The rights of local and indigenous peoples in the light of forest and conservation policies

Full text

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

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

The rights of local and indigenous peoples in the light of forest and conservation policies
The forests of the Congo Basin | 341
The “Indigènes”1 and colonial-era forestry
Two distinct periods characterized French colonial rule in French Equatorial Africa, one before and
one after the introduction of a new policy on the “native” population adopted in 1941. After the demise
of African logging enterprises, ‘indigenes’ were primarily seen by French administrators as a source
of unskilled labour in the forestry sector during both periods. ‘Indigenes’ were labourers (without
status) initially engaged by the concessionaires to supply export markets with “rich products”,
namely wild rubber (both tree rubber, Funtumia elastica, and vine rubber, Landolphia) and ivory.
Rubber production was abandoned after 1920. In addition, ‘indigenes’ supported the French war
efforts (World War I, and WWII) and post WWI reconstruction. British and French efforts to reach
a “cordial economic agreement” with French Equatorial Africa in 1919 were not successful (Michel
1975). Similarly, French Equatorial Africa’s initial attempts to introduce horticulture and small
livestock farming between 1907 and 1910 all failed. A subsequent treaty signed in 1911 led to further
efforts to establish coffee, rubber, cotton, rice and cassava plantations, as well as a new forestry
industry (Coquery-Vidrovitch 2001).
French Equatorial Africa slowly emerged from a period of stagnation after WWI, as a competitive
economy gradually replaced the monopolies previously enjoyed by large concessionaires. New
investments were made in timber, notably in okoume (Aucoumea klaineana) in Gabon, new
agricultural crops, road and rail infrastructure, and the mining sector. All concessions remained
dependent on “native” labour. Working conditions were appalling and wages did not keep pace
with colonial taxation nor the ination of import prices. Traditional food production systems
were disrupted, resulting in widespread famine, revolts between 1928 and 1932, and rural exodus
(Coquery-Vidrovitch 2001; Rich 2007). An anti-colonial movement led by André Matsoua
established the Société Amicale des Originaires of French Equatorial Africa and sought French
citizenship for the subjects of the territory in the late 1920s and early 1930s (Ansprenger 1989). The
more progressive labour laws introduced in French West Africa did not extend to French Equatorial
Africa (Bertin1929).
A new policy for ‘indigenes’ was introduced in French Equatorial Africa by the Governor General,
Félix Éboué, on 8November 1941. The document was prepared for the Brazzaville Conference, held
from 30January to 8February 1944. The conference brought together all the colonial governors and
sought to realign the policies of the French colonial empire (Éboué 1941). The conference was held
over two decades after Maurice Delafosse’s Native Policy for French West Africa was presented at a
Franco-British colonial conference convened by the French Colonial Union in Paris in 1919. The so-
called Éboué circular called for traditions to be respected, customary chiefs to be supported, existing
social structures to be developed and working conditions to be improved.
Working conditions in the forestry camps did not improve signicantly after 1941 (Moutangu 2013).
While forced labour was abolished in the French colonies in 1946 and a new labour code was adopted
in 1952 (Cooper 2018), labour-intensive methods continued to be used in the Central African Republic
until 1965 (Tchakossa 2012). In 1953, 39percent of Gabon’s working population was employed in the
forestry sector (Mouloungui 2014), suggesting that wages and employment conditions for African
workers had improved since the time of company concessions. Strikes did, however, take place in
1957. Conditions were inuenced by the increasing mechanization of logging operations, improved
road infrastructure and the adoption of new technologies (like aerial photography), giving African
nationals more opportunity to develop specialized skills.
1 The term “Indigène” was used during the colonial period to refer to local and indigenous people to distinguish them from (European) colonizers
and people brought in from other parts of Africa (see Bruel 1930 and Bruel 1935).

Chapter 13
342 | The forests of the Congo Basin
Contemporary conception of local and indigenous peoples in Central
Africa
The situation of forest peoples, in particular hunter-gatherers, and transhumant and nomadic
populations, such as the Mbororo Fulani herders, has raised the question of rights and a specic
status to protect these populations from threats to their culture, their way of life and their territory.
Despite the fact that many groups, including nomadic, herder and hunter-gatherer peoples, are highly
vulnerable and extremely marginalized, the legal recognition of the status of indigenous peoples
is still a work in progress in Africa. “Indigenous peoples” are often minority groups in a country
who differ from the rest of the population in the historical continuity of their specic production
methods or access to natural resources. A wide range of peoples are considered indigenous, including
nomadic, pastoralist or herder, and hunter-gatherer peoples (International Labour Organization
2013). In Central Africa, “Pygmy” and Mbororo peoples are explicitly recognized as indigenous (see
Table13.1).
At the international level, the recognition of indigenous peoples is based, on the one hand, on the
anteriority of their presence on a territory in comparison with subsequent population movements or
colonization and, on the other hand, on self-identication, which is legally recognized independently
of national governments (Karpe 2008). This description is however contested in many Central
African countries. The normative framework for protecting the rights of communities in Central
Africa does not therefore always distinguish between local communities and indigenous peoples.
In Cameroon, for example, forestry legislation does not include a clear legal denition of indigenous
peoples. The preamble to the Constitution of 18January 1996 afrms without further clarication
that “the government shall protect minorities and protect the rights of indigenous peoples”. The
recognition of indigenous peoples and the elevation of the need to protect them to constitutional
status does not, however, give any indication of how to distinguish them from other social
groups at the national level. In 2021, the Cameroonian legislator further claried the concept in
Act No.2021/014 of 9July 2021 governing access to genetic resources, their derivatives, associated
Table 13.1: Indigenous peoples in Central Africa
Country Indigenous peoples
Burundi Batwa
Cameroon Bakola / Bagyeli
Baka
Bedzan
Mbororo
Gabon Baka
Central African Republic Baaka / Aka
(Bayaka, Biaka)
Mbororo
Republic of the Congo Yak a
DRC Batwa
Bacwa
Bambuti
Rwanda Batwa
Source: African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) and International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA)
(2006)

The rights of local and indigenous peoples in the light of forest and conservation policies
The forests of the Congo Basin | 343
traditional knowledge, and fair and equitable sharing of the benets arising from their use. Article7
sheds light on the legal concept of indigenous peoples: “Indigenous peoples and local communities:
communities of inhabitants who rely on their traditional knowledge to obtain their livelihoods
from their natural environment and genetic resources, and whose way of life is conducive to the
conservation and sustainable use of the resources”. This approach differs somewhat from that
adopted in international legal instruments, in particular International Labour Organization (ILO)
Convention No.169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’
Rights. Cameroonian legislation, for example, groups indigenous peoples and local communities
together rather than distinguishing them as recommended by international standards.
In the Republic of the Congo, the relevant legislation identies indigenous populations much more
precisely, but explicitly rejects anteriority as a dening characteristic. Article 1 of Congolese Act
No.5-2011 of 25February 2011 on the promotion and protection of the rights of indigenous peoples
denes indigenous peoples: “For the purposes of this Act, without prejudice to any anteriority
on the national territory, indigenous populations shall mean those populations who differ from
other groups of the national population in their cultural identity, their way of life and their extreme
vulnerability”.
Rwanda, for its part, prefers the concept of “historically marginalized groups”. The reference to
marginalization makes it possible to confer “indigenous” status on all the social groups that make
up the Rwandan population. A report on the implementation of the African Charter on Human and
Peoples’ Rights in Rwanda specically highlights that: “[I]t is difcult, if not impossible, to dene
indigenous peoples in the Rwandan context. This is because, in view of our history and knowledge,
we cannot say that any group of Rwandans is considered to have a preferential right to Rwanda
on the basis of the concept of indigenous people or any other form of ownership. All Rwandans
are historically regarded as indigenous to Rwanda, sharing resources, opportunities, and social
and cultural values. However, it is clear from our history that Rwanda is home to communities that
can be categorized as historically marginalized. This situation is a direct consequence of the self-
serving policies pursued by pre-genocide regimes. Such articial divisions are currently prohibited
as inhuman and barbaric practices that belong in the past”.2
While countries’ national legislation appears to be inexible with regard to their recognition of
indigenous identity in respect of specic groups, governments are nevertheless relatively exible
when it comes to implementing commitments agreed with international nancial institutions. For
example, the World Bank accords indigenous people’s high priority in its operational policies and
requires borrowing governments to comply with these policies when implementing projects that it
nances (Couillard et al. 2009). By agreeing to these instruments, governments tacitly recognize the
existence of a specic indigenous identity on their territory.
COMIFAC (2010) has adopted the denition laid down in ILO Convention No.169 and World Bank
Policy 4.10, which was taken up by the 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples (World Bank 2017). COMIFAC recognizes indigenous peoples as “people whose cultural and
social identity distinguishes them from the dominant groups in society and makes them vulnerable
in the process of development. They have an economic and social status that limits their ability to
defend their interests and rights to land and other productive resources, or that limits their ability to
participate in and benet from development. They are characterized by a strong attachment to the
2 Republic of Rwanda, Ministry of Justice. Ninth and tenth periodic reports of Rwanda under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
Period covered by the report: 2005-July 2009. July 2009. Para. 50.

Chapter 13
344 | The forests of the Congo Basin
territories of their ancestors and to the natural resources of these places, the presence of customary
social and political institutions, economic systems geared towards subsistence production, an
indigenous language, often different from the majority language, and self-identication and
recognition by peers as belonging to a distinct cultural group”.
Rather than focusing on anteriority, which is contested by governments, distinctness of cultural
identity and self-determination, the concept of indigenousness should be considered in its broader
context. In this vein, in the sense used by the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights
(ACHPR), the question of indigenousness is of particular relevance in two spheres: human rights
and the environment. According to the ACHPR, the term “indigenous peoples” has come to have
connotations and meanings that go far beyond the question of “who came rst”. It is now a global
term and movement that ghts for the rights of and justice for specic groups who have been left
behind by development, who are viewed negatively by dominant development paradigms, whose
cultures and lifestyles are discriminated against and disrespected, and whose very existence is
threatened with extinction (ACHPR and IWGIA 2005).
Dening the concept of local communities is equally complex. Karsenty (2008) has already noted the
difculty of identifying local communities, given that the concept does not dene clear boundaries
nor xed rules for doing so. There are, however, some criteria that make it possible to identify local
communities. They are traditional groups who, like indigenous peoples, have specic customs and
beliefs, but who do not have any territorial claim linked to their prior occupation of the land. This
does not prevent them from claiming specic rights over the natural resources located around their
settlements. On this point, COMIFAC draws on Article1 of Act No.011/2002 of 29August 2002 on
the Forestry Code in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), which states: “local populations
are village populations settled in forest areas, who organize their lives on the basis of custom and
tradition and who are united by bonds of solidarity and kinship that underpin their cohesion and
ensure their continuity in space and time”.
13.1 A normative framework with room for
improvement
Several legal instruments promote the rights of local and indigenous peoples, including to land and
natural resources. At both the international and the regional level, the protection regime comprises
both hard and soft law instruments (Siegele et al. 2009). Some of these instruments are rooted in the
United Nations system and others take the form of multilateral and regional agreements.
13.1.1 International protection instruments
The legal protection of indigenous peoples is enshrined in international instruments such as ILO
Convention No.169 (1989) and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
(2007). The Convention on Biological Diversity also offers opportunities for the protection of local
and indigenous peoples. ILO Convention No.169 is a binding instrument that requires ratifying
countries to implement specic policies and measures that respect the rights of indigenous peoples,
such as self-determination, autonomy and collective land rights. The United Nations Declaration on
the other hand is not legally binding. It does, however, have considerable “moral weight”, though
this is not sufcient to allow it to arbitrate on nor dene specic rights for the whole world, at any
time (Pelican 2009).

The rights of local and indigenous peoples in the light of forest and conservation policies
The forests of the Congo Basin | 345
The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted by 143countries,
including all African countries. In contrast, the Central African Republic (CAR) is the only African
country to have ratied ILO Convention No.169, which it did in 2010. The vast majority of African
countries have refrained from acceding to this instrument because self-determination is such
a divisive domestic issue. Moreover, national governments often prefer to avoid making binding
commitments at the international level, so as to limit the delegation of their authority to other
centres of power.
The Convention on Biological Diversity has been ratied by all 10COMIFAC member countries.
Among others, this Convention – in particular Article8(j) thereof – has catalysed the claims made
by indigenous peoples’ organizations. Moreover, highlighting the links between these threads
promotes more coordinated allocation of nancial assistance. For example, the Batwa of DRC are
supported by various donors, such as the European Union and Norway, through anti-deforestation,
climate change adaptation and forest management governance programmes, and by the World
Bank’s operational policies on indigenous peoples. International organizations are also very active
in this area: Forest Peoples Programme (Couillard et al. 2009), for example, is the best known and
works in the area of forest management in the Congo Basin (Boutinot and Karpe 2020).
In addition to those found in international legal instruments, specic provisions for indigenous
peoples are included in programmes to review land and forest law or to adopt and implement policies
to combat climate change and deforestation (such as Reducing emissions from deforestation and
forest degradation (REDD)) (Alvarado and Wertz-Kanounnikoff 2008). Such provisions can also
be found in the rules established by forestry certications, such as the Forest Stewardship Council
(FSC) certication.
13.1.2 National protection instruments
At the national level, the need to protect the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities
is consistently asserted in the forestry legislation of Congo Basin countries. Their laws formally
recognize the rights of these groups to their ancestral lands. The acknowledgement of customary
usage rights is often harnessed as the legal mechanism for the recognition and protection of the
Table 13.2: Non-exhaustive list of major binding international mechanisms relating to the
rights of local communities and indigenous peoples in Central Africa
Legally binding instrument Year signed
1 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 16 December 1966
2 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 16 December 1966
3 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination 21 December 1965
4 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) 5 June 1992
5 Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of
Benets Arising from their Utilization to the CBD 29 October 2010
6International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture 3 November 2001
7 ILO Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention No. 169 1989
8 African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights June 1981
9 Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Rights of Women in
Africa (Maputo Protocol)
11 July 2003
Source: Authors

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

The rights of local and indigenous peoples in the light of forest and conservation policies
The forests of the Congo Basin | 347
13.2 The mixed evolution of the rights of
local communities in production forests
13.2.1 The remarkable expansion of social forestry in
the Congo Basin
The term “social forestry” in this context will be used in its broadest sense. It will be used to identify
both strategies to stimulate the active participation of local communities in diversied small-
scale forest management activities to improve their living conditions and approaches to forest
management that are socially responsible because they respect the rights of local communities and
contribute to local development (Wiersum 1999).
In the second half of the 1970s, governments began to recognize that forest management had thus
far been focused on serving national interests and those of western companies rather than on the
needs of local communities and indigenous peoples (Barnes and Ramsay 1982; FAO 1978; Westoby
1989). The forestry sector had therefore performed poorly in terms of improving the wellbeing of
people living in or around forests and had failed to mobilize local capacity to help manage forest
resources effectively and sustainably (FAO 1985; Gregersen et al. 1989).
In the 1990s (and following the 1992 Rio Earth Summit), the concept of sustainable management
emerged, aimed at improving the well-being of local communities, countries’ economic development,
forest sustainability and biodiversity conservation. Local communities are expected to be involved
in the forest management process so their rights, ways of life and wellbeing are better understood
and protected, and to participate in decision-making (in particular on the boundaries of the blocks
allocated to them: community development areas or agricultural or human occupation blocks).
Currently, forestry concessions are managed according to the rules set out in a forest management
plan, in which local practices should be recognized and protected. In practice, forest management
plans set out actions in support of local communities (through terms of reference that commit
the forest manager to respect communities’ usage rights and to help alleviate rural poverty). In
some countries, such as Gabon and Cameroon, a share of the taxes paid per cubic metre of wood
harvested is also paid to communities to support their development. While local development and
poverty alleviation are the purview of the public authorities, the government often withdraws from
forest areas, putting a lot of pressure on private operators, which are forced to take its place (e.g.
maintaining the road network, building schools and health centres).
There are often conicts between local communities and forestry concessionaires, but also between
communities, when, for example, the nancial income from logging is not distributed equally by
the local authority (Cerutti et al. 2010; Eteme 2015). Conicts in forestry concessions are likely
linked to the reduction in the area dedicated to subsistence agriculture (even where management
plans provide for the designation of areas for these activities: community development areas and
agricultural blocks) and traditional hunting and gathering, as well as to weak compliance with
social provisions (Buttoud and Nguinguiri 2016; Collas de Chatelperron 2005; Tsanga et al. 2020).
Over recent decades, social forestry has been adopted as a new forest management strategy
aimed at improving the livelihoods of rural communities (Lacuna-Richman 2012; Moeliono et al.
2017; Sunderlin 1997; Westoby 1989; Wiersum 1999). Social forestry promotes forest management
activities that involve local communities, who take on some responsibility for forest management

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

The rights of local and indigenous peoples in the light of forest and conservation policies
The forests of the Congo Basin | 349
legal and regulatory environment favourable to participatory forestry; (iii) ensure adequate support
from government technical services and civil society; and (iv) periodically assess the scale and
effectiveness of participatory forestry.
13.2.2 The mixed record of community forestry
Although community forests are provided for in the legal frameworks of all Congo Basin countries,
few have been established and implementing them effectively remains a challenge in most countries
(Beauchamp and Ingram 2011; Cerutti et al. 2010; Julve Larrubia et al. 2013; Lescuyer et al. 2019).
While, in theory, community forestry has the potential to drive local development, advances in
the normative framework are hampered in practice by the complexity and cost of allocation and
implementation procedures. It follows that, under current arrangements, not only are community
forests not protable, but they also facilitate the conduct of illegal activities (Cameroonian
community forests are widely suspected of being used as a cover for illegal logging).
Box 13.1: Barriers to more effective participatory forestry
Jean-Claude Nguinguiri
Policy, regulatory and institutional frameworks are still incomplete, complex and sometimes
inadequate, creating an environment that is not conducive to the realization of the full
potential of participatory forestry.
Some countries do not yet have formal mechanisms for recognizing rights or for transferring
rights and management responsibilities to indigenous peoples and local communities. This
results in confusion over the type and nature of their forest land rights.
Community forests are the basis of the most common form of participatory forestry. The
exclusionary nature of the model as it is currently implemented prevents it from being
applied in areas where there are overlapping rights and uses, including on land traditionally
recognized as indigenous peoples’ and local communities’ within forestry or industrial
agriculture concessions, mining areas or where there are oil and gas wells.
Government support for indigenous peoples and local communities is weak, several countries
do not have participatory forestry units, and human resources and technical expertise are
inadequate.
In the absence of information on the effectiveness of participatory forestry, governments
struggle to tailor their policy choices in view of lessons learned.
The entrepreneurial and managerial capacity of local communities is still weak and access to
investments, markets and therefore to improved nancial capital is limited.
Most countries do not make good use of the Sub-regional guidelines for the participation
of local and indigenous communities and NGOs in sustainable forest management in
CentralAfrica.

Chapter 13
350 | The forests of the Congo Basin
An evaluation of 30community forests in Cameroon highlighted the difculty of complying with the
requirements of the legality grids agreed as part of Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPAs) under
the EU Action Plan for Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) and of ensuring
the traceability of the products harvested (Fomou et al. 2017). Community forestry was slower to
develop in Gabon (Vermeulen 2008). The number of community forests remains low and practices
in the vast majority of them are not legally compliant. In CAR, there has only been one attempt to set
up a community forest. The initiative was later abandoned because the project was located in the
production block of an Exploitation and Planning Permit (PEA) concession and was in fact unlawful.
In the Republic of the Congo, community forestry legislation was only adopted recently and has
not yet been implemented. In DRC, around 100 local community forestry concessions4 have been
awarded over considerable areas in recent years, but almost all depend on external technical and
nancial support and it is still too early to judge the success of this model, which is very different
from others, whose predicted limitations have yet to be proven (Vermeulen and Karsenty 2016).
Data collected over the last decade, mainly in Cameroon, show that this form of logging has
produced mixed results when assessed against the key aims of social forestry.
13.2.3 The complexity of implementing traditional
usage rights
The adoption of the industrial forestry concession model at the beginning of the 1990s did not
fundamentally challenge the usage rights of local people, but did limit them to subsistence practices.
Commercial exploitation and deforestation were not permitted, nor therefore was slash and burn
agriculture. The rights of indigenous peoples and local communities are recognized and guaranteed
4 See, in particular, Vermeulen and Karsenty (2017) and Lescuyer et al (2019) for a description of the type of community forestry specic to DRC.
Table 13.3: Local socioeconomic impacts of decentralized forest management via
community forests
Community forestry assessment criteria
Involvement of local people in forest management
Respect for customary usage rights and
participation of rural communities in the
choice of species and logging areas.
Certain customary rights may be provided for in simple management
plans, but their approval ultimately depends on the forest administration
responsible for endorsing the management documents (Lescuyer 2006).
Participation of rural communities in
logging activities
The logging operations in most community forests are subcontracted to a
forestry company (Cuny 2011).
Compliance with agreements entered into
by loggers with the local population
Recurring conicts between customary rights holders and community
forest managers (Ezzine de Blas et al. 2009; Oyono 2004, 2005).
Local socioeconomic development
Employment Very few permanent jobs
Rural incomes Incomes from forestry are low once distributed among community
members (Beauchamp and Ingram 2011; Cuny 2011; Lescuyer and
Essoungou 2013).
Essential needs Few investments funded by forestry revenues (Cuny 2011; Ezzine de Blas
et al. 2009; Lescuyer et al. 2006).
Sources: Authors

The rights of local and indigenous peoples in the light of forest and conservation policies
The forests of the Congo Basin | 351
within forestry concessions based on this narrow conception. The exercise of traditional rights is
therefore compatible with the establishment of forestry concessions, but only to a limited extent.
Implementation is proving to be a challenge, as the legal arrangements applicable to usage rights
often clash with the legitimacy of local practices. Under current arrangements, the exercise of
traditional rights within concessions varies widely between sites. When certied concessionaires
strictly enforce the regulations, for example by working to prevent commercial hunting, this is often
perceived by local communities as infringing on their usage rights even when the practice in question
is unlawful. This results in a paradoxical situation in which local communities perceive their ability
to exercise their usage rights in unmanaged or managed concessions favourably because there is
little to no regulation of illegal activities (Cerutti et al. 2017).
Conversely, certied forestry concessions are considered to hinder the exercise of traditional rights
when managers work to stop practices considered illegal, even if they are merely applying the rules
laid down by the government (see Figures13.1 and 13.2). It should be noted that the interpretation
of usage rights is particularly narrow with respect to hunting. For non-timber forest products,
interpretations are less well dened: the collection of non-timber forest products for commercial
purposes is permitted in certied forest management units, but the harvests must be sustainable,
a requirement that is very rarely checked in practice. In any event, it is the responsibility of
governments to address the continuing tension between sustainable development objectives and
guaranteeing the traditional rights of local and indigenous communities. The new Forestry Code
of the Republic of the Congo claries the scope of traditional rights in the country, based on an old
Gabonese regulation. Article61 of the Act allows for products obtained in exercise of usage rights to
be sold at the local level. While the products covered and the arrangements for their sale are yet to
be specied, this is a clear extension of usage rights.
Figure 13.1: Forest management units and the collection of non-timber forest products
(Cerutti et al. 2014)

Chapter 13
352 | The forests of the Congo Basin
13.2.4 The contribution of logging to local
development
In Central Africa, logging is considered one of the main sources of employment in rural areas,
contributing directly and indirectly to higher incomes for local and indigenous communities
(Lescuyer et al. 2015). As regards poverty alleviation, given that governments often struggle to invest
in local development and reduce poverty, various mechanisms have been developed to redistribute
the proceeds of industrial logging. These mechanisms take the form of social provisions or local
development funds to which companies are required to contribute. Companies may also be required
to share the proceeds of forestry and industrial operations through the payment of fees.
Job creation at the local level
In many countries in the Congo Basin, the oil sector is the main contributor to gross domestic
product (GDP). In Equatorial Guinea it accounts for 90percent of GDP, in Gabon for 42.4percent
and in the Republic of the Congo for 64percent. When compared with the oil sector, the economic
weight of the forestry sector may seem low, accounting for 4percent of GDP in Cameroon, 6percent
in Gabon, 5.6percent in the Republic of the Congo, 0.2percent in Equatorial Guinea and 1percent in
DRC. However, this seemingly limited contribution to national economies should be considered in
context: the forestry sector is often the second largest contributor to GDP and export earnings and it
creates many jobs, a large share of which are in rural areas.
Logging has therefore bolstered various forms of employment in rural areas. In places where the
government is often absent, forestry companies often emerge as the sole source of paid employment.
Indeed, a substantial proportion of these jobs are held by people from villages bordering logging
areas, although, in most cases, they are low skilled (Cerutti et al. 2014; Tsanga et al. 2020).
Figure13.2: Forest management units and hunting practices (Cerutti et al. 2014)

The rights of local and indigenous peoples in the light of forest and conservation policies
The forests of the Congo Basin | 353
In addition to industrial logging, the informal artisanal subsector, which is experiencing signicant
growth in Congo Basin countries, also creates many jobs in rural areas. This subsector has created an
estimated 40,000 jobs in Cameroon, 3,000 in Orientale province in DRC, and 2,000 in the Republic
of the Congo (Cerutti and Lescuyer 2011; Lescuyer et al. 2011, 2014). The jobs are generally low skilled
and most are for labourers, sawmill assistants or machine operators. These jobs are also essentially
temporary in nature, given that they are tied to the relatively short period of production operations.
Funding for community-interest projects
Local development funds are innovative mechanisms for local development that bring together
local and indigenous communities, local authorities and the private sector (Mbete et al. 2021). Local
development funds were rst institutionalized in the late 1990s by the private sector and involved
sharing the proceeds of forestry operations with communities whose borders lie at least in part within
the concession area (Nguimbi et al. 2010). This practice would go on to be adopted into Gabon’s
forestry legislation, and later into that of DRC and the Republic of the Congo. Local development
funds are built around two foundational principles: (i) forestry companies must contribute a
predened amount to a fund managed by village associations and (ii) the funds obtained must be
used to nance community projects identied by local communities and indigenous peoples. The
amount of the levy varies from country to country and depends on the annual production and/or
commercial value of the species harvested, i.e. XAF800/m3 in Gabon, XAF200/m3 in the Republic of
the Congo and USD2-5/m3 in DRC.
The amounts allocated to these redistribution mechanisms can be substantial. Four companies with
certied forest management units contribute an estimated average of EUR 55,000 each per year,
around EUR56 per person living around their forest management units (Cerutti et al. 2014). These
are sizeable amounts, especially in rural areas where the majority of the population lives below the
poverty line.
The social provisions applied in DRC follow a similar trend. Over the past 10years, forestry companies
have contributed approximately USD7.8million to the local development funds of 24concessions.
These funds have made it possible to carry out several community-interest projects in the areas of
education, health, village water supplies and improving road infrastructure (Tsanga et al. 2022).
There is still a gap between theoretical production forecasts and the amount actually transferred
to local communities. One reason for this discrepancy is the reality of logging in the Congo Basin,
where the actual volumes logged rarely reach the levels predicted. Before they begin their logging
operations, concessionaires conduct inventories to identify all species of commercial value. However,
international tropical timber market conditions and various technical barriers at the cutting stage
can prevent the entire available volume from being harvested (Tsanga et al. 2017). Another key
explanation for this discrepancy relates to the reliability of the production gures reported.
The relevant regulations do not oblige private companies to allow communities or civil society to
verify their declared volumes, which can be problematic.
While local development funds have certainly made it possible to carry out many social
infrastructure projects, evidence of whether they have improved the living standards of local people
is still anecdotal. These mechanisms only produce tangible results in certied forestry concessions
and a minority of managed concessions. Some companies do not full their social obligations and,
where they do implement the required mechanisms, communities rarely receive the full amount
of funding expected (Tsanga et al. 2020). Indeed, the management bodies responsible for local

Chapter 13
354 | The forests of the Congo Basin
development funds often replicate poor governance practices at the local level, including poor
project identication, misappropriation of funds, diversion of equipment and overcharging for
projects (Tsanga et al. 2017).
The success of local development depends primarily on the government. When its sovereign
functions are transferred from public authorities to private companies in the forestry sector,
questions arise about legitimacy and the capacity of such companies to perform this role. This
transfer of responsibility brings to mind the “state within a state” phenomenon – when governments
transfer their sovereign powers to the private sector –, which has already been observed in several
Congo Basin countries. It is not clear whether the private sector has the expertise to manage
complex development problems when the government itself has been largely unsuccessful (Cerutti
et al. 2017; Tsanga et al. 2017).
The relative impact of forestry licence fees on local development
Forestry licence fees are one of the key innovative mechanisms for redistributing a share of the
revenues from industrial logging to local stakeholders like municipalities and communities
neighbouring concession areas (Bigombe Logo 2003; Topa et al. 2009). This approach aims to
bolster local development funding and reduce rural poverty. However, several assessments of this
mechanism and its effects on local development in practice have found that it is relatively ineffective
and inefcient, and it has proven to be inequitable (Assembe-Mvondo et al. 2015; Cerutti et al. 2010;
Oyono et al. 2009). Indeed, in a context characterized by systemically weak governance, a predatory
political and administrative elite has co-opted the stated objectives of this mechanism.
13.3 Outlook for the rights of local and
indigenous communities in production
forests
13.3.1 Outlook for community forestry
In the wake of the 1992 Rio Conference, community forestry emerged in the Congo Basin as an
“unidentied forest object”. This forest management model is the direct product of international
Table 13.4: Funding for social provisions in DRC: Forecast and actual amounts, 2015–2020
(24 concessions)
Year Forecast amounts Amounts invested % Gap (USD)
2015 5,677,878 2,067,007 36 3,610,871
2016 2,902,490 1,616,219 56 1,286,271
2017 5,892,046 2,466,632 42 3,425,414
2018 325,552 217,782 67 107,770
2019 2,027,252 350,766 17 1,676,486
2020 3,497,149 1,091,631 31 2,405,518
Total 20,322,367 7,810,037 38 12,512,329
Source: Tsanga et al. (2022)

The rights of local and indigenous peoples in the light of forest and conservation policies
The forests of the Congo Basin | 355
processes and a modest offshoot from the industrial concession model. In its current conguration,
community forestry is characterized by formal management, boundaries not tied to customary
boundaries, an institutional structure not suited to local governance structures and weak nancial
viability.
Despite these challenges, community forestry remains a potentially attractive way to include
indigenous peoples and local communities in domestic wood value chains. The African construction
sector is forecast to grow signicantly by 2050, by which time the continent is expected, according
to the United Nations, to have a population of around 2.5 billion. Over the same time period, the
population of the Congo Basin is expected to more than double to approximately 274million people
(UN-DESA 2017). Population growth on this scale will lead to signicant demand for housing in
urban and rural areas by 2050, 80percent of which has not yet been built (World Green Building
Council, Africa Partners 2020). The predicted boom in the construction sector is a major opportunity
for job creation, the development of new skills and sustainable growth through greater use of wood
as a construction material (World Green Building Council, Africa Partners 2020). The materials most
commonly used in the African construction sector today (iron and cement) account for an average
of 11percent of emissions (Vussonji and Makeka, 2021). Wood can be used as an alternative to these
traditional materials to reduce emissions from the real estate sector, provided that the wood comes
from legal and sustainable sources, which is very rarely the case.
Community forestry could play a major role in this segment of the market. The aim here is not
to satisfy demand for wood from urban Central African markets in its entirety, which would be
unrealistic considering the volumes consumed, but to position the wood produced by community
forests in existing market segments that are concerned about the legality and sustainability of
products (Lescuyer et al. 2016). Whether this is feasible depends on the limited technical and
nancial capacity of local and indigenous peoples. As a start, governments will have to overhaul
existing legal frameworks to address the triple challenge of access to legal status, prot margins and
the low sensitivity of national markets to questions of sustainability, and nally issues around the
legality of timber sources.
The revision of legal frameworks in the context of VPAs offers opportunities to improve the legality
and traceability of the products produced by this sector and to increase their presence on national
timber markets. Legal reforms must therefore be accompanied by concrete measures to transform
national demand for timber. One notable development on the path to improving the legality of
timber on national markets is the decision taken by the Government of Cameroon in 2020 to require
project managers to source legal wood for public construction projects.
While individual public bodies consume relatively little wood, this measure could inuence the
behaviour of other actors, particularly those in the private sector (Lescuyer et al. 2016; Tsanga et al.
2020b). This could be achieved in several ways, as described below.
Make existing community forestry more credible
To improve the credibility of community forestry it will be necessary to substantially improve
governance (Fapa Nanfack et al. 2019). This will require the effective enforcement of existing laws,
anti-corruption efforts and the development of technologies to combat fraud.5 Initiatives do already
exist to teach communities how to detect and document cases of illegality themselves. This type of
5 Such as the traceability of products from community forests with the support of those allocated the forests. See, in particular, Fomou et al.
(2017): http://communitytimbertracks.prosyjob.co/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Rapport-de-letude-SVCL-6.pdf.

Chapter 13
356 | The forests of the Congo Basin
approach is a step in the right direction, as it empowers communities and reduces their dependence
on the government and civil society (Same et al. 2013).
In the Republic of the Congo, ad hoc initiatives have attempted to align customary rights and titles
(community forest areas). Other civil society actors advocate approaches focused on developing a
business and economic model that supports communities to “formalize and professionalize their
business activities sustainably and thereby improve the livelihoods of small and medium-sized
forestry businesses.” On this point, all initiatives aimed at training and empowering communities,
particularly in relation to their economic capacity, are worthwhile. Better market integration,
market information and access to nance are also crucial (Beauchamp and Ingram 2011), as is
greater collaboration with major forestry concessions and capital investment (Minang et al. 2019).
Strengthen the position of community forestry in international
processes
Efforts to link community forestry to emerging processes rooted in international commitments
on climate change and deforestation are attracting growing support from NGOs and international
organizations. The Paris Agreement adopted under the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC), for example, emphasizes the role of sustainable forest management
and anti-deforestation efforts in nationally determined contributions (NDCs). Considering this,
community forestry has been incorporated into NDC mitigation measures submitted by Cameroon
and CAR (Nkuintchua 2018).
Many studies have also analysed the potential of community forestry under REDD+ in relation to
sustainable forest management, conservation, reducing degradation and increasing carbon stocks.
Clarifying and securing land rights – key elements of REDD+ projects, alongside livelihood benets,
income generation and job creation (Bernard and Minang 2019) – can support effective community
forestry.
Community forests are covered by VPAs and are required to ensure the legality of their timber
production, which they struggle to do, particularly in Cameroon. Simplifying the relevant regulations
and building community capacity are essential if these forests are to become a legal source of timber
for the national market (Julve et al. 2013) and the VPA process to have positive knock-on effects.
Moreover, several Central African countries have joined the African Forest Landscape Restoration
Initiative (AFR100), which aims to restore 100 million hectares of deforested and degraded
landscapes on the continent by 2030. This mammoth effort will depend on the participation of local
communities, but initiatives are still at too early a stage to make any assessments and what place
community forestry will have in the process has not yet been claried.
Finally, providing incentives for the creation of commercial value chains for community forestry
products is one way to ensure the sustainability of community forestry (Meier-Dörnberg and
Karmann 2015). In particular, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and Fairtrade have partnered
to ensure that access to certication and its benets are accessible to small-scale foresters and
community forests. Programmes have been set up for small-scale foresters seeking to develop
rational long-term management practices. These programmes propose measures to reduce costs
and improve their market access. However, this approach is far from straightforward and has not yet
been trialled in Central Africa. All initiatives seeking to anchor community forestry in international
processes bolster its credibility and may one day contribute to the development of alternative
sources of income for the communities involved.

The rights of local and indigenous peoples in the light of forest and conservation policies
The forests of the Congo Basin | 357
Review the normative framework
The overview presented above highlights the mixed results of community forestry in the Congo
Basin over the past 20years. The rst forestry laws governing community forestry were the subject of
criticism on several fronts: they were seen as over restrictive, in that they did not allow for genuinely
inclusive management, they only granted limited rights to the community allocated the forest and
they limited where community forestry could be carried out (Cuny 2011; Julve 2007; Vermeulen et al.
2006). While not directly related to the normative framework, other problems like corruption and
misappropriation in the management of community forests, as well as the top-down approach to
local development assistance, have hampered the initial efforts and dampened early enthusiasm for
this approach (Joiris et al. 2014). Reconsideration of these issues, driven by the advocacy efforts of
civil society, have on occasion led to these laws being revised, with the participation of civil society,
local and indigenous communities and the private sector, to improve the equity and effectiveness
of forest management.
DRC offers a case in point. Community forestry was gradually formalized through a participatory
system that was unique in the region. The resulting local community forestry concessions grant
ownership of land to local communities in perpetuity on the basis of custom. They allow for multiple
uses of the forest as a space within which several socioeconomic and environmental activities can
take place (Vermeulen and Karsenty 2016). This approach has made it possible to move beyond the
myopic focus on silviculture and timber sales seen in the community forestry models adopted in
other countries (Billiard 2019), to the detriment of the actual development needs of the community.
All countries would benet from and should follow this new approach to community forestry
that seeks to secure access to resources and their sustainable management, that promotes greater
recognition of customary law as underpinning community forestry, that has more exible governance
structures better suited to Central African societies and that is complemented by a favourable tax
regime. Any changes should be made through inclusive processes, avoiding the pitfall of “piling
rules atop rules” and “complexity on complexity” (like the revision of the manual of procedures for
allocating and establishing management rules for community forests in Cameroon). Governments
must therefore have the courage to review these texts in depth.
Furthermore, as highlighted in the paragraph on the Brazzaville Roadmap, most countries do not
yet have formal mechanisms for recognizing rights or for transferring rights and management
responsibilities to indigenous peoples and local communities. This is another vital area where
countries are encouraged to make progress.6 The need to promote and secure the rights of
communities is acknowledged in various international and national texts adopted by Central African
countries, which pay particular attention to the recognition of customary land rights (Billiard 2019).
For civil society, formal recognition of communities’ customary land rights could contribute to forest
conservation and local livelihoods, but is also a question of social justice, especially in cases where
communities managed the forest long before the government claimed ownership of it (RRI 2017).
However, the recognition of customary rights comes with its own issues, namely that customary law
in Africa favours elites and discriminates against women (Kenfack Essougong et al. 2019; Kusters
and Graaf 2019), indigenous peoples and migrants (Vermeulen and Karsenty 2017).
6 See, in particular, the Mapping For Rights programme: https://www.mappingforrights.org/

Chapter 13
358 | The forests of the Congo Basin
Social forestry as the overlapping of uses and rights
The overriding aim of guaranteeing the rights of local and indigenous peoples to forest land is to
prioritize their allocation of areas over which they have exclusive rights, possibly accompanied by
ownership rights over the land. Community forestry epitomizes this exclusivity of land rights in that
it rejects the intervention of any other actors in areas assigned to this form of forest management.
This follows a similar logic to industrial forestry concessions, in which third parties are not permitted
to intervene beyond exercising usage rights. The forestry sector in the Congo Basin is therefore
characterized by the division of forested land into mutually exclusive areas. Recent developments
in community forestry and the forestry concession model do, however, suggest that the “exclusive
rights” approach to forested land is coming to an end.
It is therefore now time to rethink the forest governance model to focus more on coordinating the
various possible uses of the forest at the forest block scale and less on the separation of areas (Karsenty
and Vermeulen 2016). With regard to social forestry specically, securing the rights of communities
and ensuring the development of economic activities does not necessarily imply ownership of the
land or the right to exclusive use. Karsenty and Vermeulen (2016) propose a “Concessions2.0”
governance model that allows spaces and uses to overlap and the joint development of economic
activities by local populations and concessionaires via a joint decision-making platform.
A new model of community forestry for the future
Despite widespread rhetoric of community empowerment and participation, community forestry is
often promoted from the top down by organizational stakeholders (often funders) who impose their
own values and sophisticated management tools (Hajjar et al. 2013; Maryudi et al. 2012; Pokorny et
al. 2010). A bottom-up approach that takes into account the current needs, wishes and realities
of communities can produce support systems that are better designed than those imposed from
outside (Hajjar et al. 2013; Malla et al. 2003; Thoms 2008).
After 20 years of experimentation, we need to replace the existing conceptual model – which is
focused on transformation and built around an idealized vision of what community forestry could
achieve– with an approach based on local knowledge and the actual practices of the local people.
The proliferation of local institutional arrangements also runs the risk of being poorly understood
and considered unnecessary by the communities themselves. Efforts to improve the governance
of shared forest resources could be a case of “supply without demand”: the governance gap that
community-based resource management seeks to close is not necessarily experienced as such
by the communities themselves, especially if the governance practices proposed fail to reect
communities’ way of life and knowledge. A more pragmatic approach would be to dene some
broad governance principles for community management, allowing each community to choose
its own criteria for implementing them. Under the new model, community forestry would become
a nancially viable option for communities and reduce the cost of institutional procedures and
institutional arrangements (Lescuyer et al. 2019).
As regards nancial sustainability, there is consensus on the need for start-up support from
governments and other partners in the form of seed capital, access to subsidized training and
technical assistance, and support to navigate complex bureaucratic systems (Humphries et al.
2018), without communities becoming reliant on this support as a form of income. Secondly, it is
crucial to analyse how local production systems can be integrated into sustainable and protable
value chains (Ezzine de Blas et al. 2009). Thirdly, conducting an analysis of potential nancial

The rights of local and indigenous peoples in the light of forest and conservation policies
The forests of the Congo Basin | 359
performance before launching a project would prevent communities and their partners from
attempting to conduct activities that will not prove protable in the medium term.
Considering the costs involved, community forestry will only thrive if there are pragmatic and cost-
effective ways to exploit forest resources. Conversely, the overall impact of community forestry on
local livelihoods will be limited as long as communities have to bear the exorbitant cost of creating
and managing a community forest. The cost of establishing and operating a community forest
is largely attributable to the various committees that must be established in the community to
manage this system. In DRC, for example, the level of bureaucracy required by local community
forestry concessions exceeds that required in other Central African countries, where organizational
difculties are already a major weakness (Karsenty et al. 2010, unpublished manuscript). These
regulatory provisions are generally justied by the desire to avoid decentralization being abused
by external public or private actors to misappropriate the prots derived from the exploitation of
forest resources (Jacquemot 2010). However, the complexity of local institutional arrangements
undermines the effectiveness of this approach, forcing a signicant share of revenue to be spent
on maintaining the institutional system at the expense of investments for the well-being of the
community, without even preventing misappropriation by elites.
These costs are now borne almost entirely by external donors. Unless national regulations are
simplied, this dependence on external funding will prevent most rural communities from engaging
in community forestry and could encourage illegal practices to cover these costs, as experience in
Cameroon has clearly shown (Cuny 2011; Lescuyer et al. 2016).
13.3.2 The future of social forestry
The Brazzaville Roadmap highlighted the need to pilot new models of social forestry, beyond the
classic “community forestry” model. Some avenues have not yet been explored, or at least not in
detail, in relation to (i) co-management arrangements (participatory forestry at the household
level, at the extended family level or at administrative levels other than the municipality or central
government), (ii) participation arrangements (greater sharing of management and, above all, of
the decision-making process), (iii) more rights to land or the nancial viability of the arrangements
envisaged. Other new models have been proposed (Vermeulen 2017; Vermeulen and Karsenty 2016),
including the “household agroforestry” model. Given that households are the main unit responsible
for slash and burn agriculture (a major cause of deforestation and degradation in many places) and
that they have the right to claim customary land rights (the right of the axe), it would make sense
to develop a specic type of participatory forestry for households. The idea would be to prevent
land saturation and permanent clearing of forest cover by assigning certain households the rights
to sufcient space to guarantee their long-term access to a mosaic landscape typical of shifting
agriculture (elds-forest fallow-secondary forest) and the many goods and services it provides.
Household agroforests could cover an area of 25ha per household, as a single unit, within a radius
of 5km around villages, that cannot be transferred outside the household and must be bequeathed
as a single unit (to avoid future fragmentation). These areas would provide land for growing cocoa,
coffee and food, and for forest fallows. A minimum level of forest cover would have to be maintained
(around 50percent) and all products, including those resulting from improvements to the land,
would be the property of the household. This would offer a form of “quasi land title”, conditional
on maintaining productive mixed forest cover. The timber could be harvested using traditional
methods, as a private enterprise, with an annual quota.

Chapter 13
360 | The forests of the Congo Basin
Household agroforests are just one example of how the concept of social forestry could evolve.
We have chosen this model to illustrate this point primarily to demonstrate that we need to be
inventive and bold to reinvigorate communities’ participation in forest management, by offering
new opportunities with the aim of nding innovative solutions for the benet of local communities
and indigenous peoples.
13.4 The status of community rights in
production forests
13.4.1 Community rights under the protected area
regime
Central Africa’s protected areas grew massively during the second half of the twentieth century.
Currently, the subregion has 315 protected areas covering an area of approximately 1,011,770km2
(OFAC 2020). Countries such as the Republic of the Congo, CAR and Sao Tome and Principe have
already classied more than 30percent of their national territory as protected area and others such
as Cameroon, Gabon and Equatorial Guinea should achieve this level in the medium term (Proces
et al. 2020). This trend is set to continue as the COMIFAC Convergence Plan calls on countries to
strengthen the network of national and cross-border protected areas by 2025, ensuring that it is
representative of all land and water-based ecosystems. This will require them to increase the
number and size of national and cross-border protected areas in the medium term.
Some of these protected areas are not strictly protected and local communities are permitted to use
natural resources according to their customary practices (e.g. non-commercial hunting and shing,
collecting non-timber forest products, etc.). However, when implementing planned increases to the
area protected, countries should pay particular attention to coexistence with local communities
and indigenous peoples to ensure their rights are not dramatically curtailed. This is particularly
important when strict protection frameworks are envisaged, such as under International Union
for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) category II,7 an international standard for rigorous biodiversity
protection (Doumenge et al. 2015).
Indeed, under strict protection frameworks (primarily national parks), tenure rights over customary
land are not recognized, even where national laws require community participation in the
establishment of specic conservation areas and guaranteed access to these areas for subsistence or
cultural purposes. Sometimes the overlapping or coexistence of national and international laws is a
source of tension (see Box13.2).
In some cases, customary rights are recognized if indigenous peoples are established before a
protected area is created. In CAR, for example, Article17 of the 2008 Forestry Code states that “usage
rights shall not be exercised in strict nature reserves and national parks. If indigenous peoples are
7 IUCN Categories:
- Ia (Strict Nature Reserve)
- Ib (Wilderness Area)
- II (National Park)
- III (Natural Monument)
- IV (Habitat or Species Management Area)
- V (Protected Landscape or Seascape)
- VI (Protected Area with Sustainable Use of Natural Resources)

The rights of local and indigenous peoples in the light of forest and conservation policies
The forests of the Congo Basin | 361
established before an area is classied as a protected area under Article9 of this Code, arrangements
shall be made to preserve their rights to harvest and practice subsistence hunting and traditional
shing, provided that such activities do not affect their integrity, the interests of other communities
or the environment.” In such cases, it is necessary to understand, explain and specify what the
legislator denes as “established”, to prevent human rights violations. The same applies to provisions
on compensating communities for violations of their rights due to the establishment of a protected
area; however, the available data needs to be improved and regularly updated to enable us to assess
the extent to which these provisions are implemented.
Box 13.2: Situation of the rights of Baka indigenous peoples around
the Dja Faunal Reserve in Cameroon
Fernande Abanda Ngono
The Baka who live around the Dja Faunal Reserve, like most indigenous forest peoples in
Cameroon, have been forced to settle along roads and trails since colonial times. Compared with
other local communities who are able to claim their customary land rights by showing that they
have developed their traditional territory, these indigenous peoples, because of their nomadic
lifestyle and their lack of interest in land ownership, are more vulnerable to the impacts of
insidious natural resource management policies, particularly those relating to protected areas.
The management plan does not give them any specic rights over this protected area, which
established articially xed borders for their ancestral territories following its creation in 1950.
The management plan grants all the communities neighbouring the Dja reserve the right to
engage in traditional agricultural activities in a specic area of the reserve called the “contractual
usage rights area” (MINFOF). This area adjacent to the Dja reserve is available for non-industrial
agricultural uses and communities are allowed to collect non-timber forest products there. On
the other hand, traditional hunting and shing can only be carried out if there is an agreement
between the local communities and the conservation services managing the reserve or under
annual agreements provided for in the planning documents.
The case of the Dja Faunal Reserve also illustrates the potential tension between the rights of
indigenous peoples under international conventions not recognized by a given country (in
this example, Cameroon has not ratied ILO Convention No. 169), on the one hand, and the
protected area status enshrined in the country’s environmental codes (here, Cameroon’s) and by
UNESCO’s World Heritage status. Approaches that alleviate these tensions should be adopted
wherever they exist, to ensure that the rights of indigenous peoples are fully recognized and –
where appropriate – fair and equitable compensation is provided.
Customary territorial rights go hand in hand with communities’ right to participatory and joint
management. The Baka peoples therefore have the right to participate in the management of
the Dja reserve, i.e. by sitting on the governance bodies established for this purpose. On this
point, there has been considerable progress in the legal arrangements. Decision of the Ministry
of Forests and Wildlife (MINFOF) No. 03300/MINFOF/SG/DFAP of 28 April 2008 on the
organization of the Dja reserve provides for two seats for representatives of the Baka peoples
on the advisory committee, one of the reserve management bodies. The advisory committee’s
mission is to propose ways of involving local people in the implementation of the management
plan and to identify and propose priority socioeconomic measures to the Dja reserve
management committee.

Chapter 13
362 | The forests of the Congo Basin
Examples like this lead some authors to assert that the dominant philosophy enshrined in Central
African conservation policies is highly focused on the need to protect charismatic animal species,
while neglecting traditional social structures and natural resource management systems (Pyhälä
et al. 2016). However, conservation approaches that give local communities a greater role, in terms
of access to their traditional resources or participation in the management of protected areas, do
exist and are becoming more common worldwide, although they are not widely used in Central
Africa. This management model, under which areas are called “conservancies”, is very widespread
in southern and eastern Africa. It makes it possible to reconcile greater use of natural resources by
local communities with biodiversity protection.
13.4.2 The impact of the protected area regime on
community rights
If we can make one recommendation at the start of this section, it would be to improve data and
knowledge on the impacts (both socioeconomic and environmental) of the legal provisions on
protected areas in Central Africa and of nature conservation measures that seek to promote the
sustainable development of surrounding landscapes. Several regional and global analyses have
been conducted, including a study of 306protected areas in 45countries in Africa and Latin America
(Wittemyer et al. 2008), which shows that population growth around these conservation areas was
almost twice as high as that observed in other rural areas. One explanation for the attractiveness of
protected areas suggested by the authors is tied to the conservation projects carried out there, and
more specically to the international funds allocated to them, to the activities carried out and the
infrastructure developed, to economic opportunities and access to road networks, to their safety in
times of conict and to the greater abundance of natural resources.
This general pattern could however become more complex if specic situations are considered,
especially given that, generally speaking, the participation and consultation of local communities
has historically been very weak in the establishment of protected areas. The requirement to obtain
free, prior and informed consent enshrined in the Convention on Biological Diversity and recently
incorporated into the 2020 Forestry Code of the Republic of the Congo is being mainstreamed in new
conservation initiatives. Other possible improvements can be made in relation to governance, tenure
management and human rights. As regards governance, governments still favour a centralized,
monolithic management model for protected areas, even though it can lead to repressive forms
of wildlife protection and the criminalization of local people, which can be a source of conict
(Mayen Ndiong et al. 2021). The emergence of a mixed governance model, such as public-private
partnership, brings with it an approach that is more respectful of the rights of local and indigenous
peoples. Nevertheless each situation should be judged on its own terms – with local and indigenous
peoples – before one form of governance or another is chosen.
As regards land tenure, forced population displacement due to the establishment of a protected area
has been documented in some cases (Brockington and Igoe 2006) and should be replaced by tenure
management approaches that are negotiated with customary rights holders, to avoid displacement
and restrictions on access to ancestral lands. Where appropriate, resettlement measures and fair
compensation must be negotiated and agreed with rights holders, including indigenous peoples,
to avoid any negative socioeconomic impact. Restrictions on access to and the sale of natural
resources, for example, can risk causing food insecurity and impoverishment (Cernea and Schmidt-
Soltau 2003b, 2003a).

The rights of local and indigenous peoples in the light of forest and conservation policies
The forests of the Congo Basin | 363
As regards human rights, both NGOs and governments increasingly promote conservation centred
around respect for the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities. This approach is,
for example, taken by the Congolese Institute for Nature Conservation (ICCN), which is holding
discussions on how to set up a streamlined system for handling complaints from communities
neighbouring protected areas and, more broadly, on the establishment of a framework to ensure
compliance with international human rights law (European Commission 2021).
Despite this shift in conservation thinking, problematic situations persist. In 2019, BuzzFeed
published a report on human rights abuses perpetrated by ecoguards in protected areas co-managed
or supported by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) in Cameroon (Lobeké, Boumba Bek and Nki
Parks), Republic of the Congo (the process of creating Messok Dja Park) and DRC (Salonga National
Park).8 Key criticisms included the conservation organization’s decision to work with partners
who have a history of violence and abuse against indigenous peoples and local communities, and
the weak application of the principle of free, prior and informed consent.9 A panel of independent
experts charged with investigating the accusations found that WWF was not directly involved in
the abuses uncovered. Weaknesses were, however, identied in the procedures designed to prevent
abuse and ensure compliance with the NGO’s human rights commitments related to activities in
protected areas (Pillay et al. 2020).
A new paradigm for the management of protected areas that advocates the professionalization of
the rangers appears to be benecial for wildlife. The ecoguard roles at Zakouma National Park, for
example, have been professionalized, which has made park border areas more secure and enabled
several large mammal populations to be maintained and even increased. However, ecoguards’
activities – including whether they are armed – must always be properly supervised and monitored
to prevent, at all costs, the deterioration of relationships with local communities, who continue to
hold legitimate rights to land and resources in protected areas.
13.4.3 Innovative approaches to the governance of
conservation forests
A major concern for the management of protected areas is reconciling the objectives of effective
biodiversity conservation and upholding the human and land rights of rural communities (Karsenty
et al. 2021). The quest for efciency has, over time, led some Central African countries to trial new
ways of managing protected areas, such as delegating responsibility to conservation NGOs and,
more recently, to private companies, through public-private partnership (PPP) agreements.
The involvement of non-state actors, mainly conservation NGOs, in biodiversity protection is based
on the belief that these actors are able to manage areas more effectively in the face of government
failures, that their involvement confers credibility in the eyes of donors and that they are better
able to secure sustainable funding (Scholte et al. 2021). These suppositions are similar to those
underpinning managed forestry concessions.
Public-private partnerships give a robust mandate to the non-state actors to whom management is
delegated. The government retains a formal presence in governance mechanisms, but operational
management is handled entirely by the non-state partner, which is granted decision-making
8 https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/tomwarren/wwf-world-wide-fund-nature-parks-torture-death
9 https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/tomwarren/wwf-world-wide-fund-nature-parks-torture-death

Chapter 13
364 | The forests of the Congo Basin
Box 13.3: Practical and innovative tools for analysing and
strengthening communities’ rights around the sustainable
management of natural resources: Case study of the Sustainable
Wildlife Management (SWM) Programme
Andrew Wardell, Eugenio Sartoretto, Sandra Ratiarison
As highlighted in this chapter, forest and wildlife management in Central Africa is governed
by multiple legal systems and rules operating simultaneously at different levels (national
and international obligations, statutory and customary law). The resulting complex and
sometimes divergent sets of rules can signicantly weaken the governance of natural
resources and even the rule of law, often to the detriment of the people who depend on these
resources for their livelihoods.
Intervening in this area, the SWM Programme is one of the rst large-scale conservation
initiatives to put rights-based approaches into practice. As regards social safeguards, the SWM
Programme aims, at all its sites (including those in the Republic of the Congo, Gabon and DRC
in Central Africa), to: complete risk and opportunity analysis grids on the rights of project
stakeholders, in the light of the human rights situation in each country; establish a free, prior
and informed consent protocol and a framework complaint management mechanism that
can be adapted to different contexts; develop planning and monitoring tools, and tailored
communications materials. Site teams and local partners are trained to use these tools and are
helping to improve them through practice.
In parallel, the SWM Programme is undertaking a technical review of relevant legal issues.
This work has led to the development of a tool kit to facilitate a holistic cross-sectoral
evaluation of the legal frameworks governing the various aspects of hunting and shing value
chains. These tools address both gender-related issues and the substantive and procedural
rights of members of local communities, indigenous peoples and marginalized groups.
Available via the legal hub on the SWM website (with results from SWM pilot countries), these
complementary and interdependent tools make it possible to:
• Map the relevant legal framework;
• Consider how to transpose relevant international instruments into national law;
• Analyse the level of alignment between sectoral legislation and identify potential gaps;
• Clarify the relationship between statutory law and customary law;
• Identify barriers to implementation and/or enforcement.
By using these different tools to implement a community rights-based approach, the SWM
Programme aims to promote participatory, inclusive and evidence-based processes, including
by working on normative frameworks, legislation and customary law, to enable and support
the effective management and sustainable use of wildlife and its habitat.

The rights of local and indigenous peoples in the light of forest and conservation policies
The forests of the Congo Basin | 365
autonomy and some exibility when it comes to administrative and nancial arrangements
(European Commission 2015; Scholte et al. 2021). Although public-private partnerships delegate
responsibility for the management of protected areas to non-state actors, it is important for
governments to maintain ownership and mixed boards of directors could be established to balance
private and public power.
In some cases, certain sovereign functions like law enforcement and anti-poaching initiatives
might also be transferred to non-state actors (Scholte et al. 2021). The African Parks Network model,
under which the non-state actor assumes full responsibility for all aspects of running a protected
area, countering any threats and managing all revenues, is illustrative of the tacit privatization of
conservation (African Parks Network 2021). The draw of this approach for governments that lack the
resources or capacity to manage these areas is clear; nevertheless, governments must be mindful
of the risk that their own interests and those of rights holders will be marginalized. It is therefore
important that PPPs establish discussion, awareness and information-sharing forums with these
stakeholders, in which local people are included and have a formal vote on issues in which they
share an interest.
In Central Africa, 13protected areas are managed under this model, with the majority managed by
the South African NGO African Parks Network (APN), followed by Wildlife Conservation Society
(WCS) and WWF. This new model is widely praised by international conservation NGOs, as well
as by some donors, for whom PPPs are a way to involve local communities in the management of
protected areas and improve their incomes. In the case of the Odzala-Kokoua park in the Republic
of the Congo, the public-private partnership arrangement has helped to increase the participation
of all stakeholders, in particular local communities, in the management of the park (Mayen Ndiong
et al. 2020).
In addition to public-private partnerships, there are compelling new initiatives that view biodiversity
conservation as the management of a resource for the benet of local communities, such as the
Sustainable Wildlife Management Programme. With this in mind, NGOs and major programmes
have sought to align their approaches to community relations (complaints management
mechanisms, free, prior and informed consent, gender mainstreaming, etc.). The Central African
Forest Ecosystem (ECOFAC) programme is working on reforms to more effectively incorporate
these concerns, following the model of EU programmes in DRC that have made similar changes.
Conclusions
The inclusion of indigenous peoples in forestry and conservation policies can no longer be overlooked
by those operating in the sector, whether conservation organizations or logging companies. Over
the past three decades, public and private initiatives supported by technical and nancial partners
have gradually strengthened the role of local communities and indigenous peoples in forest
management. On this front, subregional and national legal and policy frameworks have become
signicantly denser. Legal instruments have, among other things, laid down participation, the
consideration of usage rights, benet-sharing and free, prior and informed consent as fundamental
requirements for the responsible management of natural resources. The implementation of these
provisions by private operators, in particular certied operators, has had some tangible success
through the construction of infrastructure projects with socioeconomic benets.
Such legal progress remains precarious and implementation in practice is often challenging given
that some local communities lack the required managerial capacity. Current trends in development

Chapter 13
366 | The forests of the Congo Basin
planning, land-use planning policies and the consolidation of ultra-liberal forest management
approaches in the subregion, as well as land grabbing by national elites, suggest that the irrevocable
legal recognition of community and indigenous forest rights is being sidelined. In the Congo Basin,
occasional outbreaks of violence linked to efforts to claim these rights coupled with a deep and
legitimate desire for (sometimes unsustainable) development are an ongoing concern.
And yet, there is another better possible path and future. First and foremost, enabling conditions for
this optimistic scenario and public political dialogues could complement the necessary reforms, as
part of processes that are genuinely inclusive of local and indigenous peoples’ demands. Secondly,
national land-use plans, which may use different names, could map the customary lands of village
communities and – as far as realistic – the territories on which indigenous peoples depend for their
livelihoods (allowing for several uses in the same space). This would not threaten governments’
sovereignty over forests and land, but it would allow for local and indigenous peoples’ rights to be
mapped and nally recognized. Thirdly, land titles, or any other means of irrevocably securing the
forest lands of local and indigenous peoples, could be gradually assigned, on a case-by-case basis. It
is a compromise scenario, but a win-win one that should appease the most vindictive few at the local
level and remove a thorn in legislators’ and policymakers’ side. These various possibilities underscore
the need to better account for the diversity of customary rights in forest land management and to
put the government back at the centre of forest management, with regulations tailored to realities
on the ground.