Emerging evidence and impact of IFM on policy and practice of forestry in Congo Basin: Illusion or Reality?

Dr Aurelian MBZIBAIN

Dr Aurelian MBZIBAINSenior Lecturer/Programme Manager

Centre for International Development and Training, University of WolverhamptonEmail: a.mbzibain2@wlv.ac.uk

Congo Basin Forest Monitoring Project (2017 – 2020)

Cameroon, Central African Republic, Gabon, Rep. Congo and DRC

3Outline

Contributions to stakeholder

groups

Introduction/

Impact scenarios

Success factors, way forward and

conclusion

Key constraints and unintended

effects

Pivotal events in global efforts to address illegal loggingYear Event

1995-1997 Intergovernmental panel and forum on forests refers to illegal logging in its proposal for action

1997 G8 agrees to an Action Plan on forests – commitment to eliminate illegal logging

2003 US president’s initiative against illegal logging (George Bush)

2003 Yaounde Declaration – 39 countries committed to fight illegality – FLEGT conference

2003 EU Action Plan

2008 US Lacey Act amended to include plants and plant products such as timber

2009 Ghana as first country to sign the VPA

2010 European Union Timber Regulation passed

2012 Australian illegal logging prohibition passed

2013 EUTR enters into force

2016 Indonesia becomes first country to issue FLEGT licensed timber

Source: Cashore et al (2016) Chapter 7: Global governance approaches to addressing illegal logging: uptake and lessons learnt, pp 1-15

Policy and practice impact scenarios: levels

Support implementation

Expansion Influence on behaviour

• Situation without/with IFM?• What is the strategy?• Correlation with key indices?• Attribution?

▪ Social improvements and Rights

▪ Resource protection▪ Living conditions?

– Voice/space

– Ownership

– Participation and engagement: capacity, tools, skill sets

– Transparency and accountability

Contributions of IFM to practice/policy

Community –end user Level

Civil society groupsIFM Orgs, media, academia etc

Professionalism – IFM practices

Capacity development

Supporting enforcement/high risk

Dissuasion

Building Social capital +/-

{International/national}

REDD+

Mining

Land use change

Informal timber market?

Expansion

Private sector: formal and informalPedagogic approach, warning, pressure

Voluntary Enforcement of Standards

Internal efficiencies-effectiveness/productivity: incomes?

Level playing field for competition:

Changes in behaviour• Reduced illegality• Transparency/accountability• Target markets trends:• Engagement with civil society

Illegal logging

depresses global

timber prices by

7-16%

Naming and shaming - Role of IFM contested

Catalyst for Transparency and accountability +/-

Increased information and calls to action

Credibility of government control function -Image

.

Government/state levels

Rights? Sanctions?Increased incomes?Improved legislation?

Capacity building/joint missions

Increased momentum for beyond sector reform

Some key constraints• Limited national commitment and recognition: local constituency for

change beyond forest sector – IFM as international conditionality

• Mismatch between international policies and national policies – economic

development vision vs conservation + sustainability

• +/- importance of the European Union market – demand from less

sensitive markets

• Tools, methodologies, skills, quality of reports, regional consistency, etc

• Levels and application of fines, sanctions, transactions: ability to monitor

• Limited opportunities for regional learning, documenting lessons learnt

• IFM + Advocacy: incompatible? - risks of capture

• IFM as rather indiscriminate tool with sometimes unclear objectives: Easy

to find faults – document positive steps taken by companies to build trust

11

Some Unintended effects

Respectful

1. Community conflicts – power relations

2. Capture of IFM by officials to perpetuate fraud

3. Demotivation – mechanisms for redress/conflict resolution

4. Negative impacts of legal behaviour: logging roads, forest fragmentation, subsistence agriculture, poaching, biodiversity loss etc

5. Diversion of timber to less sensitive markets – cross border trade

6. Exposure to threats/security and corruption

7. IFM could lead to informal sector actors missing out

12

Success Factors and way forward– shaping policy/practice with IFM evidence

Don't think the evidence speaks for itself: target needs, sift, synthesise, provide accessible/usable information

Don't imagine that if you publish, impact will follow: be persistent, develop networks, and find the right moment

Do your homework – identify potential allies and opponents (national and international): alliances, insiders, progressive elements

Innovation –Technology: mobile phones, satellite, drones etc

Have patience, and lots of it: sustainable change takes time

Conclusions

• Variable impacts and anecdotal– vary widely depending on local, sectorial, regional and historical contexts

• Combatting illegal logging seen as international response – no long term national level impacts without political will and buy in

• Without support of all main stakeholders (including progressive elements in the forest sector) it is unlikely that IFM as currently practiced will lead to substantial policy level reform

www.cidt.org.uk/cv4ctwitter.com/eucv4c

Merci!