Partnership Building and Scoping Mission to Cross River State Nigeria – Final Trip Report

Partnership Building and Scoping Mission to Cross River State, Nigeria

(September 13-24, 2010)

USDA Forest Service

Dale Bosworth

Val Mezainis

Jim Beck

September 2010

Page 1 of 27 Partnership Building and Scoping Mission to Cross River State Nigeria – Final Trip Report

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This scoping and technical assistance mission was completed with funding from the United States Forest Service (USFS) and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Africa Bureau. The objectives and design of the mission were jointly defined with the Wildlife Conservation Society and the Cross River State Government – most notably the Forestry Commission.

We would like to thank the many partners who were instrumental to success of the mission including: the Nigerian Federal Ministry of Environment, Cross River State Government, US Government Agencies (USAID, US Embassy Abuja, USDA Foreign Agriculture Service (FAS)), the international, national, and local NGOs, local chiefs, clan heads, and community representatives, and timber dealers, among others. The frank and valuable insights, guidance, knowledge, logistical support, and moral support were all much appreciated.

Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 3 1.1 Background ...... 3 1.2 Objective ...... 3 1.3 Process ...... 4 2.0 ISSUES, FINDINGS, & RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 4 2.1 Cross River State Logging Ban ...... 4 2.2 Cross River State Forestry Commission and Partners ...... 6 2.3 Other Pressures on Forest Resources and Alternative Livelihoods Strategies in Cross River State ...... 10 3.0 USFS NEXT STEPS ...... 14 3.1 Strategic Opportunities for Technical Assistance in Cross River State ...... 14 3.2 Other Possible Technical Assistance Opportunities ...... 14 4.0 APPENDICES ...... 16 4.1 Scope of work...... 16 4.2 Itinerary ...... 20 4.3 List of contacts made ...... 22 4.4 Additional Perspectives on Overall Strategic Planning and a revised 5 Year Action Plan ...... 24 4.5 Possible Land and Resource Use Plan Components ...... 26 4.6 Status of Certain Key Technical Aspects of REDD+ Negotiations...... 27

Page 2 of 27 Partnership Building and Scoping Mission to Cross River State Nigeria – Final Trip Report

1.0 INTRODUCTION The USDA Forest Service (USFS), through the Office of International Programs, has a long history of promoting sound natural resource management throughout Africa. USFS IP links the skills of its 35,000 domestic technical experts with partners through short, medium, and long- term technical assistance assignments to build capacity for improved natural resource management. USFS IP currently works in over 15 African countries in collaboration with host country governments (National and state/province level), NGOs, local communities, and other US agencies (USAID, USDA, US Dept of State, etc.), including past missions in Nigeria, Cameroon, and other West and Central African countries in the areas of forest management, land use planning, extractive industries, community based natural resource management, agroforestry, climate change mitigation and adaptation, ecotourism, fire management, biodiversity and habitat conservation, watershed management, and grazing. 1.1 Background Initial contact between the USFS and Cross River State Government (CRSG) was established by the former Governor, Donald Duke, and the former Managing Director of Cross River State Tourism Bureau in 2006. This contact was facilitated by Matthew Cassetta (US State Dept. Regional Environmental Officer for West and Central Africa) following a meeting with the Governor in 2005. Based on these meetings the USFS completed a preliminary mission to Cross River State in November 2006.

The mission came up with four clear recommendations: 1. locate and re-gazette where necessary the boundaries of all protected areas within the state including the national park; 2. complete management plans for all protected areas within the state; 3. improve tourist facilities at Afi Mountain Wildlife Sanctuary, and 4. link tourist facilities on the Obudu Cattle Ranch with Becheve Nature Reserve and the adjacent Cross 1 Figure 1. Cable Car at Obudu Cattle River National Park. Although these recommendations have Ranch yet to be implemented several of them remain valid and updated actions are noted in this report.

Contact was reestablished with the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) Nigeria in 2009. This fits into a broader continent-wide strategy of stepped up engagement with partners in key countries including WCS among others. A first step in this re-engagement is the current mission whose objectives and expectations are outlined in the Scope of Work for the mission found in Appendix 4.1. 1.2 Objective The main objective of this scoping mission is to assess the current situation of forest management and wildlife conservation in Cross River State and to investigate areas of possible technical support for the Cross River State Forestry Commission (CRSFC) by the USFS. Additionally, the high level USFS team seeks to explore the expansion of relationships with other USG agencies, Nigerian agencies, and NGOs active in supporting sound natural resource management in Nigeria.

1 USFS, 2007. Critical Needs Assessment for Cross River State Protected Areas and Eco-Tourism Development.

Page 3 of 27 Partnership Building and Scoping Mission to Cross River State Nigeria – Final Trip Report

1.3 Process The mission was carried out in Nigeria from September 13-24, 2010 with full participation from all three partners (USFS, WCS, CRSG). A series of introductory meetings, technical exchange sessions, and field visits were carried out. Appendix 4.2 presents the detailed itinerary and objectives for the various meetings and activities over the course of the mission. Appendix 4.3 highlights the names and institutions the team met with.

The following sections summarize the findings, issues, and recommendations of the USFS team.

2.0 ISSUES, FINDINGS, & RECOMMENDATIONS Cross River State continues to face many opportunities and challenges to enable the sound management of its natural resources. Political will for forest conservation at the highest level appears present as demonstrated through policy and operational actions and reforms.

Section 2.1 discusses the enactment of the logging ban and establishment of the anti-deforestation taskforce with some early perspectives on ways forward.

Section 2.2 covers the critical reform of the CRSFC shifting it from a revenue based timber extraction agency to a conservation agency.

Section 2.3 highlights the challenges and opportunities related to promoting alternative livelihoods that will remove pressure on the forest resources. Figure 2. View of mountain range from Obudu plateau 2.1 Cross River State Logging Ban As a stop gap measure to reduce rates of illegal logging and following the 2008 “Stakeholders Summit on the Environment” a temporary logging ban was introduced. To enforce the ban the CRSG established an Anti-deforestation Task force. Their mandate appears to have been to focus on curbing logging through seizing loads of logs on the roads and rivers; while the CRSFC staff was to focus enforcement efforts in the forest. 2 The taskforce was established as an independent body from the CRSFC due to concerns of complicity of CRSFC staff with the illegal trade.

2.1.1 Findings While the USFS team did not have the time, access, or resources to fully evaluate the success of the ban and the taskforce we gathered and analyzed information which we consolidate and share here. The ban demonstrated the highest level political will to tackle an important problem in the State. However, anecdotal accounts to date suggest that it has not prevented logging within the state. The ban and the taskforce initially were apparently successful in slowing the flow of illegally harvested timber although it apparently had some challenges that are leading to what we understand are current efforts to restructure the taskforce. The timber markets in

2 Formal documentation on the creation and implementation of the Anti-deforestation was not reviewed by the team therefore we present information on its mandate and related material based on stakeholder meetings.

Page 4 of 27 Partnership Building and Scoping Mission to Cross River State Nigeria – Final Trip Report

Calabar apparently are much less active and with less volume passing through and there are indications of more secondary/tertiary value-added processing. Both results are pointed to as successes of the ban and taskforce although perhaps the trade has simply been driven “underground” or both. Without data on seizures, timber flows before and after the ban, etc. measuring success or failure is nearly impossible.

Different community members the USFS team interacted with had differing viewpoints. Some spoke of a preference for returning to the pre-ban management approach where at least certain community leaders were receiving a percentage of the revenue collected by the CRSFC. They noted that Figure 3. Seized load of wood planks along principal CRS route. currently the logging continues and now they are no longer directly benefitting.

Timber dealers suggested that a ban is fine and they “support” it although they recommend that they should be better consulted in such policy decisions going forward as they have such an intimate financial stake as well of knowledge of the underlying situation. Moreover, they noted that the ban should continue but only in certain forests zoned as “no go zones”.

NGOs likewise had a diversity of perspectives to share. Communities living in and around the forest were championed as having the biggest stake in managing their forests. Others noted however that lessons across West Africa have concluded that simply granting communities management rights without technical assistance, education, and law enforcement has led to more pressure on the forest resources (increasing deforestation) rather than sustainability. Others noted that the CRSFC staff were widely known to be driving and closely involved in the illegal trade and so continued reform of the commission including retraining and tight supervision and management systems were key. Differing perspectives on the institutional housing Figure 4. Example scene illustrating the remains of a log with planks removed by of the taskforce in or separate from the CRSFC were chainsaw; near or within forest of CR National debated. Park. 2.1.2 Recommendations Again while a thorough evaluation of the successes and failures of the logging ban and institutions set up to enforce it are beyond the scope of the mission, and data for such an evaluation seems to be lacking (see section 2.2) the team offered the following recommendations:

1. The logging ban as a temporary measure should not be lifted until the following conditions are met and to do otherwise would send a signal that illegal harvest and transport of timber is allowed: a. Forest management plans completed with zoning to determine the timber harvest and other resource potentials to meet CRS’s needs (see section 2.2.2). b. Enforcement teams trained and in place

Page 5 of 27 Partnership Building and Scoping Mission to Cross River State Nigeria – Final Trip Report

i. CRSFC rangers in the forest ii. Combination of CRSFC and Anti-deforestation taskforce on roads and waterways. c. Basic timber tracking system implemented d. Regulations for sustainable harvest and permits/concessions promulgated e. Consultations with timber dealers and other key stakeholder groups ongoing f. Etc. 2. The Taskforce should ultimately be folded administratively and operationally into the functioning of the CRSFC . That transition could occur perhaps to coincide with the above conditions to lift the ban. 3. In the meanwhile, the leadership of both institutions/structures should continue close coordination and knowledge sharing and strategic orientation of efforts whereas actions on the ground should continue to be divided with the FC focusing on maintaining and expanding forest cover in the forest while the Taskforce focuses on monitoring and enforcing the ban on roads and rivers.

Sustainable solutions for forest management, timber provision, and monitoring are needed and further explored in section 2.2. 2.2 Cross River State Forestry Commission and Partners As previously noted the CRSG has initiated an important reform process in the forest sector and should be commended and encouraged to continue. It has carried out open and ongoing platforms for engaging civil society as exemplified by the “Stakeholders Summit on the Environment” in 2008; placed respected and competent individuals in leadership positions of the CRSFC; worked through the process of legal reform yielding the recently enacted “Forest and Wildlife Law of 2010; 3 provided operational and special budgetary support for forest management actions in the state; among other concrete actions.

Although the challenges continue as the CRSFC has deteriorated after many years of neglect and mis-management. The CRSFC has a poor image within the state and with local communities and lacks a clear direction and focus. Although the headquarters in Calabar is large and relatively well equipped, charge-offices elsewhere in the state are neglected, under- staffed and under-funded. Field staff display low morale, lacking field equipment and a clear mandate. Previous donor projects by the United Kingdom Department for International Development (DfID) which focused on revenue generation and community forestry did little to curtail rates of forest loss within the state and some claim exacerbated the problem even further.

Again, there have been some marked improvements in the last 1-2 years at the level of the headquarters but transforming the entire CRSFC and extending the new ethos to field staff will require more time and effort as Figure 5. CRSFC staff meeting with USFS well as a well thought out strategy. team and stakeholders.

3 The actual title of the law is as follows but this shortened version was used in the document for easier comprehension, “A Law to make provisions for the establishment of the State Forestry Commission; and for the purposes of providing sustainable management of the forest and wild life resources, preservation and protection of the ecosystem in Cross River State and other matters connected therewith.”

Page 6 of 27 Partnership Building and Scoping Mission to Cross River State Nigeria – Final Trip Report

2.2.1 Findings The following key findings emerged pertaining to the CRSFC moving forward in implementing its evolving conservation focus:

1. FC staff in HQ, zonal, and charge offices presumably were trained to carry out their previous functions under the revenue based extractive mandate. Therefore with a shift to conservation which includes wildlife, Non Timber Forest Products (NTFP), and timber protection and eventually sustainable use, the field and HQ staff will need to be equipped with new skills. The USFS team heard multiple times that a key challenge for the CRSFC going forward will be to prepare and motivate its ~400 employees to move from the recent direction of focusing efforts on roads and checkpoints, where timber trade monitoring and revenue collection occurred to getting in the forest.

Moreover, as CRSFC staff are widely believed to have previously participated in some fashion in the illegal trade of timber, training must be complemented by tight personnel management and controls systems to help keep staff focused on appropriate activities. Performance based pay schemes as well as other disciplinary measures for inappropriate activities could fit potentially as a part of the personnel management tools.

2. Both the federally managed Cross River National Park (CRNP) and CRSFC share the mandates to conserve natural resources located in the CRS within their respective jurisdiction or geographic areas of intervention.

However in reality wildlife, other biodiversity, watersheds, seed dispersers, etc. as well as the pressures on the resources cross state and federal management unit boundaries, so should management interventions. For example, illegal loggers may be operating in a state forest reserve and cross into the park. In such a case both the CNRP and the CRSFC could benefit from at least the sharing of intelligence/information if not joint patrols or enforcement campaigns.

3. Forest sector data and analyses are critical to inform policy, plans (see below), and management actions. In its absence, intuition and anecdote often lead to improper planning and action.

The team understood through meetings and site visits that many of the boundaries of forest reserves and other management units under the CRSFC jurisdiction (and Federal for that matter) were not physically delineated. Such delineation and maintenance of forest reserve boundaries on the ground as well as updating/creating a GIS remains of high priority for CRSFC. Although the Figure 6. Files of archived hardcopy CRSFC CRSFC has a mandate to intervene in all forests of documentation at a field office. the state, the delineation, restoration (as needed), monitoring of forest cover and condition, and management of the forest reserves, as state lands, are likely central to any CRSFC strategy.

In addition to physical demarcation, other necessary data and analyses could include anything from geospatial boundaries of differing management units and farm encroachment, natural and plantation forest inventories and potentials, timber flows and market trends before and during the ban, forest cover changes, among many others.

Page 7 of 27 Partnership Building and Scoping Mission to Cross River State Nigeria – Final Trip Report

Ultimately to support forest management actions and the enforcement of laws once the ban is lifted, a basic timber tracking system will need to be designed and implemented to track timber from Cameroon and other sources within the state (e.g., coming from community forests and eventually the forest reserves). Low tech examples exist from the USFS as well as elsewhere in Africa that could be adapted to the context and needs of the CRS.

4. The CRSFC has developed a 2010-13 Action plan. In this document the FC articulates its vision and associated objectives, initiatives, and activities. 4 Additionally the recently passed “Forest and Wildlife Law of 2010” notes the need to produce both a state wide Forest Sector Strategy as well as Land and Resource Use Plans and Management Plans (see below). The previous DFID program supported the development of a forest sector strategy which apparently is due to be updated. The team understood that the CRSFC Action Plan perhaps should also be updated to take into account the new Law.

In meetings, site visits, and other discussions with the CRSFC and its partners the team noted the breadth and diversity of interventions that the CRSFC is engaging in or preparing to engage. Although the pressures on the resources and the political/economic/social context are complex, there is a concern that attempting to create immediate solutions and respond on all fronts will spread the CRSFC too thin. To work on too many differing activities from community forestry to ecotourism to carbon monitoring to wildlife conservation at once might lead to lack of results on any of these important thematic areas.

5. To implement the new Law as well as related sector strategies and actions plans, state wide and/or management unit level forest plans would likely be useful to guide management interventions. 5 Such plans should include a description of the forest resources and an articulation of the vision or desired conditions that management objectives and actions should target. Additionally the plans could include zoning and guidelines for appropriate activities and uses in each zone. Figure 7. CRS land cover and land use map Stakeholder engagement at multiple levels (State, (DFID support CRS Forestry Department Local Government Area (LGA), and 19 94 ).

4 Vision - To be home to one of the world’s greenest and biologically most diverse and richest forest by all global standards. Objectives: 1 To promote reafforestation of at least 25% of degraded forest reserve areas by 2012; 2. To achieve the assessment & efficient management of biodiversity at all the 13 forest reserves in the state by 2012; 3. To get the state 90% ready to access the REDD/REDD+ carbon credits by 2012; 4. To sustainably protect and conserve wildlife resources and their habitats in 2 wildlife conservation sites; and 5. Make all Ecotourism sites accessible. 5 The team was unclear on the scale of the land and resource use plans and management plans referred to in the new Law. Both a state wide forest plan and ultimately management unit level plans that tier to the state plan would likely be useful.

Page 8 of 27 Partnership Building and Scoping Mission to Cross River State Nigeria – Final Trip Report

community/village/clan, etc.) and participation throughout the planning and implementation process will be critical to a plan’s representation of local aspirations tied to state visions and any successful implementation.

6. In discussing with stakeholders, a consensus emerged that a more sustainable solution to the problem is urgently required. A source of sustainably managed timber was thought to eventually come from likely a combination of the following: 1) legitimizing a well regulated trade of timber from Cameroon 6; 2) some controlled, well managed harvest of timber from within the state (to be determined if the forest reserves could sustain this or whether harvest should be directed uniquely at plantation forestry); and 3) broader restoration of degraded forests for conservation including sustainable use eventually.

2.2.2 Recommendations 1. Develop the appropriate training and supervision/management controls/systems for field and HQ staff – Initial training for field staff on field techniques will be valuable on: 1) GPS use and forest reserve boundary demarcation; 2) rapid and simple multi-resource inventories; and 3) basic law enforcement. Training must be complemented by tight personnel management and controls systems.

2. Build improved and strategic partnership specifically with the CRNP to leverage resources to contribute to shared objectives – Improved coordination and joint actions across institutions is not easy but could provide a multiplier effect on State and Federal government investments for natural resource management.

3. Improve capacity for monitoring the status of forest resources and other basic forest sector data and analyses – Comprehensive data gathering and analytical capacity is critical to the implementation of the Forest and Wildlife Law of 2010 and therefore should be targeted for investment.

4. Revise strategic planning and to focus on doable, step-wise, prioritized actions – Additional, renewed, and realistic strategic planning seems appropriate and could revise the Action Plan and develop a Forest Sector Strategy that articulates where the forest sector is going and focuses on what the CRSFC can accomplish under existing constraints (technical, financial, etc.). See appendix 4.4 for some additional perspectives.

5. Develop land and resource use plans - Appendix 4.5 presents some different options for the structure of these plans. See section 3.1 for additional information on possible USFS technical support to the CRSFC in this domain.

6. Consider a diversity of options to meet Cross River and Nigeria’s need for a sustainable source of timber – These could include for example plantations, regularized trade with Cameroon, community forests, eventual sustainable harvesting on degraded or other forests.

6 Recent signing of the EU-Cameroon FLEGT Voluntary Partnership Agreement will likely support the further efforts to curtailing illegal logging in Cameroon and therefore be useful to the CRSG in determining legality and sustainability of timber coming from Cameroon.

Page 9 of 27 Partnership Building and Scoping Mission to Cross River State Nigeria – Final Trip Report

2.3 Other Pressures on Forest Resources and Alternative Livelihoods Strategies in Cross River State There appears to be widespread consensus that conversion of forests to subsistence agriculture is the primary driver of deforestation in the state followed by logging/extractive uses. Additionally, interest remains in capitalizing on the natural resources of the state for economic development opportunities through community forestry, nature based tourism, and ultimately from Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD) financing. These points are covered in turn.

2.3.1 Agriculture Encroachment in Forest Reserves Findings Agriculture provides critical economic activity to a majority of Nigerians. Across the country, 70% of Nigerians depend on the agriculture sector for their primary livelihood and some 90% of agricultural output comes from farms smaller than 5 hectares. 7

Although not as densely populated as some other neighboring states in Nigeria, CRS still experiences significant population pressure on the land. Data is sparse but meetings and site visits indicated that the majority of agriculture in the state is practiced through extensive, slash and burn techniques that ultimately converts more forest for less per hectare agricultural production. This practice, in the context of significant population pressure, and a historically weak enforcement and management of the state forest reserves, has led to many entrepreneurs seeking these commons as opportunities for agriculture development. Historically, the forest reserves essentially were the only lands that remained in the state without arguably a significant management presence hence individuals (poor and wealthy) as well as companies preferred to secure access to these lands for their economic activities rather than going through extensive negotiations with local Figure 8. Mixed cassava and palm oil farm in a CRS forest communities or other land holders. reserve. It is unclear exactly the percentage or total surface area of the 13 forest reserves that have been encroached upon. From meetings and site visits the team understood that certain reserves have been completely occupied whereas others remain more intact. Without clear demarcation of boundaries (physically or digitally) nor information on forest cover change over time it is difficult to assess how significant the incursions have been. Regardless, the occupation and conversion is considered to be significant and the CRSFC is discussing different approaches to address the situation ranging from expelling, reclaiming and restoring the reserves all the way to redrawing the boundaries based on field work and negotiations.

Recommendations 1. Deploy trained rangers complemented by partner institutions to gather basic information on status and condition of the forest reserves – Critical to any land use management and planning decisions are data on status and condition of the resources. Additionally where forests have been significantly degraded, an assessment of the biodiversity, productivity,

7 USAID, 2010. Economic Growth and Environment Website. http://nigeria.usaid.gov/programs/economic- growth-and-environment

Page 10 of 27 Partnership Building and Scoping Mission to Cross River State Nigeria – Final Trip Report

and/or other ecosystem services value of potential restoration efforts could also inform zoning or reclassification of forest reserves. Caution however to avoid waiting too long as managers will never have the funding or “ideal” completeness of data, comprehensive assessments, and studies. 2. Engage when resources (and political will) are available for sustained management and/or enforcement efforts – It is possible on a case by case basis, certain forest reserves will be declassified whereas others will be determined to be critical for restoration. In the later case, difficult and politically sensitive, reclaiming of reserves from farm lands will be required. The success of such efforts will require a combination of political will, alternatives, negotiations, and very importantly sustained management and enforcement efforts to secure trust and confidence of the various stakeholders.

2.3.2 Community Forests and Community Engagement Strategies Findings Rural communities in CRS derive an important part of their livelihoods from forest resources including NTFPs. Significant effort has been invested over the past few decades to establish and support the management of community forests in the CRS.

Community based forest management is still in its early stages of evolution in Africa and around the world. Several models have been attempted, with varying degrees of success. What emerges is that the community should have, to some extent, property rights over natural resources for successful community forestry planning and implementation. Although not sufficient alone, without said rights, experience has shown that the motivation and capacity for sustainable use and responsible stewardship diminishes.

Additionally, technical support and basic enforcement of agreements and laws are critical to the successes of community forests. The CRSFC is currently establishing Forest Protection and Compliance Committees in certain key areas around the state to support community led enforcement of the Forest and Wildlife Law. Previously Forest Management Committees were formed with some of these similar mandates. There is concern that community engagement strategies not be duplicative but rather consolidated and with clear expectations and reasonable size to be most effective over the long term.

The CRSG and more broadly the Federal Ministry of Environment have launched reforestation campaigns as a way, ostensibly to maintain and expand forest cover, provide fuel wood and timber eventually, and create economic opportunities. Currently CRSFC charge offices have been tasked with initiating tree nursery development. Ultimately, the creation of many community managed, or otherwise individually managed, small scale tree nurseries will be a critical part of the implementation of these campaigns. Depending on demand created by the campaigns endemic and/or exotic species could be used. The appropriate technical support and possibly micro-credits Figure 9. Native tree species saplings produced by would facilitate the creation of these critical economic CRSFC for ecological restoration of degraded opportunities to rural communities. Additionally, land forest reserves. tenure and tree ownership policies and mechanisms will be critical to the campaigns success.

Page 11 of 27 Partnership Building and Scoping Mission to Cross River State Nigeria – Final Trip Report

Recommendations 1. Mobilize and facilitate alternative livelihoods and small business development opportunities in tandem with management and enforcement structures - Supporting tangible and immediate alternative livelihoods for rural communities should be accompanied by management and enforcement efforts to support state, national, and international objectives of natural resource management and biodiversity conservation. Economic development opportunities are critical but do not necessary lead to conservation and can under right (wrong) conditions undermine it. 2. Initiate community engagement platforms learning from previous successes and failures - Right sized and carefully developed platforms/forums/committees for discussion, negotiations, and action bringing government, NGOs, private sector, and communities together are critical to lasting conservation efforts. Managers and policy makers should turn to local communities, NGOs, and literature for lessons learned.

2.3.3 Nature Based Tourism Findings

The tourism potential of Cross River State is high but also subject to high expectations. The state government has made significant investments in infrastructure to boost tourism in the state, the business, shopping and leisure resort known as Tinapa and the Obudu Cattle Ranch Resort have been the two main investments to date. An earlier USFS mission with the Cross River State Tourism Bureau (CRSTB) focused on this element and their findings and recommendations have been updated here. 8

Visitors and tourists are discovering the new canopy walkway and nearby Drill Ranch facilities at Afi Nature Reserve, but they likely are confused about how to use the area. An overall visitor experience package does not exist for the entirety of Afi Mountain Wildlife Sanctuary and the surrounding communities. Additionally the walkway has recently fallen into disrepair and management and basic maintenance is sorely needed to capitalize on this investment.

The Obudu Cattle Ranch on Obudu Plateau has benefitted from infrastructure investment at an extraordinary scale including the construction of a cable car, a canopy walkway, world class conference center and facilities, a water park, among others. Apparently a new Cultural and Natural History Center has been constructed without clear integration of the Center with the Becheve Nature Reserve or aspects of the neighboring communities such as their roles in tourism or their cultural heritage and ancestral history in the Obudu Plateau Figure 10. Forest canopy walkway near area. Moreover, better access is needed to the nearby Drill Ranch and Afi Mountain Wildlife Okwangwo Division of CRNP to provide opportunities for Sanctuary. visitors to experience local culture, art, and traditions in addition to the ecological assets of the place. During the team’s visit the facilities were impressive but remarkably sparsely used.

8 USFS, 2007. Critical Needs Assessment for Cross River State Protected Areas and Eco-Tourism Development.

Page 12 of 27 Partnership Building and Scoping Mission to Cross River State Nigeria – Final Trip Report

Recommendations Based on the findings of the 2007 USFS mission and the current team’s observations the following recommendations are offered: 1. The CRSTB and its partners could focus on site planning, interpretive themes and training of tour-guides at Afi Nature Reserve . The objectives could be: 1) design simple, primitive trails to integrate the tropical moist rainforest experience with visitor facilities; 2) link the trails and canopy walkway with other infrastructure (e.g. visitor reception center, parking area, picnic facilities, etc.); 3) develop interpretive themes and messages for visitor center displays, brochures, and other materials; 4) hire and train people from neighboring communities as tour guides, rangers, and interpreters; and 5) consider innovative approaches to management of the facilities bringing perhaps the expertise of local NGOs. 2. The CRSTB and its partners complete a site plan for the new Cultural and Natural History Center at Obudu Plateau . The objectives could be: 1) link opportunities to visit Becheve Nature Reserve and experience the culture of local communities with visitor center displays and interpretive materials; and 2) in collaboration with the Nigerian Federal Government, plan to locate and construct a trail, or improve the existing trail, leading into CRNP Okwangwo Division. 3. The CRSTB and its partners could develop a marketing campaign and make related adjustment to target Abuja based businesses and federal government institutions seeking conference space and a reprieve from the pace and distractions in Abuja.

2.3.4 REDD+ Findings REDD+ is a mechanism that establishes incentives for developing countries to protect and better manage their forest resources, by creating a financial value for the carbon stored in trees, thus making forests more valuable standing than cut down. REDD“+” goes beyond deforestation and forest degradation, and includes the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks. 9

Generally the US and international community supports national REDD+ programs to: a) reduce the risk of emission leakage, b) lower REDD+ transaction costs, c) engage a broad range of forest stakeholders, d) simplify monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV), and e) increase the likelihood that REDD+ will lead to global reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

Many political, institutional, legislative, technical, and social aspects of REDD+ still will need to be discussed/negotiated/determined/tested at all levels prior to full articulation and implementation of REDD+ policies. Therefore although some gains and further refinements have been made on REDD+, caution should be taken to avoid raising expectations of immediate carbon windfalls while many key questions are answered and rules established (see appendix 4.6 for other information on status of negotiations and what it means for technical aspects of REDD MRV design).

Recommendations Nigeria ultimately may receive compensation (e.g., carbon credit) under a United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) mechanism either by reducing losses or creating new gains as compared to Reference Level or Reference Emission Level (to be established by the country). Other opportunities might be presented by the voluntary market or other direct investments that are not necessarily within the framework of the UNFCCC.

9 UN REDD programme - http://www.un-redd.org/AboutREDD/tabid/582/Default.aspx

Page 13 of 27 Partnership Building and Scoping Mission to Cross River State Nigeria – Final Trip Report

Again many aspects of REDD+ still remain to be developed and finalized and therefore caution should be taken to avoid raising inappropriately expectations of immediate carbon windfalls while many key questions are answered and rules established.

3.0 USFS NEXT STEPS 3.1 Strategic Opportunities for Technical Assistance in Cross River State The USFS intends to cooperate with Nigerian Federal and State natural resource agencies, USAID/USDA-FAS/State Department, and conservation NGOs to initiate a natural resource program. The first objectives of this program will be to: 1) Mobilize a technical assistance mission to Cross River State to support the State Forestry Commission and its partners on forest resources planning for a single priority forest reserve to serve as a model for replication by the CRSFC. 2) Mobilize a technical assistance mission to Cross River State to work with the State Tourism Bureau on site planning to improve and link some of their nature-based tourism assets. 3) Provide small and strategic grant and technical assistance to Wildlife Conservation Society on threatened and endangered primate conservation Figure 11. CRSFC staff reviewing land cover in Cross River State. land use map. 3.2 Other Possible Technical Assistance Opportunities Other immediate areas for more formal USAID Nigeria/USFS partnerships in support of Nigerian Federal and State objectives could include: 1) USFS support through some science based analysis for decision making on climate change. Notably this could take the form of a sort of climate vulnerability assessment to orient programming of global climate change adaptation funds. USFS is implementing a similar project for USAID Liberia and can explore if such work is possible and useful in Nigeria. 2) USFS support on climate change mitigation/sustainable landscapes/REDD+ work through for example work on forest inventory and monitoring; carbon capture/sequestration and monitoring, etc. 3) USFS support on global food security, USG Feed the Future initiative or the USAID Maximizing Agricultural Revenue in Key Enterprises for Targeted Sites (MARKETS) program activities such Figure 12 . Captive group of Drills in enclosure as: at Drill Ranch. a. Agroforestry and/or watershed planning, assessments, and management in Bauchi and Sokoto States. Some of these activities could complement or expand Yankari State Game Reserve (Bauchi State) management support projects that Wildlife Conservation Society is already implementing. b. Cross sectorial land use planning work at national level or state level to support science based decision making to inform where Nigeria government institutions

Page 14 of 27 Partnership Building and Scoping Mission to Cross River State Nigeria – Final Trip Report

can target different land uses (e.g., agricultural, community forestry, mining, grazing, other conservation, etc.) and investments to meet state/national objectives in a coordinated manner.

Page 15 of 27 Partnership Building and Scoping Mission to Cross River State Nigeria – Final Trip Report

4.0 APPENDICES 4.1 Scope of work Draft - USFS Team Scope of Work

US Forest Service International Programs

SCOPING MISSION TO CROSS RIVER STATE, NIGERIA

September 2010

Introduction

Initial contact between the US Forest Service (USFS) and Cross River State Government was established by the former Governor, Donald Duke, and Gabe Onah, Managing Director of Cross River State Tourism Bureau in 2006. This contact was facilitated by Matthew Cassetta (US State Dept. Regional Environmental Officer for West and Central Africa) following a meeting with the Governor in 2005. Based on these meetings the USFS completed a preliminary mission to Cross River State in November 2006. The mission came up with four clear recommendations: 1. locate and re-gazette where necessary the boundaries of all protected areas within the state including the national park; 2. complete management plans for all protected areas within the state; 3. improve tourist facilities at Afi Mountain Wildlife Sanctuary, and 4. link tourist facilities on the Obudu Cattle Ranch with Becheve Nature Reserve and the adjacent Cross River National Park (USFS, 2006). None of these recommendations have yet been implemented.

With support from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) contact with the USFS was re- established following a meeting between the USFS and the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) in December 2009 during which time a possible scoping mission to Cross River State was discussed. There have been two major changes in Cross River State since the last USFS mission in 2006: a two-year moratorium on all logging in Cross River State was announced by the Governor, Senator Liyel Imoke, in June 2008. Since the ban was introduced the Cross River State Forestry Commission has been partly restructured so that the emphasis is no longer on logging and revenue generation but on the conservation of the state’s remaining forests including the development of opportunities in the area of ecotourism (sustainable tourism)and possible revenue from REDD. As a result there is an urgent need to review the organization and current structure of the Forestry Commission that addresses issues such as clear lines of communication, specialization and career development.

At the same time the forestry and wildlife laws of Cross River State were reviewed and a new combined forestry/wildlife law is now with the State House of Assembly for final amendments. Inputs from the USFS to critical aspects of this legislation would be of immense value. However, transforming the Cross River State Forestry Commission from its original focus on logging to one of conservation will be a long process and will require retraining and capacity building. This is an ideal time for a scoping mission from the USFS to help determine how to support the Cross River State Government and their partners to manage Cross River State’s remaining forests and wildlife.

Background

The focus of the mission will be to investigate possible ways in which to reform the Cross River State Forestry Commission which has deteriorated after many years of neglect and mis-management. The CRSFC has a poor image within the state and with local communities and lacks a clear direction and focus. Although the headquarters in Calabar is large and relatively well equipped, charge-offices elsewhere in the state are neglected, under-staffed and under-funded. Field staff display low morale, lacking field equipment and a clear mandate. Previous donor projects by ODA (later DfID) which focused on revenue generation and community forestry did little to curtail rates of forest loss within the state and some claim exacerbated the problem even further. There have been some marked improvements in the last 1-2 years at the level of the headquarters but transforming the entire CRSFC and extending the new

Page 16 of 27 Partnership Building and Scoping Mission to Cross River State Nigeria – Final Trip Report ethos to field staff will require more time and effort as well as a well thought out strategy. Therefore the key needs of the CRSFC are twofold: restructuring of the Commission and retraining its staff to meet the new conservation focus.

A copy of the Forestry Commission’s 2010 – 2013 Action Plan will be made available in advance to the USFS team to enable them have some perspective of planned activities of the Commission especially for budgeting purposes at the level of the state.

Threats

The two main threats to sustainable forest management and wildlife conservation in Cross River State are the loss of forest habitat as a result of agricultural expansion, both subsistence and commercial, and the bushmeat trade. The absence of clearly delineated and legally gazetted boundaries for all State Forest Reserves and the Cross River National Park makes the effective management of protected areas in the state near impossible. This remains a major threat to the integrity and survival of protected areas and key species.

Cross River State has lost much of its original forest cover and most of what remains today is found in forest reserves and the national park. All forest concessions within the state were revoked some years ago but illegal logging continued at an alarming scale. Cross River State occurs within a known biodiversity hotspot and includes a number of rare and endangered species notably the Cross River gorilla. However the bushmeat trade is rampant in the state including endangered species such as gorilla, chimpanzee and elephant, much of it originating from Cameroon.

Logging Moratorium

In an attempt to reduce rates of illegal logging a temporary logging ban was introduced in 2008, however it has not prevented logging within the state. A more sustainable solution to the problem is urgently required. Moreover, significant amounts of illegal timber are floated down the River Cross each year into Nigeria from Cameroon. Cross River State and Nigeria need a sustainable source of timber. It has been proposed to use the period offered by the current moratorium on logging to put in place a system to track timber from stump site to retail end user.

Sustainable Tourism

The tourism potential of Cross River State is high but also subject to high expectations. The state government has made significant investments in infrastructure to boost tourism in the state, the business, shopping and leisure resort known as Tinapa and the Obudu Cattle Ranch Resort have been the two main investments to date. See for more details.

Cross River National Park

Cross River National Park (CRNP) was established in 1991 out of forest reserves formerly managed by the state government. All national parks in Nigeria are managed by the National Park Service, a parastatal under the Federal Ministry of the Environment. CRNP is threatened by high rates of poaching, the presence of enclave villages within the park itself and unclear boundaries. A draft management plan for CRNP has been produced by WCS and is approaching finalization. Some limited support for CRNP is provided by WCS with funds from USFWS but there is no major international donor support for national parks in Nigeria, unlike Cameroon for example.

Mission Objective

The main objective of this scoping mission is to assess the current situation of forest management and wildlife conservation in Cross River State and to investigate areas of possible technical support for the Cross River State Forestry Commission by the US Forest Service.

Activities

Page 17 of 27 Partnership Building and Scoping Mission to Cross River State Nigeria – Final Trip Report

The USFS team will meet with key partners in the state including but not limited to the Governor, relevant Special Advisers to the Governor, Cross River State Forestry Commission, Cross River State Ministry of Environment, Cross River State Tourism Bureau and Cross River National Park. The team will also meet with relevant NGOs including but not limited to WCS, the Nigerian Conservation Foundation, Cercopan and Pandrillus. In view of seeing firsthand the natural resource management challenges and opportunities and gaining the valuable field perspective from field level stakeholders the team will visit the Afi Mountain Wildlife Sanctuary, the Mbe Mountains, Cross River National Park and the Obudu Plateau.

The team will also visit Abuja and will meet with officials of the US Embassy, USAID, other technical and development assistance partners (e.g., CIDA, and others), Nigeria National Park Service, the Federal Ministry of Environment, and others to be determined.

USFS Team Tasks: 1. Engage in technical exchange sessions on forest management and wildlife conservation; 2. Present formally and informally the USFS methods, principles, and approaches on forest management and wildlife conservation to partners; 3. Develop a trip report on the mission (see description under ‘Deliverables’). 4. Be available for periodic follow up on information exchanges once the team has returned.

Composition of USFS Team

This USFS team will consist of three individuals (including an IP Staff member) with a collective set of experience in the following:

• Strategic direction and management of national forests for multiple objectives – namely habitat conservation, recreation/tourism, and sustainable forest management including sustainable utilization and value addition to forest products; • Planning, delineating, and monitoring in forest production and protected area zones; • Wildlife management and biodiversity conservation approaches in wilderness/protected areas; • Assessing, monitoring and addressing logging impacts on wildlife, watersheds, and local populations. • Ability to adapt US knowledge and processes to the context of a region with limited human, financial and material resources and with different, even sometimes conflicting policy, legal, social, cultural and economic frameworks and natural resources.

Deliverables

The USFS team will produce a report on the scoping mission detailing activities during the mission and all results and findings of the work toward the accomplishment of the objectives and tasks listed above. Additionally, the report will include recommendations for the sustainable management and conservation of the state’s remaining forests. The report will include an action plan for possible areas of future intervention and support from the USFS together including possible funding sources for implementation. This report will include, but not be limited to:

1. Executive summary 2. Introduction 3. Issues, findings, & recommendations 4. Next steps a. Action plan for possible USFS technical assistance b. Others 5. Appendices a. Scope of work b. Itinerary c. List of contacts made

Timing and Duration : September 2010

Page 18 of 27 Partnership Building and Scoping Mission to Cross River State Nigeria – Final Trip Report

Funding

The USFS will support the staff time, international, and in country travel, MI&E, and lodging expenses for the USFS team as well as other field visit facilitation expenses.

Logistics

All logistics will be coordinated by WCS in collaboration with Cross River State Government and the US Embassy.

Read ahead / background documents:

Blackett, H. (2008) Cross-border flows of timber and wood products in West Arica. European Commission.

CRSFC. Action Plan and Budget 2010-2013

Oates F. Myth and Reality in the Rainforest. Chp. 6

Oates, J.F., Bergl, R.A, and Linder, J.M. 2004. Africa’s Gulf of Guinea Forests: Biodiversity Patterns and Conservation Priorities. Advances in Applied Biodiversity Science , number 6. Washington D.C.: Conservation International. . http://www.bioone.org/doi/book/10.1896/1-881173-82-8. Chps 3, 5, and 7

Oates, J., J. Sunderland-Groves, R. Bergl, A. Dunn, A. Nicholas, E. Takang, F. Omeni, I. Imong, F. Fotso, L. Nkembi and L. Williamson. 2007. Regional Action Plan for the Conservation of the Cross River Gorilla (Gorilla gorilla diehli) . IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group and Conservation International, Arlington, VA, USA

USFS (2006) Critical Needs Assessment for Cross River State Protected Areas and Eco-Tourism Development. Brooks, Neary and Asuquo.

USAID-SPACE Cross River State Project Final Report

Sunderland , T. (2001) Cross River State Community Forestry Project: Non-Timber Forest Products Advisor, Report. ERM and DfID.

Morakinyo, T. (2001). Cross River State Community Forestry Project: Forest Exploitation Adviser, Report. ERM and DfID.

Some NGO partners in Nigeria:

WCS http://www.wcs.org/where-we-work/africa/nigeria.aspx

Pandrillus http://www.pandrillus.org/

CERCOPAN - Centre for Education, Research & Conservation of Primates and Nature - http://www.cercopan.org/about_us.htm

Nigerian Conservation Foundation http://www.ncfnigeria.org/about.php

Page 19 of 27 Partnership Building and Scoping Mission to Cross River State Nigeria – Final Trip Report

4.2 Itinerary Date Description of meeting

Sept 13 Arrive in Abuja and transfer to Hotel

Overnight Abuja Hotel 

Sept 14 Meeting Charge'/Acting Deputy Chief of Mission and other senior representatives from Embassy

Regional security officer (RSO) briefing

USAID – Howard Batson, USAID Nigeria Economic Growth and Environment team

Meeting with Minister of Environment - Honorable John Odey

Overnight Abuja Hotel 

Sept 15 Flight to Calabar

Lunch / introduction meeting with Andrew Dunn, Wildlife Conservation Society, Nigeria Country Program Director

Meetings with Cross River State Forestry Commission (CRSFC), Odigha Odigha, Chairman CRSFC and senior staff.

Dinner or courtesy visit with Governor’s Representative, Dr Julius Okputu, Commissioner, Cross River State Ministry of Environment

Overnight Hotel in Calabar 

Sept 16 Meetings with NGOs at the CRSFC: WCS, Pandrillus, Cercopan, NCF, Concern Universal, Onesky, DIN, NGOCE

Meeting with Conservator/Park Warden - Cross River National Park, Richard Effa

Overnight Hotel in Calabar 

Sept 17 Meeting with Cross River State Tourism Bureau

Visit to timber market in Calabar and informal discussions with timber dealers and union/association representatives

Visit to CRS mangrove reserve and discussions with representative of the CRS Anti- Deforestation Task Force ( Peter Jenkins)

Overnight Hotel in Calabar 

Sept 18 Visit to Ekinta Forest Reserve (local Forest Reserve), site of example CRSFC ecological restoration efforts, and discussion with Oban CRSFC charge office staff, CRSFC field staff

Visit to Cross River National Park (Oban) including discussions with CRNP range office staff and trek into CRNP, CRSFC and NPS field staff

Overnight Hotel in Calabar 

Page 20 of 27 Partnership Building and Scoping Mission to Cross River State Nigeria – Final Trip Report

Sept 19 Visit Mbe Mountains, Wula I including meeting with the Conservation Association of the Mbe Mountains (Community-owned wildlife sanctuary), CAMM leaders, WCS project staff, CRS Tourism Bureau.

Strategic discussion on Afi mountain challenges and opportunities

Overnight at Drill Ranch 

Sept 20 Drill Ranch visit (Primate enclosures and tree nursery) as well as visit to nearby CRS Tourism Bureau canopy walkway

Visit Afi Mountain Wildlife Sanctuary/Afi River Forest Reserve (State-managed wildlife sanctuary and forest reserve) and discussion with community representatives at Baunchor village (new forest protection and compliance committee) and demonstration from school conservation club, CRSFC staff, WCS staff

Visit CRSFC office at Bateriko with meeting with broader forest protection and compliance committee, CRSFC staff, WCS staff

Obudu Ranch facilities visit including cable car

Overnight at Obudu 

Sept 21 Visit to CRNP ranger post and discussion with field staff

Meeting with Awi CRSFC zone and charge office and visit to Gmelina plantation.

Overnight Hotel in Calabar 

Sept 22 Final meetings with CRSFC and other stakeholders, Odigha Odigha, Chairman CRSFC and staff.

WCS office visit and discussion with GIS expert

Meeting with Governor and his senior staff, Senator Liyel Imoke, Governor of Cross River State.

Overnight Hotel in Calabar 

Sept 23 Departure Calabar to Abuja (Arik Nigeria)

Debrief with USAID EGE team

Overnight Abuja Hotel 

Sept 24 Debrief with US Embassy, USAID, and WCS

Final wrap up, trip report writing, etc.

Delta Air #225 departure

Page 21 of 27 Partnership Building and Scoping Mission to Cross River State Nigeria – Final Trip Report

4.3 List of contacts made Name Title/Institution

US Government

Jim McAnulty Charge d’Affaires, US Embassy Abuja

Perry Ball ADCM, US Embassy Abuja

Carolyn Jensen Acting Economics Chief, US Embassy Abuja

Louise Ramsey-Dixon US Embassy Abuja

Sharon Pauling Director, USAID/Nigeria Economic Growth and Environment Office

Howard Batson Senior Agriculture Specialist, USAID/Nigeria

Mike Anderson Economic Growth and Environment, USAID/Nigeria

Abdulkadir Gudugi Economic Growth and Environment, USAID/Nigeria

Imeh Okan Program Manager, Energy and Climate Change, USAID/Nigeria

Nigeria Federal Government

John Odey Honourable Minister, Federal Ministry of Environment

Peter Papkar Forestry Department, Federal Ministry of Environment

Haruna Tanko Abubakar Conservator General, Nigeria National Park Service

Richard Effa Conservator, Cross River National Park

Range Officer, Cross River National Park (Oban)

Nigeria, Cross River State Government

Senator Liyel Imoke Governor of Cross River State

Dr Julius Okputu Commissioner, Cross River State Ministry of Environment

Dr. Ikani Wogar Special Adviser to the Governor: Forestry, Conservation and Biodiversity

Gabe Onah Special Advisor to Cross Rivers State Governor; Tourism Development

Michael Williams Managing Director, Cross River State Tourism Bureau

Clement Umina Products Development, Cross River State Tourism Bureau

Odigha Odigha Board Chairman, Cross River State Forestry Commission

Ntufam Innocent Ntunyang Board Member, Cross River State Forestry Commission

Arikpo Arikpo Board Member, Cross River State Forestry Commission

Page 22 of 27 Partnership Building and Scoping Mission to Cross River State Nigeria – Final Trip Report

Dr Augustine Ogogo Board Member, Cross River State Forestry Commission

Iwara Iwara Head of Department, Conservation, Protection, and Compliance, Cross River State Forestry Commission

Francis Aduma Zonal Officer, Cross River State Forestry Commission

Charge Officer, Cross River State Forestry Commission

International and National NGOs

Andrew Dunn Nigeria Country Program Director, Wildlife Conservation Society

Okeke O. Francis GIS Officer, Wildlife Conservation Society

Peter Jenkins Pandrillus and Cross River State Anti-Logging Task Force

Ugah Godwin Communications Officer, One Sky

Edwin Usang Member, Pilot Projects Advisory Group, Building Nigeria’s Response to Climate Change

Claire Coulson CERCOPAN

Edwin Usang NGOCE

James Odey DIN

Ibrahim Inahoro NCF

Tony Attah Concern Universal

Alade Adeleke Director of Technical Programmes, Nigerian Conservation Foundation

CAMM leaders Conservation Association of the Mbe Mountains

Sam Ubi Ettah Afi Mountain Wildlife Sanctuary

Many clan heads, traditional leaders, women, youth and other community members

Page 23 of 27 Partnership Building and Scoping Mission to Cross River State Nigeria – Final Trip Report

4.4 Additional Perspectives on Overall Strategic Planning and a revised 5 Year Action Plan The following management model or approach has proved useful in the USFS and could as well in CRSFC:

1. Planning – ideas, vision, where the institution is going. 2. Organizing – how to get there and what is needed in personnel/equipment/infrastructure. 3. Directing – training, field manuals, handbooks, and supervision. 4. Controlling – monitoring and evaluation, supervision, and adaptive management.

The following represents some rather crude notes that resulted from a brainstorming session late in the mission on how the CRSFC could possibly prioritize its actions in the coming years taking into account a certain number of assumptions. Overall this comes from an observation that so many, varied activities are ongoing and that perhaps CRSFC could benefit from focusing on fewer, simpler, and more reasonable tasks over the immediate term. Other broader areas/themes/departments should be kept as placeholders or dedicating minimal staff in the interim period while core functions are developed and implemented. These notes are included here not as recommendations per se but rather to stimulate thinking and action on strategic planning and possible a revised 5 year action plan.

I. Strategic plan for the CRS forest resources (Forest Sector Strategy?) could identify the following: a. Vision/goal/ultimate outcome – perhaps something like - expanding natural and working forest cover for people, jobs, and ecosystem services. b. Identify priority geographic areas c. Identify priority actions (e.g. bold pushes and declarations followed by sustained actions) II. 5 year action plan a. Identify priority actions in to be implemented in a step-wise or phased approach. Prioritize actions by what is reasonable granted current staff/partners/resources and seems to be most urgent recognizing the threats. The five critical areas could be the following: i. New law sensitization to all stakeholder groups at all key levels. ii. Boundary demarcation including rapid resource inventory and conditions (this supports getting the rangers back in the forest where their work should be). iii. Targeted illegal farm reclamation in priority areas and initiation of ecological restoration. iv. Fuel wood and construction timber plantation restored or established around key urban centers or other strategic locations. v. Lift ban and initiate sustainable harvest and forest products trade regularization with Cameroon (this would include lower waste / more efficient techniques such as portable mills rather than chainsaws. Additionally a simple wood tracking system could then be deployed) b. Cross cutting

Page 24 of 27 Partnership Building and Scoping Mission to Cross River State Nigeria – Final Trip Report

i. Needs and info assessments 1. Staff skills and structure/personnel management and reporting 2. Timber/habitat requirements ii. State wide Land and resource use plans iii. Management unit level plans with prescriptions and zoning and stakeholder buy-in through inclusive process and regular vetting. iv. Pronouncements of forest related policy actions 1. Business development opportunities linked with value added policies and actions occur for all wood products before export from the state. v. Several lean advisory committees established with representatives from: 1. Community, youth, women, traditional and clan leaders 2. Timber dealers 3. NGOs 4. Other private sector interest III. Implementation and Adaptive Management

Assumptions:

1. Governor remains committed to the forest sector reform agenda, makes annual bold declarations, and commits appropriate operation budget annually. 2. CRSFC leadership and technical staff remain committed and rangers are working in the priority areas (forest). 3. Technical partners provide mentoring and training annually corresponding at least with the big push thematic trainings. 4. Partnerships can be brokered between CRSFC, CRNP, and NGOs for joint deployment of resources (human, material, financial) for common goals. 5. CRSFC and partners can effectively carry out the “social sensitization and listening” in the law and its related management actions.

Training calendar for field technicians (charge officers and rangers?) associated with 5 year action plan:

1. Training 100% for time period one priority activity and implementation 10 2. Time period two, 80% staff trained and implementing priority activity two with 20% focusing on priority activity one. 3. Time period two, 60% staff trained and implementing priority activity three with 20% focusing on priority activity two and 20% focusing on priority activity one. 4. Etc.

10 “Time period” could be 1 year, 6 months, 18 months, whatever the CRSFC determines is sufficient.

Page 25 of 27 Partnership Building and Scoping Mission to Cross River State Nigeria – Final Trip Report

4.5 Possible Land and Resource Use Plan Components Drawing from USFS analysis and inputs in Central Africa through the USAID Central Africa Regional Program for the Environment (CARPE) the following “outlines” of management plans might be useful to stimulate reflection in Cross River State. 11

Throughout Central Africa, timber concessions are award to private companies for management following national rules and regulations. An important condition of the concession contract is that requirement for the concessionaire to develop a management plan with more or less the following key elements/components for a typical Extractive Resource Plan:

1. Introductory Information 2. Descriptive Information 3. Zoning, Usage Rights, and Management Prescriptions 4. Plan Implementation and Evaluation 5. Economic and Financial Information

Multi-use landscapes are also managed in Central Africa including protected areas, community natural resource management areas, and extractive zones. The following components are typical for Landscape Plans:

1. Executive Summary 2. Introduction a. Unique Value of the Landscape b. Description of the Planning Process for the Landscape c. Characteristics of the Landscape 3. Desired Conditions 4. Landscape Objectives 5. Zoning 6. Guidelines 7. Management Actions 8. Implementation a. Roles and Responsibilities b. Public Participation Strategy c. Monitoring and Evaluation d. Multi-Year Schedule 9. References

11 See the series of USFS Land Use Planning guides for CARPE found at: http://carpe.umd.edu/Plone/resources/carpemgmttools

Page 26 of 27 Partnership Building and Scoping Mission to Cross River State Nigeria – Final Trip Report

4.6 Status of Certain Key Technical Aspects of REDD+ Negotiations Under the current negotiation text under UNFCCC (FCCC/AWGLCA/2010/6), the expected REDD+ mechanism is defined as: “ developing country Parties should contribute to mitigation actions in the forest sector by undertaking the following activities: a) Reducing emissions from deforestation; b) Reducing emissions from forest degradation; c) Conservation of forest carbon stocks; d) Sustainable management of forest; e) Enhancement of forest carbon stocks. ”

The COP decision 4/CP 15 on methodological guidance agreed to in Copenhagen used the following wording to define REDD+ by “Acknowledging the importance of reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries”. These REDD+ activities are shown in Figure 1.

The Decision states that countries will have to use the most recent Guidance and Guidelines of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC), as adopted or encouraged by the COP, as a basis for estimating anthropogenic forest-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by sources and removals by sinks, forest carbon stocks and forest area changes (Decision4/CP.15 Article 1 (c)). Estimating emissions and removals by sinks will have to be done in an adequate, consistent, complete and transparent manner and be applied to the five carbon pools that will have to be measured and reported on (these being: aboveground biomass, belowground biomass, deadwood, litter and soil organic matter) (IPCC, 2003).

Moreover, the IPCC proposes two ways of estimating carbon stock changes: Gain-Loss and Stock Change. Gain-Loss refers to a method in which the changes of carbon stocks are estimated by considering all the pertinent processes and calculated as the difference between the carbon accumulation (e.g., tree growth) and the loss of carbon (source-sink). The Stock Change method measures carbon as the difference of carbon stocks for a given land unit over two points in time (net change over time).

Figure 1. FAO representation of the 5 REDD+ activities

REDD+ Forest Related Activities

Conservation

Deforestation

SMF & Enhancement of forest C stock

Degradation Deforestation

Enhancement of forest C stock

Page 27 of 27