USDA-Forest Service Technical Assistance Trip Republic of Guinea
USDA Forest Service: Institutional Strengthening Program for the Direction Nationale des Eaux et Forêts (DNEF) Protected Area and Classified Forest Management Assessment
FINAL REPORT – February 17, 2006 Mission Dates: February 4 – 17, 2006
Report Submitted by:
PETER GAULKE USDA Forest Service Ecosystem Management Coordination Washington, DC (202) 205-1521-2581 [email protected] TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
II. SCOPE OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
III. BACKGROUND 1. USAID & USFS 2. Mission Activities
IV. ISSUES, OBSERVATIONS, DISCUSSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Introduction 2. Definition of Protected Areas 3. Definition and Scope of Illegal Logging in Protected Areas 4. Incorporation of Local Populations and Other Partners 5. Reform of Regulatory Context and Enforcement Capacity 6. Harmonizing Responsibilities and Clarifying Roles for Management of Protected Areas. 7. Setting Objectives for the Management of Protected Areas 8. Capacity Building & Institutional Support 9. Donor Driven Funding and Continuation of Progress Gained 10. Data and Information Collection, Management and Flow 11. Scale of Protected Area Management Activities, Reviews and Interventions 12. Co-Management Plans’ Value to Protected Area Management
Appendix I – Scope Of Work Appendix II – Mission Itinerary Appendix III – List Of Acronyms Appendix IV – Protected Areas under Ministry Of Environment Management Appendix V – Acknowledgements
2 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Following 12 days of interviews and field visits with staff, individuals and organizations involved in the protection and management of forested ecosystems two central themes or roadblocks were identified regarding protected area management and illegal logging. These themes were mirrored by those inside the Guinean Government ministries and departments, as well as those exterior to the government. These issues are systemic in nature and require systemic solutions. First, the legal framework supporting protected area management, the regulation of vegetation treatments and controls against of illegal logging is disjunct, and at times contradictory. Certain aspects of the Forestry Code, forest law in Guinea, and other regulations are often either outdated or do not meet the current needs of the existing situation of Guinean forested areas. Secondly, within the Government of Guinea there is confusion and redundancies on authorities, roles and responsibilities surrounding the management of its protected areas and other state forests. Often this confusion and redundancy results in ineffective management and competition between ministries and departments. The line of authority for approval of activities and enforcement of violations between the technical and political arms of the government also creates difficulties and ambiguities over roles. The issue of an inadequate legal framework coupled with an element of discord between government ministries and departments result in the following: • No clear definition of “protected area” within the government • Little differentiation or enforcement of illegal logging and unregulated logging • Little institutional support and capacity building from conservation partners • Ineffective enforcement of violations against existing laws and decrees • Few objectives and management plans to guide activities affecting protected areas and other state-owned forested lands • Poor data and information collection, management and flow regarding protected areas and vegetation treatments • Inability to consider landscape and ecosystem scale issues for forested ecosystems.
The following initial steps are systemic in nature and are recommended to address the legal framework and government harmonization issues. • Organize facilitated meetings at the Ministerial level with the Minister of Agriculture, Minister of Environment and key staff to establish collaborative arrangements which work toward shared outcomes and goals, including a national vision for conserving environmental services, the importance of the protected area management, and an improved forest policy environment. • Begin seeking integrated solutions for the disjunct legal framework and communication issues with the government through partnerships between DNEF, international conservation organizations and donors, NGOs, private parties and other GOG entities. Encourages holistic reforms to alter management trends.
3 II. SCOPE OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
During a November 2004, USDA Forest Service (USFS) technical assistance mission, United States International Agency for International Development (USAID) personnel emphasized to their need for expert, outside opinion on matters related to forest and other natural resource management in Guinea. The USFS International Programs, with a history of forest management technical assistance in the West African region and with many forestry professionals in the agency with experience in tropical ecosystems, has this expertise, and agreed to assist the mission with analysis and planning tasks. This role is consistent with the USFS International Programs vision for West Africa, which is:
Transparent and Sustainable Forest Management to promote economic development and regional stability via empowered communities and strengthened institutions
The overall goals of the February 2006, technical assistance trip were two fold. A two- member team of USFS technical assistants worked with the Institutional Strengthening Program (ISP) in-country coordinator to perform a broad assessment of the current state of protected areas and information system management. The assessment is to be followed by specific recommendations to be implemented in the next two years. Specifically, the Protected Area Management Specialist was requested to inventory and assess Guinean policies on protected areas (players, coherence between players, etc.); assess coherence and identification of links or contacts; and provide a broad estimate of illegal logging in Guinea, to the degree possible, identify who is doing what illegal logging and where is it taking place within the border regions. A secondary goal of the mission was to determine opportunities for the USFS to provide technical assistance to USAID and the staff of the Direction Nationale des Eaux et Forêt (DNEF) to support goals outlined in the USAID-funded AG/NRM activities in Guinea. As an unbiased technical partner with an expertise in forest management, USFS can provide field- tested recommendations for how the Government of Guinea (GOG) can best manage its forest resources to provide both forest products and environmental services.
III. BACKGROUND
USAID & USFS In an effort to build on past accomplishments, USAID/Guinea has entered a two year proposal with USFS to strengthen the institutional capacity of the Guinean DNEF. The program’s objective is to build technical as well as human resources capacity within DNEF, institutionalize good practices of forest management from lessons learned at the local level and establish a protected area management network that is effective regionally. In order to achieve these goals over the next two years, an assessment of the current issues on protected area management was undertaken in February 2006, along with an inventory of the resources available within and outside DNEF to manage Guinea’s protected areas.
Mission Activities At the outset, it is important to highlight that this mission was not an evaluation of either the performance of USAID funded projects, the DNEF and it operations, any Guinean
4 government ministry, or of any other implementing partners. Rather, this USFS mission’s assessment was designed to provide an objective and independent perspective from a technical, land-management agency about how best to achieve current objectives and potential future strategies surrounding protected area management. Some issues, observations and recommendations must take current and past activities and strategies into account when providing recommendations for future activities and interventions. The issues and observations provided below are a candid assessment of the current situation in Guinea. Over the course of the two week mission numerous interviews and site visits were conducted. The three Sections of Kindia, Mamou and Forécariah, all bordering Sierra Leone, together with interviews in these areas provided a strong assessment of illegal logging activities along the southern frontier of Guinea. Due to the mission’s short duration, the team did not have adequate time for the five day trip to the border region with Guinea-Bissau and Senegal, or the forest region in the south. Information on the illegal logging in these areas was obtained, and corroborated through a series of interviews. Interviews were conducted at all levels of the DNEF – Conakry headquarters down to the Cantonnement level. In addition, many partners and international donors were interviewed. In almost all cases the responses during these interviews were relatively linear providing common themes on which this report is based.
IV. ISSUES, OBSERVATIONS, DISCUSSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction One of the author’s principal lessons learned from working on African forest management issues is that recommendations which are innately process-heavy are most often very difficult to implement. Given the modest resources at DNEF’s disposal, and the magnitude of challenges facing this department, the recommendations attempt to be focused and realistic.. As such, recommendations provided below attempted focus on short to medium term actions which can be implemented with relatively little process related issues. Nonetheless, existing situations in Guinea necessitate a large number of recommendations which require rather significant changes to institutional norms, forest law, policy and practices, and these recommendations must therefore be highlighted. Hopefully, as further technical assistance missions continue opportunities for simplification of these recommendations can be exploited. Impacts to protected areas in Guinea, generally speaking, come from four factors. They are ecological & biological impacts, socio-economic (human) impacts, management impacts of a poor infrastructure, and administrative or management process impacts. Threats to protected areas are many including exploitation of commercial and non-commercial forest wood products, wildlife hunting and poaching, and expanding agricultural practices such as slash and burn agriculture. These threats threaten woody forest resources, wildlife, watershed values (water quality and quantity), and the biodiversity of the region.
Definition of Protected Areas No clear definition of a “Protected Area” exists in the Forestry Code, the legal mandate of DNEF to manage forested lands in Guinea. The general connotation is that protected areas are made up of classified forests, national parks, and areas identified by international convention (e.g. IUCN, UNESCO, African Convention, Algiers Convention, etc. ), such as World Heritage
5 Sites and bio-reserves. Yet even that connotation is not universally held. Some believe that only national parks deserve protected area status. Others hold that protected areas can include non- forested areas such as marine environments, wetlands, sanctuaries, wildlife reserves, and savannas. It is clear that most protected areas in Guinea would not meet the protected area IUCN definitions. The lack of a clear definition for protected areas complicates matters. For example, the AGIR Project, funded by the European Union (EU), delineated “Protected Areas” to include major landscapes encompassing 8000 to 15,000 km2. These areas were delineated with the purpose of conserving and restoring ecosystems in protected areas at the regional1 level. Though the AGIR project included concepts of transitional zones and never intended for these large areas to be complete hands-off zones, a misconception over the definition remained at the local level. Connotations of protected areas also complicate the perceptions of local populations living in and around protected areas. At the village level the concept of a protected area varies. The common connotation is where most, if not all extractive management activities are strictly off limits. In practice this is not the case for nearly all classified forests. Therefore, calling classified forests protected areas creates confusion. Some forests may be viewed by villagers more as “Community Forests” and the distinction between these forests, classified forests, and protected areas becomes increasingly murky. In addition, classified forests, and other protected areas, do not have well defined boundaries on the ground or on maps. They are essentially floating polygons in approximate locations. This lack of surety of their locations complicates the planning and execution of activities, inventory and assessment of current conditions within the protected areas, as well as their management and protection. It is questionable whether some existing classified forests should remain classified. Some have been degraded to the point that they no longer function as originally intended. These forests could be better coined as community forests than classified forests. As many, if not most classified forests exist unprotected and unmanaged by objective, it would be both economical and efficient to eliminate those which no longer function as intended from the base list. Equally important is to consider additions to protected areas as was done with the national parks in the AGIR project, and is being considered in the Section of Forécariah with the Kounkounkan Forest.
Recommendations 1. Assemble a small four to six person team to clarify the GOG definition of “protected areas”. The team should include a DNEF staff member and other government and non- governmental partners. Suggested members include select individuals from the Ministry of Environment (MinEnv), Center for Protected Areas, a consultant from the newly forming USAID/AG-NRM Landscape Management for Increased Livelihood Project (LAMIL), and a member from Guinea-Ecologie. In addition to the definition, the product of this team should also clarify what specific area types are included and excluded from the term “protected area”.
1 In the AGIR Project regional included a transborder context with the four countries of Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Senegal and Mali.
6 2. The Team should also make recommendations to the GOG Ministries on how to clarify the management of protected areas through a legal framework, such that a clearer and workable line of authority and responsibility is created (see Regulatory Reforms below). 3. Develop a definitive list of protected areas within the country and improve their categorization by defining their type and objectives (e.g. national park, classified forest, marine estuary, mangrove, wildlife sanctuary, world heritage site, etc.). 4. Update, and create if necessary, any available data sets on protected areas creating a national park and protected area database. It should be noted that protected area data can also be provided by non-government sources 5. Develop a process to inventory and review the conditions of existing and proposed classified forests to determine whether they should remain classified, or as appropriate, be added to the system. 6. Develop a process and template for elaborating protected area management plans, and support to the development of pilot plans (see Co-Management Plans below).
Definition and Scope of Illegal Logging in Protected Areas The definition of illegal logging is a similar situation to that of protected areas. The definition varies by whom, and at what level of government the question is asked. The question should also not be confined to the concept of logging, per se, but be expanded to include the removal of woody vegetation by all methods and for all uses. Fuelwood gathering, charcoal making, construction wood gathering, traditional uses, as well as commercial logging are all having an impact on protected forests in Guinea. For the purposes on this report, the term illegal logging will refer all these extractive activities. Another fundamental question is whether the removal of woody material for lumber, fuelwood, charcoal, or other uses is illegal or simply unregulated. It appears to be more of the latter. It is possible that illegal logging may simply be unregulated removal by consent. Very little, if any removal of woody material from the forests is not known by authorities, but regulation by permit or other means is relatively rare. It was acknowledged during discussions that whether they are formally permitted activities or activities approved by consent, these activities are often not implemented as originally approved. Illegal, or unregulated logging, must be viewed as a source of income for those involved. Above the villager level it often may be the main source of income. At the village level, it is an important source of subsistence living. The complicity between villagers, private entrepreneurs, and various GOG technical and political elements creates a systemic problem that likely cannot be corrected through simple and pointed reforms. The solutions must be systemic as well. There is also a socio-economic factor to incorporate into this discussion. As population increases, so does the basic needs of villagers who surround protected areas. Classified forests, in particular, have been traditional sources of woody materials for generations. As population pressures increase, so will the pressures on classified forests for basic needs such as fuelwood and charcoal. Field agents acknowledge the difficulty in sanctioning subsistence farmers. DNEF field agents interviewed acknowledged little trafficking of woody materials, either lumber, fuelwood, charcoal or construction materials, from Guinea into Sierra Leone. They also estimated that since the end of Sierra Leonean rebel incursions (2000 – 2001) very few individuals or groups have entered Guinea for woody product extraction. They did acknowledge
7 that some Guineans may enter Sierra Leone for collection of these products, particularly in the region of Faranah. Given the small sample of interviews this information should be viewed with healthy skepticism. Yet it is true that the border region with Sierra Leone is still considered an area of increased personal risk and many on both sides of the border may limit their activities within the region.
Interviews with those familiar with Guinea’s northern frontier provide a contrasting view. Though there is a void of statistical data for both areas, illegal cutting appears to be more prevalent in Guinea’s Badiar border region with Guinea-Bissau and Senegal. The Ronnier Palm was highlighted as a prominent “export” product for light construction work. Again, no statistics exist, but few doubt that logs from Guinea’s forest region are being removed to Liberia and the Ivory Coast. For example, at least five uncontrolled dirt roads traverse the Guinea-Libera border. These roads appear to be regular pathways for logs to leave the country. The intervention of the UNDP Mt. Nimba Project, the alliance between Forêt Forte and Centre Forestier N’Zérékoré (CFZ), and the creation of village level co-management plans all are anticipated to reduce illegal logging in this region. The dynamics of illegal logging is complex and is exacerbated in the absence of any regulatory oversight or policing capacity. In the forest region illegal logging is not described as industrial in scale, but its “highgrading” of the best trees from the most sensitive and valued
8 species creates significant impacts to forest ecosystems. Forest degradation through this type of logging practice is on a slow but persistent pace. These efforts to export Guinea forest region logs from ports outside the country appear to be well organized. As one individual described, the local populations are organized cutters using chainsaws who take orders from buyers outside Guinea for specific species and determined volumes. The materials are then provided at specific locations and designated times. This is not described as an isolated process. By and large, when viewing the country as a whole, including Guinea’s frontier lands, the majority of vegetation removal should be characterized as unregulated, as opposed to illegal. In other words, unregulated vegetation removal provides the greatest threat to Guinea’s protected areas. All those external to the GOG who were interviewed during the mission voiced the same views of illegal and unregulated logging. This activity is not a clandestine operation, but one that is organized and sanctioned at various levels in both the private and public sector. The primary users of woody materials coming off protected areas appears to be the village level population.
Recommendations 1. As the problem of illegal and unregulated vegetation removal is systematic in nature, so should be the solutions. The first step is problem identification. Undertake a more extensive review, in a systematic fashion, of where the problem of illegal and unregulated logging originates. Thoroughly assess how it is perpetuated within the technical ministries, political branches of the government, private sector, and village-based structures. This would include conducting a detailed field-level assessment of the northern and forest regions of Guinea. 2. As with protected areas, assemble a small, three to five person team to clarify the GOG connotation and perhaps the definition of “illegal logging”. Team make up should be similar to that of the protected area management team. An early focus of the team should be to clarify the confusion between illegal logging and unregulated logging. 3. The Team should also make recommendations to the GOG ministries on how to clarify the management of forested areas through the legal framework, such that a clearer and workable line of responsibility and enforcement (see Regulatory Reform and Harmonizing Responsibilities below). 4. Seek integrated solutions to unregulated logging as partnerships between DNEF, villagers, NGOs, private parties and other GOG entities. This encourages more holistic reforms to alter the trends in unregulated and illegal logging. 5. Establish controls and improve the permitting and regulation process for vegetation removal. For example, DNEF spoke of models existing at DNEF Conakry for contracts between GOG and farmers. These models and other similar contracts should be standardized across the country. 6. Identify conservation-focused income generating activities in each protected area which do not have a negative impact on resource conservation, thereby reducing dependence on protected areas for the livelihood of local population. 7. Offer alternatives to cutting in protected areas, thereby reducing the pressures on the protected areas. Seek integrated alternatives through extension work with local
9 populations, local capacity building, methods of sustained agricultural production, off- farm income-generating activities, social and economic incentives, and perhaps public- private partnerships. 8. Review any completed, yet unapproved management plans for sustainability of protected areas, and for proper disincentives for illegal and unregulated activities. 9. Regularly enhance the capacity through training seminars of those DNEF field agents involved in protected area management by information exchange on best practices and current concepts on protected area management in Guinea and elsewhere on the continent.
Incorporation of Local Populations and Other Partners In its 100 year history the USFS has learned that working with people closest to the natural resource base is the foundation for achieving sustainable forest management. It is just as important to encourage Guinean villager’s involvement in forest inventory, management and monitoring so they understand the state of forest resource in protected areas, as well as gain an appreciation for the principles of forest conservation, sustainability and biodiversity. This process has worked in the Souti Yanfou Classified Forest in Sougeta under the PEGRN Project. The Forest Management Committee in Sougeta saw themselves as a partner in a host of inventory, regulation, enforcement, and protection activities. They also could discuss the concept of ecosystem management, though it is questionable whether they actually were able to internalize the concepts and relate them back to objectives of the classified forest. It has been shown throughout developing countries that activities which result in better coordination among donor, government and non governmental organizations in the area of protected area management have achieved successes. Unnecessary duplication of efforts between partners can be avoided and ultimately the result is better programmatic synergy. In addition, improved awareness will encourage people to be supportive and active in biodiversity conservation and protected area management. Documents provided during interviews indicate that nearly 200 community based groups were involved in discussions with DNEF over management of local forests. This is a healthy indicator of participative forest management. The numbers of Guinean non-governmental organizations (NGO) appears to fluctuate over time. One DNEF Director estimated the number of NGOs who have worked with DNEF to be 300 strong. Many of these have other non-resource management goals. These NGOs also appear to work with varying ministries and have not all been strong partners with the DNEF. Actual numbers of NGOs who worked closely with DNEF in 2005 appears to be closer to 30. The creation of the MinEnv resulted in lower NGO involvement in DNEF activities. Depending on the NGO, interviews highlighted minor elements of friction, and perhaps reluctance of both parties to enter into serious and constructive institutional reform and capacity building agreements. Guinea appears to have at least one strong NGO whose sole focus is on natural resource management – Guinea-Ecologie. Established in 1989, and fully recognized by the GOG in 1990, Guinea-Ecologie, by its actions, is becoming an important partner in the conservation and preservation of Guinean natural resources. It also is providing a bridge to bring international conservation organizations (CI, WWF, Birdlife) into Guinea when there is reluctance from these organizations to work directly with GOG ministries.
10 Among other activities Guinea-Ecologie is developing a library of data and reports on natural resource work in Guinea, including historic GOG documents. This is essentially becoming the recorded memory of natural resource management in Guinea. One of its goals is becoming a coordinating group for other Guinean NGOs. Guinea-Ecologie is also attempting to work in the area of capacity building, almost exclusively with the MinEnv. Within this ministry it is focusing on integration of laws and decrees into its operations, creating institutional knowledge, and developing a process for documenting its decisions. Other actors in the conservation which were mentioned during interviews included UNESCO, GEF (a UN Project), Flora and Fauna International, Society of Mining in Guinea, Rio Tinto, APEK, Peace Corps, USAID, and other GOG Ministries and Departments. These actors tended to be focused on single projects, and do not have greater objectives such as institutional support and strengthening.
Recommendations 1. Assess the effectiveness, transparency, and involvement of partners (national and international NGOs, government entities, local population) in the management and implementation of activities within protected areas. 2. Following the assessment described above, within DNEF, facilitates greater networking and information exchange with other partners and donors to learn from their approaches and lessons learned. Promote collaboration in areas of mutual interest, as well as avoid duplication of efforts. 3. Close cooperation with other partners should be established to allow for the identification of existing and developing threats and stresses on protected areas. The identification of threats and stresses should be encouraged from outside the DNEF. 4. Conduct formal dialogue with the donor agencies and NGOs on the significance of protected area management thereby creating greater capacity for reform. 5. For protected area management, identify goals, barriers, benefits, solutions, and indicators of success with an established network of partners. Include discussions on pressures to protected areas. Better awareness and communication will set the stage for improved management of the protected areas in Guinea. 6. Utilize the same cooperative partnerships developed above to begin problem solving exercises to address the protected area threats and stresses identified. 7. Consider the concept of “redundant safeguards” for protected areas that are provided by all actors and partners (local populations, NGO, Donors, GOG, etc.). Redundant safeguards focus on having more than one entity charged with, in this case, the oversight of activities occurring within protected areas. Greater surety of transparent management can be achieved if multiple partners are involved in their protection.
Reform of Regulatory Context and Enforcement Capacity In Guinea the supporting legal framework is an inadequate to protect protected areas and there is a disjuncture between law and practice. Little to no legislated or documented forest law, decree or regulations exists for the protection of protected areas. What law and regulation that does exist is often contradictory. In addition, certain aspects of the Forestry Code, forest law in
11 Guinea, and other regulations are either outdated or do not meet the current needs of the existing state of Guinean forests with regard to protected area management. The Forestry Code, in principle, is to be reviewed every five years for potential revisions. The end of this 5 year period is approaching and many interviewed felt that now is an opportune time to propose revisions to the code. Theoretically, revisions and amendments to the Forest Code originate in the DNEF. Individuals interviewed highlighted the incongruence between the Forest Code and the Fauna Code. Despite this incongruence, some interviewed in DNEF believe these laws are well written and need little to no amendment. Yet, currently there does not exist a process for changes to a given Code (law) to be reviewed by other ministries for inconsistencies or potential overlap. The question of eliminating these inconsistencies and redundancies, not only in the laws, but decrees, arêtes and decisions as well is an important one. Field interviews noted that many decision are made at lower levels of Guinean political branch and the DNEF that contradict existing laws and decrees. Another scenario where there exists some degree of confusion on the status of protected areas is those areas identified through international convention. For example, Mt. Nimba was classified by the GOG as a Natural Reserve in 1944, a Biosphere Reserve in 1980, and a World Heritage Site by the IUCN in 1981. This designation was ratified by the Guinea General Assemble followed by a decree from the president. Yet very little other direction for its management exists in Guinean legal direction. The Diéké Classified Forest in Guinea’s forest region was classified as a Man and Biosphere Reserve by UNESCO in 1982. Little legal framework exists for this forest as well. Yet, another situation which highlights both the lack of capacity and needed government reforms is the transborder European AGIR project. Members of the EU Technical Advisory Team involved with the AGIR Project provided a healthy comparison of the institutional capacity of the GOG and DNEF, between that of Senegal, Mali, and Guinea-Bissau. In essence, they experienced continual political, financial, social and institutional blockages in Guinea which, in part, caused continual delays, and ultimately the demise of the project. They noted very little problem solving taking place with the public sector of Guinea, particularly within the DNEF. Interviews also highlighted the inconsistencies in permitting and enforcement of forests uses by local populations and private entrepreneurs. Some areas use written instruments to convey approval for removal of woody materials, others do not. In Forécariah, for example, an agreement was signed to allow a private entrepreneur to cut a certain volume in plantations anywhere in the Section. The agreement has no enforcement mechanism on how much or where the material is harvested. In essence there are no controls and no regulation of the activity. Addressing the complementarities and conflicts of protected area management within the legal framework of Guinea will likely require major policy reforms and the introduction of practices that promote more effective public regulation and more accountable business behavior. A summary can be stated as such, inadequate and conflicting laws, poor communication between ministries (see Harmonization below), and little or inconsistent enforcement significantly reduces the Guinea’s ability to engage in the protection activities and the establishment of measures designed to ensure the conservation and sustainability of resources in the protected areas.
12 Recommendations 1. Through the increased and closer collaboration with other partners identified above, direct support could be provided to GOG Ministries and departments aiding in the development of a strategic vision for Guinea’s forested ecosystems. 2. Through the partnerships and alliances developed above, seek national and international support for the needed legal reforms. 3. The DNEF, together with partners, should undertake a general review of its forestry code, legislative texts and regulations governing its forestry practices in an attempt to establish uniform practices across the country. Additional goals of the review would be determining gaps in forest management, and areas for improvement or reform. The review should be implemented not simply for protected area management, but for DNEF operations as a whole. This analysis should lead to legal reform efforts which should be accompanied by training efforts and capacity building of DNEF agents to enforce new and existing regulations. 4. Undertake a comprehensive review of the complementarities and conflicts between laws, decrees and other direction on the management of Guinea’s forested resources from both the MinAG & MinEnv. 5. Initiate methods of implementing safeguards against illegal logging and encroachment into protected areas by developing stronger oversight and controls on forest product harvesting through better management of concessions and product marketing. 6. Rejuvenate the focused regional policy dialogues initiated under the AGIR project to increase protections of transboundary protected areas in Mali, Guinea-Bissau, Senegal, and Guinea. 7. Consider developing a communication strategy detailing the impacts and success stories of activities from protected areas to increase the awareness and understanding of key decision makers in Guinea’s government and private sector.
Harmonizing Responsibilities and Clarifying Roles for Management of Protected Areas. As stated above, there is little to no local presence of international conservation agencies in Guinea. These potential partners in conservation and promotion of biodiversity do visit the country but there is little permanent presence. Experience from other countries on the continent is that involvement by international conservation organizations promotes institutional support to ministries in the government, the protection and management of protected areas, development of village based co-management plans, and training and education on preserving and improving biological resources. In Guinea, outside of the forest region, very few partners are involved in regulation, management, enforcement, and protection activities of protected areas. It is advisable to have an element of redundancy and oversight of activities by a variety of partners within protected areas to ensure consistency. The division of roles within the GOG should also be clearly defined to substantially reduce or eliminate corruption. As institutional relationships are complex it is difficult to fully understand the complete working relationship of various ministries and departments during a two week mission. Guinea’s move toward a decentralized government creates challenges for effective coordination and communication between ministries. Having said this many common themes did result out of
13 interviews at all levels of DNEF and outside the directorate, including several important issues highlighted below. Within the GOG there is confusion and redundancies on authorities. Roles and responsibilities between DNEF, CFZ, MinAG, MinENV, MinEdu and others are cloudy. The regulations and enforcement of encroachment within classified forests and other protected areas are unclear, and at times in competition. For example, in Guinea’s forest region, the CFZ has achieved department status by presidential decree. CFZ is thus an equal with DNEF in the organization structure within the MinAg. It does not need to report any of its activities to DNEF. This status was achieved for CFZ despite the fact that it only has authority on a relatively small area in the forest region. This is example where the authority of the DNEF is being minimized. Another example is the confusion over forest management contracts approved at the DNEF and relatively large scale timber concessions or permits approved at the ministerial or presidential level, such as those available to Forêt Forte. These dualing authorities for forest exploitation contracts make contractual controls, tracking of materials and monitoring results difficult. The lines of authority for approval of activities and enforcement of violations between the technical and political arms of the GOG also create difficulties and ambiguity over roles. The DNEF has no authority to utilize the police to enforce overt infractions against the forestry code. DNEF field agents and Section Chiefs must report activities and infractions to both their superiors within DNEF and the Deputy Prefect for Rural Development and Environment (DPDRE), a political entity. We encountered a large scale example in Mamou where knowledge of and acknowledgement over the written authorizations of activities within a classified forest between the DNEF and the political arm were clearly not in agreement. In this example and others like it, the lack of coordination between technical service and political branches result in the role and enforcement strength of the DNEF being sidelined. Continued lack of coordination can only weaken the regulatory power, enforcement capacity and morale of the DNEF staff. Often the chain of command transitions from the technical services to the political arm at the section level, in complete absence of DNEF headquarters in Conakry. As another example of confusion over management of natural resources in Guinea, and protected areas specifically, the National Center for the Management of Protected Areas (CENAGAP) was established by presidential decree and reports directly to the MinEnv. This is inherently conflicting as all classified forests are considered protected areas by some and classified forests have been traditionally management by DNEF. The MinEnv views its role as the management of all protected areas. CENAGAP considers classified forests with management plans to fall within the category of protected areas. Viewed differently, it is quite possible that classified forests in Guinea could be managed by the DNEF, CENAGAP, or CFZ. To further illustrate the inherent redundancy and confusion, the MinEnv implements many of the same Codes (laws) as other GOG natural resource departments. This includes Forestry Code, Wildlife Code, Water Code, Grazing Code, etc. It also has many of the same line of authority issues as does DNEF with reporting diverging between political and technical lines. It is argued that much of this issue is rooted in the decentralized structure of Guinea Government. In theory, the Conseil National de l’Environnement should coordinate and develop solutions to the redundancy of authorities between departments, but is widely viewed as not being operational. This is unfortunate as these issues are real today and in need of solutions for effective management.
14 A fair assessment must take into account that the MinEnv was established less than two years ago (October 2004). In a practical sense, the MinEnv has little field presence on which to practice its mandate of protected area management, though additional staff is anticipated. By several accounts, the Ministry also has not yet developed the competencies needed to adequately address the issues currently facing Guinea’s protected areas. Having said this, the trend of support from donors, projects, and NGOs seems to lean more toward the newly developing MinEnv than it does the DNEF and MinAg. At the United Nations Development Program Mt. Nimba Project in the Forest Region of Guinea, forest guards protecting this World Heritage Site work for the Ministry of Education, not the DNEF or the MinEnv. This is due to the endemic species research aspect of the UNDP project. This is yet another example where the same resource is being managed by a different government entity. The EU AGIR Project, as one of its mandates, had attempted to harmonize the legal context for protected areas on the transborder areas. The text was drafted between the four countries but has yet to be ratified and implemented. Apparently the technical committees from the four countries reached agreement, but the political will is lacking at the ministerial level for implementation of these reforms. It is possible that ministry and departmental priorities may differ between bordering countries. Internally, the ability for greater coordination exists within the DNEF itself. For example, the issuance of a “Note de Service” can affect one or more divisions without having prior concurrence by the affected divisions.
Recommendations 1. Quickly organize a facilitated meeting at the Ministerial level with the Minister of Agriculture, Minister of Environment and key staff to establish collaborative arrangements within Ministries and departments which work toward shared outcomes and goals, including a national vision for conserving environmental services, the importance of the protected area management, and an improved forest policy environment. Include the National Council of the Environment in this discussion. 2. Facilitated by neutral partners, organize a team of internal and external members to the GOG with the charge of developing initiatives to create technical capacity, willingness and moral for management initiatives. and the ability for change in all ministries and departments involved in natural resource management in Guinea. 3. Focusing on the directorate itself, the DNEF needs to enhance coordination with other GOG ministries and departments, such as the MinEnv, MinEdu, and the Ministry of Mining. Short and long-term objectives should be articulated. a. In the short-term, open a regular, frank forum for dialogue between key staff in these ministries. Create an uncontentious atmosphere where coordination issues can be discussed openly and without fear of reprisal. b. A long term objective should be the establishment of formal agreements between these parties that would cover: (i) division of responsibilities; (ii) areas of synergy; (iii) complementarities of activities; (iv) areas of duplication; and (v) conflict management.
15 Setting Objectives for the Management of Protected Areas Though some classified forests have only recently been classified, the majority were established during the pre-Guinean independence era by the French. For example, all 19 classified forests in the Section of Mamou were classified between 1936 and 1954. It is estimated that approximately 75% of the original classification documents for classified forests rest in Conakry, with others being scattered either in Dakar, Senegal or France. Little is known about the objectives for classification of these classified forests. What is known about the original classification of the classified forests is mostly institutional knowledge and local memory. Without the specific objectives for classification, it is difficult to ensure that activities currently taking place within their boundaries are consistent with objectives. In other words, if your goal is the conservation and/or preservation of protected areas, one needs to know what they are protecting, and why. If unknown, the original objectives for classification could be severely impacted by current activities. Each classified forest was established for a specific objective ranging from species preservation of flora and fauna, water quality and quantity, steep slopes, research, etc. As mentioned above, what are unknown are the specific boundaries of these protected areas. Very few maps of protected areas exist at a scale fine enough to clearly delineate boundaries. Without clearly identified boundaries it is difficult to know whether activities are occurring inside or outside of the protected area. Having said this, and as correctly pointed out by a number of those interviewed, with most classified forests being established in the 1940’s, populations surrounding these forests has increased dramatically since that time. It is important to note that stated objectives for establishment and management of protected areas should have an adaptive element to meet the changing socio-economic needs of local populations. For example, the only classified forest in the Section of Forécariah, Saraboly, is 850 hectares of which 400 hectares are composed of plantations with non-native species. The incorporation of these plantations into the classified forest creates opportunities for a much different set of objectives as compared to those classified forests with intact native forests. One person interviewed also mentioned that the role of the forester in Guinea has adapted as well from that of a strict manager of trees to one which includes a role in rural development through the management of forests. DNEF field agents may therefore be moving away from the traditional enforcer role, and more to the rural development advisor role. The concept of a living document is important here, but equally as important as understanding the objective for a forest’s establishment and management. There should be a balance of maintaining ecological services and sustaining socio-economic needs. With a set of objectives only documented by institutional knowledge, or by elders, it is easy for the socio- economic needs of the local population to continually sway approval of allowed activities in the protected area. A number of efforts were initiated to establish either management; co-management or “intervention” plans for approximately 27 classified forests in Guinea (see Co-Management below). These efforts could clearly set location specific objectives for a given protected area. Unfortunately, with the exception of two classified forests in the forest region, these plans have rarely been approved and implemented only minimally, mainly due to a lack of DNEF funding. The management plans developed cooperatively, via the EU AGIR project, between Guinea and Mali for the Haut Niger National Park, and Guinea & Senegal for the Badiar National Park, also
16 have not been approved or implemented. Some approved management plans have been reported for classified forests in the Labé Region by the PEGRN. As seen elsewhere on the African continent, there exists no national vision or direction from within the MinAG or the DNEF to guide the management of classified forests or other protected areas. It is important to clearly articulate the goals and objectives for management of protected areas, in particular for classified forests. These can include commercial wood products, firewood, non-timber forest products, livestock grazing, sustaining water quality and quantity, biodiversity including maintaining quality habitats for flora and fauna, and social needs including religious and other non-extractive cultural practices. In order for protected area management to be effective and sustainable it must include three components; (1) a clearly articulated national strategic vision for protected areas as a whole; (2) multiple use goals and objectives articulated for each protected area, which should include local involvement in setting; and (3) implementation strategies. All three of these components must be supported by legal regulations and policies to be effective.
Recommendations 1. DNEF utilize assistance from other partners to acquire the objectives for classification of classified forests. Be clear to note when objectives have changed since the original classification. 2. Objectives for protected areas (national parks and classified forests) should be clearly acknowledged and written down. At a minimum these should be documented with tabular data such as name, date of establishment, Cantonnement, and area. This information should be distributed widely throughout the DNEF and all projects working within and adjacent to protected areas. 3. Objectives for original classification of classified forests should be acknowledged and considered as an important decision criteria when deciding whether to approve activities within protected areas. This concept should be articulated to DNEF field staff in a Note de Service, or similar regulatory fashion.
Capacity Building & Institutional Support Consultants from several projects noted that the DNEF is often quite detached from the activities and goals of the projects. This lack of engagement by DNEF personnel makes training and technology transfer difficult to accomplish. It also, as noted by those interviewed, meant that the possibilities of initiatives started with donor dollars had little chance of moving forward solely under the direction of DNEF. Certainly, an inconsistent funding level for DNEF creates barriers to its institutional capacity. Without a continual level of funding on which the DNEF can operate it is difficult to ensure even the simplest operations can function effectively. Every location and office visited, whether in Conakry or the field, suffered from lack of financial support for even the basic operational needs. Basic services such a typing, phone communication, electricity and document duplication were often paid for out of employee wages. Even the guards at the main DNEF headquarters had not been paid in several months. Many interviewed felt the problems with capacity building begin in Conakry. Field agents tend to be motivated, but the institutional will in Conakry is lacking. DNEF field agents
17 need additional training on basic forestry mensuration, management and monitoring skills. Support for this training must begin at the headquarters level. Unfortunately, DNEF leadership currently posses limited means, capacity and resources to train their agents. In a quick summary, DNEF must address issues in leadership, moral, training, direction, as well as the legal framework identified above. Unfortunately, GOG and international and national partners are not united in their support of Guinean natural resource management ministries and departments. Some interviewed support strengthening the MinAg and its departments, others are clearly providing institutional support behind the MinEnv. This split in institutional support can only further exacerbate the current divisions, funding issues, and rivalry between the two ministries. There have been positive examples of institutional change within ministries. For example, the World Bank, with French cooperation, assisted in the reform of the MinAG Livestock Service. This effort focused on instituting many human resource reforms including a system of accountability for employees. Well trained employees with strong histories of performing remained while those with limited skills or histories of performance were removed. Similar reforms were blocked in other MinAG departments due to complications caused by the firing of personnel. A 2001 provisional report by the GTZ focused on DNEF’s successful periods and the identification of problems associated with DNEF management. Unfortunately, this report was never finalized and no corrective measures were implemented to address the identified problems. Given the World Band and GTZ examples, it is valuable to question the political will of the GOG to enact institutional reforms. Based on conversations and interviews with those inside the DNEF, and those outside the GOG, the institutional capacity issues within DNEF focused on three central themes: • Appropriation of programs – DNEF staff do not incorporate projects and activities as their own. Thus, when projects end there is no continuation of their activities. • The MinAg and MinEnv are not harmonized – Considerable confusion exists between the mandates and authorities of these two ministries. This result in infighting between staff over the “lead ministries” and proper authorities for approving and managing many activities. • MinAg Lack Vision – The Ministry of Agriculture, on the whole, was identified as having a lack of vision for management of natural resources across the landscapes greater than individual site-specific locations. The Ministry lacks a vision for important concepts as landscape conservation and regional biodiversity issues. MinAG is generally viewed as a weak and weakening ministry, and as such, DNEF is also losing its influence over the management of forest and water resources.
Recommendations 1. Implement the recommendations outlined above designed to harmonize the MinAg and MinEnv. 2. Explore incentive based human resource management reforms to achieve a higher level of professionalism, increased levels of reform, and a greater level of esprit de corps within the DNEF. 3. As stated above, facilitate discussions at the Ministerial level with the Ministers of Agriculture, Minister of Environment and key staff to establish collaborative
18 arrangements within Ministries and departments which work toward clearer roles and responsibilities. 4. Provide field level DNEF agents additional training on approved methodologies of forest management and protection, as well as other basic natural resource management skills.
Donor Driven Funding and Continuation of Progress Gained It is theorized by several persons interviewed that the conservation and management of protected areas will continue to be donor driven as DNEF and CENAGAP currently have no funds or administrative means to provide effective management. An ineffective transition of project activities to DNEF following the completion of projects has a direct effect on the resources in protected areas. Some suggest that as project (donor) funding is decreased or eliminated there is a corresponding increase in encroachment (legal or illegal) into protected areas. Several individuals interviewed highlighted examples of when project personnel left extractive activities increased, including the hunting of wildlife (chimpanzee), clearing for agriculture, fuelwood gathering and charcoal making. In essence, protection of the protected areas within the project boundaries was effective only when the project was in place. A scenario common to all project consultants interviewed was that when project funding ended so did the work of the DNEF staff assigned to the project. The DNEF did not have any means, whether financial, institutional or motivational, to continue the work of the project after international funding ended. Even the access to electricity for office functions is provided by project funding and it too ceases when projects reach completion. As a result, office and geospatial services cease to function as well.
Recommendation 1. Focus on increasing the institutional funding and capacity of DNEF so that project activities and goals can continue when donor driven projects conclude. 2. Consider establishing collaborative arrangements with institutions and organizations which share the desired outcomes and goals for Guinea. These partnerships can help to achieve synergies, extend to a wide range of stakeholders, provide access in critical skills that GOG lacks, and provide access to new knowledge. Partnerships can also open up access to new sources of funding.
Data and Information Collection, Management and Flow Effective and coherent legal structures, comprehensive natural resource planning at the village level, strong implementation, human capitol, together with effective information flow result in sound protected area management. Forest degradation happens quickly and leaves impacts and scares on natural resources which may remain for generations. The time lapse for identification of impacting activities and appropriate responses is short and information flow must be able to occur quickly for timely responses to occur. The response time for coordination in addressing the clearing of classified forest in Mamou discussed above is estimated at 2-4 weeks. During that time, the forest was completely cleared and a level construction site was created.
19 Though not by any means complete for the entire country, a wealth of data does exist for Guinea’s natural resources. Projects such as PEGRN, AGIR, Mt. Nimba, and others have developed strong spatial and tabular data sets for areas within their project boundaries. Unfortunately, this data is not centrally located or accessible, and due to a number of factors remains relatively unused or unknown. Trained staff to manage and interpret the data is also lacking. As an example of incomplete and conflicting data, depending on the source, the number of classified forests ranges somewhere between 156 and 180. The total area encompassed by classified forest varies even greater. Information appears to be collected in a hap-hazard manner, there is no regular input into electronic databases, and the existing databases do not appear to be managed. The lack of even basic data is evidenced by the fact that several Sections and Cantonnements visited did not possess maps of their areas. With the DNEF, and other departments interviewed, there are not current procedures adequate for the collection and storage of information such that response to existing situations or threats to protected areas can be activated in a time sensitive manner. The presence of centrally located quality field data would facilitate the rapid dissemination of information on forested areas as needed, as well as provide information for decision makers. Monitoring of land and resource uses is ineffective and useless data without an ability for the information (data) to flow to appropriate parties. Having said this, little to no current data exists for classified forests in DNEF outside of those which were inventoried and studied by donor projects.
Recommendations 1. Establish and implement an information policy, with sight on threats, realized and actual, to protected areas (see Final Mission Report, Curtis Day, February 2006) 2. In close collaboration with other partners, provide direct support to information units so that they are able to coordinate, collect, manage, analyze and report on all relevant forest program activities. 3. Train DNEF staff to acknowledge the severity of problems to protected areas, know the existing condition of the protected areas ,and document change over time. The rapid assessment process could help here. 4. Once data becomes available, train DNEF staff, at all levels of the department, on data interpretation skills.
Scale of Protected Area Management Activities, Reviews and Interventions Protected areas do not function in isolation from surrounding environments. The scale at which assessments of the threats and interventions of protected areas are accomplished should cross jurisdictional boundaries. These should be integrated assessments, and where appropriate include trans-boundary issues. To fully capitalize on the value of protected areas for local socio- economic needs and stability, and for biodiversity issues, their management must be integrated with the management of surrounding managed or unmanaged lands (agricultural and forested) regardless of ownership. Currently in Guinea, very few individual are looking at larger landscape scale biodiversity issues. With the exception of the now defunct AGIR project, partners, and projects
20 appear to be working separately with very little integration. Perhaps when CENAGAP becomes functional they may play a role in this effort. To protect the integrity of protected areas in Guinea integrated approach between USAID, USFS, GOG and other implementing partners in needed. (See above discussion on safeguards).
Recommendations 1. Develop, formally or informally, greater dialogue and partnerships between partners working in conservation and preservation of biodiversity. Through increased communication comes greater coordination. This could be assisted by institutional arrangements with the GOG, or by outside initiatives. 2. Develop, at the headquarters level, an integrated planning and implementation strategy at landscape or bio-regional scales. Initiate strategic planning at a broad scale integrating individual projects toward clearly articulated national visions, goals and objectives for Guinean ecosystems 3. Following the development of a strategic plan for Guinea, continue working with people closest to the natural resource base as it is the foundation for achieving sustainable forest management. 4. Develop a simplified working model within a region detailing how to design and implement landscape-level conservation and development projects.
Co-Management Plans’ Value to Protected Area Management Given the issues surrounding the current capacity of DNEF to manage protected areas across the country some have argued that the development of co-management plans are the most practical and fiscally reasonable means for managing forested areas by objective. Given that the majority of pressures on protected areas are from increased socio-economic needs of surrounding populations, it stands to reason that participatory management plans are a necessary intervention. The pressures from the local populations includes fuelwood cutting, lumber, raw material for charcoal production, stone and gravel for construction, the need for agricultural land, and hunting. Natural resource management goals and objectives derived from the field level have a greater chance of being implemented effectively than those provided top-down. As stated above, for some classified forests, the only knowledge of the original objectives for the classification of forests are the elders who remain tied to the land base. Co-management plans, or participatory management plans, can be loosely defined as formal agreements with common objectives on the shared management of forested resources between local populations, usually village-based management structures, and the GOG. Currently there is no legal instrument supporting co-management of protected areas in Guinea. The Forestry Code does allow for the development of management plans for classified village forests, not to be confused with classified forests (Code Forestier, Article 42, June 1999). Approximately 185 of these plans have been developed and approved. The concepts and advances of co-management have been totally driven by donor projects and all those interviewed felt that these concepts have not been embraced by DNEF or the GOG. As an example, all co-management or intervention plans either developed or in development
21 have been initiated via donor driven projects. To date, there are roughly 27 such plans in existence for classified forests, and none have been approved by the GOG. As an example of the lack of direction over co-management plans, there is debate at the DNEF headquarters over who implements such plans – the DNEF or the village-based forest management committees. There is not a clear separation of rights and obligations between the communities and the DNEF. No efforts to solve this question have been put forth. It is the belief of many interviewed that without an appropriation of the concepts of co- management by the DNEF, and the creation of a legal basis for its development in classified forests, the continued financial support for co-management plan development will not continue. It is not expected that either of these will occur overnight, but donors are looking for signs of progress toward these goals. Some interviewed believed that the co-management plans for classified forests developed at the project level were complex and too unwieldy to implement at the village level. This was said to result in their limited usefulness. It is recognized that the first versions of these plans required improvement, additional data, and corrections. Yet in a testament to the usefulness of participatively developed forest management plans, even though they needed additional work and had not been formally approved at DNEF headquarters or by the Minister, aspects of the plans are currently being used to guide village-based management of classified forests. Those aspects approved by the DNEF tended to favor population needs. Co-management plans document in writing, for everyone to see and use as part of their decision criteria, the objectives for the protected area development and management.
Recommendations 1. Create an alliance with the international donors, NGOs and local communities to strengthen awareness of values and benefits within the GOG’s key decision makers, private sector generated by co-management plans for protected area management. 2. Address the lack of a legal context for participatory forest management in protected areas and the process gaps between the field development and actual implementation of participatory management plans. 3. Provide technical assistance on a simplified method for the development of village-based co-management plans. Several countries across the continent have made significant progress on processes for development these plans and have achieved great success. As part of this process develop templates for protected area management plans, and support to the development of pilot plans in each section.
22 APPENDIX I – SCOPE OF WORK
Scope of Work US Department of Agriculture Forest Service International Program: Institutional Strengthening Program for the Direction Nationale des Eaux et Forêts (DNEF) General Assessments and Recommendations for Protected Area and Information System Management
Background The United States International Agency for International Development (USAID/Guinea) important and long-standing investment in forest co-management in the Fouta Djallon Region of Guinea has created a solid foundation for community involvement and government oversight of sustained-yield forest product use and protection of priority biodiversity habitats. The challenge now for USAID/Guinea and its partners (US Forest Service, CIFOR, and ICRAF) is to build on this foundation, and successfully implement existing plans, with increased revenue streams and better forest management as the intended results. A further challenge is to continue to refine this approach so it can become the basis for policy and regulations under the existing Guinean Forestry Code, and be replicated by the DNEF, USAID implementing partners, and other interested donors. In an effort to build on past accomplishments, USAID/ Guinea has entered a two year agreement with US Forest Service to strengthen the institutional capacity of the Direction Nationale des Eaux et Forets of Guinea (DNEF). The program’s objective is to build technical as well as human resources capacity within DNEF, institutionalize good practices of forest management from lessons learned at the local level and establish a protected area management network that is effective regionally. In order to achieve these goals for the next two years, a thorough assessment of the current issues on protected areas management must ensue along with inventory of the resources available within DNEF to manage Guinea’s protected areas.
Objective A two-member team of USFS technical assistants will work with the Institutional Strengthening Program (ISP) in-country coordinator to perform a broad assessment of the current state of protected areas and information system management. The assessment will be followed by specific recommendations to be implemented in the next two years.
Team’s composition • Protected Area Management Specialist • Natural Resource Information System Specialist
Activities • Protected area Management Specialist • Inventory and analysis of Guinean policies on protected areas (players, coherence between players, etc.) • Comparison with border countries’ policies; Liberia, Sierra Leone and Senegal; coherence and identification of links or contacts. It might be necessary to include other surrounding countries such as Ivory Coast, Guinea-Bissau and Mali.
23 • Broad estimate of illegal logging in Guinea and border countries. Who is doing what and where?
• Information System Specialist • Evaluate state of information gathering and transmission for decision-making at DNEF. How is information gathered? Is it reliable? Is it timely? • Evaluate state of information presentation (form) at the DNEF. In what form is information presented? Is it easily comprehensive for decision making? Is it accurate? • Evaluate state of information archiving at the DNEF. How is information kept? Is it readily available? • Comparative study for specific forest managements and policies’ information used for decision-making.
24 APPENDIX II – MISSION ITINERARY
Mission Itinerary for USDA Forest Service Protected Area Management Specialist (Peter Gaulke)
February 04, 2006, Saturday Depart United States, Washington Dulles
February 05, 2006, Sunday Arrival in Conakry, Guinea
February 06, 2006, Monday AM: Introductory meeting with: Madame Kourouma Christine Sagno, Directrice Nationale des Eaux et Forêt and available Division Chiefs
AM: Initial discussions with: Jean LaPierre, Principle Technical Consultant, USFS-ISP, Guinea
PM: Further discussions with: Jean LaPierre, Principle Technical Consultant, USFS-ISP, Guinea
February 07, 2006, Tuesday AM: Meeting with: Steve Morin, Team Leader of Natural Resources Management, USAID/Guinea
AM: Series of Meetings with: Mr. Karim Sakha, Deputy Division Chief for Economics and Legislation Mr. Alkaly Bangoura, Division Chief for Forest Management and Reforestation Mr. Falaye Kone, Section Chief for Forest Experimentation Mr. Thierno Daouda Diallo, Section Chief for Inventory
PM: Meeting with: Mr. Apollinaire Togba Kolfke, National DNEF Coordinator, AGIR Project
PM: Discussion with: Mr. Mario Gauthier, Principle Technical Advisor, PEGRN
February 08, 2006, Wednesday AM: Meeting with: Mr. Didier Nils, Section Chief for Rural Development, European Union Mr. Mathieu Penot, Chief of Programs, European Union
AM: Meeting with: Mamadou Saliou Diallo, President and Coordinator of Programs, Guinea – Ecologie Mr. Boubacar Thiam, Guinea – Ecologie
PM: Meeting with: Mohamad Sylla, Environmental Advisor, UNDP, Conakry
25 February 09, 2006 AM: Travel to Kinda, Thursday
AM: Meeting with: Mr. Mamadou Pipo Conté, Section Chief, Kinda Mr. Morlaye Soumah, Deputy Prefect for Rural Development and Environment, Kinda Mr. Abou Soumah, Deputy Section Chief for Wildlife, Kindia Mr. Aliou Peindior Diallo, Deputy Section Chief for Forests, Kindia 13 Chef de Cantonnement for Kindia
PM: Travel to Soutega, Sous Prefecture of Kinda
PM: Meeting with: Mr. Morlaye Keita, Chef de Cantonnement, Sougeta; and Two Souti Yansou Classified Forest village-based Management Committee members
PM: Travel to Mamou
February 10, 2006, Friday AM: Meeting with: Mr. Alpha Traoré, Section Chief, Mamou Mr. Magariou Baldé, Deputy Section Chief for Wildlife, Mamou Mr. Hamidou Baldé, Urban Community Forestry Agent, Mamou Mr. Thierno Oumar Bah, Deputy Section Chief for Wildfire Controls, Mamou
AM: Visit to the Ecole Nationale de Technique Forestier (ENATEF) Training Center, Mamou
PM: Return to Conakry
Evening: Discussion with Mr. Mario Gauthier, Principle Technical Advisor, PEGRN
February 11, 2006, Saturday AM: Travel to Forécariah
AM: Meeting with: Mr. Mamadi I Camara, Section Chief, Forécariah Mr. Issiaga Keita, Deputy Section Chief for Forest Management, Forécariah Mr. Antione Beavogui, Asst. Deputy Section Chief for Forest Management, Forécariah Mr. Sayon Camara, Office Guinean du Bois, Forécariah Mr. Mahal Camara, Forestry Agency, Farmoriah
PM: Field visit to the Saraboly Classified Forest in Forécariah.
Late PM: Return to Conakry
February 12, 2006, Sunday AM/PM: Information Assimilation, Report Writing and Rest
February 13, 2006, Monday AM: Review and synthesis of information, and arranging of meetings with: Mr. Jean LaPierre, Principle Technical Consultant, USFS-ISP, Guinea
26
AM: Meeting with: Mr. Alkaly Bangoura, Division Chief for Forest Management and Reforestation,
PM: Meeting with: Mamadou Saliou Diallo, President and Coordinator of Programs, Guinea–Ecologie Mr. Boubacar Thiam, Guinea–Ecologie
PM: Meeting with: Dr. Ahmadou Chérif Bah, Section Chief of Planning, DNEF Conakry
February 14, 2006, Tuesday AM: Meeting with: Mr. Henning Fath, GFA Group, Hamburg
PM: Meeting with: Mr. Boubacar Oulare, Director, Center for Protected Areas, Ministry of Environment
PM: Follow-up meeting with: Dr. Ahmadou Chérif Bah, Section Chief of Planning, DNEF Conakry
PM: Meeting with: Mr. Werner Goimmelmann, GFA Group, Hamburg
February 15, 2006, Wednesday AM: Report Writing & Team Interaction
AM: Follow-up discussion with: Mr. Alkaly Bangoura, Division Chief for Forest Management and Reforestation, Dr. Ahmadou Chérif Bah, Section Chief of Planning, DNEF Conakry
February 16, 2006, Thursday AM: Meeting with: Pr. Ibrahima Boiro, Director, Centre d’Etude et de Recherche en Environnement, (CERE) Universite de Conakry
PM: Mission Debriefing with DNEF Staff, Conakry
February 17, 2006, Friday AM: Debriefing with: Mr. Steve Morin, Team Leader of Natural Resources Management, USAID/Guinea Mr. Alpha Souleymane Diallo, Deputy Program Officer, USAID
PM: Debriefing with: Mr. Mohamed Yansané, Deputy Director, DNEF / National Coordinator, LAMIL
Late PM: Departure for United States
February 18, 2006, Saturday Arrival United States – Washington Dulles
27 APPENDIX III – LIST OF ACRONYMS
AGIR Programme d’Appui à la Gestion Intégrée des Ressource Naturelle des Bassins du Niger et de la Gambie AG/NRM Agriculture / Natural Resource Managment CENAGAP le Centre National de Gestion des Aires Protégeés CFZ Centre Forestier N’Zérékoré CI Conservation International DNEF Direction Nationale des Eaux et Foret National Directorate of Water and Forests DPDRE Deputy Prefect for Rural Development and Environment EU European Union GEF Global Environment Facility GOG Government of Guinea GTZ German Technical Services IP USFS International Programs IUCN World Conservation Union LAMIL Landscape Management for Increased Livelihood MinAG Ministry of Agriculture MinEdu Ministry of Education MinEnv Ministry of Environment NGO Non-Governmental Organization OGUIB Office Guinéen des Bois PEGRN Projet Elargi des Gestion des Ressource Naturelles Expanded Natural Resources Management Activity UNDP United National Development Program USAID United States Agency for International Development USDA United States Department of Agriculture USFS United States Forest Service WWF World Wildlife Fund
28 APPENDIX IV – Protected Areas under Ministry of Environment Management
1. le Parc National du Badiar avec siège à Koundara ; 2. le Parc National du Haut Niger avec siège à Faranah; 3. l’Aire protégée transfrontalière Bafing-Falémé, Guinée-Mali : Sous-composante Guinée avec siège à Tougué ; 4. l’Aire protégée transfrontalière Rio Cogon, Corubal et Nunez, Guinée-Guinée Bissau : Sous-composante Guinée avec siège à Boké ; 5. la "Réserve de faune de Kankan", foloningbè, avec siège à Boula, dans la préfecture de Kankan ; 6. la Réserve naturelle de faune de Kounounkan avec siège à Moussaya, dans la Préfecture de Forécariah; 7. l’Aire marine protégée des îles Trista et des îles Alcatraz, avec siège dans la Sous- préfecture de Kamsar, dans la préfecture de Boké ; 8. le Jardin zoologique de Conakry : forêt de Kakoulima, avec siège à Coyah, Commune Urbaine de Coyah dans le préfecture de Coyah ; 9. la Réserve naturelle de forokonia: forêt classée de Forokonia, source du fleuve Niger, avec siège dans la Commune urbaine de Faranah; 10. la Réserve de faune de Pinseli: forêt classée de Pinseli avec siège à Ourékaba, dans la Préfecture de Mamou; 11. la Réserve de faune de Diécké: forêts classées de Gbinia et de Banan avec siège à Diécké, dans la Préfecture de Yomou. 12. la Réserve de faune de Manden Woula-Warandogoba avec siège à Siguiri; 13. le Sanctuaire de faune des Iles de Loos : Ilot Cabri, Ile Blanche et Ile Corail avec siège à Kassa, dans la Commune Urbaine de Kaloum; 14. le Centre de réhabilitation des chimpanzés de Somoria avec siège à Sidakoro, District de Niako, Sous-préfecture de Beindou dans la préfecture de Faranah; 15. le Delta du Kounkouré (site Ramsar ) avec siège à Tanènè ; Sous-Préfecture de Tanènè, dans la Préfecture de Dubréka; 16. les Zones humides du Delta du Kapatchez et du Rio Pongo : sites Ramsar, avec siège dans la Commune urbaine de Boffa, Préfecture de Boffa; 17. les Zones humides du bassin du Niger : site Ramsar, avec siège dans la Commune Urbaine de Faranah dans la préfecture de Faranah ; 18. la Réserve de faune de Bissikirima: forêt classée de Balaya-soromba avec siège à Bissikirima, Préfecture de Dabola; 19. le Sanctuaire de faune de fèllo-sélouma: forêt classée de sélouma, Préfecture de Dinguiraye;
29 20. la zone humide du barrage de Tinkisso: forêt classée du barrage de Tinkisso, Commune urbaine de Dabola, Préfecture de Dabola; 21. la Zone humide des chutes de Kinkon: forêt classée de Kinkon, Commune urbaine de Pita, Préfecture de Pita; 22. la Zone humide des grandes chutes: forêt classée des grandes chutes, Sous-préfecture de Mambia, Préfecture de Kindia; 23. la Zone humide du barrage de Garafiri, Sous-préfecture de Linsan, Préfecture de Mamou; 24. le Centre de réhabilitation des chimpanzés de Somoria avec siège à Sidakoro, District de Niako, Sous-préfecture de Bendou, Préfecture de Faranah; 25. la Réserve spéciale de faune de la Région naturelle de Kindia; 26. la Réserve spéciale de faune de la Région naturelle de Labé; 27. la Réserve spéciale de faune de la Région naturelle de Kankan ; 28. la Réserve spéciale de faune de la Région naturelle de N’Zérékoré.
30 APPENDIX V – ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Acknowledgement and gratitude for pre and post-travel logistics and briefings is afforded to:
Blessing Asuqou Oliver Pierson Africa Program Specialist Africa Program Coordinator International Programs, USDA Forest Service USDA Forest Service-IP
My sincerest appreciation for invaluable in-country logistical support, information about Guinean and donor driven programs, DNEF, guidance for the mission, and of course fun, is afforded to:
Jean La pierre ISFS –ISP Principle Technical Advisor
Many thanks to all of the DNEF Staff in Conakry, Kindia, and Forécariah for their openness, willingness to take their time and work with us, strong support during meetings and field visits, and welcoming nature, with Special Thanks To:
Mr. Alkaly Bangoura Division Chief, Forest Management and Reforestation DNEF, Conakry
Finally, for being a great travel companion, providing essential perspectives on issues, and keeping humorous perspective:
Curtis Day Independent Consultant USFS (Retired)
And finally, I would like to express our gratitude and appreciation for support to USFS past, present and future missions in Guinea:
Steve Morin Team Leader Natural Resources Management Office USAID, Guinea
31