opportunities for restoring degraded forests and landscapes … · 2017-03-29 · opportunities for...

Restoration Opportunities Assessment Methodology in Ivory Coast - Final report - June 2016

Opportunities for Restoring Degraded Forests and Landscapes in Ivory Coast Final Report - June 2016

IUCN West and Central Africa Programm (PACO)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The entire IUCN Team and Consultants would like to express their gratitude to all involved and to our committed donor UNEP. A number of individuals however merit special mention:

Our gratitude goes to the authors of the ROAM methodology, IUCN and WRI. Despite challenges faced, having a robust methodology was the beacon that enabled us see our end-point so clearly, it was impossible to be sidetracked by the challenges.

The following, accompanied us from Inception to Validation and have been key to our success:

The Civil Society in Ivory Coast; Mme AHOUSSI Delphine of MALEBI, Pr. EGNAKOU of SOS Forêts, Dr Therese KOUAME of CI Écologie; who accompanied the process from start to finish, helping with contacts, meetings, field visits, workshop rapporteuring, informal documentations, review of ideas and divers suggestions and general logistical support.

Ministry of Forests and Water Resources – MINEF Ivory Coast: Col SORO Doplé, the Director of Cabinet, Col SORO Yamani, the Director General, Col. EHOUSSOU, the Assistant Director General, Col. ADINGRA Chantal, Cne KOFFI Thierry, Cne ABROH Jean-Jacques and Cne DOUA Bi Yves. These persons provided initial intellectual inputs, aligning the ROAM process with the reforestation plans of SODEFOR; helped with institutional anchorage, logistical support, recruitment of consultants, information on the general public and about other Ministries. MINEF would continue enriching and supporting the process through pre-validation to validation of results, meanwhile giving it the profile that it required.

Research : We extend our gratitude to Dr Christopher KOUAME of the World Agroforestry Center –ICRAF, helping with initial contacts and explaining salient characteristics of the Ivory Coast scene, including the value of sub national consultations, such as in SOUBRE and for introducing us to State-of-the-Art Ivorian cuisine.

Ministry of the Environment and Sustainable Development- MINEDD: We cite OUATTARA Zana Inzan, KOUAKOU Amon Aphely, LEYAHI Gelase, KONAN Yao Eric, DIALA Elisabeth, Carlos RIANO, Lucien DJA, AKA Paul, and YAO Marcel, and the National Coordinator, REDD+. They helped with intellectual, institutional inputs and the step-by-step pre-validation and validation of the results; and would ensure that the process received the ultimate institutional anchorage and be better aligned with the Bonn Challenge, the Forest Investment Programme and Conventions like Aichi Target 15, and the INDC by the Ivory Coast.

Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development - MINADER, AGBRI Lako, would help infuse aspects of the zero deforestation agriculture into process

Our gratitude goes to Mrs Emmanuelle Normand, Director of the Wild Chimpanzee Foundation in Ivory Coast for her vigorous and very useful participation in the validation workshop. Finally, our gratitude goes to Mme Thais NARCISO of UNEP, Nairobi. Thais played a very central role during this assessment; from troubleshooting the methodology, orienting the process towards the Forest Investment Program – FIP field sites, to helping to strengthen collaboration between MINEF and MINEDD, Thais was very instrumental in providing additional sources of information for the evaluation.Many more people contributed to this process; so we apologize to those whose names have not been cited. This is an ongoing process and we will surely catch up with them later on.

Project IUCN/UNEP-PCA Contact IUCN- West and Central Africa Forest Program (PACO)ANGU ANGU Kenneth, [email protected]

Technical Team IUCN-PACO: Peter MBILE: Forest and Landscape Restoration Coordinator, West and Central Africa

Elie HAKIZUMWAMI: Forest Program Officer, Central Africa Dominique ENDAMANA - Forest Program Officer

Mirjam KUZEE - ROAM Global Coordinator, IUCN Global, Washington DC

Consultants Cote d’Ivoire:

Gilbert KOUAKOU: FLR Liaison Expert

Ange-Marie BOTROH: Ingenier / Spatial Analyst & Carbon Expert

Etienne KOUMAN: Ingenier/ Spatial Analyst & Socio-Economic Expert

Editing and printingIPEC Sarl: Yaounde - Cameroon+237 699 74 47 47 / 670 04 60 04MAKOUDJOU SODA M. F.: Graphic Designer

This document has been produced with technical and financial assistance from IUCN and UNEP. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and stakeholders who participated in, and validated the results of the ROAM process in Ivory Coast, and do not necessarily reflect the official opinions of UNEP or of IUCN.

Cover Photo, courtesy MALEBI. Women’s group MALEBI developing woodlots around Dimbokoro – Center Zone of the Forest Investment Program

3


TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................................................................... 2

ACRONYMS.....................................................................................................................................................................4

LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................................................................5

LIST OF FIGURES...........................................................................................................................................................5

SUMMARY........................................................................................................................................................................6

1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................7

1.1. Overview.........................................................................................................................................................7

1.2. Implementing ROAM.......................................................................................................................................8

1.2.1. ROAM inception in the Ivory Coast: Workshop of 10 - 11 March 2016............................................................9

1.2.2. Process and main results of inception workshop............................................................................................9

1.2.3. Synthesis of results of inception workshop.....................................................................................................9

1.2.4. From inception to evaluation: 12 March – 21 June 2016...............................................................................10

1.2.6. The validation workshop: 21-22 June 2016...................................................................................................10

1.2.7. Institutional anchorage of the process...........................................................................................................11

2. RESULTS......................................................................................................................................................13

2.1. Illustration of the dimensions of degradation in the field...............................................................................13

2.2. Stakeholders analyses:...................................................................................................................................15

2.2.1. Mapping and preliminary grouping of stakeholders......................................................................................15

2.2.2. Grouping of stakeholders................................................................................................................................16

2.3. Institutional, legal and policy frameworks......................................................................................................17

2.3.1 The frameworks by land use type and by intervention...................................................................................17

2.4. Priorities and opportunities for restoration.....................................................................................................20

2.4.1. Priorities and opportunities for interventions at the national scale................................................................21

2.4.1.1. Spatial analyses of main watersheds............................................................................................................21

2.4.1.3. Spatial analyses of national parks and reserves (NPR)................................................................................23

2.4.1.4. Spatial analyses of production forests (PF)...................................................................................................23

2.4.1.5. Spatial analyses of the rural domain..................................................................................................................23

2.5. Analyses of costs and benefits of restoration................................................................................................27

2.5.1. Description of the costs and benefits of restoration......................................................................................27

2.5.3. Benefits by intervention and by land use type...............................................................................................30

2.6. Analyses of carbon sequestration potential...................................................................................................33

2.6.1. The approach used.......................................................................................................................................33

2.6.2. Estimation of the carbon sequestration potential of restoration.....................................................................34

2.7. Civil Society in the process of restoration in the Ivory Coast........................................................................37

3. CONCLUSIONS.........................................................................................................................................................40

REFERENCES...............................................................................................................................................................42

4


LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Land use types identified...........................................................................................................................15

Table 2: Mapping of stakeholders by type of intervention....................................................................................16

Table 3: Legal and Policy frameworks; existing or under development ............................................................17

Table 4: The costs to consider by land use type and by intervention.................................................................28

Table 5: Expected benefits by intervention and by land use type........................................................................28

Table 6: Default values of above-ground biomass of forests................................................................................34

Table 7: Corresponding land use types; Ivory Coast and IPCC categorizations.............................................35

Table 8: Carbon dioxide sequestration potential of identified land use systems..............................................38

Table 9: Estimation of corresponding minimum carbon dioxide sequestration potential..................................38

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 : Land cover map legend (CCT, BNEDT, 2004)......................................................................................22

Figure 2 : Identification and extraction of degraded forests.................................................................................22

Figure 3 : Main watersheds of the Ivory Coast.......................................................................................................24

Figure 4 : Main centers of population and of economic activity...........................................................................24

Figure 5 : Minimum priority for restoration at the national scale..........................................................................25

Figure 6 : Minimum priority for restoration of Parks and Reserves.....................................................................25

Figure 7 : Minimum priority for restoration of Production forests.........................................................................26

Figure 8 : Minimum priority for restoration in the rural domain...............................................................................26

Figure 9 : Minimum priority for restoration in the FIP zones...................................................................................27

5


ACRONYMSAFD Agence Française pour le Développement

ANADER Agence Nationale d'Appui au Développement Rural

AfDB African Development Bank

BNETD Bureau National d'Etudes Techniques et de Développement

C2D Contrat de Désendettement et de Développement

CBD Convention on Biological Diversity

CC Climate Change

UNFCCC United Framework Convention on Climate Change

CCT Centre de Cartographie et Télédétection

ECOWAS Economic Community of West African States

CIAPOL Centre Ivoirien Antipollution

CNRA Centre National de Recherche Agronomique

CORENA Conservation des ressources Naturelles

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization

GEF Global Environment Facility

FIRCA Fonds Interprofessionnel pour la Recherche et le Conseil Agricoles

FLEGT Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade

FPRCI Fondation pour les Parcs et Réserves de Côte d’Ivoire

IPCC Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change

GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit

ICRAF World Agroforestry Centre

ISO International Standards Organisation

MEMIS Ministère d'État, Ministère de l'Intérieur et de la Sécurité

ROAM Restoration Opportunities Assessment Methodology

MESRS Ministère de l'Enseignement Supérieur et de la Recherche Scientifique

MINADER Ministère de l'Agriculture et du Développement Rural

MINEDD Ministère de l'Environnement et du Développement Durable

MINEF Ministère des Eaux et Forêts

MPD Ministère du Plan et du Développement

NDC Contributions Prévues au niveau National pour la COP 21

ITTO International Tropical Timber Organization

OIPR Office Ivoirien des Parcs et Réserves

ONDR Office National pour le Développement de la Riziculture

NGO Non-Governmental Organization

ONPC Office National de la Protection Civile

NTFP Non Timber Forest Products

FIP Forest Investment Program

UNEP United Nations Program for the Environment

REDD+Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation in developing countries and the role of Conservation, Sustainable Forest Management and Enhancement of Carbon Stocks

SODEFOR Société de Développement des Forêts

IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

UTZ Groupe de Certification de produits Agricoles

NPV Net Present Value

VAN Valeur Actualisée Nette

6


SUMMARY

The Ivory Coast has an agriculture-based economy. She is a leading producer of Cocoa, Cashew, Oil Palm, and Rubber

and has been a significant exporter of tropical timber. Following the loss of more than 80% of its natural forests over a period of just 50 years; to the combined effects of small and large scale agriculture, bush fires, illegal forest exploitation and artisanal mining; including synergistic impacts of a changing micro-climate, the country now presents excellent conditions for both wide-scale and mosaic restoration efforts.

With strong political support, underlined by H.E. President ALLASSANE OUATTARA’s declaration in New York, 2014, to commit his country to Agriculture with zero deforestation and forest degradation, technical, financial partners and State institutions have become encouraged to consider forest and landscape restoration as cornerstones of national development processes; REDD+, forestry investment and agriculture. Seizing this opportunity and under contract from the United Nations Environmental Programme - UNEP, the Central and West Africa Forest Program of the World Conservation Union – IUCN-PACO, with support from the IUCN Global Forest and Climate Change Program began in March 2016 a process of implementing the Restoration Opportunities Assessment Methodology - better known as ROAM, in the Ivory Coast.

The standard ROAM analyses steps were undertaken, comprising; Introduction to forest and landscape Restoration, including global processes; Institutional anchorage of the process, National level stakeholder analyses; identification of land use types and drivers of forest degradation; identification of restoration interventions by land use type and by drivers; corroborative field visits to test degradation hypotheses; qualitative participatory analyses of restoration costs and benefits by stakeholders of land use interventions, by use types; mapping of restoration priorities, estimation of carbon sequestration potential of restoration, and assessing civil society engagement and their strategies in the restoration process.

The Ivory Coast is fully engaged to adopt restoration as a pillar in its REDD+, Agriculture and Forestry development processes. There is strong political

ownership, with MINEDD and MINEF being the leading Ministries. A wide range of stakeholders; from government, research, private sector, civil society and community-based organizations are on-board the process. Six land use types; parks and reserves, gallery forests, production forests, humid and coastal areas, mining areas and savannahs; present opportunities for wide-scale restoration; while sacred forests, cocoa, coffee and plantation systems; present excellent opportunities for mosaic-type restoration. Wide-scale restoration interventions for State revenue, local employment; conservation and ecosystem services are amply supported by existing legal texts and other policy provisions under development. Mosaic restoration for community livelihoods are supported by both State; para-public and private interests.

At the national level there are over 5 million hectares of opportunity for both wide-scale and mosaic type restoration opportunities. Over 100,000 ha of these directly support Aichi Target 15 Objectives as they pertain to Biodiversity Conservation hotspots. Secondly, and although considered by stakeholders to be an under-estimate, there are over half a million hectares of restoration opportunity for production forests. Outside these two zones, there are over 4 million hectares of restoration opportunity in the rural domain.

However, there are some challenges to applying aspects of the ROAM methodology in the field. We site; data shortages, unreliable quantitative data (production and financial); uncertainties in global economics and how these affect policies on land use and related investments. Surmounting these have required strong alignment with the functional definition of degradation and engaging very closely with stakeholders at national and at local levels during analyses. Great care was taken in the use of quantitative data to qualitatively appreciate cost and benefits of interventions; especially as it is not possible to control the factors impacting the productive base. There was a general feeling that the restoration opportunities were conservative estimates given widely held perceptions of degradation. There is therefore a need during restoration interventions, to always update existing datasets with site-specific assessments.

7


INTRODUCTION

Forest and land degradation are today serious issues worldwide, particularly in developing countries. About one billion

people, or 15% of the world population, live in degrading areas, and it is estimated that about a third of the world’s population is affected by land and or forest degradation. Degradation is defined as «a persistent decline» in the goods and services provided by an ecosystem, related to water, social and economic goods and services.

In the Ivory Coast, the degradation of forest landscapes directly affects national production capacity considering that the country’s economy is heavily dependent on agriculture.

The government is aware of this situation and has already sounded the alarm and made several institutional, strategic and even taken political measures to stop degradation; reverse the situation and restore the affected forests and landscapes; and thus, support the millions of Ivorians whose livelihoods depend on the good management of these resources.

1.1. Overview

In this regard we note the 214-427 Law of 14 July 2014 pertaining to the new Forestry Code whose application texts are being drafted; including the country’s adherence to the FLEGT, REDD+ mechanisms, and the Forest Investment Program (recently approved by the World Bank), amongst other related Conventions such as the Aichi Target 15 Objectives of the Convention on biological Diversity and Others.

At the international level, the commitment of the Ivory Coast has been stated at the highest levels. In particular, in the speech by the President of the Republic H.E. ALLASSANE OUATTARA to the United Nations rostrum during the Climate Summit of September 23, 2014 in New York, he committed the Ivory Coast to cocoa production with «zero net deforestation» as from 2017.

In response to this national commitment, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the world leader in the application of nature-based solutions, such as landscape restoration, entered into a contractual relationship with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to assess opportunities for restoring degraded forests and landscapes in the Ivory Coast.

This Report charts and describes that process, from Inception in the Ivory Coast to Validation of the results of the Assessment.

8


1.2. Implementing ROAM

In recognition of the commitments and institutional set-up in the Ivory Coast, IUCN initially benefited from guidance from the Ministry of Forests and Water resources (MINEF), one of the main would-be beneficiaries of the restoration of degraded forests. Thus, a first workshop was held in this regard on 10 - 11 March 2016 in Abidjan to begin the process of identifying opportunities to restore degraded forests and landscapes, by using

available knowledge, existing plans, policies and measures underway.

The overall objective of this workshop, spread over two (02) days, was to start the process of identification and characterization of key stakeholders, policies, and opportunities in terms of priorities and interventions; including the types of land uses, appropriate for restoration.

1.2.1. ROAM inception in the Ivory Coast: Workshop of 10 - 11 March 2016

Box 1: Engagement of key actors in the process

In a subtle departure from the recommendations of the ROAM methodology, engagement of stakeholders at the outset in Ivory Coast was not targeted or pre-prepared; but was opportunistic and linked to the activities of entities directly involved in forest management; or who had been previously contacted, e.g., women’s networks. This approach provided us with the opportunity to enter into contact with stakeholders, based on their activities and not necessarily on their expected level of political influence on the process. A constraint here was that, the Ministry of the Environment and Sustainable Development (MINEDD) the leader of the Bonn Challenge commitment; and by

implication of Landscape Restoration in the Ivory Coast, took over the process a bit late. But despite this, the robust leadership and magnanimity of MINEDD kept all previous stakeholders (e.g., MINEF) on-board; and perhaps justified the earlier opportunistic engagements of other secondary stakeholders (NGOs, Universities, Women’s groups) at the outset of the process. In the end, the principal actors of the ROAM process (in order of encounter are :) Women’s groups and Civil Society Organizations, Universities, Scientific Research, Private Sector, Ministry of Forestry, and finally MINEDD. Other structures like MINADER, the BNEDT and other technical and support services and Ministries became a part of the process by default.

Specifically, and in an exploratory manner, the first meeting/workshop had as goals, to:

4Share information and start developing a common understanding of the notion of Forest Landscape Restoration (FLR), the Bonn Challenge; and identify links with the Aichi Target 15 of the CBD, REDD + and objectives of land degradation - Rio + 20

4Identify land use types and priority systems for restoration4Select the most relevant and feasible restoration options and interventions for the country4Identify and characterize the necessary restoration investments and their different advantages and

constraints4Enumerate examples of investments, and demonstrate their carbon storage benefits4Identify key success factors of Forest and Landscape Restoration in Ivory Coast and elsewhere: the

motivations, stakeholder capacity, level of participation and the legal, policy and institutional landscape4Enumerate possible sources of support for the restoration of existing landscapes; financial and

technical partners already deployed or in the course of deployment 4Set up a multidisciplinary, inter-ministerial country “working group” of experts, to facilitate the process

towards a possible consolidated process for restoration of degraded forests and landscapes in the Ivory Coast.

9


This first workshop was structured according to the requirements of ROAM and helped participants understand restoration and other related global processes.

As required by the ROAM methodology, the workshop helped to identify and assess the priorities of stakeholders involved in forest and landscape restoration, at national level. It also facilitated the identification of information gaps and helped define the structure and composition of the ‘experts working group’. It also helped advance the process of evaluating opportunities for restoration, and preparing the country for eventual adherence to the goals of the Bonn Challenge.

1.2.2. Process and main results of inception worksho p

By default, and given that this process was about restoring degraded ‘forests’, the first workshop was held under the auspices of the Ministry of Forests, Ivory Coast [MINEF]. Thirty-eight (38) people participated; comprising government officials, academics, researchers, representatives of nature conservation structures, some financial partners; NGOs and other members of civil society.

Nine presentations; covering introduction to restoration, the context and the possibilities existing in the Ivory Coast, were delivered in plenary. This was followed by four group sessions.

The results produced after the group sessions focused on : 4Relevant institutions and existing policies

supporting restoration;4The main causes of degradation of forests

and other landscapes4The impacts and perceptions of the

economic and social costs of restoration;4The knowledge and perceptions of different

types of restoration interventions;4The scope and feasibility of various

restoration interventions.

1.2.3. Synthesis of results of inception workshop

The results showed that there is strong political will, institutional and legal frameworks in Ivory Coast to support the restoration of degraded forests and landscapes. There are widespread perceptions of the different social and economic consequences of land use systems undergoing degradation. With different levels of analyses during the workshop, a good appreciation of the potentials and feasibility of various intervention strategies for restoration were articulated. It was also recognized that, a lack of timely and accurate spatial data would limit the capacities of countries to commit to possible wide scale forest and landscape restoration activities.

1.2.4. From Inception to Evaluation: 12 March – 21 June 2016

A particular pre-occupation during and after the inception process of evaluating potentials for restoring degraded landscapes was the issue of «functional degradation». It was precisely how to translate this concept, based not on a simple physical or tangible factor of change, but rather on loss of functionalities; in the context of flows of products and services, lost or being lost by a production system.

Note that, the notion of ‘degradation’ of forests [and deforestation] is a concept defined by the IPCC under the UNFCCC. It is applied as a central concept in the climate change mitigation process through reducing emissions of

Charcoal production is a major cause of tree-cover loss in Ivory Coast and an Important source of revenue

10


greenhouse gases; and due to the loss of forest cover in forest-rich developing countries [REDD+]. While deforestation is more easily detected by remote sensing and other approaches, to-date, degradation is not

easy to detect and measure at large scale. Nevertheless, the issue of loss of function has always been recognized as the central element in the definition of ‘forest degradation’. However, it is after the application of methodologies such as ROAM, that a better understanding of how degradation unfolds in the field, and is evaluated in relations to its drivers, can be acquired.

Given this definition of degradation, its evaluation remains of central importance to restoration and the lessons learned from the workshop of 10-11 March 2016, relate to the next steps of issues to be resolved in the context of ROAM.

Artisanal mining is a major cause of land degradation and soil poisoning, making natural regeneration, problematic

The first three questions were used as basic issues that framed the Terms of References developed for spatial analyses, characterization of restoration costs and benefits; and carbon sequestration potential of interventions. With the constant support of MINEF during these inception stages, two consultants of Ivorian nationality (one Female, one Male) were hired to conduct the analyses. The entire analysis and reporting process was supervised by IUCN and lasted a total of forty-four [44] days, from 06 May to 20 June 2016.

1.2.5. Perceptions of degradation by landscape resource-dependent communities

As mentioned earlier, one of the concerns in the implementation of the ROAM methodology in the

field was how the phenomenon of degradation is perceived by people who use the forest resources and landscapes on a daily basis. A field visit was therefore carried out before the validation workshop to help sample some perspectives and to qualify some the results of analyses; interventions and investments proposed by stakeholders per cause of degradation, by land use system; and especially how to better articulate expected benefits and costs of restoration to be considered.

Additionally, and in view of the restoration opportunities presented by the Forest Investment Programme (FIP) to be supported by the World Bank in the Ivory Coast, the proposed FIP zones of the Centre and South West regions were selected for the visits.

These include:

4Bridging the information gap, i.e., despite the out-of-date spatial data and available topographic maps, surface areas and locations of different types of land use, etc.

4Given the lack of availability and accuracy in existing financial and economic data; and the possible non-applicability of economic analysis approaches such as Net Present Value [NPV] given data quality; how to assess and characterize the nature of the economic costs and benefits of restoration, using more appropriate tools and approaches?

4On the basis of the available spatial data, how to assess and estimate the carbon sequestration potential of different land use systems, according to international standards of carbon stock measurements and corresponding land uses [according to IPCC guidelines]

4How to ensure institutional anchorage of the process and ownership of the results of the evaluation, in the context of ongoing land use processes in the country; within zero deforestation Agriculture; in the context of the Bonn Challenge, Target 15 of the Aichi CBD objectives, and the fight against desertification,

11


Degradation affects soil water availability and this negatively affects soil fertility

The main outcomes of the validation workshop were therefore : 4The participants are informed about the

history, rationale and foundation of the current process and the role of IUCN, the Bonn Challenge and related objectives; the overall situation of restoration on the African continent and of the ROAM methodology.

4The participants were informed on the strategic options for the restoration of degraded landscapes and forests in Ivory Coast; the REDD + process, the FIP and Civil Society; the National Strategic Plan for Forestry Development; Reforestation and the FLEGT process; and the agriculture policy of zero deforestation.

4The results of the application of ROAM were shared and discussed; these comprised; Stakeholder analyses, the mapping of Priorities and Opportunities for restoration, types of interventions and their justifications, an analysis of the nature of costs to be considered and benefits to be expected from restoration; including the potentials for carbon sequestration

4A final discussion of group work results focused on methodological, quantitative, qualitative and governance aspects of restoration; as guidelines towards the implementation of findings within a possible restoration process.

1.2.6. The validation workshop: 21-22 June 2016

The workshop to validate opportunities for restoring degraded forests and landscapes in the Ivory Coast was held from the 21 to 22, June 2016. It was a culmination of sharing and validation of the relevance of the results of work that began with the inception workshop of 10-11 March 2016.

This validation workshop also explored how the results of the just-completed evaluation of opportunities for restoration, would contribute to different national and global processes, such as: the Forest Investment Program [FIP], support the Ivory Coast’s Nationally Determined Contributions to the UNFCCC REDD+ (NDC),

the Aichi Target 15 of the CBD, Desertification Control, zero deforestation Agriculture policy and off-course, Reforestation in the Ivory Coast.

Therefore, the workshop sought in the first instance, to resolve some deep methodological questions. In this regard, an assessment of findings in the context of the restoration opportunities given some methodological limitations; physical, economic, social and political were performed.

Secondly, by using the results acquired through the application of ROAM, the methodology of the workshop was structured to facilitate and capture the results of discussions and clarifications considered pertinent to bring out relevant needs and fill-in information gaps in the process.

1.2.7. Institutional anchorage of the process

During the evaluation period, some institutional issues had to be carefully considered. These comprised the requirements and prospects of restoration, the adhesion of the Ivory Coast to the Bonn Challenge; including funding opportunities related thereto; contribution of forest landscape

12


Box 2: Some Limits, Opportunities and Hypo-theses in the Application of ROAM.

The ROAM methodology is actually going through a Road-Test Phase. As a result, we may not on principle speak too strongly of its limits. On the other hand, we may evaluate how to render the methodology more credible in a real-world situation. So, important challenges have been encountered during key steps in data collection and analyses.

As such, important lessons can be highlighted. For instance outdated spatial data and other related land use data, such as topographic maps should ordinarily be seen as an obvious limitation, This is because, the spatial extent of degraded forests are often based on this type of data.

An additional concern has been the absence of metadata explaining how degradation was detected and how it has been defined in existing datasets. These definitions are important because, degradation in the framework of restoration as currently defined is not entirely a spatial quantity; but a dimension of functionality of systems in terms of the services that the systems provide.

Although degradation in the context of the theory and practice of restoration can be described, spatially situated or even quantitatively estimated; functionality of a degraded system – the more important dimension, can most meaningfully be described qualitatively.

As a consequence, faced by outdated maps, including not being sure about the exact spatial extent of what is described as ‘degraded’; by working at the level of different categories of land use types; and to develop a deeper case-by-case understanding of the different perceptions of degradation, we are able to produce more useful and differentiated results. Knowing that the total surface of the Ivory Coast has not changed since production of the outdated (12 year old map), we can still be certain that, the mapped extents of ‘degraded’ forests are at the very least the minimum area to be considered for restoration.

An important message here is that, the extent of deforestation – the more easily mapped phenomenon is not identical to degradation. Therefore, this hypothesis needs to be tested by evaluating the extent to which deforestation and forest degradation are correlated in the context of restoration.

Restoration of watersheds is possible and can positively impact all downstream land use and livelihoods activities

restoration to Target 15 Aichi under the CBD, the fight against desertification, and especially the huge potential contribution of restoration towards carbon sequestration in the Ivory Coast. As a result of these considerations, the emergence of the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development (MINEDD) – responsible for Conventions in general, as leader of the process became ever more inevitable.

However, in her prior involvement, the Ministry of Forestry (MINEF), in leading the inception workshop, development of the terms of reference for the study, recruitment and coaching of the

two young Ivorian consultants had also made important preparatory contributions towards the institutional anchorage of the process.

Therefore, and purely accidentally, instead on just one Ministry (MINEDD) two Ministries had become fully engaged in the process.

So the results of this evaluation of the Assessment Methodology in Ivory Coast were shared with the general public under the patronage of the Ministry of the Environment and Sustainable Development; with the support and collaboration of the Ministries of Forestry.

13


These results are organized according to the main stages of the implementation of ROAM in the Ivory Coast. The presentation

is done as follows:

4Illustration of the dimensions of degradation in the field

4Stakeholders analyses 4The policy, legal and institutional frameworks

supporting restoration4The spatial extents of priorities for restoration

represented by the figures and maps4A qualitative analysis of the costs to consider

and expected benefits4An analysis of the carbon sequestration

potential of the restoration options4A presentation of the manner of involvement of

civil society in the process

4At the end, a brief conclusion that summarizes the key points to retain and the next steps as recommended by the participants is presented.

Box 3. The vicious circle of degradation in the Center and South Eastern zones of the Ivory Coast

Context :

Farmers in the town of Dimbokro, mostly small-scale, are in the Centre Zone of the FIP in the Ivory Coast. The limits of their locality border the production forest of AHUA.

The production forest of AHUA is subject to a management plan. This plan includes several goals, comprising the production of timber, protection (gallery forests and humid areas, recreation - tourism, a series of limited agricultural areas, and cemeteries in sacred groves).

The surrounding landscape is mixed and dominated by degraded primary forests, secondary forests and woodlands. Natural regenerations of some species, (Iroko, Samba, Ako, Cheese and Kodibé) have been observed here.

Dimensions, drivers and consequences of degradation

This is also an area of high cocoa production, the main cash crop in the Ivory Coast. However,

this area is also facing the problem of ageing cocoa orchards. The first plantations date from the 60s and 70s. Despite the support of MINADER through the provision of improved seedlings of cocoa, production continues to decline significantly. One of the main factors behind this drop in production is drought, which in recent years has been especially intense and prolonged. The drought also affects tree crops such as oil palm, cashew, and food crops grown mainly by women.

Frustrated by the continuing failures especially of cocoa, young people are turning to poaching in the forest including in the production forest of AHUA, and especially, to the production and sale of charcoal. They also practice hunting in other nearby forests and savannas using bushfires as a hunting tactic.

To compensate for the fall in farm incomes, the general population of the area is heavily involved in systematic felling of naturally growing trees for the production of charcoal. The population of the area is not interested in planting trees. They give as reasons the lack of awareness of any security of tenure of any planted trees.

2. RESULTS

Degradation causes water stress, and requires communities to go long distances for water, impacting women

2.1. Illustration of the dimensions of degradation in the field

14


So, despite the possibility of natural regeneration in the area, the vicious cycles of drought, bushfires, lack of security of tenure and tree ownership, does not encourage farmers to nurture the naturally regenerated trees or to plant new ones.

In addition, the existing laws encourage small wood exploiters to cut-down high value economic species of trees regardless of their location, even in farmers’ fields.

With a shortage of trees for fuelwood (locally called ‘Bundle’) in the rural areas, local residents, especially youths, are obliged to go into classified forests. In extreme cases, farmers use the branches cocoa trees for the production

of charcoal or as wood fuel in their homes.

In spite of this - especially in terms of security of tenure, there is a strong and tangible recognition by the public, of the relentless degradation of forest landscapes in particular; as being at the origin of the decline in agricultural productivity; the incidence of localized drought, the increase in local poverty and the exodus of youths to the forests and lands in the southwest of the country (FIP Zone southwest) and even to Liberia and to Guinea Conakry.

The findings are unanimous that this vicious cycle of degradation of lands and resources, poverty and migration are strongly linked to the disappearance of trees and of healthy, natural forests.

So in unanimity, the diverse realities and manifestations of degradation of cocoa fields, secondary forests, savannas, soil, food crop fields; gallery and primary forests are all linked not so much to a reduction in the absolute area covered by the resource, but to their usefulness to the population.

Resolving the components of this cycle of degradation, equally encountered during the visit to SOUBRE in the south eastern zone of the FIP are thus in a de facto manner at the center of our analyses of actors, opportunities and priorities for restoration; the costs to be considered, benefits to be expected, including potentials for carbon sequestration by the restored landscapes.

15


2.2. S

take

hold

ers a

nalys

es:

2.2

.1. M

appi

ng an

d pr

elim

inar

y gro

upin

g of

stak

ehol

ders

Tabl

e 1: L

and

use t

ypes

iden

tified

Land

Use

type

s ide

ntifie

d

Natio

nal le

vel a

ctors

Main

Sta

keho

lders

Loca

l leve

l Acto

rsTe

chnic

al an

d Fi

nanc

ial P

artn

ers

1Pr

otec

ted A

reas

: Pa

rks a

nd n

atur

al

rese

rves

(PNR

)M

INED

D (O

IPR)

, FPR

CI, M

PD,

MES

RS

Loca

l par

k and

rese

rve

m

anag

emen

t com

mitte

es

(in lia

ison

with

loca

l coll

ec-

tivitie

s), N

GOs

GIZ,

UNE

P, U

NESC

O, S

tate

, GIZ

, Coo

péra

tion

Ivoiro

-japo

nnais

e,

C2D,

UNE

P, W

orld

Bank

, UIC

N, W

CF,

Poss

ibility

of a

ssoc

iating

loca

l coll

ectiv

ities.

2

Prod

uctio

n fo

rests

SODE

FOR,

MIN

EF, W

ood

value

chain

ope

r-at

ors,

NGOs

Colle

ctivit

ies, lo

cal c

omm

unitie

s and

NG

Os.

WCF

, OIB

T, Co

opér

ation

Ivoir

o-Ja

ponn

aise,

ITTO

, CNT

IG, B

NETD

, C2

D CO

RENA

, GEF

, FAO

, Coo

péra

tion

Ivoiro

-Jap

onna

ise, G

IZ,

Woo

d va

lue ch

ain o

pera

tors

, NGO

s

Poss

ibility

of a

ssoc

iating

loca

l coll

ectiv

ities

3Ru

ral D

omain

3.

1.Ag

ricult

ural

mos

aics;

Coco

a, co

ffee,

oil

palm

syste

ms,

etc.

M

INAD

ER, A

NADE

R, M

INED

D (C

IAPO

L),

MIN

EFOw

ning

farm

ers,

NGOs

Rainf

ores

t Allia

nce,

ISO,

UTZ

, Sta

te, A

FD, U

NDP,

GIZ

, Agr

icultu

re

coop

erat

ive,

ISO,

Pro

gram

me-

Quali

té, R

esea

rch

(CNR

A, C

entre

su

isse,

ICRA

F)

3.2

Priva

te p

lanta

tions

MIN

ADER

, MEM

IS (L

ocal

Adm

inistr

ation

and

co

llecti

vities

), BN

ETD,

Aut

horiz

ed Te

chnic

al Ag

ents

(OTA

)

Indiv

idual

owne

rs, b

usine

ss p

erso

ns,

NGOs

. St

ate,

FIR

CA, A

NADE

R, B

NETD

, OIB

T

3.3.

Sava

nnah

s, wo

oded

sava

nnah

s and

se

cond

ary f

ores

ts.

M

INAD

ER, A

NADE

R, C

NRA,

Con

seil C

a-fé

-Cac

ao, p

rivat

e bu

sines

ses

Agric

ultur

e co

oper

ative

s Coll

ectiv

ities,

local

com

mun

ities a

nd N

GOs,

Busi-

ness

per

sons

Stat

e, A

gricu

lture

Cop

erat

ives,

Colle

ctivit

ies a

nd P

rivat

e En

terp

rises

, (OL

AM,

Carg

ill)

3.3

*Mini

ng a

reas

and

aba

ndon

ed m

ines

M

INEF

, MIN

ADER

, ANA

DER,

CNR

A, O

NDR,

M

MI,

Nige

r Bas

in Au

thor

ity (A

BN),

Volta

Ba

sin A

utho

rity (

VBA)

, BNE

TD, M

INEF

, M

INED

D, O

NPC

Colle

ctivit

ies, lo

cal c

omm

unitie

s and

NG

Os, A

rtisa

ns m

iners

,St

ate,

AfD

B, W

orld

Bank

, BID

, AFD

, Nige

r Bas

in Au

thor

ity (N

BA),

Volta

Bas

in Au

thor

ity (V

BA),

ONPC

(Offic

e Na

tiona

l de

la Pr

otec

tion

Civil

e)

3.4

*Gall

ery f

ores

ts SO

DEFO

R, M

INEF

, MIN

EDD,

MIN

ADER

, M

PDCo

llecti

vities

and

NGO

sRA

MSA

R Co

nven

tion,

CBD

-Aich

i, Pos

sibilit

y of a

ssoc

iating

loca

l coll

ectiv

ities,

ECOW

AS, W

orld

Bank

, AfD

B (F

IP)

3.5

*Sac

red

fore

stsM

INEF

, MIN

ADER

, SOD

EFOR

,Co

llecti

vities

, neig

hbor

ing co

mm

uni-

ties ,

Cha

mbe

r of k

ings a

nd tr

aditio

nal

ruler

s (M

EMIS

), NG

Os

CBD-

Aich

i, Sta

te, N

GOs,

Villa

ge P

opula

tions

,

Colle

ctivit

ies

3.6

*Man

grov

es, c

oasta

l and

hum

id zo

nes

M

INED

D (O

IPR)

, MIN

EF, M

MI,

SODE

FOR,

M

inistr

y of S

cient

ific re

sear

ch a

nd h

igher

ed

ucat

ion.,

MPD

Colle

ctivit

iesRA

MSA

R (h

umid

zone

s), G

EF, S

tate

, GEF

, Pos

sibilit

y of a

ssoc

iating

loca

l co

llecti

vities

*The

se ca

n also

exist

in P

arks

and i

n natu

ral re

serve

s

16


2.2.2.

Gro

upin

g of

stak

ehol

ders

Tabl

e 2: M

appi

ng o

f sta

keho

lder

s by t

ype o

f int

erve

ntio

n La

nd U

se ty

pes

iden

tified

Type

of R

esto

ratio

n in

terv

entio

ns

Mai

n st

akeh

olde

rsN

atio

nal l

evel

act

ors

Loca

l lev

el a

ctor

s1

Prot

ecte

d Ar

eas

: Par

ks a

nd

natu

ral

-

Man

agem

ent o

f inh

abita

nts

or h

abita

ts in

a p

artic

ipat

ory

man

ner

- In

vasi

ve S

peci

es C

ontro

l Stra

tegi

es

- Ef

fect

ive

mon

itorin

g of

a m

inim

um o

f res

tora

tion

prio

rity

MIN

EDD

(OIP

R),

FPR

CI,

MPD

, M

ESR

S Lo

cal p

arks

and

rese

rves

m

anag

emen

t com

mitt

ees

(in

conj

unct

ion

with

loca

l aut

horit

ies

) , N

GO

s

2Pr

oduc

tion

fore

sts

-

Writ

ing,

val

idat

ion

and

codi

ng

-

Par

ticip

ator

y m

anag

emen

t pla

ns :

-

Lan

d te

nure

sec

urity

,

-

Encr

oach

men

t Man

agem

ent O

ptio

ns

-

Hum

an s

ettle

men

ts a

nd a

gric

ultu

ral fi

elds

;

-

Surv

eilla

nce

agai

nst b

ush

fires

,

-

illega

l log

ging

and

poa

chin

g ;

-

Ref

ores

tatio

n

SOD

EFO

R, M

INEF

, op

erat

ors

of th

e tim

ber s

ecto

r, O

NG

Col

lect

iviti

es, l

ocal

com

mun

ities

, aut

hori-

ties,

NG

Os

3R

ural

Dom

ain

3.

1.Ag

ricul

tura

l mos

aics

; C

ocoa

, co

ffee,

oil

palm

sys

tem

s, e

tc.

- C

ocoa

Cer

tifica

tion

- P

rom

otio

n of

cof

fee,

cas

hew

pla

ntat

ions

, ru

bber

a

nd o

il pa

lm -b

ased

Agr

ofor

estry

;

- T

rain

ing

and

phyt

osan

itary

mon

itorin

g

- T

he im

plem

enta

tion

of w

ater

har

vest

ing

tech

niqu

es;

- O

rcha

rds

reju

vena

tion

stra

tegy

,

- p

rote

ctio

n ag

ains

t bus

hfire

s

MIN

ADER

, AN

ADER

, MIN

EDD

(CIA

POL)

, M

INEF

Ow

ning

farm

ers,

NG

Os

3.2

Priv

ate

plan

tatio

ns-

Secu

re a

cces

s to

land

MIN

ADER

, MEM

IS (L

ocal

adm

inis

tratio

n an

d co

llect

iviti

es),

BNET

D, a

utho

rized

tech

nica

l op

erat

ors

(OTA

)

Indi

vidu

als,

bus

ines

s pe

rson

s an

d N

GO

s

3.3.

Sava

nnas

, woo

ded

sava

nnas

an

d se

cond

ary

fore

sts.

- Cre

atio

n of

pla

ntat

ions

of f

ast-

grow

ing

trees

- The

impl

emen

tatio

n of

wat

er h

arve

stin

g te

chni

ques

MIN

ADER

, AN

ADER

, CN

RA,

Con

seil

Caf

é-C

a-ca

o, p

rivat

e en

terp

rises

Ag

ricul

tura

l coo

pera

tives

, Loc

al A

utho

ri-tie

s , N

GO

s, tr

ader

s

17


2.3. In

stitu

tiona

l, leg

al an

d po

licy f

ram

ewor

ks

2.3.1

The f

ram

ewor

ks b

y lan

d us

e typ

e and

by i

nter

vent

ion

Tabl

e 3: L

egal

and

Polic

y fra

mew

orks

; exis

ting

or u

nder

dev

elopm

ent

3.3

*Mini

ng a

reas

and

aba

ndon

ed

mine

s

-

Cre

ation

of p

lanta

tions

of f

ast-

grow

ing tr

ees

- Im

plem

ent t

he re

gulat

ions i

n fo

rce

for a

rtisa

nal m

ining

an

d co

ntro

l mea

sure

s for

fore

st fir

es

MIN

EF, M

INAD

ER, A

NADE

R, C

NRA,

OND

R,

MM

I, Aut

orité

du

Bass

in du

Nige

r (AB

N), A

utor

i-té

du

Bass

in de

la V

olta

(ABV

), BN

ETD,

MIN

EF,

MIN

EDD,

ONP

C

Colle

ctivit

ies, N

GOs a

nd a

rtisa

nal m

iners

3.4

*Gall

ery f

ores

ts

- Im

plem

ent m

anag

emen

t plan

s for

hum

id zo

nes a

nd

galle

ry fo

rests

SO

DEFO

R, M

INEF

, MIN

EDD,

MIN

ADER

, MPD

Colle

ctivit

ies, N

GOs

3.5

*Sac

red

fore

sts-

Supp

ort t

o co

mm

unity

-bas

ed b

y-law

s

- Bu

ild m

anag

emen

t cap

acitie

s of c

omm

unitie

s man

aging

sa

cred

fore

sts

- Ex

tens

ion/se

nsitiz

ation

and

esta

blish

men

t of t

enur

e ce

rtific

ates

- Pr

ovide

supp

ort t

o as

siste

d na

tura

l reg

ener

ation

MIN

EF, M

INAD

ER, S

ODEF

OR,

Colle

ctivit

ies, lo

cal c

omm

unitie

s, au

thor

i-tie

s, NG

Os Ho

use

of T

radit

ional

Ruler

s and

Ki

ngs (

MEM

IS

3.6

*Man

grov

es, c

oasta

l and

hu-

mid

zone

s

- Ef

fecti

ve su

rveil

lance

of a

mini

mum

of t

he p

riorit

y for

re

stora

tion

M

INED

D (O

IPR)

, MIN

EF, M

MI,

SODE

FOR,

Min-

istry

of R

esea

rch

and

High

er E

duca

tion,

MPD

Colle

ctivit

ies, lo

cal c

omm

unitie

s, au

thor

i-tie

s, NG

Os

Land

Use

type

s ide

n-tifi

edPr

incipa

l cau

ses o

f deg

-ra

datio

nTy

pes o

f Res

to-ra

tion I

nterve

n-tio

n

Lega

l, poli

tical

and i

nstitu

tiona

l fram

ewor

k in e

xisten

ce or

unde

r dev

elopm

ent

Prote

cted A

reas

: Pa

rks an

d natu

ral

rese

rves (

PNR)

Farm

s and

ha

bitati

ons

Poac

hing

Mana

geme

nt of

inhab

itants

or

habit

ats

Law

n° 20

02-1

02 of

11 F

ebru

ary 2

002 r

elativ

e to t

he cr

eatio

n, ma

nage

ment

and fi

nanc

-ing

of na

tiona

l par

ks an

d natu

ral re

serve

s.

Conv

entio

ns in

terna

tiona

les

18


*Man

grov

es, c

oast

al

and

hum

id z

ones

M

inin

g

Bus

h fir

es

Effe

ctiv

e su

r-ve

illan

ce o

f a

min

imum

of t

he

prio

rity

for

res

to-

ratio

n

Dra

ft D

ecre

e de

finin

g fo

rest

man

agem

ent m

odal

ities

for

prot

ectin

g ba

nks,

slo

pes

and

wat

er-

shed

sLa

w n

° 95

-553

du

17 J

uly

1995

min

ing

code

Law

n°9

8-75

5 du

23

Dec

embe

r 19

98 W

ater

cod

e;La

w N

° 20

14-4

27 d

u 14

Jul

y 20

14 o

n th

e F

ores

try

code

La

w N

° 96

-766

du

03 O

ctob

er 1

996

envi

ronm

enta

l cod

e C

onve

ntio

n R

AM

SA

R r

elat

ive

to th

e pr

otec

tion

of h

umid

zon

es o

f int

erna

tiona

l sig

nific

ance

. *G

alle

ry fo

rest

s

Exp

loita

tion

of w

ood

ener

gy

Ero

sion

Inva

sive

spe

cies

Impl

emen

tatio

n of

a m

anag

emen

t pl

an fo

r w

etla

nds

and

galle

ry fo

r-es

ts

Law

N°9

8-75

0 du

23-

12-9

8 m

odifi

ed b

y la

w N

° 20

04-4

12 d

u 14

of A

ugus

t 200

4 pe

rtai

ning

to

land

tenu

re in

the

rura

l dom

ain

Law

N°

96-7

66 o

f 03

Oct

ober

199

6 on

the

envi

ronm

ent c

ode

Dra

ft D

ecre

e de

finin

g fo

rest

man

agem

ent m

odal

ities

for

prot

ectin

g ba

nks,

slo

pes

and

wat

er-

shed

sLa

w N

o. 2

012-

1128

of 1

2 D

ecem

ber

2012

on

the

orie

ntat

ion

of T

errit

oria

l Adm

inis

trat

ion

Inva

sive

spe

cies

co

ntro

l str

ateg

ies

Law

N°

96-7

66 o

f 03

Oct

ober

199

6 on

the

Env

ironm

enta

l Cod

e

Dra

ft fo

rest

man

agem

ent D

ecre

e an

d m

odal

ities

indi

spen

sabl

e fo

r pr

otec

tion

of b

anks

, sl

opes

an

d w

ater

shed

s La

w N

o. 2

012-

1128

of 1

2 D

ecem

ber

2012

on

the

orie

ntat

ion

of T

errit

oria

l Adm

inis

trat

ion

Land

Use

Typ

es

Cau

ses

of d

egra

datio

n

Type

s of

rest

o-ra

tion

Inte

rven

tion

Le

gal,

polit

ical

and

inst

itutio

nal f

ram

ewor

k in

exi

sten

ce o

r und

er d

evel

opm

ent

Pro

duct

ion

fore

sts*

Fiel

ds a

nd h

ouse

s

poac

hing

Min

ing

Bus

hfire

s

illeg

al e

xplo

itatio

n

Writ

ing,

val

idat

ion

and

codi

ficat

ions

Law

N°

2014

-427

of 1

4 Ju

ly 2

014

on th

e Fo

rest

Cod

e an

d its

impl

emen

ting

regu

latio

nsD

ecre

e N

0 93-

206

of 3

Feb

ruar

y 19

93 d

efini

ng th

e m

issi

ons

of S

OD

EFO

RD

ecre

e N

66-

422

of 1

5 S

epte

mbe

r 196

6 es

tabl

ishi

ng S

OD

EFO

R a

s st

ate

com

pany

Ref

ores

tatio

nLa

w N

° 20

14-4

27 o

f 14

July

201

4 on

the

Fore

st C

ode

and

its im

plem

entin

g re

gula

tions

D

ecre

e N

0 93-

206

of 3

Feb

ruar

y 19

93 d

efini

ng th

e m

issi

ons

of S

OD

EFO

RD

ecre

e N

66-

422

of 1

5 S

epte

mbe

r 196

6 es

tabl

ishi

ng S

OD

EFO

R a

s st

ate

com

pany

Per

Ha

surv

eil-

lanc

e ag

ains

t bus

h fir

es ,

illeg

al lo

g-gi

ng a

nd p

oach

ing

Law

N°

2014

-427

of 1

4 Ju

ly 2

014

on th

e Fo

rest

Cod

e an

d its

impl

emen

ting

regu

latio

ns

Dec

ree

N0 9

3-20

6 of

3 F

ebru

ary

1993

defi

ning

the

mis

sion

s of

SO

DE

FOR

Dec

ree

N0 6

6-42

2 of

15

Sep

tem

ber 1

966

esta

blis

hing

SO

DE

FOR

as

stat

e co

mpa

ny D

ecre

e N

20

12 -1

0 49

of 2

4 O

ctob

er 2

012

esta

blis

hing

the

Nat

iona

l Com

mis

sion

RE

DD

+E

ncro

achm

ent

man

agem

ent

optio

ns fo

r hum

an

settl

emen

ts a

nd

agric

ultu

ral fi

elds

Law

N°

2014

-427

of 1

4 Ju

ly 2

014

on th

e Fo

rest

Cod

e an

d its

impl

emen

ting

regu

latio

ns

Dec

ree

N0 9

3-20

6 of

3 F

ebru

ary

1993

defi

ning

the

mis

sion

s of

SO

DE

FOR

Dec

ree

N0 6

6-42

2 of

15

Sep

tem

ber 1

966

esta

blis

hing

SO

DE

FOR

as

stat

e co

mpa

ny

Law

N°

96-7

66 o

f 03

Oct

ober

199

6 on

the

Env

ironm

ent C

ode

Land

tenu

reG

azet

ting

dire

ctiv

es

19


Land

Use

type

s

Cau

ses

of D

egra

-da

tion

Ty

pes

of R

esto

ratio

n In

terv

entio

n L

egal

, pol

itica

l and

inst

itutio

nal f

ram

ewor

k in

exi

sten

ce o

r und

er d

evel

opm

ent

*Sac

red

fore

sts

- Far

ms,

- hab

ita-

tions

,

- Poa

chin

g,

- min

ing

and

Bus

h fir

es

Sup

port

to c

omm

uni-

ty-b

ased

by-

law

s.

Law

N°

2014

-427

of 1

4 Ju

ly 2

014

on th

e Fo

rest

ry C

ode

and

decr

ees

of a

pplic

atio

n.

Pro

ject

on

the

reha

bilit

atio

n of

sac

red

fore

sts

in th

e Iv

ory

Coa

st.

Cap

acity

bui

ldin

g in

co

mm

uniti

es w

ith S

acre

d fo

rest

s.

Law

N°

2014

-427

of 1

4 Ju

ly 2

014

on th

e Fo

rest

ry C

ode

and

decr

ees

of a

pplic

atio

n.

Pro

ject

on

the

reha

bilit

atio

n of

sac

red

fore

sts

in th

e Iv

ory

Coa

st.

Ext

ensi

on a

nd e

stab

lish-

men

t of l

and

certi

ficat

esLa

w N

°98-

750

of 2

3-12

-98

mod

ified

by

law

N°

2004

-412

of 1

4 A

ugus

t 200

4 pe

rtain

ing

to th

e ru

ral d

omai

n

Ass

iste

d na

tura

l reg

en-

erat

ion

Law

N°

2014

-427

of 1

4 Ju

ly 2

014

on th

e Fo

rest

ry C

ode

and

decr

ees

of a

pplic

atio

n.

Dec

ree

N0 9

3-20

6 of

3 F

ebru

ary

1993

defi

ning

the

mis

sion

s of

SO

DE

FOR

Dec

ree

N0 6

6-42

2 of

15

Sep

tem

ber 1

966

esta

blis

hing

SO

DE

FOR

as

stat

e co

mpa

nyP

rivat

e P

lant

atio

ns- A

ging

orc

hard

s,

- Exc

ess

use

of

Phy

tosa

nita

ry p

rod-

ucts

- Dro

ught

- Ille

gal E

xplo

itatio

n of

tim

ber,

- Ove

r exp

loita

tion

of

woo

d,

- Ero

sion

- Des

ertifi

catio

n ,

- Pol

lutio

n of

soi

l and

w

ater

- Bus

hfire

s

Sec

urin

g ac

cess

to la

ndLa

w N

°98-

750

of 2

3-12

-98

mod

ified

by

law

N°

2004

-412

of 1

4 A

ugus

t 200

4 pe

rtain

ing

to th

e ru

ral d

omai

n

Law

N°

96-7

66 o

f 03

Oct

ober

199

6 on

the

Env

ironm

ent C

ode

Law

n°9

8-75

5 du

23

Dec

embe

r 199

8 W

ater

cod

e;

Law

n°

95-5

53 d

u 17

Jul

y 19

95 m

inin

g co

de

Dra

ft or

ient

atio

n la

w o

n Te

rrito

rial A

dmin

istra

tion

C

ocoa

sys

tem

s P

hyto

sani

tary

trai

ning

and

m

onito

ring

Law

N°

96-7

66 o

f 03

Oct

ober

199

6 on

the

envi

ronm

ent c

ode

Doc

umen

t of t

he a

ppro

ved

list o

f pes

ticid

es p

erm

itted

in Iv

ory

Coa

st

Law

n°9

8-75

5 du

23

Dec

embe

r 199

8 W

ater

cod

e;

Pro

gram

me-

Qua

lité

Gro

wth

of q

uant

ity a

nd q

ualit

y in

the

Cof

fee

and

Coc

oa in

dust

ry

Cof

fee

Sys

tem

s

20


Land

Use

type

s

Caus

es o

f Deg

rada

tion

Ty

pes

of R

esto

ratio

n In

terv

entio

n L

egal

, pol

itical

and

inst

itutio

nal f

ram

ewor

k in

exis

tenc

e or

und

er d

evel

opm

ent

*Sac

red

fore

sts

- Far

ms,

- hab

itatio

ns,

- Poa

chin

g,

- min

ing

and

Bush

fire

s

Supp

ort t

o co

mm

uni-

ty-b

ased

by-

laws

. La

w N°

201

4-42

7 of

14

July

2014

on

the

Fore

stry

Cod

e an

d de

cree

s of

app

licat

ion.

Proj

ect o

n th

e re

habi

litatio

n of

sac

red

fore

sts

in th

e Iv

ory

Coas

t.

Capa

city

build

ing

in

com

mun

ities

with

Sac

red

fore

sts.

Law

N° 2

014-

427

of 1

4 Ju

ly 20

14 o

n th

e Fo

rest

ry C

ode

and

decr

ees

of a

pplic

atio

n.

Proj

ect o

n th

e re

habi

litatio

n of

sac

red

fore

sts

in th

e Iv

ory

Coas

t.

Exte

nsio

n an

d es

tabl

ish-

men

t of l

and

certi

ficat

esLa

w N°

98-7

50 o

f 23-

12-9

8 m

odifie

d by

law

N° 2

004-

412

of 1

4 Au

gust

200

4 pe

rtain

ing

to th

e ru

ral d

omai

n

Assis

ted

natu

ral r

egen

-er

atio

nLa

w N°

201

4-42

7 of

14

July

2014

on

the

Fore

stry

Cod

e an

d de

cree

s of

app

licat

ion.

Decr

ee N

0 93-

206

of 3

Feb

ruar

y 19

93 d

efini

ng th

e m

issio

ns o

f SO

DEFO

R

Decr

ee N

0 66-

422

of 1

5 Se

ptem

ber 1

966

esta

blish

ing

SODE

FOR

as s

tate

com

pany

Priva

te P

lant

atio

ns- A

ging

orc

hard

s,

- Exc

ess

use

of

Phyt

osan

itary

pro

duct

s

- Dro

ught

- Ille

gal E

xplo

itatio

n of

tim

ber,

- Ove

r exp

loita

tion

of w

ood,

- Ero

sion

- Des

ertifi

catio

n ,

- Pol

lutio

n of

soi

l and

wat

er

- Bus

hfire

s

Secu

ring

acce

ss to

land

Law

N°98

-750

of 2

3-12

-98

mod

ified

by la

w N°

200

4-41

2 of

14

Augu

st 2

004

perta

inin

g to

the

rura

l dom

ain

Law

N° 9

6-76

6 of

03

Oct

ober

199

6 on

the

Envir

onm

ent C

ode

Law

n°98

-755

du

23 D

ecem

ber 1

998

Wat

er c

ode;

Law

n° 9

5-55

3 du

17

July

1995

min

ing

code

Draf

t orie

ntat

ion

law

on Te

rrito

rial A

dmin

istra

tion

Co

coa

syst

ems

Phyt

osan

itary

trai

ning

and

m

onito

ring

Law

N° 9

6-76

6 of

03

Oct

ober

199

6 on

the

envir

onm

ent c

ode

Docu

men

t of t

he a

ppro

ved

list o

f pes

ticid

es p

erm

itted

in Iv

ory

Coas

t

Law

n°98

-755

du

23 D

ecem

ber 1

998

Wat

er c

ode;

Prog

ram

me-

Qua

lité

Gro

wth

of q

uant

ity a

nd q

uality

in th

e Co

ffee

and

Coco

a in

dust

ry

Coffe

e Sy

stem

s

21


2.4. Priorities and Opportunities for Restoration

2.4.1. Priorities and Opportunities for Interventions at the National scale

The different categories of land-use assessed as part of this evaluation were the main types identified by the different stakeholders (state and non-state organizations, private sector, civil society organizations representatives of civil society, independent experts and technical partners); who participated during the two days of work during the 10 -11 workshop of March 2016 in Abidjan, Ivory Coast.

As a very first step, it was important to bring out all these major land use categories identified by the stakeholders by superimposing this information layer against an available map of the Ivory Coast depicting the extent and distribution of ‘degraded forests’ in that country.

However, given the qualitative dimensions of forest landscape degradation and by inference, the requirements for landscape restoration within the framework of the ROAM (IUCN and WRI, 2014); and as articulated during the workshop; including after the findings of the field trip, it was obvious that spatial representation of ‘degradation’ is not a straight-forward notion – i.e., one easily depicted and estimated on a traditional map.

To produce a map depicting ‘functional degradation’ in the context of restoration as defined, would require more than one algorithm running simultaneously, on the same scale, and each representing a different dimension (or degradation criteria). This is technically possible; however, given the time available for a ROAM assessment, the cost of running such a multi-criteria model may considerably exceed the medium-term benefits. Furthermore, the spatial presentation of the results of a multiple criteria degradation analysis; given that dimensions of degradation can be qualitative, would also pose significant challenges.

Without developing ways to spatially represent qualitative data, estimating degradation in terms of ‘surface area’ could not just be misleading, but would render interpretations such as intervention and investment costs, very challenging. Nevertheless, spatial analyses depended on the only topographic land use, land cover base map available. This map was produced by the Mapping and Remote

Sensing Centre (CCT / BNETD) in 2004. From the outset therefore, it was obvious that, this 12 year-old dataset would serve principally, only as a useful guide to the different types of land uses already identified in the workshop.

We were able to hypothesize that the assessment of the extent of priorities and opportunities for restoration often based on outdated, mapped data is likely to be only a fraction of the real situation, indicating the direction of change and probably not as related to deforestation as could be imagined. It is important that, going forward, these hypotheses are fully tested.

In this assessment, ‘priority for restoration’ was defined as areas perceived as ‘degraded’ irrespective of associated social, economic and physical characteristics. On the other hand ‘opportunities for restoration’ would be defined as the sub-set of the priorities; but where an optimum set of investment constraints have been either avoided or eliminated.

Therefore, awareness of both the age of the dataset and absence of spatial analyses of degradation did not constitute a cause for concern for a number of reasons;

Firstly, as a guide, we are able to use old data to locate ‘degradation hot spots’ and establish direction. Secondly, and based on compounding factors of human activities and natural phenomena, it was possible to develop inferences of degradation which can be further qualified [even quantified] using field information to guide restoration interventions. Finally, a combination of the knowledge of the zones described as ‘degraded’ given the age of the datasets; and the likelihood that restoration would have positive impacts well beyond the immediate zones of activity meant that overall areas restored would be much in excess of the degradation ‘hotspots’.

Thus more complete information on restoration opportunities would only emerge after analyses of the expected costs to be considered and the benefits expected from restoration investments.

A first step towards determining minimum restoration requirements began with the legend of the map produced by the Mapping and Remote Sensing Centre (CTC / BENETD) in 2004 (without any metadata) as presented below:

22


This was a «raster» layer whose descriptions of the different classes were not provided. This map is also the same map used until date by the REDD+ process in the Ivory Coast and therefore was considered as a unifying dataset despite its age.

Without metadata however, it was impossible to understand what the criteria of ‘degraded forests’

were at the time of the production of this map analyses. This did not deter us, and we however, worked on the assumption that areas designated as «degraded forest» were once good quality forests but had now declined in quality. We then proceeded to extract this entire category of land use identified as ‘degraded’ according to the procedure in Figure 2 below.

Given the age of the available dataset, the multidimensional nature of functional degradation, displacement and dynamics of social and economic developments in Ivory Coast, a clear distinction had to be made between priorities and opportunities for restoration. The original idea was to glean ‘opportunities’ from ‘priorities’ for restoration according to the

ROAM methodology. Given these mitigating social, economic and temporal dynamics it was considered too ‘presumptuous’ to speak of opportunities when so many changes were still on-going.

The thesis to stick to ‘priorities’ and to go forward and confirm these as what constitutes

Limite Administrative

Réseau Routier

Limite de Forêt classée et parc

Limite de Forêt classée, parc et reserve

Sous-préfecture

Préfecture

Région

Etat

Forêt

Occupation du sol

Exploitation minière

Cocotier

Palmier

Hévéa

Café

Cacao

Reboisement

Canne à sucre

Vergers

Ananas

Bananes

Soja

Pâturages/Aménagements agricoles

Forêt dégradée

Savane arborée

Savane arbustive

Cultures ou Jachères

Bas-fonds

Forêt hydromorphe

Marécage ou mangroves

Habitat

Retenue d’eau

Îles

Sol Nu

Afleurements Rocheux

Autoroute

Route Bitûmée

Route en terre

Chemin de fer

Image d’ODS 2014 en image .jpeg Carte OCS 2014 en raster .tif

Degraded Forests as identified

Figure 1 : Land cover map legend (CCT, BNEDT, 2004)

Figure 2 : Identification and extraction of degraded forests

23


‘opportunities’ for restoration was further reaffirmed during plenary sessions of the validation workshop.

Participants argued that, human settlements, population density and road networks are not sufficient criteria to determine ‘opportunity’ given the different dimensions of degradation and preferences for restoration of functional usefulness of landscapes. Thus, it was agreed that, for now, the identified ‘priorities’, given the age of the data sets and ongoing dynamics, including the novelty of restoration, should be regarded as synonymous with ‘opportunity’ for the restoration of degraded forests and landscapes in the country. Therefore, henceforth in this report, the use of the expression ‘priority for restoration’ implicitly means opportunities.

Subsequent analyzes by land use type were organized as follows:

2.4.1.1. Spatial analyses of main watersheds

The spatial analysis of the main watersheds was performed by combining the Digital Elevation Model of the Ivory Coast, vegetation and a hydrology map (Figure 3). We note a priori, two types of catchments: shared by Côte d’Ivoire and neighboring countries (Liberia, Guinea, Niger, and Ghana); and others within the Ivory Coast.

Although watersheds are an important ecological criteria for restoration, this category has not been used explicitly to extract the priorities (opportunities) for restoration, for the reasons already given, but have been presented to facilitate visualizations.

2.4.1.2. Spatial analyses of population centers and economic activities

Concentrations of human population centers, infrastructure, economic and urban activities are additional criteria with which to extract

potentially useful priorities for restoration. For the same reasons given; age of the data and the subjectivity of restoration decisions, these factors are presented in Figure 4 to facilitate visualization.

2.4.1.3. Spatial analyses of national parks and reserves (NPR)

The spatial analysis of NPR was developed from data on the network of NPR in the Côte d’Ivoire available at the National Office of Parks and Reserves (OIPR). Degraded forest areas of the NPR were obtained by super positioning the map layer of NPR on the topographic map layer with ‘degraded zones’ highlighted. From the results, the minimum area (priorities) to be restored within NPR was estimated.

2.4.1.4. Spatial analyses of production forests (PF)

Spatial analyzes of production forests (PF) of the Ivory Coast were performed using data available at the Forest Development Authority (SODEFOR). Degraded forest areas within the PF were obtained by super positioning the map layer of PF on the topographic map layer with ‘degraded zones’ highlighted. From the results, the minimum area (priorities) to be restored within PF was estimated.

2.4.1.5. Spatial analyses of the rural domain

Analyses of agricultural areas, abandoned mines and sacred forests were not developed as separate categories. This is explained by the absence of data on the spatial distribution of agricultural land including cocoa, coffee, rubber, oil palm, cashew, etc. However, large agricultural areas, agricultural mosaics’ of the country have been identified by analyzing data on agricultural and mining activities available through qualitative and quantitative field data.

24


Fig

ure 3

: Ma

in wa

tersh

eds o

f the I

vory

Coas

t Fi

gure

4 : M

ain ce

nters

of po

pulat

ion an

d of e

cono

mic a

ctivit

y

25


Figu

re 5

: Mini

mum

prior

ity fo

r res

torati

on at

the n

ation

al sc

ale

Sur

face A

rea =

5 07

7 672

Ha

Figur

e 6 : M

inimu

m pri

ority

for re

storat

ion of

Park

s and

Res

erves

Sur

face A

rea =

97 94

3 Ha (

contr

ibutio

n to

Aic

hi Ta

rget 1

5)

26


Figu

re 7

: Mini

mum

prior

ity fo

r res

torati

on of

Pro

ducti

on fo

rests

S

urfa

ce A

rea =

556 2

98 H

a Fi

gure

8 : M

inimu

m pr

iority

for r

estor

ation

in th

e rur

al do

main

Sur

face

Are

a = 4

423 4

31 H

a

27


2.5. Analyses of costs and benefits of restoration

2.5.1. Description of the costs and benefits of restoration

It is recommended by the ROAM methodology (IUCN & WRI, 2014) that the analysis of costs and benefits, including a financial analysis of the restoration interventions, can be performed using the Net Present Value or NPV approach or through other similar economic analyses or modelling approaches. The ROAM process also recommends other types of econometric modeling to highlight the costs, economic, environmental and financial benefits of interventions related to the restoration of degraded systems; systems undergoing degradation; and the benefits of restoration.

No analysis, NPV or other forms of cost-benefits modeling and or restoration benefits were performed during this evaluation. One of the factors limiting this type of analysis during this assessment was the non-availability of data of the appropriate type and quality, for this type of analysis. NPVs would typically require knowledge of capital investments, cash-flow data, interest rates on loans for investments, inflation rates affecting investments and a reasonable estimate of the timeframe for the investment. These were not available for any specific land use category defined by stakeholders, at the time of the assessment.

The situation of data quality and availability; and the fact that the Ivory Coast is in a post-crisis phase does not create the best conditions for either a NPV analysis or investment in modeling.However, given that knowledge of costs to consider, and benefits to expect from restoration

Fig

ure 9

: Mi

nimum

prior

ity fo

r res

torati

on in

the F

IP zo

nes

Centre 1 399 628 HaSouth West 8725 Ha

28


are important variables, arrangements have been made to develop a characterization of the nature of these costs, and benefits to expect by intervention type and by type of land use.

The same approach, combining workshop discussions in plenary and group sessions; and focused discussions with local actors in the field facilitated comprehensive description of the different costs to consider and expected benefits of restoration. Even without hard (costs and benefits) numbers it will be a straight-forward matter of updating the already identified items of costs and benefits; quantify them on a case-by-case basis and use these to support restoration investment plans, specific cases of NPV analysis, budgeting, other economic, gender analyses, any modeling efforts or other forms of planning or further analyses.

So, for best results, analysts or consultants contracted to perform costs and benefits analyses of restoration, specific to different types of land uses and interventions must be able to control (to a significant extent) at least some external factors influencing the system. Otherwise, even with the best management measures and strict control, the recommendations from cost-benefit analyses based on NPVs and other forms of financial and econometric analyses are unlikely to lead to good restoration investment decisions.

Therefore, the following tables summarize some of the costs to consider (Table 4); or benefits to expect by land use type and by intervention during the restoration process. They were identified and further enriched by stakeholders during two workshops, and during the field visit.

Table 4: The costs to consider by land use type and by intervention

Land Use Types Main Causes of Degradation

‘Checklist of Costs’ to consider, by restoration intervention.

Production For-ests*

Farming and houses

Poaching

Mining

Bushfires

illegal exploitation

- Contributions to the drafting, validation and coding of management plans

- Reforestation / Agroforestry / enrichment - Encroachment Management Options for human settlements and

agricultural fields - Monitoring by agents of SODEFOR by Ha against bush fires , illegal

logging and poaching - The implementation of the policy of contractualization on previously

targeted management areas - Land Tenure security - Cost of involvement of local people in monitoring Production forests - Cost of awareness raising and support for agriculture in favor of the

neighboring local population s- Cost of independent observation of Production forests by civil society - Cost of implementation of monitoring and evaluation system

Sacred Forests Farms and houses, Poaching, Mining Bushfires

The identification , localization and mapping of Sacred Forests- Community Capacity Building with sacred forests by civil society or

other relevant bodies- Support for community-based regulations- Outreach and establishment of land certificates- Enrichment reforestation and community forests , sacred forests and

community forests development

29


Land Use Types Main Causes of Degradation

‘Checklist of Costs’ to consider, by restoration intervention.

Cocoa

coffee

plantation

Savannahs, woodlands and secondary forests

Ageing orchards,

Excess

Phytosanitary actions

Drought

Illegal logging ,

Wood Energy exploitation,

Erosion

Desertification

Bushfires

Securing access to land

- Training and monitoring of phytosanitary activities

- Establishment of land certificates

- Training of farmers in good agricultural practices

- Establishment , maintenance and management of private plantations by individuals

- The different options of water capture and supply strategies including irrigation

- Monitoring of environmental guidelines and certification of agroforest-ry systems

- Production / nursery activities and procurement of rare and valuable species

- Establishment of land development schemes

- Demonstration plots and research programs on the integration and management of trees in agroforestry systems

- Renewal of plantations and of cocoa and coffee orchards

- The implementation of water harvesting techniques

Mining zones Soil and Water Pollution

- Creation of fast-growing tree plantations

- The implementation of guidelines and specification for artisanal mines and measures in the fight against bush fires

30


Land

Use

Typ

es

Cost

s to

Con

side

r Ex

pect

ed B

enefi

ts

Pr

e-co

nditi

ons

for b

enefi

ts fl

ows

(App

licat

ion

of

the

Theo

ry o

f Cha

nge

Mod

el)

- Nat

iona

l Par

ks a

nd

Rese

rves

* (N

PR)

- Man

grov

es, c

oast

al

area

s an

d hu

mid

zo

nes

- G

alle

ry a

nd ri

paria

n fo

rest

s

- M

anag

emen

t of i

nhab

itant

s or

hab

itats

- Im

plem

enta

tion

of a

man

agem

ent p

lan

for

wetla

nds

and

galle

ry fo

rest

s

- Dev

elop

men

t and

impl

emen

tatio

n of

an

Inva

-siv

e Sp

ecie

s Co

ntro

l Stra

tegi

es

- The

effe

ctive

sup

ervis

ion

of a

min

imum

are

a of

re

stor

atio

n pr

iorit

y

- The

impl

emen

tatio

n of

a m

anag

emen

t pla

n fo

r we

tland

s an

d ga

llery

fore

sts

with

in th

e ru

les

of

the

man

agem

ent p

lan

bein

g de

velo

ped

- En

richm

ent o

f hi

ghly

degr

aded

are

as o

f NPR

- Cle

ar S

trate

gy to

redu

ce e

ncro

achm

ent i

nto

the

NPR

- Lan

d Us

e Pl

anni

ng C

ontri

butio

ns

- Inv

olve

men

t and

par

ticip

atio

n of

all s

take

hold

-er

s

- Est

ablis

hmen

t of a

Soc

ial a

nd E

nviro

nmen

tal

Asse

ssm

ent s

yste

m fo

r NPR

- Est

ablis

h a

mon

itorin

g an

d ev

alua

tion

syst

em

(gov

ernm

ent)

- Ind

epen

dent

mon

itorin

g of

the

proc

ess

by

civil s

ocie

ty

- Co

ntrib

utio

ns to

the

Aich

i Tar

gets

15

- Bio

dive

rsity

is p

rote

cted

- Hum

id z

ones

that

regu

late

gro

undw

ater

are

pr

otec

ted

- Stre

ams

and

river

s ar

e pr

otec

ted

from

dry

-in

g up

- Im

prov

ing

the

micr

oclim

ate

- Pro

mot

ion

of e

coto

urism

- Im

prov

emen

t of l

iving

con

ditio

ns o

f peo

ple

- Inc

reas

ed p

rodu

ctivi

ty o

f pla

ntat

ions

on

the

outs

kirts

of c

ities

- Jo

b cr

eatio

n

- A

Clea

r Stra

tegy

to re

duce

enc

roac

hmen

t int

o th

e PN

R

- Nat

iona

l Lan

d Us

e Pl

anni

ng S

chem

es

- Stre

ngth

enin

g su

rvei

llanc

e

- Inv

olve

men

t and

par

ticip

atio

n of

all s

take

hold

ers

- Est

ablis

hmen

t of a

Soc

ial a

nd E

nviro

nmen

tal A

s-se

ssm

ent s

yste

m fo

r PNR

- Est

ablis

h a

mon

itorin

g an

d ev

alua

tion

syst

em (g

ov-

ernm

ent)

- Ind

epen

dent

mon

itorin

g of

the

proc

ess

by c

ivil s

o-cie

ty

2.5.2.

Ben

efits

by i

nter

vent

ion

and

by la

nd u

se ty

pe

31


Land

Use

Type

s Co

sts to

Con

sider

Ex

pecte

d Ben

efits

Pr

e-con

dition

s for

bene

fits fl

ows (

Appli

catio

n of

the T

heor

y of C

hang

e Mod

el)-

Prod

uctio

n Fore

sts*

- Con

tributi

ons t

o the

draft

ing, v

alida

tion a

nd

codin

g of m

anag

emen

t plan

s

- Refo

restat

ion / A

grofor

estry

/ enri

chme

nt

- Enc

roach

ment

Mana

geme

nt Op

tions

for h

u-ma

n sett

lemen

ts an

d agri

cultu

ral fie

lds

- Mon

itorin

g by a

gents

of S

ODEF

OR by

Ha

again

st bu

sh fir

es , i

llega

l logg

ing an

d poa

ch-

ing

- The

imple

menta

tion o

f the p

olicy

of co

ntrac

tu-ali

zatio

n on p

reviou

sly ta

rgeted

man

agem

ent

areas

- Lan

d Ten

ure se

curity

- Cos

t of in

volve

ment

of loc

al pe

ople

in mo

nitor-

ing P

roduc

tion f

orests

- Cos

t of a

waren

ess r

aising

and s

uppo

rt for

agric

ulture

in fa

vor o

f the n

eighb

oring

loca

l po

pulat

ion s

- Cos

t of in

depe

nden

t obs

ervati

on of

Prod

uctio

n for

ests

by ci

vil so

ciety

- Cos

t of im

pleme

ntatio

n of m

onito

ring a

nd ev

al-ua

tion s

ystem

- Clas

sified

fores

ts are

well

man

aged

to fu

lfill

their v

ocati

on to

gene

rate r

even

ue fo

r the

state

- The

area

of pr

otecte

d fore

sts is

secu

re, an

d as

sisted

natur

al reg

enera

tion i

s rob

ust

- Biod

iversi

ty is

protec

ted –

Humi

d area

s tha

t reg

ulate

groun

dwate

r are

protec

ted

- Impro

veme

nt of

the m

icroc

limate

- Impro

veme

nt of

living

cond

itions

of pe

ople

- Incre

ased

prod

uctiv

ity of

plan

tation

s on t

he

outsk

irts of

citie

s

- Job

crea

tion

- Stre

ngthe

n the

tech

nical

and o

perat

ional

capa

bili-

ties S

ODEF

OR

- Ada

pting

fores

t reha

bilita

tion s

trateg

y bas

ed on

sit

e-spe

cificit

ies

- Imple

ment

the po

licy o

f con

tractu

aliza

tion i

n plan

ta-tio

ns in

stalle

d in P

roduc

tion f

orests

- Invo

lveme

nt an

d part

icipa

tion o

f all s

takeh

olders

- Esta

blish

a co

mmun

icatio

n prog

ram on

Prod

uctio

n Fo

rest a

ctivit

ies

- Prod

uctio

n Fore

sts m

anag

emen

t plan

32


Land

Use

Type

s Co

sts t

o Co

nsid

er

Expe

cted

Ben

efits

Pr

e-co

nditi

ons f

or b

enefi

ts fl

ows (

Appl

icatio

n of

th

e The

ory o

f Cha

nge M

odel)

Sacre

d For

ests

- Th

e ide

ntific

ation

, loc

aliza

tion a

nd m

appin

g of S

acre

d Fo

rests

- Com

munit

y Cap

acity

Buil

ding w

ith sa

cred f

ores

ts by

civ

il soc

iety o

r othe

r rele

vant

bodie

s- S

uppo

rt for

comm

unity

-bas

ed re

gulat

ions

- Outr

each

and e

stabli

shme

nt of

land c

ertifi

cates

- Enr

ichme

nt re

fores

tation

and c

ommu

nity f

ores

ts , s

a-cre

d for

ests

and c

ommu

nity f

ores

ts de

velop

ment

- Com

munit

y wor

ship

and a

cces

s to c

emete

ries

by th

e pop

ulatio

n are

insu

red

- Natu

ral re

gene

ratio

n is e

ncou

rage

d and

avail

-ab

ility o

f NW

FP fr

om sa

cred f

ores

ts- T

he av

ailab

ility o

f NTF

Ps in

conte

xt of

comm

u-nit

y for

ests

and c

ommu

nities

- Acc

ess t

o lan

d is a

stro

ng in

centi

ve to

plan

t an

d main

tain t

rees

- Stre

ngthe

ns so

cial c

ohes

ion

- Pl

annin

g Sch

emes

terri

tory

- Acc

ess t

o lan

d thr

ough

secu

rity fo

r a st

rong

ince

ntive

to

plant

and m

aintai

n tre

es

- Ide

ntific

ation

and l

ocali

zatio

n of F

S

Priva

te pla

ntatio

ns

Coco

a sys

tems

Coffe

e sys

tems

Sava

nnah

s, wo

od-

lands

and s

econ

dary

fores

ts

- Sec

uring

acce

ss to

land

- Tra

ining

and m

onito

ring o

f phy

tosan

itary

activ

ities

- Esta

blish

ment

of lan

d cer

tifica

tes- T

raini

ng of

farm

ers i

n goo

d agr

icultu

ral p

racti

ces

- Esta

blish

ment

, main

tenan

ce an

d man

agem

ent o

f pr

ivate

planta

tions

by in

dividu

als- T

he di

ffere

nt op

tions

of w

ater c

aptur

e and

supp

ly str

at-eg

ies in

cludin

g irri

gatio

n- M

onito

ring o

f env

ironm

ental

guide

lines

and c

ertifi

catio

n of

agro

fores

try sy

stems

- Pro

ducti

on / n

urse

ry ac

tivitie

s and

proc

urem

ent o

f rar

e an

d valu

able

spec

ies- E

stabli

shme

nt of

land d

evelo

pmen

t sch

emes

- Dem

onstr

ation

plots

and r

esea

rch pr

ogra

ms on

the

integ

ratio

n and

man

agem

ent o

f tree

s in a

grofo

restr

y sy

stems

- Ren

ewal

of pla

ntatio

ns an

d of c

ocoa

and c

offee

or-

char

ds

- The

imple

menta

tion o

f wate

r har

vesti

ng te

chniq

ues

- Inc

reas

e of tr

ees p

lanted

and m

anag

ed by

co

mmun

ities

- Bett

er un

derst

andin

g of th

e use

and a

pplic

a-tio

n of p

estic

ides

- Mod

ificati

on of

micr

oclim

ate of

agric

ultur

al mo

saics

resu

lting f

rom

lower

mor

tality

of tr

ees

due t

o dro

ught.

- Com

binati

on of

mor

e tre

es an

d mor

e rigo

rous

co

ntrol

of fire

s dim

inish

the e

ffect

and i

mpac

t of

bush

fires l

eadin

g to m

ore n

atura

l rege

ner-

ation

- Sys

tems C

ertifi

catio

n ; m

ore m

arke

t and

in-

vestm

ent o

ppor

tunitie

s- I

mpro

ving s

oil qu

ality

and p

rodu

ctivit

y of a

gri-

cultu

ral la

nd- I

mpro

veme

nt an

d dive

rsific

ation

of fa

rmer

s’ inc

omes

- Inc

lusion

of w

omen

, dev

elopm

ent o

f valu

e ch

ains i

n use

of ag

rofore

stry w

ill off

set lo

w pro

ducti

vity a

nd di

minis

h deg

radati

on ,

- Enc

ourag

e you

ng pe

ople

to sta

y on t

he la

nd an

d als

o brea

k the

vicio

us ci

rcle o

f deg

radati

on

-Awa

rene

ss ra

ising

and t

raini

ng of

popu

lation

s

- Pro

vision

of di

verse

and u

seful

nurse

ry pla

nts of

loca

l tre

e spe

cies

33


2.6. Analyses of carbon sequestration potential

As part of the assessment of carbon sequestration potential through restoration, certain types of land uses were considered relevant as carbon storage pools, while others were not. Among the major and sub-types of land use; private plantations, coastal areas and sacred forests have not been considered by stakeholders as important carbon reservoirs.

However, wetlands and gallery / riparian forests were considered as potential reservoirs of carbon. In addition, the implementing regulations governing the management of wetlands and gallery forests are being developed under the new Forestry Code. Participants also stressed the need to highlight and separately present the below-ground carbon biomass storage potential of production and protected areas. Stakeholders further stressed the relevance of mapping and locating village-owned forests, private forests, sacred, and community forests.

Stakeholders further stressed the importance of representing the connectivity between large blocks of forests. That, in the case of specialized areas such as abandoned mines, the Ministry of Mines and Water Resources could be a useful collaborator.

Finally, it was widely recognized that updated data analyses on forest cover change in the context of forest and landscape degradation in the Ivory Coast were necessary; and appropriate representations should be developed to represent the different dimensions of degradation.

The following sequence of steps facilitated estimation of the potential for carbon sequestration through restoration of forests and other landscapes assessed as degraded

2.6.1. The approach used

The default carbon sequestration values for each intervention by land use types have been

calculated using the Tier 1 values of the IPCC (CCNUCC, 2006).

In other that the IPCC values may become applicable to this work; the different land use types identified for restoration in Ivory Coast were grouped under two categories:

i. Natural Forests (National Parks and Reserves –NPR in Ivory Coast): these are the results of actions of protection through law enforcement, conservation and natural regeneration.

ii. Planted Forests resulting from reforestation. (Production Forests in Ivory Coast)

The main species in Production Forests used in reforestation are exotics: e.g., Teak, Gmelina and local species used for enrichment: Frake, Framire, Kodibe, etc.

Meanwhile, the estimation of the carbon sequestration potential by restoration intervention within the rural domain comprise mainly of:

i. Natural Forests (on Watersheds, humid zones, gallery and riparian forests)

ii. The creation of plantations in the rural domains using mainly Teak and Cassia pp.

iii. Agroforestry in agriculture mosaics.

Next, the Ivory Coast was divided into two major bio-climatic zones adapted to the nomenclature used by the IPCC, comprising :

i. Humid tropical forests encompassing all forests and pre-forest zones (coastal zones, forest zones)

ii. Dry Tropical Forests: zones extending into the savannah areas.

The carbon values are thus developed to align with the bio-climatic domains and associated with the different land use types.

34


The values are calculated by first estimating the amount of biomass per hectare that could be captured through restoration, by intervention type leading to that relevant new land cover type. The amount of carbon derived, is thus estimated according to the following equations:

CAB= (ABG+BGB) x CF

Where:CAB= Carbon stocks in living biomass; tons of carbon (tC)AGB= Above-ground biomass; ton (t)BGB= Below-ground biomass; ton (t)CF: Conversion factor (0,49 tC/t default value of Carbon contained in a unit volume of biomass).

AGB= V x BCEFWhere: V= Commercial value of a Tree (m3); BCEF: conversion factor and biomass expansion of the trunk to the total aboveground biomass; Equals 9 for tropical plantations (GIEC, 2006). BGB = AGB x RWhere: R = ratio linking root biomass to aboveground biomass of 0.2 to tropical rainforests and 0.56 for tropical dry forests (GIEC, 2006).

CO2 = CAB x 44/12The amount of carbon sequestered is multiplied by the area of the restored land (previously evaluated as extent of degradation) into the appropriate vegetation (New Land Cover) type

Table 6: Default values of above-ground biomass of forests

Data source: IPCC 2006.NB: On the corresponding Dense Tropical Forest numbers were applicable

ESTIMATION OF TIER 1 BIOMASS VALUE: VALUES ARE APROXIMATESCl ima te Domain

Ecological Zone Above ground biomass of

natural forests

(tons m.s./ha)

Above ground biomass of

planted forests

(tons m.s./ha)

Net growth in above ground

biomass of natural forests

(tons m.s./ha)

Net growth in above ground

biomass of planted forests

(tons m.s./ha)

Tropical

Dense tropical forests 300 150 7 15Deciduous humid tropical forests

180 120 5 10

Dry Tropical Forests 130 60 2.4 8Shrubby Tropical forests

70 30 1 5

Tropical Montagne forests

140 90 1 5

35


Table 7: Corresponding land use types; Ivory Coast and IPCC categorizations

Land Use Types Restoration Intervention Expected Land Cover Type IPCC category

Parks and ReservesIntegral protection Previous Forest Cover Type

Forest Land Remaining ForestNatural Regeneration Control of Bush Fires

Main Watershed ProtectionPrevious Forest Cover Type Forest Land Remaining Forest

Natural Regeneration

Agroforestry

Planted Forests

Land converted to Forest LandReforestation

Forest Land Remaining ForestEnrichment

Control of Bush Fires Previous Forest Cover Type

Securing Tenure Previous Forest Cover Type / Planted Forest Mixed Forests

Coastal Erosion Control Planted Forests Land converted to Forest Land

Control of Bush Fires Previous Forest Cover Type Forest Land Remaining Forest

Production Forests

Protection Previous Forest Cover Type Forest Land Remaining Forest Natural RegenerationAgroforestry

Planted Forests

Land converted to Forest LandReforestation

Forest Land Remaining Forest EnrichmentControl of Bush Fires EnrichmentControl of Bush Fires Previous Forest Cover Type

Savannah

Agroforestry Cultures Land converted to Forest Land Reforestation Planted Forests Land converted to Forest Land

Control of Bush Fires Previous Forest Cover Type Forest Land Remaining Forest

Rural Domain : Cocoa, Coffee, Oil Palm, Cashew

Agroforestry Mixed Tree-crop System Cultivated land remaining cultivated land

Securing Tenure Planted Forests Cultivated land remaining cultivated land

CO2 estimates per ha were carried out according to the type of land use land cover type and eco-climatic zones. Grouped IPCC default values as presented in Table 8 were used.

2.6.2. Estimation of the carbon sequestration potential of restoration

Carbon stocks for above and below ground biomass pools are estimated under IPCC

category and matched with different Land Use Types; Restoration interventions and expected land cover type after restoration. Table 7 below summarizes the process;

36


Table 8: Carbon dioxide sequestration potential of identified land use systems

Table 9:Estimation of corresponding minimum carbon dioxide sequestration potential

NB: Land use types applicable and used are highlighted

Corresponding land use type

(Ivory Coast)

Ecological zone (IPCC)

tCO2 (tCO2/ha)(i)

Natural Forests

(ii)

Planted Forests

(iii)

AgroforestryForest Zones Dense Forest 708.93 354.47 75.24Peri-Forests Deciduous forest 372.58 248.39 75.24Wooded Savannah Dry Forest 287.02 132.47 75.24Shrub Savannah Scrubland 169.04 72.44 53.22

Restoration interventions in Côte d’Ivoire

Ultimate Land Cover Category

Minimum Priority Area for

Restoration (ha)

CO2 Sequestration

Potential (tCO2)Protection and Natural Regeneration

of Parks and Reserves

(i)

Natural Protection Forests 97,943 69, 434,730.99

Reforestation and Enrichment Plant-ing (Production and Planted Forests)

(ii)

Production Forests and Plantations 556,298 197, 190,952.1

Rural Domain (Agroforestry)

(iii)Cropping Systems 4, 423, 431 332, 818,948.4

37


2.7.

Civil

Soc

iety i

n th

e pro

cess

of r

esto

ratio

n in

the I

vory

Coa

st

Land

Use

Type

s Ca

uses

of De

grada

tion

Interv

entio

ns

Roles

of CS

Os

Prop

osed

Strat

egies

Ta

rgeted

Entiti

esCo

ordina

tion

Natio

nal

Park

s and

Re

serv

es *

(NPR

)

-Plan

tatio

ns o

f cas

h cr

ops

(coc

oa, c

offe

e , o

il palm

, ca

shew

)-F

arm

s and

hou

ses,

-poa

ching

,-B

ush

fires

-Mini

ng

Man

agem

ent o

f peo

ple

inside

and

out

side

park

s and

re

serv

es

-Help

the

reloc

ation

an

d m

anag

emen

t of

peop

le ou

tside

par

ks a

nd

rese

rves

for m

ore

dura

ble

resto

ratio

n.

-Lob

bying

(Nat

ional

and

local

levels

)-S

ensit

izatio

n-C

omm

unica

tion

-pro

mot

ion o

f par

ticipa

tory

ap

proa

ches

- Dev

elop

eco-

tour

ism- M

obiliz

ing fin

ancia

l and

te

chnic

al pa

rtner

s

- Sta

te

(Mini

stries

) riv

erine

po

pulat

ions (

ins

ide p

arks

and

re

serv

es)

–Elec

ted

offic

ials

-NGO

Plat

form

for

man

grov

e-T

he D

raftin

g of

po

licies

Man

grov

es,

coas

tal

area

s and

hu

mid

zone

s

Mini

ng

Bush

fires

Woo

d ex

ploita

tion

Soil d

istur

banc

es

-Was

te w

ater

-Silti

ng a

nd cl

oggin

g-up

of

wate

r way

s.

-Effe

ctive

supe

rvisi

on o

f a

mini

mum

of

resto

ratio

n pr

iority

-Rec

onsti

tutio

n of

Man

grov

es

at th

e co

ast

-Reg

ister

Man

grov

e sit

es

on th

e lis

t of R

AMSA

R sit

es

(wet

lands

of in

tern

ation

al im

porta

nce

-Cre

ate

mar

ine p

arks

-Set

ting

up o

f man

grov

e m

anag

emen

t com

mitte

es in

co

asta

l villa

ges a

nd m

ake

them

ope

ratio

nal

-Cre

ating

refo

resta

tion

and

wood

ene

rgy m

anag

emen

t-u

se o

f was

te fr

om co

conu

t tre

es a

s coo

king

ener

gy

-Lob

bying

(Nat

ional

and

local)

-Sen

sitiza

tion

-Com

mun

icatio

npa

rticip

ator

y -Ap

proa

ches

-Eco

-tour

ists

(Cre

ation

of e

colog

ical

tour

s, ob

serv

ation

plat

form

of

nat

ure)

-Tra

ining

of t

ouris

t guid

es

on b

iodive

rsity

- Sta

te

(Mini

stries

) riv

erine

po

pulat

ions (

ins

ide p

arks

and

re

serv

es)

–Elec

ted

offic

ials

Loca

l man

agem

ent

-Com

mitte

es

-NGO

Plat

form

for

man

grov

e-T

he D

raftin

g of

a

polic

ies

Galle

ry a

nd

ripar

ian

fore

sts

-Tim

ber o

pera

tions

for w

ood

ener

gy,

-Plan

tatio

ns-E

xploi

tatio

n of

qua

rries

and

gr

avel

pits

Imple

men

tatio

n of

a

man

agem

ent p

lan fo

r we

tland

s and

gall

ery f

ores

ts-A

pplic

ation

Of le

gislat

ion

and

law e

nfor

cem

ent a

t the

pe

rimet

er o

f exp

loita

tion

- Help

resto

re th

e ba

nks,

wate

r and

man

grov

e ec

osys

tem

s

-Lob

bying

(Nat

ional

and

local)

-Sen

sitiza

tion

-Com

mun

icatio

n-P

artic

ipato

ry a

ppro

ache

s

- Sta

te

(Mini

stries

) riv

erine

po

pulat

ions (

ins

ide p

arks

and

re

serv

es)

–Elec

ted

offic

ials

Train

ing a

nd su

ppor

t to

loca

l com

mitte

es

38


Sacr

ed

For

ests

Bush

fires

and

ille

gal e

xploi

tatio

n

Supp

ort t

o co

mm

unity

-ba

sed

by-la

ws

-Sen

sitiza

tion

-Mon

itorin

g

-Rep

ortin

g of

tran

sgre

ssor

s

-Sup

port

to co

mm

unitie

s

-Stre

ngth

ening

ca

pacit

y of

com

mun

ities a

nd

CSO

Loca

l pop

ulatio

ns -I

nvolv

emen

t of lo

cal

popu

lation

s, vil

lager

s, cu

stodia

ns o

f loca

l cus

tom

s, Yo

uths

and

Wom

en.

build

ing ca

pacit

ies o

f co

mm

unitie

s with

sacr

ed

fore

sts

- Stu

dies

-Sup

port

and

stren

gthe

ning

capa

cities

of c

omm

unitie

s wi

th p

rote

cted

fore

sts

Prom

otion

of

com

mun

ity-b

ased

bio

diver

sity

cons

erva

tion

Villa

ge-c

omm

unity

-Elec

ted

offic

ials

-Mini

stry o

f For

ests

-Sup

port

com

mun

ity

leade

rship

in th

e m

anag

emen

t of

clas

sified

fore

sts.

Exte

nsion

and

es

tabli

shm

ent o

f land

ce

rtific

ates

inter

vent

ion a

t Sta

te le

vel to

low

er co

sts /

subs

idies

-org

aniza

tion

of

mob

ile co

urts

villag

e-co

mm

unity

-Sta

te

-Lan

der o

wner

.

-Sup

ervis

ion o

f Com

mun

ities

-NGO

s plat

form

s

Assis

ted

natu

ral

rege

nera

tion

Assis

ted

natu

ral

rege

nera

tion

-Inve

ntor

y of s

pecie

s an

d ev

aluat

e pr

otec

tion

need

s

Loca

l com

mun

ity

Villa

ge le

ader

s

NGO

Plat

form

Supp

ort t

o loc

al co

mm

unitie

s.

39


Land

Use

Typ

es

Caus

es o

f De

grad

ation

In

terv

entio

ns

Roles

of C

SOs

Prop

osed

Stra

tegie

s Ta

rget

ed E

ntitie

s

Priva

te p

lanta

tions

Ag

eing

orch

ards

,

Exce

ss

Phyto

sanit

ary

actio

ns

Drou

ght

Illega

l logg

ing ,

Woo

d En

ergy

ex

ploita

tion,

Eros

ion

Dese

rtific

ation

Bush

fires

Secu

ring

acce

ss to

land

inter

vent

ion a

t Sta

te le

vel to

low

er co

sts /

subs

idies

-Org

aniza

tion

of m

obile

cour

ts

-Mob

ilizat

ion o

f Tec

hnica

l and

fin

ancia

l par

tner

s

NGO

Plat

form

s

Coco

a sy

stem

sTr

aining

and

mon

itorin

g of

phy

tosa

nitar

y pr

actic

es-In

volve

men

t in tr

aining

and

fo

llow-

up o

f ph

ytosa

nitar

y pr

actic

es

-Rep

ortin

g de

fault

ers

-adv

ocac

y

parti

cipat

ory a

ppro

ache

s

Coffe

e sy

stem

s

Sava

nnah

s, wo

odlan

ds

and

seco

ndar

y for

ests

Rene

wal o

f coc

oa a

nd co

ffee

plant

a-tio

ns a

nd A

grof

ores

try

Invo

lvem

ent o

f Com

mun

ities

and

NGOs

Cr

eatio

n of

plan

tatio

ns o

f fas

t-gro

wing

tre

esIn

volve

men

t of N

GO,

mon

itorin

g an

d re

porti

ng o

f de

fault

ers

-adv

ocac

y

parti

cipat

ory a

ppro

ache

s

and

enga

gem

ent w

ith te

chnic

al an

d fin

ancia

l par

tner

s

Mini

ng

Zone

s

Imple

men

t wat

er h

arve

sting

tech

nique

s

Invo

lvem

ent o

f Com

mun

ities

and

NGOs

and

repo

rting

of

defa

ulter

s

High

light

ing o

f spe

cifica

tions

on

artis

-an

al m

ines a

nd m

easu

res i

n th

e fig

ht

again

st bu

shfir

es

Prom

otion

of c

ocoa

-gro

wing

certi

fica-

tion,

coffe

e pla

nting

cash

ew, R

ubbe

r an

d Pa

lm O

il an

d Agr

ofor

estry

40


3. CONCLUSION

The process of implementing the ROAM in the Ivory Coast has been a revelation, and has demonstrated the importance

of being guided by a robust methodology. The notion of restoring degraded forests and landscapes evokes numerous perceptions; each strongly influenced by own-experiences of stakeholders. It is therefore possible in such a context to introduce a methodology like the ROAM as the object of innovation.

In this work, the links between the forest restoration process and degraded landscapes were simultaneously, a sensitive issue as well as an opportunity. It was an opportunity in that, it would assure and reinforce the links between national and other global processes such as REDD +, the CBD and the Aichi Target 15 Objectives; and the fight against desertification.

On the other hand, landscape restoration is not simply driven by its activity content at national level; but by its international stature, and requires institutional anchorage. Incidentally, while MINEF is directly responsible for numerous forestry activities in the Ivory Coast, another Ministry MINEDD is responsible for the related Conventions covering landscape restoration. This was a sensitive issue which had to be carefully balanced in the process of implementing ROAM in the Ivory Coast.

To this end, the transparency with which the inception process was conducted helped strengthen the role of MINEF although the final validation of results became by default, the responsibility of the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development (MINEDD). MINEDD is the statutory leader of the international conventions related to the restoration of degraded landscapes in the Ivory Coast. This role of MINEDD also helped influence the analyses of the evaluation process to not be limited to production forests alone (under the purview of MINEF), but to be extended to cover different land use types other than production forests; e.g. watersheds, gallery forests, humid zones and other protection forests more within the agenda of MINEDD.

This evaluation has further highlighted the complexities in the perceptions of degradation which is a notion not given to a simplistic cause-effect relationship; but to a multiplicity of functions, land use management costs, benefits, productivity, change and utility of systems under management by different actors. This also explains why there is a multiplicity of actors; State and non-state, involved in the identification process of the causes, effects, interventions, costs and benefits of restoration.

There are comprehensive policies, legal and institutional frameworks existing or under development, and supporting landscape restoration in the Ivory Coast. Nevertheless, they must be applied on a case-by-case basis, especially where they have a good chance of strengthening land tenure security, one key area identified by all stakeholders to be a major constraint when it comes to investments in tree and trees systems in the long-term.

In terms of opportunities and priorities for restoration, according to the ROAM, there is a significant difference between the two. However, due to real world socio-economic complexities, criteria for separating opportunities from priorities do not often agree with stakeholder aspirations and decision-making flexibilities. Especially in areas under official texts (parks, reserves and production forests) and other, with high levels of human activity and more secure tenure. In these two categories in particular, the application of restoration criteria either tends to be rigid (based on law) or subject to decision-making of individuals or groups of actors (e.g., based on tenure in urban areas). Therefore, although opportunity for restoration tends often to be lower than priority, stakeholder preferences in the Ivory Coast influenced this relationship to the extent that, both opportunity and priority evolved to be almost identical.

For this reason, and in the case of the Ivory Coast with extensive levels of degradation, an ambitious restoration program bringing together opportunities and priorities in the first instance can be considered as justified. This is further

41


reinforced by the fact that, due to the age of available spatial datasets, the exact extent, even of deforestation could not be determined. However, through stratification of land use types, including qualitative descriptions of different dimensions of degradation in these sub categories of land uses, we were confident that errors in the national level data have been kept to a minimum; and the area to be restored as priority is a truer reflection of the situation of degraded landscapes in Ivory Coast.

The identification and stratification of the different types of degraded land uses to be restored was also very helpful in the process of qualitative analysis of the costs and benefits of restoration. The key degradation issues and challenges in the land use systems were however, not easy to determine quantitatively by the stakeholders involved in their use. The characterization of what needed to be done and the potential benefits expected were easier to establish. Furthermore, quantitative analyses of costs and benefits could not have been meaningful or realistic at this stage. Firstly, there is lack of quality data. Secondly, the current dynamic processes, unfinished development plans and high expectations would render the costs of restoration not only inhibitory (despite benefits), but probably impracticable if the envisaged benefits are too intangible and or expected to accrue far into the future. However, the application of models to help define the potential costs and benefits of restoration is still valid. Nevertheless, the administrative costs of a model must be justified, more as a way to frame the parameters of managing the recommendations, even if these would still remain too uncertain for a developing country like Ivory Coast.

The analysis of carbon sequestration potential draws directly from the estimation of areas determined as ‘degraded’; by land use type and by intervention. As part of this evaluation, the default values provided by the IPCC were used. However in the future it will be more appropriate to use the values developed by local researchers as they are applicable to specific land use systems, as identified and described in a stratified approach.

The advantage of this stratified approach is that, it strengthens the possibility of capturing many more subtle variations in carbon pools; thereby rendering the estimated amount of carbon potentially sequestered, more accurate, and better aligned with the multiple requirements of the development processes in the Ivory Coast.

Although potentially more costly to implement, restoration based on a stratified approach can also be useful in programs to monitor changes in carbon stocks at local smallholder levels important for better national carbon accounting and governance.

Finally, this process started with facilitation by civil society organizations and their possible roles in the process. The evaluation process that ensued identified the roles of different groups and categories of Civil Society; including youth, women and vulnerable groups. Through their different strategies, by type of land use and by investment, the participation of civil society is likely to be more systematic, easy to monitor and therefore, strengthen.


1- IUCN and WRI (2014) Guide to the Restoration Opportunities Assessment Methodology (ROAM): Assessing forest landscape restoration opportunities at the national or sub national. Working paper (Road-test edition), Gland, Swierland: IUCN. 125pp

2- BNETD (2004), the Land Use Map of the Ivory Coast

3- IPCC (2006), 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhous Gas Inventories, Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses, Volume 4. (http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/french/vol4.html Accessed July 07 2016)

REFERENCES

42


IUCN offices in West and Central Africa

IUCN - Burkina FasoPo.Box: 3331 Ouagadougou

Tel.: +226 50 32 85 01Fax : +226 50 30 75 61

E-mail : [email protected]

IUCN - CameroonPo.Box: 5 506 YaoundéTel.: +237 222 21 64 96

Fax : +237 222 21 64 97E-mail : [email protected]

IUCN - Guinée BissauApartado 23, Bissau 1031

Tel.: +245 20 12 30Fax : +245 20 11 68


IUCN - MaliPo.Box: 1567 BamakoTel.: +223 20 22 75 72


IUCN - MauritaniePo.Box: 4167 Nouakchott

Tel.: +222 525 12 76Fax : +222 525 12 67


IUCN - NigerPo.Box: 10933 NiameyTel.: +227 20 72 40 28Fax : +222 525 12 67


IUCN - Democratic Republic of Congo43, avenue Colonel Ebeya

Immeuble CAP IMMOTel.: +243 81 79 47 711


IUCN - SénégalAvenue Cheick Anta Diop

2rd Etage B.P: 32 15 DakarTel.: +221 33 869 02 81


IUCN - Project Office GhanaPo.Box M239 Accra

Tel.: +233 021 66 46 54Fax : +233 021 66 64 16



INTERNATIONAL UNIONFOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE

Regional officefor West and Central Africa01 Po. Box 1618 Ouagadougou 01Burkina FasoPhone: + 226 5036 4979 + 226 5036 4895E-mail : [email protected]/paco

opportunities for restoring degraded forests and landscapes … · 2017-03-29 · opportunities for...

Documents