Download
1 / 14
140 likes | 260 Views
The Civil Society-Independent Forest Monitors. An independent forest monitoring team made up of four members of the NGO Coalition of Liberia. Focus on community rights, benefit sharing and participation in forest governance. Established in 2012.
E N D
The Civil Society-Independent Forest Monitors • An independent forest monitoring team made up of four members of the NGO Coalition of Liberia. • Focus on community rights, benefit sharing and participation in forest governance. • Established in 2012. • Funded by the EU and DfID to monitor the implementation of the VPA and its social impacts.
How do we monitor? • Gather information at the national and local levels through: • Community interviews and meetings, contract documents, SGS financial and export data, permits, business registrations etc.. • Compile findings and compare with existing legal requirements. • Validate findings with government agencies, private sector and communities. • Report findings to stakeholders.
What is the Liberia Social Audit? • An annual assessment of forestry concessions focusing on community benefits and participation in forest governance. • Part of the ‘Improving Forest Governance through Civil Society monitoring of the VPA’ program. • An effort to improve accountability in the forest sector, and keep issues on the table. • A tool to monitor the social impacts of the VPA in Liberia.
Methodology • Field visits were made in 2012 to assess all seven operational concessions. • 2 Forest Management Contracts and 5 Timber Sales Contracts were assessed. • Rivercess, Gbarpolu, Grand Cape Mount and Grand Bassa. • In-depth interviews were conducted with 46 CFDC members and local government officials across the seven concessions. • Desk-based study included: • Financial data obtained from SGS, contract documents and Social Agreements.
Objectives: • We aimed to assess: • 1. Was the legal requirement for community consultation and FPIC fulfilled? • 2. Does the community have access to contract information and concession planning processes? • 3. Have the community received benefits of any kind? • 4. Is the community happy with the CFDC’s internal governance of the community share of revenues?
1. Was the legal requirement for community consultation and FPIC fulfilled? Findings: There was a high level of dissatisfaction with the consultation process in almost all the communities we surveyed: • Not enough time was allowed for the consultation process. • CFDCs were not established in time to be able to properly represent Affected Communities during the negotiations. Recommendation: • Free, Prior and Informed Consent must be obtained before any logging concessions can be allocated. The process must involve fully established CFDCs in a participatory process of consultation.
The Social Agreements Findings: There was dissatisfaction in all seven concessions with: • The process of negotiating the Social Agreements. • The lack of implementation of community benefits. • The Social Agreements do not specify community benefits or provide a timeline for implementation. Recommendations: • Social Agreements must specify what community developments are to be provided and include an implementation timeline.
Land Rental Payments Findings: • Logging companies have paid approximately $18 million in Land Rental Payments since the concessions were allocated in 2008 and 2009. • Communities have not received any of the 30% share they are entitled to due to problems at the Ministry of Finance. • Logging companies owe vast sums in Land Rental Payments – Approximately $43 million. • Some companies are up to $13 million in arrears in Land Rental Payments, but are still being allowed to export timber. Recommendations: • Timber companies that fail to pay Land Rental Payments on time must be prevented from exporting timber until payment is received. • The Ministry of Finance must ensure that 30% of Land Rental Payments received is transferred to the NBSTB as a matter of urgency.
Community Benefits Findings: • Five of the seven communities had received some cubic metre fees. • None of the communities were being provided with regular, official harvesting updates. • In all the concessions communities were paid $1.00 per cubic metre of timber harvested, regardless of the species. • One community had received $88,000 in cubic meter payments Recommendations: • CFDCs should employ a community member to verify harvest volumes to ensure that correct cubic meter payments are being made. • The Social Agreement should provide for cubic meter payments to be related to the value of the species harvested.
Access to information and awareness of forest management processes Findings: • CFDCs did not have adequate access to documents • CFDCs did not have sufficient knowledge of forest management planning processes. • No evidence that logging companies were holding annual meetings on the Annual Operational Plan with CFDCs. Recommendations: • The FDA must provide communities with access to documents through their local offices, and provide education to CFDCs on forest management processes. • CFDCs must ensure that their communities are well informed by holding regular and well-attended meetings.
CFDCs and internal governance of community revenues Findings: • CFDCs have not had adequate training and support to ensure that they are able to correctly perform their role. • Most of the communities surveyed said that very little money had been spent by the CFDC so far. • Transportation was a key issue preventing community members from attending regular meetings. • This lead to some CFDC members not taking part in decision-making processes and a lack of information on forestry activities. Recommendations: • FDA must provide training to CFDCs on accounting and project management. • CFDCs must ensure that all community members are provided transport to meetings to ensure wide participation.
