Douala, 24 to 26 September 2013

Report prepared by

Patrice KAMKUIMO, Ranèce NDJEUDJA and Eric Parfait ESSOMBA

2013 ACRN Regional Workshop Report “Using REDD and FLEGT processes to ensure

community rights to forests and land in Africa: Lessons Learnt and Prospects”

i

CONTENTS

ABREVIATIONS ………………………………………………………….…………………………………………… ii I. INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………….…………..….…………………….. 1 I.1. Context and rationale for the workshop…..……….........................................…............... 1 I.2. Workshop objectives and methodological approach……..…….....……………..……..... 2 II. PROCEEDINGS OF THE WORKSHOP……………………….……………..………………..… 3 II.1. Day one ………….…………………………….………………………………............................................. 3 II.1.1. Opening of the workshop and introductory generalities related to work… 3 II.1.2. Opening statement and orientation discussions……………………..…….. 4 II.1.3. Presentations of ACRN country experiences on FLEGT and REDD……

4 II.1.3.1. Democratic Republic of Congo and the Republic of Congo…….....… 5 II.1.3.2. Central African Republic and Cameroon………………………....….... 6 II.1.3.3. Ghana and Liberia…….................................................................................... 9 II.1.3.4. Gabon, Burundi and Kenya………………………………………….... 11 II.2. Day two……..…….....……………………………..……………………………….................. 13 II.2.1. Presentations of FLEGT and REDD experiences in Côte d’Ivoire and Burkina Faso………………...……………………………………………………...…

13

II.2.2. Presentation of resolutions of the 13th RRI Dialogue ………………....…... 15 II.2.3. Presentations of report of the FLEGT and CRN week in Brussels and ACRN action plan ……………………………………………………...…...………..

16

II.2.4. Development of the ACRN roadmap ………………………...………… 18 II.2.4.1. Presentation of terms of reference and organisation of group work……. 18 II.2.4.2. Restitution in plenary and group work amendment….….....…………… 18 II.3. Day three……..…………...…………………………….......……….................................................. 19 II.3.1. Presentation and approval of the consolidated draft of the roadmap……… 19 II.3.2. Empowering organisations for the implementation and monitoring of the roadmap……………...……………………………………………………....……….

22

II.3.3. Closing and end of the workshop………………………………………… 24 III. APPENDICES………......………………………..………………………..…………………...………………. 25

Appendix 1: List of participants…………………………………………………..……...………. 25

Appendix 2: Provisional programme of the workshop…………………………………...… 29

Appendix 3: Terms of reference and key questions for group work………….……...… 31

Appendix 4: Detailed results of group work……………………..……...………. 34

ii

LIST OF ABREVIATIONS

ACRN Africa Community Rights Network VPA Voluntary Partnership Agreement WB World Bank UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change CED Centre for the Environment and Development CLIP Informed, Free, and Prior Consent COMIFAC Commission of Central African Forests COP Conference of Parties CRN Community Rights Network FAO United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation MNV Measure, Notification and Verification FCPF Partnership Fund for Forest Carbon FLEGT Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade FPP Forest Peoples Programme PA Indigenous people PANA National Action Plan for Adaptation CSO Civil Society Organisation REDD Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation RBUE Wood Regulations of the European Union DRC Democratic Republic of Congo R-PIN Readiness Plan Idea Note R-PP Readiness Preparation Proposal RRI Rights and Resource Initiative CS Civil Society SVL System for the Verification of Legality ToR Terms of Reference AU African Union EU European Union

iii

INTRODUCTION

From 24 to 26 September 2013 was held at the Serena Hotel located in the Bali neighbourhood

in Douala, Cameroon, the regional ACRN workshop (Africa Community Rights Network) under

the theme “Using REDD processes1 and FLEGT2to ensure community rights to forests and land in Africa:

Lessons and Prospects” The workshop hosted by CED (Centre for the Environment and

Development) brought together thirty participants - from various countries - mainly members of

ACRN (see list of participants in Appendix 1). This workshop whose holding was thanks to the

financial support of RRI (Rights and Resource Initiative) fell within a specific context and

pursued well-defined goals.

I.1. Context and justification of workshop The perception of FLEGT and REDD processes in Africa as opportunities to improve forest

governance and community rights to land and forest grows increasingly in members of ACRN:

This perception is supported by the unprecedented political space offered by these processes to

African CS (civil society) actors for advocacy for recognition of community rights. However, we

note that these processes could also increase the marginalisation of indigenous and local

communities - particularly women and indigenous peoples - and that, by ultimately promoting a

more conservative and centralised forest management in the name of REDD and FLEGT,

communities could be denied and driven from their traditional and customary land or given

limited access to the forest and its resources.

Most ACRN countries are certainly in the initial stages of the development of their REDD and

FLEGT policies and strategies, but some of them, such as the DRC (Democratic Republic of

Congo), are fairly well advanced in the development of national REDD strategy and other

countries, like Cameroon, Ghana and Congo - Brazzaville are better developed in the design of

their FLEGT policies. Therefore, it becomes extremely important to start to track and monitor

what actually happens at the country level in order to inform the design of policies in other

countries. Since 2011, members of the ACRN network began to reflect on how to use REDD

and FLEGT processes for the recognition of community rights. A key action identified to

achieve this goal was to capitalise and share lessons and experiences of best practices on key

1 REDD : Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation 2FLEGT: Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade

1

issues such as land reform, improving governance, including participation promoted by REDD

and FLEGT in African countries.

The regional ACRN strategy workshop held in September 2013 was thus inscribed closely in the

dynamics of gathering information to enable the development of better strategies and concrete

planning for the promotion of community rights to land and forests.

I.2. Workshop objectives and methodological approach The main objective of the workshop was to assess how best to use REDD and FLEGT

processes to catalyse the recognition and security of customary land rights and communities in

Africa and particularly in ACRN member countries.

Specifically, it was about: - Sharing the first lessons and experiences of implementation and development of REDD

and FLEGT processes in Africa and ACRN member countries.

- Evaluating the potential of REDD and FLEGT processes for recognition of community rights to land and forests.

- Developing a roadmap of concrete and feasible actions to be implemented by members

of ACRN in their respective countries as well as the entire ACRN network at the sub regional and regional level of REDD and FLEGT institutions. The roadmap is based on the strategic elements developed in the previous year.

- Also provide in the roadmap, clear information about other actors and national and

regional platforms involved in FLEGT and REDD issues, and with whom ACRN could ally to spread, strengthen or expand the concept-based approach on the recognition of rights in REDD and FLEGT processes; this, with the ultimate goal to develop coordinated strategies to policy-makers.

- Drawing lessons on how these instruments can best complement each other and can be

used effectively to secure the land rights of communities and increase the contribution of natural resources to local livelihoods and the development of Africa.

As a methodological approach, two facilitators namely Patrick KIPALU of FPP (Forest Peoples

Programme) and Jeannot MINLA MFOU’OU (independent consultant) provided the

moderation of the workshop which was highly participatory and interactive: presentations

followed by exchanges and discussions, game issues - answers - round of table, group work

followed by exchanges in the plenary. 2

II. PROCEEDINGS OF THE WORKSHOP Under the programme (Appendix 2), the workshop was held over three days with rich work

furnished by lectures, group reflection, discussion and exchange, and validation of the group

work results in plenary session and ACRN operational action plan.

II.1. Day one II.1.1. Opening of the workshop and introductory generalities related to work After arrival, installation and registration of the participants, the workshop itself began with the

introductory words of Mr. Téodyl NKUINTCHUA (CED Programme Coordinator) who, after

courtesies, first recalled that since almost 2009, ACRN annual meetings have become systematic,

before delving on the importance of the workshop which falls within the continuation of the

previous and whose ultimate goal is developing an action plan to make operational the strategy

adopted at the 2012 meeting. Facilitators spoke to animate the first round (presentation of

participants), recall the objectives and expected outcomes of the workshop and the agenda, and

finally ensure participatory adoption of the rules of the game. It was understood, in terms of

running the workshop, that it will be a practical way in the first place to share experiences on the

dynamics of FLEGT / REDD in ACRN countries, and then to develop (based on the

experiences and opportunities that the said processes present in advancing the rights of

communities) a roadmap to guide the work of the network in the months and years to come.

The practical arrangements were also specified by the secretariat to the participants of the

workshop. And once all the introductions and explanations were made, the floor was given to

Téodyl for the first presentation.

II.1.2. Opening statement and orientation discussions The first presentation by Téodyl laid the foundation and/or reference for future work and future

discussions. Indeed, through his presentation on the theme “Land and forest governance in Africa:

What position for CSOs?”, we could retain that substantive questions are essential to understanding

the processes of governance and act more effectively in the context of better recognition and

protection of the rights of communities in Africa in light of the phenomenon of resource curse in

Africa (abundance of natural resources but abject poverty); the multiplicity of governance

3

processes introduced from outside (private forest certification, VPA-FLEGT, REDD to name a

few) may have hidden agendas... The big question for CSOs is that of knowing what should be

their attitude (wait, join the bandwagon or realism), approach and constraints? In other words,

how to build, working for a message, a strategy which, while enrolling in the course of these

governance processes effectively and efficiently carries the aspirations of the communities with

which CSOs work daily?

At the end of this framework presentation, the moderator (Jeannot) summarised the content

before handing the floor to exchanges. Discussions and exchanges essentially clarified the fact

that at the ACRN level, the approach/process in relation to different governance mechanisms

cannot be following the bandwagon or waiting but realism; in effect ACRN wants to use these

mechanisms as a gateway in order to address a number of issues, particularly in terms of

community rights.

Once the exchange ended, participants had a coffee break that preceded the start of the

presentations of ACRN country experiences.

II.1.3. Presentations of ACRN country experiences on FLEGT and REDD The presentations and discussions on the dynamics of FLEGT and REDD in ACRN countries

were made in groups: in general two countries per session of presentations and discussions).

II.1.3.1. Democratic Republic of Congo and the Republic of Congo . The presentation of the DRC was made by Don de Dieu KATSHUNGA and dwelt on the

interactions between REDD and VPA-FLEGT processes in the DRC and Congo presented by

Guy MOUSSELE focused on the experiences and perspectives of the CS of the Republic of

Congo in the use of REDD and FLEGT processes to ensure community rights to forests and

land in Africa.

The points highlighted by the presentation of the DRC are:

- The country is engaged in a process of preparation for future international REDD mechanism (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation, sustainable management and increasing forest carbon stocks). The preparation phase that began with the international validation of the RPP3 (Readiness Preparation Proposal) in 2010 was followed

3 RPP: Readiness Preparation Proposal is the proposal for the preparation to REDD

4

by the production and official presentation in November 2012, of the National REDD Strategy Framework based on seven pillars (Forestry, Agriculture, Land, Planning, Energy, Demographics, and Governance). And for FLEGT, in October 2010, the DRC signed with the EU a Joint Declaration opening VPA negotiations. Within the framework of RBUE application (Wood Regulations of the European Union), news is the denunciation of an Afromosia cargo of doubtful legality, that was seized in Antwerp in April 2013, but later released by the Belgian government under unclear circumstances, hence, the memorandum of denunciation of the CS with the threat of withdrawal from participation in VPA/FLEGT.

- REDD and FLEGT processes have common goals like the fight against illegal logging and the consequent destruction of forests, improving forest governance and land use system through participatory zoning. And in the short or long term, these processes may offer as opportunities, the harmonisation and securing of land and forest rights, clarification of rights and duties between the State and local and indigenous communities and loggers, social peace, equity and local development, etc. However, there are still challenges to overcome, such as the technical capacity building of the State and non State actors involved in the implementation of regulations and other standards, strengthening the participation of all stakeholders, the establishment of a framework for dialogue between all key ministries involved in both processes, the promotion and protection of land and forest rights of indigenous and local communities.

Regarding the Republic of Congo, we can say that: - Land reform completed in 2008 led to the recognition of customary land rights of

communities but remains subject to stringent procedures at the tax and technical levels; these rights are limited to the use and not the property.

- The VPA is in force since 2013, the instances of implementation are in place, and the political and legal reforms are underway (political and forestry code, and implementing regulations).

- The R-PIN (Readiness Plan Idea Note) was approved in 2008 and the R-PP adopted in September 2011, the Communication Plan was approved in 2013, the National Strategy is under consideration, the Decree on REDD is not yet signed and formal bodies for the implementation are not yet established.

- Through the advocacy of CSOs, the land issue was included in the R-PP, and REDD funds will be dedicated among others to address the technical and fiscal constraints of the legal community to recognise their customary land rights. The perspectives are thus the definition of a clear approach for the management of these funds, and also ensuring as regards the clarification of ownership of forests and land, and effectiveness of community forestry in the text of the forest Code under review.

Discussions and exchanges following the two presentations helped launch the debate on the

future of the timber seized in the European area: the Afromosia cargo was released mainly due to

the confirmation by the DRC Government of the legality of the source although questionable,

and moreover, RBUE does not provide for the repatriation of illegal timber seized and less the

5

revenue from its sale at auctions in Europe. The exchanges have identified the complexity around

the real taking into account the socio-economic interests of communities and other stakeholders

in forests where illegal timber has been exploited, as well as limitations in the effectiveness level

in the implementation level of RBUE (for example, legislation in case of seizure of the timber is

that of the State that seized). An interesting point of discussion has been asked and answered:

why is defective cocoa or coffee repatriated and not timber? Because, beyond governance that is

highlighted, it is the logic of the market economy which seems to prevail.

At the end of the exchange, the floor was given to the CAR and Cameroon to present their

experiences.

II.1.3.2. Central African Republic and Cameroon The presentation of the CAR on the theme “National REDD process and VPA/FLEGT:

Challenges and prospects for participation, and the rights of forest communities” was prepared in

group by representatives of this country and presented by Bienvenue KEMANDA ; that of

Cameroon was done by Victor AMOUGOU and focused on FLEGT and REDD in community

rights.

The presentation of the CAR noted the following points: - Regarding the REDD process: the initial national communication on climate change was

submitted in 2003; PANA (National Action Plan for Adaptation) was finalised and submitted in May 2008, while the R-PIN was validated in December 2008; the R-PP was developed between 2010 and 2011 and reviewed in October 2011 at the tenth COP (Conference of Parties) in Berlin. And responses to recommendations of the COP 10 have been validated and submitted at the national level.

- FLEGT process was respectively marked by the official launch of the negotiation process of the VPA in October 2008, initialled in December 2010, signed in November 2011 and ratified in July 2012. CAR is currently in the development phase of the system, with activities such as the reform of the legal framework, the development of SVL (System Verification of Legality), etc.

- However, the involvement and participation of the CS in these processes has remained very low. To strengthen its participation in national REDD and FLEGT processes and ensure its effectiveness, the Central African CS adopted a unique strategy by merging the existing networks (REDD and FLEGT): a unique platform of thirty CSOs with a coordination bureau made up of five members elected by the General Assembly.

- The major challenges which remain in terms of governance in CAR are among others, the implementation of CLIP (Informed Free and Prior Consent), the provisions of the

6

Convention 169, the recognition and protection of customary land rights of communities so that REDD may be effectively beneficial to them.

Generally the crucial points in terms of VPA-FLEGT and REDD processes in Cameroon, which emerged from the presentation of Victor AMOUGOU are: - VPA was signed in 2010 and ratified in 2011. Cameroon is in the phase of implementation of

the Agreement and much more in its initials, such as the reform of the legal framework, the monitoring bodies of the implementation are almost operational and gender considerations have not been specifically addressed.

- R-PIN has been finalised and submitted to the FCPF (Partnership Fund for Forest Carbon) in July 2008, then, RPP was prepared and submitted to the FCPF in August 2012 to be finally adopted in January 2013 and subsequently revised in the same year (its implementation is scheduled from 2013 to 2015). The country has thus returned to the preparation phase of the national REDD strategy. A plan of activities, with an indicative timetable, and an estimate of the overall financial requirements for its implementation has been developed.

- The rights of communities (participation, consultation, access compensation, use, etc.) are often recognised and secured by international legal instruments and even in the constitution and certain sector laws, but some difficulties/problems persistent lessening and/or preventing their application in practice including: confusion and scattered interpretation of concepts (information, consultation, consent, etc.)., discrepancies or conflicts between the legal texts, the modern rule of national law on traditional or aboriginal right, the low level of organisation of forest communities in the context of modern forest management, etc.

- As a concluding observation and possible solutions: the FLEGT process is more advanced than the REDD process, and to progress in securing and promoting the rights of forest communities, we must draw from the experiences and best practices of each other and strengthen collaboration between civil society actors.

As usual, the presentations were followed by a session of questions and discussions that helped

to clarify points or complete presentations.

Indeed, on the question of integration of communities in CAR, it was noted that although the

country is very advanced in terms of recognising the rights of communities (ratification of

Convention 169, for example), a lot still needs to be done in practice to ensure effective

protection of these rights. And on the establishment of a single platform, the initiative was made

following the finding of duplication at the two previous networks for monitoring FLEGT and

REDD respectively: it is the same CSOs who were there, hence the need to merge into a single

platform to be more effective. And faced with concerns about political instability in CAR, CAR

representatives reassured participants that the change of government has not fundamentally

affected the evolution of the two processes in the country.

7

Talking points about the presentation of Cameroon were focused on the inclusion of gender

issues and the problem of representation of communities. Regarding the role of women, it was

clarified that the REDD process is more advanced than FLEGT: a special place for women is

clearly recognised in the RPP. The question of the actual representation of the communities was

also discussed, and it was clarified that although CSOs do not necessarily represent the

communities, they are aware of their difficulties, and can well defend them at any occasion or

decision-making processes, especially when the direct participation of communities was not

assured. A key point was also noted by the presenter of Cameroon and focused on the fact that

before talking about REDD, alternatives should be presented to communities before they decide

to stop or not their activities on behalf of REDD projects.

At the end of these discussions, the moderator first redefined the essential elements that emerged

from the presentations and discussions before presenting participants with substantive issues

requiring further reflection: Why, despite the numerous advocacies, have the proposals of the CS

not sufficiently taken into account? At what level are there flaws? How can we ensure that we

migrate to the efficient and effective application of the law? When can we say that the

communities were represented? How? Is it by meeting around a table? Is it through CSOs? How

to handle contradictions in legal texts, and even in the context of the reform process? It is on

these question marks that the session was suspended for an hour thirty minutes of lunch break.

Photos of a brainstorming session

8

II.1.3.3. Ghana and Liberia After returning from the lunch break, the presentations continued with those of Ghana and

Liberia first.

Ghana’s presentation was the theme “Progress of FLEGT and REDD in Ghana” and it focused on

four main points namely: concerns related to rights of communities, the commitments under

FLEGT REDD, the progress related to these two processes, barriers/challenges and lessons

learned. One could note the following:

- Communities have many concerns, including their participation in democratic decision-making, ownership of land and trees, equity in access and distribution of income, allocation of a better role for forest communities in the management of resources, and the ability of communities to participate in forest management.

- Commitments within the framework of FLEGT and REDD have helped to initiate the process of political and legislative reforms related to the forest: a new forest policy is in place and a forestry action plan under development, the reform of the legislative framework is planned. The reform of land ownership and trees (to reduce conflict and ensure security of tenure for home-owners and farmers), and formalisation (make legal) of the domestic market should be launched. REDD pilot initiatives/projects are in place since 2012, but the REDD process in general is experiencing a delay due to lack of funding.

- The main challenges that remain are reviewing the felling taxes and the tax system, the practicality of the artisanal sector (access to resources, technical and financial support) as a solution to the domestic market, and implementing a community management of forestry

- In terms of lessons learned: low working with the private sector to work on issues of common interest, direct representation of communities in REDD but low level of consultation in general, VPA is a good lever for the involvement of stakeholders, REDD process can learn from the consultation under the VPA.

The presentation from Liberia by Mr. Samuel KWENNAH was on the current situation and

challenges of the experiences of Liberia to REDD and FLEGT. Samuel’s presentation was

structured around institutional arrangements, stakeholder consultation and communication,

progress so far, as part of implementation and the challenges and opportunities. One could

therefore be able to retain respectively that:

- The National Technical Working Group (REDD) was established to advise the National

Steering Committee for Climate Change, the coordinator of the national administrative secretariat of climate change has been recruited to facilitate the implementation of the activities of R-PP, a task force (consultation and participation REDD) has been established for the technical support and supervision of communication and public participation;

9

- The VPA support unit was set up on 1st September 2013, three national dialogue workshops of the CS were held with representatives of CSOs including academics, the media, youth groups and women, awareness campaigns and REDD R-PP were conducted at the national level (in English) and also at the local level - through 54 local radio stations and 16 local languages of the country - VPA was ratified by parliament and is being promulgated by the executive ( unofficial information);

- In terms of progress: the consultation plan and participation of stakeholders was developed, the technical working group on REDD developed the national REDD website and climate change, a monitoring plan of consultations during the preparation phase has been developed as well the communication strategy on REDD, information on climate change and gender were shared and an action plan developed with the participation of women’s groups and structures, the start-up phase with the VPA support cell is expected to continue until December 2013;

- And as regards the scope of implementation for both processes: the option of implementing the R-PP has been developed and included an acceptable procedure of transparency, conflict management, the mechanism of benefit sharing has been developed, VPA support cell is currently conducting consultations on capacity needs for the activities carried out.

- In terms of challenges: ensuring the understanding of these new concepts (REDD and FLEGT-VPA) and the development of responses and mitigation mechanisms for the most vulnerable parts, the formal conclusion of the ratification of the VPA to revitalise the work of the support cell, the transverse challenge low capacity at government, communities and CSOs, signing bad agreements for major concessions. However, some opportunities exist like the development of the new land policy, and the submission of the draft land law to the President for consideration and transmission to Parliament, the imminent ratification and the starting of the development phase of VPA.

Following these presentations, questions and discussions were a bit more general and focused on

the types of rights of communities to consider as well as the emerging issue of timber conversion.

Thus, it was agreed that it is important to avoid generalisations and focus on the essential rights

of communities like the rights to land and forest, and also, it was agreed to work with much more

emphasis on issues of timber forest conversion with the illustrative example of SIME DARBY in

Liberia which cleared large areas within the framework of agro-industrial activities.

Following the discussions and before giving the floor to the last set of the day, the moderator of

the session first made a statement of direction for the rest of the workshop. In fact, he noted that

the discussions already held, sufficiently demonstrate that communities know what they need

while CSOs are familiar with FLEGT and REDD in their contours and challenges and CSOs: the

central question for the group work of the second day will be how to use these mechanisms to

help communities get what they want?

10

II.1.3.4. Gabon, Burundi and Kenya The last presentations of the day were successively those of Gabon, Burundi and Kenya, and

Burundi and Kenya were focused on REDD given that these two countries are not yet involved

in the VPA-FLEGT process.

The presentation from Gabon was made by Richelieu OBAME, and he made an inventory of

FLEGT and REDD in the country. The presentation essentially focused on the strengths and

weaknesses of both process in Gabon. Under strengths, we can note the stakeholder mobilisation

(active platform of the CS, and affiliated to larger networks), the awareness of the importance of

the forestry sector in the creation of wealth and fight against poverty, and supervision of the

development of the timber industry translated in the regulations and policies. In terms of

weaknesses, he nevertheless noted a large demarcation between policy statements and practical

effectiveness of governance actions: blockade of the VPA process three years after the opening

of negotiations, preparation of documents for the climate plan without involvement and

consultation with stakeholders, current opacity of the process of revision of the forestry code

which initially was open and inclusive.

The presentation of the experiences of Burundi was made by Honourable Libérate

NICAYENZI. The estimation of Batwa PA (Indigenous Peoples) of Burundi was first noted

(1%) as well as a strong statement on the Batwa discrimination in all spheres of national life.

Subsequently, it was clarified that the REDD process is only in its initial phase in Burundi but

difficulties/constraints are already emerging, for example, the lack of capacity of national

administration, lack of financial resources and the absence of national REDD coordination unit.

However, some opportunities exist including the political will and the CS, the appointment of a

focal point in charge of REDD, favourable national and regional laws, initiatives of land

distribution to the PA and measures for their integration into the decision-making bodies and

national institutions, training and alliances on the issue of land. Finally, important

recommendations were presented to ensure the rights of PA and the progress of the REDD

processes simultaneously, which include strengthening the CS in advocacy (training and exchange

of experience) and especially at the level of influence of the draft laws, media coverage of the

action, taking into account gender and Aboriginal specificity in the activities initiated on new

themes, and action planning in phase with ground realities and needs at the base.

11

The last presentation of the day was that of the experiences of Kenya which dwelt on REDD

activities in Kenya and their role in biodiversity conservation. The key points emerged from the

presentation of Kenya are:

- In terms of activities realised or being under realisation within the framework of REDD we can note: the start of a multi-party and multi-institutional process on REDD with support from FCPF, the signing of a grant agreement between the government and the WB (World Bank) for the development of the R-PP, the establishment of a multi-sector REDD technical working group, initiation of the process of setting up a steering committee, development and submission to FCPF of the proposed REDD preparation, the drawing up of the consultation and participation plan, and the holding of five regional consultation workshops with one particularly dedicated to indigenous communities. Chronologically, the R-PIN was approved in 2008, and between 2009 and 2010, the R-PP has been formulated and implemented since then; the year 2013 marked the beginning of the phase of management and continuous evaluation of REDD actions.

- Concerning future steps in the implementation of the R-PP: conduct of a detailed analysis of relevant REDD policies, legal and regulatory requirements of the various policies and policy measures; development of baseline emissions; confirmation of institutional roles, responsibilities and supervision arrangements for REDD; established entities responsible for MRV (Measurement, Reporting and Verification), selection of potential REDD pilot activities; further consultation, information sharing and awareness on REDD, and finally finalising the REDD strategy.

- The main drivers of deforestation and degradation identified (agricultural expansion, unsustainable forest management, fires, etc.) through the R-PP process were also presented as well as intervention measures. He also mentioned the benefit sharing mechanisms in progress (new policy and legislation with provisions on the equitable sharing of benefits through the community forest associations, and other arrangements under discussion with communities).

- Major challenges were also identified including the finalisation of the development of the baseline and the development of a system for monitoring emissions, the actual development of the framework for sharing benefits ...

Discussions following the three presentations were more of clarifications and comments on the

main obstacles decried by presenters. Indeed, in addition to discussions on the marginalisation of

the PA and the openings/opportunities in Burundi, the discussions also led to conclude on one

of the factors blocking the ongoing dynamic processes of VPA-FLEGT and REDD, which is the

difficult transition between exclusive government management and sometimes grabbers of

resource for private purposes and real governance as required by these processes. It is on these

last notes that the first day was closed.

12

II.2. Day two The second day began with a recap of the previous day by Mr Patrice KAMKUIMO. After this

point, the two representatives of Côte d’Ivoire and Burkina Faso who did not arrive the day

before were asked to present the experiences of their countries before the continuation of

previously scheduled activities for the second day.

II.2.1. Presentations of FLEGT and REDD experiences in Côte d’Ivoire and Burkina Faso The presentation of Côte d’Ivoire was done by Mr. Theodore N’DRI KOUAKOU, and he

mainly noted the level of progress of the two processes in this country. It was thus noted that:

- The REDD process began on 18 October 2012 by the signing of a grant agreement of FAO (United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation), and the FLEGT process began on 13 June 2013, with the signing of the Joint declaration between the EU and Côte d’Ivoire.

- In terms of opportunities there was the signing of two decrees establishing institutions to control each process: National REDD Committee and the Technical Committee for VPA negotiation.

- The challenges posed by these two processes are on one hand common in both processes, and on the other, specific. The common challenges are massive land acquisition and the significant deforestation by logging and mining industries, and the establishment of a common platform of a REDD/FLEGT civil society. The specific challenge of REDD is the taking into account of the expectations and concerns of local communities and indigenous forests while the specific challenges of FLEGT are adapting the Ivorian law to the urgent need for effective recognition of customary rights and rural populations and the full involvement of the CS in the process.

The presentation of Burkina Faso made by Mrs. Françoise PIAUPARE also briefed participants

on the progress of the REDD process in this country. Indeed one could remember that the

process was initiated in 2008, but the commitment was followed by a blockage: it was not until

2010 that there really was an awareness campaign. In fact, with the complexity of this new

concept and even the difficulty of apprehension even for many CSOs, it was necessary to focus

on training before engaging in consultations held in inter-ministry level. Since 2012, information

sessions are also organised in partnership with the government and some bilateral cooperation

agencies.

The usual question session and exchanges helped to enrich the evidence presented by both

countries. And amongst others additional information which emerged: Burkina Faso has

established a programme of adaptation to climate change with the help of some multilateral 13

partners (including the World Bank), the process of setting up an Ivorian CS platform to work

on the two processes is a wish of partners and CSOs also.

Both presentations having closed the session of presentations on the state of affairs of FLEGT

and REDD processes in each ACRN country, the work of the workshop continued with

orientation presentations to also inspire the development of the roadmap (resolutions of 13th

RRI dialogue, account of the FLEGT and CRN week, ACRN action plan).

II.2.2. Presentation of resolutions of the 13th RRI Dialogue The presentation of the resolutions of the 13th RRI dialogue on “forest governance and climate change:

Harmonising tenure and policies related to resources in changing landscapes of Central and West Africa” was

done by Mrs. Hortense NGONO. After having introduced the objectives of dialogue, recalling

the recommendations of the 2009 conference and the results of their implementation, the

presenter submitted a list of recommendations that was set in 2013 based on the findings of the

level of progress so far. The resolutions of 2013 from the 13th dialogue are therefore: (1) Apply

the FAO and the African Union (AU) Directives, and make the same arguments in support of

national reforms, (2) Recognize, secure and protect data in their constitutions and laws of the

property rights of communities on land and natural resources, (3) Build the capacity of all

stakeholders for implementation documents of international and regional policy at the national

level; (4) Coordinate activities between national and interstate authorities for greater coherence

and effectiveness in the development and implementation of reforms; (5) Establish multi-party

frameworks at the sub-regional level, organise debates at the national level to monitor and

develop the technical tools for effective monitoring; (6) Assess current legislation on the

allocation of commercial rights in relation to the rights of communities and environmental

standards and apply transparent and efficient systems for the allocation of commercial rights

(forest management, mining, agribusiness, carbon rights, etc.); (7) Consider these

recommendations as priorities to donors agencies in their support to governments and the civil

society.

Questions and answers following the presentation helped to clarify some points, or bring

additional understanding, and also general lessons to consider during group brainstorming.

Indeed, it was understood that: recommendations also go to the both to CS and the workshop

14

(13th dialogue) was organised by the Minister of Forestry in partnership with COMIFAC4 (real

government involvement but need to share resolutions with other ministries); the national policy

of planning the territory with a corresponding law is useful option to avoid duplication of stock;

the process of building the grid of legality in the DRC has detected inconsistencies and

contradictions in the legal texts and the need to reform the Forest Code and its implementing

regulations; State ownership of land that is observed in many countries is not the case in Ghana

where communities are owners through their chiefs but they give land to investors without

necessarily consulting the members of their community; reforms are essential, but the question of

implementation remains.

II.2.3. Presentations of report of the FLEGT and CRN week in Brussels and ACRN action plan The report of the FLEGT and CRN week in Brussels (from 3 to 10 October 2012) was

presented by Mr. Protais ESSONO and the ACRN action plan developed in 2012 by Mr.

Maixent AGNIMBAT.

It was stated that most of FLEGT and CRN week - whose objective was an internal review, to

identify the assets and challenges of FLEGT and REDD at the country level - is summarized in a

note which was produced for this purpose. The main elements of content of that note are:

- The renewed commitment of CSOs to work at the national level to strengthen the rights of communities and ensure that national processes such as the FLEGT helps serve those rights, the recognition of the importance of the VPA-FLEGT process improvement coordination and consistency of CSOs at national and regional level, the capacity of the CS and the improvement of relations between different groups of stakeholders ( CSOs, private sector, government and communities), the recognition of the key role of VPA-FLEGT process in legal reforms in all signatory countries ( the revision of the wildlife and forest policy in Ghana, the adoption of the Law on the protection and promotion of indigenous peoples in the Republic of Congo and development regulation on artisanal logging ( chainsaw) in Liberia and recognition in Indonesia of the role of civil society as an independent observer) - The call of participants to the EU and its Member States for the continued support and funding of the VPA-FLEGT processes to ensure that more tangible results can be seen at improving governance. - Concerns observed for the implementation of the VPA (slow or blockage in most signatory countries of VPA), the participants call the EU to negotiate with China and India to introduce legislation to control imports of illegally sourced timber in view of the problem of timber exports to China and India, although all VPAs are intended to regulate all exports.

4COMIFAC: Commission of Central African Forests

15

- Hope borne by CRN on the strict implementation of RBUE by the 27 EU Member States. Regarding the ACRN Strategic Action Plan adopted in 2012, it was first stated that it is of

strategic priorities to guide participants in developing an operational action plan. The action plan

is divided into three key areas: influence institutions, improve participation and enhance synergy.

For strategic focus on the influence of institutions to spread the agenda of the CS, it was noted

that the priority is to know these institutions (mission, goals, interests, their positioning, their

sensitivity or interest) and then have a clear strategy for working with them (how to work with

them? How to approach them? How to have a working relationship with them?). For the second

axis, it is to ensure the effective participation of the CS itself (effective and efficient involvement

of the SC in the current policies in order to have the ability to influence them). The third focus

on strengthening the synergy refers to the mechanism of sharing, communication, level of

information, but also the coordination of actions. Institutions having been identified as key are

the AU, ECCAS (Economic Community of Central African States), COMIFAC, the Economic

Community of the Great Lake Country., IUCN, ICRAF (International Centre for research in

Agro-forestry) and PACJA (Pan African Climate Justice Alliance).

The discussion following these two orientation presentations on development work of the

operationalization of the strategy plan 2012 has essentially clarified the fact that for nearly three

years, the approach is no longer to consider the government and policies as enemies but rather to

identify in government and policies, people who can help us move forward.

The end of the discussions was the beginning of the debate on the actual development of the

roadmap.

Photos of presentation sessions and exchanges

16

II.2.4. Development of the ACRN roadmap II.2.4.1. Presentation of terms of reference and organisation of group work The moderation team organised three working groups by also adapting them to the imperative

language (an English speaking group and two French speaking groups), and presented to the

participants the ToR (Terms of Reference) of the group work and the key issues to be considered

(see ToR and key issues in Appendix 3). Thus, work in groups initially inspired itself from the

elements following guidance: Téodyl’s introductory presentation, country presentations,

resolutions of the 13th RRI dialogue, the Brussels meeting and finally the key issues - having

emerged from previous discussions and presentations). The main idea is therefore to develop

realistic and achievable actions in the short (12 months), medium (24 months) or long term (36

months) while exploiting the opportunities offered by different FLEGT, REDD, Certifications,

EITI ., CSR, processes etc., and specifying targets and those in charge: mobilisation efforts and

building alliances, capacity building, and advocacy. In addition there was talk of also reflecting on

the structural options for the implementation of the operational plan of action as well as

strategies for resource mobilisation.

Once the groups are formed and ToRs clarified, participants began work.

II.2.4.2. Restitution in plenary and group work amendment Once the group work was completed, they were returned by the respective reporters of the said

groups and then discussed and approved in plenary.

Detailed results of the group work are presented in Appendix 4. It should be noted that the

presentation of these results has generated much discussion especially on how ACRN will work,

and also the types of actions to be taken and the details of the shape of capacity building.

Long exchanges and discussions were conducted on options for structuring ACRN: acquire legal

personality (Option 1) or remain a network without legal personality but with an identity and a

minimum of organisation (option 2) - vision, values, rules of operation, secretariat, etc. In view of

the reminder of certain participants in addition to the fact that the issue had been discussed last

year and the resolution was to keep ACRN without legal formalisation, ACRN already has the

basic documents to be shared with the new, and given the case study mentioned such as Publish

17

What You Pay Coalition that are well structured and operate effectively without having a legal

personality, it was finally agreed to stay on option 2.

In terms of additional comments on the actions, the focus has been on communication strategy

and even advocacy: adapting to the realities of the country, ensuring the right information of

communities, monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of international instruments and

production of alternative reports or counter-reports, use of FCPF meeting space to convey

messages (ACRN position notes switch), define and monitor indicators on the status of the rights

of communities through FLEGT or REDD) And as regards capacity building (taking into

account differences in the technical capacity of stakeholders, adaptation of training approaches to

different contexts, going beyond formal training with experience sharing even between different

ACRN organizations)

It was after these discussions that the day ended, and the moderation team was mandated to

consolidate inputs of plenary discussions and develop the final draft roadmap which will be

reviewed and approved in plenary the next day.

II.3. Day three II.3.1. Presentation and approval of the Consolidated draft of the roadmap The third day was devoted mainly to the adoption of consolidated draft of ACRN operational

action plan acting as roadmap. The final plan presented and adopted by consensus after a few

minor amendments (more on the terminology than the background) is broken down as follows:

DRAFT OPERATIONAL ACRN PLAN OF ACTION

Duration 36 months (2014 – 2016)

I – MEASURES TO BE TAKEN BY STRATEGIC AXIS Strategic axis 1 – Advocacy actions Objective - Conduct advocacy to influence agendas and decisions of decision makers or dominant actors. Actions to realise

1. Periodically publish an alternative report on the inclusion or securing the rights of local and indigenous communities on land and forest tenure to measure the contribution of mechanisms and/or various opportunities that are VPA - FLEGT, REDD +, CERTIFICATION, CSR, EITI, etc.

2. Establish a system for monitoring, observation, evaluation or standby (observatory or other ...) to carry out monitoring of the various mechanisms that may affect the rights of local and indigenous communities on land and forest tenure.

3. Conduct studies and comparative analyses on various topics related to the issue of rights

18

of local and indigenous communities – Create and invent new concepts, initiatives designed to sell to partners ( Example: Emergence of the rural world)

4. A study on the different mechanisms and/or various opportunities that are VPA - FLEGT, REDD +, CERTIFICATION, CSR, EITI ... etc.

5. Produce and publish a variety of documents, reports, statements on rights of local and indigenous communities. – Development of ACRN regional positions notes

6. Identify or produce the cartography or the mapping of sub regional, institutions, or regional or international actors who decide or influence the rights of local and indigenous communities and to whom advocacy should be carried out.

7. Organize sub regional and regional meetings 8. Establish a tracking - evaluation - data collection - report publication device 9. Support advocacy in the countries - Meeting of authorities and stakeholders meetings that

must be rotating in sub-regions and countries 10. Seizing opportunities in international meetings (sub regional, regional, intercontinental ...)

to make messages, make known positions in various instances - People REDD + 11. Feeding the elected representatives of the civil society in different forums - make them

carry positions notes 12. Organise to have representatives in instances where the civil society sits as observers

beside States Actors to target

1. Organisations or sub regional inter State economic institutions (ECCAS, CEMAC, UEMOA, ECOWAS, States of the Community of the Great Lakes, Economic Community of East Africa)

2. Regional organisations or technical or specialised inter State institutions, CILSS 3. Regional political and inter State organisations - Political (panafrican), economic,

technical, specialised regional Organisations 4. International organisations - Agencies bilateral and multilateral cooperation agencies (EU,

WB, UN Agencies) - Technical Specialised Organisations on conventions, UN, REDD, CBFF, etc).

Strategic axis 2 – Mobilisation of other actors and construction of alliances Objective: mobilise other actors who share the same vision and pursue close or similar objectives to ACRN and build alliances to better influence policy makers and main actors. Actions to realise

1. Perform cartography or mapping of main actors who share the same vision and pursue close or similar objectives with ACRN in Africa and other continents.

2. Read and enrich the document shared by ACRN on the rights of indigenous and local communities and share values with potential allies.

3. Develop joint programmes of advocacy with potential allies. 4. Exchanging skills and experiences with the allies. 5. Negotiate the support of allies in advocacy. 6. Provide support to allies when conducting advocacy.

Actors to target

1. Stakeholders who can contribute to the success or lead advocacy of ACRN. – Other platforms, exiting CSO networks

2. Actors who can provide ACRN work

3. Strategic axis – Capacity building Objective: Strengthen its own internal dynamics as cross country platform; build the capacity of Cos member

19

countries/member organisations and members of communities and grass roots organisations. Actions to realise On internal dynamics

1. Develop and adopt a document that defines the identity of ACRN: mission, vision and events, values, strategy, members, strategic directions, goals ... etc.

2. Formalise the existence of ACRN to facilitate the effective implementation of its action plan:

• Develop and adopt an internal legal document (Charter Protocol, Convention, MOU) to define a minimum of principles, rules and operating procedures

• For this, get inspiration from the experience of PWYP (Publish What You Pay)

• Establish a Steering Committee composed of representatives of different sub-regions and countries,

• Create a Technical Secretariat hosted within a member organisation, • Establish focal points or relay by country and define their roles,

responsibilities and working arrangements 3. Develop an ACRN communication strategy (internal and external communication) 4. Develop a database of civil society organisations active in the field of promoting and

securing the rights of indigenous and local communities 5. Develop a database of skills and ACRN resource persons 6. Capacity Building: Capacity Building (facilitating exchange of experience, sub regional and

regional technical training, in countries, etc.) Building organisational and institutional capacity of member organisations.

7. Develop a strategy for mobilising financial resources for the effective implementation and success of the 2014-2016 Action Plan. (Finalize and shape the action plan and sell it - mandate)

8. Update the CRN mailing list on the capacity building of beneficiaries • Building of technical capacities (elaboration of training modules, teaching materials,

training of trainers, development of guides or manuals, etc.) Following validation of the roadmap, as well as the mention of the parallel meeting of founding

members of ACRN to be held in Calabar in Nigeria in order to also deepen the reflection on the

network, the pending fundamental question was how to carry what has been developed in this

case the roadmap? This concern has led to the decision in plenary to empower organisations for

the implementation and monitoring of the roadmap.

II.3.2. Empowering organisations for the implementation and monitoring of the roadmap After the plenary discussions on the nature of the structural organisation of ACRN within the

effective implementation of the roadmap, it was agreed to develop an ad hoc committee like the

Accra Caucus: the committee to be constituted by a technical secretariat with a rotary mandate

20

supported by six (06) persons /organisations that is, two per sub-region (Central, East, and West

Africa) and focal points per countries. The moderators gave a 15-minute discussion by sub-region

for the selection of members of the ad hoc committee.

It should be noted that there was initially a slight blockage in the selection of members (equity

criteria have not prevailed) at the West Africa level which led Cote d’Ivoire and Burkina Faso, but

the attendance sent back that group to agree to appoint their representatives on the basis of

consensus. In final, the final composition presented and approved in plenary is detailed in the

table below, and can be noted from the outset that there are three representatives who perform

both functions (support and technical secretariat focal point):

Table: Composition of the ad hoc committee for the implementation of the Roadmap Sub-region Country Organisation Representatives Function

Cameroon CED Téodyl NKUINTCHUA Technical Secretariat East Africa Kenya EndorisWelfare Council

(EWC) Wilson KIPKAZI

Support to technical secretariat

Burundi REPALEAC Hon. Libérate NICAYENZI

West Africa Burkina Faso Plateforme TENFOREST

Alain TRAORÉ

Liberia NGO coalition of Liberia Dixon P. GBLAH Central Africa

Central African Republic

CIEDD Jean Jacques MATHAMALE

Republic of Congo

FGDH Maixent AGNIMBAT

Cameroon FODER To be determined National focal point Gabon Brainforest Protet ESSONO ONDO National focal point CAR MEFP Bienvenu KEMANDA National focal point Republic of Congo

PGDF (Platform Sustainable Management

of Forests)

To be determined National focal point

DRC CODELT Félicien KALAMBA National focal point Côte d’Ivoire MIDH N’dri Theodore National focal point Liberia NGO coalition of Liberia Dixon P. GBLAH National focal point Burkina Faso Plateforme

TENFOREST Françoise PIOUPARE National focal point

Ghana Forest Watch Ghana Samuel MAWUTOR National focal point Burundi REPALEAC Hon. Libérate

NICAYENZI National focal point

Kenya EWC Wilson KIPKAZI National focal point

21

(a) (b)

(c)

Photos of sub regional groups in the creation of the ad hoc committee: (a) West Africa, (b) East Africa, (c) Central Africa

II.3.3. Closing and end of the workshop The moderators first redefined the objectives of the workshop before reporting they were met

with key result for a roadmap and a clear mandate. The floor was later given to the EWC

coordinator for his final word, and he did not fail again to thank the participants for their

contribution to the objectives of the event The concluding sentence was reiterated that the

challenge is to really use the existing governance mechanisms as entry points to advance the issue

of recognition and effective protection of the rights of communities, and the roadmap will

develop the ACRN working tool.

22

APPENDICES

Appendix 1: List of participants (day 3)

23

24

25

26

Appendix 2: Provisional programme of the workshop

DAY: TIME ACTIVITIES HEAD

Tuesday 24, September 2013

8.30 – 9.30

Opening and introduction of session • Opening Remarks of CED • Presentation of participants • Objectives and results – Methodology – Programme – Rules and principles

to respect

CED and facilitators

9.30 – 10.30

Introductory presentation: land and forest governance in Africa: What position for CSOs?

• Presentation (30 mn) • Exchanges and discussions (30 mn)

Téodyl Nkuintchua (CED) & facilitators

10.30 – 11.00 Coffee break Hotel logistics

11.00 – 12.00

Presentation of country experiences (15 mn per presentation) • DRC • Congo

- Exchanges • Cameroon • CAR

- Exchanges

Presenters per country & facilitators

13.00 Lunch break Hotel logistics

14.30 – 15.30

Presentation of country experiences continued • Ghana • Liberia

- Exchanges

Presenters per country & facilitators

15.30 – 16.30

Presentation of country experiences continued • Burkina Faso • Côte d’Ivoire

- Exchanges

Presenters per country & facilitators

27

16.30 – 17.30

Last presentation of country experiences • Kenya • Burundi

- Exchanges

Presenters per country & facilitators

17.30 End and closing of day one CED

Wednesday, 25 September 2013

9.00 – 9.30 Summary of the previous day Reporter/facilitators 9.30 – 10.00 The presentation of the resolutions of the 13th RRI dialogue on forest

governance and climate change of March 2013 Hortense Ngono, Cameroon

10.00 – 10.30

Presentation report of the CRN week in Brussels Protais Essono Ondo, Gabon

10.30 – 11.00 Coffee break Hotel logistics 11.00 – 11.30 Presentation of strategic elements defined in 2012 Maixent Agnimbat, Congo 11.30 – 12.00 Presentation of the terms of reference and organization of working groups Facilitators 12.00 – 13.00 Group work Participants 13.00 – 14.30 Lunch break Hotel logistics 14.30 – 16.00 Continuation and end of group work 16.00 – 17.30 Restitution of results of group work

• Presentation of results of each group • Exchanges, brainstorming and enrichment

Group reporters & facilitators

17.30 – 18.30 Preparation of the draft Action Plan Core Group Thursday, 26

September 2013

9.00 – 10.30 Presentation of draft Action Plan and validation Facilitators and plenary 10.30 – 11.00 Coffee break Hotel logistics 11.00 – 13.00 Validation of Action Plan continued

13.00 Closing and of the workshop: Workshop evaluation - Closing remarks

28

Appendix 3: Terms of reference and key questions for group work

1. TERMS OF REFERENCE OF THE GROUP WORK

ACRN’s goal is to contribute to the challenge of community participation and improving/securing their community customary rights. FLEGT, REDD, Certifications, EITI, CSR, etc... are opportunities to be exploited to achieve this goal. In 2012 elements of ACRN strategy were defined. At the beginning of the introductory workshop presented by Téodyl, she highlighted the issues and challenges faced by civil society. The very rich presentations by countries on FLEGT and REDD processes helped to be informed about the current dynamics. Presentations on RRI consultation, CRN Brussels completed this sharing of information and knowledge.

From the questions, challenges and issues that came out of the exchange and discussion of the first day and of which you received a copy, please use all of it to draft a realistic and achievable plan for ACRN by answering the following questions.

1. What are the actions to be taken by ACRN in the short, medium and long term in Africa to capture and exploit the various opportunities offered by FLEGT, REDD, Certifications, EITI, CSR, etc.. ?

a. What are the mobilisation and construction activities of alliances to realise to better succeed advocacy, and towards which actors?

b. What capacity building activities should be realised to improve on the participation of beneficiaries and their organisations?

c. What are the advocacy activities to be realised and towards which actors? Specify for every action if it is in the short (12 months), medium (24 months) or long term (36 months)?

N.B – Kindly present this action plan in the form of a table with the following columns, actions to realise (what to do), period, short, medium or long term (when to do it), actors to target (with who and in who’s direction), person in charge (who should do it)

2. What to do for the action plan not to remain a dead letter but be effectively implemented? Who should do what? What are the criteria to designate those in charge? Should the current informal nature of ACRN be kept? If yes, who will pilot the action plan? If not, how can we get out of the informal (Creating a slight operational structure limited to the implementation of the action plan? Advantages and shortcomings? Confide to an existing structure with the mandate to act in the name of the group?... other formulae ...).

3. How to mobilise resources necessary for the implementation of this action plan? (Mention the strategies and actions to be carried out to do it or ways to exploit).

29

2. QUESTIONS WHICH REPRESENT THE CHALLENGES AND ISSUES DRAWN FROM THE PRESENTATIONS AND TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE

DEVELOPMENT OF THE ACTION PLAN

1. What are the aspects of FLEGT and REDD to exploit to serve the interests of the communities? What are the threats of these processes in relation to rights of communities? What are the unspoken and hidden agendas of these processes and what are CSOs doing to face them?

2. By pledging to work following concepts and guidelines set by the cooperating agencies or other international actors (FLEGT VPAs, REDD, green economy after sustainable development and others ... do CSOs not serve the interests and play the game of others?

3. How to work with the resources of these actors and advocate or defend our beliefs? Can we use their resources and not play their game? Is it not time to find our own resources? With what types of international donors can you have resources to work according to our own beliefs and agendas?

4. How to break away from the logic of waiting, followership for that of anticipation and taking initiatives?

5. Should we not be realistic by acknowledging that without our own resources, we can only work following the agendas of cooperation agencies? What is the strategy to put in place to use it as an opportunity helping to work on our agendas? Do we have the capacity to construct our own initiatives? How can we build a synergy with other actors who can provide work for CSO (research, national private sector ...) at least on our common points of interest?

6. How can we avoid the be used and be made to participate only at the surface? How to get out of the logic of participation where CSOs and communities attend meetings, receive per diem, and make proposals that are not always reflected in the laws and regulations adopted, etc.. ? How can we build a system of representation of civil society and/or legitimate communities and avoid reproducing what happens in politics where representatives are elected or rejected by voters/people?

7. Do some CSOs not have hidden agendas? What is the added value of the action of CSOs?

8. How to explore and develop more internal opportunities in an environment where Africa moves, turns and changes (democratisation, reform of the State and public affairs, regime change, start of political awareness, even timidly by the populations, etc.)?

9. How to get out of the logic where CSOs focus their energy and efforts in the development of the finest policy documents, texts (new or revision of old ...) and the establishment of institutions where they like to be represented (requirement quotas, gender, PA ...), with little room for concrete actions (not implemented, policies and

30

strategies not implemented texts...) to provide solutions to the real problems of the communities?

10. What strategy should be in place to effectively monitor and ensure the effective implementation of policies, laws and regulations adopted by African States and those of the North? How to organise and act effectively in cases of severe non-compliance with these statutes and regulations in Africa and in other continents? Case of illegally harvested timber and exported to Belgium.

11. Can we truly secure community rights only by the multitude of sometimes contradictory texts? What strategy to address the systems and practices contrary to human communities that remain despite the texts?

31

Appendix 4: Detailed results of group work

1. GROUP I President : Maixent AGNIMBAT Reporter : Don de Dieu KATSHUNGA Members : 10 Methodology: Discussion and exchange between group members around points included in the ToR of work Action Strategy Period Head Observation

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 1. a Mobilisation and construction of alliances

Identification and analysis of processes or mechanisms

Develop a ToR for the consultant

ACRN/Consultant

Identification and analysis of actors and key institutions in presence

Same ACRN/Consultant

Harmonisation of development concepts of key messages

Exchange meetings with key actors and institutions

National ACRN/NGO

1.b Capacity building

Support to the structuring and functioning of organisations

ACRN

Training workshop on advocacy, lobbying and negotiation techniques

ACRN

Training workshop on search for financing and fund-raising

ACRN

Develop communication tools ACRN/Consultant 1.c

Identification and sensitisation of the media National ACRN/NGO

32

Advocacy activity

Organising conferences or press briefing Elaboration and publication of position documents, carnival with banners

2. Implementation of the action plan

Putting in place of the implementation committee ACRN/NGO Putting in place of a monitoring committee

3. Mobilising donors

Advocacy with classic traditional donors of the ACRN and donor member organisations of ACRN

ACRN/NGO

2. GROUP II

Members:

− Protet ESSONO ONDO (Gabon), Moderator − Laurence WETE SOH (CMR), Reporter − Guy MOUSSELE DISSEKE (RC) − Françoise PIOUPARE (BF) − Mireille KOAGNE (CMR) − Sylvie MFOUTOU BANGA (RC) − Antoinette PA’AH (CMR) − Carmel KIFUKIETO (DRC) − Aristide CHACGOM (CMR) − Saint Jerome SITAMON (CAR) − Augustin MPOYI (DRC)

33

ACRN action plan Group II Strategic axis 1 – Construction of alliances and mobilisation

Actions

Periodicity Audience (targets) Strategy Head of action

Short term Medium term

Long term

Mapping actors at different scales

CSOs, technical and financial partners, regional and international institutions, governments, media, parliaments

To be identified

Formalise and structure ACRN (elaborate basic texts)

Members Consultation of members

Same

Develop a communcation action plan on ACRN

Members, CSOs, technical and financial partners, regional and international institutions, governments, media, parliaments

Same

Map out the process having an incidence on community rights

Members Same

Create a database of existing competences and expertise within ACRN

Members Same

Strategic axis 2: – Capacity building Build institutional and organizational capacity

Communities, CSO, Administrations, media

Build operational capacity (competences, materials...

Communities, CSO, Administrations, media

Train actors on the priority theme in relation with community rights

Communities, CSO, Administrations, media

Inform, sensitise on the theme in relation with community rights

Communities, CSO, Administrations, media

Elaborate training tools for sensitisation

Members

Strategic axis 3: Advocacy actions 34

Construct alliances Elaborate a document and an advocacy plan

Develop advocacy tools Lead the advocacy process Establish a monitoring and evaluation mechanism (this action is transverse to all strategic areas

3. GROUP III

Activities: Develop standard working actions (regional approach) which will be adapted locally.

Needed as structure:

- Define how ACRN will work? Formal engagement as statute for membership? Something formal, free and open, that need to have credibility; actually CED is the secretariat of ACRN, it can be rotated? ACRN is an opportunity to come together, basis for common understand. Thinking about what relevance ACRN can be at country, regional and global level.

Members of the group

Name Country Sébastien Tchébayou Cameroon Wilson KIPKAZI Kenya Elvis Oppong Mensah Ghana

Lacks: Update the participant on ACRN activities

35

Lindsay Duffield UK Abongta S. Moncho: President Cameroon Elvis kuudaar Ghana Ngono hortense: Reporter Cameroon Samuel MAWUTOR Ghana Dixon Gblat Liberia Samuel Kwennah Liberia David Young UK/Ethiopia

Activity Time (month) Targets Responsibility implement a secretariat or establish a facilitator ; Members develop and share a document of share values on community rights; 06 months Members, others SCO

regional bodies and donors Working group to be form (CED facilitated)

sustain cross country learning among members continuous Members international NGO Create and mailing group 01 Members Lead: Samuel Mawutor and David

Young established network structure and assign task; Establish a formal partnership with African commission for policy and institutional reforms, CEEAC, ECOWAS, COMIFAC etc.;

12 Regional Bodies Depend on the location of the regional bodies

Rotated meeting venue to understand challenges in different area and support local advocacy;

annually Members General assembly

Meet strategic stakeholders in the country where the meeting take place (delegation);

annually General assembly

Meet with administrations (regional and local) in the meeting; annually Members General assembly Develop a communications strategy to engage the regional organizations; 12 Working group lead by Elvis

Kuudaar Develop analysis or mapping of the regional bodies and entry points for engaging on community rights on forests

06 Members, regional CSO, INGOs

Working group lead by Elvis Kuudaar, NGONO Hortense

Develop comparative studies to influence for examples using the FAO voluntary guide lines and other, studies on large scale land acquisitions in Africa; VPA transparency gab analysis. It should be directed by the agenda of the meetings

One a year Regional bodies, National governments, Members, parliamentarians’

Members coordinated by the secretariat

Using ACRN to set the agenda and claim ownership of comparative studies 36

Locally develop concept to address problems; Develop and disseminating information’s on community rights progress and difficulties in a various countries

Members

37