional initiatives (Table 9.2), which ideally will advance knowledge and
programming on peatlands in the near future. To-date, there is still much more that is needed to
realize stated commitments such as under the Brazzaville Declaration signed in 2018 by the DRC,
the RoC and Indonesia, which pledges to protect the Central Congo peatlands from unregulated
land use, and prevent its drainage and degradation.
Ideally, the work of various actors and programs should be anchored in national guidelines aligned
with clear national agendas on peatlands. Additionally, studies and programs should also be used
to inform the development of national policies. Currently both Congos lack an official peatland
definition and national policy on peatland management, though both are currently working on
putting peatland-specific policies in place. At the same time, given the current status of monitoring,
reporting and verification (MRV) in the two Congos, peatlands have yet to be included in most
policy frameworks. RoC mentions peatland progress in the enhanced Nationally Determined
Contribution (NDC) of 2021, but does not include targets to avoid emissions from peatlands. The
DRC is undertaking the NDC enhancement at the time of writing. Other key policy documents to
be expected are the long-term strategies (LTSs), which will outline the long-term greenhouse gas
emission plans.
As reflected by the range of related agreements outlined in Table 9.1, peatland management is a
cross-sectoral issue, which requires inter-ministerial engagement at the national level to effectively
design and implement policies for long-term protection and sustainable management of peatland
ecosystems. This includes ministries presiding over management of water, biodiversity, wildlife,
fish, forest, agriculture, energy and hydrocarbon resources as well as ministries engaged in land
use planning, land tenure, rural development and protection of indigenous peoples. At the same
time, peatland management has direct implications for local communities across several provinces/
departments as well as for the broader Congo Basin. Therefore, it is essential that the framework
for peatland governance includes participation, consultation and inclusion of local communities,
clearly linking multiple stakeholders and government bodies at local, provincial and national
institutions.
In the DRC, a Peatland Management Unit under the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable
Development was established in July 2017 to oversee national processes related to peatlands
management, including the development of a national peatlands policy and agenda. The DRC
has already defined its national vision for peatlands: “to protect peatlands for people and nature.”
Currently the country wants to define a national peatland strategy. The Peatland Management Unit
is establishing national thematic groups, made up of focal points from different ministries, civil
society groups, private sector actors, international institutions and researchers. The thematic groups
are the framework for the participation of stakeholders and experts in discussions and decision-
making processes related to peatlands.
Both the DRC and the RoC are facilitating technical dialogues within and across technical groups and
sectors to advance national processes related to peatlands including capitalizing on ongoing sectoral
reforms underway in each country. For example, the DRC has an ongoing land use planning reform
process and the forestry code is also being reviewed with an accompanying REDD+ investment plan
being drafted. In the RoC, the National Environmental Action Plan is being reviewed. Following
the 3rd meeting of the Global Peatlands Initiative partners in Brazzaville in 2018, the President of
the RoC held an inter-ministerial dialogue resulting in the proposed decree to establish a “Comité
National pour la Gestion des Tourbières”, however the committee is not yet established at the time
of writing.

Chapter 9
Table 9.2: Initiatives related to the sustainable management of the Congo Basin peatlands
Initiatives / Description
Programs
Global Peatlands The GPI is an international partnership coordinated by the United Nations Environment
Initiative (GPI) Programme (UNEP) to save peatlands as the world's largest terrestrial organic carbon stock.
Supported by the German International Climate Initiative, forty-four international partner
organizations and four key tropical peatland countries of Indonesia, Peru, the RoC and the DRC
have come together to improve the conservation, restoration and sustainable management
of peatlands globally. GPI works to assess, measure, monitor and preserve peatlands’ carbon
and biodiversity, sharing knowledge and experience through a South–South and triangular
cooperation approach. The GPI brings the best science and practice to inform decisions with
notable achievements like the Brazzaville Declaration on Peatlands, the UNEA4 Resolution on
Peatlands, the International Tropical Peatlands Center, the GPI Research Working Group, and
more. The GPI promotes healthy peatlands through restoration and conservation action as one of
the best Nature-Based Solutions to tackle the climate crisis while delivering multiple benefits for
water security, biodiversity, people and their health.
International Launched in October 2018, with the support of CIFOR, UNEP and the GPI partners, the ITPC
Tropical Peatlands is a hub, which aims to connect different tropical peatlands researchers, practitioners and
Center (ITPC) stakeholders to support international collaboration and exchanges on research. This also
includes the collection and sharing of best practices for tropical peatlands management with a
strong link to South–South Cooperation and implementation of the Brazzaville Declaration on
Peatlands.
CongoPeat In 2017, the Congo Basin’s Cuvette Centrale gained prominence as an important peatlands
system, when an international team of scientists estimated, for the first time, its extent making
it the world’s largest intact, contiguous tropical peatland complex (Dargie et al. 2017). This
original research formed the scientific basis of the Brazzaville Declaration was followed by
the CongoPeat project, a scientific program also funded by the UK government’s National
Environment Research Council, which is gaining a comprehensive understanding of the
Congo Basin peatlands by combining field measurements, laboratory analysis, big data and
modelling techniques to better map the carbon-rich ecosystem, understand how the peatland
formed, assess how it functions today, and model its response to human pressures in the future.
CongoPeat is a network of over 50 scientists from 15 institutions. CongoPeat works closely with
the RoC and DRC governments to provide the latest scientific understanding of the peatlands
and is a member of the GPI.
The Congo Basin Supported by the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the UNEP led CBSL IP aims to catalyse
Sustainable transformational change in conservation and sustainable management of key transboundary
Landscapes Impact landscapes in the Congo Basin through landscape approaches that empower local communities.
Program (CBSL IP) CBSL IP includes projects aiming to support the sustainable management of the peatlands in the
DRC and RoC.
International CICOS was set up in 1999 as a collaboration framework established amongst the six countries
Commission of the of the Congo Basin, responsible for integrated water resources management and river transport
Congo-Oubangui- issues of the Congo-Ubangui-Sangha Basin.
Sangha Basin
(CICOS)
Congo Basin Forest A response to Resolution 54/214 of the United Nations General Assembly urging the international
Partnership (CBFP/ community to support efforts towards conservation and sustainable management of Congo
PFBC) Basin forests, the CBFP has 117 members including 10 Central African countries. CBFP supports
“the shared vision of the Central African Heads of State, notably by improving efficiency of
measures-including technical and financial assistance to promote biodiversity conservation and
sustainable management of forest ecosystems, combat climate change and reduce poverty in
Central African countries in line with the COMIFAC Convergence Plan”.
Central African Funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), CARPE provides significant
Regional Program financial and technical resources to support efforts to conserve the planet’s second largest
for the Environment tropical rainforest and its threatened biodiversity.
(CARPE)
Sustainable SWAMP is a technical assistance program of USAID jointly implemented by the Center for
Wetlands International Forestry Research (CIFOR) and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) which facilitates
Adaptation and research to estimate greenhouse gas emissions and carbon stocks of tropical wetlands, builds
Mitigation Program local research capacity and informs national policy discussions to support development of
(SWAMP) climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies based on credible scientific information.
SWAMP provides technical assistance to both Congos on strengthening capacity for better
management, measuring and monitoring of peatland forests.

Both countries, as part of the Global Peatlands Initiative, which brings the best available science and
knowledge of peatlands to decision makers and facilitates south-south exchange of lessons with
tropical peatland countries, have elevated the importance of peatlands at the national, regional
and international levels. Furthermore, each country is taking action to mobilize investment and
technical support for both countries to put in place policies, plans and institutions to address threats
to peatlands and build the essential enabling environment to improve livelihoods and ensure the
sustainable management of peatlands landscapes in the Congo Basin.
9.5 Advancing programming on peatlands

in the Congo Basin
There are several programs and initiatives in the Congo Basin region focusing on biodiversity
conservation and sustainable management of the second largest region of tropical forest in the
world. Peatland-specific programs are more recent whereas other more longstanding programs
have recently elevated the importance of peatlands (Table 9.2). Given the recent focus on peatlands,
programs and initiatives should be leveraged to improve knowledge of these ecosystems,
build technical capacity within the region and implement programming which facilitates both
sustainable management and sustainable livelihoods within peatland areas. In parallel, there is
a need to strengthen governance from local to national to regional levels as well as understand
effective incentives and policy frameworks for the sustainable management of peatlands. Action
and implementation will require resources, and while current programming is encouraging, further
investment can help to address many existing gaps.
9.5.1 Key implementation challenges

Several key challenges must be considered when implementing programs which aim to protect
and/or facilitate the sustainable management of peatlands. Communities are key stakeholders
whose customary rights must be respected. Any management decisions at the national level and
implementation at the local level should account for communities’ rights and interests and a process
adhering to Free, Prior and Informed Consent should be facilitated before any implementation or
land management decisions are enacted in their lands. Similarly, environmental and social impact
assessments (ESIA) should be conducted when undertaking land use planning or designing
programs and considering land management and development options. While there are laws
requiring ESIAs in Central Africa including guidelines published by COMIFAC on conducting ESIAs
in forest environments (COMIFAC 2017), generally such assessments are rarely undertaken or not
completed appropriately when undertaken. ESIAs should be integrated into implementation of
programming in the Central Congo peatlands, as well as more broadly into land use planning and
decision-making toward the sustainable development goals.
Creating incentives at the local level alongside low-emission livelihood development will be key
to reduce local-based threats of peatland degradation. Payment for ecosystem services schemes
may be part of this process but further development of sustainable livelihood activities should be
further explored. Currently the Central Congo peatlands is a source of non-timber forest products,
bushmeat, fish, and fuelwood and some timber extraction (See Box on Ecosystem Services). Fishing
is a main subsistence and income generating activity including sending smoked fish to markets as
far as capital cities, Brazzaville and Kinshasa. While fish provides an excellent source of protein and
is the main source of cash for most households (Comptour et al. 2018), and is family-based in the

Chapter 9
region, the development of intensive commercial fishing could degrade the resource (Inogwabini
2014). Further studies are needed on sustainable livelihood options and other incentives and criteria
for investments to prevent peatland degradation and protect these vital carbon stores.
9.5.2 Peatland protection and governance

Currently there are conflicting and overlapping land use zones in the central Congo peatland areas
in both Congos (Dargie et al. 2019). Facilitating national multi-sectoral processes will be essential to
resolve these potential conflicts and ideally further strengthen protection of peatlands by preventing
damaging activities from affecting these intact ecosystems (See Section on Threats).
Development of inter-sectoral and multi-stakeholder consulted land use plans at provincial and
local levels are critically also important, land use planning being a key element specifically outlined
in the Brazzaville Declaration and the CAFI LOI in the Republic of the Congo (see Table 9.1) to
promote the protection and sustainable management of peatlands, and prevent their drainage and
drying out.
Protected areas provide the strongest form of conservation and protection from damaging land use
change. Establishing protected areas within the Central Congo peatlands area was first proposed
30 years ago, during the preparation of the first phase of the ECOFAC project (Doumenge 1990;
Hecketsweiler 1990). Since then, some important reserves have been established: Lake Télé
Community Reserve (2001) and Ntokou-Pikounda National Park (2013) in the RoC; and Ngiri
Triangle Nature Reserve (2011) in the DRC (Dargie et al. 2019; OFAC 2020). Several sites have
also been included in the international list of Ramsar sites: Lac Télé/Likouala aux Herbes (1998),
Grands affluents (2007), Sangha-Nouabalé-Ndoki (2009) and Ntokou-Pikounda (2012) in Congo,
Tumba-Ngiri-Maï-Ndombe (2008) and Tumba-Ledima Nature Reserve (2006) in the DRC. The
transboundary site established in 2017, Complexe Transfrontalier Lac Télé - Grands Affluents - Lac
Tumba, is the largest transboundary Ramsar site in the world. However, these protections were to
safeguard the wetlands rather than being specifically designed to protect the peatlands.
One option to further strengthen protection of the central Congo peatlands is to create new
protected areas by extending the existing network of reserves to specifically protect areas of
peatland, especially in the most remote areas and between river basins, for example North-East of
Ngiri, on the bank of the Congo River, North of Ruki River and between Lake Tumba and North-East
of Lake Maï Ndombe in the DRC, and between the Ubangi and Likouala-aux-herbes rivers in the
RoC. While this is one approach, it should not be the only option considered in supporting peatland
management programming. For example, Community Reserves, such as the Lac Télé Community
Reserve that explicitly include local people as equal co-managers can protect peatlands and help
communities increase incomes and develop sustainably. Furthermore, allocation of community
forestry concessions may be another way to ensure both protection and community access and
sustainable use of these peatland areas. Creation of any kind of protected area should take into
account local populations, specifically including them in the process as a key stakeholder, respecting
their customary rights.
Both governments have highlighted the need to support local communities with improved,
sustainable livelihoods that are compatible with maintaining the peatland ecosystem integrity.
Provision of basic needs such as improved access to clean water, healthcare, schooling and better
transport while offering equal opportunities to indigenous peoples and other vulnerable groups, is
essential to avoid potential negative pressures on peatlands to meet these needs in the future.

Conclusions and recommendations

The central Congo peatlands of the Congo Basin play an important role locally, regionally and
globally. Spanning 145,000 Km2, they store approximately the equivalent of what is found in the
above ground biomass of the trees of the entire Congo Basin forest (Dargie et al. 2017; Verhegghen
et al. 2012). Despite this, much is still unknown about this important ecosystem. Further research
is needed on: mapping peatland extent and depth; identification and characterization of peatland
forest types; the biodiversity of the peatlands; potential threats and ecological, hydrological
and climate impacts of disturbance/degradation; monitoring systems that can detect change
and disturbance in near real-time; local community use and value of these areas; and incentive
mechanisms/approaches for their protection (Table 9.3). To advance this research a cadre of experts
within both the universities and government is needed in the RoC and the DRC to monitor and
sustainably manage the peatlands.
At present, limited disturbance or degradation of the peatlands have occurred largely due to local
sustainable use and limited access into these remote areas which has avoided large-scale land-
use change. But these ecosystems are especially sensitive to disturbances and can be irreversibly
changed resulting in large emissions of greenhouse gases as has occurred in other drained
and degraded peatlands, such as in Southeast Asia. Several potential threats exist, including
hydrocarbon prospection, road building, logging, agricultural expansion, palm oil plantations, and
climate change, but their relative likelihoods are not currently understood. Therefore, more research
to inform policies and new inter-sectoral sustainable management plans and actions for urgent
conservation of the Central Congo peatlands are paramount to ensure continuing provision of the
ecosystem services and stability they provide.
As partners of the Global Peatlands Initiative, the governments of the DRC and the RoC are taking
action, through national leadership and support from partners to develop consultative, inter-sectoral
and scientifically informed peatlands management policies, strategies and plans. Any peatland
policies, plans or investments need to be linked to both countries’ commitments to regional and
international global environmental agreements reinforced by targets of the Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs) and be drainage-free and deforestation free livelihood sources. Most critical is that
the inter-sectoral, inter-disciplinary and multi-stakeholder participatory processes of developing
policies, plans and programmes to conserve, restore and sustainably manage these peatlands need
adequate financing, innovation, institutional strengthening, and access to knowledge.
Table 9.3 presents a list of specific policy, research and peatland management recommendations for
investing in peatland protection by strengthening institutional frameworks, improving knowledge
of these ecosystems and implementing programs which facilitate sustainable management of
peatland landscapes. While some programs and investments exist (see Table 9.2), significant
additional sustainable funding will be required, which should not be underestimated.
Given the very limited disturbance and degradation of the peatlands to date, the Congo Basin presents
a unique and important opportunity to take preventative measures versus reactive approaches for
conservation and sustainable management of the central Congo peatlands. Conversely, if action is
not taken today to protect and sustainably manage these irrecoverable carbon stores (Goldstein et
al. 2020) at all scales, from international, national to regional, it may be too late tomorrow.

Chapter 9
Table 9.3: Recommendations for policy, research and management actions across all
actors to strengthen peatland protection and facilitate sustainable management of
peatland landscapes.
Policies, laws and regulations
̵ Develop national peatland definition agreed between different stakeholder groups to harmonize maps
̵ Create national peatland agendas/strategies/policies and land use plans
̵ Include peatlands in national monitoring and reporting systems, including the climate transparency frameworks
and their greenhouse monitoring and reporting, the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), and the Long-
term low greenhouse gas emission development strategies (LTSs)
̵ Promote good governance and transparent information sharing, e.g., through accessible and up-to-date information
platforms
̵ Strengthen existing legislation for peatland protection
̵ Provide a system of incentives to land managers developing sustainable livelihood sources (that do not cause
logging nor drainage), e.g., through small- and medium-sized enterprises
̵ Prohibit logging, hydrocarbon and agriculture concessions within the peatland areas and ensure monitoring and
law enforcement
̵ Extend the protected area zone to include the peatlands
̵ Seek to mitigate climate risks
Research and monitoring
̵ Continue to develop and build national research expertise and capacity in fields related to peatland forest
ecosystems and peatland management
̵ Further map peatland extent and depth including identification and characterization of peatland forest types
̵ Build a model of peatland development and function to assess the ecological, hydrological and climate impacts of
disturbance/degradation from the major potential threats to the peatlands
̵ Create a hydro-climatic observatory collecting long-term in-situ and remote sensed data allowing the simultaneous
monitoring of the vegetation cover and productivity, peat accumulation, as well as the water balance (rain,
infiltration, aquifer recharge, surface runoff, evapotranspiration) to understand the remotely forced intra-seasonal
to inter-annual climate fluctuations potentially impacting the peatlands and conversely those locally forced that is
induced by peatland conversion
̵ Develop early-warning, early-action monitoring tools and approaches in collaboration with national and private
entities that can detect change and disturbance in near real-time
̵ Understand, document and quantify local community use and value of these areas
̵ Analyze incentive mechanisms/approaches for peatland protection
̵ Monitor and understand the emerging threats and trends in regional climate
Peatland management/program implementation
̵ Protect community rights and respect principles of Free, Prior and Informed Consent in peatland management
decisions
̵ Leverage community reserves and community forestry concessions as mechanisms to facilitate peatland protection
and community access and management
̵ Further explore incentive mechanisms for local, regional and national levels for peatland protection, including
deforestation-free and drainage free sustainable land use investments and ecosystem results-based payments
̵ Empower civil society to take action to maintain the socio-economic systems and environmental services
̵ Facilitate inter-sectoral and multi-stakeholder land use planning at local, regional and national levels that ensure
peatland protection through sustainable landscape management reconciling current conflicting zoning
̵ Pilot initiatives to promote sustainable management that provide income for local communities
̵ Ensure personnel and financial resources are available to meet Multilateral Environmental Agreements including
the Ramsar Convention requirements and recommendations and implement robust and sustainable peatland
programs
̵ Strengthen institutional capacity for effective application of environmental and social impact assessments (ESIA) in
land use planning and management processes, including monitoring
̵ Support local communities in identifying and further developing sustainable livelihood means that do not threaten
the peat integrity and ecosystem services
̵ Document and share best practices and lessons learned and invite other French-speaking and other peatland
countries to exchange knowledge

CHAPTER 10
Emergence/Re-emergence of
Infectious Agents and Epidemic
Risks in Central African Forests
Coordinator: Mathieu Bourgarel1

Authors: Alexandre Caron,1 Ferran Jori,1 Hélène de Nys,1 Ilka Herbinger,2
Florian Liégeois,3 Augustin Mouinga-Ondémé,4 Sandra Ratiarison5
CIRAD, 2WWF, 3IRD, 4CIRMF, 5FAO

1
Photo Axel Fassio/CIFOR

Chapter 10
Introduction
The years 2020–2021 will always be marked by the COVID-19
crisis. This pandemic was triggered by the coronavirus SARS-
CoV-2, which broke the species barrier between a (still unknown)
wildlife species and humans, somewhere in China in 2019
(Andersen et al. 2020). Above and beyond the number of deaths
directly caused by COVID-19, this crisis will have an impact on
our societies over the long term. Yet, this pandemic is not the first
of its kind in modern times. The 2014–2016 Ebola virus disease
epidemic in West Africa (and its resurgence in 2021) has also
been a major warning sign of the threat posed by the transfer of
a pathogen from wildlife to human populations (Heymann et
al. 2015). A long list of emerging animal pathogens has already
threatened to reach – or succeeded in reaching – epidemic or
pandemic proportions after interspecies transmission (known as
“spillover”). These include HIV, SARS-CoV-1, MERS-CoV, Nipah
virus and Rift Valley fever.
Today, emerging infectious diseases (EIDs), defined here as
“diseases that have recently increased in incidence or geographic
range [and] recently moved into new host populations,” (Daszak,
Cunningham and Hyatt 2000; Tompkins et al. 2015), are one
of the main risks to human health and societies. In fact, these
EIDs have been increasing in recent decades (Binder et al. 1999;
Woolhouse and Gowtage-Sequeria 2005). More than 60 percent
of known EIDs are due to an animal pathogen (Morens, Folkers
and Fauci 2004; Jones et al. 2008), and it is estimated that 75
percent of these infectious diseases that have emerged in the past
three to four decades have been caused by wildlife (Woolhouse
2002; Wolfe, Dunavan and Diamond 2007).
These zoonoses are diseases that are based on transmission from animals to humans and triggered by
complex interactions between humans, domestic animals and wildlife (Cleaveland, Laurenson and
Taylor 2001; Karesh et al. 2012). In order to design and implement surveillance and control systems
for these EIDs, it is essential to understand the mechanisms and factors that lead to this spillover.

Emergence/Re-emergence of Infectious Agents and Epidemic Risks in Central African Forests
Jones et al. (2008) have attempted to identify the factors that cause these diseases. Human density
associated with anthropogenic and demographic changes is one of the main drivers of EIDs. The
wide range of host wildlife is also an important factor to consider. Their predictive model indicates
that low-latitude developing countries are the most exposed to EIDs, from wildlife or transmitted
by vectors. In 2017, Allen et al. (2017) refined the Jones et al. (2008) model for wildlife-derived
EIDs. This new model suggests that the risk of emergence is higher in tropical forest regions with
high mammalian biodiversity and subject to changes in land use due to encroachment by human
populations and agricultural activities.
These global studies therefore point to African tropical forests as a hotspot for EID emergence. In this
chapter, we will detail the known emergence mechanisms of pathogens that cause EIDs at human/
wildlife interfaces in the forest environment. We shall do so through i) a summary of knowledge on
biodiversity-health relationships in the context of Central African forests and global drivers of EID
emergence; ii) a focus on the human/animal interface as occasions for emergence; iii) a presentation
of the recent major viral EIDs in these systems; iv) an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of
EID surveillance systems in Central Africa; and v) a reflection on the risks related to EIDs in the
framework of global changes and the COVID-19 pandemic.
10.1 Central African biodiversity and the

factors/mechanisms behind the emergence
of infectious agents
10.1.1 Biodiversity and emerging diseases
Of all terrestrial ecosystems, tropical forests are home to the greatest number of species. They alone
are home to nearly 50 percent of the Earth’s biodiversity (Mayer, Tesh and Vasilakis 2017; Wilson
1988). This includes wild animals (over 1,200 species of fish, 400 species of mammals, 1,000 species
of birds and a still unknown number of insects) and flora, with about 10,000 vascular plant species
(Harrison, Brummett and Stiassny 2016). All these animal and plant species are potential reservoir
hosts, intermediate hosts or vectors for a very large number of known or unknown bacteria, parasites
and viruses. The number of pathogenic micro-organisms increases the closer the latitude is to
the equator (Guernier et al. 2004). This biodiversity therefore makes the forests of Central Africa
significant sources of new infectious agents compared to other types of habitat.
Currently, the Congo Basin is still relatively well preserved compared to other African ecosystems,
but it is undergoing transformation related to human activities. These activities destroy or transform
forest habitats and exert impact on biodiversity (Harrison, Brummett and Stiassny 2016). From
a theoretical point of view, the impact of this loss of biodiversity on the risks of emergence and
transmission of EIDs can be positive or negative (Keesing et al. 2010). But the relationship between
biodiversity loss and EIDs is complex. The loss of species has a direct impact on the structure of the
interspecific biotic network and the functioning of ecosystems (Cardinale et al. 2012). This modifies
the food webs and, as a result, all the mechanisms of infectious agent spillover (Morris et al. 2016;
Rulli et al. 2017).
The dilution effect is often put forward to explain the effect of biodiversity loss on EID increase
(Wood et al. 2014). It is based on the fact that host individuals in a community characterized by
a high level of biodiversity have a lower risk of being contaminated by a given pathogen, simply

Chapter 10
because of the lower probability of encounter between the pathogen and the individual (Wood et
al. 2014). However, the dilution effect, which has been observed on small spatial scales for some
diseases, is being challenged by studies performed at various scales (Randolph and Dobson 2012;
Wood et al. 2014; Halliday and Rohr 2019). Indeed, host species represent the habitats and resources
of pathogens: if these latter are host-dependent, then in the event of loss of this main host, these
pathogens will disappear at the same time as their host species (Wood et al. 2014). Conversely, in the
event of biodiversity loss that spares efficient reservoir or intermediate host species, an amplifying
effect may increase the risk of transmission of a pathogen carried by these host or reservoir species
(Pongsiri et al. 2009). The consequences a loss of biodiversity may have on the risks of disease
transmission will thus differ according to the pathogen, its hosts and the environments in question.
Pathogens, like all other animal species, undergo changes (anthropogenic or not) and have different
intrinsic adaptive capacities that will make them “losers” or “winners.”
Often, habitat modifications lead to selection of so-called generalist species, which are more
likely to host pathogens and put more specialized species at a disadvantage. Thus, the densities
of large mammals are often impacted first in the event of biodiversity loss, while the density of
micromammals, which are privileged carriers of pathogens, tends to increase (Young et al. 2014).
Some EIDs may also pose major risks to biodiversity and in particular to the conservation of the
Congo Basin’s iconic species. For example, an outbreak of Ebola virus disease severely reduced great
ape populations in some areas of the Congo Basin during the 2000s, and in several months ruined
years of work and massive investments in the protection of chimpanzees (Pan spp) and gorillas
(Gorilla spp) (Walsh 2003; Bermejo et al. 2006).
10.1.2 Emergence factors

Emergence of a zoonotic infectious disease, which usually results in an epidemic in the susceptible
host population, is due to a combination of intrinsic and extrinsic factors (Daszak, Cunningham
and Hyatt 2000; Morens, Folkers and Fauci 2004; Woolhouse and Gowtage-Sequeria 2005). First
of all, some factors are related to the characteristics of the pathogen itself, the reservoir and/or
intermediate hosts, and the vectors (if any). Other factors are related to the environment (or climate)
more or less favourable to the circulation of the infectious agent. Territorial factors are the product
of human activity and the risk behaviours of human populations (Ludwig et al. 2003). Examples are
a lack of or poorly performing disease surveillance systems, ineffective programmes for monitoring
vectors or other carrier species, and failed water supply systems. Additional factors include human-
induced environmental changes, such as deforestation, agricultural practices, loss of biodiversity,
logging and mining. Mention should also be made of all human activities that increase contacts
between people and wildlife or that facilitate the circulation of infectious agents outside their
natural habitats: hunting, consumption and trade of bushmeat, transportation and tourism.
10.1.3 Emergence mechanisms

For emergence of a zoonotic disease, several steps are required: invasion, establishment and
persistence of an infectious agent in new host populations (Anderson and May 1986). First, when
there is contact between a reservoir animal and a human, the pathogen must be transmitted
successfully and be able to multiply and then be transmitted from human to human. Finally, the
epidemic must shift from a local to a national or international scale.

A number of natural barriers must be overcome in order for spillover to occur. These barriers are
variable in time and space. The probability of transmission of an infectious agent from its reservoir
to a human being actually depends on a variety of factors:
1. The distribution and density of the reservoir species: greater presence of the reservoir species
in the habitat used by humans increases the probability of encounter and contact between the
two.
2. Pathogen dynamics in the reservoir host: greater prevalence in the reservoir species makes
human-animal contact more of a risk.
3. Human exposure to the pathogen: if the animal is infected, the intensity of the infection will
determine transmission probability. The main transmission routes of the infectious agent as well
as the behaviours of the human and/or the vector (if involved in the transmission mechanism)
are decisive: transmission may come from the skinning of hunted animals or from repeated
stings of a vector insect. The more the human or vector is in contact with the body fluids or
organs in which the infectious agents are concentrated, the greater the risk of transmission.
4. Internal factors of the person in contact will determine their susceptibility to infection. These
include genetic, physiological and immunological characteristics (Plowright et al. 2017). If these
characteristics enable multiplication of the infectious agent in the contact case, the latter can
then become the index case of the epidemic and contaminate other people, as was the case of
the Ebola virus disease (EVD) epidemic in Luebo, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC),
in 2007 (Leroy et al. 2009b).
All these various steps are barriers that must be overcome for transmission of the infectious agent
from a reservoir host to a recipient host (Plowright et al. 2017). For disease emergence to occur, all
these barriers must be breached one after the other, at the right time and place. This “alignment of
breaches” in the barriers is ultimately very rare for viruses such as filoviruses (Ebola and Marburg)
and coronaviruses (SARS-COV, SARS-CoV-2 and MERS-CoV), but more or less permanent for other
zoonotic diseases such as trypanosomiasis, for which incidence is high in Africa due to almost
permanent exposure to infected animals and vectors (tsetse flies) and low-level resistance in humans
(Simarro et al. 2012). This chain of low-probability events suggests that observed emergences
represent only a small portion of spillover events, most of which do not result in the infectious agent
staying in the human population (Wolfe et al. 2005a).
10.2 Health risks at the human/animal

interface in Central Africa
More than half of the new infectious diseases that appeared between 1996 and 2009 occurred
in Africa (Wood et al. 2012). Spillover of these EIDs in large human populations is facilitated by
anthropic activities and the processes of globalization, urbanization, movement of goods and
people, and climate change. Various factors further this spillover: land use and transformation,
fragmentation of natural habitats and the ensuing loss of biodiversity, hunting, and agricultural
and customary practices (Wood et al. 2012; Lloyd-Smith et al. 2009; Morse et al. 2012).
10.2.1 Climate change, deforestation and forest

fragmentation
Climate change is going to exert wide-ranging impact on ecosystems and their inhabitants
(both human and non-human), including on pathogens (Chidumayo et al. 2011). However, the

Chapter 10
consequences of climate change on the dynamics of spillover are difficult to predict. It can alter
the dynamics of diseases caused by pathogens that spend part of their life cycle outside their hosts
and that are thus exposed to the effects of environmental variations. This concerns pathogens
transmitted by vectors (insects and ticks), by water and by food (Baylis 2017). Climatic conditions
also alter the population dynamics of hosts and vectors, and thus indirectly those of pathogens
(McMichael and Lindgren 2011). In Africa, several examples of emergence or re-emergence associated
with climate change have been described: Rift Valley fever (Linthicum et al. 1999; Rweyemamu et
al. 2000), malaria (Nchinda 1998; Gunda et al. 2017) and chikungunya (Paupy et al. 2012; El-Sayed
and Kamel 2020).
Deforestation in Central Africa is the result of human activities. In order of severity, these are 1) land
clearing for subsistence agriculture, firewood and charcoal extraction; 2) logging; and 3) mining
(Bogaert et al. 2008; Abernethy, Maisels, and White 2016). Each of these activities can lead to a
health risk (Epstein 2001). Deforestation and forest fragmentation influence the behaviour and
abundance of wildlife, including both small and large mammals (Jones et al. 2013). They are
modifications that alter biological interactions between living organisms and that may promote the
alignment of events required for infectious emergence in humans (Guégan et al. 2020). For example,
deforestation affects habitat use by frugivorous bats (Zhang et al. 2005), and there is a link between
destruction of natural bat habitats and transmission of their viruses to other animals and humans
(Jones et al. 2013). Several studies suggest that the likelihood of an outbreak of EVD in a given site is
linked to recent deforestation events there (Olivero et al. 2017; Rulli et al. 2017).
Furthermore, meta-analysis based on PREDICT data1 shows that rodent species known to be disease
reservoirs were significantly more abundant in modified habitats, while non-reservoir species were
more abundant in unmodified habitats (Mendoza et al. 2020). The same is true with bacteria. When
forest fragmentation disrupts the ecology of non-human primates (NHPs), it influences bidirectional
spillover of bacteria within those fragments (Goldberg et al. 2008). These findings confirm that
deforestation and habitat fragmentation generally have an impact on biodiversity that may involve
a higher risk of transmission of zoonotic pathogens.
10.2.2 Subsistence and commercial hunting

In rural Central Africa, bushmeat is an important source of protein and income for local people.
Bushmeat consumption was estimated at between 1 and 5 million tonnes in the Congo Basin in
the 2000s (Wilkie and Carpenter 1999; Fa, Currie and Meeuwig 2003; Fa, Ryan and Bell 2005) with
an estimated hunting pressure of between 23 and 897 kg/km2/year (Van Vliet and Nasi 2008). In
Central Africa, bushmeat is often more accessible and affordable than farmed meat. Bushmeat
is also an integral part of the culture of the rural and urban populations of the Congo Basin, and
demand for it increases along with household purchasing power (Wilkie et al. 2005; Fa et al. 2009).
To meet this growing demand for bushmeat, hunters hunt and harvest throughout the year to feed
their families and their village (subsistence hunting) and to feed urban centre markets (commercial
hunting) (van Vliet and Mbazza 2011). Growing demand from cities is leading to higher selling
prices. Consequently, hunters prefer the bushmeat value chain to target urban markets or other
countries rather than rural areas.
1 https://www.ecohealthalliance.org/program/predict

Over the past two decades, this commercial hunting, even though informal, has developed at national,
regional and international levels to such an extent that it furthers the circulation and emergence of
known or unknown zoonotic diseases in the Congo Basin and the rest of the world. For example, the
scales and flesh of pangolins (Smutsia gigantea, Phataginus spp), which are hunted in Central Africa,
can be found in Asia, where they are used for traditional medicine and meat consumption (Zhang
et al. 2020; Ingram et al. 2018). Further, to increase hunting success and meet demand, hunters
are using new technologies such as hunting rifles, flashlights and even GPS, thereby increasing the
number of catches and the pressure on a greater number of animal species (Bowler et al. 2020).
Hunting and more specifically the capture, handling, preparation and transport of carcasses generate
direct contact with potentially infected wild animals (Wolfe et al. 2005b; Mitman 2014; Magouras et
al. 2020). But as these activities target rodents, bats and gorillas alike, their level of risk depends on
the wildlife species hunted and handled. Bats, for example, are suspected to be reservoirs of filovirus
(Marburg and Ebola) and coronavirus. Great apes (chimpanzees and gorillas), on the other hand,
are phylogenetically closer to humans (Wolfe et al. 2005a) and may be carriers of a large number of
zoonotic pathogens. Risk increases when the hunter kills a sick animal or picks up a fresh carcass of
an animal that died in the forest (Pourrut et al. 2005; Guégan et al. 2020).
The risk of transmission of consumption-linked diseases is likely to be lower, as cooking can destroy
pathogens. On the other hand, little is known about the effects of bushmeat preservation methods
on pathogen survival. Salting, drying or smoking the meat is likely to be damaging to some of these
infectious agents, but their effect remains little known. Some studies suggest that these methods
are not 100 percent safe, as several species of viruses have been detected by biomolecular analysis in
thoroughly smoked bushmeat cuts (Smith et al. 2012).
10.2.3 Logging and mining

Central Africa’s rich and considerable natural resources (chiefly mining and forestry resources) are
heavily exploited. The mining sector in Africa has invested heavily and intensified exploitation. In
some Central African countries, such as Cameroon, gold mining is dominated by artisanal mining
(Aoudou Doua, Narke and Layen Ndiong 2018). More and more people have been engaging in this
smuggling activity over the past few decades, leading to massive influxes of migrants. This increase
in population is generally accompanied by a pioneer front of farming and mining, leading to serious
environmental consequences. “Gold fever” has developed to the extent that small isolated camps
of artisanal workers have turned into small but well-structured villages (Aoudou Doua, Narke and
Layen Ndiong 2018). These mining and forestry activities in the Congo Basin lead to the opening
up of trails and human settlements in previously untouched forests, thereby facilitating access
to new hunting areas (Wolfe et al. 2005b; Chomel, Belotto, and Meslin 2007). The result is that
new interfaces between humans and wildlife are created. Most of the health risks associated
with mining and forestry are due to the creation of these new interfaces and to the hunting that
always accompanies them – not only to feed the workers, but also to develop the bushmeat trade.
However, some disease re-emergence has been linked directly to mining, as seen by the Marburg
haemorrhagic fever epidemic in a gold-mining village in the DRC in 1998, where 52 percent of cases
were miners working in an underground mine. The epidemic ended when the mine was flooded
(Bausch et al. 2006).

Chapter 10
10.2.4 Agricultural practices

Subsistence agriculture is one of the main causes of forest degradation in the Congo Basin (Tyukavina
et al. 2018). Small-scale land clearing leads to significant fragmentation of forest cover and enlarges
the areas of interface between humans and wildlife. There is an increase in direct and indirect
contact with wildlife which are a potential source of pathogens. In addition, newly formed forest
edges are subject to changes in biodiversity as well as to changes in the abundance and communities
of wild species (Pfeifer et al. 2017). All these factors can impact the risk of zoonotic transmission of
infectious agents circulating in the forest.
The crop and secondary forest areas associated with agriculture are attractive food resources for
wildlife. This is the case for the frugivorous bat Hypsignathus monstrosus, which prefers to use these
areas near forest villages for food and is suspected of playing a role in the natural cycle of the Ebola
virus (E. Schloesing, forthcoming). When wildlife uses these habitats which are in close proximity
to humans, it promotes direct and indirect contact between wildlife, livestock and humans,
thereby increasing the risk of spillover. Bacterial exchanges between NHPs, domestic animals and
humans have been confirmed in fragmented forest areas and are linked, among other things, to the
plundering of crops by these primates (Goldberg et al. 2008).
Forest communities raise livestock (goats or pigs) or poultry that move freely. These domestic
animals share the same habitats and resources as wildlife, including fruit trees favoured by many
wildlife species (including bats and NHPs). For example, domestic pigs can roam distances of
several kilometres in forests, making for significant risk of direct contact with wildlife due to their
scavenging behaviour (Atherstone et al. 2017). Livestock rearing in forest areas therefore increases
occasions for pathogen transmission from wildlife to domestic animals, which can in turn act as an
intermediate or amplifying host before transmission to humans.
Finally, a little documented but common agricultural practice in Africa (M. Bourgarel, pers. obs.) is
the collection of bat guano from the caves to fertilize fields, which can promote the emergence of
infectious diseases. A study conducted in Zimbabwe shows, for example, the presence of coronavirus
and paramyxovirus in guano used for this purpose, thereby highlighting the risks associated with
this practice (Bourgarel et al. 2018).
10.2.5 Beliefs and customs

The beliefs and customs of people living in the Congo Basin play a major role in the perception
of diseases, the risks associated with their activities such as hunting and their interactions with
wildlife, and the management of epidemics. In fact, some ethnic groups do not have a biomedical
conception of the causes of diseases. There is even a saying in the DRC that “Congolese don’t die from
germs”2 (Sabuni 2007). Witchcraft was often cited as the cause of illness among ethnic groups such
as the Bira and Nande in the DRC and Gabon during the 2001–2002 EVD outbreaks (M. Bourgarel,
pers. obs.).
Customs and beliefs also lead people living in forests to engage in risky behaviours involving wildlife
in addition to those involving hunting and handling bushmeat. Several ethnic groups interact
with dead animals when hunting or shortly after childbirths, thereby increasing risk of disease
2 “Congolais hakufi na microbe”.

transmission. For example, they may put a newborn in the rib cage of a freshly killed gorilla so that
the child takes in the animal’s strength, or they may practise rites that put them in close contact
with dead wildlife to increase their success in hunting (F. Liégeois and M. Bourgarel, pers. obs.).
Finally, beliefs and customs can in fact have an impact on the management and control of an
epidemic by health services and governments. Looking again at the example of EVD epidemics, the
local population living in epidemic zones can often be seen to refuse to believe in the epidemic,
claiming that it is government propaganda and used to obtain foreign funds, control the population
or procure human organs (Agusto, Teboh-Ewungkem and Gumel 2015). Added to this is the fact
that some infected people refuse to be quarantined and go into hiding in the forest. There is also
the fear of not being able to give loved ones an appropriate traditional burial, as the bodies are not
returned to the family but cremated by health services. These traditional beliefs and customs incite
some families to hide their sick relatives in order to escape the health system, thereby slowing down
control of the epidemic significantly (Agusto, Teboh-Ewungkem and Gumel 2015).
This problem of lack of confidence among forest populations in health systems stems in part from a
lack of communication and awareness-raising by health system actors. During the 2001 and 2002
EVD outbreaks, these services focused on case management, without really communicating to local
populations about the fate of quarantined and deceased patients. This led the public to believe that
sick patients placed in quarantine disappeared or were murdered for their organs (M. Bourgarel,
pers. obs.). It is therefore crucial to i) take these beliefs and customs into account and to respect them
as much as possible, ii) properly communicate to the various people involved in the management
of epidemics, and iii) limit the tensions or even social violence which can emerge from these crises
(Sabuni 2007).
10.2.6 Other human activities

Every year, millions of live animals are sold around the world, for use as pets. More often than not,
these animals are illegally captured to meet the demand for exotic animals. This global black market
is estimated at several billion dollars per year (Rosen and Smith 2010). In Central Africa, trade in
live animals predominantly concerns certain species such as the grey parrot (Psittacus erithacus),
the royal python (Python regius) and several species of NHPs (Stiles et al. 2013; Martin, Senni and
D’Cruze 2018; Devaux et al. 2019a; Norconk et al. 2020).
Beyond the conservation problem it poses, this trade is highly effective in exposing host populations
to new pathogens (Karesh et al. 2005; Can, D’Cruze and Macdonald 2019) and is recognized as a
potential source of future pandemics. The first outbreak of monkeypox outside Africa occurred in
the United States in 2003, following the importation of rodents from West Africa which infected
other local mammals and subsequently a total of 47 people (Mackay and Arden 2015). The risk for
a country to experience the emergence of a new disease depends on many complex socioeconomic,
ecological and biological factors that have already been detailed. The volume of live animals
imported into the country is one such factor. Good understanding of this often informal trade is
thus crucial to optimize the limited efforts and resources allocated to the prevention of zoonotic
disease epidemics (Karesh et al. 2005; Can, D’Cruze and Macdonald 2019).
In the international tourism market, demand for animal tourism has increased sharply over the last
decade (Fennell et al. 2012). This type of tourism is a significant source of income for the countries
visited and contributes to the conservation of species and habitats. It can also generate educational
and socioeconomic benefits for local people (Macfie and Williamson 2010). Today’s tourists seek

Chapter 10
out close encounters and personal experiences with wildlife and are particularly attracted to
endangered species in remote and fragile habitats (Macfie and Williamson 2010). However, this
activity modifies the behaviour of certain species which, attracted by the frequent supply of food
from tourists, lose their fear of humans. This close and regular contact between people and wild
animals increases the probability of pathogen transmission between them.
This risk is especially significant between humans and NHPs, which – because of their strong capacity
for interaction and their phylogenetic proximity – share a large number of infectious agents (Davies
and Pedersen 2008). In several national parks of Central Africa, groups of great apes have become
habituated (i.e., made to accept human observation), to improve the quality of tourism products.
These parks include Lopé in Gabon, Odzala and Nouabalé-Ndoki in the Republic of Congo, Dzanga-
Sangha Special Reserve in the Central African Republic, and Virunga and Kahuzi-Biega in the DRC.
There are also many great ape sanctuaries which offer tourists close contact with habituated great
apes. Forest tourist camps similarly promote closer contact with wildlife, which are attracted to
food and garbage. This proximity facilitates the transmission of infectious and parasitic agents
between the two groups (Odeniran, Ademola and Jegede 2018; Devaux et al. 2019b), including
rabies, herpesvirus type B, Marburg, Ebola, monkeypox and other pathogens. This tourism of
mingling with NHPs can also have an impact on the conservation of these species via transmission
of human diseases to the latter (Devaux et al. 2019b). Cases of transmission of respiratory pathogens
sometimes leading to death in great apes have been recorded in Africa (Köndgen et al. 2008; Dunay
et al. 2018; Grützmacher et al. 2018; Mazet et al. 2020). Beyond indirect contacts, there are also
serious risks that tourists may be bitten by wild animals that have lost their fear of humans and
come looking for food in the camps (Devaux et al. 2019b). To limit these risks of transmission
related to ecotourism, several measures have been proposed by primatologists, such as limiting
the frequency and duration of visits, reducing the number of visitors, prohibiting sick tourists from
access, banning the consumption of food on-site, determining a minimum observation distance
or physically separating animals from visitors, and mask wearing (Macfie and Williamson 2010;
Gilardi et al. 2015).
10.3 Emerging/re-emerging diseases in

Central Africa: background, epidemiology
and health response
10.3.1 Central African haemorrhagic fevers
Haemorrhagic fevers (HFs) are diseases caused by viruses from various families, which affect several
organs at the same time. These diseases can be accompanied by bleeding, called haemorrhagic
symptoms (CDC 2013). While some HFs are relatively mild diseases, most known HFs (e.g., Lassa
HF, Crimean-Congo HF, Rift Valley fever, and the Ebola and Marburg viruses) are extremely serious
and deadly. These HFs are present on all continents and are generally zoonotic diseases (CDC 2013).
Dengue is the most common HF in the world (100 million cases and 60,000 deaths/year). It is
followed by yellow fever, which is transmitted by arthropods and affects about 200,000 people
each year. In Central Africa, yellow fever and Ebola and Marburg (filovirus) virus diseases are the
most common HFs (Zapata, Cox and Salvato 2014). Ebola and Marburg are the HFs with the highest
mortality rate (50 to 88%) along with the Crimean-Congo fever of Africa, which has been detected
in West Africa and also circulates in Central Africa.

The yellow fever virus belongs to the family Flaviridae. It was isolated in Africa in 1927 (Fleury 2009)
and is endemic in 34 African countries and throughout the Congo Basin (Barrett and Monath 2003).
It is an arbovirus (virus transmitted by hematophagous arthropod vectors), whose vector in Africa is
a mosquito of the genus Aedes. This virus is maintained in the forest through a mosquito-monkey-
mosquito cycle in which humans are generally not included. Yellow fever is a very old zoonotic
disease whose first major epidemics affected tropical America in the 17th century. Today, Africa is
the continent most affected by it (95 percent of the world’s cases). The frequency of epidemics and
isolated cases has increased in recent years, chiefly in Sudan, Angola, Uganda and the DRC (Institut
Pasteur 2021), in places where immunization coverage is insufficient. It is currently possible to
prevent yellow fever thanks to a vaccine that is very (99%) effective, safe, inexpensive, and that
protects against the disease for life. There is no specific antiviral treatment for this disease, but
the treatment of symptoms significantly improves survival rates (WHO 2021). The fight against
yellow fever requires vector control in order to reduce the risks of transmission. This involves the
elimination of potential larval deposits (stagnant water). The vectors targeted are Aedes aegypti as
well as other Aedes species. While mosquito control campaigns are possible and effective in urban
areas, they are much more difficult to implement in forest areas. In these latter, it is necessary to use
personal protection strategies (e.g., clothing covering arms and legs, and repellents), which remain
the most effective means of prevention (WHO 2021).
Several other arbovirus diseases responsible for major human epidemics have emerged from viruses
circulating in forest areas before spreading to different parts of the world (Monath 2001; Mayer, Tesh
and Vasilakis 2017). It has been observed that some of these viruses, such as dengue, khikungunya
and Zika viruses, undergo sylvatic cycles in Central African forests, where transmission between
NHPs occurs via mosquitoes (Valentine, Murdock and Kelly 2019). Depending on the virus, these
sylvatic cycles play a more or less significant role in triggering human epidemics in Africa, and so-
called urban cycles should be taken into account in surveillance and control strategies for these
arbovirus diseases (Valentine, Murdock and Kelly 2019; Vasilakis et al. 2007). In addition, the
invasion of Central African regions by invasive vector species such as Aedes albopictus, which arrived
in Africa in the 1990s (Cornel and Hunt 1991) leads to new risks of emergence of arbovirus diseases
there, and in the Congo Basin in particular. A. albopictus is a mosquito capable of transmitting
several arbovirus diseases. It has already been responsible for outbreaks of dengue, chikungunya
and Zika in Africa in anthropized rural and urban environments. This vector could spread to forest
habitats and also increase the health risks associated with zoonotic arbovirus diseases and new
cases of emergence (Ngoagouni et al. 2015).
The Ebola virus was discovered in 1976 during two successive epidemics in South Sudan and in the
DRC (formerly Zaire), near a small river named “Ebola.” This virus belongs to the family Filoviridae,
which includes five genera (Kuhn et al. 2010; Negredo et al. 2011), three of which are present in
mammals: the genera Ebola virus (EBOV), Marburg virus and Cuevavirus. The genus Ebola comprises
six distinct species (Goldstein et al. 2018): Sudan ebolavirus (SUDV), Zaire ebolavirus (ZEBOV), Tai
Forest ebolavirus (TAFV), Bundibugyo ebolavirus (BDBV), Reston ebolavirus (RESTV) and Bombali
ebolavirus (BOMBV). There is only one species each of the Marburg genus and the Cuevavirus genus:
Marburg marburgvirus (MARV) and the Lloviu virus (LLOV) respectively.
Since the discovery of Ebola viruses, 35 epidemics or cases of infections have been reported to date,
including 27 epidemics and 5,980 cases recorded in Central Africa (CDC 2021): 12 in the DRC, 3 in the
Republic of Congo, 3 in Gabon, 6 in Uganda and 3 in South Sudan (Pigott et al. 2014). The epidemics
in the DRC are mainly due to the ZEBOV virus, except for one BDBV case in 2012. For all but two of
these epidemics, the origins are unknown: that of 2007, when contact with a frugivorous bat was

Chapter 10
described (Leroy et al. 2009), and that of 2014, in which the index case had cut up a tree monkey
found dead in the forest (Maganga et al. 2014). In the Republic of Congo, the three epidemics were
due to ZEBOV. Contacts with great apes are thought to be the cause. The three epidemics in Gabon
were also due to ZEBOV, the origin of which is believed to be contacts with frugivorous bats and/
or great apes. In Southern Sudan, only the species SUDV was detected during the three epidemics.
While the origin is unknown for the 1976 epidemic, bats and a baboon (Papio anubis) are suspected
to be the cause of the 1979 and 2004 epidemics respectively (WHO 2005). In Uganda, only the 2019
epidemic due to the ZEBOV virus has a known origin (a case imported from the DRC). The other 5
epidemics due to the SUDV virus (4) and the BDBV virus (1) are of unknown origin.
Although EBOV viruses have not yet been isolated from frugivorous bats, these latter are suspected
to be reservoir hosts and to play a role in the ecology of Ebola viruses (Caron et al. 2018). Numerous
epidemiological, serological and virological investigations link these animals to Ebola viruses
(Leroy et al. 2005; Hayman et al. 2011; De Nys et al. 2018). In addition, filoviruses do not appear to be
pathogenic to bats (Paweska et al. 2012). Research projects continue to track Ebola viruses in Central
Africa using “One Health” approaches in order to better understand the ecology of viruses and to
better target species, habitats and periods during which to take samples from bats and thereby
increase the chances of finding the active virus (e.g., the EBO-SURSY project3).
EBOV is transmitted by direct contact with body fluids (blood, secretions, biofluids) from infected
animals found in the forest (Dowell et al. 1999). Human-to-human transmission occurs as a result
of direct or indirect contact with body fluids from a person who has the disease or has died from it.
Health workers in the early stages of the epidemic (when health precautions are not yet in place) are
particularly vulnerable. Funeral rites during which the immediate family is in direct contact with
the dead body play a significant role in the transmission and spread of the disease. The incubation
period is 2 to 21 days. EVD patients remain contagious for as long as the virus is present in the blood,
but it has recently been shown that genetic material (RNA) from the virus can remain in the semen
of surviving males for up to 18 months after recovery (Deen et al. 2017; Mackay and Arden 2015; Sow
et al. 2016). Currently, there is still no specific cure for EVD other than symptomatic treatments.
However, several treatments (blood products, immune therapies and drug treatments) are under
evaluation (Agnandji, Fernandes and Bache 2017) and were tested in a randomized controlled trial
setting (WHO 2019) during the most recent epidemics of 2018–2019 in the DRC. An experimental
vaccine (rVSV-ZEBOV) developed in 2015 was also used during the epidemics of 2018–2019 in the
DRC and 2021 in Guinea. Initial data show that this vaccine is safe and seems to be highly effective
(WHO 2019).
The latest EVD outbreaks in the DRC in 2018–2020 and in Guinea in 2021 each suggest that the
source of these respective outbreaks is individuals who had been infected during previous outbreaks
(more than five years previously in the case of Guinea). If confirmed, these data could force a review
of the epidemiology of the disease by taking into account the “human reservoir” of the virus or
the possibility of seeing resurgences appear after large-scale epidemics, as happened with the
epidemics in Guinea (2014–2016) and the DRC (2018–2020). In addition to the risk of resurgence,
which increases with the number of survivors, there is the problem of the stigmatization of these
EVD survivors (Keita et al. 2021).
The Marburg virus (MARV) was first identified in 1967 during three simultaneous outbreaks in
Germany (Marburg and Frankfurt) and Serbia (Belgrade) (Kissling, Murphy, and Henderson 1970).
3 https://rr-africa.woah.org/en/projects/ebo-sursy-en/

Since 1976, 12 sporadic epidemics have occurred in various sub-Saharan African countries, including
several in the Congo Basin (Towner et al. 2006; Bausch et al. 2006; Adjemian et al. 2011). These were
in the DRC (between 1998 and 2000), Angola (between 2004 and 2005) and Uganda (three, in 2007,
2012 and 2014). Unlike Ebola, the MARV reservoir host has been identified (the Egyptian roussette bat
– Rousettus aegyptiacus); this occurred in 2009, 40 years after the first epidemic (Towner et al. 2009;
Amman et al. 2020). However, the role of other wildlife species in the circulation and emergence of
MARV cannot be ruled out (Bourgarel and Liégeois 2019). Infection of an individual is usually due
to a prolonged stay in mines or caves that are home to bat colonies. The incubation period is 2 to
21 days. As with EVD, human-to-human transmission occurs through direct contact with biofluids
from contaminated and infectious humans or animals. The mechanisms of transmission and spread
of the disease are the same as for EVD, and sexual transmission of MARV has been documented up
to seven weeks after recovery (WHO 2018).
10.3.2 Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV): an

example of successful emergence
Central Africa has always been associated with the emergence of human retroviruses, such as
human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) and human T-cell lymphoma (HTLV). All are the
result of spillover of NHP retrovirus to humans. Since the first clinical description of acquired
immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) in 1981, more than 32 million [24.8 – 42.2]4 people have died of
this infection. Human immunodeficiency viruses (HIV) have infected more than 75 million people
and continue to infect 1.7 million [1.2 – 2.2]4 people annually. The number of AIDS deaths worldwide
for the year 2020 is estimated at 680,000 [480,000 – 1,000,000]4 people, 63 percent of which
occurred in sub-Saharan Africa. In 2020, the number of people living with HIV was estimated at 37.7
million [30.2 – 45.1]4 (UNAIDS 2020).
Two types of HIV can be distinguished depending on their genomic organization and phylogenetic
relationships: human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1), which is the main cause of the AIDS
pandemic, and type 2 (HIV-2) (Barré-Sinoussi et al. 1983; Clavel et al. 1986; Chakrabarti et al. 1987).
Molecular study of the various HIV isolates has revealed that they are variants derived from the same
virus related to ungulate lentiviruses, the archetype of which is the sheep virus Maedi-Visna (Gonda
et al. 1985). Around the same time, viruses with similar characteristics were isolated from several
simian species (Chakrabarti et al. 1987). Simian immunodeficiency viruses (SIV) infect a wide variety
of NHPs in sub-Saharan Africa (Peeters et al. 2002). Two of these viruses, chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes
troglodytes) SIVcpzPtt and sooty mangabey (Cercocebus atys) SIVsmm, have been transmitted to
humans on multiple occasions and generated the human immunodeficiency virus type 1 M and N
and type 2 (HIV-2) groups respectively (Boué et al. 2015; Peeters, Jung and Ayouba 2013). The exact
conditions and circumstances of these spillovers remain unknown. Human exposure to NHP blood
during hunting and skinning activities is the most plausible source of infection (Peeters, Jung and
Ayouba 2013). The initial epicentres of HIV-1 and HIV-2 infection are in Central and West Africa
respectively, reflecting the natural habitat of the chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes troglodytes), the gorilla
(Gorilla gorilla) and the sooty mangabey (Cercocebus atys) (Peeters, Jung and Ayouba 2013; Santiago
et al. 2005). The initial genetic diversity of HIV is associated with multiple introductions of simian
viruses into humans, and the different groups of HIV-1 (M, N, O and P) and HIV-2 (A-I) are the result
of independent spillover events (D’arc et al. 2015; Boué et al. 2015; Visseaux et al. 2019).
4 Confidence interval.

Chapter 10
A
*
B
*
*
HIV-1 M
*
SIV neg SIV neg

*
* *
HIV-1 N
SIV cpzPts
* SIVcpzPtt SIV cpzPtt
*
* P.t.troglodytes
*
*
*
HIV-1 O
*
*
SIVgor
*
*
G.g.gorilla
C
*
* HIV-1 P
*
* SIVcpzPts
0.05 P.t.schweinfurthii
SIV gor
Pan troglodytes verus
Pan troglodytes ellioti
Pan troglodytes troglodytes

Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii
Gorilla gorilla gorilla
Figure 10.1: Phylogenetic relationship between simian immunodeficiency virus

strains in great apes (chimpanzees and gorillas) and the different groups of human
immunodeficiency virus type 1 (A. Ayouba)
The close phylogenetic relationship between the SIVcpzPtt strains from West and Central Africa
and the HIV-1 strains from the three M and N groups, as well as the great diversity of the M group
strains in West Equatorial Africa and their overlap with the habitat of the Pan troglodytes troglodytes
supported the hypothesis that the HIV-1 M and N group strains originated in the Congo Basin.
This hypothesis was confirmed by an analysis of several hundred samples of chimpanzee faeces
collected from different locations in Cameroon. It was shown that these wild animals had indeed
been infected with SIVcpzPtt with observed prevalence of 30–50 percent (Van Heuverswyn et al.
2007; Keele et al. 2006). Genetic analysis made it possible to characterize the ancestors of the HIV-
1 group M and N strains, thereby confirming the origin of these HIVs (Fig. 1). In addition, separate
SIVcpzPtt strains in Cameroon and Gabon have been isolated. This suggests that the strains can
spill over and give rise to the emergence of a new HIV in human populations (Boué et al. 2015; Van
Heuverswyn et al. 2007).
These studies also revealed lentiviral infections in gorillas from the western plains (Gorilla gorilla
gorilla) in southern Cameroon. These viruses, called SIVgor, are related to HIV-1 of groups O and P.
They are the source of these two HIV strains (D’arc et al. 2015) (figure 10.1).
10.3.3 Foamy viruses (spumaretroviruses)

Foamy viruses, also known as spumaretroviruses, are transmitted to humans from NHPs. They are
present in several species of NHPs in Central Africa and have been isolated from hunters from Gabon

and Cameroon. Simian spumaretroviruses were first described in 1954 in the United States from a
cell culture of the kidney of a macaque monkey (Macaca mulatta) (Enders and Peebles 1954).
The simian prototype is the “Simian Foamy Virus” (SFV). The prevalence of SFV in naturally
infected NHPs is generally high but may vary among animal species (Meiering and Linial 2001;
Bastone, Truyen and Löchelt 2003; Mouinga-Ondémé et al. 2010). In captive and semi-free-ranging
populations of NHPs, seroprevalence can vary between 75 and 100 percent in adults but is generally
lower in younger individuals (Mouinga-Ondémé et al. 2010; Calattini et al. 2006).
Unlike other SIV infections, which are geographically limited, those of SFVs are widespread among
NHPs. Most New- and Old-World simian species and great apes are SFV carriers (Meiering and Linial
2001; Hussain et al. 2003; Betsem et al. 2011). Africa is the continent with the most NHP species,
and in 2004 Calattini et al. (2004) were the first to describe SFV infection in gorilla, mandrill and
drill in the Congo Basin. Subsequently, it was shown that all species of chimpanzees are infected by
SFVs (Liu et al. 2008). These viruses can be transmitted within the same species, but also from one
NHP species to another, as has been shown between colobus monkeys and chimpanzees in the Tai
National Park of Côte d’Ivoire (Leendertz et al. 2008; Morozov et al. 2009).
Transmission of NHP foamy viruses to humans may occur during hunting, mostly through bites
or contact with biological fluids from the animal at the time of skinning or preparation. Human
infection with SFVs was first described in 1971 (Achong, Mansell and Epstein 1971; Achong and
Epstein 1978). It was also shown that this strain is a variant of simian origin acquired during zoonosis
(Herchenröder et al. 1994). Other spillovers of SFVs to humans have been documented, mainly in
individuals exposed to close contact with NHPs (e.g., animal technicians and veterinarians) and
forest hunters (Mouinga-Ondémé et al. 2012; Gessain and Calattini 2008). At present, there is no
human prototype of foamy virus, the only strains isolated from humans being those transmitted
by NHPs.
As is the case with NHPs, human infection is persistent and asymptomatic and not currently
associated with any pathology. In addition, no human transmission of this retrovirus has ever been
reported (Gessain and Calattini 2008; Khan 2009).
10.3.4 Other zoonotic diseases

In addition to viruses responsible for haemorrhagic fevers and retroviruses of zoonotic origin
such as HIV, which are known to the general public due to their significant and/or global impact
on human health, other pathogens continue to emerge or re-emerge. One example is the simian
orthopoxvirus, also known as the monkeypox virus (MPV). It is of the same genus as the human
smallpox virus and was first discovered in humans in 1970 in the Republic of Congo (Marennikova
et al. 1972). Monkeypox is a re-emerging disease in West and Central Africa, where human cases
have been increasingly reported for more than 20 years (Petersen et al. 2019). These cases are the
result of repeated zoonotic introductions and human-to-human transmission. NHPs can also be
infected from it (Radonić et al. 2014). The ecology of this virus is still not clearly understood, but
multiple species of wild animals seem to be involved in its zoonotic maintenance and transmission,
including rodents (certain squirrel species) that could act as reservoirs (Khodakevich, Ježek and
Kinzanzka 1986; Doty et al. 2017). The resurgence of human cases could be linked to the end of
vaccination against human smallpox in the early 1980s, as this vaccine probably provides cross-
protection against MPV (Petersen et al. 2019). However, changes in habitat, increases in small

Chapter 10
mammal populations, and practices leading directly or indirectly to increased rodent-human

contact may also play a role in the increasing number of cases.
The Central African forests are home to many other infectious agents for which spillover from
animals has not yet been reported or whose pathogenicity remains unknown, but which are
genetically close to pathogens that have already emerged from wildlife in other parts of the world.
Examples include certain viruses that circulate in different species of bats. After the first emergence
of EVD, bats in Central Africa have been particularly studied in comparison with other orders of
forest-dwelling animals. The many virological sampling and testing campaigns to which they have
been subjected have led to identification of other infectious agents. Some species of African bats,
for example, are carriers of paramyxoviruses, some of which are similar to the highly pathogenic
zoonotic viruses Hendra and Nipah (genus Henipavirus) which circulate in bats in Australia and
Asia (Weiss et al. 2012; Drexler et al. 2012; Drexler et al. 2009; Field et al. 2001). This is the case of
the African bat, Eidolon helvum, a frugivorous migratory species whose habitat spreads over three-
quarters of sub-Saharan Africa and which is hunted in many regions for its meat (Weiss et al. 2012;
Drexler et al. 2009). Henipavirus-positive serologies have been found in E. helvum, domesticated
pigs (Hayman et al. 2011), as well as in human populations. Observed prevalence was higher
in individuals who handled bat meat (Pernet et al. 2014). However, it remains to be determined
whether these equatorial African henipaviruses are capable of emerging and causing pathologies in
humans and domestic animals (Weiss et al. 2012).
Another example of a pathogen to monitor at the human/wildlife interfaces of Central African forests
is coronaviruses. The seven human coronaviruses described to date seem to have originated from
coronaviruses in small mammals. Emergence appears to occur via an intermediate host (Cui, Li and
Shi 2019). This is the case, for example, of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-
CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-CoV1), whose ancestors are bat coronaviruses
and which are transmitted to humans by camels and civets respectively (Li et al. 2005; Ithete et al.
2013; Sabir et al. 2016). The same is true for SARS-CoV2, the 2019 coronavirus (COVID-19), which also
seems to have originated in bats but whose intermediate host, if any, remains unknown (Zhou et al.
2020). Bats on the African continent are host to a great diversity of coronaviruses, some of which are
part of the same phylogenetic group as SARS or MERS viruses (Bourgarel et al. 2018; Markotter et al.
2019; Letko et al. 2020; Lacroix et al. 2020). The risks of interspecies and zoonotic transmission of
coronavirus circulating in forest areas are still largely unknown, but they must be taken into account
in surveillance of emergence.
10.4 Surveillance and control of infectious

and zoonotic diseases in Central Africa
Central Africa is considered a particularly high-risk area for the emergence of zoonotic diseases, due
to the convergence of several risk factors. These latter include the transformation of forest ecosystems
(Wolfe et al. 2005b); conditions of poverty (Molyneux et al. 2011); and frequent and close contact
with wildlife, which occurs through hunting, handling and consumption of bushmeat (Magouras et
al. 2020). The setting up of surveillance systems can help to better understand, monitor and control
the dynamics of some pathogens at the human/animal interface.

10.4.1 Definition and theoretical objectives of

surveillance
A surveillance system is a process whereby information on the presence of a disease or a health event
within a target population is systematically and regularly collected for the purpose of managing that
disease or a health event. As zoonoses are diseases shared between animals (in this case wildlife) and
humans, information can be collected from animals (surveillance performed by veterinary services)
and from the exposed human population (surveillance often performed by public health services).
Animal health surveillance approaches and systems vary and are fundamentally dependent on the
objectives to be achieved and the means available. If the objective is early detection of an emerging
zoonosis such as EVD in terrestrial vertebrates in remote rainforest environments, the most suitable
option is to set up event-based surveillance. It is from this angle that extraordinary efforts have been
made in the Republic of Congo to detect abnormal mortalities among gorillas and chimpanzees and
to collect samples to identify the infectious agent causing these outbreaks (Leroy, Rouquet et al.
2004; Leroy, Telfer et al. 2004b).
Today, permanent surveillance of groups of habituated great apes and of animals found dead in the
forest, as well as systematic collection of vectors (e.g., meat flies), are carried out at various sites in
Central Africa (Dzanga Sangha in the Central African Republic, Nouabale Ndoki in the Republic of
the Congo, Campo Ma’an in Cameroon, and Malebo in the DRC). This type of systematic and event-
based monitoring relies on a large-scale awareness-raising effort targeting local populations and the
staff of NGOs and national parks. This will enable them to detect mortalities and sound the alarm
so that scientific teams can be sent to the field to collect samples from the carcasses of great apes or
other mammals (Antonation et al. 2016; Grützmacher et al. 2016; Grützmacher et al. 2018; Kuisma
et al. 2019). On the other hand, if the objective is to detect zoonotic agents that circulate unnoticed
in wildlife or simply to try to characterize the zoonotic pathogens circulating more frequently in
the bushmeat value chain, it is necessary to adopt a type of surveillance that targets not a specific
pathogen, but rather a species or taxonomic group (e.g., NHPs, bats and rodents) susceptible of
hosting zoonotic pathogens (Levinson et al. 2013).
10.4.2 The state of surveillance systems in Central

Africa
Zoonose surveillance is heavily focused on the viral emergencies that have struck Central Africa in
recent decades (EVD, yellow fever, monkeypox). However, many other pathogens circulate without
being tracked (and are thus not detected), even though their impact on public health and their
socioeconomic effects on the human populations exposed to them are far from negligible (Asante,
Noreddin and El Zowalaty 2019). The problem here is the differential risk between the need for
surveillance of diseases that affect local populations and the need to monitor and control pandemic-
risk diseases that can affect everyone. The means for each are not the same and are often biased in
favour of pandemic-risk diseases.
As zoonoses are diseases shared by humans and animals, they can be monitored in human and
animal populations. Ideally, in the context of an integrated health approach (the “One Health”
approach), the two should be coordinated. In Central African countries, there is a significant gap
between the human health system and the animal health system in terms of their level of organization
and the resources allocated to them. Human health facilities monitor a list of five or six priority

Chapter 10
Table 10.1: List of zoonotic diseases monitored in various Central African countries by
public health facilities
Diseases Gabon Republic of Democratic Central Cameroon

Congo Republic of African
Congo (DRC) Republic
Ebola + + + + +
Avian influenza + + + +
Monkeypox + + +
Bovine tuberculosis + + +
Rabies + + + + +
Trypanosomiasis +
Rift Valley fever + +
Salmonellosis +
Anthrax +
Yellow fever + + +
References WHO, 2019a WHO, 2019b WHO, 2018 WHO, 2019c WHO, 2017
zoonotic diseases based on human transmission mapping and risk assessment (see Table 10.1). On
the other hand, veterinary services (often under the Ministry of Agriculture) generally have very
limited resources in comparison to carry out surveillance on the same zoonoses in animals, and
such surveillance remains passive and very modest because of the weak capacities of diagnostic
laboratories.
Diseases among wildlife are even more rarely monitored on a systematic basis, with the exception
of responses to specific epidemic crises such as Ebola or monkeypox when they have threatened
great ape populations or caused significant outbreaks among humans. However, in recent years,
Central African countries have developed “One Health” strategies to facilitate coordination between
the human health, animal health (both domestic and wild), and conservation sectors. These recent
strategies are not always operational, or they may lack the human and financial resources to be
effective. WHO has conducted health systems assessment missions and identified the priority need
to strengthen surveillance and One Health strategies (WHO 2017, 2018a, 2019, 2018b).
10.4.3 Recommendations to improve the surveillance

of zoonoses in wildlife in Central Africa
To optimize the detection of zoonotic agents and in particular viruses, it is advised to sample the
freshest possible animal carcasses, as a virus has limited survival outside a living host and degrades
rapidly (Greatorex et al. 2016). It is therefore necessary to optimize the chances of detecting
pathogens by organizing sample collections with the help of hunters or stakeholders in the field
who have access to fresh game carcasses, upstream of the value chain.

Box 10.1: Linking the key One Health pillar of biodiversity/

environment to the sustainable development agenda
The possible wild animal origin of the Sars-COV-2 virus has rekindled concerns about the risks
of transmission and spread of emerging zoonotic diseases at the various interfaces between
humans, domestic and wild animals, and the environment, and in particular throughout
the wildlife value chains. Recent reviews of the literature on the subject (Stephen et al.
2021; Kock and Caceres-Escobar 2022) show not only that there is a lack of convincing data
to characterize these risks, but also that there is very little information available on what
actions to take to prevent, detect and respond to these risks as well as the effectiveness of
those actions. Nevertheless, in the light of current knowledge, all reflections on prioritizing
future risk management actions at these different interfaces acknowledge two aspects: 1)
the importance of factors and stakeholders related to biodiversity and the environment in
the implementation of both preventive and reactive solutions, and 2) the need for integrated
multisectoral approaches aligned with the sustainable development agenda to address these
risks and respond equitably to local and global health issues and challenges (De Garine-
Wichatitsky et al. 2021). This is a necessity for human and animal health as well as for the
health of complex socio-ecosystems in which conservation issues are greatly at stake (Lindsey
et al. 2020).
Since December 2021, this has been reflected in an updated definition of “One Health”
proposed by the One Health High-Level Panel (OHHLEP). This definition now speaks of “an
integrated, unifying approach that aims to sustainably balance and optimize the health of people,
animals and ecosystems. It recognizes the health of humans, domestic and wild animals, plants, and
the wider environment (including ecosystems) are closely linked and inter-dependent. The approach
mobilizes multiple sectors, disciplines and communities at varying levels of society to work together
to foster well-being and tackle threats to health and ecosystems, while addressing the collective need
for clean water, energy and air, safe and nutritious food, taking action on climate change, and
contributing to sustainable development.”
Given the information gaps and uncertainties, making the One Health approach effectively
operational must rely on productive intersectoral institutional coordination capable of making
the complex trade-offs between the different sectoral and geopolitical interests, all the while
taking into account the available scientific knowledge and the sociocultural and economic
contexts of the countries. A recent review of efforts to implement the One Health approach
initiated in 2012 by the countries of the subregion shows that progress varies between
countries but is still insufficient overall.
Beyond the need for ownership of the approach, it is essential to strengthen the capacities and
resources to meet the priority needs, particularly in coordinating and promoting involvement
by the biodiversity/environment sector (de Garine-Wichatitsky et al. 2020). Various initiatives
are currently supporting Central African governments in this area, including the REDISSE 4
and EBO-SURSY projects, the SWM and ECTAD programmes, PREZODE,b and others.
____________
a
Conclusions of the ECCAS-FAO subregional meeting held from 14 to 15 December 2021 in Douala to review the implementation of the
recommendations of the 2012 and 2017 workshops on the “One Health” approach for the Central African subregion.
b
REDISSE 4: Regional Disease Surveillance Systems Enhancement Project in Central Africa; EBO-SURSY: viral haemorrhagic fever capacity
building and surveillance; SWM: Sustainable Wildlife Management Programme; ECTAD: Emergency Centre for Transboundary Animal Disease;
PREZODE: PREventing ZOonotic Disease Emergence

Chapter 10
Ecotourism or research projects in protected areas could contribute significantly to zoonotic disease
surveillance through direct observation of wildlife (habituated apes), systematic and event-based
sample collection (carcass surveillance or vector capture) and on-site facilities (mobile and/or fixed
laboratories, logistics, etc.).
Sample collection can be optimized by using new technologies for collection and storage. There are
many logistical and technical constraints to setting up wildlife surveillance systems under natural
conditions or at remote sites, including being able to detect diseased animals or fresh carcasses and
conserving samples until they reach the laboratory. However, some of these material and logistical
constraints have changed considerably thanks to the emergence of new technologies. For example,
the collection of samples using filter papers or the availability of buffer solutions that preserve
genetic material (RNAlater5) greatly simplify the work of collecting field samples.
The development of diagnostic systems based on molecular detection, such as next-generation

genetic sequencing techniques (Gardy and Loman 2018), enables the simultaneous detection
of multiple pathogens in a single biological sample. This solves, for example, the problems of
validating immunological tests, which are often cumbersome for detecting antigens or antibodies
in wild species.
The “One Health” approach should be promoted for the control of zoonotic diseases. Information
from the detection of circulating pathogens in hunted species would help to identify the risks to
which human populations interacting with these hosts are exposed. Systematic monitoring of
these same pathogens within these human populations (hunters, breeders, butchers, taxidermists,
restaurateurs, consumers, etc., depending on the pathogen) could then be set up by the public
health facilities or local health posts.
For logging companies which already have management plans in place, promoting “HEALTH
SMART” indicators in their certification systems would help to mitigate the environmental and
social impact of their activity, as well as reduce any impact on the health of people exposed to
zoonotic risks as a result of their forestry activity. To do so, it is necessary to identify single health
indicators that can be measured over time.
Conclusions
Emerging infectious diseases are spreading more and more rapidly not only in Central Africa, but
in Africa as a whole and the entire world, as a result of increasingly expanding and rapid national,
regional and international trade and travel. The COVID-19 pandemic is a perfect example of these
global interconnections and the associated risks of the global spread of EIDs.
Landscape changes affecting Central African forests can have impact on several mechanisms
which may or may not favour the emergence and re-emergence of pathogens. Tropical forests
are home to a wide diversity of as yet unknown viruses and bacteria that represent a source of
emerging pathogens. The transformation of landscapes takes place through human infrastructure
development following a temporal sequence: 1) roads, enabling access to areas previously
inaccessible to vehicles; 2) settlements or small villages, where wildlife resources can be extracted
for local or more distant markets (e.g., urban centres); 3) sedentarization of human populations,
5 RNAlater Stabilization Solution is an aqueous and nontoxic RNA tissue stabilization and storage reagent which rapidly permeates tissues to
stabilize and protect cellular RNA.

which may then be accompanied by peasant or small-scale cultivation of certain areas in the forests
that still dominate the landscape; 4) possible development of small urban centres, which gradually
transform the surrounding landscape, with a gradual predominance of fields and more commercial
crops (e.g., oil palm); and, finally, 5) areas where forest which had been predominant a few years or
decades previously resembling agricultural land, with a few patches of protected or unprotected
forest left.
These gradual landscape changes will have three main consequences:

1. There will be an increase in the quantity and quality of human-wildlife contacts, as well as in
hunting, agricultural practices and commercial exploitation of resources.
2. There will be a transformation in the ecology of animal hosts of pathogens, thereby altering the
ecology of diseases: some host species will have the behavioural and genetic plasticity to adapt
better than others to anthropized landscapes (e.g., the E. helvum bat seems to thrive in urban
centres that can provide food resources throughout the year, without the need for migration).
3. These modifications/adaptations of species to their environment will directly or indirectly (e.g.,
via interspecies competition) contribute to the modification of wildlife communities. These
changes will impact the dynamics of the sylvatic cycles of multihost pathogens and the risks of
transmission between wildlife and humans. Thus, a rainforest bat community in a given area
will no longer be the same when the landscape is transformed and will promote or not promote
some pathogens at the expense of others.
The situation of Central African forests is therefore very dynamic, with changing landscapes, a
growth in human/wildlife contacts, and wildlife communities that are adapting to these changes.
The rate of transformation of these forests will have an impact on the risks of emergence. The study
of emergence mechanisms and the assessment of these risks are therefore difficult: the observation
of the presence of a pathogen in a host, of animal behaviour or of transmission dynamics may only
be a transitory state in these ecological systems undergoing transformation. Efforts to establish
surveillance systems and health policies are often under-resourced and therefore complicated,
yet they are essential in these forest ecosystems which still host a wide diversity of agents that are
potentially dangerous to human and animal health. These surveillance systems should make it
possible to contain the epidemic as quickly as possible in order to protect local populations, limit
the costs of the measures taken and avoid pandemics. In the DRC, the budget required to fight the
2018–2020 epidemic increased from USD 26 million to USD 57 million when the disease spread to
an urban centre on a major transport route in the region (WHO 2018b).
Given the importance of wildlife as a source of protein and income in Central Africa, a considerable
part of zoonotic risk management in this region involves setting up surveillance systems within the
bushmeat value chain, based on countries’ One Health strategies. Such surveillance systems could
easily be set up upstream of a chain, with the collaboration of hunters and the distribution of suitable
collection equipment. This approach, combined with high-performance diagnostic systems, would
make it possible to establish an initial health assessment of the main pathogens susceptible of
circulating within the most common species among the number of animals bagged. On the basis
of this initial assessment, it would then be possible to set up more targeted screening programmes
for the detection or monitoring of certain pathogens or species, depending on the risk identified.
Information from the detection of circulating pathogens in the hunted animal species would help
to identify the main risks to which human populations interacting with these hosts can be exposed.
This approach works relatively well in some countries that have skilled human resources and that
can effectively utilize well-equipped and efficient research laboratories after EVD epidemics.

Chapter 10
Emerging infectious disease outbreaks are occurring with increasing frequency and growing
socioeconomic consequences which are difficult for African governments to cope with. The example
of COVID-19 illustrates this. Many African governments have established measures to prevent the
spread of the pandemic. However, the simultaneous occurrence of disruptions to domestic supply
and production combined with weak external demand, sharp declines in commodity prices, and
the disruption of key service sectors such as tourism jeopardize jobs and livelihoods for local
people (ATIBT 2020a). The pandemic has also highlighted the weaknesses of economies and health
systems that cannot cope with such situations and are dependent on donations from rich countries
for health equipment and vaccinations.
The COVID-19 pandemic has had an impact on working conditions in the forest sector and disrupted
the organization and smooth running of its activities. This has had considerable repercussions on
the social, economic and environmental balance, thereby affecting jobs, source of income, raw
material resources, etc. (ATIBT 2020b), thereby endangering production and trade of essential
forest products as well as seriously jeopardizing the livelihoods of local people.
The intensification of the emergence of infectious pathogens has many underlying reasons, all of
which are related to the increasing anthropogenic impact on nature in a context of growing social
and environmental injustices and inequalities.
Tackling EIDs in the forests of Central Africa requires both symptomatic treatments (e.g., surveillance
and control of emerging pathogens and diseases) and substantive treatments that will limit human
impact on forests and biodiversity loss. Both approaches are necessary and essential, and the
COVID-19 crisis has been a painful reminder of the need for in-depth changes in the way we manage
the planet as a whole.
Table 10.2: History of human Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) outbreaks
Country Dates Emergence Virus Probable No. of Mortality

locations source of human rates
infection cases
identified
First epidemics
DRC 1976 Yambuku ZEBOV Unknown 318 88%
South Sudan 1976 Nzara SUDV Unknown 284 53%
Maridi
Epidemics in sub-Saharan Africa
DRC 1977 Tandala ZEBOV Unknown 1 100%
1995 Kikwit ZEBOV Unknown 315 81%
2007 Kasai Province ZEBOV Bats 264 71%
DRC 2008– Kasai Province ZEBOV Unknown 32 47%

2009
2012 Isiro BDBV Unknown 36* 36.1%
2014* Several villages in ZEBOV Monkeys 66 74%

the vicinity of the
town of Boende


infection cases
identified
2017 Likati EBOV** 8 50%
2018 Bikoro, Équateur ZEBOV Unknown 54 61%

Province
2018– Province du Nord ZEBOV Inconnue 3470 66 %

2020 Kivu
2020 Bikoro, Équateur ZEBOV Spillover from 3,470 66%

Province an unknown
wild animal and
human-survivor
transmission
(2018 outbreak
in Équateur
Province)
2021 Biena Health ZEBOV Human/survivor In progress In

Zone, North Kivu transmission progress
Province
Rep. of Congo 2001– Mbomo District ZEBOV Great apes? 57 75%

2002
Kelle District
2002– Mbomo District ZEBOV Great apes? 143 89%

2003
Kelle District
2003 Village of Mbomo ZEBOV Great apes? 35 83%
Village of
Mbandza
Gabon 1994 Mekouka ZEBOV Bats? 52 60%
1996- Booué ZEBOV Great apes 60 74%

1997
2001- Mékambo ZEBOV Great apes 65 82%

2002
Uganda 2000- Gulu SUDV 425 53%

2001
2007- Bundibugyo BDBV 149 29%

2008
2011 Nakisimata SUDV 1 100%
2012 Kibaale district SUDV 11* 36.4%
2012- Luwero district SUDV 6* 50%

2013
South Sudan 1979 Nzara SUDV Bats? 34 65%
2004 Yambio SUDV Baboon 17 41%
Maridi

Chapter 10

infection cases
identified
Côte d’Ivoire 1994 Tai Forest TAFV Great apes 1 0%
Guinea 2021 N’Zérékoré ZEBOV Human/survivor In progress In

Prefecture transmission progress
Multicountry 2014- ZEBOV Bats?

2016
Sierra Leone Entire country 14,124 28%
Liberia Entire country 10,678 45%
Guinea Entire country 3,814 66%
Nigeria Lagos 20 40%
Port Harcourt
Senegal Dakar 1 0%
Mali Bamako 8 75%
Kayes
Imported cases
South Africa
from Gabon 1996 Johannesburg** ZEBOV 2 50%
Spain
from Sierra Leone 2014 Madrid ZEBOV 2 50%
Italy
from Sierra Leone 2014 Sassari ZEBOV 1 0%
United Kingdom Laboratory SUDV 1 0%
from Sierra Leone 2014 Glasgow ZEBOV 1 0%
United States
from Liberia 2014 Dallas*** ZEBOV 3 33%
from Gabon 2014 New York ZEBOV 1 0%
According to CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/history/chronology.html#anchor_1526565058132

* Laboratory-confirmed cases
**One human-to-human transmission from the index case
*** Two human-to-human transmissions from the index case

Congo Basin forests:
Issues and challenges
PART 4
CHAPTER 11
Land Use Planning and Impacts
on the Sustainable Management
of Forest Ecosystems in
Central Africa
Authors: Philippe Guizol,1,2 Liboum Mbonayem,2 Abdon Awono,2
Donald Djossi,3 Pamela Tabi,2 Marie Ange Ngobieng,1 Blaise-Pascal
Ntirumenyerwa Mihigo,4 Prince Lungungu,5 Roger Mbuyu Kimpesa
Kasulo,4 Cléto Ndikumagenge,6 Salvator Ndabirorere,7 Gloriose
Umuziranenge,8 Charles Doumenge1
1
CIRAD; 2CIFOR-ICRAF; 3OFAC Yaoundé; 4Faculty of Law, University of Kinshasa, DRC;
5
Lawyer and researcher in environmental and local community law, DRC; 6FAO-DRC;
7
FAO-Burundi; 8Protestant University of Rwanda (PUR)
Photo by G. Bouka & C. Doumenge/CIRAD-CEA-Sunbirds-UMNg-IFO

Chapter 11
Introduction
Land use planning (LUP) is, generally speaking, a policy that tends
to organize human activities in a predetermined geographical
area, based on a long-term objective. The aim of this policy is to
strengthen the social cohesion of that area at different levels. On
a finer scale, the way the territory is organized establishes zones
and subterritories, and for each of these it allocates objectives in
line with the overall long-term objective of the LUP.
At the national level, LUP is a proactive measure of the government, which produces a framework
that must then be adapted and reviewed at different levels of the national territory. There are many
definitions of LUP at the national level1. In Central Africa, this national objective initially aimed at
creating conditions for economic development. However, the need arose more recently to reconcile
this economic objective with the demand for sustainable management of the environment and in
particular of forest ecosystems.
Although this spatial organization is the result of reflection in each case, it may be formal or informal.
Long before the creation of States, patterns of land use already showed forms of organization linked
to human activities and values that are part of today’s landscapes, such as sacred forests.
Forests are affected by environmental issues such as deforestation, climate change, bush fires and
health crises. The impact of these factors on the environment means that we must reconsider the
relationships between humans and nature. But the question remains of how to reconsider these
relationships. In response, the need for new forms of LUP is frequently mentioned: they would have
the simultaneous aims of mitigating threats to economies, improving the well-being of societies
and the environment, and stimulating long-term development dynamics. Global phenomena have
led to new environmental issues and the emergence of new players and power games, thereby
broadening the scope of LUP analysis. More recently, a certain model of LUP has been encouraged
by donors to reconcile local development with global issues: LUP that is multi-scale (from local to
national and sometimes supranational) and that combines participatory approaches based on the
principles of good governance and sustainable development (Buttoud et al. 2016).
Central Africa, a region which kept its forests unspoiled for long, is now increasingly subject to
deforestation (FAO 2020). Indeed, in Central Africa, the drivers of deforestation are tending to
race out of control. For example, the population is growing rapidly; and among the corollaries
of sprawling cities there is an ever-increasing demand on domestic markets for agricultural and
forest products such as wood fuel; and new road networks are facilitating the exploitation of forest
resources, not only for wood but especially for access to land and the development of agriculture
1 Example: “Policy consisting in seeking, within the national geographical framework, the best distribution of economic activities according to
natural and human resources. In land use planning, the State takes proactive action to harmoniously distribute people, activities, educational tools
and transport infrastructure over its national territory. This policy is therefore in opposition to the economic laws of the simple market game. It
seeks to correct geographical imbalances between regions, between cities and the countryside and between dynamic areas and deprived areas.
(Larousse online encyclopedia, 2022, “Aménagement du Territoire”. Available (in French) at: https://www.larousse.fr/encyclopedie/divers/
aménagement_du_territoire/20390

Land Use Planning and Impacts on the Sustainable Management of Forest Ecosystems in Central Africa
(Marien et al. 2013). A new organization of spaces would be required to meet food, timber and energy
production needs while preserving the ecosystems that provide water and regulation services essential
to the resilience of productive spaces and people’s well-being (Nyström et al. 2019).
In some countries, such as Cameroon, LUP policy is clear; in others less so. We can nonetheless often
note the existence of a set of public or private actions aimed at facilitating economic development,
social cohesion and environmental protection in spaces. These actions are ultimately forms of LUP.
In practice, for Central Africa we propose to distinguish two types of action. First, those decided on by
central governments (i.e., “land use planning” or aménagement du territoire as it is known in French) or
by very large regions which have structuring objectives characterized by top-down decision-making
processes. Second, local actions (which can be characterized by the term “territorial development”)
carried out at the initiative of various stakeholders whose decision-making processes are more
bottom-up. These two decision-making processes are not compartmentalized, and the quality of LUP
policy implementation depends largely on the relationship between these two approaches, which in
particular influences the involvement of stakeholders and the way natural resources are effectively
managed. It is also at this level of relationship that a clash occurs between custom and law and where
long-term social peace and the sustainability of renewable resources are at stake.
The aim of this chapter is to take stock of the forms of LUP in four Central African countries: Cameroon,
the DRC, Burundi and Rwanda. Using a comparative approach, we will identify the dynamics,
opportunities and challenges of forest resources in Central Africa. Before analysing the forms of LUP in
the four countries under study, we will first provide some data on land management in Central Africa.
11.1 Data on land management in

Central Africa
The countries of Central Africa vary greatly in size: compared to the huge DRC, which covers 2.3
million km2, Burundi, Rwanda, Equatorial Guinea and Sao Tome and Principe (STP) are all less than
30,000 km². Densely populated countries have modest forest cover (Rwanda 28 percent and Burundi
16 percent), while others such as Gabon and Equatorial Guinea are more than 80 percent forested.
Some countries are situated predominantly in forest areas (e.g., Congo and Gabon), while others have
arid climates (e.g., Chad and the northern part of Cameroon).
11.2 Forms of land use planning in

Central Africa
11.2.1 Land use planning in Cameroon
Land use planning during the pre-colonial period in Cameroon

The forms of land use during the pre-colonial period created the customary forms still alive today.
Historically, Cameroon is the only country in the CEMAC zone to have been under the colonial
administration of Germany (1884-1913), Great Britain (20 percent of the territory, 1919-1961) and
France (80 percent of the territory, 1919-1960). This led to a strong political and administrative impact
on the adoption of the land-tenure system.

Chapter 11
Table 11.1: General data by Central African country
Country Area (km2) Population Density HDI GDP Life Forest cover
(inhabitants (USD expectancy (km2)
/km²) billion) (years)
Burundi 27,834 11,759,805 422.50 0.423 / 1 3.08 61.20 4,537
Cameroon 475,650 23,799,022 50.03 0.563 / 1 38.50 58.90 220,000

(2018)
Congo 341,821 5,279,517 15.45 0.608 / 1 11.26 64.30 239,874
Gabon 267,667 2,074,656 7.75 0.702 / 1 16.66 66.20 235,900

(2020) (2019)
Equatorial 28,051 2,015,334 71.85 0.588 / 1 13.32 58.40 26,912

Guinea
CAR 622,984 5,745,135 9.22 0.381 / 1 2.38 52.80 269,030
DRC 2,345,410 95,784,841 40.84 0.459 / 1 47.23 60.40 1,500,000
Rwanda 26,338 12,089,721 459.02 0.536 / 1 9.51 68.70 7,247
STP 1,001 201,770 201.57 0.609 / 1 0.42 70.20 890
Chad 1,284,200 16,818,391 13.10 0.398 / 1 11.32 54.00 NA
NA: Not available.

Source: https://www.populationdata.net
Table 11.2: Land cover in million ha and % by country according to the main categories of
the OFAC Atlas
Country Area in Forest Forest Protected Protected Concessions Concessions

million ha cover in cover as % areas in areas in million ha as % of
million ha of national million ha as % of national
territory national territory
territory
Burundi 2.78 0.45 16% 0.15 5% 0.00 0%
Cameroon 47.57 22.00 46% 4.05 9% 6.25 13%
Congo 34.18 23.99 70% 3.89 11 % 14.50 42%
Gabon 26.77 23.59 88% 9.39 35 % 14.69 55%
Equatorial
2.81 2.69 96% 0.59 21 % NA NA
Guinea
CAR 62.30 26.90 43% 12.31 20 % 3.02 5%
DRC 234.54 150.00 64% 33.61 14 % 12.32 5%
Rwanda 2.63 0.72 28% 0.23 9% 0.00 0%
STP 0.10 0.09 89% 0.03 35 % 0.00 0%
Chad 128.42 NA NA NA NA NA NA
NA: Not available.

Source: OFAC 2020

Table 11.3: Land use in Cameroon during the pre-colonial period
Periods Key pre-colonial historical events of land occupation in Cameroon Institutions
Between the • Cameroon was the site of large-scale migrations and population movements. Migrating
16th and 19th Historians and sociologists generally agree that these migrations, coming indigenous
centuries from three different directions, met in Cameroon. peoples
• The first migration was most likely that of Bantu tribes. The Bantu
progressively advanced to the south of the country, spreading as far as
Gabon and the Congo. They mixed with the Fangs during the second great
migration movement, which seems to have followed the Nile and the Congo
rivers divide, moving clearly from East to West.
• The third direction is North-South and reflects, at least in broad terms, the
desire of the neighbouring peoples of the Sahara to advance towards the
fertile regions of the Sudan.
Pre-colonial era • Land was managed by clan chiefs or land managers in the grassroots Clan
communities. leaders and
• Land could not be alienated by sale, for fear of depleting family or village communities
assets. Any member needing land for farming or cultivation had to make
a request to the traditional authority or head of the family controlling the
land, to ask for a portion of land, which belonged to them for the generations
to come.
• Land security was not a concern, and people could take full advantage of
their land when it was fully occupied.
Table adapted by Liboum Mbonayem, based on Kenfack Essougong and Teguia (2019)
LUP during the post-colonial period in Cameroon

Cameroon’s territorial organization has historically been strongly structured by the presence of
several urban centres: Douala, Buea, Yaoundé, Edéa, Ebolowa, Lolodorf, and Eséka. The Government
realised the need for planning to build sustainable cities based on a decentralized development
plan. The country established a system of delineation that integrates all layers of administrative
organizations. The country currently has 10 regions and 58 administrative districts (départements),
360 rural municipalities, 14 city municipalities and the major cities, which include Douala, Yaoundé,
Bertoua, Limbe, Buea, Bamenda, and others. Each municipality corresponds to a group of villages
headed by traditional leaders. The exploitation of natural resources has been and remains the
driving force of the economy.
Spatial organization was thus made up of a progressive construction of large territorial aggregates
and roads to facilitate the exploitation of natural resources, linking the cities to areas of logging and
mining or areas dedicated to agriculture or hunting.
The ambition of conserving nature started with the creation of parks and nature reserves as early as
the colonial period and more recently under the impetus of international NGOs. This phenomenon,
which is particularly characteristic of the southern forest area of Cameroon, is also common to other
forest areas in Central Africa. This process began before independence via the allocation of land
to large, mainly forestry and agro-industry concessions. This trend continued after independence,
when the Government created new concessions, particularly for mining and agro-industry.
A large body of private land belonging to the State was created in this way. In the south of Cameroon,
these were mainly forestry concessions and the various forms of natural parks. Meanwhile, in the
residual national property, where subsistence farming was allowed, a zone was created between
these large blocks of private land belonging to the State. As roads developed in the forest area,
Bantu populations cleared land for agriculture and at the same time formed a territory by lineages

Chapter 11
according to rights of clearance. In Cameroon, this phenomenon is still ongoing. The establishment
of private land belonging to the State and the occupation of land by farming populations have
limited the rights of indigenous forest populations to resources and spaces.
Table 11.4: Land use in Cameroon during the colonial period
Periods Colonial period: the loss of customary land rights Institutions
German • During the German colonial period, most indigenous people were deprived of German
colonial their land, which could be acquired by Germans only. colonial
period • In 1896, the Germans enacted a law converting all unoccupied land throughout administration
(1884–1916) the territory into German overseas domain property.
• They then introduced a registry in which all land transactions were recorded.
• German control ended with the German defeat during the First World War.
French • After the First World War, under the Anglo-French Declaration, Cameroon was French colonial
colonial divided into two unequal parts, with France controlling 80 percent of the territory administration
period and Britain 20 percent. (French
(1919–1960) • Three land-tenure systems were in force: the transcription system, the customary- Governor and
land-rights recognition system and the land-registration system. However, no Prefect)
land certificates were issued under these three systems.
• Further, despite having committed to respect local land customs, France enacted
a decree converting all land that was neither individually owned nor properly
registered into French State property.
• To increase its control over areas, the French administration enacted another
decree stipulating that all land left unused or unoccupied for a period of 10 years
was the property of France.
• In June 1959, the registration system was established, allowing each Cameroonian
to have their customary rights recognized following a procedure which led to the
issuance of a document called a “land-registration book” with probative value. In
reality, however, these rights were not recognized.
British • Great Britain, on the other hand, applied a system of indirect rule. Its main land British colonial
colonial law (Ordinance No. 1 of 1927) provided that all land, except for estates registered administration
period and recognized by the British, was indigenous land under the control and at (British prime
(1919–1961) the disposal of the prime minister, who was to hold and administer it for the minister)
indigenous peoples.
• No use of indigenous land was valid without the consent of the British
Government, and indigenous property rights to ancestral lands were converted
into customary rights of occupation.
• Under the statutory right of occupancy, non-indigenous people were given
certificates of occupancy on land they acquired illegally. Unlike the Germans and
the French, however, few expropriations were recorded under the British.
• The British colonial administration tried to respect indigenous people’s rights
to land, and the only expropriation they suffered was the conversion of 264,000
acres of land, once administered by German farmers around Mount Cameroon,
into the property of the British colonial government of Nigeria.
• After the expropriation of German farmers, two ordinances were signed in 1946.
The first authorized the incumbent colonial governor “to acquire and use the
land as he [saw] fit for the promotion of the common good of the indigenous
inhabitants of Southern Cameroon,” and the second established the Cameroons
Development Corporation (CDC) as the statutory body in charge of assuming
control of the plantations.
• In 1956, all land became the property of customary authorities, with the exception
of private land known as “free land” and “leased land.” The rights of indigenous
peoples were from that time protected by traditional leaders.
• In addition, the British representative, the “Commissioner,” was responsible for
enforcing the law and protecting all indigenous rights, but a decree authorizing
the Government to acquire land for “public purposes” was also signed at that
time. This measure left a possibility for taking away land from communities.

Table 11.5: Land use in Cameroon during the post-colonial period
Periods Post-colonial period: LUP and land reforms without recognition or Institutions
protection of customary rights
From 1961 to • At independence, the two parts of Cameroon inherited two separate legal and Cameroonian
1974 administrative cultures, those of France and Great Britain. administration in
• Following reunification in 1961, the “francophone” leadership in the charge of property
federation became dominant. For this reason, all governance subsystems
from the British colonial domination were replaced by those rooted in the
French political and administrative tradition.
• Decree No. 63-2 of January 1963 annulled all laws that gave powers to
traditional authorities to manage land issues and related institutions, and it
annulled all claims to land rights supported by customary instruments.
• After unification in 1972, an attempt was made through the Land Ordinances
of 1974 to harmonize all existing land laws into one law applicable
throughout the country. The 1974 ordinances made the State the owner of all
land in the country.
Summary • Ordinance No. 1974-1 to establish the rules governing land tenure. Ministry of
of laws and • Law No. 1976-25 to establish regulations governing cadastral surveys and records. the Economy,
strategies • Decree No. 1976-165 to establish the conditions for obtaining land certificates. Planning
with a direct and Regional
or indirect • Ordinance No. 1974-2 to establish the rules governing public tenure. Development
impact on • Decree No. 1976-166 to establish the terms and conditions of management of (MINEPAT)
land security national lands.
Ministry of
since 1974 • Decree No. 1976-167 to establish the terms for the management of private Decentralization
land belonging to the State. and Local
• Decree No. 1976-165 to establish the conditions for obtaining land certificates Development
Law No. 1980-22 to repress infringement on landed property and state lands. (MINDDEVEL),
• Decree No. 1984-311 to establish the conditions for the application of Law No. Ministry
1980-22 on the punishment of infringements of land and property rights. of Forestry
• Law No. 1985-09 to establish the procedure for expropriation in the public and Wildlife
interest and the conditions for compensation. (MINFOF),
• Decree No. 87-1872 to implement Law No. 1985-9. Ministry of the
• Law No. 1994-1 to lay down forestry, wildlife and fisheries regulations. Environment,
• Decree No. 1995-146 to amend and supplement certain provisions of Decree Protection of
No. 1976-167 to establish the terms and conditions of management of the Nature and
private property of the State. Sustainable
• Law No. 96-12 on the Framework Law on environmental management. Development
• Decree No. 1997-116 to lay down the terms and conditions of implementing (MINEPDED)
law n°96/14 of 5 August 1996 governing the transportation by pipeline of Ministry of State
hydrocarbons originating from other countries. Property, Surveys
• Law No. 2001-1 to establish the Mining Code. and Land Tenure
• Law No. 2002-003 to establish the General Tax Code. (MINDCAF)
• Law No. 2002-13 to establish the Gas Code. Ministry of Mines,
• Law No. 2004-017 to lay down guidelines on decentralisation. Water and Energy
(MINEE)
• Decree No. 2005-481 to amend and supplement some provisions of Decree
1976-165 to establish the conditions for obtaining land certificates. Ministry of
• Law No. 2011/008 of 6 May 2011 to lay down guidelines for territorial Finance (MINFI)
planning and sustainable development in Cameroon.
• The National Programme for Sustainable Territorial Development (SNADDT)
(2016).
• Methodological guide for developing the Local Land-Use Management and
Sustainable Development Plan (PLADDT) (2019).
• Law No. 2019-024 on the general code of decentralized local authorities.
• Law No. 2004-003 regulating urban planning.

Chapter 11
In 2016, the National Programme for Sustainable Territorial Development (SNADDT) enabled
Cameroon to undertake a process of spatial organization and rational development of its national
territory at different levels and scales on the basis of its “Vision 2035” (MINEPAT 2016). Vision 2035
is based on five priorities: (1) development of human capital; (2) governance; (3) transformation
of agricultural systems to ensure food security; (4) development and better use of resources; (5)
development of information and communication technologies, for integration into a globalized
world; (6) national integration through the development of basic infrastructure in the transport and
energy sectors, etc.; and, finally, (7) regional and local development and decentralization. Climate
and environmental issues are not explicit here but are covered through agriculture and management
of resources (MINEPAT 2019).
National Programme for Sustainable

Territory Management (SNADDT) /
Top-down decision-making
National Zoning Plan / Rural Sector

Development Strategy
approach, at State level
Regional Programme
(Region X)
Municipal Development Plan PLADDT

(Municipality X) / Spatial (Municipality X) / Spatial
Participative approach at municipal
development development
Village land-use plan (PATV)

at the level of one or more
villages development
and local level
Process of recognizing lineage

territories with the populations
concerned
Figure 11.1: Recognition of lineage territories, or how to integrate local populations into
the SNADDT process in Cameroon. A way for LUP to link a bottom-up participatory
process and national planning.
Source: Adapted from the “Methodological guide for the development of the Local Land Use and Sustainable Development Plan
- PLADDT” (MINEPAT 2021)

New large aggregates have been created at the impetus of international NGOs. These include
protected areas as well as State-owned community forests. Decentralization leads to the creation
of property owned by decentralized State property, such as municipal forests. All this reduces the
space legally available for subsistence agriculture, which becomes limited to the interstices between
these large aggregates. It is in these interstices that social tensions are concentrated. In practice,
community and municipal forests are often occupied by subsistence farming based on customary
law. Various types of rights consequently overlap on the same spaces, thereby generating conflicts,
between sectors, for example. Mining or agro-industrial concessions can overlap with forest
concessions, all the more so because each ministry tends to work in silo with little interministerial
coordination. Conflicts between customary law and formal State law may emerge, as the customary
constitution of territories by lineages is not recognized by formal law dating from the colonial period
and may be challenged by the creation of private land belonging to the State (Kenfack Essougong
and Teguia 2019).
In this context, the ongoing efforts to better organize Cameroon’s LUP are crucial and offer hope to
find solutions to mitigate these potential conflicts due to the way the current territory is organized.
The State relies on its national LUP and sustainable development scheme (SNADDT) approved by
the MINEPAT in 2016, which provides a comprehensive and large-scale overview of planning to
meet the legitimate development requirements of the country.
The smallest LUP level is the Municipal Development Plan, revised every five years now since 2006
as part of the National Community-Driven Development Programme. This Municipal Development
Plan could become law locally, and its implementation should be based, at village level, on Local
Land-use and Sustainable Development Plans (PLADDT). Recognition of the customary organization
of land in the Municipal Development Plan via the PLADDT would make it possible to integrate
custom into the law and prevent land conflicts. As the territory of the municipality includes several
villages, each of which corresponds to one or more lineages, the local Municipal Development Plan
should be preceded by a process of recognizing the territories of these lineages, carried out with the
Figure 11.2: Curve chart of land-use allocation areas in Cameroon

Source: Curves generated online on this website: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#compare (2021)

Chapter 11
Box 11.1: From lack of land use planning coordination to conflict

Ampel Village is located in the municipality of Mindourou, in eastern Cameroon, on State-
owned land. The farmers there are angry. They are wedged between two blocks of a forestry
concession (a forestry logging unit). They have limited space, yet their cultivation practices
consist in opening up fields in forests or old fallow land. They need to “break the forest” to
eat, because there are no more available spaces and because fallow land is getting less and
less rest, and then becomes very poor in nutrients and therefore less and less suitable for
agriculture.
In 2019, the future of the farmers was bleak, before an event gave them hope. Bulldozers from a
company commissioned by the Ministry of Public Works began to upgrade an old road that once
connected the municipality of Mindourou to Eschou Village, located in the district of Abong-
Mbang. This road had not been usable for a long time because it had been partly covered again by
the forest. For the local people, this road-upgrading project meant they could create fields along
the road and – for a while – no longer worry about lack of space. But the roadwork was stopped
right away by the Ministry of Forests and Fauna (MINFOF) on the grounds that the road would
cross a forestry logging unit, which is against forest law. This halt to the bulldozers provoked
fury among the local people; it led to demonstrations broadcasted on television, some pushing
and shoving, and strong resentment among the local populations towards the forest concession
holder, who was deemed responsible for the situation. The lack of coordination between two
ministries had harmful effects at the local level.
In the end, construction work on the Ampel-Eschou road resumed, and a decision was
reached in favour of the local people, against the advice of the MINFOF. This decision was
taken at a meeting chaired on 17 May 2021 in Yaoundé by the MINFOF Secretary-General, in
the presence of the mayors of Messamena and Mindourou, the coordinator of the programme
for the Integrated Development and Planning Programme of the Dja Mining Loop and the
Adjacent Border Area (PADI DJA), operators of the forest sector, and some senior staff at the
MINFOF.
populations concerned. The PLADDT is the decision-making process which should make it possible
to determine the right relationship between customary rules and the Municipal Development Plan,
by involving the village populations. Implementation of the PLADDT is in its start-up phase.
11.2.2 Land use planning in the DRC: a giant awakens

Describing LUP in the largest country in the Congo Basin, the Democratic Republic of the Congo
(DRC), is a challenging task given the long and complex path the country has taken in its territorial
organization. Nevertheless, it is possible to summarize the key points on this topic by starting with
a brief historical analysis of LUP in the DRC before discussing interactions between forest ecosystem
management and LUP.
Brief historical analysis of LUP in the DRC

The development of LUP in the DRC has experienced ups and downs. In 1949, before independence,
the goal of the initial LUP attempts was to increase the profits of mainland Belgium. More than 70

years went by without LUP being organized by a policy or a new law. Since 2015, some progress has
been made, leading to the production of a draft legislation and a draft LUP policy is under discussion
in Parliament. Table 11.6 gives an overview of LUP organization in the DRC, with periods, key events
and institutions involved in the process.
In a huge country like the DRC, LUP is a challenge. For a long time, the DRC lacked a harmonized
overall LUP policy. The many usage conflicts in the use of space and resources are due to several
shortcomings: the absence of a law on LUP and of a sectoral legislation (land or mining code)
developed in a cross-cutting way, lack of tools such as a national development plan or provincial
plans –at all administrative levels (national, provincial, local). In addition, a poor sharing of
responsibilities and a lack of coordination among ministries went counter to consistent LUP
management (Ministère du Plan DRC 2019; Ministère de l’Aménagement du Territoire DRC 2020).
As part of the implementation of its development strategy, the Government intends to carry out a
series of actions to ensure more coherent national LUP and to make production and residential areas
less isolated. This will give people the opportunity to live in decent housing and provide economic
activities with adequate means of production, transport and communication. To this end, three
objectives have been assigned to the strategies under consideration (DRC 2019):
1. Strengthen the institutional capacities of the Ministry of Land Use Planning (Ministère de
l’aménagement du territoire) through (i) the establishment of a framework for interministerial
consultation on LUP and (ii) the development of an institutional and legal framework, including
a framework law on LUP, etc.
2. Provide the country with legal and regulatory frameworks as well as planning tools in the field
of LUP. These would include: (i) the development of the national LUP programme and sectoral
maps, (ii) the development of legal and regulatory texts, and (iii) support for the development
of provincial plans.
3. Improve living conditions and provide more balance for spaces through (i) the construction of
social housing and (ii) the delimitation of strategic and housing spaces.
The preparation and submission of a draft legislation and a national LUP policy is arguably one of
the most significant advances in this sector. In fact, the DRC has never reached this level of LUP
before. In principle, in the near future the DRC will adopt a law and a national LUP policy, broken
down into national and provincial plans.
The absence of such a policy and law has long been one of the causes of the great number of conflicts
related to the use of space and resources. Competition among the various sectoral ministries
responsible for land use had increased owing to a lack of alignment of sectoral legislation (on land,
mining, forestry and agriculture). In addition, the critical lack of data and data exchange had led
to conflicting views on land use and many conflicts in the use of space and resources. For example,
there has been much overlap among usage for mining, forestry and agricultural activities.
Making LUP a reality requires not only preparing a draft law and a national policy, but also
implementing them. Successful implementation is undoubtedly not without risk, given that this
will be the first time the DRC adopts a law and national policy on LUP. The essential aspects to be
taken into account for optimal LUP are its technical and cross-cutting nature, the success of the
country’s decentralization, the effectiveness and efficiency of the monitoring and evaluation system
promoted in these draft laws and policies, and the financial and human resources. In this regard,
the UNDP has identified several operational, strategic, political, financial and organizational risks
(MECNT 2017).

Chapter 11
The DRC has several assets that can help it make LUP a reality. These include involvement by
the institutions that worked together in the way land use planning is organized, the work on the
implementation of REDD+, the existence of draft legislation and draft national policy on LUP, as
well as the past experiences in trying to organize land use planning.
During the past decade, environmental issues have been included in an LUP, which was originally
designed to better exploit the country’s resources (e.g., agriculture, mining and timber). With the
adoption of the national REDD+ framework strategy in 2012, LUP has become enshrined as one
of the seven pillars of this strategy. It goes without saying that forest degradation, deforestation,
and the restoration or sustainable management of forest ecosystems can be negatively or positively
impacted depending on the organisational quality of the LUP in the DRC.
LUP is indirectly recognized as the main underlying cause of deforestation and degradation of forest
ecosystems (MECNT 2017). At COP26 in Glasgow, on 2 November 2021, the DRC and the Central
African Forest Initiative (CAFI) signed a second letter of intent covering the 2021–2031 period; it
takes LUP into account among the 10 key sectors. The main political commitments that the DRC
must make a reality between now and 2031 include the systematic integration of high-value forests,
peatlands and the concessions of local forest communities into the LUP processes and plans so that
they can be preserved and centralized, as well as the publication of land-use contracts applying
to agriculture, forests, mines and hydrocarbons. As for the political milestones to be reached
Table 11.6: Overview of LUP organization in the DRC
Periods Key events Institutions
Prior to • During the colonial period, aspects of an LUP policy were developed: Colonial authority
independence transport infrastructure and facilities for the colony, as well as the
in 1960 creation of cities and urban areas.
• 1949: Adoption of the 1949–1959 ten-year plan and the decree on the
urbanization of the Congo, aimed at structuring the existing cities and
urban areas.
• 1957: Promulgation of the urban planning decree as a regulatory
reference for territorial planning.
1960–1970 • 1965: LUP was put under the supervision of the Office of the High Presidency,
Commissioner for National Planning and Reconstruction, attached to Office of the High
the Presidency of the Republic. Commissioner
• 1969: LUP was attached to the Ministry of State in charge of Planning for Planning
and Scientific Research. and National
• 1969: LUP was made part of the Ministry of Public Works (TPAT) in the Reconstruction;
form of a directorate called “Direction de l’aménagement du territoire”. Ministry of State in
charge of Planning
and Scientific
Research; Ministry of
Public Works
1971–1980 • 1973: Adoption of Law No. 1973-021 on the general property regime, Presidency; Ministry
land-tenure and real estate regime and securities regime, amended and of Public Works
supplemented by Law No. 1980-008.
• 1974: Merger of the LUP and Urban Planning directorate (which had been
a division) into a single directorate called “Direction de l’aménagement du
territoire.”
• 1975: Creation of the public works and LUP department attached to the
Land use and Urban Planning Office (Bureau d’Études d’Aménagement et
d’Urbanisme)

Periods Key events Institutions
1981–2005 • 1982–2004: Five drafts of the LUP National Programme are prepared at Office for Spatial
the national level. At the regional level, two regional LUP programmes and Urban Planning
for Bas-Zaire and Greater Kivu (Nord-Kivu, Sud-Kivu and Maniema) (Bureau d’Études
were drafted, as there were studies on specific areas (five studies of d’Aménagement et
development centres). At the urban level, studies on cities were carried d’Urbanisme - BEAU)
out.
• Further reflection was carried out on a national LUP policy and on draft
LUP legislation. The work developed throughout this period was not
accompanied by the political ownership which was supposed to improve
it in view of it being adopted and put into practice institutionally.
• 1988: The Urban Planning Division was upgraded to the Ministry of
Urban Planning.
• 2002: Forest Code and Mining Code adopted.
2006–2014 • 2008: Creation of the Ministry of Decentralization and LUP (DECAT) Ministry of the
• 2010: Establishment of the LUP Support Unit. Interior and
• 2011: Decentralization and LUP come under the Ministry of the Interior Security; Ministry
and Security. Adoption of the Law on Agriculture and the Law on the of Decentralization
Environment. and LUP; Ministry
of Urban Planning
• 2012: (i) LUP comes under Urban Planning and Housing, Infrastructure and Housing,
and Public Works and Reconstruction; (ii) National REDD+ framework Infrastructure and
strategy adopted. Public Works and
• 2013: National consultations and advocacy for the LUP sector in the DRC. Reconstruction;
Presidency
2015–2020 • 2015: (i) Launch of work to provide LUP with an autonomous UNDP; Ministries
administration; (ii) Support from the WRI and CODELT to reflection of LUP, Planning,
on the launch of LUP reform in the DRC; (iii) Approval of the Strategic Decentralization,
Guidelines Document for the drafting of the national LUP policy and a Urban Planning,
national LUP programme (June 2015) Infrastructure
• 2016: Approval of the Framework and Organic Structures of the LUP and Environment,
General Secretariat by Order No. CAB.MIN/FP/PIM/CA/WBC/071/2016. FONAREDD;
• 2017: (i) Creation of the Ministry of Public Works and Urban Renovation; programme and
(ii) Establishment of LUP provincial divisions; (iii) Launch of a Support project implementing
Programme for LUP reform. organizations,
universities, civil
• 2018: Recruitment of national experts. society, international
• 2019: (i) Change of name to Ministry of LUP; (ii) Validation process for a cooperation agencies,
national LUP policy document and a draft legislation on LUP; (iii) WRI etc.;
contracted for LUP technical support.
WRI and CODELT;
• 2020: Draft legislation on LUP submitted to Parliament.
Idea Consult &
AED Consult as
well as STUDI
International; CAT
(Congo Agriculture
Technology );
Parliament
Table adapted by Blaise-Pascal Ntirumenyerwa Mihigo, 2020, based on information from Deliverable 3: National LUP policy
document (Ministère du Plan DRC 2019)
in 2023, the following were adopted: enactment of the law on LUP, development of a national
directory of soil and subsoil natural resources, establishment of an arbitration process dealing with
land-use disputes, and production of an LUP atlas. In view of the above, it is likely that LUP will
increasingly contribute to the management of forest ecosystems in the DRC, the largest country in
the Congo Basin.

Chapter 11
200k
150k
1000 ha
100k
50k
0
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Democratic Republic of the Congo Democratic Republic of the Congo

Area Area
Agricultural land Arable land
Democratic Republic of the Congo Democratic Republic of the Congo
Area Area
Land under permanent crops Forest land
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Area
Other land
Figure 11.3: Curve chart of land-use allocation areas in the DRC

11.2.3 Land use planning in a landlocked mountainous

country: Burundi
Land management and the emergence of LUP in Burundi

Burundi is a very ancient kingdom, where the king, the Mwami, had control over all lands and power
to take them away or allocate them. He was assisted in this task by an administration and advisers,
the Bashingantahe, an institution whose members were selected for their wisdom. Some groups, such
as the Batwa (Pygmies), were traditionally excluded from access to land. This power was withdrawn
from the Mwami and his advisers in 1960.
The history of LUP in Burundi was marked by the introduction of various cash crops (e.g., oil
palm, coffee, tea and cotton) in the form of industrial plantations associated with artisanal village
plantations. Later, forest and agroforestry plantations continued to change the Burundian landscape
significantly. These large plantations, which contribute to the way the territory is organized, were
created by the coercive power of the various administrations before and after independence.
Burundi experienced two different administrations during the colonial period: German
administration from 1898 to 1919 and Belgian administration from 1919 to 1962. It was the Belgian
administration that had the greatest impact on land management and thus on LUP in Burundi.
Following independence in 1962, Burundi had difficulty establishing an LUP that could take into
account both the powers of the post-colonial State and the practices of the population under the

Figure 11.4: Curve chart of land-use allocation areas in Burundi

circumstances of a continuous fragmentation of land and of insecurity in the neighbouring Great

Lakes countries, which had suffered from multiple crises.
The history of LUP in Burundi can be summed up by the issue of land reform, which tried to deal
with the organization of land before, during and after the colonial period. Burundi is today the third
most densely populated country in Africa, with a density of more than 300 inhabitants/km2. One of
the causes of the continuous fragmentation of land is the form of land inheritance. Land inheritance
is carried out by lineage and by family. It has led to the reduction of the agricultural area to less than
0.5 ha of arable land per farm (Ndikumagenge 2018).
Brief historical analysis
Table 11.7: The colonial period in Burundi
Periods Key events during the colonial period: from king-owned land to State-owned land Institutions
1910 • Start of oil palm tree cultivation extension along Lake Tanganyika. German
administration
1913 • Destruction of oil palm trees, considered as tsetse fly hosts, to eliminate sleeping sickness. German
• Local populations resisted this measure, as they already understood the importance of administration
the crop.
1925– • In contrast to German practices, supervision of industrial and “indigenous” Belgian

1930 plantations, with introduction of pre-selected oil palm nuts. administration
• Obligation to plant 10 to 30 palm trees per family. with power
• Rule imposing oil palm loosened; local populations forced to plant cotton and coffee under the king
instead.
• Decline in oil palm production.

Chapter 11
1930– • First artificial (State-owned) forest plantations and roadside trees. Belgian
1931 • Obligation by the Belgian administration to create municipal woodlands, the area of administration
which depended on the number of taxpayers. with power
• Obligation to plant coffee. under the king
April • Judgment by the Urundi Territorial Court stipulating that “the land issue [was] Belgian
1948 intimately linked to political power.”: “The main income of the chiefs shall come administration
from land – fallow, field or pasture – and their power largely resides on their ability to with power
award it or deprive people of it.” under the king
• Extension to Rwanda-Urundi of a fundamental rule of land law applied to their
colony in the Congo, which stipulated that “the lands occupied by the indigenous
populations, under the authority of their leaders, shall continue to be governed by
local customs and usages.”
1948 • Establishment of a forestry service responsible mainly for preserving natural forests Belgian
and managing economic woodlands. administration
with power
under the king
1950 • Creation of peasant settlements, i.e., areas where inhabitants are grouped. These Belgian
peasant settlements were created and regulated by the Belgian administration to administration
develop sparsely populated areas and to introduce new export crops in Gihanga with power
(Bubanza Province), Mutimbuzi (rural Bujumbura) and Bukemba (Rutana). The under the king
inhabitants consequently suffered from precarious conditions because their rights to
grow export crops were taken away if schedules were not met.
26/09/ • Legislative order abolishing the rights of the Mwami and the Baganwa to land, Belgian
1960 following elimination of monarchical power. administration
1962– • Independence of Burundi in 1962. Administration

1986 • No fundamental changes to Belgian land law until enactment of the Land Code. by
independent
Burundi
Source: Prepared by the authors
Table 11.8: The post-colonial period in Burundi
Periods Key events during the post-colonial period: the emergence of LUP Institutions
01/09/ First land code of Burundi (and of the subregion). Administration

1986 The status quo between the two land ownership theories is maintained (exclusive by independent
State ownership of land and the recognition of land ownership by individuals). Burundi
1989 Establishment of the Ministry of LUP, Environment and Tourism (MINATE). Ministry
of LUP,
1992 Start of rural consultations on the land code. Environment
Proposal for a draft land code on the pre-eminence of State law over all land. Not and Tourism
accepted due to lack of consensus.
1965, Successive political crises and civil wars followed by internal and external
1972, displacements, with impacts on land in Burundi and neighbouring countries.
1988, 1993 Gradual decline of customary practices, alienation of municipal plantations.
2004 Thanks to support from FAO, proposal for a project for reform that maintains a dual
situation of individual property and State property.
Initial proposal for “specialized LUP” which gives the State the right to impose certain
types of crops on certain regions in order to promote agricultural production. Proposal
not adopted during the consultations.
June 2005 Villagization policy to free up agricultural land and provide access to development
infrastructure (e.g., for water, electricity, schools, health centres and income-generating
activities).


Periods Key events during the post-colonial period: the emergence of LUP Institutions
2008 Proposals for decentralized land management supported by two projects financed by Ministry
Swiss cooperation and the European Union, with the goal of partially relieving backlog of LUP,
in the already saturated courts of Bujumbura, the capital. Environment
and Tourism
2008 Creation of the Ministry of the Environment, LUP and Urban Planning. Ministry of
Environment,
2008 Letter on urban and housing policy. LUP and Urban
Planning
2009 Four strategic land policy priorities established in Burundi, via an action plan
implementing a strategy and proposing a system for managing it and making it consistent
with the other sectoral actions involved in land management. The four priorities:
(1) Reform of land legislation through the adoption of laws on new land systems based on
modernization of the land system, simplification of procedures and decentralization of land
management.
(2) Restructuring and modernization of land management services with a view to
improving public services.
(3) Decentralization of land management: implementation of a local legal and institutional
framework to strengthen the capacities of municipalities.
(4) Inventories of municipal land to update knowledge on available land and its occupancy.
2010 Drafting of 11 provincial LUP programmes across 11 provinces. The following major
advances were made as a result of these programmes:
General territorial survey to determine large areas at the province level, including
the forest areas sought after by landless peasants, and to determine the pillars of the
economy focused on agriculture, fishing (along Lake Tanganyika), agro-industries and
artisanal activities (e.g., wood, coffee, tea, palm oil, clay work and craft art).
Drafting of an analysis on the existence and diversification of natural resources, the
population structure, the status and distribution of social and collective infrastructure
and facilities, the level of urbanization, and tourist sites.
The demographic outlook for the year 2025 was aligned with Vision 2025.
Setting priorities for the national strategy of land use, set with clear basic principles
such as the distribution of large-scale infrastructure, the creation of villages with
modern facilities and the major development themes. These latter are: (i) urban
development, (ii) rural development, (iii) regional integration (interdependence
with neighbouring countries with regard to industrialization, energy, skilled labour,
security, and access to remote areas).
2011 Creation of the Ministry of Water, the Environment, LUP and Urban Planning, which Ministry of
has the new dimension of management of water resources and sanitation. Water, the
Environment,
2011 Drafting of Vision 2025 to provide a framework that will guide the implementation of LUP and Urban
sustainable development strategies and policies. Planning
This vision is based on the following priorities: (i) good governance and State capacity
building, (ii) human capital, (iii) economic growth and poverty reduction, (iv) regional
integration, (v) demography, (vi) social cohesion, (vii) LUP and (viii) partnership.
With regard to LUP, Vision 2025 aims “to establish a villagization and urbanization
policy that will significantly increase the rate of urbanization from 12 percent to 40
percent by 2025.”
It also seeks to “make LUP an important priority of its economic and social
development policy with a view to facilitating the organization of the management of
national space.”
2012 With the support of FAO, the establishment of a REDD and MRV project to determine
the activities to be implemented as part of REDD and MRV.
2018 Drafting of the 2018–2027 National Development Plan with strategic orientations
including environmental protection, climate change adaptation and improvement of
LUP.
Source: Prepared by the authors

Chapter 11
Land use planning limited by shortage of land

The main challenges facing Burundi, which are interrelated, are population density, degradation
of natural resources and the fact that the country is landlocked. Burundi is a densely populated
country. It is predominantly agricultural, mountainous and has limited space. The population is
growing at a rate of 3.1 percent per year, doubling every 24 years (Ndikumagenge 2018).
LUP and environmental problems have always been interrelated there. Institutionally, before 1960,
spaces were managed by the king. When the country became a republic, LUP was integrated into
various ministries, including the Ministry of LUP and the Environment (MINATE) and the Ministry
of Water, Environment, LUP and Urban Planning (MEEATU). The management of natural resources
was thus included very early in Burundi’s LUP, as the Belgian administration created forest
plantations as early as 1930 to meet the firewood needs of the local populations and of the first
industrial activities.
The challenge of LUP in Burundi is to maintain the agricultural economy, and at the same time to
preserve the productive capacities of land and natural resources. Burundi has always been looking
for export products to support its economy. The development of industrial export crops (e.g., tea,
quinine, coffee) has been a factor behind deforestation since the 1930s. Tea and coffee were for a
long time the main resources of the country, but now they are second after gold and rare metals.
Over the past 20 years, artisanal mining has been a factor behind the deforestation of the remaining
natural forests (Ndikumagenge et al. 2018).
The objective of LUP is to provide public services and to guarantee food security and export revenues,
and at the same time to preserve ecosystems. The factors that structure LUP have been identified
in the provincial development programmes: cities and villages, public facilities and infrastructure
(e.g., roads, streets, drinking-water supply, electricity and telecommunications). The functioning
of the framework between the local, communal, provincial and national levels depends heavily on
road infrastructure and on effective coordination between the different administrative levels.
The greatest challenge is to implement the LUP programmes according to the guidelines proposed.
One of the major points at stake about LUP is to guarantee equitable access to basic services and
infrastructure (e.g., water, roads and trails) to all citizens from all provinces. But this is not easy in a
rural and mountainous country with isolated and very hilly areas. In some areas, houses are built on
very steep slopes. The urbanization rate is currently estimated at less than 12 percent, which is very
low. The African average was 40 percent in 2018. Cities indeed play a driving role in development, as
they enable access to services for a greater number of people. As for the villagization policy in rural
areas, it has been ineffective despite it having been around for a long time. More generally, the rural
world lacks basic infrastructure, roads, tracks, drinking water, electricity and telecommunications
(Ndikumagenge et al. 2018).
Another objective of LUP is the protection of natural resources, in particular water and soil
management and the fight against erosion. For this latter there is persistent use of unsuitable
techniques, such as anti-erosion ditches. Many concrete problems exist, such as the clearing of
natural areas; illegal logging and violation of land boundaries during successive political crises;
and poor water control, with very little rainwater collection, storage and management. In the very
densely populated coffee-growing provinces, the relationship between food crops and coffee is
changing as food crops begin to be grown under coffee trees. Finally, some cities face new challenges

related to the prevention of environmental degradation, including waste management, sewage

disposal and sanitation.
City-countryside relations are also a challenge for LUP, given that the rural world is not very
monetized. With most rural populations living off home consumption, rural areas lack integration
into the national economy. In addition, urban areas tend to encroach on agricultural land. This leads
to conflicts in land use between housing and agriculture, disputes over water use, and the search
for construction materials that are a factor behind environmental degradation. In Burundi, the rate
of increase of the urban population was 5.1 percent between 1990 and 2008 and even reached 6–7
percent in the provinces of Gitega and Ngozi (MEATU 2010; Ndikumagenge et al. 2018).
The implementation of LUP programmes is hampered by a lack of mastery of LUP techniques and
governance. The Government itself does not always respect urban planning, and the people do not
respect State-owned land.
As forests have recently been placed under the Ministry of the Environment and Agriculture, there
are risks that the importance of forests will be forgotten, that forest budgets will be reduced, and
that the higher-level civil servants with solid experience in forest policy may be dispersed among
several departments. Institutional conflicts and disputes between the people and the Government
are multiplying, for example to demand the restitution of former land and pastures that have been
converted into plantations.
Meanwhile, demographic pressure is having an impact on forest ecosystems. Forestry agro-socio-

ecosystems, and then agro-industries, have strongly modified the Burundian landscape for a long
time. Yet, Burundi has more forest cover than 100 years ago, thanks to the efforts of successive
governments and the support of many technical and financial partners – this despite the impacts
of various political crises. However, there is a great risk that these forest areas could be reduced.
To cope with these land use constraints, Burundi must devise new agroforestry models that take
into account not only climatic conditions and population densities, but also the expectations of the
private sector, such as food-crop and coffee combinations, the promotion of agroforestry plantations
including oil palm, and the integration of livestock farming into State-owned woodlands.
Finally, the rehabilitation of communal woodlands must be included in the new LUP programmes.
Research on erosion over the last 30 years highlights the contribution of plantations and natural
spaces to the fight against erosion (Besse 1991).
LUP in Burundi: a product of the State and farmers

LUP in Burundi is a public action: its purpose is to provide guidance for population distribution, for
the activities of the population, and for facilities and infrastructure in a given space, all the while
taking into account national and global policies. However, in the specific context of the country and
its history, the old patterns of space specialization – for example a single agro-industrial crop in a
given space – are giving way to more integrated models to meet several needs in increasingly small
spaces.
Given the country’s demographic and environmental constraints, LUP in Burundi must take into
account five elements (natural, social, economic, financial and infrastructure). It must also consider
the geopolitical issues of the subregion, such as migration, which may impact its territory.

Chapter 11
As the State has a significant sovereign role in this LUP process, it is essential to take into account
land use management through peasant practices related to the modes of transmission of land
capital. The search for land, to enable the extension of profitable cash crops such as oil palm, will
increase competition between cash crops themselves and between cash crops and food crops, and it
will exacerbate the pressure on the areas occupied by forest plantations and nature reserves.
11.2.4 Rwanda: a densely populated and mountainous

country that preserves its natural parks
Like Burundi, Rwanda is also densely populated, with more than 12 million inhabitants and an
average density of nearly 459 inhabitants/km2. Because of this density, cultivated land tends to
develop at the expense of forest cover. One of the major challenges of Rwanda has long been to
contain the effects of water erosion in a densely populated mountainous country which still relies
heavily on agriculture.
In this context, proactive environmental protection policies, in the form of the creation of many
protected areas, have had a marked effect on the country. This is how Rwanda enjoys 28 percent
forest cover. About 9 percent of the country is classified as a protected area, and 70 percent of land
is allocated to agricultural or forestry activities (source: OFAC, see Table 11.2). In the western part of
Rwanda, dense natural mountain forests and forest plantations can be found.
In the extension of the north-south axis of the Congo-Nile Ridge lies the Nyungwe National Park
to the south and, a little further north, the Gishwati Reserve. One of Rwanda’s great treasures is
its Volcanoes National Park, an integral part of the Virunga transborder complex, which offers the
possibility of visiting mountain gorillas in their natural environment. To the east, Akagera Park
offers a good potential outlook for savannah fauna. Dry forests in low-elevation areas of the east
contrast with high-elevation forests in the west.
History of the importance of the environment and national parks in

Rwanda’s land use planning
In Rwanda, environmental conservation policies have had an influence on its LUP. This history dates
back to the beginning of the 20th century, with the start of Belgian colonization in Ruanda-Urundi
territory. Reforestation work began as early as 1920. Albert Park was established in 1925, followed
by two reserves in 1934 (see Table 11.9). These environmental initiatives were also accompanied by
an extensive soil conservation campaign initiated by INEAC, which later became the Institute of
Agricultural Sciences of Rwanda (ISAR) in 1937. They initially took place in research stations, before
spreading to the whole country. In 1947, soil conservation work was made mandatory by colonial
legislation. This policy was abandoned at the time of independence, because it was perceived as
statute labour. After independence and especially from 1977, environmental action programmes
were launched within the framework of annual themes: habitat (1977), livestock (1978), soil
protection and conservation (1980), rural hydraulics (1981), the fight against erosion (1982), and
reforestation (1983) (Rwanyiziri 2020).
In 1933 and 1934, natural parks were created in a coercive and authoritarian manner: a series of laws
and rules were adopted contrary to the interests of local people. As a result of this policy, people
were dispossessed of their land and their resources (pastures, artisanal activities, pharmacopoeia,
etc.) (Mbuzehose 1995). After independence, the new rulers authorized some clearing in the

Figure 11.5: Curve chart of land-use allocation areas in Rwanda

parks. In 1967, for example, in Volcanoes Park, 10,000 ha were converted for pyrethrum cultivation
(Rwanyiziri et al. 2020). Akagera National Park was infested with the tsetse fly and did not undergo
much change in the first 10 years after independence. In contrast the Nyungwe Forest Reserve has
been cleared on all sides (east and west) by farmers since 1958, as the land is fertile.
The forms of LUP and their implementation

As in many countries, LUP in Rwanda has been structured by the development of cities and roads.
However, the development of spaces devoted to environmental protection has greatly influenced
the structuring of the territory.
Against this backdrop, the role of international NGOs and bilateral aid has been important for the
organization of Rwandan territory. In 1967, thanks to the authorization of the Rwandan Government
and to logistical and financial support from American conservation NGOs, a research centre called
the Karisoke Research Center (KRC) was created by Dian Fossey. In 1986, the Belgian Administration
for Development Cooperation (AGCD), the Belgian bilateral cooperation agency, decided to finance
the “Tourism and National Parks” project for four years. In 1987, the natural forest of Nyungwe
found a good partner in the Zoological Society of New York (now the Wildlife Conservation Society
- WCS), which went on to seriously address the main problems in the protection of its resources.
The ORTPN and the WCS helped create the Nyungwe Forest Conservation Project (PCFN). These
efforts continued thanks to financing from the German Technical Cooperation Agency (GTZ) in
October 2000 via the Protection and Restoration of the Akagera Natural Resources project, then via
the PRORENA, whose goal was to restore the Akagera National Park within its new boundaries.
The Rwandan governments have always been very willing to combine environmental protection and
tourism in order to diversify the economy, as demonstrated by the creation of the ORTPN in 1974.

Chapter 11
Table 11.9: Start of LUP during the colonial period in Rwanda
Periods Key events during the colonial period: the emergence of LUP Institutions
1925 Creation of Albert Park. Belgian

administration
1933 Following the London Convention of 1933, Belgium created Rwanda’s first Belgian
two forest reserves: administration
• The highland natural forest reserve on the Congo-Nile divide
corresponded to the former boundaries of the natural forests of
Nyungwe, Cyamudongo and Mukura.
• The second, the volcano mountains, corresponded to the boundaries of
Albert National Park in its Rwandan part.
1934 • Borders of the Volcanoes and Akagera National Parks became delineated. Establishment of
Creation of two national parks in Ruanda-Urundi territory. the National Parks
• The first park, the Volcanoes National Park, was created in 1925, but its Institute of the
boundaries were later set in 1934 along with the boundaries of Albert Belgian Congo
National Park.
• The second park, Akagera, was created in the northeast of Rwanda in an
area that was then sparsely populated due to the tsetse fly.
1959 • Creation of a corps of national park rangers in Ruanda-Urundi to provide Belgian

armed protection for all national parks in the territories under Belgian administration
administration.
1960 Independence of Belgian Rwanda.
1967 Creation of a research centre to protect gorillas, under the impetus of an Karisoke Research
American NGO. Center (KRC) by
Dian Fossey
1974 Government desire to combine environmental protection and tourism. Rwandan Office
of Tourism and
National Parks
(ORTPN).
1992 Creation of a ministry dedicated to the environment, following the Rio Ministry in charge
World Congress on Biodiversity and Sustainable Development. of environment and
tourism.
1990-1994 Conflict and genocide against the Tutsi.
2001 Government decision to strengthen the environmental sector. State Secretariat

for Environmental
Protection + Rwandan
Environmental
Management Office
(ORGE).
2003 With the aim of involving local people in the management of protected The Rwandan
areas, ORTPN was restructured into two agencies. Conservation
Agency (RWA)
and the Rwandan
Tourism Agency
(RTA).
21st century The restructuring of ORTPN became a turning point in the country’s nature
conservation policies, as it established a community-based conservation
programme for the first time.
Early 21st Fierce battle between nature conservationists, conservation NGOs in

century particular, and development promoters, represented by the various
(specifically, in governments in power. Decrease in the size of protected areas and exclusion
2002) of populations that practice certain activities within those areas (the forest
Batwa in particular).
Source: Table developed by the authors, based on Rwanyiziri et al. 2020

However, conservation policy was carried out against the will of the people, as was the case during
the colonial period. The second mission of the ORTPN was to ensure the promotion of tourism and
to implement all means that could contribute to the development of this economic sector.
Since 2002, considerable efforts have been made to resolve the many conflicts between protected
areas and local people. Conservation has become community-based, and participatory methods
have been used to anticipate conflicts. These methods, which have helped find solutions to alleviate
the conservation constraints imposed on local communities, include better sharing of tourism
revenues, access to resources in and near protected areas, and financial compensation for the
destruction of crops by wild animals.
International discussions on the environment have also influenced the way Rwanda has arranged
to manage its spaces. In 1992, Rwanda participated in the Rio de Janeiro Summit on Biodiversity and
Sustainable Development. That same year, a ministry in charge of the environment and tourism was
created.
The 1990–1994 war, which culminated in the genocide against the Tutsi, had significant impact
on the environment. Not only were the parks the scene of clashes, but the conflict also greatly
destabilized the normal operations of the ORTPN. Akagera National Park was the first protected
area affected by the war and was even looted at the beginning of the war.
Despite these adverse events, Rwanda now has four national parks and nature reserves throughout
the country. They contribute to its economy and help maintain the quality of its environment.
However, this form of LUP was at first directed against indigenous peoples, as it opposed traditional
rights to use forest land and products and put them in a precarious or illegal situation. When the
parks were created, the Batwa hunters were deprived of their main activity or became poachers
out of necessity. Conservation mitigation measures, which aimed at improving the lives of people
near the parks, have had effects especially when accompanied by greater public investment in rural
infrastructure such as passable roads, schools and health centres.
11.3 Can LUP reconcile development and

ecosystem conservation?
Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in Central Africa is not so simple, because
some objectives are in principle contradictory. In the context of Central Africa, reducing poverty
(SDG 1) and ending hunger (SDG 2) while preserving life on earth and ecosystems (SDG 15) requires
finding compromises, and LUP is definitely one of the tools to identify these latter.
The various countries examined here have made significant efforts in developing public policies to
enable them to design their LUP. These have created the conditions for development compatible
with both better management of their resources and economic development to combat poverty.
However, these efforts are hampered by two complex phenomena: on the one hand, the resistance
stemming from power games – often between State institutions – and, on the other, the vulnerability
of natural resources to the growing demands of a rapidly expanding population.
People want services and infrastructure more than anything, whether in the cities or in the
countryside. In the latter, people demand roads (to better sell their agricultural products), schools
and health centres. They also want a good environment, which starts with having access to clean

Chapter 11
water. These demands bring people into conflict with conservation advocates, who argue for
limiting road development in forest areas (Alamgir et al. 2017). Roads symbolize development and
are expected by local stakeholders, but they are criticized by some scientists for their impact on
biodiversity (Laurence et al. 2009; Gibson et al. 2011). These roads, sometimes initially laid out
for logging, agro-industry or mining, are then used for all sorts of activities and especially small-
scale subsistence farming, which takes over land along the roads. Today, road development has
an undeniable impact on ecosystems, by contributing to the direct causes of deforestation, for
example in the DRC (Kleinschroth et al. 2019). This does not have to be the case. By making road
development conditional on local governance models, such as contracts with local people who
desperately need the roads for their development, it should be possible to reconcile environmental
protection and inclusive development. These new governance models are still under construction
but could build on local planning processes such as those being developed in Cameroon (see Figure
11.1 PLADDT above).
In all the countries, the primary goal of LUP has been to ensure development and provide people
with basic services. In Central Africa, with the exception of Rwanda and Burundi, environmental
matters were introduced relatively late into LUP objectives. The evolution of these objectives has
varied according to the institutions in charge of them.
For example, in the DRC, after independence LUP was associated with public works, then with urban
planning: the aim was to develop the country’s many natural resources, to support the economy,
to serve remote areas and to manage the rapid and poorly controlled development of cities.
More recently, starting in 2015 with the support of environmental NGOs, the issue of ecosystem
conservation, in particular thanks to REDD+, has been included within LUP at the national and
subnational levels in the DRC.
Cameroon also continues to see tension between development and conservation. Implementation
of the LUP programme at the national level is in practice managed only by the administrative office
in charge of the LUP programme, but contradictorily also concerns at least six other ministries
(see Table 11.5) whose various missions include mining, water, energy, forests, environment, land
registry, LUP, and local development. These ministries sometimes have very different interests and
approaches, thereby raising governance issues that call into question the effective implementation
of LUP. Ministries tend to operate in silos, each defending its areas of competence with little
effective interministerial coordination. In Cameroon, MINEPAT is a powerful ministry, responsible
for economy, planning and LUP with the purpose of playing a coordinating role with the technical
ministries working on forests, mines and the environment, but in practice this coordination remains
difficult. These cross-sectoral governance challenges are not unique to Cameroon. The power games
produce conflicts and make the design phase of development plans endless, thus delaying effective
implementation of these plans all the more (e.g., DRC and Cameroon).
Conservation of forest ecosystems has often been carried out by coercion since colonial times, and
this trend continues to this day. Because there are natural parks and permanent forest areas, local
populations lose usage rights, which is a cause for disputes.
In addition to the old forms of zoning initiated since the colonial era, there are now new territorial
divisions stemming from decentralization or initiatives from international players. For example,
in Cameroon, delimitation of municipal forests is now linked to decentralization, and that of
community forests is linked to initiatives aimed at social and environmental objectives launched by
environmental NGOs.

Rwanda has developed an original model, whereby LUP is characterized not only by large-scale
infrastructure (e.g., roads and cities) as elsewhere, but also by the presence of protected areas.
The country has recovered from the 1994 genocide, and its model for managing protected areas
– supported by the international community and in a context of peace – has made it possible to
overcome certain tensions with the people living near those areas, who lack space, as in the
neighbouring country of Burundi. At the cost of compromises with local populations, Rwanda
has been able to transform conservation into a sustainable source of income and develop tourism
through a series of measures dealing with hotel and transport infrastructure and visa requirements.
As the tourist is very fearful by nature and because Rwanda has also become an exception in the
Congo Basin in terms of security, this model does not necessarily seem replicable, as many countries
in the region are still experiencing cycles of violence (e.g., the DRC, Cameroon and Burundi).
In Burundi, continuing to have natural parks and planted forests is contested by people who lack
land to cultivate food crops. New development models are encouraging the use of participatory
approaches, but increasingly carving up land for parks and forests, or just maintaining existing
ones, is causing real land-tenure tensions that add to the other tensions in the country.
International actors still have significant influence on LUP in Central Africa. Private actors,
international NGOs, and extractive and agribusiness industries influence decisions in order to create
development corridors and roads that impact ecosystems (Laurance et al. 2015). These interventions
sometimes create conflicts due to overlapping land-use rights, for example between mining permits
and nature reserves (Schwartz et al. 2012). To prevent these conflicts, it is necessary to develop new
models of governance at the local level, as mentioned above.
International agencies, development partners and environmental NGOs act on LUP through the
creation of nature reserves, biodiversity corridors and global policies such as REDD+ (and its
variations such as forest landscape restoration). Two programmes have been remarkable in Central
Africa. The CARPE programme has promoted a landscape-wide approach to LUP, with the goal of
reconciling conservation and improvement in people’s lives. This project, supported by the United
States Government and adopted by COMIFAC and the CBFP, lasted about 20 years. It covered six
countries: the DRC, the Republic of Congo, the Central African Republic, Cameroon, Gabon and
Equatorial Guinea. The EU ECOFAC programme started in 1993 and has been going on for nearly
30 years. This conservation programme takes into account the uses of Central African forest
ecosystems. ECOFAC also strives to promote regional coordination processes for conservation while
mainstreaming socioeconomic aspects. It is within this framework that it supported the creation of
protected areas decided on by the governments of Central Africa following the Rio Summit in 1992,
including transboundary areas. This was the idea that produced the Network of Protected Areas of
Central Africa (RAPAC).
LUP must increasingly take into account migration phenomena, which is occasionally cross-border
and which also have repercussions on the environment and the potential emergence of conflicts. For
transhumant herds, it is possible to provide for passages far from farmers’ fields and nature reserves.
As for people displaced by political and climate crises, in addition to emergency assistance there is
a need for support for the sustainable management of renewable resources in host areas. This will
help prevent the irreversible degradation of ecosystems in the host areas and also integrate the local
populations, who are sometimes almost as poor as displaced populations, into that management.
(see Box 12.1 of Chapter 12). Finally, sometimes the goal of LUP is to reconcile the not always easy
coexistence between local populations and wild animals. For example, sometimes LUP can provide
for the circulation of wildlife through biodiversity corridors compatible with farmers’ activities
(Doumenge et al. 2020).

Chapter 11
Conclusions: For better knowledge of LUP in

Central Africa
In most of the countries of Central Africa, LUP seems to be progressing too slowly as a set of
national public policies for peaceful development. One cause often pointed out by all development
stakeholders is governance. But another is the real difficulty of reconciling interests, especially
between economic development and the preservation of natural resources. Yet, the challenges ahead
are demographic and climatic. These will bring direct effects, such as population displacement and
fires, and indirect effects in the form of degradation of food resources, natural forests and biodiversity.
Much remains to be done to invent the forms for managing the links between the various territorial
entities: between cities and countryside, between agricultural and forestry areas, between the
interstices nestled between large park or forest areas, and between countries in the case of cross-
border park or forest areas. Some tools for reconciling interests are already in place. Experiences in
Rwanda and Cameroon show that through innovations in local governance it would be possible to
implement LUP that allows for both national and local development, while sustainably limiting the
degradation of renewable resources and ecosystems.
What are the best institutional arrangements to facilitate LUP implementation? We can see that LUP
is very different from one country to another. For example, in Cameroon LUP is integrated into the
Ministry of the Economy, while the DRC has a ministry solely dedicated to LUP. But which system is
more effective than the other: a powerful ministry or a specialized ministry?
This brief overview of the forms of LUP at work in the Congo Basin should be followed by real
comparative studies by country, in order to provide some answers to the issues and questions
mentioned above and in particular on their implementation. Despite the efforts already made as
part of some programmes (e.g., CARPE and ECOFAC), we still lack data on the characteristics and
effects of current LUP. This is why there is a pressing need to provide information and awareness-
raising on LUP, targeting politicians, the scientific community and the general public.

CHAPTER 12
Forest Landscape Restoration

(FLR) in Central Africa
Coordinator: Philippe Guizol
Authors: Philippe Guizol,1,2 Mamadou Diakhite,3 Julien Seka,4 Christophe
Bring,5 Liboum Mbonayem,2 Abdon Awono,2 Phil René Oyono,6 Damas
Mokpidie,7 Cléto Ndikumagenge,8 Denis Sonwa,2 Salvator Ndabirorere,9 Wolf
Ekkehard Waitkuwait,10 Marie Ange Ngobieng,1 Pamela Tabi,2 Lydie Essamba2
1
CIRAD, 2CIFOR-ICRAF, 3AFR100-NEPAD, 4ENEF - National Forestry School, Cameroon,
5
MINEPDED Cameroon, 6Associated Research in Politics, Rights and Resources Initiative (RRI),
7
COMIFAC, 8FAO-DRC, 9FAO-Burundi, 10GIZ- Sustainable Forest Management Programme in the
Congo Basin
Photo by Philippe Guizol

Chapter 12
Introduction
The aim of this chapter is to take stock of forest landscape
restoration in Central Africa. First, we clarify the concept of
landscape restoration. Second, we present some cases illustrative
of forest landscape restoration in Central Africa. Finally, we cover
the question of governance and then offer some conclusions.
12.1 Degradation and restoration of forest

ecosystems in Central Africa
Views on forest landscape restoration (FLR) often differ. Ecological rehabilitation, which seeks to
restore pre-existing ecosystems in terms of specific compositions and community structures, is
not always feasible. FLR works differently, to reconstitute certain ecosystem functions in order to
improve the well-being of the people who live or will live in those landscapes. In this way, FLR
also contributes to climate-change adaptation and mitigation and to biodiversity conservation.
These two forms of response to forest ecosystem degradation can be combined in local or regional
landscape planning.
12.1.1 Clarifying the FLR concept

FLR is a long-term process that seeks to limit continued degradation of existing forest ecosystems
and/or to repair them (i.e., forest rehabilitation), so as to sustainably improve the living environment
of local people1. Reducing forest degradation involves changing the rules of interaction between
natural and social dynamics (e.g., patterns of resource appropriation). FLR may, of course, include
forest rehabilitation actions, such as plantations, assisted natural regeneration, or water and soil
management (e.g., terraces, anti-erosion ditches, mulching, soil conditioning) on areas that are
individually owned or common property, but it cannot be reduced to and confused with these
actions. FLR is a long-term and changing process that involves adaptations to social, demographic
or institutional change, or to change in stakeholder perception or environmental conditions.
It requires shared vision at various levels, co-construction with stakeholders, and monitoring
systems. FLR should be part of local land use planning via a decision-making process, and this latter
must precede the setting out of its objectives and methods of action. This decision-making process
determines the framework for the long-term restoration of the ecosystems in question.
Landscape restoration is therefore not limited to planting projects, and – given societal demands – it
is very rarely a return to the original ecosystems.
1 https://www.decadeonrestoration.org/strategy

Forest Landscape Restoration (FLR) in Central Africa
12.1.2 From the Bonn Challenge to the Decade for

Ecosystem Restoration
Landscape and forest restoration has become one of the leading activities of climate-change
mitigation. The “Bonn Challenge” was initially a global effort to reforest degraded or deforested
land. Its original goal to restore 150 million ha between 2011 and 2020 has gradually evolved to
350 million ha by 2030, including 100 million ha in Africa. This initiative should generate a net
benefit of USD 170 billion per year stemming from FLR, as well as provide an ecological benefit by
helping to stock 1.7 gigatonnes of CO2 equivalent annually. Significant environmental services are
also expected.
FLR contributes to the Bonn Challenge and the New York Declaration on Forests, with the goals of
protecting biological diversity and ensuring food security and human subsistence conditions. The
African version of the initiative (AFR100) was officially launched during COP21 in Paris, in December
2015. AFR100 also acts as a contribution to the African Resilient Landscapes Initiative (ARLI), the
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and other programmes such as the Bonn Challenge. Several
African countries are involved in the AFR100 process. The target of 100 million ha has been largely
exceeded, with commitments having been made to restore 108 million ha by 2030. This landscape
restoration effort is being supported in particular by Germany, Norway, the International Union for
Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the World Resources Institute (WRI), in collaboration with the
Global Partnership on Forest and Landscape Restoration (GPFLR).
More recently, the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration, which seeks to scale up the restoration
of all ecosystems globally, started in 2021 and is expected to end in 2030. It has a clear objective
of reversing the degradation of ecosystems whatever their nature: forests, croplands, wetlands or
savannas. This initiative started with a proposal from El Salvador in March 2019. It has been adopted
by more than 70 countries and reinforces the Bonn Challenge. Its implementation will require (i)
setting clear and measurable objectives, involving as many people as possible; (ii) listening to the
stakeholders on the ground; and above all (iii) mobilizing investments commensurate with the
challenges. For example, restoring 350 million ha requires at least USD 1 trillion.2
Table 12.1: Commitments of some COMIFAC countries at AFR100 (note: not all COMIFAC
countries have committed to restoring their landscapes)
Commitments to Area of the country % of landscapes to be restored in

AFR100 in million ha in million ha relation to area of the country
Burundi 2.0 2.8 72%
Cameroon 12.0 47.5 25%
Rep. of Congo 2.0 34.2 6%
CAR 3.5 62.3 6%
DRC 8.0 234.5 3%
Rwanda 2.0 2.6 76%
Chad 1.4 128.4 1%
Totals 30.9 512.4 6%
Source: https://afr100.org/content/countries
2 https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/30919/UNDecade.pdf

Chapter 12
At its 9th Ordinary Session in November 2016 in Kigali, Rwanda, the COMIFAC Council of
Ministers gave its support to the AFR100 process. This should help COMIFAC countries to meet
their commitments to reverse the trend of forest and land degradation, by restoring 15 percent of
degraded forests by 2020 and 25 percent by 2025 in Central Africa (COMIFAC 2014).
12.1.3 Process to determine landscape

restoration objectives
At the national and subnational levels, there are methods to determine the general framework and
objectives of FLR (see the case of the CAR below). At the local level, a very different approach is
needed to ensure that local populations are fully involved in the decision-making process. Indeed,
it is important that they themselves determine how their living environment and habits will be
transformed with the purpose of restoring, over the long term, the landscapes that provide them
with the renewable resources and ecosystem services on which they depend. Linkage between the
top-down decision-making process of the national framework and the bottom-up process from the
local populations is critical and probably unique to each country, when it exists.
The FLR process involves a multistakeholder dimension at the local level and requires the
establishment of a consultation strategy which seeks to empower each category of stakeholders.
This, in turn, should motivate their involvement in the various stages. Women’s contribution
to knowledge is crucial and must be equal to that of men, as they are most often excluded from
decision-making processes.
12.1.4 Evolution and causes of degradation in

Central Africa
The processes of degradation are often a precursor to deforestation (Vancutsem et al. 2021). In
Central Africa, when forest tracks are opened, it enables the local population to clear the forest for
growing crops. The multiplication in the number of these fields increases along with population
growth, leading to complete deforestation, when logging alone would not have caused it. These
processes are not inevitable: they are due to an institutional and governance situation that is unable
to control the activities that generate forest degradation. In other words, it is not so much logging,
roads and tracks which cause deforestation as the lack of suitable institutions to control and limit
the various processes of degradation.
The Central Africa region had long seemed spared by forest degradation (Tchatchou et al. 2015),
especially compared to other large tropical forest basins in Brazil and Indonesia. But today
acceleration of degradation and deforestation in the regions is observed, by both the JRC3 (Vancutsem
et al. 2021) and by Global Forest Change.
Given the increasing degradation of forest ecosystems in Central Africa, it is essential that landscape
restoration incorporate measures to slow it down. In line with countries’ commitments, the challenge
is to find trade-offs that allow the people who live there to produce the goods they need (e.g., food,
wood and energy), all the while maintaining the forest ecosystems that ensure the sustainability of
agronomic systems and provide other ecosystem services (see Chapter 7).
3 JRC: the Joint Research Centre, an internal scientific service of the European Commission.

Table 12.2: Average annual losses in Central Africa of undisturbed tropical rainforests,
in million ha, due to degradation (followed or not by deforestation), 1990 to 2020, over
5-year intervals
1990-1994 1995-1999 2000-2004 2005-2009 2010-2014 2015-2019
0.28 0.83 0.4 0.91 0.92 1.24
Source: Vancutsem et al 2021
Slash-and-burn and subsistence agriculture are the leading cause of forest cover loss in the Central
African humid zone (GFW).4 Around cities, in areas of high population density, or along roads, slash-
and-burn practices used by elders are no longer a sustainable system of agriculture, but a major
cause of degradation and deforestation. In the past, these practices led to small clearings within
large forest areas. The fallow system at the time was long and thus viable, as it allowed return to
secondary forests. Today, that system is characterized by a process of degradation, with increasingly
short fallow periods and made worse by the excessive use of fires, this latter being the main tool of
a precarious peasant population with limited options. Uncertainties about land rights leave these
people with no choice but to assert these rights by means of axe and chainsaw.
The main causes of degradation in the driest areas are exploitation of firewood, excessive use of
pastoral fires and the roaming of livestock. Other causes that can have a significant local impact
include agro-industries, mining (which is often informal) and refugee camps. These can lead to
significant local degradation of ecosystems and even to definite deforestation.
There are also indirect causes. For example, land and forest management is linked to the institutional
framework specific to each territory and each country. These institutions are based on perceptions of
the state of forest resources and land. With the exception of countries such as Rwanda and Burundi,
there is a widely shared perception in Central Africa that there are abundant forest resources and
land (abundance theory). As a result, forestry policies have focused on developing, i.e., exploiting
natural resources rather than investing in their long-term management. These policies have thus
created conflicts either with local populations due to lack of participation or transparency, or
between government agencies due to lack of coordination. Finally, rural populations, within existing
institutional frameworks, also often have the same approach: exploiting to develop and appropriate
space, by destroying the existing ecosystem, according to the rights of clearance.
Other indirect causes of forest degradation stem from inconsistencies in international public
policies. Many efforts were made in the 1970s and 1980s to develop forest plantations. Such efforts
could have alleviated the pressure logging causes in natural forests today, but they were abandoned
in the 1990s because of structural adjustments. A whole body of technical knowledge was lost this
way, even though major forest rehabilitation programmes are being considered today.
4 https://www.globalforestwatch.org (see dashboard for Cameroon or the DRC, for example)

Chapter 12
12.2 FLR in several countries of

Central Africa
12.2.1 Cameroon: FLR a concept still in its start-
up phase
Desertification as well as land and landscape degradation are a long-standing concern in Cameroon.
In response, Cameroon undertook to deal with these issues and that of drought for the northern
part of the country, even prior to the implementation of the main guidelines of the 1992 Rio Summit,
which enshrined the major conventions (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
- UNFCCC, United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in those Countries Experiencing
Serious Drought and/or Desertification - UNCCD, Convention on Biological Diversity - CBD, etc.).
In 1975, for example, it set up a provincial committee for drought control in the north of the country.
This organization started the actions to combat desertification and drought via the initial phase of
Operation Green Sahel. This programme promoted mass reforestation to respond to the degradation
of the environment.
To comply with its commitments to the UNCCD, Cameroon produced the National Action Plan to
Combat Desertification (NAP/LCD) in 2006. This plan relaunched Operation Green Sahel, which
incorporates the new guidelines of the Convention. Later, to cope with land degradation on cotton-
growing areas in the old cotton basin of North Cameroon, a plot-based land restoration system
was set up to develop soil fertility preservation habits among cotton producers. An analysis of the
second progress report on the Bonn Challenge states that, from 2004 to 2017, reforestation actions
in Cameroon were carried out on an estimated 2 million ha of degraded lands.5
Within the framework of the Bonn Challenge and AFR100, Cameroon has undertaken to restore
12 million ha. As part of this approach, and following several consultations with the partners
involved in the process, out of 10 projects under development, two major projects co-signed by the
MINEPDED and the MINFOF were programmed for implementation in 2021. The first, the Large-
scale Forest Landscape Restoration in Africa project, aims at the large-scale restoration of forest
landscapes. In Cameroon, it is funded through the IKI initiative by the German Federal Ministry of
the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU). The second is a programme made
up of several projects, each with different forms of implementation depending on the stakeholders
involved (public and private stakeholders, Decentralized Territorial Community, NGOs).
Cameroon has also undertaken to implement the Great Green Wall, whose new approach advocated
by the African Union is to involve countries that did not directly participate in the launch of the
initiative. As early as 2015, Cameroon took action along with the UNCCD to promote the concept
of “land degradation neutrality (LDN),” which has been defined as “a state in which the amount and
quality of land resources necessary (i) to support ecosystem functions and services and (ii) to enhance food
security remains stable or increases within specified temporal and spatial scales and ecosystems.” Cameroon
has proposed its programme to determine national land degradation neutrality targets; it aims to
improve land productivity by at least 10 percent nationwide and by 90 percent in municipalities
located in priority areas for fighting land degradation.
5 https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/2019-018-En.pdf

The National Plantation Forests Development Programme (NPFDP), validated in 2019 by the forest
administration and development partners, could be the basis for the rehabilitation of degraded
landscapes and forests in Cameroon. The National Forestry Development Agency (ANAFOR)
is responsible for directly or indirectly supporting the implementation of the said programme.
To do so, it carries out studies, looks for financing, provides seeds and seedlings and develops
consulting expertise. Even though financial support is not yet available, this programme offers the
opportunity to reconcile restoration actions using a landscape approach, with the involvement of
local populations via decentralized local authorities. Under this programme, the main objective of
ANAFOR is to facilitate the planning, establishment and development of private and community
forest plantations, the development of value chains, and a sustainable forestry economy generating
jobs and growth.
Research objectives have been determined in order to capitalize on and improve the contribution
of research to the development of FLR actions. The programme has made it possible to identify
various fields of research including both the enhancement of local knowledge and the development
of procedures for tracking the socioeconomic impacts of FLR. However, research in Cameroon
continues to suffer from a lack of resources to meet all these challenges.
The current orientations for financing FLR are identified through two sources, the Cameroon Public
Investment Budget and external aid. The Public Investment Budget coming from the government
ministries is mainly allocated to the rural sector (MINEPDED, MINFOF, MINADER, MINEPIA, etc.).
Depending on their relevance, the actions are included in the operational programmes or made to
be part of a project.
External resources via bilateral or multilateral cooperation can focus on FLR actions, or they may
approach FLR from related issues (resilience of family farming, decentralization, management of
permanent or non-permanent forests, innovations in agriculture, green cocoa farming, biodiversity
protection, etc.). However, as indicated in the FLR Strategic Framework, there is a need to diversify
the sources of support for FLR funding.
In short, the rehabilitation of landscapes in Cameroon has given rise to quite a number of strategy
papers, and many past and current reforestation projects – which can by default be assimilated to
landscape restoration actions – have been implemented in various regions of the country. These
projects make up a body of experiences that could help facilitate implementation of FLR in the
country. Finally, the personnel involved in FLR in Cameroon have participated in conferences and
exchanges of experience, which represents still another asset for developing FLR there.
However, structural problems in Cameroon make for serious obstacles. While FLR requires actions
that cut across the fields of action of the various government ministries, these latter operate in silos,
with each one tending to act in isolation, according to its own policy. This generates approaches
locally that are contradictory and that lead to land conflicts. Other structural problems include the
weakness of national research on forest ecology, forestry, agronomy and forest plantations. This
weakness is linked in particular to the lack of stable financing, which is an obstacle to stimulating
the innovations needed for FLR on the ground. Despite all the efforts made in the past to involve
local populations in decision-making (Diaw et al. 2016), real implementation of this approach faces
difficulty on the ground. Yet, we do know that without involvement by local stakeholders, FLR will
not be sustainable. Means and tools are still lacking when it comes to monitoring and evaluating
restoration efforts whose goal is to improve knowledge and correct approaches.

Chapter 12
Box 12.1: Refugees and FLR

In areas hosting large numbers of people displaced as a result of sociopolitical conflicts,
rehabilitation of degraded spaces is a means of improving their living conditions as well as
those of local populations. At the same time, it helps maintain ecosystem functions. The
existence of refugees and internal displaced persons in Africa is not a new phenomenon,
but unfortunately it is growing. According to the UNHCR, there were 20.36 million refugees
worldwide, including 6.33 million in sub-Saharan Africa and 0.38 million in Cameroon. To
this should be added an even greater number of internally displaced persons: 41.43 million
worldwide, including 17.66 million in sub-Saharan Africa and 0.67 million in Cameroon
(UNHCR 2018; Laird et al. 2022). These persons often remain displaced a very long time, and
their status becomes permanent. Cohabitation between host populations and refugees can be
a source of conflict due to the high demand for land for subsistence needs.
This situation impacts the surrounding landscapes. For this reason, beyond the urgent need
to care for displaced people in the short term, planning should also adopt strategies to ensure
the sustainability of natural resources for their longer-term livelihood needs through FLR.
Faced with this major challenge, the Governing Multifunctional Landscapes in Sub-Saharan
Africa (GML) project led by CIFOR-ICRAF seeks to contribute to sustainable management of
wood fuel value chains in sub-Saharan Africa. In Cameroon, the focus has been on restoring
degraded landscapes in sites in several communes in the East Region that are host to refugees
from the CAR. Since more than 70 percent of these refugees live in local communities, outside
of the officially designated camps, more than 78,000 seedlings of wood energy and/or fruit tree
species were planted along the corridor between the municipalities of Mandjou and Garoua-
Boulaï between 2020 and 2021. This is of course only the beginning of the FLR process: financial
and technical support also need to be provided over the long term to ensure sustainability.
To this end, the strategy has been to involve the stakeholders active in these landscapes, at
all stages.
12.2.2 FLR strategy: the case of the Central

African Republic
AFR100 proposes the Restoration Opportunities Assessment Methodology (ROAM), a guide
developed by WRI and IUCN. ROAM helps to identify and organize national and regional priorities,
and it proposes models with calculations of the costs and benefits of mitigation of possible carbon
emissions according to the options selected by the study (Maginnis et al. 2014). Certain Central
African countries now use this guide as a flexible and affordable framework to quickly identify and
analyse the potential of FLR and to designate areas where there are opportunities at the national
and regional levels.
In the CAR, the Ministry of the Environment, Sustainable Development, Water, Forests, Hunting and
Fisheries (MEDDEFCP), in collaboration with WRI, conducted a study between 2016 and 2018 using this
ROAM methodology, which led to the development of a strategy paper to guide the country’s FLR policy.
The paper assessed FLR opportunities for the various regions of the CAR (CAR, WRI and KfW 2017).
The initial results of the geospatial analysis of this study highlighted a great opportunity for
rehabilitation, called “secondary forest restoration,” on the basis of population density.

Figure 12.1: Location of secondary forest areas in the CAR on the basis of human
population density.
Source: CAR, WRI and KfW 2017.
The map (Figure 12.1) shows the potential for FLR by reforestation around densely populated urban
areas. The aim is to restore secondary forests through reforestation activities or through conservation
of deforested or degraded areas around urban areas in the CAR.
Four key variables were taken into account to identify these potential areas: populations, cities,
forest areas and slopes. These variables cover the CAR’s 16 prefectures and have the same weight (25
percent) in the analyses for identifying these areas. The results of these analyses estimate that the
surface areas with medium and high restoration potential are about 5 and 48 million ha respectively.
This map was produced with the purpose of directing the CAR’s FLR policy towards deforested or
degraded areas around urban areas via various conservation concession projects, botanical gardens
and green spaces.
12.2.3 DRC: International commitments (REDD+ and

CBD) and FLR
The DRC is often portrayed as a country of megabiodiversity, but the speeding up of landscape
degradation there calls for more restoration efforts. The country is also committed to landscape
restoration and is developing a provincial FLR strategy, which will be followed by a national strategy.
Both strategies were due to be validated in June 2021.
These efforts have led to participation in international initiatives. In 2016, the DRC embarked on
the process of restoring 8 million ha of degraded and deforested land as part of the Bonn Challenge.

Chapter 12
It ratified the CBD in December 1994, the UNFCCC in January 1995, and the UNCCD in September
1997. The implementation of these initiatives has helped the country to acquire a legal arsenal on
forest and biodiversity conservation. There is a very strong link between FLR and the Nationally
Determined Climate Contributions (NDCs) and these other global Reducing Emissions from
Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD+) and CBD processes to which the DRC is committed.
For FLR, the national and provincial strategies under preparation emphasize the restoration of
deforested and degraded ecosystems and landscapes. This restoration must be combined with
other objectives, such as improvement of economic activities, food security, and people’s ability
to adapt to climate change and climate-mitigation projects. FLR must therefore be included into
various types of development projects in order to benefit from various funding opportunities.
The provincial and national strategies are also aligned with the CAFI (Central African Forest
Initiative) objectives. The objectives of the letter of intent between the government and CAFI for
the 2016-2020 period were to reduce the loss of forest cover from 300,000 ha/year to 200,000 ha/
year by 2020. To achieve this, several programmes were developed that would focus on the key
reforms needed in land-use planning, land policy to better secure land rights in the rural sector, and
investments that enhance existing actions at provincial and territorial levels in REDD+ regions.
FLR in the DRC benefits from the country’s commitment in 2009 to the REDD+ process. The
DRC aims to reduce national emissions from deforestation by 56 percent by 2035, in a context of
sustained economic development and poverty reduction. The DRC’s REDD+ strategy has identified
the direct causes of deforestation and forest degradation: slash-and-burn agriculture, artisanal
wood harvesting, carbonization, wood fuel, mining and bush fires. The main underlying causes
include population growth, institutional aspects such as political decisions, poor governance and
civil wars, infrastructure development and urbanization. In 2012, the country adopted its National
REDD+ Framework Strategy, which is part of a long-term global vision for development.
This REDD+ strategy includes actions that contribute to the country’s FLR. In particular, these
actions include (i) the finalization and deployment of a concerted policy for the local management
of natural and forest resources supported by payment mechanisms for environmental services; (ii)
the rehabilitation of protected areas covering about 13 percent of national territory; (iii) extension of
their surface areas to 17 percent; and (iv) the planting of 3 million ha of forests by 2025 (DRC 2012).
In 2015, the Government of the DRC adopted a REDD+ Investment Plan to mobilize the funding
needed for the implementation of the National REDD+ Framework Strategy. It also established the
FONAREDD+ National Fund, which received USD 200 million in financing from CAFI and other
initiatives. Thanks to this financial support, at least seven REDD+ integrated programmes have
been launched in the provinces (Équateur, Maï-Ndombe, Kwilou, Mongala, Maniema, and others).
These many international conventions ratified by the DRC, plus the REDD+ strategy, act as a great
advantage for FLR. Policy documents are developed to help achieve the objectives set out in these
conventions, in particular forest and biodiversity conservation and climate-change mitigation and
adaptation. Most of them offer opportunities for financing FLR.
The DRC has developed a series of legal instruments which, if properly implemented, act as an
asset for promoting FLR initiatives. These include the Law setting the general property regime and
the land ownership regimes (1980); the Forestry Code (2002); the Mining Code (2002); the Law
on the Environment; the Decree setting the conditions of access by local communities to forest
concessions (2014); Ministerial Decree No. 026/CAB/Min/ECN-T/15/JEB/2008 setting the conditions

of suspension, monitoring and evaluation of forest capital restoration interventions; as well as the
Law on the Conservation of Nature (2014).
However, the DRC continues to suffer from structural weaknesses in FLR implementation. Its
institutional and technical capacities are insufficient to implement an integrated and effective
approach to restoration at the provincial and local levels that would make it possible to fight
land degradation and achieve sustainable management. There is no mechanism for intersectoral
coordination at the provincial, local or chieftaincy levels, including on the environment, agriculture,
forestry, land affairs and mining.
While political commitment to FLR does exist at the highest level in the DRC, it is not currently on
the provincial agenda. Despite the constitutional prerogatives and the decentralization laws that
bestow power to legislate to the Provincial Assembly and to the provincial government, these latter
do not make the decrees and decisions needed for natural resources.
The importance of looking for support for FLR

There has been little research in the South Kivu region in recent decades. But there are plans to
develop research at the institutional level in South Kivu Province as part of the development of
provincial and national FLR strategies, particularly on the following: (i) highlighting the value
of indigenous species for restoration; (ii) scale-up of anti-erosion, agroforestry, and sustainable
agriculture activities; (iii) more resilient and sustainable agricultural practices; (iv) the production
and sustainable exploitation of wood fuel and timber; (v) the impact of artisanal and industrial
mining; and (vi) sustainable pasture management.
Box 12.2: FLR and land conflicts in the

DRC, the case of South Kivu Province
Land concessionaires and sharecroppers are often in
land conflict. However, the majority of concessions
in South Kivu Province are not developed, thereby
facilitating concession-grabbing by customary chiefs.
There are a number of bodies that can take action

on land management and on procedures for proving
land rights. Draft edicts on land-tenure security,
worked out by development partners and civil society
organizations, have never been promulgated.
The environment in South Kivu is threatened

by exacerbated deforestation due to logging of
construction timber, firewood and charcoal. Slash-
and-burn agriculture and bush fires lead to the
destruction of ecosystems and landscapes there.
The resurgence of jurisdictional disputes between Photo by CIFOR-ICRAF

customary powers and the land administration is
exacerbating land conflicts between municipalities. There are many such conflicts on limits,
inheritances, forms of ownership, and double sales, leading to endless legal proceedings.

Chapter 12
In South Kivu Province, the ROAM approach (see above) has made it possible to identify restoration
priorities. Combined with the research results, these data provide useful information for FLR. Basic
information, including maps on degradation in this province, already exists.
Within the framework of the national REDD+ strategy, plans are under consideration for relaunching
research applied to deforestation and degradation linked to agriculture and other factors outside
the forest sector. This is why research should be a real lever for land use and development planning,
by encouraging decision makers to anticipate the impacts of their choices beyond the sector
they are responsible for. This research should take into account social and environmental impact
assessments of development projects. To this end, it is essential to develop partnerships between
Congolese universities and international research centres, such as the programme for Reviving
Agricultural and Forestry Research (REAFOR, 2006-2011) financed by the European Commission
and implemented by FAO.
In its 2016 updated policy paper and national biodiversity action plan, the DRC incorporated a
research strategy focused in particular on the green economy and on understanding the links
between poverty, environmental degradation and climate change.
The main sources of financing FLR in the DRC

The main source of financing for REDD+ was the National REDD+ Fund (FONAREDD), with USD
200 million between 2016 and 2020. A new letter of intent between CAFI and the Government is
currently under negotiation.
The Land Degradation Neutrality Target Setting Programme (LDN TSP) aims to (i) achieve 100
percent restoration of degraded land by 2030; (ii) ensure that people use all land sustainably; (iii)
contribute, in doing so, to improving the livelihoods of those people; and (iv) increase forest cover
by 8 million ha through the restoration of degraded forest landscapes.
There is much international support for FLR in the DRC. The National Adaptation Programme
of Action for Climate Change (PANARDC) is financed by the Global Mechanism to Combat
Desertification. The GEF supports the South Kivu Mountain Landscape Restoration Project and the
Miombo Forest Community Management Project in Southeastern Katanga (GCP/RDC/046/FEM),
and GIZ provides financial support for landscape restoration programmes in South Kivu Province.
12.2.4 FLR in densely populated countries: the case

of Burundi
As early as the 1940s, the Belgian colonial administration adopted binding measures to slow down
the degradation of natural forests and to develop forest heritage through State-owned, municipal
and private afforestation at a rate of 1 ha per 300 households.
Following independence, Burundi decided to provide itself with a forestry policy and regulations.
The country drew up its first policy paper, “Development of Burundi’s Forest Sector,” in 1969.
Through it, the Government of Burundi set the national exploitation quota for natural forests at 650
ha per year and reforestation at 100,000 ha for 30 years (Département des Forêts 2012).
In 1973, the Department of Water and Forests, in collaboration with the Institute of Agricultural
Sciences of Burundi (ISABU), organized the first forest symposium to work out priority orientations

and actions for the development of the forest sector. Differently from the 1969 policy paper, the
conclusions of this symposium deplored the damage caused by the exploitation of natural forests.
Instead, they encouraged the protection of these formations and insisted – already at that time – on
land use planning and the need for forest legislation.
In addition, in order to meet the ever-growing population’s needs for timber for various purposes
while at the same time preserving the environment, the Burundian Government initiated a huge
reforestation programme in 1978. The quantitative target was to have 20 percent of national territory
reforested by the year 2000 (Besse et al. 1991).
As a result of these efforts, the national forest cover rate rose from 3 percent in 1978 to 8 percent in
1992. Approximately 75,000 ha were planted during this period. However, the war that was waged
in the country from 1993 to 2003 led to the degradation of forest resources; more than 30 percent of
man-made formations and 14 percent of natural formations were reportedly destroyed during this
period (Ndikumagenge 1997; UNDP 1996). In this way, the rate of forest cover was estimated at 5
percent in 2005.
In 2015, Burundi, with the support of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN),
organized a workshop that identified the main strengths and weaknesses of the forest sector. This
country has a great wealth of natural ecosystems and of plant and animal biological diversity. These
ecosystems offer varied ecosystem services that contribute to the socioeconomic and ecological
development of the country. They also help reduce global warming. However, these forest ecosystems
– despite the advantages they generate – are under anthropogenic pressure from expansion of
agricultural land, heavy reliance on wood as an energy source, bush fires and urbanization.
More broadly, as part of its FLR policy, Burundi ratified the three Rio conventions in the 1990s: the
UNCCD, the UNFCCC and the CBD. The strategies and action plan developed by the country as part
of the implementation of these three conventions converge on the development of the forest sector
to fight land degradation, preserve biological diversity and its habitat, and promote climate-change
mitigation and adaptation.
In addition, a national forest policy, in line with other national, international, regional and
subregional policies, was developed in 2012. The aim of this policy is to develop and manage forest
resources rationally, by increasing the proportion of forest cover to 20 percent by 2025.
A National Convergence Plan, in accordance with the COMIFAC Convergence Plan, has also
been developed and implemented. It provides for regular assessment of progress made within
the framework of FLR. Meanwhile, as part of the Bonn Challenge, Burundi undertook to restore
landscapes covering 2 million ha in 2020.
In the past, Burundi has conducted research on erosion and restoration opportunities; these should
be updated. Indeed, quantitative studies on water erosion of cultivated soils have proven that rainfall
characteristics (the volume of precipitation and its intensity) are the predominant factors. Added to this is
the frequency and duration of precipitation. Studies on runoff and soil losses have shown that the increase
of these losses is commensurate with the intensity of climatic events, and they have revealed a certain
uniformity of behaviour according to the soil. As Burundi is a highly agricultural country, the influence of
cultivation practices and anti-erosion systems has also been pointed out.
The quantitative experimental study of water erosion in Burundi helped to better identify the
respective shares of the various factors of erosion and those likely to reduce it significantly. For

Chapter 12
example, on bare ground, soil losses due to sheet erosion and rill erosion are very high. Many
traditional crops grown in the direction of the slope cause significant soil losses, making them
unsuitable for maintaining soil productivity and fertility. Vegetation cover of any kind is the main
factor that considerably reduces water erosion of soils. Furthermore, improvement in anti-erosive
cultivation practices (e.g., level line mounds, contour strip cropping, crop associations of different
plant cycles, and live fencing on contour strips) reduce erosion and runoff by a factor of 2 to 50.
Mulching completely reduces soil losses regardless of the slope. The only problem remains its
availability in densely populated rural areas. Closed ditches on level lines, low walls and benches have
limited effectiveness and require much work. Burundian peasants should therefore be discouraged
from using them. Meanwhile, agroforestry is turning out to be useful both for biomass production
and for ensuring a sustainable balance between fertility conservation and agricultural production.
Like other Parties to the UNFCCC, Burundi has committed to reducing its GHG emissions, by 3
percent from 2016 to 2030 unconditionally (by increasing its forest cover by 60,000 ha at a rate of
4,000 ha/year) or by 20 percent under condition of international aid, through (i) the reforestation of
120,000 ha at a rate of 8,000 ha/year from 2016 to 2030 and (ii) replacement, by the 2030 deadline,
of 100 percent of all traditional charcoal ovens, with a view to limiting losses resulting from the
production of charcoal and all traditional household cooking stoves. If the targets set by the country
are met, 180,000 ha will have been gained by 2030, and the rate of forest cover will be 14.88 percent
not including natural forests (Republic of Burundi 2019).
As Burundi is heavily involved in the various initiatives, national and regional policies are benefiting
from regional subprojects on landscape restoration. These are the international commitments
showing the interactions and synergies between the various conventions and initiatives (CBD,
REDD, CCC, NAP/LCD, SDGs, Montreal Convention, Aichi Targets) and national policies (FLEGT,
NEPAD, NRP, REDD+, PRSP, NBSAP, COMIFAC CP).
12.3 What kind of governance can remove

barriers to FLR in Central Africa?
12.3.1 Commitments and barriers for FLR in
Central Africa
As noted above, mobilization for the restoration of degraded land is gaining ground in Central Africa,
and national initiatives are growing in number through the African Forest Landscape Restoration
Initiative (AFR1006) sponsored by the African Union. Some Central African countries (see table
12.1) have made national commitments to promote integrated landscape and forest management,
all through a large-scale reforestation programme (CAR, Cameroon, Burundi), but also through
substantive work on soil and water resources management (Cameroon, Burundi) or by building
on previous initiatives, such as REDD+ (DRC). These efforts are linked to other international
commitments in the field of sustainable development, such as the SDGs, those related to forest
exploitation, and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
Landscape restoration is supported by many international donors, such as the AfDB, the EU, BMZ,
BMU, the GEF and AFD, through various initiatives (e.g., CAFI, AFR100). Countries also contribute
6 https://afr100.org/fr

directly to this effort through their budgets, via national initiatives such as “Ewe Burundi Urambaye”
and the national budget in Cameroon.
At the national level, many efforts have already been made to establish the framework of the
restoration process at the scale of a large region or a country (CAR, Cameroon, Burundi, DRC).
Proposals also exist to define FLR at the local level of land use planning (DRC). We can thus see a
twofold movement taking shape in Central Africa: a framework for restoration at the country level
in connection with land use planning in a top-down movement and, on the contrary, processes
that are more bottom-up, for setting the FLR objectives at the local level (as in Cameroon). The
ROAM approach proposed by WRI and IUCN helps the countries that wish to do so to achieve this
national framework.
But these countries still face great difficulties in implementing their very ambitious FLR objectives.
The list of barriers to this implementation is long. They are more generally linked to sustainable
management of natural resources and include problems of limited capacity at various levels,
particularly at the local level and lack of possibilities for individuals to change their behaviour.
But the causes are above all institutional and related to non-compliance with rules and the law, the
sectoral approach to rural development, conflicts of interest or land, as well as security (as in the
CAR, Cameroon, Burundi and the DRC). This last cause – security – is a prerequisite for FLR, because
it is difficult to think about the long term when one does not know what will happen from one day
to the next. Governance has also been identified as one of the main barriers to renewable resource
management and FLR.
Box 12.3: Food security and rehabilitation of Mumirwa watersheds in

a rural, urban and peri-urban context: the case of the IFAD Project
The International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) is making great efforts to restore
forest landscapes. IFAD’s main objective is to promote food security and the fight against
poverty in rural areas. Since 1980, IFAD has run 13 projects and programmes, of which 8
are completed and 5 still ongoing. The average annual disbursements of IFAD’s portfolio in
Burundi range from USD 14 million to USD 16 million per year.
As IFAD sees it, environmental restoration is one of the key elements in achieving good food
production that can ensure food security. This is reflected in programmes including protection of
watershed soils (to preserve their fertility and to safeguard hydroagricultural infrastructure
in marshes), restoration of plant cover (to preserve the water table that feeds marshes and
drinking-water sources), and land cover of soil by cultivated fodder (to feed livestock).
The IFAD Transitional Programme of Post-Conflict Reconstruction contribution to FLR

targets local governance issues including community development (legal and gender
support, income-generating activities) and food security (seeds, fertilizers, rice, marshland
development, cattle and pig farming, environmental restoration, infrastructure and health
promotion).
The programme distributed 12 million agroforestry seedlings (Eucalyptus, Cedrela, Grevillea),

1.7 million cultivated fodder seedlings (Calliandra, Leucaena, Bana grass, Tripsacum) and 0.3
million fruit seedlings (avocado, guava and mandarin trees). More than 100,000 families have
received these seedlings, and the area of protected watersheds exceeds 7,000 ha (IUCN 2015).

Chapter 12
12.3.2 Governance to reconcile different interests

Governance is a set of elements that lie at the intersection of institutions, networks, directives,
regulations, norms, policies, social practices, public and private stakeholders, and local and
indigenous communities (Borrini-Feyerabend et al. 2014). All these stakeholders involved may
initially have divergent interests.
Governance is central to FLR insofar as it allows for “good practices” that are crucial for local,
national and regional initiatives to generate convincing results. Examples are inclusive decision-
making and public participation, which enable the stakeholders concerned to take part in decision-
making alongside the State (McLain et al. 2019). While there are many definitions of “governance,”
it could be summed up as follows in this context:
The purpose of the governance of forest landscape rehabilitation is to reconcile, within the framework of the
law and the rules in use, the interests of the various stakeholders who will influence the economic development
and environmental quality of the territories considered, in particular by including the local populations into
the decision-making process.
This good governance includes the implementation, monitoring and evaluation of restoration
methods, and it requires converting FLR into policies, programmes, and projects (van Oosten et al.
2018) and producing rules and standards that structure and coordinate it.
To generate relevant ecological, social, and economic results at various scales, FLR must be based
on the determinants of its governance (Mansourian 2016; Bigombe Logo et al. 2021). These
determinants include (i) relevant and adequate policies; (ii) effective regulation and coordination of
implementation actions; (iii) inclusive decision-making; (iv) respect for the rights of women, local
communities and indigenous peoples; (v) devolution of responsibilities; (vi) equitable access and
sharing of benefits; and (vii) sufficient funding. Overall, evaluations conducted in the subregion
in the past decade have called for improved governance (Yanggen et al. 2010; Hagen et al. 2011;
Oyono 2015).
In terms of the governance of renewable resources, we are not starting from scratch, as concepts have
evolved for at least three decades (Buttoud et al. 2016). The idea of co-management was intended
to involve users – often local stakeholders – directly in the management of renewable resources,
in consultation with the various levels of the State and its agencies. Co-management is a sharing
of decision-making and responsibilities between the State and users. It is a strong idea that has
rarely been applied in the region. Adaptive co-management enriches the idea of co-management by
recognizing that the stakeholders act in complex socio-ecosystems. Also, the relationships between
them must be dynamic and be able to adapt to any kind of event, such as climate change or the
outbreak of a virus. Finally, the concept of multistakeholder governance (i.e., adaptive multilevel
governance) further increases complexity, by integrating stakeholders at multiple levels.
FLR supposes several aspects at work: (i) bodies that work on climate change; (ii) the SDGs at
international and national levels; (iii) the development goals of central or decentralized governments;
(iv) stakeholders throughout value chains; (v) and local stakeholders. FLR falls indeed within the
scope of multistakeholder governance.

Inclusive decision-making and its challenges

One of the challenges facing governance and landscape restoration remains the involvement of local
and indigenous communities in decision-making processes. The forest landscapes to be governed
and restored are located on lands whose rights have been contested between central governments
and local and indigenous communities since the colonial period (Oyono 2014). In order not to
exacerbate conflicts between States and their partners on the one hand and local and indigenous
communities on the other, governance and FLR must be organized using inclusive decision-making
processes. Participation and involvement of local and indigenous communities are widely paid lip
service in speeches and documents, but rarely observed in practice. To keep up appearances, forms of
involvement and participation are very often presented by decision makers and professionals as an
end in themselves. However, such approaches create more problems at the local level than they solve.
Inclusive decision-making requires a consultation process in which views are shared, objectives
reconciled and options for action discussed before any consensus is reached. In the reality of Central
Africa, this type of process has rarely been put into practice, as it must be distinguished from mere
information or consultation. In a public information meeting, information is one-way, but local
administrative authorities and land investors of course mistakenly confuse such meetings with
stakeholder participation. In a consultation, on the other hand, local and indigenous communities
are asked to express their views freely: these latter may be taken into account or (more commonly)
not. Decision makers, investors, administrative authorities and professionals often make decisions
improperly, prior to meeting with local and indigenous communities. This is typically the case
for projects that are discussed above all between development agencies and donors. Ultimately,
consultation consists in a confrontation of points of view before decisions are taken. The resulting
synthesis effort is likely to “give a voice” to local and indigenous communities. If their voices were
to be heard in an FLR programme, concerted management of forest landscapes would be possible.
There is strong demand for recognition of customary land and forest rights throughout the subregion
(Oyono 2014). In many parts of Central Africa, peasant farmers’ most effective way of asserting their
right to land is to “break the forest.” This situation is a source of conflicts on land and a hindrance
to FLR activities. Inclusive decision-making is a means of reducing this risk. It also empowers
local and indigenous communities on their lands and makes them less vulnerable in legal matters
(Oyono 2014). This is the meaning of “free, prior and informed consent” (FPIC) developed as part
of the REDD+ process (Borreill and Lewis 2009). This mechanism is based on the fact, for example,
that in a landscape restoration programme, local and indigenous communities, after receiving
extensive information, may be free to say “yes” or “no” – without pressure or retaliation – to the
request for their adherence to the process (FAO 2017). However, this crucial mechanism is slow to
be institutionalized and put into practice.
12.3.3 The difficulty of coordinating stakeholders for

the preservation of biodiversity
The management of a country’s natural heritage cannot be limited to protected areas such as
national parks and wildlife reserves, as most of the natural areas designated for biodiversity
preservation, with the exception of the largest and most spectacular national parks, are not large
enough to ensure the long-term conservation of all species and biological processes. Most species of
mammals and birds have strong needs for home ranges and distribution areas. For their survival, it
is thus essential to create and develop forest networks with zoning that includes both conservation

Chapter 12
and production areas within the extensive forest landscapes. This way, all ecological and genetic
variations can be covered without neglecting marginal areas.
Sectoral management – in which everyone exploits a common good without coordination and
consultation – can only lead to competition or even conflicts between users (e.g., sector against
sector, upstream against downstream, protected areas against production areas, etc.) and ultimately
to an unsustainable use of limited and vulnerable resources.
On the other hand, an integrated approach to forest landscapes that includes forest, ecological
and socioeconomic components is seen as a prerequisite for the sustainable and multifunctional
management of tropical forests at the landscape level. Indeed, the integrated approach provides the
opportunity to control the impact of human activities on the connectivity between natural habitats
and ecological processes throughout the landscape and thus prevent protected areas strictly
speaking from becoming isolated pockets of biodiversity. The end goal is to avoid the depletion of
each renewable resource and then to ensure that all management measures are integrated into the
regional plan for the territory’s sustainable development.
This supra-sectoral integrated management approach seeks to ensure the sustainability of natural
environments by integrating them into a broader logic of land use planning and sustainable development
on a landscape scale. One of its major challenges is ongoing collaboration between the various forest and
hunting concessionaires, the managers of protected areas and the local populations.
However, the transformation from sectoral management of landscape mosaic components to

integrated management of forest landscapes is a long process requiring a rigorous approach, a
change in mindsets and a constant effort to improve strategic and operational decision-making
processes. This difficulty can be seen at several levels.
At the level of institutional decision makers and government administration, there are conflicts of
competences between administrations; for example, in Cameroon, the ministries of the Environment
(MINEPDED), of Agriculture (MINADER), of Forests and Fauna (MINFOF), of Water and Energy (MINEE)
and of Mines (MINMIDT) all work on the same aspects of the environment: soil, water and ecosystems.
The actions of some constitute obstacles to the actions of others because of the lack of concerted vision.
This results in contradictory authorizations being issued. Some agricultural projects, for example, do not
take into account environmental requirements, let alone current forestry regulations.
Stakeholders on the ground, such as some loggers or mine operators, are taking advantage of the
legal loopholes created by sectoral conflicts, which are furthering a constant and disorderly rush
towards these resources. The difficulties in coordinating stakeholders for the preservation of
biodiversity can only be overcome by the good governance described above. This implies that all
stakeholders respect the rules that take into account the supporting capacity of habitats and the
rate of natural regeneration of biological resources. Only with a critical look at the past, a clear vision
of the future, and a well-defined way forward can FLR become operational and contribute to the
preservation of ecosystems. There is a need for a new vision as well as for a new approach to forest
landscapes linked with land use and sustainable development planning.
It is in the interest of civil society to engage in this participatory process bringing together all
the representatives of the main users and managers with their partners, so as to ensure full and
unreserved ownership and participation by all stakeholders. Civil society should play the role of a
coordinator that further integrates local interrelationships in order to create synergies between all
types of programmes that are taking place within the forest landscape in question.

Two main challenges for stakeholder coordination emerge: (a) The implementation of measures to
compensate for damage to ecosystems and biodiversity. Such compensation could be demanded
for pollution of water, land and air, for example, resulting from the use of pesticides, herbicides,
fertilizers and other chemicals. (b) A more equitable distribution of profits, i.e., a greater share of
the taxes and revenues generated on-site, should be reinvested directly into the conservation and
sustainable development of production areas. This can free up financial resources that can mitigate
the effects of agricultural fronts that are developing to the detriment of wooded areas.
12.3.4 The need to monitor results

The restoration of a forest landscape is a complex operation and requires constant monitoring of the
ecological and socioeconomic effects. This must be done based on the initial objectives, which, depending
on the circumstances, reconcile these two aspects by giving a greater or lesser weight to one or the other.
In the monitoring and evaluation of ecological effects, the actions carried out must be recorded,
whether they are successes or failures. We could consider that the main criterion for an ecological
assessment is how well the process of rehabilitating a degraded landscape progresses so that it
reaches a stage with structures and properties similar to those of a local spontaneous forest. In
this case, the indicators may be the degree to which animal populations originally home there are
restocked in the rehabilitated forest. These “bio-indicator” animals serve as a “barometer” for the
“health” of the forest.
At the scale of a managed landscape or a managed forest range, the restoration of ecosystem
integrity and the quality of forest biotopes cannot be assessed by just the number of species or by
an index of biodiversity; rather, they should be assessed by the long-term viability of forest fauna.
Indications of changes in the abundance and distribution of forest animals are what are most useful
for wildlife habitat restoration and natural habitat management. The purpose of monitoring the
restoration results is to reveal the changes over space and time. The expanse of the distribution area,
its continuous or discontinuous form, and whether or not its functional dynamics are undergoing
progression or regression are relevant criteria for assessing the viability of a population and the
integrity of its home range.
For example, during the restoration of a degraded forest, the planner expects a change in the
composition and structure of the forest ecosystem: on the one hand an increase in the areas of
“mature forest” with an almost closed canopy, and on the other a change in the structure of the
undergrowth and the reduction of open land to small clearings.
A concept based on the management and monitoring of forest fauna will enable a rapid and periodic
analysis of the dynamics of animal populations that act as indicators. The identification of evolving trends
will make it possible to assess the impact of the developments undertaken and, even better, establish
a prognosis on the probable development of the future restoration. Using such a scenario, rehabilitation
measures can be continually adapted to the new knowledge acquired, in order to pilot FLR.
The minimum size of specific habitats and their connectivity are essential factors for the survival
of forest vertebrate species and for the maintenance of associated plant associations. These factors
are useful for monitoring the relevance of the zoning established within a forest range undergoing
restoration. For this reason, the effectiveness of the mosaic of managed areas in restoring biodiversity
can be assessed only on the basis of a few selected individual species, the so-called target species.

Chapter 12
Monitoring should be accompanied by further research, the subjects and themes of which should
be oriented according to the request of the managers and users of the areas benefiting from
ecological restoration. Research should be seen as an ancillary aspect of monitoring and evaluation
systems, through which certain trending phenomena will be analysed more in-depth than in
standardized monitoring.
The monitoring and evaluation of economic and societal effects are equally important to ensure
the sustainability of the FLR process. These indicators may relate to the contribution of the local
populations over time to the FLR processes and, conversely, to the improvement by the FLR of those
people’s living environment and incomes. The support of indigenous peoples and local communities
is a crucial factor for the success of restoration actions. However, it is conditional on a change in
behaviour based on an effective awareness of the challenges of restoring natural environments
and the benefits they can derive from enhancing the value of biodiversity. This adhesion can be
achieved only through a sustained programme focused on dialogue, information, education and
communication (IEC) in the various restoration zones. The main challenge of the IEC programme
is to mobilize all stakeholders, including users and managers as well as the authorities, to take
up environmental opportunities and problems, with a long-term vision, for the restoration and
sustainability of forest landscapes.
Conclusions
FLR is rightly seen as a priority for the countries of Central Africa (Besseau et al. 2018; Begeladze
2020). Given the critical mass of threats to the health of forest ecosystems in the subregion,
national responses appear robust (Begeladze 2020; Tunk et al. 2016). FLR in Central Africa, while
not a completely new idea, is triggering new types of processes that build on recent climate-change
mitigation efforts such as REDD+. We are at the very beginning of these processes.
In many countries, these processes are still in an initial phase, at which evaluation is not yet possible.
Many country commitments and strategies have been initiated within the framework of FLR,
significant funding is being put in place, and some smaller projects are already underway. There is
an urgent need to establish multicriteria monitoring and evaluation systems in order to steer this
rehabilitation process.
In Central Africa, implementation of the FLR process reveals a lack of accompanying research in the
areas of (i) genetic resource conservation; (ii) species selection; (iii) germplasm improvement; (iv)
planting techniques; (v) assisted natural regeneration; (vi) research on governance, including land-
tenure issues and inclusive decision-making processes; (vii) socioeconomic research, including value
chains; and (viii) innovation and evaluation processes, particularly the assessment of ecological and
socioeconomic impacts. Some of this research requires long-term arrangements that are difficult to
maintain in Central Africa and are very rarely funded.
Forest landscape rehabilitation relies heavily on local populations, as in many cases it involves
changes in agricultural and forest resource-management practices. FLR involves investing in
developmental aspects that are too costly to be borne by these local populations alone. Meanwhile,
governments in the region have great difficulty in providing basic services to their people,
such as infrastructure and health care, education, access to electricity and drinking water, and
accessible roads.

The financing of FLR therefore relies mainly on donors and the private sector. However, most donors
carry out development projects over four to five years, with performance indicators associated with
these durations. As rehabilitation is a long-term process, donors must also adapt their practices.
Often, they want the local population to be involved, but they are not prepared to allow for the time
needed on the ground to consult them beforehand. The financing of FLR may also be based on the
principle of compensation or on corporate social responsibility.
Land restoration has long been seen as a way to revitalize ecosystems and build resilience to climate
change, but it can also have great economic and entrepreneurial potential. The monitoring of FLR
programmes currently being implemented in Central Africa should include indicators that can
inform us about these different dimensions of FLR.

CHAPTER 13
The rights of local and
indigenous peoples in
the light of forest and
conservation policies
Authors : Raphael Tsanga,1 Samuel Assembe-Mvondo,2 Guillaume Lescuyer,3
Cédric Vermeulen,4 David Andrew Wardell,1 Marie-Ange Kalenga,5 Laurence
Boutinot,3 Phil René Oyono,6 Gretchen Walters,7 Olivier Hymas,7 Fernande Abanda
Ngono,8 Jean-Claude Nguinguiri,9 Eugenio Sartoretto,9 Sandra Ratiarison9
CIFOR-ICRAF, 2Research Institute for Humanity and Nature, 3CIRAD, 4University of Liège,
1
Fern, 6Rights and Resources Initiative, 7University of Lausanne, 8University of Quebec in

5
Outaouais, 9FAO
Photo by Axel Fassio
Chapter 13
Introduction
The subject of the rights of local and indigenous peoples is at the heart
of the international forest resource management agenda, now more
than ever (Sikor and Stahl 2011). These groups claim a set of inherent
rights to enjoy land and forest tenure, to practice their cultures and
to speak on the management of the natural resources around their
biotopes. In response to these demands and pressure from both the
grassroots and the non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that
claim to represent them, the international community and many
governments have put in place a range of legal mechanisms that
recognize and promote the rights and duties of these vulnerable social
groups in relation to biodiversity. The natural resource conservation
approach – focused on promoting and respecting the rights of these
groups – is, of course, one response to local stakeholders’ demands for
environmental justice (Campese et al. 2009).
Conscious of current shifts in the discourse in favour of recognizing and promoting the rights
of local communities and indigenous peoples in forest management, Central African Forestry
Commission (COMIFAC) member countries have aligned their subregional and national policies
with international norms and standards by opening up forest management processes to local
stakeholders. It is in this spirit that the Subregional guidelines for the participation of local and
indigenous communities and NGOs in sustainable forest management in Central Africa were
published and Strategic Objective 5.2. of the Convergence Plan was adopted to “strengthen the
participation of all stakeholders, especially vulnerable populations, in forest management”.
The rights of local and indigenous peoples can be understood as stemming from “a bundle of norms,
principles and rules (bundle of rights) that constrain and direct interactions between this social
group and various institutions” (Campese 2009; Schlager and Ostrom 1992). The rights currently
recognized by international mechanisms – most of which are also recognized in national law –
include procedural rights (participation in decision-making, information sharing, notification
of decisions and other instruments, and access to justice) and substantive or fundamental rights
(right to life, security of person, health, an adequate standard of living, education, development,
a healthy environment, access to natural resources and benefits, free, prior and informed consent,
self-determination, representation and to practice customs) (Greiber et al. 2009).
The rights of indigenous and local peoples are effectively embedded into the normative framework,
at least in theory. However, an assessment conducted by the Rainforest Foundation in 2016 clearly
showed that recognition of local communities and indigenous peoples’ rights was declining in
Central African forest management practice, particularly around protected areas (Pyhälä et al. 2016).

The rights of local and indigenous peoples in the light of forest and conservation policies
The “Indigènes” 1 and colonial-era forestry

Two distinct periods characterized French colonial rule in French Equatorial Africa, one before and
one after the introduction of a new policy on the “native” population adopted in 1941. After the demise
of African logging enterprises, ‘indigenes’ were primarily seen by French administrators as a source
of unskilled labour in the forestry sector during both periods. ‘Indigenes’ were labourers (without
status) initially engaged by the concessionaires to supply export markets with “rich products”,
namely wild rubber (both tree rubber, Funtumia elastica, and vine rubber, Landolphia) and ivory.
Rubber production was abandoned after 1920. In addition, ‘indigenes’ supported the French war
efforts (World War I, and WWII) and post WWI reconstruction. British and French efforts to reach
a “cordial economic agreement” with French Equatorial Africa in 1919 were not successful (Michel
1975). Similarly, French Equatorial Africa’s initial attempts to introduce horticulture and small
livestock farming between 1907 and 1910 all failed. A subsequent treaty signed in 1911 led to further
efforts to establish coffee, rubber, cotton, rice and cassava plantations, as well as a new forestry
industry (Coquery-Vidrovitch 2001).
French Equatorial Africa slowly emerged from a period of stagnation after WWI, as a competitive
economy gradually replaced the monopolies previously enjoyed by large concessionaires. New
investments were made in timber, notably in okoume (Aucoumea klaineana) in Gabon, new
agricultural crops, road and rail infrastructure, and the mining sector. All concessions remained
dependent on “native” labour. Working conditions were appalling and wages did not keep pace
with colonial taxation nor the inflation of import prices. Traditional food production systems
were disrupted, resulting in widespread famine, revolts between 1928 and 1932, and rural exodus
(Coquery-Vidrovitch 2001; Rich 2007). An anti-colonial movement led by André Matsoua
established the Société Amicale des Originaires of French Equatorial Africa and sought French
citizenship for the subjects of the territory in the late 1920s and early 1930s (Ansprenger 1989). The
more progressive labour laws introduced in French West Africa did not extend to French Equatorial
Africa (Bertin 1929).
A new policy for ‘indigenes’ was introduced in French Equatorial Africa by the Governor General,
Félix Éboué, on 8 November 1941. The document was prepared for the Brazzaville Conference, held
from 30 January to 8 February 1944. The conference brought together all the colonial governors and
sought to realign the policies of the French colonial empire (Éboué 1941). The conference was held
over two decades after Maurice Delafosse’s Native Policy for French West Africa was presented at a
Franco-British colonial conference convened by the French Colonial Union in Paris in 1919. The so-
called Éboué circular called for traditions to be respected, customary chiefs to be supported, existing
social structures to be developed and working conditions to be improved.
Working conditions in the forestry camps did not improve significantly after 1941 (Moutangu 2013).
While forced labour was abolished in the French colonies in 1946 and a new labour code was adopted
in 1952 (Cooper 2018), labour-intensive methods continued to be used in the Central African Republic
until 1965 (Tchakossa 2012). In 1953, 39 percent of Gabon’s working population was employed in the
forestry sector (Mouloungui 2014), suggesting that wages and employment conditions for African
workers had improved since the time of company concessions. Strikes did, however, take place in
1957. Conditions were influenced by the increasing mechanization of logging operations, improved
road infrastructure and the adoption of new technologies (like aerial photography), giving African
nationals more opportunity to develop specialized skills.
1 The term “Indigène” was used during the colonial period to refer to local and indigenous people to distinguish them from (European) colonizers
and people brought in from other parts of Africa (see Bruel 1930 and Bruel 1935).

Chapter 13
Contemporary conception of local and indigenous peoples in Central

Africa
The situation of forest peoples, in particular hunter-gatherers, and transhumant and nomadic
populations, such as the Mbororo Fulani herders, has raised the question of rights and a specific
status to protect these populations from threats to their culture, their way of life and their territory.
Despite the fact that many groups, including nomadic, herder and hunter-gatherer peoples, are highly
vulnerable and extremely marginalized, the legal recognition of the status of indigenous peoples
is still a work in progress in Africa. “Indigenous peoples” are often minority groups in a country
who differ from the rest of the population in the historical continuity of their specific production
methods or access to natural resources. A wide range of peoples are considered indigenous, including
nomadic, pastoralist or herder, and hunter-gatherer peoples (International Labour Organization
2013). In Central Africa, “Pygmy” and Mbororo peoples are explicitly recognized as indigenous (see
Table 13.1).
At the international level, the recognition of indigenous peoples is based, on the one hand, on the
anteriority of their presence on a territory in comparison with subsequent population movements or
colonization and, on the other hand, on self-identification, which is legally recognized independently
of national governments (Karpe 2008). This description is however contested in many Central
African countries. The normative framework for protecting the rights of communities in Central
Africa does not therefore always distinguish between local communities and indigenous peoples.
In Cameroon, for example, forestry legislation does not include a clear legal definition of indigenous
peoples. The preamble to the Constitution of 18 January 1996 affirms without further clarification
that “the government shall protect minorities and protect the rights of indigenous peoples”. The
recognition of indigenous peoples and the elevation of the need to protect them to constitutional
status does not, however, give any indication of how to distinguish them from other social
groups at the national level. In 2021, the Cameroonian legislator further clarified the concept in
Act No. 2021/014 of 9 July 2021 governing access to genetic resources, their derivatives, associated
Table 13.1: Indigenous peoples in Central Africa

Country Indigenous peoples
Burundi Batwa
Cameroon Bakola / Bagyeli
Baka
Bedzan
Mbororo
Gabon Baka
Central African Republic Baaka / Aka
(Bayaka, Biaka)
Mbororo
Republic of the Congo Yaka
DRC Batwa
Bacwa
Bambuti
Rwanda Batwa
Source: African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) and International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA)
(2006)

traditional knowledge, and fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from their use. Article 7
sheds light on the legal concept of indigenous peoples: “Indigenous peoples and local communities:
communities of inhabitants who rely on their traditional knowledge to obtain their livelihoods
from their natural environment and genetic resources, and whose way of life is conducive to the
conservation and sustainable use of the resources”. This approach differs somewhat from that
adopted in international legal instruments, in particular International Labour Organization (ILO)
Convention No. 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’
Rights. Cameroonian legislation, for example, groups indigenous peoples and local communities
together rather than distinguishing them as recommended by international standards.
In the Republic of the Congo, the relevant legislation identifies indigenous populations much more
precisely, but explicitly rejects anteriority as a defining characteristic. Article 1 of Congolese Act
No. 5-2011 of 25 February 2011 on the promotion and protection of the rights of indigenous peoples
defines indigenous peoples: “For the purposes of this Act, without prejudice to any anteriority
on the national territory, indigenous populations shall mean those populations who differ from
other groups of the national population in their cultural identity, their way of life and their extreme
vulnerability”.
Rwanda, for its part, prefers the concept of “historically marginalized groups”. The reference to
marginalization makes it possible to confer “indigenous” status on all the social groups that make
up the Rwandan population. A report on the implementation of the African Charter on Human and
Peoples’ Rights in Rwanda specifically highlights that: “[I]t is difficult, if not impossible, to define
indigenous peoples in the Rwandan context. This is because, in view of our history and knowledge,
we cannot say that any group of Rwandans is considered to have a preferential right to Rwanda
on the basis of the concept of indigenous people or any other form of ownership. All Rwandans
are historically regarded as indigenous to Rwanda, sharing resources, opportunities, and social
and cultural values. However, it is clear from our history that Rwanda is home to communities that
can be categorized as historically marginalized. This situation is a direct consequence of the self-
serving policies pursued by pre-genocide regimes. Such artificial divisions are currently prohibited
as inhuman and barbaric practices that belong in the past”.2
While countries’ national legislation appears to be inflexible with regard to their recognition of
indigenous identity in respect of specific groups, governments are nevertheless relatively flexible
when it comes to implementing commitments agreed with international financial institutions. For
example, the World Bank accords indigenous people’s high priority in its operational policies and
requires borrowing governments to comply with these policies when implementing projects that it
finances (Couillard et al. 2009). By agreeing to these instruments, governments tacitly recognize the
existence of a specific indigenous identity on their territory.
COMIFAC (2010) has adopted the definition laid down in ILO Convention No. 169 and World Bank
Policy 4.10, which was taken up by the 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples (World Bank 2017). COMIFAC recognizes indigenous peoples as “people whose cultural and
social identity distinguishes them from the dominant groups in society and makes them vulnerable
in the process of development. They have an economic and social status that limits their ability to
defend their interests and rights to land and other productive resources, or that limits their ability to
participate in and benefit from development. They are characterized by a strong attachment to the
2 Republic of Rwanda, Ministry of Justice. Ninth and tenth periodic reports of Rwanda under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
Period covered by the report: 2005-July 2009. July 2009. Para. 50.

Chapter 13
territories of their ancestors and to the natural resources of these places, the presence of customary
social and political institutions, economic systems geared towards subsistence production, an
indigenous language, often different from the majority language, and self-identification and
recognition by peers as belonging to a distinct cultural group”.
Rather than focusing on anteriority, which is contested by governments, distinctness of cultural

identity and self-determination, the concept of indigenousness should be considered in its broader
context. In this vein, in the sense used by the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights
(ACHPR), the question of indigenousness is of particular relevance in two spheres: human rights
and the environment. According to the ACHPR, the term “indigenous peoples” has come to have
connotations and meanings that go far beyond the question of “who came first”. It is now a global
term and movement that fights for the rights of and justice for specific groups who have been left
behind by development, who are viewed negatively by dominant development paradigms, whose
cultures and lifestyles are discriminated against and disrespected, and whose very existence is
threatened with extinction (ACHPR and IWGIA 2005).
Defining the concept of local communities is equally complex. Karsenty (2008) has already noted the
difficulty of identifying local communities, given that the concept does not define clear boundaries
nor fixed rules for doing so. There are, however, some criteria that make it possible to identify local
communities. They are traditional groups who, like indigenous peoples, have specific customs and
beliefs, but who do not have any territorial claim linked to their prior occupation of the land. This
does not prevent them from claiming specific rights over the natural resources located around their
settlements. On this point, COMIFAC draws on Article 1 of Act No. 011/2002 of 29 August 2002 on
the Forestry Code in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), which states: “local populations
are village populations settled in forest areas, who organize their lives on the basis of custom and
tradition and who are united by bonds of solidarity and kinship that underpin their cohesion and
ensure their continuity in space and time”.
13.1 A normative framework with room for

improvement
Several legal instruments promote the rights of local and indigenous peoples, including to land and
natural resources. At both the international and the regional level, the protection regime comprises
both hard and soft law instruments (Siegele et al. 2009). Some of these instruments are rooted in the
United Nations system and others take the form of multilateral and regional agreements.
13.1.1 International protection instruments

The legal protection of indigenous peoples is enshrined in international instruments such as ILO
Convention No. 169 (1989) and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
(2007). The Convention on Biological Diversity also offers opportunities for the protection of local
and indigenous peoples. ILO Convention No. 169 is a binding instrument that requires ratifying
countries to implement specific policies and measures that respect the rights of indigenous peoples,
such as self-determination, autonomy and collective land rights. The United Nations Declaration on
the other hand is not legally binding. It does, however, have considerable “moral weight”, though
this is not sufficient to allow it to arbitrate on nor define specific rights for the whole world, at any
time (Pelican 2009).

Table 13.2: Non-exhaustive list of major binding international mechanisms relating to the
rights of local communities and indigenous peoples in Central Africa
Legally binding instrument Year signed
1 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 16 December 1966

2 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 16 December 1966
3 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination 21 December 1965
4 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) 5 June 1992
5 Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of 29 October 2010
Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the CBD
6 International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture 3 November 2001
7 ILO Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention No. 169 1989
8 African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights June 1981
9 Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Rights of Women in 11 July 2003
Africa (Maputo Protocol)
Source: Authors
The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted by 143 countries,
including all African countries. In contrast, the Central African Republic (CAR) is the only African
country to have ratified ILO Convention No. 169, which it did in 2010. The vast majority of African
countries have refrained from acceding to this instrument because self-determination is such
a divisive domestic issue. Moreover, national governments often prefer to avoid making binding
commitments at the international level, so as to limit the delegation of their authority to other
centres of power.
The Convention on Biological Diversity has been ratified by all 10 COMIFAC member countries.
Among others, this Convention – in particular Article 8(j) thereof – has catalysed the claims made
by indigenous peoples’ organizations. Moreover, highlighting the links between these threads
promotes more coordinated allocation of financial assistance. For example, the Batwa of DRC are
supported by various donors, such as the European Union and Norway, through anti-deforestation,
climate change adaptation and forest management governance programmes, and by the World
Bank’s operational policies on indigenous peoples. International organizations are also very active
in this area: Forest Peoples Programme (Couillard et al. 2009), for example, is the best known and
works in the area of forest management in the Congo Basin (Boutinot and Karpe 2020).
In addition to those found in international legal instruments, specific provisions for indigenous
peoples are included in programmes to review land and forest law or to adopt and implement policies
to combat climate change and deforestation (such as Reducing emissions from deforestation and
forest degradation (REDD)) (Alvarado and Wertz-Kanounnikoff 2008). Such provisions can also
be found in the rules established by forestry certifications, such as the Forest Stewardship Council
(FSC) certification.
13.1.2 National protection instruments

At the national level, the need to protect the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities
is consistently asserted in the forestry legislation of Congo Basin countries. Their laws formally
recognize the rights of these groups to their ancestral lands. The acknowledgement of customary
usage rights is often harnessed as the legal mechanism for the recognition and protection of the

Chapter 13
economic, social and cultural rights of communities. In terms of economic and social effects,
such rights should guarantee local and indigenous peoples access to the resources essential to
their livelihoods. As regards cultural impacts, this approach seeks to protect sites of recognized
importance to the identity of indigenous peoples and local communities.
According to the Forestry Code of CAR, customary usage rights apply to forest areas and the
collection of non-timber forest products. The Gabonese Forestry Code is more explicit about what is
covered by the concept of traditional rights. Specifically, it permits small-scale hunting and fishing,
subsistence agriculture, the use of trees for building materials, grazing and the use of water, among
other activities. In Cameroon, local people’s usage or customary rights are recognized, allowing
them to use all types of forest, wildlife and fishery resources for personal use with the exception
of protected species. The Forestry Code of DRC recognizes the existence of traditional usage rights
without specifying their content. In the Republic of the Congo, Act No. 33-2020 of 8 July 2020 on
the Forestry Code takes a new approach to traditional usage rights. Article 2 defines usage rights as
“rights that flow from local custom or tradition that allow local communities or indigenous peoples,
in a forest not belonging to them, either to harvest certain products or engage in certain productive
activities, whether or not intended for sale, to meet their domestic needs”. In this provision, the
Republic of the Congo explicitly establishes the right to use resources for commercial purposes,
whereas the trend in Central Africa is to require products collected in exercise of usage rights to be
used to meet personal needs.
Our analysis of forestry legislation shows that traditional rights are characterized by their limited
scope and insufficient legal safeguards. As regards the scope of traditional rights, forestry laws tend
to make them revocable in practice, particularly if they are considered incompatible with sustainable
management objectives. As regards legal safeguards, existing legal instruments have not delivered
sufficiently robust mechanisms to ensure these rights are respected, let alone to provide remedies
if they are violated. Requirements such as the obligation to consult communities, to respect usage
rights when classifying forests in the permanent forest domain or to pay compensation if these
rights are restricted are not subject to any penalties in the event of non-compliance (Nguiffo 2020).
Given that the obligation to respect the rights of local communities and indigenous peoples is not
accompanied by enforcement mechanisms, governments and concessionaires feel fairly free to
disregard it (Nguiffo 2020). Legal remedies are virtually non-existent in the event that traditional
rights are violated. Considering that forests are public property, over which governments exercise
full ownership rights, the capacity of indigenous and local peoples to act before the courts is
undermined because they are not recognized as independent legal entities.
Beyond the recognition of traditional rights, forestry codes and related legislation contain several
provisions aimed at improving the consideration of local communities and indigenous peoples in
forest management. As regards socioeconomic rights, forestry legislation advocates sharing the
benefits derived from the exploitation of forest resources. Several mechanisms are being trialled to
this end. For example, annual forestry fees have been introduced in Cameroon, a share of which is
paid to local communities, and social provisions, terms of reference and local development funds
have been implemented in the Republic of the Congo, DRC and Gabon. In the same vein, community
forestry is gradually gaining ground in DRC, following its early introduction in Cameroon, while
communal forestry is still in its infancy in the wider Congo Basin.

13.2 The mixed evolution of the rights of

local communities in production forests
13.2.1 The remarkable expansion of social forestry in
the Congo Basin
The term “social forestry” in this context will be used in its broadest sense. It will be used to identify
both strategies to stimulate the active participation of local communities in diversified small-
scale forest management activities to improve their living conditions and approaches to forest
management that are socially responsible because they respect the rights of local communities and
contribute to local development (Wiersum 1999).
In the second half of the 1970s, governments began to recognize that forest management had thus
far been focused on serving national interests and those of western companies rather than on the
needs of local communities and indigenous peoples (Barnes and Ramsay 1982; FAO 1978; Westoby
1989). The forestry sector had therefore performed poorly in terms of improving the wellbeing of
people living in or around forests and had failed to mobilize local capacity to help manage forest
resources effectively and sustainably (FAO 1985; Gregersen et al. 1989).
In the 1990s (and following the 1992 Rio Earth Summit), the concept of sustainable management
emerged, aimed at improving the well-being of local communities, countries’ economic development,
forest sustainability and biodiversity conservation. Local communities are expected to be involved
in the forest management process so their rights, ways of life and wellbeing are better understood
and protected, and to participate in decision-making (in particular on the boundaries of the blocks
allocated to them: community development areas or agricultural or human occupation blocks).
Currently, forestry concessions are managed according to the rules set out in a forest management
plan, in which local practices should be recognized and protected. In practice, forest management
plans set out actions in support of local communities (through terms of reference that commit
the forest manager to respect communities’ usage rights and to help alleviate rural poverty). In
some countries, such as Gabon and Cameroon, a share of the taxes paid per cubic metre of wood
harvested is also paid to communities to support their development. While local development and
poverty alleviation are the purview of the public authorities, the government often withdraws from
forest areas, putting a lot of pressure on private operators, which are forced to take its place (e.g.
maintaining the road network, building schools and health centres).
There are often conflicts between local communities and forestry concessionaires, but also between
communities, when, for example, the financial income from logging is not distributed equally by
the local authority (Cerutti et al. 2010; Eteme 2015). Conflicts in forestry concessions are likely
linked to the reduction in the area dedicated to subsistence agriculture (even where management
plans provide for the designation of areas for these activities: community development areas and
agricultural blocks) and traditional hunting and gathering, as well as to weak compliance with
social provisions (Buttoud and Nguinguiri 2016; Collas de Chatelperron 2005; Tsanga et al. 2020).
Over recent decades, social forestry has been adopted as a new forest management strategy
aimed at improving the livelihoods of rural communities (Lacuna-Richman 2012; Moeliono et al.
2017; Sunderlin 1997; Westoby 1989; Wiersum 1999). Social forestry promotes forest management
activities that involve local communities, who take on some responsibility for forest management

Chapter 13
and benefit directly from their own efforts (Djamhuri 2008; Lacuna-Richman 2012; Moeliono et al.
2017; Von Stieglitz et al. 2001; Wiersum 1999). It is an approach that allows customary knowledge,
rules and institutions to be harnessed by integrating them into the management standards, at least
to some extent.
Since the 1990s, the discourse and thinking on social forestry has advocated the devolution and
decentralization of forest management with a view to ensuring the sustainability of natural resources
and alleviating rural poverty. Devolution strives not only to reduce bureaucracy, but also to empower
local communities and drive socioeconomic development through community participation in
forest management (Arnolds 2001; Larson and Soto 2008; Mayers and Bass 1999; Oyono 2005).
These developments in forest management have led to the emergence of three approaches to the
implementation of social forestry in Central Africa:
1. Tree harvesting in agricultural areas where landowners (often “informal” or customary) are
provided economic incentives, like a guaranteed market and price for the wood produced
(Buttoud and Batunyi 2016; Marien et al. 2013). This model is not, however, widely
implemented in Central Africa and where forestry legislation does provide for this model,
there is a lack of willingness to take advantage of it (Marien et al. 2013; Megevand et al.
2013; Place et al. 2012; Tchoundjeu et al. 2010). In practice, these permits have mainly served
the interests of ill-intentioned artisanal and industrial operators seeking to harvest wood
fraudulently.
2. The joint management of public woodland with local stakeholders who receive a predefined
quantity of the product harvested or other benefits, either free of charge or at an agreed price
(Brown 1999; Chambers and Thrupp 1994; Fisher 1995). In Central Africa, this approach mainly
involves engaging local communities in managing forests in the permanent domain, in the
form of communal forests3 managed by communal authorities or decentralized bodies.
3. Community forestry, which focuses on local communities as the main stakeholders that
can ensure the sustainability of forest management. Under this management model, the
processes and mechanisms employed must allow those directly affected by the use of forest
resources to be involved in decision-making on all aspects of forest management (Hoare 2010;
Larson and Dahal 2012). Community forests offer the best example in the Congo Basin of the
comprehensive decentralization of forest management to the local community (Diaw et al.
2016; Julve 2007; Oyono et al. 2006).
The implementation of social forestry is currently facing a number of difficulties. An inclusive process
was launched in September 2017 to remove the main barriers that prevent it from being effective. The
solutions proposed were the subject of broad consultation. The outcome of this collective effort is
set out in a policy document entitled “Brazzaville Roadmap for more effective participatory forestry
in the context of the 2030 Agenda”. To enable participatory forestry to reach its full potential and be
more effective, the Brazzaville Roadmap proposes eight priorities built around four key areas: vision,
institutions, support for local and indigenous communities, monitoring and adaptive management.
To this end, governments were invited to (i) make policy choices explicit by clearly defining
the objectives of participatory forestry in relation to the environment (natural capital) and to
improving livelihoods (social/institutional capital, financial capital); (ii) create an institutional,
3 For a critical appraisal of Cameroonian communal forests, see, for example, Poissonnet and Lescuyer (2005) and Ndangang (2008).

Box 13.1: Barriers to more effective participatory forestry

Jean-Claude Nguinguiri
Policy, regulatory and institutional frameworks are still incomplete, complex and sometimes
inadequate, creating an environment that is not conducive to the realization of the full
potential of participatory forestry.
Some countries do not yet have formal mechanisms for recognizing rights or for transferring
rights and management responsibilities to indigenous peoples and local communities. This
results in confusion over the type and nature of their forest land rights.
Community forests are the basis of the most common form of participatory forestry. The
exclusionary nature of the model as it is currently implemented prevents it from being
applied in areas where there are overlapping rights and uses, including on land traditionally
recognized as indigenous peoples’ and local communities’ within forestry or industrial
agriculture concessions, mining areas or where there are oil and gas wells.
Government support for indigenous peoples and local communities is weak, several countries
do not have participatory forestry units, and human resources and technical expertise are
inadequate.
In the absence of information on the effectiveness of participatory forestry, governments

struggle to tailor their policy choices in view of lessons learned.
The entrepreneurial and managerial capacity of local communities is still weak and access to
investments, markets and therefore to improved financial capital is limited.
Most countries do not make good use of the Sub-regional guidelines for the participation
of local and indigenous communities and NGOs in sustainable forest management in
Central Africa.
legal and regulatory environment favourable to participatory forestry; (iii) ensure adequate support
from government technical services and civil society; and (iv) periodically assess the scale and
effectiveness of participatory forestry.
13.2.2 The mixed record of community forestry

Although community forests are provided for in the legal frameworks of all Congo Basin countries,
few have been established and implementing them effectively remains a challenge in most countries
(Beauchamp and Ingram 2011; Cerutti et al. 2010; Julve Larrubia et al. 2013; Lescuyer et al. 2019).
While, in theory, community forestry has the potential to drive local development, advances in
the normative framework are hampered in practice by the complexity and cost of allocation and
implementation procedures. It follows that, under current arrangements, not only are community
forests not profitable, but they also facilitate the conduct of illegal activities (Cameroonian
community forests are widely suspected of being used as a cover for illegal logging).

Chapter 13
Table 13.3: Local socioeconomic impacts of decentralized forest management via

community forests
Community forestry assessment criteria
Involvement of local people in forest management
Respect for customary usage rights and Certain customary rights may be provided for in simple management
participation of rural communities in the plans, but their approval ultimately depends on the forest administration
choice of species and logging areas. responsible for endorsing the management documents (Lescuyer 2006).
Participation of rural communities in The logging operations in most community forests are subcontracted to a
logging activities forestry company (Cuny 2011).
Compliance with agreements entered into Recurring conflicts between customary rights holders and community
by loggers with the local population forest managers (Ezzine de Blas et al. 2009; Oyono 2004, 2005).
Local socioeconomic development
Employment Very few permanent jobs
Rural incomes Incomes from forestry are low once distributed among community
members (Beauchamp and Ingram 2011; Cuny 2011; Lescuyer and
Essoungou 2013).
Essential needs Few investments funded by forestry revenues (Cuny 2011; Ezzine de Blas
et al. 2009; Lescuyer et al. 2006).
Sources : Authors
An evaluation of 30 community forests in Cameroon highlighted the difficulty of complying with the
requirements of the legality grids agreed as part of Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPAs) under
the EU Action Plan for Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) and of ensuring
the traceability of the products harvested (Fomou et al. 2017). Community forestry was slower to
develop in Gabon (Vermeulen 2008). The number of community forests remains low and practices
in the vast majority of them are not legally compliant. In CAR, there has only been one attempt to set
up a community forest. The initiative was later abandoned because the project was located in the
production block of an Exploitation and Planning Permit (PEA) concession and was in fact unlawful.
In the Republic of the Congo, community forestry legislation was only adopted recently and has
not yet been implemented. In DRC, around 100 local community forestry concessions4 have been
awarded over considerable areas in recent years, but almost all depend on external technical and
financial support and it is still too early to judge the success of this model, which is very different
from others, whose predicted limitations have yet to be proven (Vermeulen and Karsenty 2016).
Data collected over the last decade, mainly in Cameroon, show that this form of logging has
produced mixed results when assessed against the key aims of social forestry.
13.2.3 The complexity of implementing traditional

usage rights
The adoption of the industrial forestry concession model at the beginning of the 1990s did not
fundamentally challenge the usage rights of local people, but did limit them to subsistence practices.
Commercial exploitation and deforestation were not permitted, nor therefore was slash and burn
agriculture. The rights of indigenous peoples and local communities are recognized and guaranteed
4 See, in particular, Vermeulen and Karsenty (2017) and Lescuyer et al (2019) for a description of the type of community forestry specific to DRC.

within forestry concessions based on this narrow conception. The exercise of traditional rights is
therefore compatible with the establishment of forestry concessions, but only to a limited extent.
Implementation is proving to be a challenge, as the legal arrangements applicable to usage rights

often clash with the legitimacy of local practices. Under current arrangements, the exercise of
traditional rights within concessions varies widely between sites. When certified concessionaires
strictly enforce the regulations, for example by working to prevent commercial hunting, this is often
perceived by local communities as infringing on their usage rights even when the practice in question
is unlawful. This results in a paradoxical situation in which local communities perceive their ability
to exercise their usage rights in unmanaged or managed concessions favourably because there is
little to no regulation of illegal activities (Cerutti et al. 2017).
Conversely, certified forestry concessions are considered to hinder the exercise of traditional rights
when managers work to stop practices considered illegal, even if they are merely applying the rules
laid down by the government (see Figures 13.1 and 13.2). It should be noted that the interpretation
of usage rights is particularly narrow with respect to hunting. For non-timber forest products,
interpretations are less well defined: the collection of non-timber forest products for commercial
purposes is permitted in certified forest management units, but the harvests must be sustainable,
a requirement that is very rarely checked in practice. In any event, it is the responsibility of
governments to address the continuing tension between sustainable development objectives and
guaranteeing the traditional rights of local and indigenous communities. The new Forestry Code
of the Republic of the Congo clarifies the scope of traditional rights in the country, based on an old
Gabonese regulation. Article 61 of the Act allows for products obtained in exercise of usage rights to
be sold at the local level. While the products covered and the arrangements for their sale are yet to
be specified, this is a clear extension of usage rights.
Figure 13.1: Forest management units and the collection of non-timber forest products
(Cerutti et al. 2014)

Chapter 13
Figure 13.2: Forest management units and hunting practices (Cerutti et al. 2014)
13.2.4 The contribution of logging to local

development
In Central Africa, logging is considered one of the main sources of employment in rural areas,
contributing directly and indirectly to higher incomes for local and indigenous communities
(Lescuyer et al. 2015). As regards poverty alleviation, given that governments often struggle to invest
in local development and reduce poverty, various mechanisms have been developed to redistribute
the proceeds of industrial logging. These mechanisms take the form of social provisions or local
development funds to which companies are required to contribute. Companies may also be required
to share the proceeds of forestry and industrial operations through the payment of fees.
Job creation at the local level

In many countries in the Congo Basin, the oil sector is the main contributor to gross domestic
product (GDP). In Equatorial Guinea it accounts for 90 percent of GDP, in Gabon for 42.4 percent
and in the Republic of the Congo for 64 percent. When compared with the oil sector, the economic
weight of the forestry sector may seem low, accounting for 4 percent of GDP in Cameroon, 6 percent
in Gabon, 5.6 percent in the Republic of the Congo, 0.2 percent in Equatorial Guinea and 1 percent in
DRC. However, this seemingly limited contribution to national economies should be considered in
context: the forestry sector is often the second largest contributor to GDP and export earnings and it
creates many jobs, a large share of which are in rural areas.
Logging has therefore bolstered various forms of employment in rural areas. In places where the
government is often absent, forestry companies often emerge as the sole source of paid employment.
Indeed, a substantial proportion of these jobs are held by people from villages bordering logging
areas, although, in most cases, they are low skilled (Cerutti et al. 2014; Tsanga et al. 2020).

In addition to industrial logging, the informal artisanal subsector, which is experiencing significant
growth in Congo Basin countries, also creates many jobs in rural areas. This subsector has created an
estimated 40,000 jobs in Cameroon, 3,000 in Orientale province in DRC, and 2,000 in the Republic
of the Congo (Cerutti and Lescuyer 2011; Lescuyer et al. 2011, 2014). The jobs are generally low skilled
and most are for labourers, sawmill assistants or machine operators. These jobs are also essentially
temporary in nature, given that they are tied to the relatively short period of production operations.
Funding for community-interest projects

Local development funds are innovative mechanisms for local development that bring together
local and indigenous communities, local authorities and the private sector (Mbete et al. 2021). Local
development funds were first institutionalized in the late 1990s by the private sector and involved
sharing the proceeds of forestry operations with communities whose borders lie at least in part within
the concession area (Nguimbi et al. 2010). This practice would go on to be adopted into Gabon’s
forestry legislation, and later into that of DRC and the Republic of the Congo. Local development
funds are built around two foundational principles: (i) forestry companies must contribute a
predefined amount to a fund managed by village associations and (ii) the funds obtained must be
used to finance community projects identified by local communities and indigenous peoples. The
amount of the levy varies from country to country and depends on the annual production and/or
commercial value of the species harvested, i.e. XAF 800/m3 in Gabon, XAF 200/m3 in the Republic of
the Congo and USD 2-5/m3 in DRC.
The amounts allocated to these redistribution mechanisms can be substantial. Four companies with
certified forest management units contribute an estimated average of EUR 55,000 each per year,
around EUR 56 per person living around their forest management units (Cerutti et al. 2014). These
are sizeable amounts, especially in rural areas where the majority of the population lives below the
poverty line.
The social provisions applied in DRC follow a similar trend. Over the past 10 years, forestry companies
have contributed approximately USD 7.8 million to the local development funds of 24 concessions.
These funds have made it possible to carry out several community-interest projects in the areas of
education, health, village water supplies and improving road infrastructure (Tsanga et al. 2022).
There is still a gap between theoretical production forecasts and the amount actually transferred
to local communities. One reason for this discrepancy is the reality of logging in the Congo Basin,
where the actual volumes logged rarely reach the levels predicted. Before they begin their logging
operations, concessionaires conduct inventories to identify all species of commercial value. However,
international tropical timber market conditions and various technical barriers at the cutting stage
can prevent the entire available volume from being harvested (Tsanga et al. 2017). Another key
explanation for this discrepancy relates to the reliability of the production figures reported.
The relevant regulations do not oblige private companies to allow communities or civil society to
verify their declared volumes, which can be problematic.
While local development funds have certainly made it possible to carry out many social
infrastructure projects, evidence of whether they have improved the living standards of local people
is still anecdotal. These mechanisms only produce tangible results in certified forestry concessions
and a minority of managed concessions. Some companies do not fulfil their social obligations and,
where they do implement the required mechanisms, communities rarely receive the full amount
of funding expected (Tsanga et al. 2020). Indeed, the management bodies responsible for local

Chapter 13
Table 13.4: Funding for social provisions in DRC: Forecast and actual amounts, 2015–2020
(24 concessions)
Year Forecast amounts Amounts invested % Gap (USD)
2015 5,677,878 2,067,007 36 3,610,871

2016 2,902,490 1,616,219 56 1,286,271
2017 5,892,046 2,466,632 42 3,425,414
2018 325,552 217,782 67 107,770
2019 2,027,252 350,766 17 1,676,486
2020 3,497,149 1,091,631 31 2,405,518
Total 20,322,367 7,810,037 38 12,512,329
Source: Tsanga et al. (2022)
development funds often replicate poor governance practices at the local level, including poor
project identification, misappropriation of funds, diversion of equipment and overcharging for
projects (Tsanga et al. 2017).
The success of local development depends primarily on the government. When its sovereign
functions are transferred from public authorities to private companies in the forestry sector,
questions arise about legitimacy and the capacity of such companies to perform this role. This
transfer of responsibility brings to mind the “state within a state” phenomenon – when governments
transfer their sovereign powers to the private sector –, which has already been observed in several
Congo Basin countries. It is not clear whether the private sector has the expertise to manage
complex development problems when the government itself has been largely unsuccessful (Cerutti
et al. 2017; Tsanga et al. 2017).
The relative impact of forestry licence fees on local development

Forestry licence fees are one of the key innovative mechanisms for redistributing a share of the
revenues from industrial logging to local stakeholders like municipalities and communities
neighbouring concession areas (Bigombe Logo 2003; Topa et al. 2009). This approach aims to
bolster local development funding and reduce rural poverty. However, several assessments of this
mechanism and its effects on local development in practice have found that it is relatively ineffective
and inefficient, and it has proven to be inequitable (Assembe-Mvondo et al. 2015; Cerutti et al. 2010;
Oyono et al. 2009). Indeed, in a context characterized by systemically weak governance, a predatory
political and administrative elite has co-opted the stated objectives of this mechanism.
13.3 Outlook for the rights of local and

indigenous communities in production
forests
13.3.1 Outlook for community forestry
In the wake of the 1992 Rio Conference, community forestry emerged in the Congo Basin as an
“unidentified forest object”. This forest management model is the direct product of international

processes and a modest offshoot from the industrial concession model. In its current configuration,
community forestry is characterized by formal management, boundaries not tied to customary
boundaries, an institutional structure not suited to local governance structures and weak financial
viability.
Despite these challenges, community forestry remains a potentially attractive way to include
indigenous peoples and local communities in domestic wood value chains. The African construction
sector is forecast to grow significantly by 2050, by which time the continent is expected, according
to the United Nations, to have a population of around 2.5 billion. Over the same time period, the
population of the Congo Basin is expected to more than double to approximately 274 million people
(UN-DESA 2017). Population growth on this scale will lead to significant demand for housing in
urban and rural areas by 2050, 80 percent of which has not yet been built (World Green Building
Council, Africa Partners 2020). The predicted boom in the construction sector is a major opportunity
for job creation, the development of new skills and sustainable growth through greater use of wood
as a construction material (World Green Building Council, Africa Partners 2020). The materials most
commonly used in the African construction sector today (iron and cement) account for an average
of 11 percent of emissions (Vussonji and Makeka, 2021). Wood can be used as an alternative to these
traditional materials to reduce emissions from the real estate sector, provided that the wood comes
from legal and sustainable sources, which is very rarely the case.
Community forestry could play a major role in this segment of the market. The aim here is not
to satisfy demand for wood from urban Central African markets in its entirety, which would be
unrealistic considering the volumes consumed, but to position the wood produced by community
forests in existing market segments that are concerned about the legality and sustainability of
products (Lescuyer et al. 2016). Whether this is feasible depends on the limited technical and
financial capacity of local and indigenous peoples. As a start, governments will have to overhaul
existing legal frameworks to address the triple challenge of access to legal status, profit margins and
the low sensitivity of national markets to questions of sustainability, and finally issues around the
legality of timber sources.
The revision of legal frameworks in the context of VPAs offers opportunities to improve the legality
and traceability of the products produced by this sector and to increase their presence on national
timber markets. Legal reforms must therefore be accompanied by concrete measures to transform
national demand for timber. One notable development on the path to improving the legality of
timber on national markets is the decision taken by the Government of Cameroon in 2020 to require
project managers to source legal wood for public construction projects.
While individual public bodies consume relatively little wood, this measure could influence the
behaviour of other actors, particularly those in the private sector (Lescuyer et al. 2016; Tsanga et al.
2020b). This could be achieved in several ways, as described below.
Make existing community forestry more credible

To improve the credibility of community forestry it will be necessary to substantially improve
governance (Fapa Nanfack et al. 2019). This will require the effective enforcement of existing laws,
anti-corruption efforts and the development of technologies to combat fraud.5 Initiatives do already
exist to teach communities how to detect and document cases of illegality themselves. This type of
5 Such as the traceability of products from community forests with the support of those allocated the forests. See, in particular, Fomou et al.
(2017): http://communitytimbertracks.prosyjob.co/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Rapport-de-letude-SVCL-6.pdf.

Chapter 13
approach is a step in the right direction, as it empowers communities and reduces their dependence
on the government and civil society (Same et al. 2013).
In the Republic of the Congo, ad hoc initiatives have attempted to align customary rights and titles
(community forest areas). Other civil society actors advocate approaches focused on developing a
business and economic model that supports communities to “formalize and professionalize their
business activities sustainably and thereby improve the livelihoods of small and medium-sized
forestry businesses.” On this point, all initiatives aimed at training and empowering communities,
particularly in relation to their economic capacity, are worthwhile. Better market integration,
market information and access to finance are also crucial (Beauchamp and Ingram 2011), as is
greater collaboration with major forestry concessions and capital investment (Minang et al. 2019).
Strengthen the position of community forestry in international

processes
Efforts to link community forestry to emerging processes rooted in international commitments
on climate change and deforestation are attracting growing support from NGOs and international
organizations. The Paris Agreement adopted under the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC), for example, emphasizes the role of sustainable forest management
and anti-deforestation efforts in nationally determined contributions (NDCs). Considering this,
community forestry has been incorporated into NDC mitigation measures submitted by Cameroon
and CAR (Nkuintchua 2018).
Many studies have also analysed the potential of community forestry under REDD+ in relation to
sustainable forest management, conservation, reducing degradation and increasing carbon stocks.
Clarifying and securing land rights – key elements of REDD+ projects, alongside livelihood benefits,
income generation and job creation (Bernard and Minang 2019) – can support effective community
forestry.
Community forests are covered by VPAs and are required to ensure the legality of their timber
production, which they struggle to do, particularly in Cameroon. Simplifying the relevant regulations
and building community capacity are essential if these forests are to become a legal source of timber
for the national market (Julve et al. 2013) and the VPA process to have positive knock-on effects.
Moreover, several Central African countries have joined the African Forest Landscape Restoration
Initiative (AFR100), which aims to restore 100 million hectares of deforested and degraded
landscapes on the continent by 2030. This mammoth effort will depend on the participation of local
communities, but initiatives are still at too early a stage to make any assessments and what place
community forestry will have in the process has not yet been clarified.
Finally, providing incentives for the creation of commercial value chains for community forestry
products is one way to ensure the sustainability of community forestry (Meier-Dörnberg and
Karmann 2015). In particular, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and Fairtrade have partnered
to ensure that access to certification and its benefits are accessible to small-scale foresters and
community forests. Programmes have been set up for small-scale foresters seeking to develop
rational long-term management practices. These programmes propose measures to reduce costs
and improve their market access. However, this approach is far from straightforward and has not yet
been trialled in Central Africa. All initiatives seeking to anchor community forestry in international
processes bolster its credibility and may one day contribute to the development of alternative
sources of income for the communities involved.

Review the normative framework

The overview presented above highlights the mixed results of community forestry in the Congo
Basin over the past 20 years. The first forestry laws governing community forestry were the subject of
criticism on several fronts: they were seen as over restrictive, in that they did not allow for genuinely
inclusive management, they only granted limited rights to the community allocated the forest and
they limited where community forestry could be carried out (Cuny 2011; Julve 2007; Vermeulen et al.
2006). While not directly related to the normative framework, other problems like corruption and
misappropriation in the management of community forests, as well as the top-down approach to
local development assistance, have hampered the initial efforts and dampened early enthusiasm for
this approach (Joiris et al. 2014). Reconsideration of these issues, driven by the advocacy efforts of
civil society, have on occasion led to these laws being revised, with the participation of civil society,
local and indigenous communities and the private sector, to improve the equity and effectiveness
of forest management.
DRC offers a case in point. Community forestry was gradually formalized through a participatory
system that was unique in the region. The resulting local community forestry concessions grant
ownership of land to local communities in perpetuity on the basis of custom. They allow for multiple
uses of the forest as a space within which several socioeconomic and environmental activities can
take place (Vermeulen and Karsenty 2016). This approach has made it possible to move beyond the
myopic focus on silviculture and timber sales seen in the community forestry models adopted in
other countries (Billiard 2019), to the detriment of the actual development needs of the community.
All countries would benefit from and should follow this new approach to community forestry
that seeks to secure access to resources and their sustainable management, that promotes greater
recognition of customary law as underpinning community forestry, that has more flexible governance
structures better suited to Central African societies and that is complemented by a favourable tax
regime. Any changes should be made through inclusive processes, avoiding the pitfall of “piling
rules atop rules” and “complexity on complexity” (like the revision of the manual of procedures for
allocating and establishing management rules for community forests in Cameroon). Governments
must therefore have the courage to review these texts in depth.
Furthermore, as highlighted in the paragraph on the Brazzaville Roadmap, most countries do not
yet have formal mechanisms for recognizing rights or for transferring rights and management
responsibilities to indigenous peoples and local communities. This is another vital area where
countries are encouraged to make progress.6 The need to promote and secure the rights of
communities is acknowledged in various international and national texts adopted by Central African
countries, which pay particular attention to the recognition of customary land rights (Billiard 2019).
For civil society, formal recognition of communities’ customary land rights could contribute to forest
conservation and local livelihoods, but is also a question of social justice, especially in cases where
communities managed the forest long before the government claimed ownership of it (RRI 2017).
However, the recognition of customary rights comes with its own issues, namely that customary law
in Africa favours elites and discriminates against women (Kenfack Essougong et al. 2019; Kusters
and Graaf 2019), indigenous peoples and migrants (Vermeulen and Karsenty 2017).
6 See, in particular, the Mapping For Rights programme: https://www.mappingforrights.org/

Chapter 13
Social forestry as the overlapping of uses and rights

The overriding aim of guaranteeing the rights of local and indigenous peoples to forest land is to
prioritize their allocation of areas over which they have exclusive rights, possibly accompanied by
ownership rights over the land. Community forestry epitomizes this exclusivity of land rights in that
it rejects the intervention of any other actors in areas assigned to this form of forest management.
This follows a similar logic to industrial forestry concessions, in which third parties are not permitted
to intervene beyond exercising usage rights. The forestry sector in the Congo Basin is therefore
characterized by the division of forested land into mutually exclusive areas. Recent developments
in community forestry and the forestry concession model do, however, suggest that the “exclusive
rights” approach to forested land is coming to an end.
It is therefore now time to rethink the forest governance model to focus more on coordinating the
various possible uses of the forest at the forest block scale and less on the separation of areas (Karsenty
and Vermeulen 2016). With regard to social forestry specifically, securing the rights of communities
and ensuring the development of economic activities does not necessarily imply ownership of the
land or the right to exclusive use. Karsenty and Vermeulen (2016) propose a “Concessions 2.0”
governance model that allows spaces and uses to overlap and the joint development of economic
activities by local populations and concessionaires via a joint decision-making platform.
A new model of community forestry for the future

Despite widespread rhetoric of community empowerment and participation, community forestry is
often promoted from the top down by organizational stakeholders (often funders) who impose their
own values and sophisticated management tools (Hajjar et al. 2013; Maryudi et al. 2012; Pokorny et
al. 2010). A bottom-up approach that takes into account the current needs, wishes and realities
of communities can produce support systems that are better designed than those imposed from
outside (Hajjar et al. 2013; Malla et al. 2003; Thoms 2008).
After 20 years of experimentation, we need to replace the existing conceptual model – which is
focused on transformation and built around an idealized vision of what community forestry could
achieve– with an approach based on local knowledge and the actual practices of the local people.
The proliferation of local institutional arrangements also runs the risk of being poorly understood
and considered unnecessary by the communities themselves. Efforts to improve the governance
of shared forest resources could be a case of “supply without demand”: the governance gap that
community-based resource management seeks to close is not necessarily experienced as such
by the communities themselves, especially if the governance practices proposed fail to reflect
communities’ way of life and knowledge. A more pragmatic approach would be to define some
broad governance principles for community management, allowing each community to choose
its own criteria for implementing them. Under the new model, community forestry would become
a financially viable option for communities and reduce the cost of institutional procedures and
institutional arrangements (Lescuyer et al. 2019).
As regards financial sustainability, there is consensus on the need for start-up support from
governments and other partners in the form of seed capital, access to subsidized training and
technical assistance, and support to navigate complex bureaucratic systems (Humphries et al.
2018), without communities becoming reliant on this support as a form of income. Secondly, it is
crucial to analyse how local production systems can be integrated into sustainable and profitable
value chains (Ezzine de Blas et al. 2009). Thirdly, conducting an analysis of potential financial

performance before launching a project would prevent communities and their partners from
attempting to conduct activities that will not prove profitable in the medium term.
Considering the costs involved, community forestry will only thrive if there are pragmatic and cost-
effective ways to exploit forest resources. Conversely, the overall impact of community forestry on
local livelihoods will be limited as long as communities have to bear the exorbitant cost of creating
and managing a community forest. The cost of establishing and operating a community forest
is largely attributable to the various committees that must be established in the community to
manage this system. In DRC, for example, the level of bureaucracy required by local community
forestry concessions exceeds that required in other Central African countries, where organizational
difficulties are already a major weakness (Karsenty et al. 2010, unpublished manuscript). These
regulatory provisions are generally justified by the desire to avoid decentralization being abused
by external public or private actors to misappropriate the profits derived from the exploitation of
forest resources (Jacquemot 2010). However, the complexity of local institutional arrangements
undermines the effectiveness of this approach, forcing a significant share of revenue to be spent
on maintaining the institutional system at the expense of investments for the well-being of the
community, without even preventing misappropriation by elites.
These costs are now borne almost entirely by external donors. Unless national regulations are
simplified, this dependence on external funding will prevent most rural communities from engaging
in community forestry and could encourage illegal practices to cover these costs, as experience in
Cameroon has clearly shown (Cuny 2011; Lescuyer et al. 2016).
13.3.2 The future of social forestry

The Brazzaville Roadmap highlighted the need to pilot new models of social forestry, beyond the
classic “community forestry” model. Some avenues have not yet been explored, or at least not in
detail, in relation to (i) co-management arrangements (participatory forestry at the household
level, at the extended family level or at administrative levels other than the municipality or central
government), (ii) participation arrangements (greater sharing of management and, above all, of
the decision-making process), (iii) more rights to land or the financial viability of the arrangements
envisaged. Other new models have been proposed (Vermeulen 2017; Vermeulen and Karsenty 2016),
including the “household agroforestry” model. Given that households are the main unit responsible
for slash and burn agriculture (a major cause of deforestation and degradation in many places) and
that they have the right to claim customary land rights (the right of the axe), it would make sense
to develop a specific type of participatory forestry for households. The idea would be to prevent
land saturation and permanent clearing of forest cover by assigning certain households the rights
to sufficient space to guarantee their long-term access to a mosaic landscape typical of shifting
agriculture (fields-forest fallow-secondary forest) and the many goods and services it provides.
Household agroforests could cover an area of 25 ha per household, as a single unit, within a radius
of 5 km around villages, that cannot be transferred outside the household and must be bequeathed
as a single unit (to avoid future fragmentation). These areas would provide land for growing cocoa,
coffee and food, and for forest fallows. A minimum level of forest cover would have to be maintained
(around 50 percent) and all products, including those resulting from improvements to the land,
would be the property of the household. This would offer a form of “quasi land title”, conditional
on maintaining productive mixed forest cover. The timber could be harvested using traditional
methods, as a private enterprise, with an annual quota.

Chapter 13
Household agroforests are just one example of how the concept of social forestry could evolve.
We have chosen this model to illustrate this point primarily to demonstrate that we need to be
inventive and bold to reinvigorate communities’ participation in forest management, by offering
new opportunities with the aim of finding innovative solutions for the benefit of local communities
and indigenous peoples.
13.4 The status of community rights in

production forests
13.4.1 Community rights under the protected area
regime
Central Africa’s protected areas grew massively during the second half of the twentieth century.
Currently, the subregion has 315 protected areas covering an area of approximately 1,011,770 km2
(OFAC 2020). Countries such as the Republic of the Congo, CAR and Sao Tome and Principe have
already classified more than 30 percent of their national territory as protected area and others such
as Cameroon, Gabon and Equatorial Guinea should achieve this level in the medium term (Proces
et al. 2020). This trend is set to continue as the COMIFAC Convergence Plan calls on countries to
strengthen the network of national and cross-border protected areas by 2025, ensuring that it is
representative of all land and water-based ecosystems. This will require them to increase the
number and size of national and cross-border protected areas in the medium term.
Some of these protected areas are not strictly protected and local communities are permitted to use
natural resources according to their customary practices (e.g. non-commercial hunting and fishing,
collecting non-timber forest products, etc.). However, when implementing planned increases to the
area protected, countries should pay particular attention to coexistence with local communities
and indigenous peoples to ensure their rights are not dramatically curtailed. This is particularly
important when strict protection frameworks are envisaged, such as under International Union
for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) category II,7 an international standard for rigorous biodiversity
protection (Doumenge et al. 2015).
Indeed, under strict protection frameworks (primarily national parks), tenure rights over customary
land are not recognized, even where national laws require community participation in the
establishment of specific conservation areas and guaranteed access to these areas for subsistence or
cultural purposes. Sometimes the overlapping or coexistence of national and international laws is a
source of tension (see Box 13.2).
In some cases, customary rights are recognized if indigenous peoples are established before a
protected area is created. In CAR, for example, Article 17 of the 2008 Forestry Code states that “usage
rights shall not be exercised in strict nature reserves and national parks. If indigenous peoples are
7 IUCN Categories:
- Ia (Strict Nature Reserve)
- Ib (Wilderness Area)
- II (National Park)
- III (Natural Monument)
- IV (Habitat or Species Management Area)
- V (Protected Landscape or Seascape)
- VI (Protected Area with Sustainable Use of Natural Resources)

Box 13.2: Situation of the rights of Baka indigenous peoples around

the Dja Faunal Reserve in Cameroon
Fernande Abanda Ngono
The Baka who live around the Dja Faunal Reserve, like most indigenous forest peoples in
Cameroon, have been forced to settle along roads and trails since colonial times. Compared with
other local communities who are able to claim their customary land rights by showing that they
have developed their traditional territory, these indigenous peoples, because of their nomadic
lifestyle and their lack of interest in land ownership, are more vulnerable to the impacts of
insidious natural resource management policies, particularly those relating to protected areas.
The management plan does not give them any specific rights over this protected area, which
established artificially fixed borders for their ancestral territories following its creation in 1950.
The management plan grants all the communities neighbouring the Dja reserve the right to
engage in traditional agricultural activities in a specific area of the reserve called the “contractual
usage rights area” (MINFOF). This area adjacent to the Dja reserve is available for non-industrial
agricultural uses and communities are allowed to collect non-timber forest products there. On
the other hand, traditional hunting and fishing can only be carried out if there is an agreement
between the local communities and the conservation services managing the reserve or under
annual agreements provided for in the planning documents.
The case of the Dja Faunal Reserve also illustrates the potential tension between the rights of
indigenous peoples under international conventions not recognized by a given country (in
this example, Cameroon has not ratified ILO Convention No. 169), on the one hand, and the
protected area status enshrined in the country’s environmental codes (here, Cameroon’s) and by
UNESCO’s World Heritage status. Approaches that alleviate these tensions should be adopted
wherever they exist, to ensure that the rights of indigenous peoples are fully recognized and –
where appropriate – fair and equitable compensation is provided.
Customary territorial rights go hand in hand with communities’ right to participatory and joint
management. The Baka peoples therefore have the right to participate in the management of
the Dja reserve, i.e. by sitting on the governance bodies established for this purpose. On this
point, there has been considerable progress in the legal arrangements. Decision of the Ministry
of Forests and Wildlife (MINFOF) No. 03300/MINFOF/SG/DFAP of 28 April 2008 on the
organization of the Dja reserve provides for two seats for representatives of the Baka peoples
on the advisory committee, one of the reserve management bodies. The advisory committee’s
mission is to propose ways of involving local people in the implementation of the management
plan and to identify and propose priority socioeconomic measures to the Dja reserve
management committee.
established before an area is classified as a protected area under Article 9 of this Code, arrangements
shall be made to preserve their rights to harvest and practice subsistence hunting and traditional
fishing, provided that such activities do not affect their integrity, the interests of other communities
or the environment.” In such cases, it is necessary to understand, explain and specify what the
legislator defines as “established”, to prevent human rights violations. The same applies to provisions
on compensating communities for violations of their rights due to the establishment of a protected
area; however, the available data needs to be improved and regularly updated to enable us to assess
the extent to which these provisions are implemented.

Chapter 13
Examples like this lead some authors to assert that the dominant philosophy enshrined in Central
African conservation policies is highly focused on the need to protect charismatic animal species,
while neglecting traditional social structures and natural resource management systems (Pyhälä
et al. 2016). However, conservation approaches that give local communities a greater role, in terms
of access to their traditional resources or participation in the management of protected areas, do
exist and are becoming more common worldwide, although they are not widely used in Central
Africa. This management model, under which areas are called “conservancies”, is very widespread
in southern and eastern Africa. It makes it possible to reconcile greater use of natural resources by
local communities with biodiversity protection.
13.4.2 The impact of the protected area regime on

community rights
If we can make one recommendation at the start of this section, it would be to improve data and
knowledge on the impacts (both socioeconomic and environmental) of the legal provisions on
protected areas in Central Africa and of nature conservation measures that seek to promote the
sustainable development of surrounding landscapes. Several regional and global analyses have
been conducted, including a study of 306 protected areas in 45 countries in Africa and Latin America
(Wittemyer et al. 2008), which shows that population growth around these conservation areas was
almost twice as high as that observed in other rural areas. One explanation for the attractiveness of
protected areas suggested by the authors is tied to the conservation projects carried out there, and
more specifically to the international funds allocated to them, to the activities carried out and the
infrastructure developed, to economic opportunities and access to road networks, to their safety in
times of conflict and to the greater abundance of natural resources.
This general pattern could however become more complex if specific situations are considered,
especially given that, generally speaking, the participation and consultation of local communities
has historically been very weak in the establishment of protected areas. The requirement to obtain
free, prior and informed consent enshrined in the Convention on Biological Diversity and recently
incorporated into the 2020 Forestry Code of the Republic of the Congo is being mainstreamed in new
conservation initiatives. Other possible improvements can be made in relation to governance, tenure
management and human rights. As regards governance, governments still favour a centralized,
monolithic management model for protected areas, even though it can lead to repressive forms
of wildlife protection and the criminalization of local people, which can be a source of conflict
(Mayen Ndiong et al. 2021). The emergence of a mixed governance model, such as public-private
partnership, brings with it an approach that is more respectful of the rights of local and indigenous
peoples. Nevertheless each situation should be judged on its own terms – with local and indigenous
peoples – before one form of governance or another is chosen.
As regards land tenure, forced population displacement due to the establishment of a protected area
has been documented in some cases (Brockington and Igoe 2006) and should be replaced by tenure
management approaches that are negotiated with customary rights holders, to avoid displacement
and restrictions on access to ancestral lands. Where appropriate, resettlement measures and fair
compensation must be negotiated and agreed with rights holders, including indigenous peoples,
to avoid any negative socioeconomic impact. Restrictions on access to and the sale of natural
resources, for example, can risk causing food insecurity and impoverishment (Cernea and Schmidt-
Soltau 2003b, 2003a).

As regards human rights, both NGOs and governments increasingly promote conservation centred
around respect for the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities. This approach is,
for example, taken by the Congolese Institute for Nature Conservation (ICCN), which is holding
discussions on how to set up a streamlined system for handling complaints from communities
neighbouring protected areas and, more broadly, on the establishment of a framework to ensure
compliance with international human rights law (European Commission 2021).
Despite this shift in conservation thinking, problematic situations persist. In 2019, BuzzFeed
published a report on human rights abuses perpetrated by ecoguards in protected areas co-managed
or supported by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) in Cameroon (Lobeké, Boumba Bek and Nki
Parks), Republic of the Congo (the process of creating Messok Dja Park) and DRC (Salonga National
Park).8 Key criticisms included the conservation organization’s decision to work with partners
who have a history of violence and abuse against indigenous peoples and local communities, and
the weak application of the principle of free, prior and informed consent.9 A panel of independent
experts charged with investigating the accusations found that WWF was not directly involved in
the abuses uncovered. Weaknesses were, however, identified in the procedures designed to prevent
abuse and ensure compliance with the NGO’s human rights commitments related to activities in
protected areas (Pillay et al. 2020).
A new paradigm for the management of protected areas that advocates the professionalization of
the rangers appears to be beneficial for wildlife. The ecoguard roles at Zakouma National Park, for
example, have been professionalized, which has made park border areas more secure and enabled
several large mammal populations to be maintained and even increased. However, ecoguards’
activities – including whether they are armed – must always be properly supervised and monitored
to prevent, at all costs, the deterioration of relationships with local communities, who continue to
hold legitimate rights to land and resources in protected areas.
13.4.3 Innovative approaches to the governance of

conservation forests
A major concern for the management of protected areas is reconciling the objectives of effective
biodiversity conservation and upholding the human and land rights of rural communities (Karsenty
et al. 2021). The quest for efficiency has, over time, led some Central African countries to trial new
ways of managing protected areas, such as delegating responsibility to conservation NGOs and,
more recently, to private companies, through public-private partnership (PPP) agreements.
The involvement of non-state actors, mainly conservation NGOs, in biodiversity protection is based
on the belief that these actors are able to manage areas more effectively in the face of government
failures, that their involvement confers credibility in the eyes of donors and that they are better
able to secure sustainable funding (Scholte et al. 2021). These suppositions are similar to those
underpinning managed forestry concessions.
Public-private partnerships give a robust mandate to the non-state actors to whom management is
delegated. The government retains a formal presence in governance mechanisms, but operational
management is handled entirely by the non-state partner, which is granted decision-making
8 https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/tomwarren/wwf-world-wide-fund-nature-parks-torture-death
9 https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/tomwarren/wwf-world-wide-fund-nature-parks-torture-death

Chapter 13
Box 13.3: Practical and innovative tools for analysing and

strengthening communities’ rights around the sustainable
management of natural resources: Case study of the Sustainable
Wildlife Management (SWM) Programme
Andrew Wardell, Eugenio Sartoretto, Sandra Ratiarison
As highlighted in this chapter, forest and wildlife management in Central Africa is governed
by multiple legal systems and rules operating simultaneously at different levels (national
and international obligations, statutory and customary law). The resulting complex and
sometimes divergent sets of rules can significantly weaken the governance of natural
resources and even the rule of law, often to the detriment of the people who depend on these
resources for their livelihoods.
Intervening in this area, the SWM Programme is one of the first large-scale conservation
initiatives to put rights-based approaches into practice. As regards social safeguards, the SWM
Programme aims, at all its sites (including those in the Republic of the Congo, Gabon and DRC
in Central Africa), to: complete risk and opportunity analysis grids on the rights of project
stakeholders, in the light of the human rights situation in each country; establish a free, prior
and informed consent protocol and a framework complaint management mechanism that
can be adapted to different contexts; develop planning and monitoring tools, and tailored
communications materials. Site teams and local partners are trained to use these tools and are
helping to improve them through practice.
In parallel, the SWM Programme is undertaking a technical review of relevant legal issues.
This work has led to the development of a tool kit to facilitate a holistic cross-sectoral
evaluation of the legal frameworks governing the various aspects of hunting and fishing value
chains. These tools address both gender-related issues and the substantive and procedural
rights of members of local communities, indigenous peoples and marginalized groups.
Available via the legal hub on the SWM website (with results from SWM pilot countries), these
complementary and interdependent tools make it possible to:
• Map the relevant legal framework;

• Consider how to transpose relevant international instruments into national law;
• Analyse the level of alignment between sectoral legislation and identify potential gaps;
• Clarify the relationship between statutory law and customary law;
• Identify barriers to implementation and/or enforcement.
By using these different tools to implement a community rights-based approach, the SWM
Programme aims to promote participatory, inclusive and evidence-based processes, including
by working on normative frameworks, legislation and customary law, to enable and support
the effective management and sustainable use of wildlife and its habitat.

autonomy and some flexibility when it comes to administrative and financial arrangements
(European Commission 2015; Scholte et al. 2021). Although public-private partnerships delegate
responsibility for the management of protected areas to non-state actors, it is important for
governments to maintain ownership and mixed boards of directors could be established to balance
private and public power.
In some cases, certain sovereign functions like law enforcement and anti-poaching initiatives
might also be transferred to non-state actors (Scholte et al. 2021). The African Parks Network model,
under which the non-state actor assumes full responsibility for all aspects of running a protected
area, countering any threats and managing all revenues, is illustrative of the tacit privatization of
conservation (African Parks Network 2021). The draw of this approach for governments that lack the
resources or capacity to manage these areas is clear; nevertheless, governments must be mindful
of the risk that their own interests and those of rights holders will be marginalized. It is therefore
important that PPPs establish discussion, awareness and information-sharing forums with these
stakeholders, in which local people are included and have a formal vote on issues in which they
share an interest.
In Central Africa, 13 protected areas are managed under this model, with the majority managed by
the South African NGO African Parks Network (APN), followed by Wildlife Conservation Society
(WCS) and WWF. This new model is widely praised by international conservation NGOs, as well
as by some donors, for whom PPPs are a way to involve local communities in the management of
protected areas and improve their incomes. In the case of the Odzala-Kokoua park in the Republic
of the Congo, the public-private partnership arrangement has helped to increase the participation
of all stakeholders, in particular local communities, in the management of the park (Mayen Ndiong
et al. 2020).
In addition to public-private partnerships, there are compelling new initiatives that view biodiversity
conservation as the management of a resource for the benefit of local communities, such as the
Sustainable Wildlife Management Programme. With this in mind, NGOs and major programmes
have sought to align their approaches to community relations (complaints management
mechanisms, free, prior and informed consent, gender mainstreaming, etc.). The Central African
Forest Ecosystem (ECOFAC) programme is working on reforms to more effectively incorporate
these concerns, following the model of EU programmes in DRC that have made similar changes.
Conclusions
The inclusion of indigenous peoples in forestry and conservation policies can no longer be overlooked
by those operating in the sector, whether conservation organizations or logging companies. Over
the past three decades, public and private initiatives supported by technical and financial partners
have gradually strengthened the role of local communities and indigenous peoples in forest
management. On this front, subregional and national legal and policy frameworks have become
significantly denser. Legal instruments have, among other things, laid down participation, the
consideration of usage rights, benefit-sharing and free, prior and informed consent as fundamental
requirements for the responsible management of natural resources. The implementation of these
provisions by private operators, in particular certified operators, has had some tangible success
through the construction of infrastructure projects with socioeconomic benefits.
Such legal progress remains precarious and implementation in practice is often challenging given
that some local communities lack the required managerial capacity. Current trends in development

Chapter 13
planning, land-use planning policies and the consolidation of ultra-liberal forest management
approaches in the subregion, as well as land grabbing by national elites, suggest that the irrevocable
legal recognition of community and indigenous forest rights is being sidelined. In the Congo Basin,
occasional outbreaks of violence linked to efforts to claim these rights coupled with a deep and
legitimate desire for (sometimes unsustainable) development are an ongoing concern.
And yet, there is another better possible path and future. First and foremost, enabling conditions for
this optimistic scenario and public political dialogues could complement the necessary reforms, as
part of processes that are genuinely inclusive of local and indigenous peoples’ demands. Secondly,
national land-use plans, which may use different names, could map the customary lands of village
communities and – as far as realistic – the territories on which indigenous peoples depend for their
livelihoods (allowing for several uses in the same space). This would not threaten governments’
sovereignty over forests and land, but it would allow for local and indigenous peoples’ rights to be
mapped and finally recognized. Thirdly, land titles, or any other means of irrevocably securing the
forest lands of local and indigenous peoples, could be gradually assigned, on a case-by-case basis. It
is a compromise scenario, but a win-win one that should appease the most vindictive few at the local
level and remove a thorn in legislators’ and policymakers’ side. These various possibilities underscore
the need to better account for the diversity of customary rights in forest land management and to
put the government back at the centre of forest management, with regulations tailored to realities
on the ground.

State of the Congo Basin Forests
in 2021: Overall conclusions
Richard Eba’a Atyi
Photo by Joel Kouam/CIFOR

State of the Congo Basin Forests in 2021: Overall conclusions
State of resources
Huge areas of little disturbed dense forest, but with a
clearly growing trend of deforestation and degradation
The remaining evergreen and semi-deciduous forests of Central Africa were estimated to cover
approximately 200 million ha in January 2020, including 184.7 million ha with no visible sign of
disturbances (Vancutsem et al. 2020). Overall, about 9 percent of the TMF area of Central Africa has
disappeared since 2000, representing 18 million ha (See Chapter 1).
Two key findings underline the scale of the degradation process in such ecosystems: degraded forests
in Central Africa represent approximately 7 percent of the remaining TMF area (up to 30 percent
when we consider disturbance-edge-affected forests), and approximately 40 percent of all forest
disturbances (deforestation, regeneration and degradation).
Analysis of changes shows a considerable increase in the annual disturbance rate in the TMFs of
Central Africa over a five-year period (2015–2020), as it reached 1.79 million ha per year compared
to 1.36 million ha per year during the previous decade (2005–2015) (see Figure 1.13).
The main drivers of deforestation in Central Africa remain the increase in cultivated areas,
demographic growth and infrastructure development. Nonetheless, land-use policies are a valuable
tool in the fight against deforestation and forest degradation. Protected areas, forestry concessions
and community forests can significantly reduce forest loss. At the same time, they can engage local
people in the conservation of forests and provide them with livelihoods.
With a carbon sequestration capacity unique in the

world
Central African forests sequester about 40 Gt of carbon (Saatchi et al. 2011). These forests have
structural characteristics that distinguish them from Amazonian forests: while the density of trees
per hectare is lower, there are more trees of a greater diameter, and trees at a similar diameter are
taller. This results in a higher average level of carbon or biomass per hectare than that of Amazonian
forests (Sullivan et al. 2017). While the atmospheric carbon absorption capacity of undisturbed
Amazonian forests has been declining for around 30 years due to an increase in tree mortality
blamed on climate change (Brienen et al. 2015), this trend has not yet been observed in Central
Africa (Hubau et al. 2020). Currently, despite their comparatively smaller area, the undisturbed
forests in Africa are now absorbing more carbon than those in the Amazon. However, an increase in
carbon loss from 2011 has been observed, suggesting that the absorption capacity of intact forests
in Central Africa will become saturated in the future, despite the stability observed to date (Hubau
et al. 2020).
The annual rates of forest disturbance by type of land use and by country over the last 20 years
highlight the importance, for conservation, of forest concessions and protected areas in relation to
mining concessions and unallocated areas. The monitoring of deforestation, degradation and forest
regeneration also sheds light on the differences between not only the various forest countries, but
also between monitoring periods: between 2010 and 2020, there was an overall increase in rates of
deforestation in protected areas (Doumenge et al. 2020) and forest concessions compared to 2000–
2010.

A significant contribution to the industrial development

of Central Africa
The Congo Basin forests contribute to the economies of Central African countries in diverse ways.
They contribute significantly to the socioeconomic development of those countries through the
value chains still dominated by the informal sector and that include non-wood forest products,
woodfuel and the exploitation of wildlife for food. This State of the Forests 2021 report puts special
emphasis on the timber value chain (see Chapter 2 above), which constitutes the bulk of the forest
contribution to the formal economic sector of Central African countries and on which information
is abundant.
Of the 200 million ha of dense moist forest in Central Africa (Vancutsem et al. 2020), nearly
54 million ha (27 percent) are classified as production forests of various types, mainly in the form of
forestry concessions.
Many conservation concessions have been created in DRC in recent years, either by converting
production forest concessions (thereby reducing the area presented above) or by creating new
concessions. There are no comprehensive public data on these concessions, which cover more than
6 million ha according to an estimate by FRMi. The purpose of these concessions is to help reduce
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
The model of forest management in Central Africa is a major asset for their conservation and
sustainable use. However, their implementation has yet to be assessed, more than 15 years after
approval of the first management plans. Besides concessions, two other forms of management of
production forests in Central Africa deserve attention: community forests and council forests (or
forests of decentralized authorities).
In 2020, FSC-certified forest concessions covered a total area of just over 2 million ha. Prospects
for growth in certified areas remain encouraging, particularly with the advent of the PAFC. Since
2019, ATIBT has been developing a PAFC certification system for the Congo Basin and working to
make it recognized by the PEFC Board. This regional approach will help minimize the costs of PEFC
certification, by pooling its development in the three target countries via national PAFC bodies. This
will make it easier to implement and reduce the costs associated with certification for businesses.
Generally speaking, log production has been relatively stable in Congo Basin countries for the past
25 years. Production was not impacted by the Covid crisis and even grew in 2020 to over 8 million m3.
The processing rate, i.e., the share of the harvested volume processed domestically, varies greatly
between countries. Gabon has banned the export of logs and therefore requires all logs harvested to
be processed in the country. Cameroon has a processing rate of almost 70 percent. The processing
rates in DRC, CAR, and the Republic of the Congo are around 55 percent, even though their regulations
stipulate that only 15–30 percent of production may be exported as logs. In Equatorial Guinea, less
than 20 percent of production is processed. Cameroon and Gabon are the main industrial producers
in the Congo Basin thanks to their high production levels and very good processing rates. Products
that have undergone primary processing dominate exports, mainly in the form of sawnwood, as
well as veneer in Gabon.
Despite the steps taken to encourage forestry operators to increase their production of higher added-
value products, Central African countries are lagging far behind due to lack of infrastructure, high
transport costs and failure to train people in processing trades.

The global market for Central African wood is estimated at USD 178 billion for the 440 million metric
tons produced. Central African countries account for only USD 2.2 billion for a volume of 4.2 million
metric tons (i.e., 1 percent). The total value of exports has changed very little in the last 10 years
despite volumes increasing by 35 percent. This suggests that the average price per metric ton has
decreased for all products on aggregate.
While domestic timber markets appear to be relatively stable and their activity likely correlates
with national economic growth rates, exports of artisanal sawnwood to neighbouring countries
have increased significantly over the past decade. This is especially true in DRC, where exports to
East Africa are now estimated at around 120,000 m³ of sawnwood (Eba’a Atyi et al. 2016) and in
Cameroon, where exports of informal sawnwood to Nigeria reached 27,000 m³ per year in 2016.
The most notable increase was observed between Cameroon and Chad: in 2015, around 210,000 m³
of sawnwood crossed this border (Lescuyer and Tal 2016), very often with falsified documents from
community forests. This is more than double previous estimates made in 2009.
Generally speaking, despite the enormous potential offered by forests in the Congo Basin, over the
past 60 years their wood has been harvested and exported in its raw form to countries outside Africa,
while African countries have imported finished wood products. The missed economic opportunities
are incalculable. The Congo Basin operates on the fringes of the global wood subsector, accounting
for 1 percent of global sawnwood production, 6 percent of tropical sawnwood production, 5 percent
of tropical logs, 7 percent of tropical veneers, 1 percent of tropical plywood and little to no secondary
or tertiary wood processing.
The AfDB’s regional study on the sustainable industrialization of the wood subsector recommends
that countries take 10 key steps (see Chapter 2) to establish an operational framework for the
implementation of this vision by 2030.
If this vision is implemented successfully, jobs will be created in the primary processing sector,
increasing from 40,000 today to over 100,000 by 2030, with possibly even more jobs in the secondary
and tertiary sectors. The wood subsector’s contribution to national GDP will also double. However,
this will not happen without substantial investment. It will be necessary to inject EUR 3 billion in
private funds into the regional economy. The AfDB plans to invest USD 35 billion over 10 years as
part of its industrialization strategy. This will help Africa to increase its GDP from industry from just
over USD 700 billion to over USD 1,720 billion by 2030.
Rehabilitation of resources and

mainstreaming of climate change
Different countries have different approaches to forest
plantations
Forest plantations (see Chapter 3) have been the main approach to forest resource rehabilitation
in Central Africa since colonial times. Among the examples are the considerable investments made
since the 1950s in the Republic of Congo, where eucalyptus plantations were established to produce
fibres for wood pulp production. These efforts, combined with research work, have had significant
success in developing plant material quality. However, investments in this sector are complicated
because of unclear land tenure and use, inadequate industrial infrastructure, lack of technology, low
productivity and shortage of financing. While there are good growth opportunities in the sector,

progress is slow due to a risk-averse investment climate, limited financing opportunities and the
lack of conclusively successful business models in the forest sector.
In the DRC, agroforestry systems that combine food crops (especially cassava) with fast-growing
forest species for woodfuel production are instead what have been established. Some of these
projects have shown their economic viability and impact on social development. An example is
Mampu, a reference agroforestry project that has become an autonomous peasant-farming system
that no longer receives funding or support from international donors.
The objective of the initial agroforestry projects was to produce woodfuel, but this has gradually
shifted towards carbon sequestration, particularly since 2008. These types of initiatives open up
new opportunities, such as the development of large-scale community agroforestry projects. While
these are built on previous models, they have climate and sustainability criteria and comply with the
fundamental principles of protected area management and conservation that are part of Congolese
law.
Another example is Rwanda, where demand for woodfuel continues to be high and where wood from
natural forests had virtually disappeared several decades ago. Public plantation wood is relatively
difficult to access, and land availability for additional large-scale plantations – either private or
public – is severely constrained due to the country’s high population density.
A large portion of Rwandans will continue to use woodfuel as their main energy source for quite
some time to come, as it remains cheaper than electricity, petroleum products and gas on an
equivalent energy basis. Wood from farmers’ fields has lower production costs than from large-
scale plantations and is available without administrative hassle.
While the country claims that it can plant more trees in plantations on marginal lands, it is uncertain
that this wood can be marketed easily: the costs per m3 are substantially higher than wood from
farmers’ fields.
There are no reliable data on the actual production and use of woodfuel to even reliably determine if
this will be a problem in the future. The supply of woodfuel has covered the energy demand without
major government intervention, and it seems that this will not change any time soon.
Conditions for the success of forest plantations in

Central Africa
The following conditions are required for the success of forest plantations in Central Africa:
• Programme objectives, target participants and incentives must be transparent and aligned.
• Suitable land for timber plantation growers must be available.
• Appropriate funding and clear and simple procedures to access the funding must be available.
• Access to high-quality plants must be available.
• The programmes must be developed for an extended period of time.
• A National Forest Inventory must be initiated to track progress and development of the sector.
Moreover, these forest plantations and agroforestry activities contribute to storing a significant
amount of forest biomass. In addition to being a source of supply for businesses and woodfuel,
plantations contribute to the REDD+ process.
Implementation of REDD+ projects to fight climate

change.
Pilot projects act as laboratories for REDD+ implementation (see Chapter 5). Nearly 14 years after the
Bali COP, the implementation of these projects should be assessed so that we can draw lessons from
them. Some 15 pilot projects have been identified in Central Africa. They have helped (i) convince
the most reluctant governments regarding the feasibility of REDD+ mechanism implementation,
(ii) promote the incentives associated with this process (Sunderlin et al. 2014), and (iii) highlight
the complexity of their implementation.
Since 2007, several technical and financial support initiatives have been developed to help countries
prepare and start implementing REDD+ (in particular the FCPF Readiness Fund, UN-REDD, as well
as the FIP, the REDD+ window of the Green Climate Fund, and others). Thanks to this support,
mainstreaming of climate change mitigation issues has taken on an unprecedented dimension,
particularly in Central African countries that have benefited from these funds (Cameroon, CAR,
DRC, Republic of Congo and Gabon), but also in the other countries of the region via a rebound
effect.
However, this mainstreaming remains relatively limited to the forest sector, and REDD+ has not
achieved the expected results in terms of intersectoral coordination. Today, it is crucial to link REDD+
to more comprehensive green growth and/or low-carbon development policies (Thu Thuy et al.
2018), in order to drive the sectors (agriculture, mining, land, energy, etc.) that cause deforestation
and forest degradation and ensure its sustainable and effective implementation. In this respect,
CAFI is an important source of financing.
Similarly, countries need to harmonize carbon monitoring tools and instruments on their territory.
Theoretically, insofar as REDD+ targets are included in the NDCs, the Measurement, Reporting and
Verification (MRV) systems developed under REDD+ should feed directly into a broader carbon
accounting system that would meet the requirements of the Enhanced Transparency Framework
(ETF) of the Paris Agreement. In practice, the REDD+ MRV is often available before the global
accounting tool into which it should be included. And it is not uncommon to observe semantic and
methodological inconsistencies (often due to anachronisms) between the information submitted
to the UNFCCC (greenhouse gas inventories, NDCs, etc.) and the REDD+ MRV instruments (some
of which are also submitted to the UNFCCC, such as the FREL). At this time when countries are
preparing to submit their second Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), it is important to
correct inconsistencies and harmonize methodologies.
Finally, this dual effort of perspective and harmonization should help align REDD+ commitments
and REDD+ projects and programmes. As part of the Paris Agreement and the universality of climate
commitments, this alignment (which we can also call moving closer together, linking or interlocking)
has become necessary. Countries must be able to ensure that REDD+ activities implemented on the
ground contribute to achieving their NDCs.
Currently, one of the major challenges of REDD+ is to succeed in raising funds to implement the
activities. In fact, the main source of financing that had been envisaged for REDD+ (a binding carbon
market) never materialized (Angelsen et al. 2018). Instead, a voluntary carbon market has taken
over. Its development has been both explosive and substantial. In 2019, forestry projects accounted
for 36.7 million metric tons of CO2e on the voluntary carbon markets, worth around USD 160 million.
In financial terms, it is by far the biggest category of voluntary market projects, not only in tCO2e
volume, but also in average sales price per metric ton, which exceeds all the other project categories

(USD 4.3 in 2019). Today, this voluntary market remains one of the main ways to tap into private
financing. However, several questions remain unanswered with regard to the relationship between
these voluntary markets and the Paris Agreement. Furthermore, financing does not cover needs
(Atmadja et al. 2018), and new avenues must be explored to find funds.
International funding for the management of Central

Africa’s forests
Despite their importance and the organization put in place for their management, the forests of
Central Africa are struggling to attract the same level of funding as other tropical forests in South
America and Asia. Over the 10-year period from 2008 to 2017, the forest-environment sector
of Central Africa accounted for only 11.5 percent of financing released for the conservation and
sustainable management of tropical forests.
Internally, COMIFAC’s operations have been perturbed due to difficulties in collecting contributions
from States. Its main source of funding is supposed to be its autonomous funding mechanism;
however, the latter is non-operational in most of the countries of the subregion. The amount of
unpaid contributions totalled nearly FCFA 3 billion in 2021.
This low level of contributions from its member states makes it difficult for COMIFAC to fulfil its
mission fully.
Financial flows come mainly from official development assistance, while contributions from the
private sector and from foundations and philanthropic organizations remain very low. The main
financial contributors are Germany, the European Union (EU) and the Global Environment Facility
(GEF). New funding opportunities emerged at the UNFCCC COP26 – embodied in the declarations
made by philanthropic organizations and actors in the private agricultural sector – and must now
be harnessed. Indeed, a striking number of philanthropic organizations committed to mobilize
USD 1.7 billion for indigenous peoples and local communities for the protection of tropical forests.
A significant share of the international financial flows to Central Africa for the conservation and
sustainable management of forests is allocated to individual countries. There are, however, some
noteworthy initiatives of subregional scope, including the ECOFAC programme funded by the EU
for 30 years, the German COMIFAC support project, and the Congo Basin Ecosystems Conservation
Support Programme (PACEBCo)
Financial partners should strive to align their subregional initiatives in the forest and environment
sector with the COMIFAC Convergence Plan in the spirit of the 2005 Paris Declaration.
The thematic areas that attract the most funding are biodiversity conservation, environmental
policies and forest management policies. In contrast, training and research are neglected, with
serious consequences for the subregion, which is severely lacking capacity in this respect.
The forests of Central Africa are gradually becoming more important on the international political
agenda, thanks in part to the efforts of the CBFP, which is stepping up diplomatic efforts towards
recognition of their crucial role in regulating the world’s climate. For example, at COP26, a collective
declaration from 12 of the richest countries and including the Bezos Earth Fund pledged to mobilize
at least USD 1.5 billion for the protection and sustainable management of Congo Basin forests.
Central African countries must now seek to clarify the commitments of each donor country, and the
mechanisms and arrangements for effectively managing the funds pledged.

COMIFAC must organize equitable fundraising, for a fair deal and a fair share for the Congo Basin.
Such funding should amount to USD 6 billion/year to bring in funding commensurate with the
contribution of Congo Basin forest ecosystems to the global climate.
Many opportunities and potential sources of international financing exist for the forest-environment
sector of Central Africa. To take advantage of them, it will be necessary to improve the subregion’s
capacity to develop quality proposals and promote credible governance for the financial institutions
of Central Africa, both at country level and at the common subregional level. As a first step, Member
States must make COMIFAC a priority and pay their agreed annual contributions.
Growing participation by Central African

countries in international discussions on
forests
The contribution of forests within the context of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
and of the UNFCCC Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) is followed by all countries of the
world. The SOF 2021 report therefore draws attention to these two instruments.
Relationship between the SDGs and the COMIFAC

Convergence Plan
In September 2015, the 193 UN Member States adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development. This ‘Agenda 2030’ programme consists of 17 SDGs and 169 targets. It is a people-
centred development agenda which seeks to eradicate poverty in all its forms and dimensions,
preserve the environment and ensure more peaceful and inclusive societies.
Agenda 2030 recognizes the following: “Targets are defined as aspirational and global, with each
Government setting its own national targets guided by the global level of ambition but taking into account
national circumstances. Each Government will also decide how these aspirational and global targets should
be incorporated into national planning processes, policies and strategies.”
The COMIFAC Convergence Plan for the conservation and sustainable management of Central
African forest ecosystems comprises six priority action areas and three cross-cutting areas. It serves
as a reference framework for actions in the forestry and environmental sector in Central Africa.
To better guide Central African countries in implementing Agenda 2030, it is recommended that the
Convergence Plan align with the SDGs (see Chapter 6). The nine action areas of the Convergence Plan
and the 17 SDGs of Agenda 2030 thus act as a framework for the analyses performed in this report.
The mainstreaming of the SDGs into sustainable forest management in Central Africa consisted of
reviewing the ways in which the COMIFAC Convergence Plan action areas are linked to the SDGs.
The report thus shows that the COMIFAC Convergence Plan can serve as a reference framework
for assessing the contribution of Central African forests to the SDGs. The exercise of aligning the
COMIFAC Convergence Plan with the SDGs has once again highlighted the multiple functions
performed by the forests of the Congo Basin and the many services they provide to humans and
the planet.

However, the range of forest contributions to the SDGs has not been sufficiently understood and
reflected in the voluntary national reports produced by the subregion countries. In fact, most
countries did not provide detailed information on forest contributions to the SDGs.
The multifunctional approach employed by COMIFAC in monitoring forest contribution to the

SDGs goes beyond simply an environmental function. This approach pays as much attention to the
economic and social functions of the forest as to their environmental function. It should be made
use of more, to aid in identifying the range of services that forest ecosystems provide to achieve the
SDGs.
As for future prospects, the production of the Subregional Guidelines for monitoring forest
contribution to the SDGs in COMIFAC countries is a significant step towards improving reporting
on how these forests contribute to the SDGs. Once these guidelines are adopted by the COMIFAC
Council of Ministers, they can be adopted domestically by member countries. To this end, the
capacities of countries of the subregion should be enhanced, so that they can assume better
ownership and implementation of the principles, guidelines and priority actions needed to improve
their reporting on the SDGs and on forest contributions to the latter.
Diverse international commitments by Central African

countries in the fight against climate change
Chapter 7 presents all these commitments and provides an overview of how well Central African
countries have upheld their commitments under the UNFCCC and on combating climate change
in general. More specifically, these are binding commitments such as National Communications,
Biennial Update Reports (BURs) and NDCs, as well as voluntary commitments including NAPAs,
REDD+, NAMAs, FCPF, UN-REDD, CAFI, AFR100, FLEGT, FIP and HLFD.
All the commitments by the Central African countries represent a reduction of 455.4 MtCO2e
(conditional and unconditional) and represent funding needs of USD 117,882 billion for the
commitment period to 2030 in most cases (Fobissie et al. 2016; Eba’a et al. 2018). A recent study
has shown that the implementation of these commitments requires greater coordination between
sectors within countries (Eba’a et al. 2018).
Under Article 4 paragraphs 2 and 9 of the Paris Agreement, the Parties must submit an NDC every
five years. Countries’ commitments and their progress towards achieving their NDCs should show
growing ambition. Five years after the adoption and ratification of the Paris Agreement by all
Central African countries, they embarked on the process of revising their NDCs or preparing new
ones for submission to the UNFCCC Secretariat by the end of July 2021. Rwanda and São Tomé and
Principe met this deadline. In March 2022, the UNFCCC website showed that eight countries had
submitted an updated NDC (see Table 7.2). Gabon and Equatorial Guinea had not yet done so. The
updated NDCs were submitted in preparation for COP26 in Glasgow, Scotland. These commitments
will need to be monitored closely, and a new regional plan of action for the implementation of the
Paris Agreement in Central Africa should be drawn up following the submission of the revised or
updated NDCs.
The principle of common but differentiated responsibility has enabled Central African countries,
which have low greenhouse gas emissions as compared to other countries, to sustainably manage
their forest resources as a way to support international efforts to limit climate change. However, their

stated ambitions do not necessarily translate into commitments that are effectively implemented
at national level and that would enable them to better fulfil their UNFCCC obligations. While
international funding is available to developing countries, including those in Central Africa, the
failure of these countries to submit the required national documentation at international level
means their access to certain funding is severely curtailed.
Emerging themes
The previous edition of the State of the Forests of the Congo Basin, SOF 2015, focused on climate
change. This theme is still topical but has new variants which were of increasing concern to forest
management stakeholders between 2015 and 2021. These variants include the implementation of
strategies and policies to fight ‘imported deforestation’ and the management of huge peatland
areas, whose discovery in the Congo Basin created worldwide sensation. Finally, the COVID-19
pandemic, whose effect was felt around the world during the period this report was written, made
it impossible to neglect the links between Central African forests and zoonotic diseases.
Central Africa countries faced with the fight against

imported deforestation
Imported deforestation involves imported agricultural products that cause tropical deforestation
(see Chapter 8). Countries such as those in the EU can be said to import deforestation (IDDRI 2017),
as imports of raw materials or processed products are directly or indirectly linked to deforestation,
forest degradation or the conversion of natural ecosystems outside the national territory
(Gouvernement France 2017).
There seems to be consensus on the need to combat deforestation among various direct and
indirect stakeholders involved in land management in Central Africa. Nevertheless, the policies
and approaches adopted and implemented to this end can have serious social and economic
consequences for producer and exporting countries in this region.
Importing countries in Europe and America adopt binding consumer-side policies under the
influence of activist civil society organizations. At the end of 2021, the EU adopted legislation
restricting the entry into its territory of products suspected of contributing to deforestation, with
the underlying assumption that deforestation is only a tropical phenomenon and linked to the
production of internationally traded commodities. The products most affected in Central Africa are
palm oil; cocoa; rubber; wood; and, to a lesser extent, coffee.
The technical arrangements for implementing these policies and measures to combat imported
deforestation in importing countries are still unclear or not yet determined. Barriers to the
development of credible implementation strategies include the lack of consensus on how to define
forests and, therefore, deforestation. Nevertheless, the certification approach has been applied to
timber products for around 20 years and is increasingly applied to palm oil and cocoa. It offers a
technical solution, both with regard to production units and territorial entities that have made
commitments.
Central African producers and exporters are increasingly aware of and compliant with the new
requirements of zero-deforestation policies and measures to combat imported deforestation
adopted by developed importing countries. This is all the more relevant, given that Central African

countries understand the threat that such policies pose to their national economies. Central African
stakeholders have responded in two ways: 1) by diversifying their markets to export more to less
demanding markets, and 2) by adopting sustainable management practices for the production of
the commodities concerned, through increasing efforts to eliminate deforestation from production
chains. Such approaches in Central Africa are being initiated not just by governments, but also by
private-sector and civil society actors.
To limit the negative economic impacts that might be linked to the adoption and implementation
of policies on imported deforestation in Europe in particular, Central African governments should
prioritize negotiation activities, possibly as part of discussions between the Economic Community of
Central African States (ECCAS) and the EU, with the goal of adopting more realistic implementation
timetables as well as support measures for the States and various stakeholders of the commodities
involved. The FLEGT experience in Central Africa could serve as an example and could be improved.
Given that they share similar ecosystems, Central African countries could, as a starting point, include
harmonizations in their technical approaches, for example, by agreeing on definitions of ‘forest’ and
in determining ways to monitor deforestation.
The growing importance of peatlands in the

management of forest ecosystems in the Congo Basin
Peatlands are wetlands with an accumulation of partially decomposed organic matter in the soil;
they store the largest amount of terrestrial carbon per unit area (see Chapter 9). They cover almost
3 percent of global land surface, representing more than the total carbon stored in the earth’s
vegetation and almost twice as much carbon as found in its forests. Drained and degraded peatlands
emit huge amounts of greenhouse gases. Therefore, protection and sustainable management of
these natural environments, as well as urgent restoration actions, can help avoid carbon emissions
and maintain the carbon stored in the peatland ecosystem.
In Central Africa, the Central Congo peatlands are estimated to cover 145,500 km2. They are located
across both the Republic of Congo and DRC, making them the world’s largest tropical peatland
complex. They are estimated to store approximately 30 Gt of carbon, which is approximately as
much carbon as all the above-ground forest biomass in Congo Basin, and equivalent to 15 years of
the carbon emissions from the US economy.
To date, this vast peatland area has remained relatively intact, but several potential pressures
threaten to disturb these highly sensitive ecosystems. Increases in areas used for logging,
hydrocarbon exploration, and agriculture can all cause degradation and destruction of these critical
habitats. Disturbances and drainage will not only release a large amount of greenhouse gases into
the atmosphere, thereby contributing to global warming, but they will also have severe impacts on
the regional climate.
Therefore, more research to inform policies and new intersectoral sustainable management plans
and actions for urgent conservation of the Central Congo peatlands are paramount to ensure
continuing provision of the ecosystem services and stability they provide.
As partners of the Global Peatlands Initiative, the governments of DRC and the Republic of the Congo
are taking action, through national leadership and support from partners to develop consultative,
intersectoral and scientifically informed peatlands management policies, strategies and plans.
Any peatland policies, plans or investments need to be linked to both countries’ commitments to

regional and international global environmental agreements reinforced by targets of the SDGs.
Most critical is that the intersectoral, interdisciplinary and multi-stakeholder participatory
processes of developing policies, plans and programmes to conserve, restore and sustainably
manage these peatlands needs adequate financing, innovation, institutional strengthening and
access to knowledge.
Central African forests and zoonotic diseases

Emerging infectious diseases (EIDs), caused by “pathogens that are rapidly increasing in
geographical spread, host range or prevalence”, represent one of the major risks to human
health and societies (see Chapter 10). In fact, these EIDs have been increasing in recent decades.
More than 60 percent of known EIDs are due to an animal pathogen, and it is estimated that
75 percent of infectious diseases that have emerged in the past three to four decades have been
caused by wildlife.
These zoonoses are diseases that are transmitted from animals to humans and triggered by
complex interactions between humans, domestic animals and wildlife. In order to design
and implement surveillance and control systems for these EIDs, it is essential to understand
the mechanisms and factors that lead to this spill-over. Among the factors that cause these
diseases, human density associated with anthropogenic and demographic changes is one of
the main drivers of EIDs. The wide range of host wildlife is also an important factor to consider.
Their predictive model indicates that low-latitude developing countries are the most exposed
to EIDs from wildlife or those that are vector-transmitted. New models suggest that the risk of
emergence is higher in tropical forest regions that have high levels of mammalian biodiversity
and are subject to changes in land use due to encroachment by human populations and
agricultural activities.
Landscape changes affecting Central African forests can impact several mechanisms which may
or may not favour the emergence and re-emergence of pathogens. Tropical forests are home
to a wide diversity of as yet unknown viruses and bacteria that represent a source of emerging
pathogens. The transformation of landscapes takes place through human infrastructure
development following a temporal sequence: 1) roads, enabling access to areas previously
inaccessible to vehicles; 2) settlements or small villages, where wildlife resources can be
extracted for local or more distant markets (e.g., urban centres); 3) sedentarization of human
populations, which may then be accompanied by peasant or small-scale cultivation of certain
areas in the forests that still dominate the landscape; 4) possible development of small urban
centres, which little by little transform the surrounding landscape, with a gradual predominance
of fields and more commercial crops (e.g., oil palm); and, finally, 5) areas where the forest had
been predominant a few years or decades before but which now resemble agricultural land,
with a few patches of protected or unprotected forest left.
These gradual landscape changes will have three main consequences on how diseases emerge:
1. An increase in the quantity and quality of human-wildlife contacts, and an intensification

of hunting, agricultural practices and commercial exploitation of resources.
2. A transformation in the ecology of animal hosts of pathogens, thereby altering the ecology
of diseases.

3. Modification of wildlife communities driven by these modifications/adaptations of species to

their environment that come about directly or indirectly (e.g., via interspecies competition).
These changes will impact the dynamics of the sylvatic cycles of multihost pathogens and the
risks of transmission between wildlife and humans. Thus, a rainforest bat community in a given
area will no longer be the same when the landscape is transformed, and it will promote (or not)
some pathogens at the expense of others.
The situation of Central African forests is therefore very dynamic, with changing landscapes, increasing
human/wildlife contact and wildlife communities that are adapting to these changes. The rate of
transformation of these forests will have an impact on the risks of emergence. Efforts to establish
surveillance systems and health policies are often under-resourced and therefore complicated,
yet they are essential in these forest ecosystems which still host a wide diversity of agents that are
potentially dangerous to human and animal health. These surveillance systems should make it
possible to contain epidemics as quickly as possible in order to protect local populations, limit the
costs of the measures taken and avoid pandemics.
Given the importance of wildlife as a source of protein and income in Central Africa, a considerable
part of zoonotic risk management in this region involves setting up surveillance systems within the
bushmeat value chain, based on countries’ ‘One Health Strategies’. Such surveillance systems could
easily be set up upstream of a chain, with the collaboration of hunters and the distribution of suitable
collection equipment.
This approach, combined with high-performance diagnostic systems, would make it possible to
establish an initial health assessment of the main pathogens susceptible of circulating within the
most common species among the number of animals bagged. On the basis of this initial assessment, it
would then be possible to set up more targeted screening programmes for the detection or monitoring
of certain pathogens or species, depending on the risk identified. Information from the detection of
circulating pathogens in the hunted animal species would help to identify the main risks to which
human populations interacting with these hosts can be exposed. This approach works relatively well
in some countries that have skilled human resources and that can effectively utilize well-equipped
and efficient research laboratories after EVD epidemics.
Emerging infectious disease outbreaks are occurring with increasing frequency and have growing
socioeconomic consequences which are difficult for African governments to cope with. The example
of COVID-19 illustrates this. Many African governments have taken measures to prevent the spread of
the pandemic. However, the jobs and livelihoods of local people are jeopardized by the simultaneous
occurrence of disruptions to domestic supply and production combined with weak external demand,
sharp declines in commodity prices, and the disruption of key service sectors such as tourism (ATIBT
2020a). The pandemic has also highlighted the fragility of economies and health systems that cannot
cope with such situations and are dependent on donations from rich countries for health equipment
and vaccinations.
The COVID-19 pandemic has had an impact on working conditions in the forest sector and disrupted
the organization and smooth running of its activities. The result has been considerable repercussions
on the social, economic and environmental equilibrium, affecting jobs, source of income, raw material
resources, etc. (ATIBT 2020b) and thereby endangering production and trade of essential forest
products as well as seriously jeopardizing the livelihoods of local people.

The intensification of the emergence of infectious pathogens has many underlying reasons, all of
which are related to the increasing anthropogenic impact on nature in a context of growing social
and environmental injustices and inequalities.
Tackling EIDs in the forests of Central Africa requires both symptomatic treatments (e.g., surveillance
and control of emerging pathogens and diseases) and substantive treatments that will limit human
impact on forests and biodiversity loss. Both approaches are necessary and essential, and the
COVID-19 crisis has been a painful reminder of the need for in-depth changes in the way we manage
the planet as a whole.
Sustainable management of forests in

Central Africa: the issues at stake
Under the current circumstances, it is no mystery that achieving the goal of sustainable management
of Central African forest ecosystems faces many challenges. This report focuses on three of these
challenges: land use planning, restoration of degraded forest landscapes, and consideration of
people’s rights.
Land Use Planning

Land Use Planning (LUP) is, generally speaking, a policy that tends to organize human activities in
a predetermined geographical area, based on a long-term objective (see Chapter 11). The aim of
this policy is to strengthen social cohesion of that area at different levels. On a finer scale, the way
in which the territory is organized establishes zones and sub territories, and for each of these it
allocates objectives in line with the overall long-term objective of LUP.
The various countries of Central Africa have made significant efforts in developing public policies to
enable them to design their LUP, thereby creating the conditions for development compatible with
both better management of their resources and economic development to combat poverty.
People’s top expectation is for services and infrastructure, whether in the cities or in the countryside.
In the latter, people demand roads (to better sell their agricultural products), schools and health
centres. A good environment starts with having access to clean water. These demands bring
them into conflict with conservation advocates, who, backed by evidence, argue for limiting road
development in forest areas (Alamgir et al. 2017). Roads symbolize development and are expected
by local stakeholders, but they are criticized by some scientists for their impact on biodiversity.
These roads, sometimes initially laid out for logging, agro-industry or mining, are then used for all
sorts of activities and especially small-scale subsistence farming, which takes over land along the
roads. Today, road development has an undeniable impact on ecosystems, as they contribute to the
direct causes of deforestation. This should not be the case. By making road development conditional
on local governance models, such as contracts with local people who desperately need the roads
for their development, it should be possible to reconcile environmental protection and inclusive
development. These new governance models are still under construction but could build on local
planning processes such as those being developed in Cameroon.
International agencies, development partners and environmental NGOs act on LUP through the
creation of nature reserves, biodiversity corridors and global policies such as REDD+ (and its
variations, such as forest landscape restoration). Two programmes have been remarkable in Central

Africa. The CARPE programme has promoted a landscape-wide approach to LUP, with the goal of
reconciling conservation and improving people’s lives. The EU ECOFAC programme that started in
1993 and has been going on for nearly 30 years takes into account the uses of Central African forest
ecosystems. ECOFAC also strives to promote regional coordination processes for conservation while
mainstreaming socioeconomic aspects. It is within this framework that it has supported the creation
of protected areas decided on by the governments of Central Africa following the Rio Summit in
1992, including transboundary areas. This was the idea that produced the Network of Protected
Areas of Central Africa (RAPAC).
Much remains to be done to invent ways of managing the links between the various territorial entities:
between cities and countryside, between agricultural and forestry areas, between the interstices
nestled between large parks or forest areas, and between countries in the case of transboundary
parks or forest areas. Some tools for reconciling interests are already in place. Experiences in
Rwanda and Cameroon show that through innovations in local governance it would be possible to
implement LUP that allows for both national and local development, while sustainably limiting the
degradation of renewable resources and ecosystems.
What are the best institutional arrangements to facilitate LUP implementation? We can see that LUP
is very different from one country to another. For example, in Cameroon LUP is under the Ministry of
the Economy, while DRC has a ministry solely dedicated to LUP. But which system is more effective
than the other: a powerful ministry, or a specialized ministry?
This brief overview of the forms of LUP at work in the Congo Basin should be followed by real
comparative studies per country, in order to provide some answers to the issues and questions
mentioned above and in particular on their implementation. Despite the efforts already made under
some programmes (e.g., CARPE and ECOFAC), we still lack data on the characteristics and effects
of current LUP. There is thus a pressing need to provide information and awareness-raising on this
critical topic of LUP, targeting policy-makers, the scientific community and the general public.
Forest Landscape Restoration (FLR)

FLR is a long-term process that seeks to limit continued degradation of existing forest ecosystems and/
or to repair them (i.e., forest rehabilitation), so as to sustainably improve the living environment of
local people (see Chapter 12). Reducing forest degradation involves changing the rules of interaction
between natural and social dynamics (e.g., patterns of resource appropriation). FLR may, of course,
include forest rehabilitation actions, such as plantations, assisted natural regeneration, or water
and soil management (e.g., terraces, anti-erosion ditches, mulching and soil conditioning) on areas
that are individually owned or common property. However, FLR cannot be reduced to and confused
with these actions. It is a long-term and changing process that involves adaptations to social,
demographic or institutional change, or to change in stakeholder perception or environmental
conditions.
FLR requires shared vision at various levels, co-construction with stakeholders, and monitoring
systems. It must be part of local land management via a decision-making process which precedes
the setting out of its objectives and methods of action. This decision-making process determines the
framework for long-term restoration of the ecosystems in question.
FLR is rightly seen as a priority for Central African countries. Given the critical mass of threats to the
health of forest ecosystems in the subregion, national responses seem to be robust. While it is not a

completely new idea, FLR in Central Africa is triggering new types of processes that build on recent
climate change mitigation efforts such as REDD+.
Because we are at the very beginning of these processes, it is not possible to assess them at this
stage. Many country commitments and strategies have been initiated within the framework of FLR,
significant funding is being put in place, and some smaller projects are already underway. There is
an urgent need to establish multicriteria monitoring and evaluation systems in order to steer this
rehabilitation process.
In Central Africa, implementation of the FLR process reveals a lack of accompanying research in
socioeconomic areas (including value chains) of (i) genetic resource conservation; (ii) species
selection; (iii) germplasm improvement; (iv) planting techniques; (v) assisted natural regeneration;
(vi) governance ( including land-tenure issues and inclusive decision-making processes);
and (vii) innovation and evaluation processes, particularly the assessment of ecological and
socioeconomic impacts. Some of this research requires long-term arrangements that are difficult to
maintain in Central Africa and are very rarely funded.
Forest landscape rehabilitation relies heavily on local populations, as in many cases it involves
changes in agricultural and forest resource-management practices. FLR involves investing in
developmental aspects that are too costly to be borne by these local populations alone. Meanwhile,
governments in the region have great difficulty in providing basic services to their people, such as
infrastructure and health care, education, access to electricity and drinking water, and accessible
roads.
The financing of FLR therefore relies mainly on donors and the private sector. However, most donors
spread out development projects over four to five years, with performance indicators associated with
these durations. As rehabilitation is a long-term process, donors must also adapt their practices.
Often, they want the local population to be involved, but they are not prepared to allow for the time
needed on the ground to consult them beforehand. The financing of FLR may also be based on the
principle of compensation or on corporate social responsibility.
Land restoration has long been seen as a way to revive ecosystems and build resilience to climate
change, but it can also harbour great economic and business potential. The monitoring of FLR
programmes currently being implemented in Central Africa should include indicators that can
inform us about these different dimensions of restoration.
Considering local and indigenous populations

Considering indigenous peoples in forestry and conservation policies can no longer be overlooked
by those operating in the sector, be they conservation organizations or logging companies. Over
the past three decades, public and private initiatives supported by technical and financial partners
have gradually strengthened the role of local communities and indigenous peoples in forest
management. On this front, subregional and national legal and policy frameworks have become
significantly denser. Legal instruments have, among other things, laid down (i) participation;
(ii) consideration of usage rights; (iii) benefit-sharing; and (iv) free, prior and informed consent as
fundamental requirements for responsible management of natural resources. The implementation
of these provisions by private operators, especially certified operators, has had some tangible
success through the development of infrastructure projects with socioeconomic benefits.

Such legal progress remains precarious, and implementation is often challenging given that some
local communities lack the required managerial capacity. Current trends in development planning,
land use planning policies and the consolidation of ultraliberal forest management approaches
in the subregion, as well as land grabbing by national elites, suggest that the irrevocable legal
recognition of community and indigenous forest rights are being sidelined. In the Congo Basin,
occasional outbreaks of violence linked to efforts to claim these rights, coupled with a deep and
legitimate desire for (sometimes unsustainable) development, are an ongoing concern.
Yet, there is another better possible path and future. First and foremost, enabling conditions for
this optimistic scenario, public and political dialogues could complement the necessary reforms,
as part of processes that genuinely mainstream local and indigenous peoples’ demands. Secondly,
national land use planning programmes, which may use different names, could map out customary
lands of village communities and – as far as realistic – the territories on which indigenous peoples
Box C1 NaturAfrica: Mainstreaming the needs of people and the

planet to address the conservation and sustainable management
of biodiversity in priority landscapes in Africa
Chantal Marijnissen, Philippe Mayaux and Filippo Saracco
The 2019 European Green Deal (Communication from the Commission to the European
Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee of the Regions (COM/2019/640 final) mentioned that
“The EU will launch a ‘NaturAfrica’ initiative to tackle biodiversity loss by creating a
network of protected areas to protect wildlife and offer opportunities in green sectors for
local populations.” NaturAfrica takes an integrated management approach to extensive
landscapes: the Key Landscapes for Conservation and Development (KLCD). It focuses
on protected areas but is of particular importance to local communities. NaturAfrica is
based on three pillars: (i) conservation of biodiversity in areas of high biodiversity value,
(ii) green economy and local development by and for the benefit of local communities
and (iii) inclusive landscape governance which respects the opinions and interests of each
stakeholder.
This initiative takes an innovative people-centred approach while preserving ecosystems and
wildlife that are vital to all.
KLCDs were identified in Larger than Elephants: inputs for an EU strategic approach to wildlife
conservation in Africa,1 a publication which followed broad consultation of stakeholders,
including national institutions, civil society and the private sector. The EU will concentrate
its support to these landscapes and provide visibility to African natural parks via a response
that includes fighting against biodiversity loss, creating sustainable jobs, improving security
and the rule of law.
In Central Africa, some 20 KLCDs have been identified, ranging from the Sahelian savannas to
dense humid forests, not to mention aquatic and coastal ecosystems..
1 European Commission, 2016. Larger than Elephants: inputs for an EU strategic approach to wildlife conservation in Africa, European
Commission, 500p, doi:10.2841/123569

depend for their livelihoods (allowing for several uses in the same space). This would not threaten
governments’ sovereignty over forests and land, but it would allow for local and indigenous peoples’
land rights to be mapped out and finally recognized. Thirdly, land titles, or any other means of
irrevocably securing the forest lands of local and indigenous peoples, could be gradually given, on
a case-by-case basis. It is a compromise scenario, but a win-win one that should appease the most
vindictive few at local level and remove a thorn in legislators’ and policymakers’ side.
These various possibilities underscore the need to better consider the diversity of customary rights
in forest land management and to put the government back at the centre of forest management,
with regulations tailored to realities on the ground. (see Box C1).
Final remarks
In their present state, the forests of Central Africa are relatively well preserved. They act as a lifeline
for all of humanity, faced with the climate crisis and biodiversity loss. The continuity of the human
species depends on the sustainable management of these rather fragile ecosystems. The fate of
the Congo Basin forests must therefore be viewed as a joint responsibility of the Central African
countries and of the international community, which have all for long benefited from these forests
and placed their hopes in them for a secure future and a shared well-being.
This is why the forest ecosystems of the Congo Basin should be subject to equitable and fair agreements
between, on the one hand, the States and stakeholders of Central Africa (the direct managers of
these resources) and, on the other, the international community (including multinational private
sector and philanthropic organizations), which provides the financial means and capacities for the
protection and sustainable management of those forest ecosystems.

Bibliography
Abernethy K, Maisels F, White LJ. 2016. Environmental issues in Central Africa. Annual Review of Environment
and Resources. 41:1-33. doi: 10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085415.
Achong B, Epstein M. 1978. Preliminary seroepidemiological studies on the human syncytial virus. Journal of
General Virology. 40(1):175-181. https://doi.org/10.1099/0022-1317-40-1-175.
Achong B, Mansell P, Epstein M. 1971. A new human virus in cultures from a nasopharyngeal carcinoma. The
Journal of pathology. 103(2):P18-P18.
ACHPR, IWGIA. 2005. Report of the African Commission’s Working Group of Experts on Indigenous Populations/
Communities. African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights ; International Work Group for
Indigenous Affairs.
ACHPR, IWGIA. 2006. Indigenous peoples in Africa : The forgotten peoples ? : the African Commission’s work on
indigenous peoples in Africa. African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights ; International Work
Group for Indigenous Affairs.
Adams MA, Kayira J, Tegegne YT, Gruber JS. 2020. A comparative analysis of the institutional capacity of
FLEGT VPA in Cameroon, the Central African Republic, Ghana, Liberia, and the Republic of the Congo.
For. Policy Econ. 112, 102108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102108.
Adjemian J, Farnon EC, Tschioko F, Wamala JF, Byaruhanga E, Bwire GS, Kansiime E, Kagirita A, Ahimbisibwe
S, Katunguka F. 2011. Outbreak of Marburg hemorrhagic fever among miners in Kamwenge and Ibanda
districts, Uganda, 2007. The Journal of infectious diseases. 204(suppl_3):S796-S799. https://doi.org/10.1093/
infdis/jir312.
AfDB (African Development Bank). 2019a. Towards large-scale commercial investment in African forestry. A
study for the climate investment funds evaluation & learning initiative (public version). Final report.
AfDB (African Development Bank). 2019b. Rapport stratégique régional, Développement intégré et durable
de la filière Bois dans le bassin du Congo : opportunités, défis et recommandations opérationnelles.
AfDB (African Development Bank). 2018. 14-000-hectares-reforested-under-10-years-thanks-to- african-
development.
African Parks Network. 2021. The African Parks Model. https://www.africanparks.org/about-us/our-story/the-
african-parks-model.
Agnandji ST, Fernandes JF, Bache EB, Obiang Mba RM, Brosnahan JS, Kabwende L, Pitzinger P, Staarink P,
Massinga-Loembe M, Krähling V. 2017. Safety and immunogenicity of rvsvδg-zebov-gp ebola vaccine in
adults and children in lambaréné, gabon: A phase i randomised trial. PLoS medicine. 14(10):e1002402,
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28985239/, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002402.
Agusto FB, Teboh-Ewungkem MI, Gumel AB. 2015. Mathematical assessment of the effect of traditional
beliefs and customs on the transmission dynamics of the 2014 Ebola outbreaks. BMC medicine. 13(1):1-
17. DOI 10.1186/s12916-015-0318-3.
Alamgir M, Campbell MJ, Sloan S, Goosem M, Clements GR, Mahmoud M I, Laurance WF. 2017. “Economic,
Socio-Political and Environmental Risks of Road Development in the Tropics.” Curr Biol 27(20):
R1130-R1140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2017.08.067.
Alipade JE, Dimandja JL. 2011. Biomass equation for predicting tree aboveground biomass at Yangambi. DRC
J Trop For Sci. 23:125-132.
Allen T, Murray KA, Zambrana-Torrelio C, Morse SS, Rondinini C, Di Marco M, Breit N, Olival KJ, Daszak P.
2017. Global hotspots and correlates of emerging zoonotic diseases. Nature communications. 8(1):1-10.
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-017-00923-8.
Bibliography
Alvarado LXR, Wertz-Kanounnikoff S. 2008. Why are we seeing “REDD” ? An analysis of the international
debate on reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation in developing countries. Institut du
développement durable et des relations internationales.
Amman BR, Bird BH, Bakarr IA, Bangura J, Schuh AJ, Johnny J, Sealy TK, Conteh I, Koroma AH, Foday
I. 2020. Isolation of Angola-like Marburg virus from Egyptian rousette bats from West Africa.
Nature communications. 11(1):1-9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-14327-8.
Andersen KG, Rambaut A, Lipkin WI, Holmes EC, Garry RF. 2020. The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2.
Nature medicine. 26(4):450-452. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9.
Anderson RM, May RM. 1986. The invasion, persistence and spread of infectious diseases within animal
and plant communities. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, Biological
Sciences. 314(1167):533-570. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1986.0072.
Andersona CM, Asnerb GP, Lambin EF. 2019. Lack of association between deforestation and either
sustainability commitments or fines in private concessions in the Peruvian Amazon. Forest Policy
and Economics 104 (2019) 1 – 8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2019.03.010.
Angelsen A, Martius C, De Sy V, Duchelle A, Larson A, Pham TT. 2018. Transforming REDD+: Lessons and
new directions. CIFOR.
Ansprenger F. 1989. The dissolution of the colonial empires. Routledge.
Antonation KS, Grützmacher K, Dupke S, Mabon P, Zimmermann F, Lankester F, Peller T, Feistner A, Todd
A, Herbinger I. 2016. Bacillus cereus biovar anthracis causing anthrax in Sub-saharan Africa—
chromosomal monophyly and broad geographic distribution. PLoS neglected tropical diseases.
10(9):e0004923. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0004923.
Aoudou Doua, Narke Layen Ndiong. 2018. Evaluation of the Advanced Minning Front Craft in and around
National Parks of the Benue and Bouba-Ndjidda in North Cameroon. Journal of Geographic
Information System 10 (04):461. 10.4236/jgis.2018.104024.
Artaud H. 2014. De l’«efficacité» symbolique des interdits à leur fonctionnalité écologique. Variations
sur le «tabou» en milieux maritimes. Revue d’ethnoécologie. (6). https://doi.org/10.4000/
ethnoecologie.2055.
Asante J, Noreddin A, El Zowalaty ME. 2019. Systematic review of important bacterial zoonoses in Africa
in the last decade in light of the ‘one health’concept. Pathogens. 8(2):50. https://doi.org/10.3390/
pathogens8020050.
Assembe-Mvondo S, Cerutti P, Putzel L, Atyi REa. 2016. What happens when corporate ownership shifts
to China? A case study on rubber production in cameroon. The European Journal of Development
Research. 28(3):465-478.
Assembe-Mvondo S, Wong G, Loft L, Tjajadi JS. 2015. Comparative assessment of forest revenue redistribution
mechanisms in Cameroon : Lessons for REDD+ benefit sharing. Working Paper No 190; p. 37. CIFOR.
Atherstone C, Smith E, Ochungo P, Roesel K, Grace D. 2017. Assessing the potential role of pigs in the
epidemiology of Ebola virus in Uganda. Transboundary and emerging diseases. 64(2):333-
343. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.12394.
ATIBT (Association Technique Internationale des Bois Tropicaux). 2019. Congo: Partnership to plant ten
thousand hectares of forests between the Government of Congo and the Batéké Brazzaville forest
plantation company (spf2b).
ATIBT. 2020a. Impact of Covid 19 on timber trade. https://www.atibt.org/en/news/11819/impact-of-
covid-19-on-timber-trade.

Bibliography
ATIBT. 2020b. Covid-19 analysis of the social and economic impact on the forest sector - Republic of
Congo.
Atmadja S, Arwida S, Martius C, Pham T. 2018. Financing REDD+: A transaction among equals, or an
uneven playing field?.
Aubréville A. 1957. Accord à Yangambi sur la nomenclature des types africains de végétation. BOIS &
FORETS DES TROPIQUES. 51(51):23-27.
Avitabile V, Herold M, Heuvelink GB, Lewis SL, Phillips OL, Asner GP, Armston J, Ashton PS, Banin L,
Bayol N. 2016. An integrated pan‐tropical biomass map using multiple reference datasets. Global
change biology. 22(4):1406-1420.
Awono A, Somorin OA, Atyi REa, Levang P. 2014. Tenure and participation in local REDD+ projects:
Insights from Southern Cameroon. Environmental Science & Policy. 35:76-86.
Aykut S. 2017. La gouvernance incantatoire. L’accord de Paris et les nouvelles formes de gouvernance
globale. La pensée écologique. 1(1).
Baccini A, Goetz S, Walker W, Laporte N, Sun M, Sulla-Menashe D, Hackler J, Beck P, Dubayah R, Friedl
M. 2012. Estimated carbon dioxide emissions from tropical deforestation improved by carbon-
density maps. Nature climate change. 2(3):182.
Banque mondiale. 2017. Cadre environnemental et social de la Banque mondiale. Banque mondiale.
Barré-Sinoussi F, Chermann J-C, Rey F, Nugeyre MT, Chamaret S, Gruest J, Dauguet C, Axler-Blin C,
Vézinet-Brun F, Rouzioux C. 1983. Isolation of a t-lymphotropic retrovirus from a patient at risk
for acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). Science. 220(4599):868-871.
Barrett AD, Monath TP. 2003. Epidemiology and ecology of yellow fever virus. Advances in virus
research. 61:291-317.
Bastone P, Truyen U, Löchelt M. 2003. Potential of zoonotic transmission of non‐primate foamy viruses
to humans. Journal of Veterinary Medicine, Series B. 50(9):417-423.
Battini J-L. 1999. La filière cacao en République du Gabon: Bilan-diagnostic et recommandations
[Montpellier]: Université de Montpellier.
Baumgartner RJ. 2019. Sustainable development goals and the forest sector—a complex relationship.
Forests. 10(2):152.
Bausch DG, Nichol ST, Muyembe-Tamfum JJ, Borchert M, Rollin PE, Sleurs H, Campbell P, Tshioko
FK, Roth C, Colebunders R. 2006. Marburg hemorrhagic fever associated with multiple genetic
lineages of virus. New England Journal of Medicine. 355(9):909-919.
Baylis M. 2017. Potential impact of climate change on emerging vector-borne and other infections in the
UK. Environmental Health. 16(1):45-51.
Bayol N, Demarquez B, De Wasseige C, Eba’a R, Fisher J-F, Nasi R. 2010. La gestion des forêts et la filière
bois en Afrique centrale. De Wasseige C et al. Les forêts du bassin du Congo, État des forêts.43-62.
Beauchamp E, Ingram V. 2011. Impacts of community forests on livelihoods in Cameroon :
Lessons from two case studies. International Forestry Review, 134, 389‑403. https://doi.
org/10.1505/146554811798811371.
Begeladze S. 2020. Clear roadmaps for land restauration in 25 countries. (Gland, FLR, IUCN. https://
www.infoflr.org/news-media/clear-roadmaps-land-restoration-25-countries and https://infoflr.
org/resources consultés le 11 février 2021).
Bermejo M, Rodríguez-Teijeiro JD, Illera G, Barroso A, Vilà C, Walsh PD. 2006. Ebola outbreak killed
5000 gorillas. Science. 314(5805):1564-1564.
Bibliography
Bernard F, Minang PA. 2019. Community forestry and REDD+ in Cameroon : What future? Ecology and
Society, 241, art14. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10708-240114.
Bertin A. 1929. La règlementation de la main-d’œuvre à Dakar. Bois et Scieries, 24216, 1804.
Besse B, Guizol Ph., De Ligne A. 1991. L’agroforesterie au Burundi. Revue Forestière Française. (XLIII - 1):
59-71.
Besseau P, Graham S, Christophersen T. 2018. Restaurer les paysages forestiers : La clé d’un avenir
durable. Partenariat mondial pour la restauration des paysages forestiers. Vienne.
Betbeder J, Gond V, Frappart F, Baghdadi NN, Briant G, Bartholomé E. 2013. Mapping of Central
Africa forested wetlands using remote sensing. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth
Observations and Remote Sensing. 7(2):531-542.
Betti L. 2011. Les relations eau-forêt en Afrique centrale. African forest forum. Working Paper.
Bigombe Logo P. 2003. The decentralized forestry taxationsystem in Cameroon : Local Management and state
logic Working Paper No 10. World Resources Institute.
Billard E. 2019. Un potentiel en jachère ? Revue des appuis européens à la foresterie communautaire dans le
bassin du Congo. FERN. https://www.fern.org/fileadmin/uploads/fern/Documents/fern_Bassin_
du_Congo_revue.pdf.
Binder S, Levitt AM, Sacks JJ, Hughes JM. 1999. Emerging infectious diseases: Public health issues for the
21st century. Science. 284(5418):1311-1313.
Bisiaux F, Peltier R, Muliele J-C. 2009. Plantations industrielles et agroforesterie au service des
populations des plateaux batéké, Mampu, en République démocratique du Congo. Bois & Forêts
des Tropiques. 301:21-32.
Blackman A, Goff L, Rivera-planter M. 2015. Does Eco-Certification Stem Tropical Deforestation? Forest
Stewardship Council Certification in Mexico. Resources for the Future Discussion Paper 15-36,
Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2646605 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2646605.
Bocko YE, Ifo SA, Loumeto JJ. 2017. Quantification des stocks de carbone de trois pools clés de carbone
en Afrique centrale : Cas de la forêt marécageuse de la Likouala (Nord Congo). European Scientific
Journal, ESJ. 13(5).
Bocko YE. 2018. Variation spatiale des stocks de carbone de la forêt marécageuse de la Likouala (Nord
Congo). Thèse : Botanique et Ecologie, Université Marien Ngouabi, :133.
Bodin B, Ravilious C, Bastianelli C. 2014. Les synergies entre la REDD+ et les objectifs d’Aichi de la
Convention sur la diversité biologique en Afrique centrale : L’apport de l’analyse spatiale pour
la planification conjointe de deux engagements internationaux sur les forêts. UNEP-WCMC,
Cambridge, UK.
Bogaert J, Bamba I, Koffi KJ, Sibomana S, Djibu J-PK, Champluvier D, Robbrecht E, De Cannière C, Visser
MN. 2008. Fragmentation of forest landscapes in Central Africa: Causes, consequences and
management. Patterns and processes in forest landscapes. Springer. p. 67-87.
Boldrini S, Bracke C, Daïnou K, Vermeulen C, Fétiveau J, Ngoy Shutcha M, Doucet J-L. 2017. Guide
technique. Plantation agroforestière d’Acacia auriculiformis dans le Haut-Katanga.
Borreill S, Lewis. J. 2009. Le consentement libre, informé et préalable dans l’Afrique centrale. Société
pour les Peuples Menacés & Secrétariat d’Etat à l’Economie, Berne.
Boué V, Locatelli S, Boucher F, Ayouba A, Butel C, Esteban A, Okouga A-P, Ndoungouet A, Motsch P,
Flohic GL. 2015. High rate of simian immunodeficiency virus (siv) infections in wild chimpanzees
in Northeastern Gabon. Viruses. 7(9):4997-5015.

Bibliography
Bourgarel M, Liégeois F. 2019. Ebola and other haemorrhagic fevers. Transboundary animal diseases in
Sahelian Africa and connected regions. Springer. p. 179-205.
Bourgarel M, Pfukenyi DM, Boué V, Talignani L, Chiweshe N, Diop F, Caron A, Matope G, Missé D, Liégeois
F. 2018. Circulation of alphacoronavirus, betacoronavirus and paramyxovirus in hipposideros bat
species in Zimbabwe. Infection, Genetics and Evolution. 58:253-257.
Boutinot L, Karpe P. 2020. La question autochtone : Forme et processus de construction d’une doctrine
naissante spécifiquement africaine. In Peuples autochtones et intégrations régionales : Pour une
durabilité repensée des ressources naturelles et de la biodiversité p. 213‑234. Presses universitaires de
Rennes.
Boutinot L, Baticle C, Dkamela GP, Karpe P, Le Roy É. 2018. Surveiller sans punir. Un commun de résistance
au travers du « braconnage » dans les forêts camerounaises. Espaces et sociétés. (4):51-68.
Bowker J, De Vos A, Ament J, Cumming G. 2016. Mixed Effectiveness of Africa’s Tropical Protected
Areas for Maintaining Forest Cover: Insights from a Global Forest Change Dataset. 2016 AGU Fall
Meeting, AGU.
Bowler M, Beirne C, Tobler MW, Anderson M, DiPaola A, Fa JE, Gilmore MP, Lemos LP, Mayor P, Meier
A. 2020. Led flashlight technology facilitates wild meat extraction across the tropics. Frontiers in
Ecology and the Environment. 18(9):489-495.
Brienen RJ, Phillips OL, Feldpausch TR, Gloor E, Baker TR, Lloyd J, Lopez-Gonzalez G, Monteagudo-
Mendoza A, Malhi Y, Lewis SL. 2015. Long-term decline of the Amazon carbon sink. Nature.
519(7543): 344-348.
Brink AB, Bodart C, Brodsky L, Defourney P, Ernst C, Donney F, Lupi A, Tuckova K. 2014. Anthropogenic
pressure in East Africa—Monitoring 20 years of land cover changes by means of medium resolution
satellite data. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation. 28: 60-69.
Brockington D, Igoe J. 2006. Eviction for Conservation : A Global Overview. Conservation and Society, 43,
424‑470.
Brooks E, Allen DJ, Darwall WR. 2011. The status and distribution of freshwater biodiversity in Central
Africa. IUCN.
Bruggeman D, Meyfroidt P, Lambin EF. 2018. Impact of land-use zoning for forest protection and
production on forest cover changes in Bhutan. Applied Geography. 96: 153-165.
Brugiere D, Donfack P.2021 Evaluation à mi-parcours du Programme d’appui pour la préservation de la
biodiversité et les écosystèmes fragiles – phase 6 (ECOFAC 6). Rapport d’évaluation.
Buttoud G, Batunyi FK. 2016. La plateforme multi-acteurs comme outil de gouvernance des forêts. La
gestion inclusive des forêts d’Afrique centrale.157.
Buttoud G, Nguinguiri JC, Aubert S, Bakouma J, Karsenty A, Kouplevatskaya Buttoud I, Lescuyer G.
2016. La gestion inclusive des forêts d’ Afrique centrale. Passer de la participation au partage des
pouvoirs. FAO.
Bwangoy J-RB, Hansen MC, Roy DP, De Grandi G, Justice CO. 2010. Wetland mapping in the Congo basin
using optical and radar remotely sensed data and derived topographical indices. Remote Sensing
of Environment. 114(1):73-86.
Calattini S, Nerrienet E, Mauclere P, Georges-Courbot M-C, Saïb A, Gessain A. 2004. Natural simian
foamy virus infection in wild-caught gorillas, mandrills and drills from Cameroon and Gabon.
Journal of General Virology. 85(11):3313-3317.

Bibliography
Calattini S, Nerrienet E, Mauclère P, Georges‐Courbot MC, Saib A, Gessain A. 2006. Detection and
molecular characterization of foamy viruses in Central African chimpanzees of the Pan troglodytes
troglodytes and Pan troglodytes vellerosus subspecies. Journal of medical primatology. 35(2):59-
66.
Campese J, Sunderland, T., Oviedo, G. Éds. 2009. Rights-based approaches : Exploring issues and opportunities
for conservation. Center for International Forestry Research and IUCN.
Campese J. 2009. Rights-based approaches to conservation : An overview of concepts and questions.
In Rights-Based Approaches : Exploring Issues and Opportunities for Conservation p. 1‑40. Center for
International Forestry Research and IUCN.
Can ÖE, D’Cruze N, Macdonald DW. 2019. Dealing in deadly pathogens: Taking stock of the legal trade
in live wildlife and potential risks to human health. Global Ecology and conservation. 17:e00515.
Cardinale BJ, Duffy JE, Gonzalez A, Hooper DU, Perrings C, Venail P, Narwani A, Mace GM, Tilman D,
Wardle DA. 2012. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature. 486(7401):59-67.
Carodenuto S, Cerutti PO. 2014. Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) in Cameroon:
Perceived private sector benefits from VPA implementation. For. Policy Econ. 48, 55–62. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2014.07.010.
Caron A, Bourgarel M, Cappelle J, Liégeois F, De Nys HM, Roger F. 2018. Ebola virus maintenance: If not
(only) bats, what else? Viruses. 10(10):549.
CCNUCC (Convention-Cadre des Nations Unies sur le changement climatique). 2007. Rapport de la 13e
conférence des parties qui s’est tenue à Bali du 3 au 15 décembre 2007.
CCNUCC (Convention-Cadre des Nations Unies sur le changement climatique). 2013. Le cadre de
Varsovie. Rapport de la 19e conférence des parties qui s’est tenue à Varsovie du 11 au 23 novembre
2013. (FCCC/CP/2013/10/Add.1. Bonn, Germany : UNFCCC).
CCNUCC (Convention-Cadre des Nations Unies sur le changement climatique). 2015. Accord de Paris.
(FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1. Bonn, Germany : UNFCCC).
CEA BaP. 2017. Rapport sur le développement durable en Afrique : Suivi des progrès accomplis dans la
mise en œuvre de l’agenda 2063 et des objectifs de développement durable. (Addis-Abeba).
Cernea M M, Schmidt-Soltau, K. 2003a. National Parks and Poverty Risks : Is Population Resettlement the
Solution? 31.
Cernea MM, Schmidt-Soltau K, 2003b. The end of forcible displacements? Policy Matters, 12, 42‑51.
Cerutti PO, Lescuyer G. 2011. Le marché domestique du sciage artisanal au Cameroun : état des lieux, opportunités
et défis. CIFOR. http://webdoc.sub.gwdg.de/ebook/serien/yo/CIFOR_OP/59.pdf.
Cerutti PO, Lescuyer G, Assembe-Mvondo S, Tacconi L. 2010. Les défis de la redistribution des bénéfices
monétaires tirés de la forêt pour les administrations locales : Une décennie de redevance forestière assise
sur la superficie du titre d’exploitation au Cameroun. No 53; Document occasionnel, p. 26. Centre de
recherche forestière international.
Cerutti PO, Lescuyer G, Tacconi L, Eba’a Atyi R, Essiane Mendoula, Nasi R, Tabi Eckebil, PP, Tsanga R. 2017.
Social impacts of the Forest Stewardship Council certification in the Congo basin. International
Forestry Review, 194, 50‑63. https://doi.org/10.1505/146554817822295920.
Cerutti PO, Lescuyer G, Tsanga R, Kassa S N, Mapangou PR, Mendoula EE, Missamba-Lola AP, Nasi R,
Eckebil PPT, Yembe RY. 2014. Social impacts of the Forest Stewardship Council certification CIFOR.

Bibliography
Cerutti PO, Suryadarma D, Nasi R, Forni E, Medjibe V, Delion S, Bastin D. 2017. The impact of forest
management plans on trees and carbon: Modeling a decade of harvesting data in Cameroon. J.
For. Econ. 27, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2017.01.004.
CDC. 2013. Viral Hemorrhagic Fevers. CDC Fact Sheet 1–3. DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.05106.x.
Chakrabarti L, Guyader M, Alizon M, Daniel MD, Desrosiers RC, Tiollais P, Sonigo P. 1987. Sequence of
simian immunodeficiency virus from macaque and its relationship to other human and simian
retroviruses. Nature. 328(6130):543-547.
Chambers R, Thrupp LA. 1994. Farmer first: Farmer innovation and agricultural research. Karthala
Editions.
Chave J, Davies SJ, Phillips OL., Lewis SL, Sist P, Schepaschenko D, Armston J, Baker TR, Coomes D, Disney M.
2019. Ground data are essential for biomass remote sensing missions. Surveys in Geophysics. 40(4):
863-880.
Chifundera KZ. 2019. Using diversity indices for identifying the priority sites for herpetofauna conservation in
the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Nature Conservation Research. 4(3):13-33.
Chomel BB, Belotto A, Meslin F-X. 2007. Wildlife, exotic pets, and emerging zoonoses. Emerging
infectious diseases. 13(1):6.
CIFOR (Center for International Forestry research). 2014. Partage des bénéfices dans la REDD+. Factsheet
N° 4724 Bogor, Indonésie:3.
CIFOR (Center for International Forestry research). 2020. Collecting Evidence of FLEGT-VPA Impacts for
Improved FLEGT Communication. Desk Review- Cameroon. Bogor, Indonésie.
Ciza SK, Mikwa J-F, Malekezi AC, Gond V, Bosela FB. 2015. Identification des moteurs de déforestation
dans la région d’Isangi, République démocratique du Congo. Bois & Forêts des Tropiques. 324:29-
38.
Clarence-Smith WG, Topik S. 2003. The global coffee economy in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, 1500–
1989. Cambridge University Press.
Clavel F, Guyader M, Guétard D, Sallé M, Montagnier L, Alizon M. 1986. Molecular cloning and
polymorphism of the human immune deficiency virus type 2. Nature. 324(6098):691-695.
Cleaveland S, Laurenson MK, Taylor LH. 2001. Diseases of humans and their domestic mammals:
Pathogen characteristics, host range and the risk of emergence. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society of London Series B: Biological Sciences. 356(1411):991-999.
Client Earth. 2020. Droits de propriété foncière des communautés locales et populations autochtones
instruments de droit international et législation nationale applicables en République du Congo 36.
CN-climat RCA. 2019. Cadre national d’investissement REDD+ 2020-2025 de la RCA. (RCA).
CNIAF. 2015. Carte de changement du couvert forestier en République du Congo pour la période 2000-
2012, 32 p.
Coffees. Democratic Republic of Congo. 2021. https://www.coffeehunter.com/coffee-country/dr-congo/:
The Coffee Hunters; [accessed 2021]. https://www.coffeehunter.com/coffee-country/dr-congo/.
COMIFAC (Commission des Forêts d’Afrique Centrale). 2021. Plan d’opération du plan de convergence :
Pour la conservation et la gestion durable des écosystèmes forestiers d’Afrique centrale (2021-
2025). (COMIFAC. Yaoundé.).
COMIFAC (Commission des Forêts d’Afrique Centrale). 2014. Plan de convergence pour la gestion
durable des écosystèmes forestiers d’Afrique centrale (COMIFAC):32.

Bibliography
COMIFAC (Commission des Forêts d’Afrique Centrale). 2017. Directives sous-régionales en matière
d’évaluation environnementale et sociale en milieu forestier en Afrique centrale. (COMIFAC,
Yaoundé, Cameroun, série Politique 8, 38 p).
Commission européenne. 2015. Au-delà des éléphants. Eléments d’une approche stratégique de l’UE pour
la conservation de la nature en Afrique. Office des publications de l’Union européenne. http://
dx.publications.europa.eu/10.2841/891385.
Commission européenne. 2021. Etude sur le cadre de conformité au droit international des droits de l’homme de
l’Institut Congolais pour la Conservation de la Nature p. 55. Commission européenne.
Comptour M, Caillon S, Rodrigues L, McKey D. 2018. Wetland raised-field agriculture and its contribution
to sustainability: Ethnoecology of a present-day African system and questions about pre-
columbian systems in the American tropics. Sustainability. 10(9):3120.
Comptour M, Cosiaux A, Coomes OT, Bader JC, Malaterre PO, Yoka J, Caillon S, McKey D. 2020. Agricultural
innovation and environmental change on the floodplains of the Congo river. The Geographical
Journal. 186(1):16-30.
Conseil international du Café (ICC). 2015. La durabilité de la filière café en Afrique. Milan (Italie): Conseil
international du Café.
Cooper F. 2018. L’Afrique noire depuis 1940. Payot.
Coquery-Vidrovitch C. 2001. Le Congo au temps des grandes compagnies concessionnaires, 1898‐1930.
Edition de l’EHESS. http://editions.ehess.fr/ouvrages/ouvrage/congo-au-temps-des-grandes-
compagnies-concessionnaires-1898-1930/.
Cornel A, Hunt R. 1991. Aedes albopictus in Africa? First records of live specimens in imported tires in
Cape Town. Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association. 7(1):107-108.
Cornet J. 1912. Sur la possibilité de l’existence de gisements de pétrole au Congo. Annales de la Société
géologique de Belgique.
Couillard V, Gilbert J, Kenrick J, Kidd C, 2009. Land rights and the forest peoples of Africa. Historical, legal and
anthropological perspectives, Forest People Programme p. 52. Forest Peoples Programme.
Cram S, Siebe C, Ortíz-Salinas R, Herre A. 2004. Mobility and persistence of petroleum hydrocarbons in
peat soils of Southeastern Mexico. Soil & Sediment Contamination. 13(5):341-360.
Creese A, Washington R, Jones R. 2019. Climate change in the Congo basin: Processes related to wetting
in the December–February dry season. Climate Dynamics. 53(5):3583-3602.
Crehay R. 2012. Mise en œuvre de cogénération. Lettre de l’ATIBT 34. Mars 2012, p. 26-29.
Crump J. 2017. Smoke on water: Countering global threats from peatland loss and degradation. UNEP,
GRIDA, GPI.
Cui J, Li F, Shi Z-L. 2019. Origin and evolution of pathogenic coronaviruses. Nature Reviews Microbiology.
17(3):181-192.
Cuny P. 2011. Etat des lieux de la foresterie communautaire et communale au Cameroun. Tropenbos International.
Curtis PG, Slay CM, Harris NL, Tyukavina A, Hansen MC. 2018. Classifying drivers of global forest loss.
Science. 361(6407):1108-1111.
Cuypers D, Geerken T, Gorissen L, Lust A, Peters G, Karstensen J, Prieler S, Fischer G, Hizsnyik E, Van
Velthuizen H. 2013. The impact of EU consumption on deforestation: Comprehensive analysis of
the impact of EU consumption on deforestation.

Bibliography
D’arc M, Ayouba A, Esteban A, Learn GH, Boué V, Liegeois F, Etienne L, Tagg N, Leendertz FH, Boesch
C. 2015. Origin of the HIV-1 group o epidemic in Western lowland gorillas. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences. 112(11):E1343-E1352.
Dalimier J, Achard F, Delhez B, Desclée B, Bourgoin C, Eva H. à paraître, Répartition des types de forêts et
évolution selon leur affectation. OFAC.
Damette, O. and Delacote, P. 2011. Unsustainable timber harvesting, deforestation and the role of
certification. In Ecological Economics Volume 70, Issue 6, 15 April 2011, Pages 1211-1219
Dargie GC, Lawson IT, Rayden TJ, Miles L, Mitchard ET, Page SE, Bocko YE, Ifo SA, Lewis SL. 2019. Congo
basin peatlands: Threats and conservation priorities. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change. 24(4):669-
686.
Dargie GC, Lewis SL, Lawson IT, Mitchard ET, Page SE, Bocko YE, Ifo SA. 2017. Age, extent and carbon
storage of the Central Congo basin peatland complex. Nature. 542(7639):86-90.
Dargie GC. 2015. Quantifying and understanding the tropical peatlands of the Central Congo basin.
University of Leeds.
Daszak P, Cunningham AA, Hyatt AD. 2000. Emerging infectious diseases of wildlife--threats to
biodiversity and human health. science. 287(5452):443-449.
Datok P, Fabre C, Sauvage S, N’kaya M, Paris A, Dos-Santos V, Laraque A, Sanchez-Perez J-M. 2020.
Investigating the role of the cuvette centrale in the hydrology of the Congo. Earth and Space
Science Open Archive ESSOAr.
Davenport IJ, McNicol I, Mitchard ET, Dargie G, Suspense I, Milongo B, Bocko YE, Hawthorne D, Lawson
I, Baird AJ. 2020. First evidence of peat domes in the Congo basin using lidar from a fixed-wing
drone. Remote Sensing. 12(14):2196.
Davies TJ, Pedersen AB. 2008. Phylogeny and geography predict pathogen community similarity in wild
primates and humans. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 275(1643):1695-
1701.
Davis KF, Koo HI, Dell’Angelo J, D’Odorico P, Estes L, Kehoe LJ, Kharratzadeh M, Kuemmerle T, Machava
D, Pais ADJR. 2020. Tropical forest loss enhanced by large-scale land acquisitions. Nature
Geoscience. 13(7): 482-488.
de Chatelperron PC. 2005. Gestion participative des forêts de production au Cameroun. Bois & Forêts
des Tropiques. 283:51-63.
De Jong W, Pokorny B, Katila P, Galloway G, Pacheco P. 2018. Community forestry and the sustainable
development goals: A two way street. Forests. 9(6):331.
De Nys HM, Kingebeni PM, Keita AK, Butel C, Thaurignac G, Villabona-Arenas C-J, Lemarcis T, Geraerts
M, Vidal N, Esteban A. 2018. Survey of Ebola viruses in frugivorous and insectivorous bats in
Guinea, Cameroon, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, 2015–2017. Emerging infectious
diseases. 24(12):2228.
De Wasseige C, Flynn J, Louppe D, Hiol Hiol F, Mayaux P. 2014. The forests of the Congo basin - State of
the forest. Weyrich. Belgium: COMIFAC.
De Wasseige C, Tadoum M, Atyi Eba’a R, Doumenge, C. 2015. Les forêts du Bassin du Congo-Forêts et
changements climatiques. Weyrich. Belgique. 128 p.
Devaux CA, Mediannikov O, Medkour H, Raoult D. 2019b. Infectious disease risk across the growing
human-non human primate interface: A review of the evidence. Frontiers in public health. 7:305.
Diamond A, Hamilton A. 1980. The distribution of forest passerine birds and quaternary climatic change
in tropical Africa. Journal of Zoology. 191(3):379-402.
Bibliography
Diaw MC, Nguiebouri J, Tchoko JG, Baneg M-FN, Vambi B, Nlend E, Keugni M-C. 2016. Pour une
inscription du paradigme participatif dans l’économie sociale et la transformation structurelle. La
gestion inclusive des forêts d’Afrique centrale.189.
Djomo AN, Grant JA, Fonyikeh-Bomboh Lucha C, Tchoko Gagoe J, Fonton NH, Scott N, Sonwa DJ. 2018.
Forest governance and REDD+ in Central Africa: towards a participatory model to increase
stakeholder involvement in carbon markets. International Journal of Environmental Studies.
75(2): 251-266.
Djomo AN, Ibrahima A, Saborowski J, Gravenhorst G. 2010. Allometric equations for biomass estimations
in Cameroon and pan moist tropical equations including biomass data from Africa. Forest Ecology
and Management. 260(10):1873-1885.
Dooley K, Ozinga S. 2011. Building on Forest Governance Reforms through FLEGT: The Best Way of
Controlling Forests’ Contribution to Climate Change? Rev. Eur. Community Int. Environ. Law 20,
163–170. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9388.2011.00717.x.
Dosio A, Jones RG, Jack C, Lennard C, Nikulin G, Hewitson B. 2019. What can we know about future
precipitation in Africa? Robustness, significance and added value of projections from a large
ensemble of regional climate models. Climate Dynamics. 53(9):5833-5858.
Doty JB, Malekani JM, Kalemba LsN, Stanley WT, Monroe BP, Nakazawa YU, Mauldin MR, Bakambana
TL, Liyandja Dja Liyandja T, Braden ZH. 2017. Assessing monkeypox virus prevalence in small
mammals at the human–animal interface in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Viruses.
9(10):283.
Doumenge C, Palla F, Scholte P, Hiol Hiol F, Larzillière A. 2015. Aires protégées d’Afrique centrale—Etat 2015
p. 256. OFAC.
Doumenge C. 1990. La conservation des écosystèmes forestiers du Zaïre. IUCN.
Doumenge C, Palla F, Itsoua Madzous G-L. (Eds.) 2021. Aires protégées d’Afrique centrale – État 2020.
OFAC-COMIFAC, Yaoundé, Cameroun & UICN, Gland, Suisse : 400 p.
Dowell SF, Mukunu R, Ksiazek TG, Khan AS, Rollin PE, Peters CJ. 1999. Transmission of Ebola hemorrhagic
fever: A study of risk factors in family members, Kikwit, Democratic Republic of the Congo, 1995.
The Journal of infectious diseases. 179(Supplement_1):S87-S91.
Drexler JF, Corman VM, Gloza-Rausch F, Seebens A, Annan A, Ipsen A, Kruppa T, Müller MA, Kalko EK,
Adu-Sarkodie Y. 2009. Henipavirus rna in African bats. PloS one. 4(7):e6367.
Drexler JF, Corman VM, Müller MA, Maganga GD, Vallo P, Binger T, Gloza-Rausch F, Cottontail VM, Rasche
A, Yordanov S. 2012. Bats host major mammalian paramyxoviruses. Nature communications.
3(1):1-13.
Dubiez É, Karsenty A, Dessard H. 2018. Gestion de la faune dans les concessions forestières en Afrique
centrale. Communautés locales et utilisation durable de la faune en Afrique centrale.209.
Dunay E, Apakupakul K, Leard S, Palmer JL, Deem SL. 2018. Pathogen transmission from humans to
great apes is a growing threat to primate conservation. EcoHealth. 15(1):148-162.
Duveiller G, Defourny P, Desclée B, Mayaux P. 2008. Deforestation in Central Africa: Estimates at
regional, national and landscape levels by advanced processing of systematically-distributed
Landsat extracts. Remote Sensing of Environment. 112(5): 1969-1981.
Eba’a Atyi A. 2013. Étude de l’importance économique et sociale du secteur forestier et faunique au
Cameroun. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonésie.

Bibliography
Eba’a Atyi R, Lescuyer G, Cerutti P, Tsanga R, Essiane Mendoula E, Collins F. 2016. Domestic markets,
cross-border trade and the role of the informal sector in Cote d’Ivoire, Cameroon and the
Democratic Republic of Congo. 79. CIFOR report for ITTO Yaoundé, Cameroon: ITTO.
Eba’a Atyi R, Lescuyer G, Tsanga R, Liboum M, Assembe-Mvondo S, Guizol P. 2018. Faire du bois légal
une obligation dans les marchés publics en Afrique centrale.
Eba’a Atyi R, Ngouhouo Poufoun J, Mvondo Awono J, Ngoungoure Manjeli A, Sufo Kankeu R. 2016.
Economic and social importance of fuelwood in Cameroon. International Forestry Review.
18(1):52-65.
Eba’a Atyi R, Sonwa DJ, Guizol P, Itsoua Madzous GL, Fobissie K, Medjibe VP, Tsanga R, Liboum M, Awono
A, Essamba LF, Jungers Q, Palla, F. 2018. OFAC-Brief: Contributions des pays d’Afrique centrale à
la lutte contre le changement climatique: Nécessité urgente d’une coordination intersectorielle.
OFAC Brief No. 2. Yaounde, Cameroon: Observatory of Central African Forests (OFAC).
Eba’a Atyi R, Mbonayem L. 2018. Reshaping the terrain: Forest and landscape restoration in Cameroon.
GLF Factsheet, August.
Eboué F. 1941. La Nouvelle Politique Indigène pour l’Afrique Equatoriale Française. La France des cinq parties
du Monde, Office Français d’Edition.
EFI (European Forest Institute). 2018. VPA progess and achievements: Mid-term report. European Forest
Institute (EFI).
El-Sayed A, Kamel M. 2020. Climatic changes and their role in emergence and re-emergence of diseases.
Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 27(18):22336-22352.
Enders JF, Peebles TC. 1954. Propagation in tissue cultures of cytopathogenic agents from patients with
measles. Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine. 86(2):277-286.
Enjalric F, Ngoua Assoumou HG. 1998. L’hévéaculture au Gabon/rubber growing in Gabon. Plantations,
recherche, développement. (Septembre - Octobre):325-329.
Epstein PR. 2001. Climate change and emerging infectious diseases. Microbes and infection. 3(9):747-
754.
Essougong UPK, Teguia SJM. 2019. How secure are land rights in Cameroon? A review of the evolution
of land tenure system and its implications on tenure security and rural livelihoods. GeoJournal.
84(6):1645-1656.
Eteme D. 2015. Gouvernance de la redevance forestière annuelle et citoyenneté au Cameroun : Analyse des
dynamiques locales autour de la redevabilité et leçons pour la REDD+. CODESRIA.
European Commission. 2016. Larger than elephants: inputs for an EU strategic approach to wildlife
conservation in Africa : regional analysis. European Commission, 500 p. https://data.europa.eu/
doi/10.2841/123569
European Commission. 2019. EU communication (2019) on stepping up EU action to protect and restore
the world’s forests. Brussels: European Commission.
European Parliament. 2020. European Parliament resolution of 22 October 2020 with recommendations
to the Commission on an EU legal framework to halt and reverse EU-driven global deforestation,
2020/2006 (inl). Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety.
European Union. 2013. The impact of EU consumption on deforestation: Comprehensive analysis of the
impact of EU consumption on deforestation. Brussels: European Commission.

Bibliography
Evrard P. 1957. Les recherches géophysiques et géologiques et les travaux de sondage dans la cuvette
congolaise. Académie royale des sciences coloniales.
Ewango C, Maindo A, Shaumba J-P, Kyanga M, Macqueen D. 2019. Options pour l’incubation durable
d’entreprises forestières communautaires en République démocratique du Congo (RDC). IIED: 44.
Ezzine de Blas D, Ruiz Pérez M, Sayer JA, Lescuyer G, Nasi R, Karsenty A. 2009. External Influences on and
Conditions for Community Logging Management in Cameroon. World Development, 372, 445‑456.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2008.03.011.
Fa JE, Albrechtsen L, Johnson P, Macdonald D. 2009. Linkages between household wealth, bushmeat
and other animal protein consumption are not invariant: Evidence from Rio Muni, Equatorial
Guinea. Animal Conservation. 12(6):599-610.
Fa JE, Currie D, Meeuwig J. 2003. Bushmeat and food security in the Congo basin: Linkages between
wildlife and people’s future. Environmental conservation. 30(1):71-78.
Fa JE, Ryan SF, Bell DJ. 2005. Hunting vulnerability, ecological characteristics and harvest rates of
bushmeat species in afrotropical forests. Biological conservation. 121(2):167-176.
FAO (Organisation pour l’alimentation et l’agriculture). 2020. The state of the world’s forests 2020.
Forests, biodiversity and people. Rome.
FAO (Organisation pour l’alimentation et l’agriculture). 1999. Ressources forestières et produits forestiers
du Burundi. https://www.fao.org/3/X6804F/X6804F00.htm.
FAO (Organisation pour l’alimentation et l’agriculture). 2017. Le consentement préalable, donné
librement et en connaissance de cause. Un droit des peuples autochtones et une bonne pratique
pour les communautés locales. Manuel des praticiens, FAO. Rome.
FAO (Organisation pour l’alimentation et l’agriculture). 2018. La situation des forêts du monde 2018. Les
forêts au service du développement durable. FAO. Rome.
FAO (Organisation pour l’alimentation et l’agriculture). 2020a. Faostat (United Nations Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO), Rome. Available from: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en [date
accessed: 11th Dec. 2020]).
FAO (Organisation pour l’alimentation et l’agriculture). 2020b. Peatland mapping and monitoring:
Recommendations and technical overview. Rome, Italy.100.
Fapa Nanfack R, Gélinas N, Bobo Kadiri S, Asselin H, Hiol Hiol F, Atole Ntatsoula C. 2019. Déterminants
de la gouvernance forestière dans les forêts communautaires de l’Est-Cameroun. Bois et Forêts des
Tropiques, 343, 53‑66.
Favada IM, Atyi Ea, Mbonayem L, Guizol P. 2019. Mapping international funding flows to support forest
and environmental sectors in Central Africa. CIFOR.
Fay JM, Agnagna M. 1992. Census of gorillas in Northern Republic of Congo. American Journal of
Primatology. 27(4):275-284.
Fayolle A, Ngomanda A, Mbasi M, Barbier N, Bocko Y, Boyemba F, Couteron P, Fonton N, Kamdem
N, Katembo J. 2018. A regional allometry for the Congo basin forests based on the largest ever
destructive sampling. Forest Ecology and Management. 430:228-240.
Feintrenie L. 2014. Agro-industrial plantations in Central Africa, risks and opportunities. Biodiversity
and conservation. 23(6):1577-1589.
Fennell D, Buckley R, Coghlan A, Weiler B. 2012. Nature-based tourism: There’s a lot in a name. Critical
debates in tourism. Channel View Publications. p. 299-316.

Bibliography
Field H, Young P, Yob JM, Mills J, Hall L, Mackenzie J. 2001. The natural history of hendra and nipah
viruses. Microbes and infection. 3(4):307-314.
Finer M, Jenkins CN, Pimm SL, Keane B, Ross C. 2008. Oil and gas projects in the Western Amazon:
Threats to wilderness, biodiversity, and indigenous peoples. PloS one. 3(8):e2932.
Finlayson C.M., Milton G.R., Prentice R.C. & Davidson N. (Eds.). 2018. The Wetland Book. Springer,
Netherlands: 1-18. https://link.springer.com/referencework/10.1007/978-94-007-4001-3
Fleury H. 2009. Virologie humaine, abrégés connaissances et pratiques. Elsevier/Masson. 265p.
Fobissie K, Tadoum M, Itsoua GL, Ndjatsana M. 2016. Analyse des CPDN des Pays d’Afrique Centrale et
Perspective de Mise en œuvre. COMIFAC, Yaoundé, Cameroun
Fomou G, Vandenhaute M, Feudjio DS. 2017. Légalité et traçabilité des bois des forêts communautaires du
Haut-Nyong p. 56. FAO - SAILD.
Fountain A, Hütz-Adams F. 2018. 2018 cocoa barometer The Voice Network.
Frappart F, Zeiger P, Betbeder J, Gond V, Bellot R, Baghdadi N, Blarel F, Darrozes J, Bourrel L, Seyler F.
2021. Automatic detection of inland water bodies along altimetry tracks for estimating surface
water storage variations in the Congo basin. Remote Sensing. 13(19):3804.
Funk C, Peterson P, Landsfeld M, Pedreros D, Verdin J, Shukla S, Husak G, Rowland J, Harrison L, Hoell A.
2015. The climate hazards infrared precipitation with stations—a new environmental record for
monitoring extremes. Scientific data. 2(1):1-21.
Gardy JL, Loman NJ. 2018. Towards a genomics-informed, real-time, global pathogen surveillance
system. Nature Reviews Genetics. 19(1):9-20.
Gautier-Hion A, Colyn M, Gautier J-P, Dewynter M, Bouchain C. 1999. Histoire naturelle des primates
d’Afrique centrale. Ecofac Libreville, Gabon.
Gessain A, Calattini S. 2008. Emergence of simian foamy viruses in humans: Facts and unanswered
questions.
Gewald J-B. 2006. More than red rubber and figures alone: A critical appraisal of the memory of the
Congo exhibition at the Royal Museum for Central Africa, Tervuren, Belgium. The International
Journal of African Historical Studies. 39(3):471-486.
GFOI (Global Forest Observations Initiative). 2016. Integration of remote-sensing and ground-based
observations for estimation of emissions and removals of greenhouse gases in forests: Methods
and guidance from the global forest observations initiative, edition 2.0. UN Food and Agriculture
Organization 224 p.1-224.
Gibbs HK, Ruesch AS, Achard F, Clayton MK, Holmgren P, Ramankutty N, Foley JA. 2010. Tropical forests
were the primary sources of new agricultural land in the 1980s and 1990s. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences. 107(38): 16732-16737.
Gibson L, Lee TM, Koh LP, Brook BW, Gardner TA, Barlow J, Sodhi NS. 2011. Primary forests are
irreplaceable for sustaining tropical biodiversity. Nature, 478(7369), 378-381.
GIEC (Groupe d’experts intergouvernemental sur l’évolution du climat). 2003. Recommandations en
matière de bonnes pratiques pour le secteur de l’utilisation des terres, changements d’affectation
des terres et foresterie. GIEC.594.
Gilardi KV, Gillespie TR, Leendertz FH, Macfie EJ, Travis DA, Whittier CA, Williamson EA. 2015. Best
practice guidelines for health monitoring and disease control in great ape populations. Occasional
Papers of the IUCN Species Survival Commission. 56.

Bibliography
Goldberg TL, Gillespie TR, Rwego IB, Estoff EL, Chapman CA. 2008. Forest fragmentation as cause of
bacterial transmission among nonhuman primates, humans, and livestock, Uganda. Emerging
GoI. 2019. Preparation activities for biocarbon fund initiatives for sustainable forest landscapes (BIOCF
ISFL) project, Indonesia, 5P.
Gond V, Betbeder J, Fayolle A, Viennois G, Cornu G, Réjou-Méchain M, Baghdadi N, Benedet F,
Doumenge C, Gourlet-Fleury S. 2015. New insights in tropical forest diversity mapping in Central
Africa using low resolution remote sensing.
Goodrich G. 2019. DRC promotes blocks for negotiations and bidding. Africa oil and power.
Available from: https://www.africaoilandpower.com/2019/04/05/democratic-republic-of-congo-
promotes-blocks-for-negotiations-and-bidding/ [date accessed: 11th Dec. 2020).
Gourlet-Fleury S, Gazull L, Bigombe Logo P, Billand A, Bolaluembe P-C, Boyemba F, Dessard H, Doucet
J-L, Doumenge C, Dubiez E. 2017. Are logging concessions a threat to the peatlands in DRC? (les
concessions d’exploitation forestière menacent-elles les tourbières en République démocratique
du Congo?). Bois et Forêts des Tropiques. 334(4):3-6.
Gouvernement France. 2017. Stratégie nationale de lutte contre la déforestation importée (SNDI) 2018-
2030.
Grantham H, Tibaldeschi P. 2018. Assessing the potential threat of extractive industries to tropical intact
forest landscapes. WWF report (WWF, WCS):28.
Grantham HS, Shapiro A, Bonfils D, Gond V, Goldman E, Maisels F, Plumptre AJ, Rayden T, Robinson
J, Strindberg S. 2020. Spatial priorities for conserving the most intact biodiverse forests within
Central Africa. Environmental Research Letters. 15(9): 0940b5.
Greatorex ZF, Olson SH, Singhalath S, Silithammavong S, Khammavong K, Fine AE, Weisman W,
Douangngeun B, Theppangna W, Keatts L. 2016. Wildlife trade and human health in LAO PDR: An
assessment of the zoonotic disease risk in markets. PloS one. 11(3):e0150666.
Gregersen H, Draper S, Elz D. 1989. People and trees: The role of social forestry in sustainable development.
Seminar series. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Washington, DC (USA).
Greiber T, Janki M, Orellana M, Savaresi A, Shelton D. 2009. Conservation with Justice. A Rights-based
Approach. IUCN. https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/EPLP-071.pdf.
Greifeneder F, Khamala E, Sendabo D, Wagner W, Zebisch M, Farah H, Notarnicola C. 2019. Detection
of soil moisture anomalies based on Sentinel-1. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C.
112:75-82.
Grützmacher KS, Keil V, Metzger S, Wittiger L, Herbinger I, Calvignac-Spencer S, Mätz-Rensing K, Haggis
O, Savary L, Köndgen S. 2018. Human respiratory syncytial virus and streptococcus pneumoniae
infection in wild bonobos. EcoHealth. 15(2):462-466.
Grützmacher KS, Köndgen S, Keil V, Todd A, Feistner A, Herbinger I, Petrzelkova K, Fuh T, Leendertz SA,
Calvignac-Spencer S. 2016. Codetection of respiratory syncytial virus in habituated wild Western
lowland gorillas and humans during a respiratory disease outbreak. EcoHealth. 13(3):499-510.
Guégan J-F, Ayouba A, Cappelle J, De Thoisy B. 2020. Forests and emerging infectious diseases:
Unleashing the beast within. Environmental Research Letters. 15(8):083007.
Guernier V, Hochberg ME, Guégan J-F, Harvey P. 2004. Ecology drives the worldwide distribution of
human diseases. PLoS biology. 2(6):e141.

Bibliography
Gumbricht T, Roman‐Cuesta RM, Verchot L, Herold M, Wittmann F, Householder E, Herold N, Murdiyarso

D. 2017. An expert system model for mapping tropical wetlands and peatlands reveals South
America as the largest contributor. Global change biology. 23(9):3581-3599.
Gunda R, Chimbari MJ, Shamu S, Sartorius B, Mukaratirwa S. 2017. Malaria incidence trends and their
association with climatic variables in rural Gwanda, Zimbabwe, 2005–2015. Malaria Journal.
16(1):1-13.
Hagen R, Sowers F, Oyono P, Mungangu T, Ndjebet C. 2011. Conserving biodiversity for sustainability,
livelihoods and prosperity in the Congo basin. CARPE II Evaluation Report, ECODIT.
Hajer M. 2006. Doing discourse analysis : Coalitions, practices, meaning. Words matter in policy and
planning discourse theory and method in the social science. January 2006 ed.
Halliday FW, Rohr JR. 2019. Measuring the shape of the biodiversity-disease relationship across systems
reveals new findings and key gaps. Nature communications. 10(1):1-10.
Hansen MC, Potapov PV, Moore R, Hancher M, Turubanova S, Tyukavina A, Thau D, Stehman S, Goetz
S, Loveland T. 2013. High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science.
342(6160):850-853.
Hanssens M. 2016. Faune. In : Mumbanza mwa Bawele J., Stroobant E., Omasombo Tshonda J., Krawczyk
J., Lomema Lomboto G., Liyongo Empengele J., Mobembo Ongutu P. and Laghmouch M. (Eds.),
Equateur. Au cœur de la cuvette congolaise. Musée royal de l’Afrique centrale, Tervuren, Belgique
: 51-57.
Hansson A, Dargusch P. 2017. An estimate of the financial cost of peatland restoration in Indonesia. Case
studies in the environment.
Harrison IJ, Brummett R, Stiassny ML. 2016. The Congo river basin. The wetland book.1-18.
Harwood CE, Nambiar ES. 2014. Sustainable plantation forestry in South-East Asia. Australian Centre
for International Agricultural Research.
Hawkins D, Wigglesworth T. 2018. African forestry sector review. London: Hardman Agribusiness,
Hardman Research td.
Hayman DT, Wang L-F, Barr J, Baker KS, Suu-Ire R, Broder CC, Cunningham AA, Wood JL. 2011. Antibodies
to henipavirus or henipa-like viruses in domestic pigs in Ghana, West Africa. PloS one. 6(9):e25256.
Hecketsweiler P. 1990. La conservation des écosystèmes forestiers du Congo. IUCN.
Herchenröder O, Renne R, Loncar D, Cobb EK, Murthy KK, Schneider J, Mergia A, Luciw PA. 1994. Isolation,
cloning, and sequencing of simian foamy viruses from chimpanzees (sfvcpz): High homology to
human foamy virus (hfv). Virology. 201(2):187-199.
Heymann DL, Chen L, Takemi K, Fidler DP, Tappero JW, Thomas MJ, Kenyon TA, Frieden TR, Yach D,
Nishtar S. 2015. Global health security: The wider lessons from the West African Ebola virus
disease epidemic. The Lancet. 385(9980):1884-1901.
Higonnet E, Hurowitz G, Tejan AC, Armstrong A, James L. 2018. Behind the wrapper: Greenwashing in
the chocolate industry. Mighty Earth.
Hoare A, Young D, Uehara T, Seidu MK, Birikorang G, Soh LW, Kamga J.K. 2020. Forest sector accountability
in Cameroon and Ghana. Chatham House.
Hopkins CD. 1981. On the diversity of electric signals in a community of mormyrid electric fish in West
Africa. American Zoologist. 21(1):211-222.

Bibliography
Hosonuma N, Herold M, De Sy V, De Fries RS, Brockhaus M, Verchot L, Angelsen A, Romijn E. 2012. An

assessment of deforestation and forest degradation drivers in developing countries. Environmental
Research Letters. 7(4):044009.
Hubau W, Lewis SL, Phillips OL, Affum-Baffoe K, Beeckman H, Cuní-Sanchez A, Daniels AK, Ewango
CE, Fauset S, Mukinzi JM. 2020. Asynchronous carbon sink saturation in African and Amazonian
tropical forests. Nature. 579(7797): 80-87.
Ibanda Kabaka P. 2020. La question foncière relative aux terres rurales et agricoles au Kwango en RD
Congo. Le droit coutumier en complémentarité du droit positif congolais. HAL.
Indufor. 2016. The state of forest plantation investments in Africa – overview of volumes and investment
patterns. Working Conference Forests for the Future – New Forests for Africa, Accra, Ghana.
Ingram DJ, Coad L, Abernethy KA, Maisels F, Stokes EJ, Bobo KS, Breuer T, Gandiwa E, Ghiurghi
A, Greengrass E. 2018. Assessing Africa‐wide pangolin exploitation by scaling local data.
Conservation Letters. 11(2):e12389.
Ingram V, Behagel J, Mammadova A, Verschuur X. 2020. The outcomes of deforestation-free commodity
value chain approaches. Wageningen. The Netherlands: Forest and Nature Conservation Policy
Group, Wageningen University and Research.
Ingram V, van den Berg J, van Oorschot M, Arets E, Judge L. 2018. Governance options to enhance
ecosystem services in cocoa, soy, tropical timber and palm oil value chains. Environmental
Management. 62(1): 128–142.
Ingram V. 2014. Win-wins in NTFP value chains? How governance impacts the sustainability of
livelihoods based on Congo basin forest products [PhD]. [Amsterdam]: University of Amsterdam.
Inogwabini B-I, Lingopa Z. 2013. Fish species occurrence, estimates and human activities on the islands
of the Congo river, Central Africa. Environmental biology of fishes. 96(10):1289-1299.
Inogwabini B-I. 2014. Bushmeat, over-fishing and covariates explaining fish abundance declines in the
Central Congo basin. Environmental Biology of Fishes. 97(7):787-796.
Institut Pasteur. 2021. Fièvre jaune. Accessed 9 Apr 2021, https://wwwpasteurfr/fr/centre-medical/
fiches-maladies/fievre-jaune
IPBES (Plateforme intergouvernementale scientifique et politique sur la biodiversité et les services
écosystémiques). 2018. The IPBES assessment report on land degradation and restoration.
In: Montanarella L, Scholes, R., Brainich, A., editor. Bonn, Germany: Secretariat of the
Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. p. 744.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2006. Guidelines for national greenhouse gas
inventories. Vol 4(GIEC).
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2014. Climate change 2014: Mitigation of climate
change. Contribution of working group iii to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental
panel on climate change. Edenhofer, O, R PichsMadruga, Y Sokona, E Farahani, S Kadner, K
Seyboth, A Adler, I Baum, S Brunner, P Eickemeier, B Kriemann, J Savolainen, S Schlömer, C von
Stechow, T Zwickel and JC Minx, eds (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom
and New York, NY, USA).
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2021. Climate change 2021: The physical science
basis. Contribution of working group i to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental
panel on climate change. ([Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S. L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger,
N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M. I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J. B. R. Matthews, T.

Bibliography
K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu and B. Zhou (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press. In

Press.).
Ithete NL, Stoffberg S, Corman VM, Cottontail VM, Richards LR, Schoeman MC, Drosten C, Drexler JF,
Preiser W. 2013. Close relative of human middle east respiratory syndrome coronavirus in bat,
South Africa. Emerging infectious diseases. 19(10):1697.
Iwerk R, Toroskainen R. 2017. Subnational revenue sharing in the DRC after découpage: Four
recommendations for better governance. Natural Resource Governance Institute.
Jiang Y, Zhou L, Tucker CJ, Raghavendra A, Hua W, Liu YY, Joiner J. 2019. Widespread increase of boreal
summer dry season length over the Congo rainforest. Nature Climate Change. 9(8):617-622.
Jodi, B., Nolte, C. and Agrawal, A. 2016. Deforestation and timber production in Congo after
implementation of sustainable forest management policies. Land Use Policy 52: 15-22.
Joiris DV, Bigombe Logo P, Abéga SC. 2014. La gestion participative des forêts en Afrique centrale. Logique
développementiste, gouvernance antiparticipative et stratégies d’acteurs. Revue d’ethnoécologie, 6,
1‑28.
Jones BA, Grace D, Kock R, Alonso S, Rushton J, Said MY, McKeever D, Mutua F, Young J, McDermott
J. 2013. Zoonosis emergence linked to agricultural intensification and environmental change.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 110(21):8399-8404.
Jones KE, Patel NG, Levy MA, Storeygard A, Balk D, Gittleman JL, Daszak P. 2008. Global trends in
emerging infectious diseases. Nature. 451(7181):990-993.
Joppa LN, Pfaff A. 2011. Global protected area impacts. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological
Sciences. 278(1712): 1633-1638.
Julve Larrubia C, Tabi Eckebil PP, Nzoyem Saha N, Tchantchouang J C, Kerkhof B, Beauquin A, Mbarga
Mbarga JP, Vermeulen C, Cerutti PO, Lescuyer G. 2013. Forêts communautaires camerounaises et
plan d’action « forest law enforcement, governance and trade » FLEGT : Quel prix pour la legalité ?
Bois & Forêts des Tropiques, 317317, 71. https://doi.org/10.19182/bft2013.317.a20526
Julve Larrubia C, Vandenhaute M, Vermeulen C, Castadot B, Ekodek H, Delvingt W. 2007. Séduisante
théorie, douloureuse pratique: La foresterie communautaire camerounaise en butte à sa propre
législation. Parcs et réserves. 62(2):18-24.
Kaberry P. 2005. Women of grassfields. Routledge.
Kadima E, Delvaux D, Sebagenzi S, Tack L, Kabeya S. 2011. Structure and geological history of the
Congo basin: An integrated interpretation of gravity, magnetic and reflection seismic data. Basin
Research. 23(5):499-527.
Karesh WB, Cook RA, Bennett EL, Newcomb J. 2005. Wildlife trade and global disease emergence.
Emerging infectious diseases. 11(7):1000.
Karesh WB, Dobson A, Lloyd-Smith JO, Lubroth J, Dixon MA, Bennett M, Aldrich S, Harrington T,
Formenty P, Loh EH. 2012. Ecology of zoonoses: Natural and unnatural histories. The Lancet.
380(9857):1936-1945.
Karpe P. 2008. Le droit des collectivités autochtones. L’Harmattan.
Karsenty A, Hardin R. 2017. Forest concessions in Central Africa: An introduction to the special issue.
International Forestry Review. 19(4):1-9.

Bibliography
Karsenty A, Leclerc C, Bazile D. 2021. Les aires protégées, instrument d’un « colonialisme vert » en Afrique ? The
Conversation. http://theconversation.com/les-aires-protegees-instrument-dun-colonialisme-
vert-en-afrique-179727.
Karsenty A. 2019. Les filières tropicales à l’épreuve de la « lutte contre la déforestation importée ».
WillAgri.Karsenty A, Nasi R. 2004. Un commentaire sur l’article de E. Niesten et E. Rice. Les
« concessions de conservation » sonnent-elles le glas de l’aménagement forestier durable? Revue
Tiers Monde. (1):153-162.
Karsenty A, Romero C, Cerutti p.o., Doucet j.l., Putz f.e., Bernard C, Eba’a Atyi R, Douard P, Claey F,
Desbureaux s, Ezzine De Blas D, Fayolle A, Fomété T, Forni E., Gond V., Gourlet-Fleury S., Kleinschroth
F., Mortier F., Nasi R., Nguinguiri J.C., Vermeulen C. and de Wasseige C. 2017. Deforestation and
timber production in Congo after implementation of sustainable management policy: A reaction
to the article by J.S. Brandt, C. Nolte and A. Agrawal (Land Use Policy 52:15-22). Land Use Policy, 65:
p. 62-65.
Karsenty A, Vermeulen C. 2016. Vers des concessions 2.0-articuler gestion inclusive et exclusive dans les
forêts de production en Afrique centrale. (CIRAD).
Karsenty A, Vogel A, Ezzine de Blas D, Fétiveau J. 2012. La problématique des « droits sur le carbone »
dans REDD+VertigO - la revue électronique en sciences de l’environnement
Karsenty A. 2008. Des « communautés locales » problématiques. In La gestion concertée des ressources
naturelles. L’épreuve du temps p. 277‑288. Gret-Karthala.
Karsenty A. 2016. The contemporary forest concessions in West and Central Africa: Chronicle of a foretold
decline? (CIRAD).
Kasongo R, Van Ranst E, Verdoodt A, Kanyankagote P, Baert G. 2009. Impact of Acacia auriculiformis on
the chemical fertility of sandy soils on the Batéké plateau, DR Congo. Soil Use and Management.
25(1):21-27.
Keele BF, Van Heuverswyn F, Li Y, Bailes E, Takehisa J, Santiago ML, Bibollet-Ruche F, Chen Y, Wain
LV, Liegeois F. 2006. Chimpanzee reservoirs of pandemic and nonpandemic HIV-1. Science.
313(5786):523-526.
Keesing F, Belden LK, Daszak P, Dobson A, Harvell CD, Holt RD, Hudson P, Jolles A, Jones KE, Mitchell CE.
2010. Impacts of biodiversity on the emergence and transmission of infectious diseases. Nature.
468(7324):647-652.
Keita AK, Koundouno FR, Faye M, Düx A, Hinzmann J, Diallo H, Ayouba A, Le Marcis F, Soropogui B,
Ifono K. 2021. Resurgence of ebola virus in 2021 in Guinea suggests a new paradigm for outbreaks.
Nature.1-5.
Kenfack Essougong UP, Foundjem-Tita D, Minang P. 2019. Addressing equity in community forestry :
Lessons from 20 years of implementation in Cameroon. Ecology and Society, 241, 9.
Kengoum Djiegni F, Pham T, Sonwa DJ. 2020. Dix ans de REDD+ dans un contexte politique changeant
en République démocratique du Congo. CIFOR Infobrief.
Khan AS. 2009. Simian foamy virus infection in humans: Prevalence and management. Expert review of
anti-infective therapy. 7(5):569-580.
Khodakevich L, Ježek Z, Kinzanzka K. 1986. Isolation of monkeypox virus from wild squirrel infected in
nature. Isolation of monkeypox virus from wild squirrel infected in nature. (Jan. 11):98-99.
Kissinger G, Herold M, De Sy V. 2012. Drivers of deforestation and forest degradation: A synthesis report
for REDD+ policymakers. Lexeme Consulting.

Bibliography
Kissling RE, Murphy FA, Henderson BE. 1970. Marburg virus. Annals of the New York Academy of
Sciences. 174(2):932-945.
Kleinschroth F, Healey JR, Gourlet-Fleury S, Mortier F, Stoica SR. 2016. Effects of logging on roadless
space in intact forest landscapes of the Congo Basin.
Kollert W, Cherubini L. 2012. Teak resources and market assessment 2010 (Tectona grandis linn. F.).
Rome, Italy: Forest Assessment, Management and Conservation Division, Forestry Department,
FAO.
Köndgen S, Kühl H, N’Goran PK, Walsh PD, Schenk S, Ernst N, Biek R, Formenty P, Mätz-Rensing K,
Schweiger B. 2008. Pandemic human viruses cause decline of endangered great apes. Current
Biology. 18(4):260-264.
Kuhn JH, Becker S, Ebihara H, Geisbert TW, Johnson KM, Kawaoka Y, Lipkin WI, Negredo AI, Netesov SV,
Nichol ST. 2010. Proposal for a revised taxonomy of the family filoviridae: Classification, names of
taxa and viruses, and virus abbreviations. Archives of virology. 155(12):2083-2103.
Kuisma E, Olson SH, Cameron KN, Reed PE, Karesh WB, Ondzie AI, Akongo M-J, Kaba SD, Fischer RJ,
Seifert SN. 2019. Long-term wildlife mortality surveillance in Northern Congo: A model for the
detection of ebola virus disease epizootics. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B.
374(1782):20180339.
Kusters K, de Graaf M. 2019. Formalizing community rights to forests : Expectations, outcomes and conditions
for success p. 71. Tropenbos International.
Lacroix A, Vidal N, Thaurignac G, Esteban A, De Nys H, Diallo R, Toure A, Goumou S, Soumah AK, Povogui
M. 2020. Wide diversity of coronaviruses in frugivorous and insectivorous bat species: A pilot
study in Guinea, West Africa. Viruses. 12(8):855.
Lacuna-Richman C. 2012. Communities in tropical forests: Examples of cultures and societies that
depend on the forests for their livelihood and sustenance. Growing from seed. Springer. p. 25-35.
Lang, C. 2021. REDD: New report reveals the reality of REDD in Mai Ndombe, Democratic Republic of
Congo. Available online at:
Larson AM, Dahal GR. 2012. Introduction: Forest tenure reform: New resource rights for forest-based
communities? Conservation and society. 10(2):77-90.
Larson AM, Soto F. 2008. Decentralization of natural resource governance regimes. Annual review of
environment and resources. 33:213-239.
Laurance WF, Campbell MJ, Alamgir M, Mahmoud MI. 2017. Road expansion and the fate of Africa’s
tropical forests. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution. 5:75.
Laurance WF, Sloan S, Weng L, Sayer J. A. 2015. Estimating the environmental costs of Africa’s massive
“development corridors”. Current Biology, 25(24), 3202-3208.
Laurance WF, Goosem M, Laurance SG. 2009. Impacts of roads and linear clearings on tropical forests.
Trends in ecology & evolution, 24(12), 659-669.
Le Monde/AFP. 2019. Découverte de pétrole onshore au Congo. Le Monde Afrique, 12 August (Available
at https://www.lemonde.fr/afrique/article/2019/08/12/decouverte-de-petrole-onshore-au-
congo_5498706_3212.html [date accessed: 29 October 2020]).
Lebrun J, Gilbert G. 1954. Une classification écologique des forêts du Congo. Inst. nation. pour l’Étude
Agronomique du Congo Belge. Série scientifique (63).

Bibliography
Leendertz FH, Zirkel F, Couacy-Hymann E, Ellerbrok H, Morozov VA, Pauli G, Hedemann C, Formenty P,
Jensen SA, Boesch C. 2008. Interspecies transmission of simian foamy virus in a natural predator-
prey system. Journal of virology. 82(15):7741-7744.
Leifeld J, Menichetti L. 2018. The underappreciated potential of peatlands in global climate change
mitigation strategies. Nature communications. 9(1):1-7.
Lemoalle J, Magrin Gd. 2014. Le développement du lac Tchad : Situation actuelle et futurs possibles, cblt.
(Marseille, IRD-Editions, coll. Expertise collégiale bilingue français-anglais):216p.
Léonard J. 1952. Les divers types de forêts du Congo belge. Lejeunia. 16:81-93.
Leroy EM, Epelboin A, Mondonge V, Pourrut X, Gonzalez J-P, Muyembe-Tamfum J-J, Formenty P. 2009.
Human ebola outbreak resulting from direct exposure to fruit bats in Luebo, Democratic Republic
of Congo, 2007. Vector-borne and zoonotic diseases. 9(6):723-728.
Leroy EM, Kumulungui B, Pourrut X, Rouquet P, Hassanin A, Yaba P, Délicat A, Paweska JT, Gonzalez J-P,
Swanepoel R. 2005. Fruit bats as reservoirs of ebola virus. Nature. 438(7068):575-576.
Leroy EM, Rouquet P, Formenty P, Souquière S, Kilbourne A, Froment J-M, Bermejo M, Smit S, Karesh
W, Swanepoel R. 2004a. Multiple ebola virus transmission events and rapid decline of Central
African wildlife. Science. 303(5656):387-390.
Leroy EM, Telfer P, Kumulungui B, Yaba P, Rouquet P, Roques P, Gonzalez J-P, Ksiazek TG, Rollin PE,
Nerrienet E. 2004b. A serological survey of ebola virus infection in Central African nonhuman
primates. The Journal of infectious diseases. 190(11):1895-1899.
Lescuyer G, Essoungou JN. 2013a. Gestion forestière multi-usages en Afrique centrale : Perceptions,
mises en oeuvre et évolutions. Bois & Forêts des Tropiques, 3151, 29‑37. https://doi.org/10.19182/
bft2013.315.a20536.
Lescuyer G, Boutinot L, Tsanga R, Cerutti PO. 2015. Study of the community forestry regime in the DRC
Technical report, p. 85 [Technical report]. CIRAD - CIFOR.
Lescuyer G, Cerutti P, Tshimpanga P, Biloko F, Adebu-Abdala A.A. Tsanga R, Yembe-Yembe R I, Essiane
Mendoula E. 2014. Le marché domestique du sciage artisanal en République démocratique du Congo :
État des lieux, opportunités, défis. Center for International Forestry Research CIFOR. https://doi.
org/10.17528/cifor/004552
Lescuyer G, Cerutti PO. 2013b. Politiques de gestion durable des forêts en Afrique centrale. Prendre en
compte le secteur informel.
Lescuyer G, Kakundika TM, Muganguzi Lubala I, Shabani Ekyamba I, Tsanga R, Cerutti PO. 2019. Are
community forests a viable model for the Democratic Republic of Congo? Ecology and Society, 241,
art6. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10672-240106.
Lescuyer G, Tsanga R, Essiane Mendoula E, Ahanda BXE, Ouedraogo HA, Fung O, Dubiez E, Bigombe Logo
P. 2016. Demandes nationales de sciages: Obstacle ou opportunité pour promouvoir l’utilisation
des ressources forestières d’origine légale au Cameroun? : CIFOR.
Lescuyer G, Yembe-Yembe RI, Cerutti PO. 2011. Le marché domestique du sciage artisanal en République du
Congo ; état des lieux, opportunités et défis. CIFOR. http://webdoc.sub.gwdg.de/ebook/serien/yo/
CIFOR_OP/71.pdf.
Lescuyer G. 2006. Des critères de bonne gestion forestière à la certification des concessions : Le bassin du
Congo au centre des débats. In Exploitation et gestion durable des forêts en Afrique centrale p. 369‑388.
L’Harmattan.

Bibliography
Letko M, Seifert SN, Olival KJ, Plowright RK, Munster VJ. 2020. Bat-borne virus diversity, spillover and
emergence. Nature Reviews Microbiology. 18(8):461-471.
Letouzey R. 1968. Etude phytogéographique du Cameroun. Lechevalier, Paris. 1969. Présence au Gabon
du genre Pogon-ophora Miers ex Bentham, Euphorbiacée d’Amérique du Sud tropicale Adansonia
ser. 2(9):273-276.
Levin K, McDermott C, Cashore B. 2008. The climate regime as global forest governance: can reduced
emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) initiatives pass a dual
Levinson J, Bogich TL, Olival KJ, Epstein JH, Johnson CK, Karesh W, Daszak P. 2013. Targeting surveillance
for zoonotic virus discovery. Emerging infectious diseases. 19(5):743.
Lhoest S, Fonteyn D, Daïnou K, Delbeke L, Doucet J-L, Dufrêne M, Josso J-F, Ligot G, Oszwald J, Rivault
E. 2020. Conservation value of tropical forests: Distance to human settlements matters more than
management in Central Africa. Biological Conservation. 241: 108351.
Li W, Shi Z, Yu M, Ren W, Smith C, Epstein JH, Wang H, Crameri G, Hu Z, Zhang H. 2005. Bats are natural
reservoirs of sars-like coronaviruses. Science. 310(5748):676-679.
Lignafrica S. 2014. Rapport final amendé. Pronar oréade-brèche.24p p 30.
Linthicum KJ, Anyamba A, Tucker CJ, Kelley PW, Myers MF, Peters CJ. 1999. Climate and satellite
indicators to forecast rift valley fever epidemics in Kenya. Science. 285(5426):397-400.
Liu W, Worobey M, Li Y, Keele BF, Bibollet-Ruche F, Guo Y, Goepfert PA, Santiago ML, Ndjango J-BN,
Neel C. 2008. Molecular ecology and natural history of simian foamy virus infection in wild-living
chimpanzees. PLoS pathogens. 4(7):e1000097.
Lloyd-Smith JO, George D, Pepin KM, Pitzer VE, Pulliam JR, Dobson AP, Hudson PJ, Grenfell BT. 2009.
Epidemic dynamics at the human-animal interface. science. 326(5958):1362-1367.
Ludwig B, Kraus F, Allwinn R, Doerr H, Preiser W. 2003. Viral zoonoses–a threat under control?
Intervirology. 46(2):71-78.
Lund H.G. 2000. Coming to Terms with Politicians and Definitions. In: “Forest Terminology: Living
Expert Knowledge. How to Get Society to Understand Forest Terminology”, Proceedings of the
6.03.02/SilvaVoc Group Session at the IUFRO World Congress 2000, and Selected Contributions
on Forest terminology, M. Kaennel Dobbertin & R. Prüller (Eds). IUFRO Occasional Paper 14,
pp.23-37.
Lyabano AH, Feintrenie L, Miaro L, Abdelhakim T. 2014. Smallholder oil palm value chain in Cameroon:
A case study from the Department of Sanaga-maritime.
Macfie EJ, Williamson EA. 2010. Best practice guidelines for great ape tourism. IUCN.
Mackay IM, Arden KE. 2015. Ebola virus in the semen of convalescent men. The Lancet Infectious
Diseases. 15(2):149-150.
Maganga GD, Kapetshi J, Berthet N, Kebela Ilunga B, Kabange F, Mbala Kingebeni P, Mondonge V,
Muyembe J-JT, Bertherat E, Briand S. 2014. Ebola virus disease in the Democratic Republic of
Congo. New England Journal of Medicine. 371(22):2083-2091.
Magouras I, Brookes VJ, Jori F, Martin A, Pfeiffer DU, Dürr S. 2020. Emerging zoonotic diseases: Should
we rethink the animal–human interface? Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 7:748.
Mansourian S. 2016. Understanding the relationship between governance and forest landscape
restoration. Conservation and Society. 14(3):267-278.

Bibliography
Marennikova S, Šeluhina EM, Mal’Ceva N, Čimiškjan K, Macevič G. 1972. Isolation and properties of
the causal agent of a new variola-like disease (monkeypox) in man. Bulletin of the World Health
Organization. 46(5):599.
Marien J-N, Dubiez E, Louppe D, Larzillière A. (eds.). 2013. Quand la ville mange la forêt. Les défis du
bois-énergie en Afrique centrale. (Edition QUAE ):238.
Marien J-N, Gourlet-Fleury S. 2006. Forest plantations in Central Africa: New forms of forestry to meet
busienss needs State of the Congo basin forests 2013. Yaounde COMIFAC. p. 197-212.
Markotter W, Geldenhuys M, Jansen van Vuren P, Kemp A, Mortlock M, Mudakikwa A, Nel L, Nziza J,
Paweska J, Weyer J. 2019. Paramyxo-and coronaviruses in Rwandan bats. Tropical medicine and
infectious disease. 4(3):99.
Marquant B, Mosnier A, Bodin B, Dessard H, Feintrenie L, Molto Q, Gond V, Bayol N. 2015. Importance
des forêts d’Afrique centrale.
Martin AR, Doraisami M, Thomas SC. 2018. Global patterns in wood carbon concentration across the
world’s trees and forests. Nature Geoscience. 11(12):915-920.
Martin RO, Senni C, D’Cruze NC. 2018. Trade in wild-sourced African grey parrots: Insights via social
media. Global Ecology and Conservation. 15:e00429.
Masselot C. 2020. Discursive approach to policies for zero-deforestation cocoa value chains in Cameroon
[MSc]. [Wageningen]: Wageningen UR.
Mayaux P, Bartholomé E, Fritz S, Belward A. 2004. A new land‐cover map of Africa for the year 2000.
Journal of biogeography. 31(6): 861-877.
Mayaux P, Pekel J-F, Desclée B, Donnay F, Lupi A, Achard F, Clerici M, Bodart C, Brink A, Nasi R. 2013.
State and evolution of the African rainforests between 1990 and 2010. Philosophical Transactions
of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 368(1625): 20120300.
Mayaux P, Richards T, Janodet E. 1999. A vegetation map of Central Africa derived from satellite imagery.
Journal of Biogeography. 26(2): 353-366.
Mayen NDiong B, Bigombe Logo P, Bobo Kadiri S, Sholte P. 2021. Gouvernance des aires protégées en
Afrique centrale : Un processus en mutation. In Aires protégées d’Afrique centrale—Etat 2020 p.
63‑97. OFAC-COMIFAC IUCN.
Mayer SV, Tesh RB, Vasilakis N. 2017. The emergence of arthropod-borne viral diseases: A global
prospective on dengue, chikungunya and zika fevers. Acta tropica. 166:155-163.
Mayers J, Bass S. 1999. Policy that works for forests and people: Overview report.
Mazet JA, Genovese BN, Harris LA, Cranfield M, Noheri JB, Kinani JF, Zimmerman D, Bahizi M, Mudakikwa
A, Goldstein T. 2020. Human respiratory syncytial virus detected in mountain gorilla respiratory
outbreaks. EcoHealth.1-12.
Mbete P, Bakouetila GFM, Leckoundzou A, Obimbola GRC, Goma RA, Boukoulou H. 2021. Analysis of the
functioning of the Local Development Fund (FDL) of the Pokola Community Development Series
Congo. International Journal of Environment, Agriculture and Biotechnology, 63, 112‑122. https://doi.
org/10.22161/ijeab.63.12.
McGoogan K, Kivell T, Hutchison M, Young H, Blanchard S, Keeth M, Lehman SM. 2007. Phylogenetic
diversity and the conservation biogeography of African primates. Journal of biogeography.
34(11):1962-1974.

Bibliography
McLain R, Lawry S, Guariguata M, Reed J. 2019. La prise en compte de la tenure foncière et de la gouvernance
dans l’évaluation des opportunités de restauration des paysages forestiers. CIFOR.
McMichael AJ, Lindgren E. 2011. Climate change: Present and future risks to health, and necessary
responses. Journal of internal medicine. 270(5):401-413.
Megevand C, Sanders K, Doetinchem N. 2013. Dynamiques de déforestation dans le bassin du Congo.
Meier-Dörnberg J, Karmann M. 2015. FSC certification solutions for smallholders and community managed
forests. Tropenbos International.
MEEATU, FAO. 2012. Politique forestière nationale du Burundi. Ministère de l’Eau, de l’Environnement,
de l’Aménagement du Territoire et de l’Urbanisme, 56p.
Meiering CD, Linial ML. 2001. Historical perspective of foamy virus epidemiology and infection. Clinical
microbiology reviews. 14(1):165-176.
Mendoza H, Rubio AV, García-Peña GE, Suzán G, Simonetti JA. 2020. Does land-use change increase
the abundance of zoonotic reservoirs? Rodents say yes. European Journal of Wildlife Research.
66(1):1- 5.
Michel M. 1975. Un programme réformiste en 1919 : Maurice Delafosse et la « politique indigène » en
AOF. Cahiers d’Etudes Africaines, 58 XV2, 313‑327.
Miettinen J, Hooijer A, Vernimmen R, Liew SC, Page SE. 2017a. From carbon sink to carbon source:
Extensive peat oxidation in insular Southeast Asia since 1990. Environmental Research Letters.
12(2):024014.
Miettinen J, Shi C, Liew SC. 2016. Land cover distribution in the peatlands of peninsular Malaysia, Sumatra
and Borneo in 2015 with changes since 1990. Global Ecology and Conservation. 6:67-78.
Miettinen J, Shi C, Liew SC. 2017. Fire distribution in peninsular Malaysia, Sumatra and Borneo in 2015
with special emphasis on peatland fires. Environmental management. 60(4):747-757.
Minang PA, Duguma LA, Bernard F, Foundjem-Tita D, Tchoundjeu Z. 2019. Evolution of community
forestry in Cameroon : An innovation ecosystems perspective. Ecology and Society, 241, art1. https://
doi.org/10.5751/ES-10573-240101.
Minasny B, Berglund Ö, Connolly J, Hedley C, de Vries F, Gimona A, Kempen B, Kidd D, Lilja H, Malone B.
2019. Digital mapping of peatlands–a critical review. Earth-Science Reviews. 196:102870.
MINEPDED (Ministère de l’Environnement, de la Protection de la Nature et Développement Durable).
2017a. Analyse approfondie des moteurs de la déforestation et la dégradation des forêts en tenant
compte des cinq zones agro écologiques du Cameroun. (MINEPDED):257.
MINEPDED (Ministère de l’Environnement, de la Protection de la Nature et Développement Durable).
2017b. Analyse approfondie des options stratégiques susceptibles de régler la déforestation et la
dégradation dans chaque zone agro-écologique.124 P.
Ministère de l’économie Forestière du Congo. 2018. Stratégie nationale REDD+ de la République du
Congo. (Congo).
Ministère de l’Environnement de l’Agriculture et de l’Élevage. 2019. Troisième communication nationale
sur les changements climatiques. Burundi:189.
Ministère Des Hydrocarbures RdC. 2019. Congo cuvette licence round 2019-2020. (Available from:
https://congocuvette.com/ [date accessed: 11th Dec. 2020]).

Bibliography
MINEPAT (Ministère de l’Economie, de la Planification et de l’Aménagement du Territoire). 2021, Guide

méthodologique d’élaboration du plan local d’aménagement et de développement durable du
territoire, MINEPAT.
Minh DHT, Le Toan T, Rocca F, Tebaldini S, Villard L, Réjou-Méchain M, Phillips OL, Feldpausch TR,
Dubois-Fernandez P, Scipal K. 2016. SAR tomography for the retrieval of forest biomass and height:
Cross-validation at two tropical forest sites in French Guiana. Remote sensing of environment.
175: 138-147.
Miteva DA, Loucks CJ, Pattanayak,S.K. 2015. Social and Environmental Impacts of Forest Management
Certification in Indonesia, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129675.
Mitman G. 2014. Ebola in a stew of fear. New England Journal of Medicine. 371(19):1763-1765.
Moeliono M, Thuy PT, Bong IW, Wong GY, Brockhaus M. 2017. Social forestry-why and for whom? A
comparison of policies in Vietnam and Indonesia. Forest and Society.78-97.
Mohymont B, Demarée GR. 2006. Intensity, duration, frequency curves for precipitation at yangambi,
congo, derived by means of various models of montana type. Hydrological Sciences Journal.
51(2):239-253. https://doi.org/10.1623/hysj.51.2.239.
Molyneux D, Hallaj Z, Keusch GT, McManus DP, Ngowi H, Cleaveland S, Ramos-Jimenez P, Gotuzzo E,
Kar K, Sanchez A. 2011. Zoonoses and marginalised infectious diseases of poverty: Where do we
stand? Parasites & Vectors. 4(1):1-6.
Monath TP. 2001. Yellow fever: An update. The Lancet infectious diseases. 1(1):11-20.
Monod T. 1957. Les grandes divisions chorologiques de l’Afrique: 147p. CCTA/CSA (publ no 24).
Morens DM, Folkers GK, Fauci AS. 2004. The challenge of emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases.
Nature. 430(6996):242-249.
Morozov VA, Leendertz FH, Junglen S, Boesch C, Pauli G, Ellerbrok H. 2009. Frequent foamy virus
infection in free-living chimpanzees of the Tai National Park (Cote d’Ivoire). Journal of General
Virology. 90(2):500-506.
Morris AL, Guégan J-F, Andreou D, Marsollier L, Carolan K, Le Croller M, Sanhueza D, Gozlan RE.
2016. Deforestation-driven food-web collapse linked to emerging tropical infectious disease,
mycobacterium ulcerans. Science advances. 2(12):e1600387.
Morse SS, Mazet JA, Woolhouse M, Parrish CR, Carroll D, Karesh WB, Zambrana-Torrelio C, Lipkin
WI, Daszak P. 2012. Prediction and prevention of the next pandemic zoonosis. The Lancet.
380(9857):1956-1965.
Mouinga-Ondémé A, Betsem E, Caron M, Makuwa M, Sallé B, Renault N, Saib A, Telfer P, Marx P, Gessain
A. 2010. Two distinct variants of simian foamy virus in naturally infected mandrills (Mandrillus
sphinx) and cross-species transmission to humans. Retrovirology. 7(1):1-13.
Mouinga-Ondémé A, Caron M, Nkoghé D, Telfer P, Marx P, Saïb A, Leroy E, Gonzalez J-P, Gessain A,
Kazanji M. 2012. Cross-species transmission of simian foamy virus to humans in rural Gabon,
Central Africa. Journal of virology. 86(2):1255-1260.
Mouloungui A. 2014. Gouvernance des ressources forestières au Gabon : Acteurs et enjeux. Thèse de doctorat,
Université d’Orleans.
Moutangu FA. 2013. Une entreprise coloniale et ses travailleurs : La Société de Haut-Ogooué et la main d’œuvre
africaine 1893-1963. Thèse de Doctorat, Université Toulouse de Mirail.

Bibliography
Mpoyi AM, Nyamwoga FB, Kabamba FM, Assembe-Mvondo S. 2013. Le contexte de la REDD+ en
République démocratique du Congo: Causes, agents et institutions. CIFOR.
Næsset E, McRoberts RE, Pekkarinen A, Saatchi S, Santoro M, Trier ØD, Zahabu E, Gobakken T. 2020.
Use of local and global maps of forest canopy height and aboveground biomass to enhance local
estimates of biomass in miombo woodlands in Tanzania. International Journal of Applied Earth
Observation and Geoinformation. 93: 102138.
Nasi R, Billand A, van Vliet N. 2012. Managing for timber and biodiversity in the Congo basin. Forest
Ecology and Management. 268:103-111.
Nasi R, Nguinguiri JC, Ezzine de Blas D. 2006. Exploitation et gestion durable des forêts en Afrique
centrale: La quête de la durabilité. L’Harmattan.
Nature Bank. 2019. Mai ndombe REDD+. https://www.naturebank.com/projects/mai-ndombe- REDD/.
Nchinda TC. 1998. Malaria: A reemerging disease in Africa. Emerging infectious diseases. 4(3):398.
Ndikumagenge. 1997. Energie-bois et autres. PNUD-FAO.78.
Nduwamungu, J. 2011. Plantations Forestières et Ilots Boisés au Burundi, 70p.
Ndoye O. 2016. Vivre et se nourrir de la forêt en Afrique centrale. Produits Forestiers Non-Ligneux (FAO)
fre no 21.
Negredo A, Palacios G, Vázquez-Morón S, González F, Dopazo H, Molero F, Juste J, Quetglas J, Savji N,
de la Cruz Martínez M. 2011. Discovery of an ebolavirus-like filovirus in Europe. PLoS pathogens.
7(10):e1002304.
Ngoagouni C, Kamgang B, Nakouné E, Paupy C, Kazanji M. 2015. Invasion of Aedes albopictus (diptera:
Culicidae) into Central Africa: What consequences for emerging diseases? Parasites & Vectors.
8(1):1-7.
Ngome IjangTata p. 2016. The contribution of fruit from trees to improve household nutritional security
in the context of deforestation in Cameroon. University Rhodes (Ph.D Thesis):217.
Nguiffo S. 2020. De l’inefficacité du contentieux forestier en Afrique centrale. Revue Africaine de Droit de
l’Environnement, 5, 107‑114.
Nguimbi L, Roulet P-A, Nzang Oyono C. 2010. Une gestion locale assumée par un opérateur privé. In
Gestion participative des forêts en Afrique centrale. Un modèle à l’épreuve de la réalité p. 85‑103. Editions
Quae.
Nitcheu Tchiade S, Sonwa D, Nkongmeneck B-A, Cerbonney L, Sufo Kankeu R. 2016. Preliminary
estimation of carbon stock in a logging concession with a forest management plan in East
Cameroon. Journal of Sustainable Forestry.
Nkuintchua T. 2018. APV et CDN : vers un partage des outils – Comment les enseignements tirés du Plan d’action
FLEGT de l’UE peuvent être appliqués à l’accord de Paris. Fern.
Noiraud J-M, Noiraud A, Languy M, Nzita M, De Wachter P, Kalala D, Mubalama L, Pelissier C. 2017.
Industrie extractive : Ses interactions avec la conservation et la gestion des écosystèmes en Afrique
centrale. WWF Bureau Régional pour l’Afrique, Yaoundé, Cameroun, 134 p.
Norconk MA, Atsalis S, Tully G, Santillán AM, Waters S, Knott CD, Ross SR, Shanee S, Stiles D. 2020.
Reducing the primate pet trade: Actions for primatologists. American journal of primatology.
82(1):e23079.
OCDE (Organisation de coopération et de développement économiques). 2007. Atlas de l’intégration
régionale en Afrique de l’ouest. Le café. Nigeria/France: OECD.

Bibliography
Odeniran PO, Ademola IO, Jegede HO. 2018. A review of wildlife tourism and meta-analysis of parasitism in
Africa’s national parks and game reserves. Parasitology research. 117(8):2359-2378.
OFAC (Observatoire des forêts d’Afrique centrale). 2019. Forest concessions in the Congo basin.
International forum “Together towards Global Green Supply Chains”, Shanghaï.
OFAC (Observatoire des forêts d’Afrique centrale). 2020. A regional tool for monitoring protected areas.
(OFAC database. Accessed: 2020. https://www.observatoire-comifac.net/monitoring_system/
imet).
Olivero J, Fa JE, Real R, Márquez AL, Farfán MA, Vargas JM, Gaveau D, Salim MA, Park D, Suter J. 2017.
Recent loss of closed forests is associated with ebola virus disease outbreaks. Scientific reports.
7(1):1-9.
Olofsson P, Foody GM, Herold M, Stehman SV, Woodcock CE, Wulder MA. 2014. Good practices for
estimating area and assessing accuracy of land change. Remote Sensing of Environment. 148: 42-
57.
OMS (Organisation Mondiale de la santé). 2017. Evaluation externe conjointe des principales capacités
RSI de la République du Cameroun. Genève.
OMS (Organisation Mondiale de la santé). 2018a. Evaluation externe conjointe des principales capacités
RSI de la République démocratique du Congo. Santé mondiale WHO/WHE/CPI.2018.28. Genève.
OMS (Organisation Mondiale de la santé). 2018b. Ebola virus disease - Democratic Republic of Congo.
. Health Emergency Information and Risk Assessment External Situation report 5 - 25 May 2018.
OMS (Organisation Mondiale de la santé). 2019. Evaluation externe conjointe des principales capacités
RSI de la république de la république centrafricaine. Organisation Mondiale de la Santé (ed) WHO/
WHE/CPI/2019.30. Genève.
ONU HABITAT. 2018. Dialogue sur les villes durables. La gouvernance au cœur de la mise en œuvre de
l’ODD 11. La gouvernance au cœur de la mise en œuvre de l’ODD 11. Rapport des dialogues de haut
niveau entre les maires et les ministres. Strasbourg, les 24 et 25 mai 2018. . (UN Habitat):49.
ONU-REDD. 2012. Propositions programmatiques pour l’élaboration d’une stratégie-cadre nationale
REDD+ ONU- REDD.164.
Ordway EM, Asner GP, Lambin EF. 2017. Deforestation risk due to commodity crop expansion in Sub-
saharan Africa. Environmental Research Letters. 12(4):044015.
Organisation Internationale du Travail. 2013. Comprendre la Convention No 169 relative aux peuples
indigènes et tribaux 1989 : Manuel à l’usage des mandants tripartites de l’OIT. BIT.
Orozco AO, Salber M. 2019. Palmed off. An investigation into three industrial palm oil and rubber projects
in Cameroon and the Republic of Congo. London: Rainforest Foundation UK.
Owen M, van der Plas R, Sepp S. 2013. Can there be energy policy in Sub-saharan Africa without biomass?
Energy for sustainable development. 17(2):146-152.
Oxfam Peru. 2021. The shadow of oil. Oxfam Peru. (https://peru.oxfam.org/latest/policy-paper/shadow-
oil).
Oyono PR, Diaw C, Sangkwa F. 2006. Les réformes forestières et les nouvelles frontières de la gestion
locale au Cameroun : La crise des compromis?
Oyono PR, Cerutti PO, Morrison K. 2009. Forest taxation in post-1994 Cameroon : Distributional mechanism
and emerging links with poverty alleviation and equity p. 38 [Working Paper]. World Resources
Institute.

Bibliography
Oyono PR. 2004. One step forward, two steps back? Paradoxes of natural resources management
decentralisation in Cameroon. The Journal of Modern African Studies, 421, 91‑111. https://doi.
org/10.1017/S0022278X03004488.
Oyono PR. 2005. Profiling Local-Level Outcomes of Environmental Decentralizations : The Case of
Cameroon’s Forests in the Congo Basin. The Journal of Environment Development, 143, 317‑337.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1070496505276552.
Oyono PR. 2014a. Tenure des ressources naturelles et vulnérabilités communautaires dans le bassin du
Congo. Les forêts du Bassin du Congo et l’adaptation aux changements climatiques.157.
Oyono PR. 2014b. Entrer par l’affectation des terres, sortir par le classement des domaines villageois.
Arguments et eléments de dialogue politique et de plaidoyer pour une sécurisation inaliénable
des droits collectifs. (Document Occasionnel préparé pour FERN, Bruxelles.).
Oyono PR. 2015. Gouvernance climatique dans le bassin du Congo: Reconnaissance des institutions et
redistribution. CODESRIA.
Page S, Hoscilo A, Langner A, Tansey K, Siegert F, Limin S, Rieley J. 2009. Tropical peatland fires in
Southeast Asia. Tropical fire ecology. Springer. p. 263-287.
Page SE, Rieley JO, Banks CJ. 2011. Global and regional importance of the tropical peatland carbon pool.
Global change biology. 17(2):798-818.
Page SE, Siegert F, Rieley JO, Boehm H-DV, Jaya A, Limin S. 2002. The amount of carbon released from
peat and forest fires in Indonesia during 1997. Nature. 420(6911):61-65.
Panlasigui S, Rico-Straffon J, Pfaff A, Swenson J, Loucks C. 2018. Impacts of certification, uncertified
concessions, and protected areas on forest loss in Cameroon, 2000 to 2013. Biological conservation.
227: 160-166.
Patterson PL, Healey SP, Ståhl G, Saarela S, Holm S, Andersen H-E, Dubayah RO, Duncanson L, Hancock
S, Armston J. 2019. Statistical properties of hybrid estimators proposed for GEDI—NASA’s global
ecosystem dynamics investigation. Environmental Research Letters. 14(6): 065007.
Paupy C, Kassa Kassa F, Caron M, Nkoghé D, Leroy EM. 2012. A chikungunya outbreak associated with
the vector aedes albopictus in remote villages of Gabon. Vector-borne and zoonotic diseases.
12(2):167-169.
Paweska JT, Jansen van Vuren P, Masumu J, Leman PA, Grobbelaar AA, Birkhead M, Clift S, Swanepoel
R, Kemp A. 2012. Virological and serological findings in Rousettus aegyptiacus experimentally
inoculated with vero cells-adapted hogan strain of Marburg virus.
Peeters M, Courgnaud V, Abela B, Auzel P, Pourrut X, Bibollet-Ruche F, Loul S, Liegeois F, Butel C,
Koulagna D. 2002. Risk to human health from a plethora of simian immunodeficiency viruses in
primate bushmeat. Emerging infectious diseases. 8(5):451.
Peeters M, Jung M, Ayouba A. 2013. The origin and molecular epidemiology of HIV. Expert review of anti-
infective therapy. 11(9):885-896.
Pelican M. 2009. Complexities of indigenity and autochtony. American Ethnologist, 361, 52‑65.
Pendrill F, Persson UM, Godar J, Kastner T, Moran D, Schmidt S, Wood R. 2019. Agricultural and forestry
trade drives large share of tropical deforestation emissions. Global environmental change. 56:1-10.
Pernet O, Schneider BS, Beaty SM, LeBreton M, Yun TE, Park A, Zachariah TT, Bowden TA, Hitchens P,
Ramirez CM. 2014. Evidence for henipavirus spillover into human populations in Africa. Nature
communications. 5(1):1-10.

Bibliography
Petersen E, Abubakar I, Ihekweazu C, Heymann D, Ntoumi F, Blumberg L, Asogun D, Mukonka V, Lule

SA, Bates M. 2019. Monkeypox—enhancing public health preparedness for an emerging lethal
human zoonotic epidemic threat in the wake of the smallpox post-eradication era. International
journal of infectious diseases. 78:78-84.
Pfeifer M, Lefebvre V, Peres C, Banks-Leite C, Wearn O, Marsh C, Butchart S, Arroyo-Rodríguez V, Barlow
J, Cerezo A. 2017. Creation of forest edges has a global impact on forest vertebrates. Nature.
551(7679):187-191.
Pham Thu Thuy, Nguyen Dinh Thao, Dao Thi Linh Chi, Hoang Tuan Long. 2020. Preparing Vietnam for
new rules on international market: Zero deforestation production and business. Working Paper
257. Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR.
Pigott DM, Golding N, Mylne A, Huang Z, Henry AJ, Weiss DJ, Brady OJ, Kraemer MU, Smith DL, Moyes
CL. 2014. Mapping the zoonotic niche of ebola virus disease in Africa. Elife. 3:e04395.
Pillay N, Knox J H, MacKinnon K. 2020. Embedding human rights in nature conservation : From intent
to action. Report of the Independent Panel of Experts of the Independent Review of allegations
raised in the media regarding human rights violations in the context of WWF’s conservation work.
Ploton P, Mortier F, Réjou-Méchain M, Barbier N, Picard N, Rossi V, Dormann C, Cornu G, Viennois G,
Bayol N. 2020. Spatial validation reveals poor predictive performance of large-scale ecological
mapping models. Nature communications. 11(1): 1-11.
Plowright RK, Parrish CR, McCallum H, Hudson PJ, Ko AI, Graham AL, Lloyd-Smith JO. 2017. Pathways to
zoonotic spillover. Nature Reviews Microbiology. 15(8):502-510.
PNUD (Programme de Nations Unies pour le developpement). 1996. Evaluation des impacts de la crise
de 1993 sur l’environnement.
PNUD (Programme de Nations Unies pour le developpement). 2016. Intégration du programme de
développement durable à l’horizon 2030. Note d’orientation à l’intention des équipes de pays des
Nations Unies. (PNUD):109.
Pongsiri MJ, Roman J, Ezenwa VO, Goldberg TL, Koren HS, Newbold SC, Ostfeld RS, Pattanayak SK,
Salkeld DJ. 2009. Biodiversity loss affects global disease ecology. Bioscience. 59(11):945-954.
Pouakouyou D, Mayers J. 2015. Développer une économie verte en Afrique : Pourquoi les forêts comptent.
(UNEP):7.
Pourrut X, Kumulungui B, Wittmann T, Moussavou G, Délicat A, Yaba P, Nkoghe D, Gonzalez J-P, Leroy
EM. 2005. The natural history of ebola virus in Africa. Microbes and infection. 7(7-8):1005-1014.
Prestemon, J. 2015. “The Impacts of the Lacey Act Amendment of 2008 on U.S. Hardwood Lumber and
Hardwood Plywood Imports,” Forest Policy and Economics 50:31-44.
Proces P, Jomha Djossi D, Nsom Zamo A-C, Nzita Nganga M, Pongui BS, Onotiang MF, Epanda M, Gami
N, Sauget M, Lutero Mangue Ebang G. 2021. Dynamiques des aires protégées en Afrique centrale :
Des enjeux écologiques au développement socio-économique. Etat des aires protégées. Ofac.
Proces P, Jomha Jossi D, Nsom Zamo A-C, Nzita Nganga M, Pongui B S, Onotiang M, Epanda M, Gami
N, Sauget M, Mangue Ebang LG, Jungers Q, Palla F, Doumenge C. 2020. Dynamique des aires
protégées en Afrique centrale : Des enjeux écologiques au développement socio-économique. In
Aires protégées d’Afrique centrale. Etat 2020 p. 17‑61. OFAC-COMIFAC IUCN.
Pyhälä A, Orozc AO, Counsell S. 2016. Protected areas in the Congo basin : Failing both people and biodiversity?
p. 144. The Rainforest foundation UK.

Bibliography
Qie L, Lewis SL, Sullivan MJ, Lopez-Gonzalez G, Pickavance GC, Sunderland T, Ashton P, Hubau W, Salim
KA, Aiba S-I. 2017. Long-term carbon sink in Borneo’s forests halted by drought and vulnerable to
edge effects. Nature communications. 8(1): 1-11.
Quintela CE, Thomas L, Robin S. 2004. Proceedings of the workshop stream. Building a secure financial
future: Finance and resources. (5th IUCN World Parks Congress, held in Durban, South Africa, 8–17
September 2003).
Radonić A, Metzger S, Dabrowski PW, Couacy-Hymann E, Schuenadel L, Kurth A, Mätz-Rensing K,
Boesch C, Leendertz FH, Nitsche A. 2014. Fatal monkeypox in wild-living sooty mangabey, Cote
d’Ivoire, 2012. Emerging infectious diseases. 20(6):1009.
Rainey HJ, Iyenguet FC, Malanda G-AF, Madzoké B, Dos Santos D, Stokes EJ, Maisels F, Strindberg S.
2010. Survey of raphia swamp forest, Republic of Congo, indicates high densities of critically
endangered Western lowland gorillas gorilla gorilla gorilla. Oryx. 44(1):124-132.
Rainforest Foundation UK. 2019. Forêts communautaires en République centrafricaine. (Rainforest
Foundation UK):40.
Ramcilovic-Suominen S, Gritten D,Saastamoinen O. 2010. Concept of livelihood in the FLEGT voluntary
partnership agreement and the expected impacts on the livelihood of forest communities in
Ghana. International Forestry Review 12(4): 361–369.
Ramsar Convention. 2021. The convention on wetlands and its mission.
Randolph SE, Dobson AD. 2012. Pangloss revisited: A critique of the dilution effect and the biodiversity-
buffers-disease paradigm. Parasitology. 139(7):847-863.
RCA, WRI, KfW. 2017. La restauration des paysages forestiers en République centrafricaine. WRI.72.
RDC. 2012. Stratégie cadre nationale REDD+ de la République démocratique du Congo. FCPF.164.
RDC-MECNT. 2012. Stratégie cadre REDD de la RDC.
Réjou-Méchain M, Barbier N, Couteron P, Ploton P, Vincent G, Herold M, Mermoz S, Saatchi S, Chave J, De
Boissieu F. 2019. Upscaling Forest biomass from field to satellite measurements: sources of errors
and ways to reduce them. Surveys in Geophysics. 40(4): 881-911.
Réjou-Méchain M, Mortier F, Bastin J-F, Cornu G, Barbier N, Bayol N, Bénédet F, Bry X, Dauby G,
Deblauwe V. 2021. Unveiling African rainforest composition and vulnerability to global change.
Nature. 593(7857): 90-94.
Rich J. 2007. Hunger and Consumer Protest in Colonial Africa During the First World War : The Case of
the Gabon Estuary, 1914–1920. Food, Culture and Society: An International Journal of Multidisciplinary
Research, 10, 239‑259.
RoB, FAO. 2012. Politique forestière nationale du Burundi, ministère de l’Eau, de l’Environnement, de
l’Aménagement du territoire et de l’urbanisme.56.
RoB. 2019. Ministère de l’Environnement, de l’Agriculture et de l’Élevage. 3ème communication nationale
sur les changements climatiques. 157.
Roberts TR. 1972. Ecology of fishes in the Amazon and Congo basins. BULL MUS COMP ZOOL, VOL 143,
NO 2, P 117-147, 1972.
Roberts TR. 1975. Geographical distribution of African freshwater fishes. Zoological Journal of the
Linnean Society. 57(4):249-319.

Bibliography
Roca T, Letouzé E. 2016. La révolution des données est-elle en marche ? Implications pour la statistique
publique et la démocratie. Afrique contemporaine. 258(2):95-111.
Rosen GE, Smith KF. 2010. Summarizing the evidence on the international trade in illegal wildlife.
EcoHealth. 7(1):24-32.
RRI (Rights and Resources Initiative). 2017. Securing community land rights : Priorities and Opportunities to
advance climate and sustainable development goals. Rights and Resources Initiative.
Rulli MC, Santini M, Hayman DT, D’Odorico P. 2017. The nexus between forest fragmentation in Africa
and Ebola virus disease outbreaks. Scientific reports. 7(1):1-8.
Rweyemamu M, Paskin R, Benkirane A, Martin V, Roeder P, Wojciechowski K. 2000. Emerging diseases of
Africa and the Middle East. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 916(1):61-70.
Rydin H, Jeglum JK. 2006. Peatlands around the world. The biology of peatlands. Oxford University Press.
Saatchi SS, Harris NL, Brown S, Lefsky M, Mitchard ET, Salas W, Zutta BR, Buermann W, Lewis SL,
Hagen S. 2011. Benchmark map of forest carbon stocks in tropical regions across three continents.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 108(24):9899-9904.
Sabir JS, Lam TT-Y, Ahmed MM, Li L, Shen Y, Abo-Aba SE, Qureshi MI, Abu-Zeid M, Zhang Y, Khiyami
MA. 2016. Co-circulation of three camel coronavirus species and recombination of mers-covs in
Saudi Arabia. Science. 351(6268):81-84.
Sabuni LP. 2007. Dilemma with the local perception of causes of illnesses in Central Africa: Muted
concept but prevalent in everyday life. Qualitative Health Research. 17(9):1280-1291.
Same F, Kamkuimo P, Nkuintchua T. 2013. Guide simplifié d’observation externe des forêts à l’usage des
communautés. CED.
Sanderson EW, Jaiteh M, Levy MA, Redford KH, Wannebo AV, Woolmer G. 2002. The human footprint
and the last of the wild: the human footprint is a global map of human influence on the land
surface, which suggests that human beings are stewards of nature, whether we like it or not.
BioScience. 52(10): 891-904.
Sandker M, Crete P, Lee D, Sanz-Sanchez M. 2016. Considérations techniques relatives à l’établissement
de niveaux d’émissions de référence pour les forêts et/ou niveaux de référence pour les forêts dans
le contexte de la REDD+ au titre de la CCNUCC. (FAO): 44 p.
Santiago ML, Range F, Keele BF, Li Y, Bailes E, Bibollet-Ruche F, Fruteau C, Noë R, Peeters M, Brookfield
JF. 2005. Simian immunodeficiency virus infection in free-ranging sooty mangabeys (Cercocebus
atys atys) from the Tai forest, Cote d’Ivoire: Implications for the origin of epidemic human
immunodeficiency virus type 2. Journal of virology. 79(19):12515-12527.
Santoro M, Cartus O, Carvalhais N, Rozendaal D, Avitabilie V, Araza A, de Bruin S, Herold M, Quegan S,
Rodríguez Veiga P. 2020. The global forest above-ground biomass pool for 2010 estimated from
high-resolution satellite observations. Earth System Science Data Discussions.1-38.
Sasaki N, Putz FE. 2009. Critical need for new definitions of “forest” and “forest degradation” in global
climate change agreements. Conservation Letters, 2(5), 226‑232. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-
263X.2009.00067.x.
Schlager E, Ostrom E. 1992. Property-Rights Regimes and Natural Resources : A Conceptual Analysis.
Land Economics, 683, 249‑262.
Scholte P, Brugière D, Agnangoye J-P. 2021. Partenariat public-privé dans la gestion des aires protégées
en Afrique centrale : Leçons actuelles et perspectives. In Aires Protégées d’Afrique Centrale—Etat
2020 p. 100‑129. OFAC-COMIFAC IUCN.

Bibliography
Schure J, Ingram V, Sakho-Jimbira MS, Levang P, Wiersum KF. 2013. Formalisation of charcoal value
chains and livelihood outcomes in Central- and West Africa. Energy for Sustainable Development.
17(2):95-105.
Seal N. 2019. Rubber plantation halts deforestation on the edge of one of Africa’s largest rainforests.
https://www.synchronicityearth.org/sudcam-rubber-plantation-halts-deforestation-cameroon/:
Synchronicity Earth.org; [accessed].
Siegele L, Roe D, Giuliani A, Winer N. 2009. Conservation and Human Rights – Who Says What ? A Review
of International Law and Policy. In Rights-Based Approaches : Exploring Issues and Opportunities for
Conservation p. 47‑75. Center for International Forestry Research and IUCN.
Siegert F, Jaenicke J. 2008. Estimation of carbon storage in Indonesian peatlands. Dalam Rieley. 10:15-19.
Sikor T, Stahl J. 2011. Introduction : The Rights-Based Agenda in International Forestry. In Forests and
People : Property, Governance, and Human Rights 1st ed, p. 1‑13. Routledge.
Simarro PP, Cecchi G, Franco JR, Paone M, Diarra A, Ruiz-Postigo JA, Fèvre EM, Mattioli RC, Jannin JG.
2012. Estimating and mapping the population at risk of sleeping sickness. PLoS neglected tropical
diseases. 6(10):e1859.
Smith KM, Anthony SJ, Switzer WM, Epstein JH, Seimon T, Jia H, Sanchez MD, Huynh TT, Galland GG,
Shapiro SE. 2012. Zoonotic viruses associated with illegally imported wildlife products. PloS one.
7(1):e29505.
Stiles D, Redmond I, Cress D, Nellemann C, Formo RK. 2013. Stolen apes: The illicit trade in chimpanzees,
gorillas, bonobos and orangutans-a rapid response assessment.
Sufo Kankeu R, Tsayem Demaze M, Krott M, Sonwa DJ, Ongolo S. 2020. Governing knowledge transfer
for deforestation monitoring: Insights from REDD+ projects in the Congo basin region. Forest
Policy and Economics. 111:102081.
Sufo Kankeu R. 2019. Le monitoring de la déforestation dans le bassin du Congo : Quelles synergies entre
les savoirs exogènes et les savoirs endogènes ? Thèse de Doctorat (Le Mans Université).
Sullivan MJ, Talbot J, Lewis SL, Phillips OL, Qie L, Begne SK, Chave J, Cuni-Sanchez A, Hubau W, Lopez-
Gonzalez G. 2017. Diversity and carbon storage across the tropical forest biome. Scientific reports.
7(1): 1-12.
Sunderlin WD, Pratama C, Bos A, Avitabile V, Sills E, De Sassi C, Joseph S, Agustavia M, Pribadi U,
Anandadas A. 2014. REDD+ on the ground: The need for scientific evidence. REDD+ on the ground:
A case book of subnational initiatives across the globe. Center for International Forestry Research
(CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia.
Sunderlin WD. 1997. Shifting cultivation and deforestation in Indonesia: Steps toward overcoming
confusion in the debate.
Suryadiputra INN, Dohong A, Waspodo RS, Muslihat L, Lubis IR, Hasudungan F, Wibisono IT. 2005. A
guide to the blocking of canals and ditches. Wetlands International–Indonesia Programme, Bogor.
SWAMP ( Sustainable Wetlands Adaptation and Mitigation Program). 2021. Revue du cadre juridique
propice à la gestion des tourbières en République démocratique du Congo. Rapport. SWAMP. https://
usfscentralafrica.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Revue-juridique-tourbieres-RDC.pdf.
Sylvain AD, Cyrille NJ, Bertille MN. 2018. Evaluation of the advanced minning front craft in and around
national parks of the Benue and Bouba-Ndjidda in North Cameroon. Journal of Geographic
Information System. 10(04):461.

Bibliography
Tchakossa B. 2012. L’Exploitation et la Protection des Ressources Forestières en République Centrafricaine de la

période précoloniale à nos jours. Thèse de Doctorat, Université de Nantes.
Tchatchou B, Sonwa DJ, Ifo S, Tiani AM. 2015. Déforestation et dégradation des forêts dans le bassin du
Congo: État des lieux, causes actuelles et perspectives. CIFOR.
Tchoumba GB, Tibaldeschi P, Izquierdo P, Nsom Zamo A-C, Bigombe Logo P, Doumenge C. 2021.
Extractive industries and protected areas in Central Africa: For better or for worse? (In: Doumenge
C., Palla F. and Itsoua Madzous G.L. (Eds.), State of protected areas in Central Africa 2020. OFAC-
COMIFAC, Yaounde, Cameroon & IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, pp. 249-307.).
Thibault. 2017. Pour une plus grande politisation, territorialisation et socialisation de l’agenda 2030
et des ODD in Caron P., J-M Châtaigner (dir.), 2017. Un défi pour la planète. Les objectifs de
développement durable en débat. IRD Éditions, Éditions Quae.
Thieme M, Shapiro A, Colom A, Schliewen U, Sindorf N, Kamdem Toham AE. 2008. Inventaire rapide des
zones humides représentatives en République démocratique du Congo. (Rapport ICCN, Kinshasa,
RDC: 59 p.).
Thompson ID, Guariguata MR, Okabe K, Bahamondez C, Nasi R, Heymell V, Sabogal C. 2013. An
operational framework for defining and monitoring forest degradation. Ecology and Society. 18(2).
Thu Thuy P, Moeliono M, Angelsen A, Brockhaus M, Gallo P, Long HT, Dao Thi Linh C, Ochoa C. 2018.
Strategic alignment: Integrating redd+ in ndcs and national climate policies. Transforming
REDD+.
Tompkins DM, Carver S, Jones ME, Krkošek M, Skerratt LF. 2015. Emerging infectious diseases of wildlife:
A critical perspective. Trends in parasitology. 31(4):149-159.
Topa G, Karsenty A, Megevand C, Debroux L. 2009. Forêts tropicales humides du Cameroun : Une
décennie de réformes. The World Bank.
Towner JS, Amman BR, Sealy TK, Carroll SAR, Comer JA, Kemp A, Swanepoel R, Paddock CD, Balinandi
S, Khristova ML. 2009. Isolation of genetically diverse Marburg viruses from Egyptian fruit bats.
PLoS pathogens. 5(7):e1000536.
Towner JS, Khristova ML, Sealy TK, Vincent MJ, Erickson BR, Bawiec DA, Hartman AL, Comer JA, Zaki SR,
Ströher U. 2006. Marburgvirus genomics and association with a large hemorrhagic fever outbreak
in Angola. Journal of virology. 80(13):6497-6516.
Transparency International. 2020. Governance assesment: Central African forest initiative (CAFI) &
DRC’s national REDD+ fund (FONA REDD).
Tropenbos International. 2014. Why promoting the demand for sustainably produced tropical timber?
The Netherlands: Tropenbos International.
Tritsch I, Le Velly G, Mertens B, Meyfroidt P, Sannier C, Makak JS, Houngbedji K. 2020. Do forest-
management plans and FSC certification help avoid deforestation in the Congo Basin?. Ecological
Economics, 175, 106660.
Troupin G. 1966. Etude phytocoenologique du parc national de l’Akagera et du Rwanda oriental.
Recherche d’une méthode appropriée à l’étude de la végétation d’Afrique intertropicale. Thèse
d’agrégation, ULg, 223 p.
Tsanga R, Cerutti PO, Bolika JM. 2020a. Suivi indépendant des clauses sociales en République Démocratique du
Congo p. 32. Center for International Forestry Research CIFOR.

Bibliography
Tsanga R, Cerutti PO, Essiane E. 2020b. Demandes en bois et produits dérivés dans les marchés publics en Côte
d’Ivoire. FAO et CIFOR. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb1102fr.
Tsanga R, Cerutti PO, Bolika J-M, Tibaldeschi P. 2017. Suivi non mandaté des clauses sociales en République
Démocratique du Congo 2011-2015 p. 28. https://d2ouvy59p0dg6k.cloudfront.net/downloads/_
a21_120_drc_report_fr___2_.pdf.
Tsanga R, Cerutti PO, Bolika JM, Paolo T, Inkonkoy F. 2020c. Suivi indépendant des clauses sociales en
République démocratique du Congo. Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR. https://www.cifor.org/knowledge/
publication/7589.
Tsanga R, Goetghebuer T, Leszczynska N, Berrada K, Almeida B, Newbery J, Cerutti P. 2022. Collecting
evidence of FLEGT-VPA impacts: Côte d’ivoire country report.
Tunk C, Hoefsloot H, Amougou J. 2016. Evaluation du potentiel de restauration des paysages forestiers
au Cameroun. GIZ GOPA/DFS.
Tyukavina A, Baccini A, Hansen M, Potapov P, Stehman S, Houghton R, Krylov A, Turubanova S, Goetz
S. 2015. Aboveground carbon loss in natural and managed tropical forests from 2000 to 2012.
Environmental Research Letters. 10(7): 074002.
Tyukavina A, Hansen MC, Potapov P, Parker D, Okpa C, Stehman SV, Komma REDDy I, Turubanova S.
2018. Congo basin forest loss dominated by increasing smallholder clearing. Science advances.
4(11):eaat2993.
Tyukavina A, Stehman S, Potapov P, Turubanova S, Baccini A, Goetz S, Laporte N, Houghton R, Hansen
M. 2013. National-scale estimation of gross forest aboveground carbon loss: A case study of the
democratic republic of the congo. Environmental Research Letters. 8(4):044039.
UICN (Union internationale pour la conservation de la nature). 2015. Ministère de l’environnement du
Burundi.Rapport de l’atelier sur la restauration des paysages au Burundi. Bujumbura.
Umunay PM, Gregoire TG, Gopalakrishna T, Ellis PW, Putz FE. 2019. Selective logging emissions and
potential emission reductions from reduced-impact logging in the Congo basin. Forest Ecology
and Management. 437:360-371.
UNAIDS. 2020. Global HIV & AIDS statistics (fact sheet).
UN-DESA. 2017. World Population Prospects : The 2017 Revision. United Nations, Department of Economic
and Social Affairs UNDESA, Population Division. https://population.un.org/wpp/Publications/
Files/WPP2017_KeyFindings.pdf.
Valentine MJ, Murdock CC, Kelly PJ. 2019. Sylvatic cycles of arboviruses in non-human primates. Parasites
& vectors. 12(1):1-18.
Van Heuverswyn F, Li Y, Bailes E, Neel C, Lafay B, Keele BF, Shaw KS, Takehisa J, Kraus MH, Loul S. 2007.
Genetic diversity and phylogeographic clustering of sivcpzptt in wild chimpanzees in Cameroon.
Virology. 368(1):155-171.
van Oosten C, Uzamukunda A, Runhaar H. 2018. Strategies for achieving environmental policy integration
at the landscape level. A framework illustrated with an analysis of landscape governance in
Rwanda. Environmental Science & Policy. 83:63-70.
van Vliet N, Mbazza P. 2011. Recognizing the multiple reasons for bushmeat consumption in urban
areas: A necessary step toward the sustainable use of wildlife for food in Central Africa. Human
Dimensions of Wildlife. 16(1):45-54.
Van Vliet N, Nasi R, Abernethy K, Fargeot C, Kuempel N, Ndong OAM, Ringuet S. 2012. Le rôle de la faune
dans le cadre de la sécurité alimentaire en Afrique centrale: Une menace pour la biodiversité?

Bibliography
Van Vliet N, Nasi R. 2008. Hunting for livelihood in Northeast Gabon: Patterns, evolution, and
sustainability. Ecology and Society. 13(2).
Vancutsem C, Achard F, Pekel J-F, Vieilledent G, Carboni S, Simonetti D, Gallego J, Aragao L, Nasi R.
2020. Long-term (1990-2019) monitoring of tropical moist forests dynamics. Science Advances.
7 : eabe1603.
Vancutsem C, Pekel J, Evrard C, Malaisse F, Defourny P. 2006. Carte de l’occupation du sol de la
République démocratique du Congo. Unité de Recherche en Environnemétrie et Géomatique,
Faculté d’ingénierie biologique, agronomique et environnementale, Université catholique de
Louvain. Presses Universitaires de Louvain.
Vasilakis N, Shell EJ, Fokam EB, Mason PW, Hanley KA, Estes DM, Weaver SC. 2007. Potential of ancestral
sylvatic dengue-2 viruses to re-emerge. Virology. 358(2):402-412.
Verhegghen A, Mayaux P, Wasseige Cd, Defourny P. 2012. Mapping Congo basin vegetation types
from 300 m and 1 km multi-sensor time series for carbon stocks and forest areas estimation.
Biogeosciences. 9(12):5061-5079.
Vermeulen C, Karsenty A. 2017a. Towards a community-based concession model in the DRC. International
Forestry Review. 19(4):80-86.
Vermeulen C, Vandenhaute M, Dethier M, Ekodeck H, Delvingt W. 2006. De Kompia à Djolempoum :
Sur les sentiers tortueux de l’aménagement et de l’exploitation des forêts communautaires au
Cameroun. VertigO, 71.
Vermeulen C. 2017b. Quelques pistes pour relancer la foresterie sociale et la participation en Afrique
centrale. Texte présenté à l’occasion de la réunion d’experts sur l’efficacité de la foresterie
participative en Afrique centrale.
Vetrita Y, Cochrane MA. 2020. Fire frequency and related land-use and land-cover changes in Indonesia’s
peatlands. Remote Sensing. 12(1):5.
Visseaux B, Le Hingrat Q, Damond F, Charpentier C, Descamps D. 2019. Physiopathologie de l’infection
par le VIH-2. Virologie. 23(5):277-291.
Vussonji D, Makeka M. 2021. A Forest Economy for the Future : generating social and economic
dividends from more sustainable, circular sources. Dalberg. https://dalberg.com/our-ideas/a-
forest-economy-for-the-future-deriving-real-social-and-economic-dividends-from-more-
sustainable-circular-sources/.
Walsh P. 2003. Methods for monitoring African apes : Some cold , hard facts about bias. Unpublished
manuscript.
Weiss S, Nowak K, Fahr J, Wibbelt G, Mombouli J-V, Parra H-J, Wolfe ND, Schneider BS, Leendertz
FH. 2012. Henipavirus-related sequences in fruit bat bushmeat, Republic of Congo. Emerging
Wessel M, Quist-Wessel PF. 2015. Cocoa production in West Africa, a review and analysis of recent
developments. NJAS-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences. 74:1-7.
Westoby J. 1989. Introduction to world forestry: People and their trees.
White F. 1986. La végétation de l’ Afrique : Mémoire accompagnant la carte de végétation de l’Afrique
unesco/aetfat/unso. IRD Editions.
WHO (World Health Organization). 2005. Outbreak of ebola haemorrhagic fever in Yambio, South
Sudan, april–june 2000. (WHO, Geneva).

Bibliography
WHO (World Health Organization). 2018. Marburg virus disease. Fact Sheet(https://www.who.int/
news-room/fact-sheets/detail/marburg-virus-disease. Accessed 12 Apr 2021).
WHO (World Health Organization). 2019. Ebola virus disease. (Fact sheet).
WHO (World Health Organization). 2021 Yellow fever. ( Fact sheet).
Wiersum FR, Van Oijen D. 2010. Implementing FLEGT: Impacts on local people. Wageningen, the
Netherlands: Wageningen University and Research Centre, 20 pp
Wiersum KF. 1999. Social forestry: Changing perspectives in forestry science or practice? Wageningen
University and Research.
Wilkie DS, Carpenter JF. 1999. Bushmeat hunting in the Congo basin: An assessment of impacts and
options for mitigation. Biodiversity & Conservation. 8(7):927-955.
Wilkie DS, Starkey M, Abernethy K, Effa EN, Telfer P, Godoy R. 2005. Role of prices and wealth in consumer
demand for bushmeat in Gabon, Central Africa. Conservation biology. 19(1):268-274.
Wilson EO. 1988. The current state of biological diversity. Biodiversity. 521(1):3-18.
Wittemyer G, Elsen P, Bean W T, Burton C. 2008. Accelerated human population growth at protected
area edges. Science, 3215885, 123.
Wolfe N, Daszak P, Kilpatrick A, Burke D. 2005a. Deforestation, and prediction of zoonotic disease
emergence. Emerg Infect Dis. 11:1822-1827.
Wolfe ND, Daszak P, Kilpatrick AM, Burke DS. 2005b. Bushmeat hunting, deforestation, and prediction
of zoonotic disease. Emerging infectious diseases. 11(12):1822.
Wolfe ND, Dunavan CP, Diamond J. 2007. Origins of major human infectious diseases. Nature.
447(7142):279-283.
Wood CL, Lafferty KD, DeLeo G, Young HS, Hudson PJ, Kuris AM. 2014. Does biodiversity protect humans
against infectious disease? Ecology. 95(4):817-832.
Wood JL, Leach M, Waldman L, MacGregor H, Fooks AR, Jones KE, Restif O, Dechmann D, Hayman DT,
Baker KS. 2012. A framework for the study of zoonotic disease emergence and its drivers: Spillover
of bat pathogens as a case study. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological
Sciences. 367(1604):2881-2892.
Woolhouse ME, Gowtage-Sequeria S. 2005. Host range and emerging and reemerging pathogens.
Emerging infectious diseases. 11(12):1842.
Woolhouse ME. 2002. Population biology of emerging and re-emerging pathogens. Trends in
microbiology. 10(10):s3-s7.
World Bank. 2018. Fact sheet: Mai ndombe REDD+ initiative in DRC, wb brief march 16, .
World Bank. 2019a. Note on benefit sharing for emission reductions programs under the forest carbon
partnership facility and biocarbon fund initiative for sustainable forest landscapes. . (Washington,
DC : World Bank.).
World Bank. 2019b. Partage des avantages à grande échelle : Bonnes pratiques pour les programmes
d’utilisation des terres centrés sur les résultats. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
World Green Building Council, Africa Partners. 2020. World Green Building Council. https://www.
worldgbc.org/africa-partners
WWC. 2019. The Mai Ndombe REDD+ project, Democratic Republic of Congo. Wildlife works carbon, .

Bibliography
WWF (World Wide Fund). 2018. Déforestation importée : Arrêtons de scier la branche ! WWF France.
Xu J, Morris PJ, Liu J, Holden J. 2018. Peatmap: Refining estimates of global peatland distribution based
on a meta-analysis. Catena. 160:134-140.
Yanggen D, Angu K, Tchamou N. 2010. Landscape-scale conservation in the Congo basin: Lessons learned
from the Central African regional program for the environment (carpe).
Young HS, Dirzo R, Helgen KM, McCauley DJ, Billeter SA, Kosoy MY, Osikowicz LM, Salkeld DJ, Young TP,
Dittmar K. 2014. Declines in large wildlife increase landscape-level prevalence of rodent-borne
disease in Africa. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 111(19):7036-7041.
Yu Z, Loisel J, Brosseau DP, Beilman DW, Hunt SJ. 2010. Global peatland dynamics since the last glacial
maximum. Geophysical research letters. 37(13).
Zapata JC, Cox D, Salvato MS. 2014. The role of platelets in the pathogenesis of viral hemorrhagic fevers.
PLoS neglected tropical diseases. 8(6):e2858.
Zhang H, Ades G, Miller MP, Yang F, Lai K-w, Fischer GA. 2020. Genetic identification of African pangolins
and their origin in illegal trade. Global Ecology and Conservation. 23:e01119.
Zhang Q, Devers D, Desch A, Justice CO, Townshend J. 2005. Mapping tropical deforestation in Central
Africa. Environmental monitoring and assessment. 101(1):69-83.
Zhou P, Yang X-L, Wang X-G, Hu B, Zhang L, Zhang W, Si H-R, Zhu Y, Li B, Huang C-L. 2020. A pneumonia
outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin. nature. 579(7798):270-273.
Zongang A. 2019. Timber trade in Cameroon controlled by Asian companies, DFID, WWF, 48 PP.

The “State of the Forests of the Congo Basin” report is published periodically to present the state
of the forest ecosystems of Central Africa and how they are managed. Following the 2015 edition
devoted entirely to climate change, the 2021 report takes up several themes and is presented in
four parts.
The report begins by examining the state of the resource, which is increasingly recognized across
the world as a forest area crucial for carbon sequestration and for the conservation of biological
diversity. The Congo Basin forest ecosystems are then put into perspective within the global context
of discussions that can guide the management and governance of the entire world’s tropical forests
for decades to come. The report then addresses topical issues such as peatland management and
the relationship between the biodiversity management and the emergence or re-emergence of
zoonotic diseases. And COVID-19 features notably in the chapter on this topic. Finally, the report
identifies the main challenges that need to be addressed to achieve sustainable management of
forest ecosystems in the Congo Basin, with the goal of ensuring that management contributes to
improving the livelihoods and living environment of local communities and indigenous peoples.
cifor-icraf.org | observatoire-comifac.net

State of The Forests 2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

State of The Forests 2021

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

State of The Forests 2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Forests of the Congo Basin

State Of The Forests 2021

State of the Forests 2021

Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR)

Cover photo by Axel Fassio/CIFOR

to the memory of our two colleagues,

1 Distribution of forest types and changes in their classification 3

2 The evolution of the wood subsector in the Congo Basin 35

3 Forest Plantations in Central Africa 77

5 Implementation of REDD+ Activities in Central African Countries 137

Part 2: Congo Basin forests in international discourse 163

7 Central African countries’ international commitments on climate change 183

8 Addressing imported deforestation and zero deforestation commitments 213

Part 3: Emerging issues for Central African forests 239

Part 4: Congo Basin forests: Issues and challenges 289

12 Forest Landscape Restoration (FLR) in Central Africa 317

State of the Congo Basin Forests in 2021: Overall conclusions 367

iv | The forests of the Congo Basin

ABS Access and Benefit Sharing

The forests of the Congo Basin | v

vi | The forests of the Congo Basin

The forests of the Congo Basin | vii

viii | The forests of the Congo Basin

The forests of the Congo Basin | ix

x | The forests of the Congo Basin

The forests of the Congo Basin | xi

xii | The forests of the Congo Basin

The forests of the Congo Basin | xiii

xiv | The forests of the Congo Basin

The forests of the Congo Basin | xv

xvi | The forests of the Congo Basin

The forests of the Congo Basin | xvii

xviii | The forests of the Congo Basin

The forests of the Congo Basin | xix

xx | The forests of the Congo Basin

Reviewers and revisers

English-to-French translator and editorial coordinator

The forests of the Congo Basin | xxi

xxii | The forests of the Congo Basin

Richard Sufo Kankeu

The forests of the Congo Basin | xxiii

xxiv | The forests of the Congo Basin

Christian RUCK Jules Doret NDONGO

The forests of the Congo Basin | xxv

1.1 Forest mapping

4 | The forests of the Congo Basin

1.1.1 Floristic and functional composition of tropical

The forests of the Congo Basin | 5

1.1.2 Detailed mapping of forest types

6 | The forests of the Congo Basin

The forests of the Congo Basin | 7

8 | The forests of the Congo Basin

The forests of the Congo Basin | 9

1.1.3 Distribution of forest carbon stocks in Central

10 | The forests of the Congo Basin

The forests of the Congo Basin | 11

1.1.4 Complementarity of the different approaches

12 | The forests of the Congo Basin

1.2 Dynamics of dense moist forests