Partnership Building and Scoping Mission to Cross River State Nigeria – Final Trip Report
Partnership Building and Scoping Mission
to Cross River State, Nigeria
(September 13-24, 2010)
USDA Forest Service
Dale Bosworth
Val Mezainis
Jim Beck
September 2010
Page 1 of 27
Partnership Building and Scoping Mission to Cross River State Nigeria – Final Trip Report
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This scoping and technical assistance mission was completed with funding from the United
States Forest Service (USFS) and the United States Agency for International Development
(USAID) Africa Bureau. The objectives and design of the mission were jointly defined with the
Wildlife Conservation Society and the Cross River State Government – most notably the
Forestry Commission.
We would like to thank the many partners who were instrumental to success of the mission
including: the Nigerian Federal Ministry of Environment, Cross River State Government, US
Government Agencies (USAID, US Embassy Abuja, USDA Foreign Agriculture Service (FAS)),
the international, national, and local NGOs, local chiefs, clan heads, and community
representatives, and timber dealers, among others. The frank and valuable insights, guidance,
knowledge, logistical support, and moral support were all much appreciated.
Table of Contents
1.0
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 3
1.1
Background ................................................................................................................................... 3
1.2
Objective ....................................................................................................................................... 3
1.3
Process .......................................................................................................................................... 4
2.0
ISSUES, FINDINGS, & RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................... 4
2.1
Cross River State Logging Ban ....................................................................................................... 4
2.2
Cross River State Forestry Commission and Partners ................................................................... 6
2.3
Other Pressures on Forest Resources and Alternative Livelihoods Strategies in Cross River State
.................................................................................................................................................... 10
3.0
USFS NEXT STEPS .................................................................................................................... 14
3.1
Strategic Opportunities for Technical Assistance in Cross River State ....................................... 14
3.2
Other Possible Technical Assistance Opportunities.................................................................... 14
4.0
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................... 16
4.1
Scope of work.............................................................................................................................. 16
4.2
Itinerary....................................................................................................................................... 20
4.3
List of contacts made .................................................................................................................. 22
4.4
Additional Perspectives on Overall Strategic Planning and a revised 5 Year Action Plan .......... 24
4.5
Possible Land and Resource Use Plan Components ................................................................... 26
4.6
Status of Certain Key Technical Aspects of REDD+ Negotiations................................................ 27
Page 2 of 27
Partnership Building and Scoping Mission to Cross River State Nigeria – Final Trip Report
1.0
INTRODUCTION
The USDA Forest Service (USFS), through the Office of International Programs, has a long
history of promoting sound natural resource management throughout Africa. USFS IP links the
skills of its 35,000 domestic technical experts with partners through short, medium, and longterm technical assistance assignments to build capacity for improved natural resource
management. USFS IP currently works in over 15 African countries in collaboration with host
country governments (National and state/province level), NGOs, local communities, and other
US agencies (USAID, USDA, US Dept of State, etc.), including past missions in Nigeria,
Cameroon, and other West and Central African countries in the areas of forest management,
land use planning, extractive industries, community based natural resource management,
agroforestry, climate change mitigation and adaptation, ecotourism, fire management,
biodiversity and habitat conservation, watershed management, and grazing.
1.1
Background
Initial contact between the USFS and Cross River State
Government (CRSG) was established by the former Governor,
Donald Duke, and the former Managing Director of Cross
River State Tourism Bureau in 2006. This contact was
facilitated by Matthew Cassetta (US State Dept. Regional
Environmental Officer for West and Central Africa) following a
meeting with the Governor in 2005. Based on these meetings
the USFS completed a preliminary mission to Cross River
State in November 2006.
The mission came up with four clear recommendations: 1.
locate and re-gazette where necessary the boundaries of all
protected areas within the state including the national park; 2.
complete management plans for all protected areas within the
state; 3. improve tourist facilities at Afi Mountain Wildlife
Sanctuary, and 4. link tourist facilities on the Obudu Cattle
Ranch with Becheve Nature Reserve and the adjacent Cross
River National Park.1 Although these recommendations have
yet to be implemented several of them remain valid and
updated actions are noted in this report.
Figure 1. Cable Car at Obudu Cattle
Ranch
Contact was reestablished with the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) Nigeria in 2009. This
fits into a broader continent-wide strategy of stepped up engagement with partners in key
countries including WCS among others. A first step in this re-engagement is the current mission
whose objectives and expectations are outlined in the Scope of Work for the mission found in
Appendix 4.1.
1.2
Objective
The main objective of this scoping mission is to assess the current situation of forest
management and wildlife conservation in Cross River State and to investigate areas of possible
technical support for the Cross River State Forestry Commission (CRSFC) by the USFS.
Additionally, the high level USFS team seeks to explore the expansion of relationships with
other USG agencies, Nigerian agencies, and NGOs active in supporting sound natural resource
management in Nigeria.
1
USFS, 2007. Critical Needs Assessment for Cross River State Protected Areas and Eco-Tourism
Development.
Page 3 of 27
Partnership Building and Scoping Mission to Cross River State Nigeria – Final Trip Report
1.3
Process
The mission was carried out in Nigeria from September 13-24, 2010 with full participation from
all three partners (USFS, WCS, CRSG). A series of introductory meetings, technical exchange
sessions, and field visits were carried out. Appendix 4.2 presents the detailed itinerary and
objectives for the various meetings and activities over the course of the mission. Appendix 4.3
highlights the names and institutions the team met with.
The following sections summarize the findings, issues, and recommendations of the USFS
team.
2.0
ISSUES, FINDINGS, & RECOMMENDATIONS
Cross River State continues to face many opportunities and challenges to enable the sound
management of its natural resources. Political will for forest conservation at the highest level
appears present as demonstrated through policy and operational actions and reforms.
Section 2.1 discusses the enactment of the logging
ban and establishment of the anti-deforestation
taskforce with some early perspectives on ways
forward.
Section 2.2 covers the critical reform of the CRSFC
shifting it from a revenue based timber extraction
agency to a conservation agency.
Section 2.3 highlights the challenges and
opportunities related to promoting alternative
livelihoods that will remove pressure on the forest
resources.
2.1
Figure 2. View of mountain range from Obudu
plateau
Cross River State Logging Ban
As a stop gap measure to reduce rates of illegal logging and following the 2008 “Stakeholders
Summit on the Environment” a temporary logging ban was introduced. To enforce the ban the
CRSG established an Anti-deforestation Task force. Their mandate appears to have been to
focus on curbing logging through seizing loads of logs on the roads and rivers; while the CRSFC
staff was to focus enforcement efforts in the forest.2 The taskforce was established as an
independent body from the CRSFC due to concerns of complicity of CRSFC staff with the illegal
trade.
2.1.1 Findings
While the USFS team did not have the time, access, or resources to fully evaluate the success
of the ban and the taskforce we gathered and analyzed information which we consolidate and
share here. The ban demonstrated the highest level political will to tackle an important problem
in the State. However, anecdotal accounts to date suggest that it has not prevented logging
within the state. The ban and the taskforce initially were apparently successful in slowing the
flow of illegally harvested timber although it apparently had some challenges that are leading to
what we understand are current efforts to restructure the taskforce. The timber markets in
2
Formal documentation on the creation and implementation of the Anti-deforestation was not reviewed by
the team therefore we present information on its mandate and related material based on stakeholder
meetings.
Page 4 of 27
Partnership Building and Scoping Mission to Cross River State Nigeria – Final Trip Report
Calabar apparently are much less active and with less volume passing through and there are
indications of more secondary/tertiary value-added
processing. Both results are pointed to as successes
of the ban and taskforce although perhaps the trade
has simply been driven “underground” or both.
Without data on seizures, timber flows before and after
the ban, etc. measuring success or failure is nearly
impossible.
Different community members the USFS team
interacted with had differing viewpoints. Some spoke
of a preference for returning to the pre-ban
management approach where at least certain
community leaders were receiving a percentage of the
revenue collected by the CRSFC. They noted that
currently the logging continues and now they are no
longer directly benefitting.
Figure 3. Seized load of wood planks along principal
CRS route.
Timber dealers suggested that a ban is fine and they “support” it although they recommend that
they should be better consulted in such policy decisions going forward as they have such an
intimate financial stake as well of knowledge of the underlying situation. Moreover, they noted
that the ban should continue but only in certain forests
zoned as “no go zones”.
NGOs likewise had a diversity of perspectives to share.
Communities living in and around the forest were
championed as having the biggest stake in managing their
forests. Others noted however that lessons across West
Africa have concluded that simply granting communities
management rights without technical assistance, education,
and law enforcement has led to more pressure on the forest
resources (increasing deforestation) rather than
sustainability. Others noted that the CRSFC staff were
widely known to be driving and closely involved in the illegal
trade and so continued reform of the commission including
retraining and tight supervision and management systems
were key. Differing perspectives on the institutional housing
of the taskforce in or separate from the CRSFC were
debated.
Figure 4. Example scene illustrating the
remains of a log with planks removed by
chainsaw; near or within forest of CR National
Park.
2.1.2 Recommendations
Again while a thorough evaluation of the successes and failures of the logging ban and
institutions set up to enforce it are beyond the scope of the mission, and data for such an
evaluation seems to be lacking (see section 2.2) the team offered the following
recommendations:
1. The logging ban as a temporary measure should not be lifted until the following
conditions are met and to do otherwise would send a signal that illegal harvest and
transport of timber is allowed:
a. Forest management plans completed with zoning to determine the timber harvest
and other resource potentials to meet CRS’s needs (see section 2.2.2).
b. Enforcement teams trained and in place
Page 5 of 27
Partnership Building and Scoping Mission to Cross River State Nigeria – Final Trip Report
i. CRSFC rangers in the forest
ii. Combination of CRSFC and Anti-deforestation taskforce on roads and
waterways.
c. Basic timber tracking system implemented
d. Regulations for sustainable harvest and permits/concessions promulgated
e. Consultations with timber dealers and other key stakeholder groups ongoing
f. Etc.
2. The Taskforce should ultimately be folded administratively and operationally into the
functioning of the CRSFC. That transition could occur perhaps to coincide with the
above conditions to lift the ban.
3. In the meanwhile, the leadership of both institutions/structures should continue close
coordination and knowledge sharing and strategic orientation of efforts whereas actions
on the ground should continue to be divided with the FC focusing on maintaining and
expanding forest cover in the forest while the Taskforce focuses on monitoring and
enforcing the ban on roads and rivers.
Sustainable solutions for forest management, timber provision, and monitoring are needed and
further explored in section 2.2.
2.2
Cross River State Forestry Commission and Partners
As previously noted the CRSG has initiated an important reform process in the forest sector and
should be commended and encouraged to continue. It has carried out open and ongoing
platforms for engaging civil society as exemplified by the “Stakeholders Summit on the
Environment” in 2008; placed respected and competent individuals in leadership positions of the
CRSFC; worked through the process of legal reform yielding the recently enacted “Forest and
Wildlife Law of 2010;3 provided operational and special budgetary support for forest
management actions in the state; among other concrete actions.
Although the challenges continue as the CRSFC has deteriorated after many years of neglect
and mis-management. The CRSFC has a poor image within the state and with local
communities and lacks a clear direction and focus. Although the headquarters in Calabar is
large and relatively well equipped, charge-offices elsewhere in the state are neglected, understaffed and under-funded. Field staff display low morale,
lacking field equipment and a clear mandate. Previous
donor projects by the United Kingdom Department for
International Development (DfID) which focused on
revenue generation and community forestry did little to
curtail rates of forest loss within the state and some claim
exacerbated the problem even further.
Again, there have been some marked improvements in
the last 1-2 years at the level of the headquarters but
transforming the entire CRSFC and extending the new
ethos to field staff will require more time and effort as
well as a well thought out strategy.
Figure 5. CRSFC staff meeting with USFS
team and stakeholders.
3
The actual title of the law is as follows but this shortened version was used in the document for easier
comprehension, “A Law to make provisions for the establishment of the State Forestry Commission; and
for the purposes of providing sustainable management of the forest and wild life resources, preservation
and protection of the ecosystem in Cross River State and other matters connected therewith.”
Page 6 of 27
Partnership Building and Scoping Mission to Cross River State Nigeria – Final Trip Report
2.2.1 Findings
The following key findings emerged pertaining to the CRSFC moving forward in implementing its
evolving conservation focus:
1. FC staff in HQ, zonal, and charge offices presumably were trained to carry out their
previous functions under the revenue based extractive mandate. Therefore with a shift
to conservation which includes wildlife, Non Timber Forest Products (NTFP), and timber
protection and eventually sustainable use, the field and HQ staff will need to be
equipped with new skills. The USFS team heard multiple times that a key challenge for
the CRSFC going forward will be to prepare and motivate its ~400 employees to move
from the recent direction of focusing efforts on roads and checkpoints, where timber
trade monitoring and revenue collection occurred to getting in the forest.
Moreover, as CRSFC staff are widely believed to have previously participated in some
fashion in the illegal trade of timber, training must be complemented by tight personnel
management and controls systems to help keep staff focused on appropriate activities.
Performance based pay schemes as well as other disciplinary measures for
inappropriate activities could fit potentially as a part of the personnel management tools.
2. Both the federally managed Cross River National Park (CRNP) and CRSFC share the
mandates to conserve natural resources located in the CRS within their respective
jurisdiction or geographic areas of intervention.
However in reality wildlife, other biodiversity, watersheds, seed dispersers, etc. as well
as the pressures on the resources cross state and federal management unit boundaries,
so should management interventions. For example, illegal loggers may be operating in
a state forest reserve and cross into the park. In such a case both the CNRP and the
CRSFC could benefit from at least the sharing of intelligence/information if not joint
patrols or enforcement campaigns.
3. Forest sector data and analyses are critical to inform policy, plans (see below), and
management actions. In its absence, intuition and anecdote often lead to improper
planning and action.
The team understood through meetings and site
visits that many of the boundaries of forest
reserves and other management units under the
CRSFC jurisdiction (and Federal for that matter)
were not physically delineated. Such delineation
and maintenance of forest reserve boundaries on
the ground as well as updating/creating a GIS
remains of high priority for CRSFC. Although the
Figure 6. Files of archived hardcopy CRSFC
CRSFC has a mandate to intervene in all forests of documentation at a field office.
the state, the delineation, restoration (as needed),
monitoring of forest cover and condition, and management of the forest reserves, as
state lands, are likely central to any CRSFC strategy.
In addition to physical demarcation, other necessary data and analyses could include
anything from geospatial boundaries of differing management units and farm
encroachment, natural and plantation forest inventories and potentials, timber flows and
market trends before and during the ban, forest cover changes, among many others.
Page 7 of 27
Partnership Building and Scoping Mission to Cross River State Nigeria – Final Trip Report
Ultimately to support forest management actions and the enforcement of laws once the
ban is lifted, a basic timber tracking system will need to be designed and implemented to
track timber from Cameroon and other sources within the state (e.g., coming from
community forests and eventually the forest reserves). Low tech examples exist from
the USFS as well as elsewhere in Africa that could be adapted to the context and needs
of the CRS.
4. The CRSFC has developed a 2010-13 Action plan. In this document the FC articulates
its vision and associated objectives, initiatives, and activities.4 Additionally the recently
passed “Forest and Wildlife Law of 2010” notes the need to produce both a state wide
Forest Sector Strategy as well as Land and Resource Use Plans and Management
Plans (see below). The previous DFID program supported the development of a forest
sector strategy which apparently is due to be updated. The team understood that the
CRSFC Action Plan perhaps should also be updated to take into account the new Law.
In meetings, site visits, and other discussions with the CRSFC and its partners the team
noted the breadth and diversity of interventions that the CRSFC is engaging in or
preparing to engage. Although the pressures on the resources and the
political/economic/social context are complex,
there is a concern that attempting to create
immediate solutions and respond on all fronts will
spread the CRSFC too thin. To work on too many
differing activities from community forestry to
ecotourism to carbon monitoring to wildlife
conservation at once might lead to lack of results
on any of these important thematic areas.
5. To implement the new Law as well as related
sector strategies and actions plans, state wide
and/or management unit level forest plans would
likely be useful to guide management
interventions.5 Such plans should include a
description of the forest resources and an
articulation of the vision or desired conditions that
management objectives and actions should target.
Additionally the plans could include zoning and
guidelines for appropriate activities and uses in
each zone.
Stakeholder engagement at multiple levels (State,
Local Government Area (LGA), and
Figure 7. CRS land cover and land use map
(DFID support CRS Forestry Department
1994).
4
Vision - To be home to one of the world’s greenest and biologically most diverse and richest forest by all
global standards.
Objectives: 1 To promote reafforestation of at least 25% of degraded forest reserve areas by 2012; 2. To
achieve the assessment & efficient management of biodiversity at all the 13 forest reserves in the state by
2012; 3. To get the state 90% ready to access the REDD/REDD+ carbon credits by 2012; 4. To
sustainably protect and conserve wildlife resources and their habitats in 2 wildlife conservation sites; and
5. Make all Ecotourism sites accessible.
5
The team was unclear on the scale of the land and resource use plans and management plans referred
to in the new Law. Both a state wide forest plan and ultimately management unit level plans that tier to
the state plan would likely be useful.
Page 8 of 27
Partnership Building and Scoping Mission to Cross River State Nigeria – Final Trip Report
community/village/clan, etc.) and participation throughout the planning and
implementation process will be critical to a plan’s representation of local aspirations tied
to state visions and any successful implementation.
6. In discussing with stakeholders, a consensus emerged that a more sustainable solution
to the problem is urgently required. A source of sustainably managed timber was
thought to eventually come from likely a combination of the following: 1) legitimizing a
well regulated trade of timber from Cameroon6; 2) some controlled, well managed
harvest of timber from within the state (to be determined if the forest reserves could
sustain this or whether harvest should be directed uniquely at plantation forestry); and 3)
broader restoration of degraded forests for conservation including sustainable use
eventually.
2.2.2 Recommendations
1. Develop the appropriate training and supervision/management controls/systems for field
and HQ staff – Initial training for field staff on field techniques will be valuable on: 1) GPS
use and forest reserve boundary demarcation; 2) rapid and simple multi-resource
inventories; and 3) basic law enforcement. Training must be complemented by tight
personnel management and controls systems.
2. Build improved and strategic partnership specifically with the CRNP to leverage
resources to contribute to shared objectives – Improved coordination and joint actions
across institutions is not easy but could provide a multiplier effect on State and Federal
government investments for natural resource management.
3. Improve capacity for monitoring the status of forest resources and other basic forest
sector data and analyses – Comprehensive data gathering and analytical capacity is
critical to the implementation of the Forest and Wildlife Law of 2010 and therefore should
be targeted for investment.
4. Revise strategic planning and to focus on doable, step-wise, prioritized actions –
Additional, renewed, and realistic strategic planning seems appropriate and could revise
the Action Plan and develop a Forest Sector Strategy that articulates where the forest
sector is going and focuses on what the CRSFC can accomplish under existing
constraints (technical, financial, etc.). See appendix 4.4 for some additional
perspectives.
5. Develop land and resource use plans - Appendix 4.5 presents some different options for
the structure of these plans. See section 3.1 for additional information on possible
USFS technical support to the CRSFC in this domain.
6. Consider a diversity of options to meet Cross River and Nigeria’s need for a sustainable
source of timber – These could include for example plantations, regularized trade with
Cameroon, community forests, eventual sustainable harvesting on degraded or other
forests.
6
Recent signing of the EU-Cameroon FLEGT Voluntary Partnership Agreement will likely support the
further efforts to curtailing illegal logging in Cameroon and therefore be useful to the CRSG in determining
legality and sustainability of timber coming from Cameroon.
Page 9 of 27
Partnership Building and Scoping Mission to Cross River State Nigeria – Final Trip Report
2.3 Other Pressures on Forest Resources and Alternative Livelihoods
Strategies in Cross River State
There appears to be widespread consensus that conversion of forests to subsistence agriculture
is the primary driver of deforestation in the state followed by logging/extractive uses.
Additionally, interest remains in capitalizing on the natural resources of the state for economic
development opportunities through community forestry, nature based tourism, and ultimately
from Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD) financing. These
points are covered in turn.
2.3.1 Agriculture Encroachment in Forest Reserves
Findings
Agriculture provides critical economic activity to a majority of Nigerians. Across the country,
70% of Nigerians depend on the agriculture sector for their primary livelihood and some 90% of
agricultural output comes from farms smaller than 5 hectares.7
Although not as densely populated as some other neighboring states in Nigeria, CRS still
experiences significant population pressure on the land. Data is sparse but meetings and site
visits indicated that the majority of agriculture in the state is practiced through extensive, slash
and burn techniques that ultimately converts more forest for less per hectare agricultural
production. This practice, in the context of
significant population pressure, and a
historically weak enforcement and management
of the state forest reserves, has led to many
entrepreneurs seeking these commons as
opportunities for agriculture development.
Historically, the forest reserves essentially were
the only lands that remained in the state without
arguably a significant management presence
hence individuals (poor and wealthy) as well as
companies preferred to secure access to these
lands for their economic activities rather than
going through extensive negotiations with local
Figure 8. Mixed cassava and palm oil farm in a CRS forest
communities or other land holders.
reserve.
It is unclear exactly the percentage or total surface area of the 13 forest reserves that have
been encroached upon. From meetings and site visits the team understood that certain
reserves have been completely occupied whereas others remain more intact. Without clear
demarcation of boundaries (physically or digitally) nor information on forest cover change over
time it is difficult to assess how significant the incursions have been. Regardless, the
occupation and conversion is considered to be significant and the CRSFC is discussing different
approaches to address the situation ranging from expelling, reclaiming and restoring the
reserves all the way to redrawing the boundaries based on field work and negotiations.
Recommendations
1. Deploy trained rangers complemented by partner institutions to gather basic information
on status and condition of the forest reserves – Critical to any land use management and
planning decisions are data on status and condition of the resources. Additionally where
forests have been significantly degraded, an assessment of the biodiversity, productivity,
7
USAID, 2010. Economic Growth and Environment Website. http://nigeria.usaid.gov/programs/economicgrowth-and-environment
Page 10 of 27
Partnership Building and Scoping Mission to Cross River State Nigeria – Final Trip Report
and/or other ecosystem services value of potential restoration efforts could also inform
zoning or reclassification of forest reserves. Caution however to avoid waiting too long
as managers will never have the funding or “ideal” completeness of data, comprehensive
assessments, and studies.
2. Engage when resources (and political will) are available for sustained management
and/or enforcement efforts – It is possible on a case by case basis, certain forest
reserves will be declassified whereas others will be determined to be critical for
restoration. In the later case, difficult and politically sensitive, reclaiming of reserves
from farm lands will be required. The success of such efforts will require a combination
of political will, alternatives, negotiations, and very importantly sustained management
and enforcement efforts to secure trust and confidence of the various stakeholders.
2.3.2 Community Forests and Community Engagement Strategies
Findings
Rural communities in CRS derive an important part of their livelihoods from forest resources
including NTFPs. Significant effort has been invested over the past few decades to establish
and support the management of community forests in the CRS.
Community based forest management is still in its early stages of evolution in Africa and around
the world. Several models have been attempted, with varying degrees of success. What
emerges is that the community should have, to some extent, property rights over natural
resources for successful community forestry planning and implementation. Although not
sufficient alone, without said rights, experience has shown that the motivation and capacity for
sustainable use and responsible stewardship diminishes.
Additionally, technical support and basic enforcement of agreements and laws are critical to the
successes of community forests. The CRSFC is currently establishing Forest Protection and
Compliance Committees in certain key areas around the state to support community led
enforcement of the Forest and Wildlife Law. Previously Forest Management Committees were
formed with some of these similar mandates. There is concern that community engagement
strategies not be duplicative but rather consolidated and with clear expectations and reasonable
size to be most effective over the long term.
The CRSG and more broadly the Federal Ministry of
Environment have launched reforestation campaigns as
a way, ostensibly to maintain and expand forest cover,
provide fuel wood and timber eventually, and create
economic opportunities. Currently CRSFC charge
offices have been tasked with initiating tree nursery
development. Ultimately, the creation of many
community managed, or otherwise individually
managed, small scale tree nurseries will be a critical
part of the implementation of these campaigns.
Depending on demand created by the campaigns
endemic and/or exotic species could be used. The
appropriate technical support and possibly micro-credits Figure 9. Native tree species saplings produced by
would facilitate the creation of these critical economic
CRSFC for ecological restoration of degraded
forest reserves.
opportunities to rural communities. Additionally, land
tenure and tree ownership policies and mechanisms will
be critical to the campaigns success.
Page 11 of 27
Partnership Building and Scoping Mission to Cross River State Nigeria – Final Trip Report
Recommendations
1. Mobilize and facilitate alternative livelihoods and small business development
opportunities in tandem with management and enforcement structures - Supporting
tangible and immediate alternative livelihoods for rural communities should be
accompanied by management and enforcement efforts to support state, national, and
international objectives of natural resource management and biodiversity conservation.
Economic development opportunities are critical but do not necessary lead to
conservation and can under right (wrong) conditions undermine it.
2. Initiate community engagement platforms learning from previous successes and failures
- Right sized and carefully developed platforms/forums/committees for discussion,
negotiations, and action bringing government, NGOs, private sector, and communities
together are critical to lasting conservation efforts. Managers and policy makers should
turn to local communities, NGOs, and literature for lessons learned.
2.3.3 Nature Based Tourism
Findings
The tourism potential of Cross River State is high but also subject to high expectations. The
state government has made significant investments in infrastructure to boost tourism in the
state, the business, shopping and leisure resort known as Tinapa and the Obudu Cattle Ranch
Resort have been the two main investments to date. An earlier USFS mission with the Cross
River State Tourism Bureau (CRSTB) focused on this element and their findings and
recommendations have been updated here.8
Visitors and tourists are discovering the new canopy walkway
and nearby Drill Ranch facilities at Afi Nature Reserve, but
they likely are confused about how to use the area. An overall
visitor experience package does not exist for the entirety of Afi
Mountain Wildlife Sanctuary and the surrounding communities.
Additionally the walkway has recently fallen into disrepair and
management and basic maintenance is sorely needed to
capitalize on this investment.
The Obudu Cattle Ranch on Obudu Plateau has benefitted
from infrastructure investment at an extraordinary scale
including the construction of a cable car, a canopy walkway,
world class conference center and facilities, a water park,
among others. Apparently a new Cultural and Natural History
Center has been constructed without clear integration of the
Center with the Becheve Nature Reserve or aspects of the
neighboring communities such as their roles in tourism or their
Figure 10. Forest canopy walkway near
cultural heritage and ancestral history in the Obudu Plateau
Drill Ranch and Afi Mountain Wildlife
area. Moreover, better access is needed to the nearby
Sanctuary.
Okwangwo Division of CRNP to provide opportunities for
visitors to experience local culture, art, and traditions in addition to the ecological assets of the
place. During the team’s visit the facilities were impressive but remarkably sparsely used.
8
USFS, 2007. Critical Needs Assessment for Cross River State Protected Areas and Eco-Tourism
Development.
Page 12 of 27
Partnership Building and Scoping Mission to Cross River State Nigeria – Final Trip Report
Recommendations
Based on the findings of the 2007 USFS mission and the current team’s observations the
following recommendations are offered:
1. The CRSTB and its partners could focus on site planning, interpretive themes and
training of tour-guides at Afi Nature Reserve. The objectives could be: 1) design simple,
primitive trails to integrate the tropical moist rainforest experience with visitor facilities; 2)
link the trails and canopy walkway with other infrastructure (e.g. visitor reception center,
parking area, picnic facilities, etc.); 3) develop interpretive themes and messages for
visitor center displays, brochures, and other materials; 4) hire and train people from
neighboring communities as tour guides, rangers, and interpreters; and 5) consider
innovative approaches to management of the facilities bringing perhaps the expertise of
local NGOs.
2. The CRSTB and its partners complete a site plan for the new Cultural and Natural
History Center at Obudu Plateau. The objectives could be: 1) link opportunities to visit
Becheve Nature Reserve and experience the culture of local communities with visitor
center displays and interpretive materials; and 2) in collaboration with the Nigerian
Federal Government, plan to locate and construct a trail, or improve the existing trail,
leading into CRNP Okwangwo Division.
3. The CRSTB and its partners could develop a marketing campaign and make related
adjustment to target Abuja based businesses and federal government institutions
seeking conference space and a reprieve from the pace and distractions in Abuja.
2.3.4 REDD+
Findings
REDD+ is a mechanism that establishes incentives for developing countries to protect and
better manage their forest resources, by creating a financial value for the carbon stored in trees,
thus making forests more valuable standing than cut down. REDD“+” goes beyond deforestation
and forest degradation, and includes the role of conservation, sustainable management of
forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks.9
Generally the US and international community supports national REDD+ programs to: a) reduce
the risk of emission leakage, b) lower REDD+ transaction costs, c) engage a broad range of
forest stakeholders, d) simplify monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV), and e) increase the
likelihood that REDD+ will lead to global reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
Many political, institutional, legislative, technical, and social aspects of REDD+ still will need to
be discussed/negotiated/determined/tested at all levels prior to full articulation and
implementation of REDD+ policies. Therefore although some gains and further refinements
have been made on REDD+, caution should be taken to avoid raising expectations of
immediate carbon windfalls while many key questions are answered and rules established (see
appendix 4.6 for other information on status of negotiations and what it means for technical
aspects of REDD MRV design).
Recommendations
Nigeria ultimately may receive compensation (e.g., carbon credit) under a United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) mechanism either by reducing losses or
creating new gains as compared to Reference Level or Reference Emission Level (to be
established by the country). Other opportunities might be presented by the voluntary market or
other direct investments that are not necessarily within the framework of the UNFCCC.
9
UN REDD programme - http://www.un-redd.org/AboutREDD/tabid/582/Default.aspx
Page 13 of 27
Partnership Building and Scoping Mission to Cross River State Nigeria – Final Trip Report
Again many aspects of REDD+ still remain to be developed and finalized and therefore caution
should be taken to avoid raising inappropriately expectations of immediate carbon windfalls
while many key questions are answered and rules established.
3.0
USFS NEXT STEPS
3.1
Strategic Opportunities for Technical Assistance in Cross River State
The USFS intends to cooperate with Nigerian Federal and State natural resource agencies,
USAID/USDA-FAS/State Department, and conservation NGOs to initiate a natural resource
program. The first objectives of this program will be to:
1) Mobilize a technical assistance mission to Cross
River State to support the State Forestry
Commission and its partners on forest resources
planning for a single priority forest reserve to
serve as a model for replication by the CRSFC.
2) Mobilize a technical assistance mission to Cross
River State to work with the State Tourism Bureau
on site planning to improve and link some of their
nature-based tourism assets.
3) Provide small and strategic grant and technical
assistance to Wildlife Conservation Society on
threatened and endangered primate conservation Figure 11. CRSFC staff reviewing land cover
land use map.
in Cross River State.
3.2
Other Possible Technical Assistance Opportunities
Other immediate areas for more formal USAID Nigeria/USFS partnerships in support of Nigerian
Federal and State objectives could include:
1) USFS support through some science based analysis for decision making on climate
change. Notably this could take the form of a sort of climate vulnerability assessment to
orient programming of global climate change
adaptation funds. USFS is implementing a similar
project for USAID Liberia and can explore if such
work is possible and useful in Nigeria.
2) USFS support on climate change
mitigation/sustainable landscapes/REDD+ work
through for example work on forest inventory and
monitoring; carbon capture/sequestration and
monitoring, etc.
3) USFS support on global food security, USG Feed
the Future initiative or the USAID Maximizing
Agricultural Revenue in Key Enterprises for
Targeted Sites (MARKETS) program activities such Figure 12. Captive group of Drills in enclosure
at Drill Ranch.
as:
a. Agroforestry and/or watershed planning, assessments, and management in
Bauchi and Sokoto States. Some of these activities could complement or
expand Yankari State Game Reserve (Bauchi State) management support
projects that Wildlife Conservation Society is already implementing.
b. Cross sectorial land use planning work at national level or state level to support
science based decision making to inform where Nigeria government institutions
Page 14 of 27
Partnership Building and Scoping Mission to Cross River State Nigeria – Final Trip Report
can target different land uses (e.g., agricultural, community forestry, mining,
grazing, other conservation, etc.) and investments to meet state/national
objectives in a coordinated manner.
Page 15 of 27
Partnership Building and Scoping Mission to Cross River State Nigeria – Final Trip Report
4.0
APPENDICES
4.1
Scope of work
Draft - USFS Team Scope of Work
US Forest Service International Programs
SCOPING MISSION TO CROSS RIVER STATE, NIGERIA
September 2010
Introduction
Initial contact between the US Forest Service (USFS) and Cross River State Government was established
by the former Governor, Donald Duke, and Gabe Onah, Managing Director of Cross River State Tourism
Bureau in 2006. This contact was facilitated by Matthew Cassetta (US State Dept. Regional
Environmental Officer for West and Central Africa) following a meeting with the Governor in 2005. Based
on these meetings the USFS completed a preliminary mission to Cross River State in November 2006.
The mission came up with four clear recommendations: 1. locate and re-gazette where necessary the
boundaries of all protected areas within the state including the national park; 2. complete management
plans for all protected areas within the state; 3. improve tourist facilities at Afi Mountain Wildlife
Sanctuary, and 4. link tourist facilities on the Obudu Cattle Ranch with Becheve Nature Reserve and the
adjacent Cross River National Park (USFS, 2006). None of these recommendations have yet been
implemented.
With support from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) contact with the USFS was reestablished following a meeting between the USFS and the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) in
December 2009 during which time a possible scoping mission to Cross River State was discussed. There
have been two major changes in Cross River State since the last USFS mission in 2006: a two-year
moratorium on all logging in Cross River State was announced by the Governor, Senator Liyel Imoke, in
June 2008. Since the ban was introduced the Cross River State Forestry Commission has been partly
restructured so that the emphasis is no longer on logging and revenue generation but on the conservation
of the state’s remaining forests including the development of opportunities in the area of ecotourism
(sustainable tourism)and possible revenue from REDD. As a result there is an urgent need to review the
organization and current structure of the Forestry Commission that addresses issues such as clear lines
of communication, specialization and career development.
At the same time the forestry and wildlife laws of Cross River State were reviewed and a new combined
forestry/wildlife law is now with the State House of Assembly for final amendments. Inputs from the USFS
to critical aspects of this legislation would be of immense value. However, transforming the Cross River
State Forestry Commission from its original focus on logging to one of conservation will be a long process
and will require retraining and capacity building. This is an ideal time for a scoping mission from the
USFS to help determine how to support the Cross River State Government and their partners to manage
Cross River State’s remaining forests and wildlife.
Background
The focus of the mission will be to investigate possible ways in which to reform the Cross River State
Forestry Commission which has deteriorated after many years of neglect and mis-management. The
CRSFC has a poor image within the state and with local communities and lacks a clear direction and
focus. Although the headquarters in Calabar is large and relatively well equipped, charge-offices
elsewhere in the state are neglected, under-staffed and under-funded. Field staff display low morale,
lacking field equipment and a clear mandate. Previous donor projects by ODA (later DfID) which focused
on revenue generation and community forestry did little to curtail rates of forest loss within the state and
some claim exacerbated the problem even further. There have been some marked improvements in the
last 1-2 years at the level of the headquarters but transforming the entire CRSFC and extending the new
Page 16 of 27
Partnership Building and Scoping Mission to Cross River State Nigeria – Final Trip Report
ethos to field staff will require more time and effort as well as a well thought out strategy. Therefore the
key needs of the CRSFC are twofold: restructuring of the Commission and retraining its staff to meet the
new conservation focus.
A copy of the Forestry Commission’s 2010 – 2013 Action Plan will be made available in advance to the
USFS team to enable them have some perspective of planned activities of the Commission especially for
budgeting purposes at the level of the state.
Threats
The two main threats to sustainable forest management and wildlife conservation in Cross River State are
the loss of forest habitat as a result of agricultural expansion, both subsistence and commercial, and the
bushmeat trade. The absence of clearly delineated and legally gazetted boundaries for all State Forest
Reserves and the Cross River National Park makes the effective management of protected areas in the
state near impossible. This remains a major threat to the integrity and survival of protected areas and key
species.
Cross River State has lost much of its original forest cover and most of what remains today is found in
forest reserves and the national park. All forest concessions within the state were revoked some years
ago but illegal logging continued at an alarming scale. Cross River State occurs within a known
biodiversity hotspot and includes a number of rare and endangered species notably the Cross River
gorilla. However the bushmeat trade is rampant in the state including endangered species such as
gorilla, chimpanzee and elephant, much of it originating from Cameroon.
Logging Moratorium
In an attempt to reduce rates of illegal logging a temporary logging ban was introduced in 2008, however
it has not prevented logging within the state. A more sustainable solution to the problem is urgently
required. Moreover, significant amounts of illegal timber are floated down the River Cross each year into
Nigeria from Cameroon. Cross River State and Nigeria need a sustainable source of timber. It has been
proposed to use the period offered by the current moratorium on logging to put in place a system to track
timber from stump site to retail end user.
Sustainable Tourism
The tourism potential of Cross River State is high but also subject to high expectations. The state
government has made significant investments in infrastructure to boost tourism in the state, the business,
shopping and leisure resort known as Tinapa and the Obudu Cattle Ranch Resort have been the two
main investments to date. See <www.crossriverstate.gov.ng> for more details.
Cross River National Park
Cross River National Park (CRNP) was established in 1991 out of forest reserves formerly managed by
the state government. All national parks in Nigeria are managed by the National Park Service, a
parastatal under the Federal Ministry of the Environment. CRNP is threatened by high rates of poaching,
the presence of enclave villages within the park itself and unclear boundaries. A draft management plan
for CRNP has been produced by WCS and is approaching finalization. Some limited support for CRNP is
provided by WCS with funds from USFWS but there is no major international donor support for national
parks in Nigeria, unlike Cameroon for example.
Mission Objective
The main objective of this scoping mission is to assess the current situation of forest management and
wildlife conservation in Cross River State and to investigate areas of possible technical support for the
Cross River State Forestry Commission by the US Forest Service.
Activities
Page 17 of 27
Partnership Building and Scoping Mission to Cross River State Nigeria – Final Trip Report
The USFS team will meet with key partners in the state including but not limited to the Governor, relevant
Special Advisers to the Governor, Cross River State Forestry Commission, Cross River State Ministry of
Environment, Cross River State Tourism Bureau and Cross River National Park. The team will also meet
with relevant NGOs including but not limited to WCS, the Nigerian Conservation Foundation, Cercopan
and Pandrillus. In view of seeing firsthand the natural resource management challenges and
opportunities and gaining the valuable field perspective from field level stakeholders the team will visit the
Afi Mountain Wildlife Sanctuary, the Mbe Mountains, Cross River National Park and the Obudu Plateau.
The team will also visit Abuja and will meet with officials of the US Embassy, USAID, other technical and
development assistance partners (e.g., CIDA, and others), Nigeria National Park Service, the Federal
Ministry of Environment, and others to be determined.
USFS Team Tasks:
1. Engage in technical exchange sessions on forest management and wildlife conservation;
2. Present formally and informally the USFS methods, principles, and approaches on forest
management and wildlife conservation to partners;
3. Develop a trip report on the mission (see description under ‘Deliverables’).
4. Be available for periodic follow up on information exchanges once the team has returned.
Composition of USFS Team
This USFS team will consist of three individuals (including an IP Staff member) with a collective set of
experience in the following:
•
•
•
•
•
Strategic direction and management of national forests for multiple objectives – namely habitat
conservation, recreation/tourism, and sustainable forest management including sustainable
utilization and value addition to forest products;
Planning, delineating, and monitoring in forest production and protected area zones;
Wildlife management and biodiversity conservation approaches in wilderness/protected areas;
Assessing, monitoring and addressing logging impacts on wildlife, watersheds, and local
populations.
Ability to adapt US knowledge and processes to the context of a region with limited human,
financial and material resources and with different, even sometimes conflicting policy, legal,
social, cultural and economic frameworks and natural resources.
Deliverables
The USFS team will produce a report on the scoping mission detailing activities during the mission and all
results and findings of the work toward the accomplishment of the objectives and tasks listed above.
Additionally, the report will include recommendations for the sustainable management and conservation
of the state’s remaining forests. The report will include an action plan for possible areas of future
intervention and support from the USFS together including possible funding sources for implementation.
This report will include, but not be limited to:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Executive summary
Introduction
Issues, findings, & recommendations
Next steps
a. Action plan for possible USFS technical assistance
b. Others
5. Appendices
a. Scope of work
b. Itinerary
c. List of contacts made
Timing and Duration: September 2010
Page 18 of 27
Partnership Building and Scoping Mission to Cross River State Nigeria – Final Trip Report
Funding
The USFS will support the staff time, international, and in country travel, MI&E, and lodging expenses for
the USFS team as well as other field visit facilitation expenses.
Logistics
All logistics will be coordinated by WCS in collaboration with Cross River State Government and the US
Embassy.
Read ahead / background documents:
Blackett, H. (2008) Cross-border flows of timber and wood products in West Arica. European
Commission.
CRSFC. Action Plan and Budget 2010-2013
Oates F. Myth and Reality in the Rainforest. Chp. 6
Oates, J.F., Bergl, R.A, and Linder, J.M. 2004. Africa’s Gulf of Guinea Forests: Biodiversity Patterns and
Conservation Priorities. Advances in Applied Biodiversity Science, number 6. Washington D.C.:
Conservation International. . http://www.bioone.org/doi/book/10.1896/1-881173-82-8. Chps 3, 5, and 7
Oates, J., J. Sunderland-Groves, R. Bergl, A. Dunn, A. Nicholas, E. Takang, F. Omeni, I. Imong, F. Fotso,
L. Nkembi and L. Williamson. 2007. Regional Action Plan for the Conservation of the Cross River Gorilla
(Gorilla gorilla diehli). IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group and Conservation International, Arlington, VA,
USA
USFS (2006) Critical Needs Assessment for Cross River State Protected Areas and Eco-Tourism
Development. Brooks, Neary and Asuquo.
USAID-SPACE Cross River State Project Final Report
Sunderland , T. (2001) Cross River State Community Forestry Project: Non-Timber Forest Products
Advisor, Report. ERM and DfID.
Morakinyo, T. (2001). Cross River State Community Forestry Project: Forest Exploitation Adviser,
Report. ERM and DfID.
Some NGO partners in Nigeria:
WCS http://www.wcs.org/where-we-work/africa/nigeria.aspx
Pandrillus http://www.pandrillus.org/
CERCOPAN - Centre for Education, Research & Conservation of Primates and Nature http://www.cercopan.org/about_us.htm
Nigerian Conservation Foundation http://www.ncfnigeria.org/about.php
Page 19 of 27
Partnership Building and Scoping Mission to Cross River State Nigeria – Final Trip Report
4.2
Itinerary
Date
Description of meeting
Sept 13
Arrive in Abuja and transfer to Hotel
Overnight Abuja Hotel 
Sept 14
Meeting Charge'/Acting Deputy Chief of Mission and other senior representatives from
Embassy
Regional security officer (RSO) briefing
USAID – Howard Batson, USAID Nigeria Economic Growth and Environment team
Meeting with Minister of Environment - Honorable John Odey
Overnight Abuja Hotel 
Sept 15
Flight to Calabar
Lunch / introduction meeting with Andrew Dunn, Wildlife Conservation Society, Nigeria
Country Program Director
Meetings with Cross River State Forestry Commission (CRSFC), Odigha Odigha,
Chairman CRSFC and senior staff.
Dinner or courtesy visit with Governor’s Representative, Dr Julius Okputu, Commissioner,
Cross River State Ministry of Environment
Overnight Hotel in Calabar 
Sept 16
Meetings with NGOs at the CRSFC: WCS, Pandrillus, Cercopan, NCF, Concern Universal,
Onesky, DIN, NGOCE
Meeting with Conservator/Park Warden - Cross River National Park, Richard Effa
Overnight Hotel in Calabar 
Sept 17
Meeting with Cross River State Tourism Bureau
Visit to timber market in Calabar and informal discussions with timber dealers and
union/association representatives
Visit to CRS mangrove reserve and discussions with representative of the CRS AntiDeforestation Task Force (Peter Jenkins)
Overnight Hotel in Calabar 
Sept 18
Visit to Ekinta Forest Reserve (local Forest Reserve), site of example CRSFC ecological
restoration efforts, and discussion with Oban CRSFC charge office staff,
CRSFC field staff
Visit to Cross River National Park (Oban) including discussions with CRNP range office
staff and trek into CRNP, CRSFC and NPS field staff
Overnight Hotel in Calabar 
Page 20 of 27
Partnership Building and Scoping Mission to Cross River State Nigeria – Final Trip Report
Sept 19
Visit Mbe Mountains, Wula I including meeting with the Conservation Association of the
Mbe Mountains (Community-owned wildlife sanctuary), CAMM leaders,
WCS project staff, CRS Tourism Bureau.
Strategic discussion on Afi mountain challenges and opportunities
Overnight at Drill Ranch 
Sept 20
Drill Ranch visit (Primate enclosures and tree nursery) as well as visit to nearby CRS
Tourism Bureau canopy walkway
Visit Afi Mountain Wildlife Sanctuary/Afi River Forest Reserve (State-managed wildlife
sanctuary and forest reserve) and discussion with community
representatives at Baunchor village (new forest protection and compliance
committee) and demonstration from school conservation club, CRSFC
staff, WCS staff
Visit CRSFC office at Bateriko with meeting with broader forest protection and compliance
committee, CRSFC staff, WCS staff
Obudu Ranch facilities visit including cable car
Overnight at Obudu 
Sept 21
Visit to CRNP ranger post and discussion with field staff
Meeting with Awi CRSFC zone and charge office and visit to Gmelina plantation.
Overnight Hotel in Calabar 
Sept 22
Final meetings with CRSFC and other stakeholders, Odigha Odigha, Chairman CRSFC
and staff.
WCS office visit and discussion with GIS expert
Meeting with Governor and his senior staff, Senator Liyel Imoke, Governor of Cross River
State.
Overnight Hotel in Calabar 
Sept 23
Departure Calabar to Abuja (Arik Nigeria)
Debrief with USAID EGE team
Overnight Abuja Hotel 
Sept 24
Debrief with US Embassy, USAID, and WCS
Final wrap up, trip report writing, etc.
Delta Air #225 departure
Page 21 of 27
Partnership Building and Scoping Mission to Cross River State Nigeria – Final Trip Report
4.3
List of contacts made
Name
Title/Institution
US Government
Jim McAnulty
Charge d’Affaires, US Embassy Abuja
Perry Ball
ADCM, US Embassy Abuja
Carolyn Jensen
Acting Economics Chief, US Embassy Abuja
Louise Ramsey-Dixon
US Embassy Abuja
Sharon Pauling
Director, USAID/Nigeria Economic Growth and Environment Office
Howard Batson
Senior Agriculture Specialist, USAID/Nigeria
Mike Anderson
Economic Growth and Environment, USAID/Nigeria
Abdulkadir Gudugi
Economic Growth and Environment, USAID/Nigeria
Imeh Okan
Program Manager, Energy and Climate Change, USAID/Nigeria
Nigeria Federal Government
John Odey
Honourable Minister, Federal Ministry of Environment
Peter Papkar
Forestry Department, Federal Ministry of Environment
Haruna Tanko Abubakar
Conservator General, Nigeria National Park Service
Richard Effa
Conservator, Cross River National Park
Range Officer, Cross River National Park (Oban)
Nigeria, Cross River State
Government
Senator Liyel Imoke
Governor of Cross River State
Dr Julius Okputu
Commissioner, Cross River State Ministry of Environment
Dr. Ikani Wogar
Special Adviser to the Governor: Forestry, Conservation and
Biodiversity
Gabe Onah
Special Advisor to Cross Rivers State Governor; Tourism
Development
Michael Williams
Managing Director, Cross River State Tourism Bureau
Clement Umina
Products Development, Cross River State Tourism Bureau
Odigha Odigha
Board Chairman, Cross River State Forestry Commission
Ntufam Innocent Ntunyang
Board Member, Cross River State Forestry Commission
Arikpo Arikpo
Board Member, Cross River State Forestry Commission
Page 22 of 27
Partnership Building and Scoping Mission to Cross River State Nigeria – Final Trip Report
Dr Augustine Ogogo
Board Member, Cross River State Forestry Commission
Iwara Iwara
Head of Department, Conservation, Protection, and Compliance,
Cross River State Forestry Commission
Francis Aduma
Zonal Officer, Cross River State Forestry Commission
Charge Officer, Cross River State Forestry Commission
International and National NGOs
Andrew Dunn
Nigeria Country Program Director, Wildlife Conservation Society
Okeke O. Francis
GIS Officer, Wildlife Conservation Society
Peter Jenkins
Pandrillus and Cross River State Anti-Logging Task Force
Ugah Godwin
Communications Officer, One Sky
Edwin Usang
Member, Pilot Projects Advisory Group, Building Nigeria’s Response
to Climate Change
Claire Coulson
CERCOPAN
Edwin Usang
NGOCE
James Odey
DIN
Ibrahim Inahoro
NCF
Tony Attah
Concern Universal
Alade Adeleke
Director of Technical Programmes, Nigerian Conservation
Foundation
CAMM leaders
Conservation Association of the Mbe Mountains
Sam Ubi Ettah
Afi Mountain Wildlife Sanctuary
Many clan heads, traditional
leaders, women, youth and other
community members
Page 23 of 27
Partnership Building and Scoping Mission to Cross River State Nigeria – Final Trip Report
4.4 Additional Perspectives on Overall Strategic Planning and a revised 5
Year Action Plan
The following management model or approach has proved useful in the USFS and could as well
in CRSFC:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Planning – ideas, vision, where the institution is going.
Organizing – how to get there and what is needed in personnel/equipment/infrastructure.
Directing – training, field manuals, handbooks, and supervision.
Controlling – monitoring and evaluation, supervision, and adaptive management.
The following represents some rather crude notes that resulted from a brainstorming session
late in the mission on how the CRSFC could possibly prioritize its actions in the coming years
taking into account a certain number of assumptions. Overall this comes from an observation
that so many, varied activities are ongoing and that perhaps CRSFC could benefit from focusing
on fewer, simpler, and more reasonable tasks over the immediate term. Other broader
areas/themes/departments should be kept as placeholders or dedicating minimal staff in the
interim period while core functions are developed and implemented. These notes are included
here not as recommendations per se but rather to stimulate thinking and action on strategic
planning and possible a revised 5 year action plan.
I.
II.
Strategic plan for the CRS forest resources (Forest Sector Strategy?) could identify
the following:
a. Vision/goal/ultimate outcome – perhaps something like - expanding natural and
working forest cover for people, jobs, and ecosystem services.
b. Identify priority geographic areas
c. Identify priority actions (e.g. bold pushes and declarations followed by sustained
actions)
5 year action plan
a. Identify priority actions in to be implemented in a step-wise or phased approach.
Prioritize actions by what is reasonable granted current staff/partners/resources
and seems to be most urgent recognizing the threats. The five critical areas
could be the following:
i. New law sensitization to all stakeholder groups at all key levels.
ii. Boundary demarcation including rapid resource inventory and conditions
(this supports getting the rangers back in the forest where their work
should be).
iii. Targeted illegal farm reclamation in priority areas and initiation of
ecological restoration.
iv. Fuel wood and construction timber plantation restored or established
around key urban centers or other strategic locations.
v. Lift ban and initiate sustainable harvest and forest products trade
regularization with Cameroon (this would include lower waste / more
efficient techniques such as portable mills rather than chainsaws.
Additionally a simple wood tracking system could then be deployed)
b. Cross cutting
Page 24 of 27
Partnership Building and Scoping Mission to Cross River State Nigeria – Final Trip Report
i. Needs and info assessments
1. Staff skills and structure/personnel management and reporting
2. Timber/habitat requirements
ii. State wide Land and resource use plans
iii. Management unit level plans with prescriptions and zoning and
stakeholder buy-in through inclusive process and regular vetting.
iv. Pronouncements of forest related policy actions
1. Business development opportunities linked with value added
policies and actions occur for all wood products before export from
the state.
v. Several lean advisory committees established with representatives from:
1. Community, youth, women, traditional and clan leaders
2. Timber dealers
3. NGOs
4. Other private sector interest
Implementation and Adaptive Management
III.
Assumptions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Governor remains committed to the forest sector reform agenda, makes annual
bold declarations, and commits appropriate operation budget annually.
CRSFC leadership and technical staff remain committed and rangers are working
in the priority areas (forest).
Technical partners provide mentoring and training annually corresponding at
least with the big push thematic trainings.
Partnerships can be brokered between CRSFC, CRNP, and NGOs for joint
deployment of resources (human, material, financial) for common goals.
CRSFC and partners can effectively carry out the “social sensitization and
listening” in the law and its related management actions.
Training calendar for field technicians (charge officers and rangers?) associated with 5 year
action plan:
1. Training 100% for time period one priority activity and implementation10
2. Time period two, 80% staff trained and implementing priority activity two with 20%
focusing on priority activity one.
3. Time period two, 60% staff trained and implementing priority activity three with 20%
focusing on priority activity two and 20% focusing on priority activity one.
4. Etc.
10
“Time period” could be 1 year, 6 months, 18 months, whatever the CRSFC determines is sufficient.
Page 25 of 27
Partnership Building and Scoping Mission to Cross River State Nigeria – Final Trip Report
4.5
Possible Land and Resource Use Plan Components
Drawing from USFS analysis and inputs in Central Africa through the USAID Central Africa
Regional Program for the Environment (CARPE) the following “outlines” of management plans
might be useful to stimulate reflection in Cross River State.11
Throughout Central Africa, timber concessions are award to private companies for management
following national rules and regulations. An important condition of the concession contract is
that requirement for the concessionaire to develop a management plan with more or less the
following key elements/components for a typical Extractive Resource Plan:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Introductory Information
Descriptive Information
Zoning, Usage Rights, and Management Prescriptions
Plan Implementation and Evaluation
Economic and Financial Information
Multi-use landscapes are also managed in Central Africa including protected areas, community
natural resource management areas, and extractive zones. The following components are
typical for Landscape Plans:
1. Executive Summary
2. Introduction
a. Unique Value of the Landscape
b. Description of the Planning Process for the Landscape
c. Characteristics of the Landscape
3. Desired Conditions
4. Landscape Objectives
5. Zoning
6. Guidelines
7. Management Actions
8. Implementation
a. Roles and Responsibilities
b. Public Participation Strategy
c. Monitoring and Evaluation
d. Multi-Year Schedule
9. References
11
See the series of USFS Land Use Planning guides for CARPE found at:
http://carpe.umd.edu/Plone/resources/carpemgmttools
Page 26 of 27
Partnership Building and Scoping Mission to Cross River State Nigeria – Final Trip Report
4.6
Status of Certain Key Technical Aspects of REDD+ Negotiations
Under the current negotiation text under UNFCCC (FCCC/AWGLCA/2010/6), the expected
REDD+ mechanism is defined as: “developing country Parties should contribute to mitigation
actions in the forest sector by undertaking the following activities:
a) Reducing emissions from deforestation;
b) Reducing emissions from forest degradation;
c) Conservation of forest carbon stocks;
d) Sustainable management of forest;
e) Enhancement of forest carbon stocks.”
The COP decision 4/CP 15 on methodological guidance agreed to in Copenhagen used the
following wording to define REDD+ by “Acknowledging the importance of reducing emissions
from deforestation and forest degradation, and the role of conservation, sustainable
management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries”.
These REDD+ activities are shown in Figure 1.
The Decision states that countries will have to use the most recent Guidance and Guidelines of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC), as adopted or encouraged by the
COP, as a basis for estimating anthropogenic forest-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
by sources and removals by sinks, forest carbon stocks and forest area changes
(Decision4/CP.15 Article 1 (c)). Estimating emissions and removals by sinks will have to be
done in an adequate, consistent, complete and transparent manner and be applied to the five
carbon pools that will have to be measured and reported on (these being: aboveground
biomass, belowground biomass, deadwood, litter and soil organic matter) (IPCC, 2003).
Moreover, the IPCC proposes two ways of estimating carbon stock changes: Gain-Loss and
Stock Change. Gain-Loss refers to a method in which the changes of carbon stocks are
estimated by considering all the pertinent processes and calculated as the difference between
the carbon accumulation (e.g., tree growth) and the loss of carbon (source-sink). The Stock
Change method measures carbon as the difference of carbon stocks for a given land unit over
two points in time (net change over time).
Figure 1. FAO representation of the 5 REDD+ activities
REDD+ Forest Related Activities
Conservation
Deforestation
SMF &
Enhancement of forest C stock
Deforestation
Degradation
Enhancement of forest C stock
Page 27 of 27