CÔTE D’IVOIRE Stakeholder-led Forest Governance Assessment in Côte d’Ivoire Contents Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii Background and Context. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Focus on Forest Governance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 The Forest Governance Framework and Participatory Governance Assessment Tool. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 First application of PROFOR Tool in Côte d’Ivoire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Second application of PROFOR Tool in Côte d’Ivoire. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Overall picture of forest governance in Côte d’Ivoire. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Detailed Results and Discussion of Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Actions to address the priority areas of forest governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Conclusions and Next Steps. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Annex 1: List of Participants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Annex 2: Workshop Agenda. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Annex 3: List of Indicator Questions and their Scores. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Stakeholder-led Forest Governance Assessment in Côte d’Ivoire Abbreviations CIF Climate Investment Funds FAO Food and Agriculture Organization ha hectares MINEF Ministry of Water and Forests NGO Non-governmental organization OIPR Office Ivoirien des Parcs et Réserves PROFOR Program on Forests SODEFOR National Forest Development Agency ii Stakeholder-led Forest Governance Assessment in Côte d’Ivoire Acknowledgments The report “Stakeholder-led Forest Governance Assessment in Côte d’Ivoire” is a result of contributions from multiple stakeholders from Côte d’Ivoire. We would like to thank everyone for bringing your expertise and engaging in constructive, fruitful and open exchanges throughout the two days of the workshop that was held in Yamoussoukro, Côte d’Ivoire in September 2018. The report was commissioned by the World Bank’s Global Platforms unit in the Environment & Natural Resources Global Practice. The report was led by Meerim Shakirova, Nalin Kishor, and Akindele Sylvain. Valuable guidance and support were provided by Salimata Follea, Julie Nyamien Messoum Kouame, and Deborah Pierce. We would like to extend our appreciation to Professor Kouadio Kouame Georges and the Integrated Project Administration Unit (UIAP) team for their valuable support and guidance. We are grateful to workshop stakeholders for their input : Kone Messeba (Préfet de Région, Minister of the Interior and Security MIS), Tuo Fozie (Préfet de Région, MIS), Attri Kouakou Konan Jacques (Préfet du Département de MEAGUI, MIS), Etienne Aka (SG Prefecture San Pedro, MIS), Akasson Bernadette (Préfet de Région, MIS), Louis Diakite (Promoteur, NZI River Lodge), Ahoussi Delphine (Présidente, Association of Women MALEBI), Cat Guy-Serge Guillaume Bekoin (Sr Directeur Planification, Ministry of Water and Forests MINEF), C Sylla Cheick Tidiane (Point Focal National, MINEFI APV-FLEGT), Curtis JF (Conseiller National, MINEFI-CT), N’Gueassan Kouakou Germain (Préfet du Sequi de Kouassi-Kouassi, Region du NZI), Yacouba Doumbia, (Préfet de Région, Région du Cavally), Alliali Kouadio (Préfet de Région, Région du Bélier), Kone Jacques L (Préfet de Daoukro, IFFOU), Ahoulou Koutou (Représentant le DR, Directeur Régional Eaux et Forêts), Gbogoutape Photo: Meerim Shakirova Stakeholder-led Forest Governance Assessment in Côte d’Ivoire iii Camille (President Regional OI-REN Plateform), Seca Rance-Annick (Présidente, ONG PDL-PE), Gore Bisery Albert (Directeur du Centre de Gestion San Pedro, SODEFOR), Koffi N’Guessan Appolinaire (Directeur du Centre de Gestion Abengourou, SODEFOR), Dorro Amara (Directeur CG Bouake, SODEFOR), Tape Bifoua Alphonse (Directeur de Centre de Gestion Korhogo, SODEFOR), Yapo Jean-Baptiste Constraut (Directeur Planification Projets et Financement, SODEFOR), Ekra Koffi Oumar (Président, ONG Agro-écologie), N’Guessan n’Dri Georgette (Président, Fédération Groupement des Femmes), Kouame Bella (Président Régional du NZI, DGM CNP), Kouassi Kouakou (Président Régional du IFFOU(DAOUKRO), DGM CNP), Sare Play Christophe (Président National, DGM CNP), Youssouy Doumbia (Président, OI-REN), Loukou Koffi’jules (PGA, FEREADD), Ahoulou Kouame (SEP-REDD+), Diarrassouba Abdoulaye (DZSO-PNT, OIPR), Yeo Syfowa Tafa (Chargé d’Etudes/Planification, OIPR), N’Guessan Koffi Rodrigue (Directeur, MINADER), Prof Yaokokore Beibro Hilcute (Coordinateur National Projet UE/Reufo des Capacités, GNTCI-Gestion Durables des Forêts), Koffi Koncer Jean Claude (Conseiller Technique DGI, SODEFOR), Dossan René Kouakou (Directeur Charge de la Capacitation, SENAT), Viala Chloe (Chargé de Programme, WCF), Kouadio Kouame Jean (Point Focal CENCCA/Coordonnateur Général de Projets BM, MINEDD), Ouattra Zonu Souleymane (Responsable Environnement, SAPIA), Kouadio Kouame Georges (Coordinnateur Général de Projets Banque Mondial, MINEDD/UIAP), Tiemoko Maude Delpeche (Sous-Directeur, MINEDD), Cone Gaoussou (Secretaire General, APFNP), Miezan Kouassi K. Antoine (Directeur Centre de Gestion San Pedro, SODEFOR), Bosso Amara (Directeur Centre de Gestion Bouake, SODEFOR), Ouattara Mahamane (Spécialiste Suivi Evaluation, UIAP), and Dossan Rene Kouakou (Directeur de la Coopération, SENAT). We acknowledge with gratitude the Climate Investment Funds (CIF) for their contribution to the production of this report. iv Stakeholder-led Forest Governance Assessment in Côte d’Ivoire 1 Background and Context Côte d’Ivoire, in West Africa, has a total surface area of 322,463 km². Liberia and Guinea border it to the west, Mali and Burkina Faso to the north, and Ghana to the east. It is divided into two main geographic regions: a forest zone in the south (48.2 percent of the surface area) and a savanna zone in the north (51.8 percent of the surface area). The forest cover, estimated at 37 percent of the country’s territory in 1960, had decreased to less than 14 percent in 2010 (World Bank 2018). The average deforestation rate increased from 1.5 percent per year between 1900 and 1980 to approximately 4.3 percent per year between 1990 and 2015 (World Bank 2018), becoming the highest in the world at the time. Between 2000 and 2008, during the political crisis, the deforestation rate reached 25 percent in the gazetted forest reserves (World Bank 2018). According to the World Bank (2018), the encroachment rate in gazetted forests increased from 18 percent of the total area in 1996 to approximately 50 percent in 2014. Photo: Integrated Project Administration Unit for World Bank Projects, MINEDD Stakeholder-led Forest Governance Assessment in Côte d’Ivoire 1 The main direct causes of deforestation and forest degradation are massive expansion of extensive slash-and-burn agriculture; uncontrolled harvesting of trees, in particular for firewood (currently estimated at 20 million cubic meters per year, a figure that continues to grow, fueled by lack of protection for gazetted forests and, to a lesser extent, protected areas and significant shortcomings in the management of forest resources); bushfires (accidental or intentional, often for agriculture or hunting); and mining, notably illegal small-scale gold mining. The main indirect causes, which have a broader yet highly significant effect on forestry resources, are growing demographic pressure, which is increasing urbanization in the forested part of the country, where 75.5 percent of the country’s population currently lives, and generalized poverty of rural households, which leads to overexploitation of available natural resources to compensate for lack of productivity of smallholder farming and of opportunities for nonagricultural rural revenues. Three agencies administer the country’s forest areas: a. The Permanent Forest Estate of the State (Domaine Forestier Permanent de l’Etat ), which covers 6,267,730 hectares (ha) (19 percent of total country area) and includes 233 forêts classées (gazetted forests, 4,196,000 ha), managed by The National Forest Development Agency (SODEFOR). b. Eight national parks (including Taï, the largest reservoir of biodiversity in West Africa) and six natural reserves totaling 2,071,730 ha, which the Office Ivoirien des Parcs et Réserves (OIPR) manages. c. The Rural Forest Domain of the State (Domaine Forestier Rural de l’Etat ), a reserve of lands where priority is given to agriculture and may be granted for forest exploitation that the Ministry of Water and Forests (MINEF) manages. 2 Stakeholder-led Forest Governance Assessment in Côte d’Ivoire 2 Focus on Forest Governance Addressing the direct and indirect causes of deforestation requires clear understanding of the interests, incentives, and motivations of stakeholders to deforest so that appropriate interventions (policy and investment related) can be designed. The direct and indirect causes, especially those related to pressures to deforest originating from agriculture and mining, indicate the need for cross-sectoral collaboration and coordination to ensure sustainable forest management. In addition, the role of the agencies responsible for managing various categories of the forest estate is of vital importance. Unless these agencies are competently staffed and adequately funded, they will not be able to fulfill their responsibilities and will be unable to control excessive deforestation and forest degradation. Addressing the drivers of deforestation and forest degradation requires a central focus on addressing governance matters pertinent to the sector. These matters include examination of the policy, legal, institutional, and regulatory framework for Côte d’Ivoire forests; the planning and decision-making processes; and the quality of implementation and enforce- ment of rules and regulations for the sector and compliance with these rules and regulations. Photo: Meerim Shakirova Stakeholder-led Forest Governance Assessment in Côte d’Ivoire 3 3 The Forest Governance Framework and Participatory Governance Assessment Tool A.  A panel of international experts conversant in the many facets of forest governance devel- oped the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) and Program on Forests (PROFOR) Forest Governance Framework (FAO 2011), which is built with the understanding that governance is the context and the product of the interaction of a range of actors and stakeholders with diverse interests. The base upon which the framework stands consists of generally accepted pillars and principles of good forest governance (figure 1). The framework provides a way to view and analyze the strength of institutions and their inter- actions within and outside the forest sector that together create the conditions and possibilities for good governance of a country’s forests and forest resources. There is consensus in the literature about attributes and processes that characterize good governance, in general and in specific sectors, such as the forest sector. Governance is generally considered to be good if it is characterized by stakeholder participation, transparency of decision-making, accountability of actors and decision-makers, rule of law, and predictability. Good governance is also associated with efficient and effective management of natural, human, and financial resources and fair and equitable allocation of resources and benefits. Good governance is predicated upon mutually supportive and cooperative relationships between government, private sector, and civil society. Although government is critical, the private sector and civil society also play important roles in governance, with the private sector generally under- stood to encompass for-profit business entities that the government does not own or operate and civil society comprising groups acting voluntarily in their capacities as citizens to advance common goals and agendas. Civil society groups may be formally organized and coordinated, such as officially registered nonprofit or nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), or they may be unregistered, loosely organized cause-oriented groups of individuals, such as advocacy networks and social movements. B.  The PROFOR Participatory Forest Governance Assessment Tool (developed by PROFOR governance experts at the World Bank) provides a practical approach to measuring the 4 Stakeholder-led Forest Governance Assessment in Côte d’Ivoire FIGURE 1  Pillars and principles of governance Accountability E ectiveness E ciency Policy, legal Planning and Implementation institutional and decision-making enforcement regulatory processes and compliance Fairness/Equity frameworks Participation Transparency quality of the various aspects of forest governance listed in the FAO-PROFOR framework above (PROFOR 2012). The tool consists of a set of indicators and a protocol for scoring the indicators. The indicators systematically cover various aspects of what constitutes good forest governance, organized under three pillars—policy, legal, institutional, and regulatory frameworks; planning and decision-making processes; and implementation, enforcement, and compliance—of the FAO- PROFOR framework. The indicators are selected and customized to a specific country context before being scored. A core premise is that involving and empowering stakeholders to participate in the deci- sion-making for reforms and putting reliable information on the quality of forest governance in the hands of all stakeholders can create powerful momentum for change. The PROFOR tool attempts this through a systematic gathering of stakeholder perceptions and experiences and making it public. The tool’s protocol uses a workshop format, with stakeholders meeting to discuss governance and to come to agreement on scoring the indicators. The scores provide reliable (triangulated) information on the “governance gaps”—the larger the gap for an indicator, the greater the weakness of that governance attribute—which can help identify the highest priority areas, identify home-grown solutions, and craft them into an action plan to improve forest gover- nance. Simultaneously, this identifies a small set of indicators that can be used to track progress. The indicators and protocol were field-tested in Uganda in 2010 and in Burkina Faso in 2011. In addition, the Support to the Forest Sector Reform in Kenya (Miti Mingi Maisha Bora) used a modified version of the tool’s original framework and the program’s own consultative protocol Stakeholder-led Forest Governance Assessment in Côte d’Ivoire 5 to perform a governance assessment in 2011. The Federal Forest Agency tested the tool in four provinces in Russia with support from the Department for International Development and the World Bank. These piloting experiences have confirmed the feasibility of governance assessment and provided feedback for improving the tool. The tool has been applied in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Congo Republic, Guatemala, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Liberia, Madagascar, and Mozambique and has facilitated reforms in these countries. 6 4 First application of PROFOR Tool in Côte d’Ivoire The first application of the PROFOR forest governance assessment tool took place during develop- ment of the Forest Investment Program in Côte d’Ivoire (CIF 2017). A national workshop on forest governance assessment held in Abidjan from September 21 to 22, 2017, and financed by the World Bank brought together approximately 30 participants representing various stakeholder groups. The participants concluded that forest governance in Côte d’Ivoire can be significantly improved if strategies, projects, and programs supporting better forest governance are used to support implementation of the Forest Management Law and to align policies and laws of the forestry sector with those of other sectors affecting forest resources, particularly the agriculture and mining sectors. (For details, see CIF 2017). Photo: Integrated Project Administration Unit for World Bank Projects, MINEDD Stakeholder-led Forest Governance Assessment in Côte d’Ivoire 7 5 Second application of PROFOR Tool in Côte d’Ivoire The first workshop provided an opportunity for participants to review the status of forest gover- nance by following the forest governance assessment pillars, components, and subcomponents (indicators) as defined in the PROFOR tool. The first assessment of forest governance in Côte d’Ivoire reflects the views of the stakeholders at the central level. It was agreed that these findings would be expanded, refined, and further validated by conducting a similar exercise with stakeholder participants at the subnational level. Thus, a second workshop was organized in Yamoussokro on September 20 and 21, 2018. The workshop included 45 participants representing various stakeholder groups—key ministries (agriculture, forest, environment), MINEF, local government (prefects), NGOs, civil society, and the private sector. (See Annex 1 for full list of participants.) After introductory remarks, self-introduction by participants, and background presentations (Forest Governance Framework, Forest Investment Program, PROFOR), the workshop started with the main task of scoring the forest governance indicators. (See Annex 2 for the workshop agenda.) Overall Approach of the Workshop: Workshop participants were split into four working groups, who discussed 64 indicators (formulated as forest governance questions), with each group being allocated 15 to 16 questions. An expert group preselected these indicators as being the most relevant in the context of Côte d’Ivoire forest governance, and almost all of those were scored in the national workshop (the national workshop had an additional four questions). Of these 64 questions, 22 probed aspects of forest governance included under Pillar 1 of the framework, 11 were related to various components and subcomponents of Pillar 2, and 31 scored the compo- nents and subcomponents of Pillar 3. 8 Stakeholder-led Forest Governance Assessment in Côte d’Ivoire Step 1: Each group was asked to assign a score to each indicator based on a 5-point scale, with 1 indicating that the indicator was weak and 5 that it was strong. Scores were assigned according to consensus. The full set of questions and the scores that the groups assigned to them are available in Annex 3. Indicators that were scored with either a 4 or 5 are listed in table 1. Step 2: After scoring all the indicators allo- cated to them, each group was requested to identify their top three to four priority indica- tors. It was expected that these would be the indicators that the groups scored the lowest (typically 1 or 2) and for which significant effort would be required to improve the quality of governance. Sixteen indicators were thus identified. This list can be found in table 2. Step 3: Each workshop participant was Photo: Meerim Shakirova allocated five votes and was requested to allocate their votes in support of the 16 priority indicators identified in Step 2 above. Once the voting was complete, the total votes for each of the 16 were counted, and the five indicators with the most votes were identified (table 3). Step 4: Participants were divided into five working groups, and each group was asked to make recommendations (concrete interventions) on how best to address the specific forest governance challenge. The five sets of recommendations are reported in Section 8. Stakeholder-led Forest Governance Assessment in Côte d’Ivoire 9 6 Overall picture of forest governance in Côte d’Ivoire Figure 2 shows the scores of 63 forest governance indicators assessed at this workshop. FIGURE 2  Scores of 63 Forest Governance Indicators, as scored by workshop participants GROUP 1 SCORING OF INDICATORS 5 2 4 8 Score 3 5 2 3 1 Number of indicators for each score   Does the forest law require the government to inventory the public forests and create plans for them?   Where the law grants discretion to government officials, does the law include standards for exercise of that discretion? In forest sector policy-making and planning, do the ministries in charge take into consideration activities on private   forestlands?   Do government policies consider nonmarket values, such as ecosystem services and traditional social uses of the forest?   Are the laws governing use of forest resources consistent and clear? Has the country signed and ratified key forest related conventions (CITES, Convention on Biological Diversity, Convention   on Combating Desertification, Ramsar (Wetlands), and key regional agreements)?   Does the law recognize traditional and indigenous rights to forest resources?   Does the law provide effective means to resolve disputes related to land tenure, ownership, and use rights?   Does the country have a national forest policy/strategy?   Does the law support and enable sustainable livelihoods of forest-dependent communities? 10 Stakeholder-led Forest Governance Assessment in Côte d’Ivoire   Do national development policies promote sustainability in the forest sector?   Are land use policies consistent with forest policy goals and priorities? Are there mechanisms within the government to address cross-sectoral forest-related policy, planning, or practice   concerns?   To what extent are forest-related mandates of national agencies mutually supportive? Are forest agency budgets based on national goals for sustainable forest management and independent of forest   revenues, donor funding, and other distorting factors?   Do forest development plans and budgets address the main drivers of deforestation and forest degradation? Do the sectors that directly depend on forests and the sectors that directly affect forests provide for forest- and tree-   related activities in their plans and budgets?   Does the law have specific provisions for sharing benefits or income from public forests with local communities? GROUP 2 SCORING OF INDICATORS 5 4 2 Score 3 4 2 4 5 1 Number of indicators for each score What is the extent to which government engages with, creates space for, and supports the participation of civil society,   indigenous peoples, and forest-dependent communities in forest-related planning and decision-making?   Does the legal framework support public access to information about forestry?   Are there any formal mechanisms for people who forest policy affects to influence policy? Are there practical and effective avenues for stakeholders to seek review or reconsideration of the decisions of the forest   agency?   Do relevant authorities give public notice of proposed forest policies, programs, laws, and projects?   Are concession and sale allocation processes transparent and free of corruption?   Do forest-dependent communities generally view access to forest resources as fair? Do private agencies, corporate entities, businesses, and civil society organizations operating in the forest sector function   in an open and transparent manner in adherence to the rule of law? Does the forest sector have credible, strong, and independent civil-society organizations, including monitors and   watchdogs?   Do stakeholders have the capacity to be actively involved in forest management and planning?   Do the market prices of forest products and services reflect environmental costs incurred in their production and use? Does the law conserve and protect nonmarketed goods and services that are closely related to forest resources, such as   ecosystem integrity, water quality, and cultural resources?   Do laws require forest sector activities to meet sustainability safeguards and standards?   To what extent is participation in forestry decision-making processes gender sensitive?   Do all public forests have current valid management plans? Stakeholder-led Forest Governance Assessment in Côte d’Ivoire 11 GROUP 3 SCORING OF INDICATORS 5 4 4 3 Note 6 2 5 1 1 Number of indicators for each score   Does the forest agency practice adaptive management?   Are reports of serious forest crimes routinely investigated?   Are the decisions of judges and arbitrators enforced?   Are forest boundaries clearly surveyed and demarcated on the ground?   Do forest agencies hire only people whose qualifications match advertised job descriptions?   When the agency monitors its forest management practices, is the monitoring comprehensive and transparent?   Are the collection, sharing, and redistribution of forest taxes, royalties, charges, and rents effective?   Is the government fully implementing the forest laws?   Do forest agencies have sound management plans for public forests, and are they implemented?   Are the sanctions for forest offences large enough and graduated to fit the offences?   Is the salary and benefit package for agency staff adequate to attract and retain competent staff?   Is there a system for assessing the effects and outcomes of public forestry expenditures?   Do stakeholders perceive the forest agency as being trustworthy and competent? Does the government’s forest law enforcement strategy include effective measures for prevention, detection, and   suppression of forest crimes? Are prosecutors and judges knowledgeable about the effects of forest offences and supportive of suppression of illegal   activities?   Do the agencies’ field foresters have the capacity to oversee the areas assigned to them? 12 Stakeholder-led Forest Governance Assessment in Côte d’Ivoire GROUP 4 SCORING OF INDICATORS 5 4 2 Score 3 6 2 6 1 1 Number of indicators for each score   Are informal ways of resolving conflicts over forest resources and management widely used?   Are regular audits of the forest agencies undertaken, and is action taken on the findings?   Are there serious conflicts between the state and stakeholders that interfere with forest use? Do mechanisms within the government to address cross-sectoral forest-related policy, planning, or practice issues   function well?   Do private sector operators in the forest sector have a reputation for being honest and trustworthy?   Does the public have an opportunity to report corrupt practices to an appropriate authority?   Do complaints of alleged forest corruption lead to investigation and appropriate sanctions? Are the systems for forest revenue collection, expenditure, budgeting, accounting, redistribution, and audit resistant to   corruption?   Are there serious conflicts between different communities and user groups in the context of forest access and use?   Can people rely on the stability and security of rights to forest resources to plan activities?   Do forest-dependent communities have secure access to the resources that they depend on? If the government has more than one agency that is responsible for forests, to what extent are those agencies actions   coordinated and mutually supportive? Is the country implementing key forest-related conventions (CITES, Convention on Biological Diversity, Convention on   Combating Desertification, Ramsar (Wetlands), and key regional agreements)?   Are forest-related procurement rules in the public sector effectively implemented? To what extent are forest-related activities of national and subnational governments coordinated and mutually   supportive? Eighteen indicators can be considered strong (score of 4 or 5), 25 indicators weak (score of 1 or 2), and the remaining 21 acceptable (score of 3). Much effort will be required to improve forest governance to an acceptable or strong level. Stakeholder-led Forest Governance Assessment in Côte d’Ivoire 13 7 Detailed Results and Discussion of Findings A.  Forest governance aspects that are strong in Côte d’Ivoire: The working groups gave many of the forest governance indicators score a 4 or 5 (on a five-point scale, with 5 being strong), indicating that those aspects of forest governance were strong and were not a cause for worry when designing interventions to improve forest governance. Eighteen indicators fall into this category (table 1). TABLE 1  Strong or Acceptable Forest Governance Indicators P, C and SC Indicator Question Score PILLAR 1 1.1.1a Does the country have a national forest policy/strategy? 4 1.1.1c In forest sector policy-making and planning, do the ministries in charge take into consider- 4 ation activities on private forestlands? 1.1.1d Do government policies consider non-market values, such as ecosystem services and 4 traditional social uses of the forest? 1.1.1e Does the forest law require the government to inventory the public forests and create 5 plans for them? 1.1.1f Where the law grants discretion to government officials, does the law include standards 5 for exercise of that discretion? 1.1.2 Are the laws governing use of forest resources consistent and clear? 4 1.1.5 Has the country signed and ratified key forest related conventions (Convention on 4 International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, Convention on Biological Diversity, Convention on Combating Desertification, Ramsar (Wetlands), and key regional agreements)? 1.2.2 Does the law recognize traditional and indigenous rights to forest resources? 4 1.2.4 Does the law provide effective means to resolve disputes related to land tenure, owner- 4 ship, and use rights? 1.3.3 Does the law support and enable sustainable livelihoods of forest dependent 4 communities? 14 Stakeholder-led Forest Governance Assessment in Côte d’Ivoire P, C and SC Indicator Question Score PILLAR 2 2.1.5 What is the extent to which government engages with, creates space for, and supports the 4 participation of civil society, indigenous peoples, and forest-dependent communities in forest-related planning and decision-making? 2.2.1 Does the legal framework support public access to information about forestry? 4 PILLAR 3 3.1.4 Does the forest agency practice adaptive management? 4 3.2.4 Are reports of serious forest crimes routinely investigated? 4 3.2.7b Are the decisions of judges and arbitrators enforced? 4 3.3.1 Are forest boundaries clearly surveyed and demarcated on the ground? 4 3.3.2c Are informal ways of resolving conflicts over forest resources and management widely 4 used? 3.5.6 Are regular audits of the forest agencies undertaken, and is action taken on the findings? 4 Table 1 indicates that almost half (10 of 22) of the governance indicators in Pillar 1 received a score of 4 or 5, indicating that the policy, legal, institutional, and regulatory frameworks for the forest sector are robust, although there is room for improvement, as discussed below. For Pillar 2, only two of the 10 indicators received a score of 4 or 5, indicating that significant efforts are needed to reform and strengthen the planning and decision-making processes in the country. For Pillar 3, only six of the 31 indicators assessed received a score of 4 or 5, suggesting that significant efforts are needed to improve implementation and enforcement of and compliance with forest policy laws and regulations. B.  Sixteen priority areas for forest governance reforms: As mentioned above in the section on the organization of the workshop, in step 2, the working groups were asked to iden- tify three to five indicators from their group that they felt were a priority. Table 2 lists these Photo: Meerim Shakirova Stakeholder-led Forest Governance Assessment in Côte d’Ivoire 15 16 indicators. The groups identified six indicators from Pillar 1, two from Pillar 2, and eight from Pillar 3. All received a score of 1 or 2, indicating substantial weakness in these aspects of forest governance. In Pillar 1, weaknesses were associated with inadequate safeguards and sustain- ability standards (1.5.7), lack of coordination between sectoral policy laws and regulations and forest policy laws and regulations (1.3.2), and a disconnect between forest development plans and budgets and drivers of deforestation and forest degradation (1.1.1b). In Pillar 2, the two biggest weaknesses identified in the workshop were lack of stakeholder processes that would support women’s participation in decision-making in the forest sector and lack of current management plans for public forests. TABLE 2  Sixteen Priority Areas for Reforms P, C and SC Indicator Question Score 1.1.1b Do forest development plans and budgets address the main drivers of deforestation and 2 forest degradation? 1.3.2 Do the sectors that directly depend on forests and the sectors that directly affect forests 2 provide for forest- and tree-related activities in their plans and budgets? 1.5.1 Does the law have specific provisions for sharing benefits or income from public forests 2 with local communities? 1.5.4 Do the market prices of forest products and services reflect environmental costs incurred 1 in their production and use? 1.5.6 Does the law conserve and protect non-marketed goods and services that are closely 1 related to forest resources, such as ecosystem integrity, water quality, and cultural resources? 1.5.7 Do laws require forest sector activities to meet sustainability safeguards and standards? 1 2.1.4 To what extent is participation in forestry decision-making processes gender sensitive? 1 2.4.2 Do all public forests have current valid management plans? 1 3.1.1c Do the agencies’ field foresters have the capacity to oversee the areas assigned to them? 1 3.1.1d Is there a system for assessing the effects and outcomes of public forestry expenditures? 2 3.2.7 Are prosecutors and judges knowledgeable about the effects of forest offences and 2 supportive of suppression of illegal activities? 3.3.4a Can people rely on the stability and security of rights to forest resources to plan activities? 2 3.4.1 To what extent are forest-related activities of national and subnational governments 1 coordinated and mutually supportive? 3.4.2 If the government has more than one agency that is responsible for forests, to what extent 2 are those agencies actions coordinated and mutually supportive? 3.4.6 Is the country implementing key forest-related conventions (Convention on International 2 Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, Convention on Biological Diversity, Convention on Combating Desertification, Ramsar (Wetlands), and key regional agreements)? 3.5.1 Are forest-related procurement rules in the public sector effectively implemented? 2 Finally, in Pillar 3, areas of weakness ranged from inadequate capacity of field staff to properly supervise and monitor the forest areas assigned to them (3.1.1c), to prosecutors and judges who were poorly informed about the effects of forest crimes and lacked commitment to suppress illegal activities (3.2.7), to lack of security and stability of the peoples’ rights to forest resources (3.3.4a). 16 Stakeholder-led Forest Governance Assessment in Côte d’Ivoire C.  Five areas requiring urgent action: When the group was asked to vote on the indicators of forest governance that they felt were the highest priority, five emerged as requiring immediate attention (table 3). The need to strengthen the country’s commitment to protection of environ- mental goods and services of forests, including protection of water quality and payments for environmental services was given the most votes (25). This was closely followed by the need to ensure that plans and budgets were developed to address the drivers of deforestation and forest degradation (22). The need to strengthen the role of women, especially in decision-mak- ing in the sector, also emerged as one of the top five priorities. TABLE 3  Five Highest-Priority Areas for Reform Indicator Question Score Votes Do forest development plans and budgets address the main drivers of deforestation and 2 22 forest degradation? Does the law have specific provisions for sharing benefits or income from public forests 2 21 with local communities? Do government policies consider nonmarket values, such as ecosystem services and 1 25 traditional social uses of the forest? To what extent is participation in forestry decision-making processes gender sensitive? 1 13 Do the agencies’ field foresters have the capacity to oversee the areas assigned to them? 1 13 Stakeholder-led Forest Governance Assessment in Côte d’Ivoire 17 8 Actions to address the priority areas of forest governance The workshop identified many concrete actions to address the five areas of concern. PRIORITIES IN PILLAR 1 (1.1.1b) Ensure that forest development plans and budgets address the main drivers of deforestation and degradation. a. Increase financial resources for forest management (promote diversification of funding, promote public–private partnerships, increase the state endowment or subsidy, establish sustainable forest financing mechanism). Responsible actors: State (ministries of environment, forest, and finance and budget), tech- nical and financial partners, private sector, local authorities. b. Increase technical capacities (e.g., new technology) and financial resources of forest management bodies. Responsible actors: State, technical and financial partners, MINEF, SODEFOR, OIPR. c. Strengthen management tools (e.g., business plan, development policies). Responsible actors: MINEF, SODEFOR, OIPR, technical and financial partners. d. Identify factors affecting deforestation and degradation of forests. Responsible actors: MINEF, SODEFOR, OIPR, technical and financial partners, NGOs. (1.5.1) Ensure that the law has specific provisions for sharing benefits from public forests with local communities. a. Create a consultation framework to guide the drafting of consensual regulatory texts. Responsible actors: Forest Administration, MINEF, private sector (forestry operators, industrial partners, wood craftsmen, charcoal producers). b. Draft and implement a regulatory text that clearly defines beneficiaries and their shares. Responsible actors: Prime Minister, Minister of Guardianship, other members of government. 18 Stakeholder-led Forest Governance Assessment in Côte d’Ivoire Photo: Meerim Shakirova c. Disseminate the texts through sensitization, information, and education of stakeholders. Responsible actors: Prefects, Forest Administration, key ministers (agriculture, environment, mines), civil society, traditional authorities, local development bodies, media. d. Monitor progress in development and implementation of regulatory texts. Responsible actors: civil society, Forest Administration, private sector, communities. e. Penalize offenders who do not pay their legal share. Responsible actors: Forest Administration, Ministry of Justice. (1.5.6) Ensure that provisions of the law protect environmental and cultural contributions of forests. a. Adopt the regulatory text for implementing the provisions of the Forest Code of 2014. Responsible actors: Ministry of Water and Forests, Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Mines, Ministry of Tourism. b. Institute of environmental and social impact studies in forest law. Responsible actors: government, Parliament, MINEF, Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Mines, Ministry of Tourism, civil society, private sector. c. Establish provisions for monitoring and evaluation of implementation of forest management plans and projects in the Forest Code. Responsible actors: Parliament, MINEF, SODEFOR, Ministry of the Environment, OIPR. Stakeholder-led Forest Governance Assessment in Côte d’Ivoire 19 Photo: Integrated Project Administration Unit for World Bank Projects, MINEDD PRIORITIES IN PILLAR 2 (2.1.4) Strengthen stakeholder processes to ensure strong participation of women in forest-related decision-making processes. a. Create the platform for women in decision-making bodies. Responsible actors: local and traditional authorities. b. Organize women in structured groups. Responsible actors: local committees, civil society. c. Institute quotas for women to ensure their representation at each decision-making level. Responsible actors: civil society, local authorities. d. Establish a minimum quota of women to ensure parity in local committees of project co-management. Responsible actors: traditional authorities, local committees, civil society, local authorities. e. Build the capacity of women in entrepreneurial leadership in forestry activities. Responsible actors: local committees, civil society, local authorities, technical and financial partners, private sector. f. Promote women’s access to positions of responsibility. Responsible actors: government. g. In the framework of the Forest Investment Program, introduce the compulsory participation of women in national and international decision-making on forests. Responsible actors: government, technical and financial partners. h. Develop a good governance framework by all stakeholders of the Forest Investment Program. Responsible actors: governing bodies, local committee, technical and financial partners. 20 Stakeholder-led Forest Governance Assessment in Côte d’Ivoire PROIRITIES IN PILLAR 3 (3.1.1c) Ensuring that field foresters have the capacity to properly oversee the areas assigned to them. a. Provide the necessary budget, especially to ensure adequate means of transportation to foresters in charge of monitoring the forests. Responsible actors: MINEF, SODEFOR, Ministry of the Environment, OIPR, development partners, international funders for forest protection, Ministry of the Budget. b. Increase capacity of agents through workshops, training, and recruitment of qualified staff. Responsible actors: MINEF, SODEFOR, Ministry of the Environment, OIPR, forestry schools, Ministry of the Budget. c. Establish a system of rewards (bonuses) and recognition (not necessarily financial incen- tives) for agents who have done exemplary work. This can also involve annual competi- tions and awards for agents that encourage competition. In parallel, put in place a strict system of sanctions of agents engaging in practices of corruption. Responsible actors: MINEF, SODEFOR, Ministry of the Environment, OIPR. d. Establish system of evaluations of services and agents based on clear objectives to encourage accountability. Responsible actors: MINEF, SODEFOR, Ministry of the Environment, OIPR. e. Facilitate detection of forest degradation by encouraging community monitoring of forests and community involvement in design of development plans. Responsible actors: MINEF, SODEFOR, Ministry of the Environment, OIPR, communities, development partners, funders of conservation NGOs. f. Use new technologies and innovative approaches for forest conservation. Responsible actors: MINEF, SODEFOR, Ministry of the Environment, OIPR, development partners, conservation funders, NGOs, private sector. g. Involve private sector in monitoring of its forest management and planning areas. Responsible actors: MINEF, SODEFOR. Stakeholder-led Forest Governance Assessment in Côte d’Ivoire 21 9 Conclusions and Next Steps The workshop involved a participatory assessment of many of the components and subcomponents of the three pillars of forest governance—policy, legal, institutional, and regulatory frameworks; planning and decision-making processes; implementation, enforcement, and compliance. The workshop assessed the quality of forest governance by scoring 63 indicator questions in the three pillars. There are several strong aspects of forest governance, as illustrated by 18 indicators that received a score of 4 or 5 on a five-point scale, although there are several weak aspects too, as illustrated by 25 indicators that received a score of 1 or 2 (Annex 3). The workshop prioritized the areas that need improvement. In the first step, 16 indicators (all receiving a score of 1 or 2) were selected. After this, a process of priority voting by the group resulted in a list of five areas of forest governance that need the most attention. The group also identified concrete steps that should be undertaken to improve each of these five areas. Going forward, the immediate next step would be to disseminate the results of this workshop to the government and other stakeholders and to craft an action plan (based on the concrete suggestions of the group) to address the governance challenges for these five areas. Successful implementation of this action plan will build a strong foundation for forest governance reform and facilitate actions to improve governance of the other areas where it has been assessed to be weak. 22 Stakeholder-led Forest Governance Assessment in Côte d’Ivoire Photo: Integrated Project Administration Unit for World Bank Projects, MINEDD References CIF (Climate Investment Funds) and World Bank, Program on Forests (PROFOR). 2017. “Rapport de l’Atelier d’Evaluation de la Gouvernance Forestiere en Republique de la Côte d’Ivoire.” Washington, DC: World Bank Group. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) and World Bank, Program on Forests (PROFOR). 2011. “Framework for Assessing and Monitoring Forest Governance.” Rome, Italy: FAO. Program on Forests (PROFOR). 2012. “Assessing and Monitoring Forest Governance: A User’s Guide to a Diagnostic Tool.” Washington, DC: World Bank Group. World Bank. 2018. Côte d’Ivoire—Forest Investment Project. Washington, D.C. World Bank Group. https://hubs.worldbank.org/docs/ImageBank/Pages/DocProfile.aspx?nodeid=29478604 Stakeholder-led Forest Governance Assessment in Côte d’Ivoire 23 Annex 1: List of Participants Kone Messeba, Préfet de Région, du Ministère de l’Intérieur et de la Sécurité—MIS Tuo Fozie, Préfet de Région, MIS Attri Kouakou Konan Jacques, Préfet du Département de MEAGUI, MIS Etienne Aka, SG Prefecture San Pedro, MIS Akasson Bernadette, Préfet de Région, MIS Louis Diakite, Promoteur, NZI River Lodge Ahoussi Delphine, Président, MALEBI Cat Guy-Serge Guillaume Bekoin, Sr Directeur Planification, MINEF C Sylla Cheick Tidiane, Point Focal National, MINEFI APV-FLEGT Curtis JF, Conseiller National, MINEFI-CT N’Gueassan Kouakou Germain, Préfet du Sequi de Kouassi-Kouassi, Region du NZI Yacouba Doumbia, Préfet de Région, Région du Cavally Alliali Kouadio, Préfet de Région, Région du Bélier Kone Jacques L, Préfet de Daoukro, IFFOU Ahoulou Koutou, Représentant le DR, Directeur Régional Eaux et Forêts Yakpo Gbogoutape Camille, Président Régional OI-REN Plate-form, Plate-form ste-civil OIREN Regional Specho Seca Rance-Annick, Président, ONG PDL-PE Gore Bisery Albert, Directeur du Centre de Gestion San Pedro, SODEFOR Koffi N’Guessan Appolinaire, Directeur du Centre de Gestion Abengourou, SODEFOR Dorro Amara, Directeur CG Bouake, SODEFOR Tape Bifoua Alphonse, Directeur de Centre de Gestion Korhogo, SODEFOR Yapo Jean-Baptiste Constraut, Directeur Planification Projets et Financement, SODEFOR Ekra Koffi Oumar, Président, ONG Agro-écologie N’Guessan n’dri georgette, Président, Fédération Groupement des Femmes Kouame Bella, Président Régional du NZI, DGM CNP Kouassi Kouakou, Président Régional du IFFOU(DAOUKRO), DGM CNP Sare Play Christophe, Président National, DGM CNP Youssouy Doumbia, Président, OI-REN Loukou Koffi’jules, PGA, FEREADD Ahoulou Kouame, SEP-REDD+, REDD+ Diarrassouba Abdoulaye, DZSO-PNT, OIPR Yeo Syfowa Tafa, Chargé d’Etudes/Planification, OIPR N’Guessan Koffi Rodrigue, Directeur, MINADER 24 Stakeholder-led Forest Governance Assessment in Côte d’Ivoire Prof Yaokokore Beibro Hilcute, Coordinateur National Projet UE/Reufo des Capacités, GNTCI- Gestion Durables des Forêts Koffi Koncer Jean Claude, Conseiller Technique DGI, SODEFOR Dossan René Kouakou, Directeur Charge de la Capacitation, SENAT Viala Chloe, Chargé de Programme, WCF Kouadio Kouame Jean, Point Focal CENCCA/Coordonnateur Général de Projets BM, MINEDD Ouattra Zonu Souleymane, Responsable Environnement, SAPIA Kouadio Kouame Georges, Coordinateur Général de Projets Banque Mondial, MINEDD/UIAP Akindete Sylvain, Equipe Moderation Tiemoko Maude Delpeche, Sous-Directeur, MINEDD Cone Gaoussou, Secretaire General, APFNP Miezan Kouassi K. Antoine, Directeur Centre de Gestion San Pedro, SODEFOR Bosso Amara, Directeur Centre de Gestion Bouaké, SODEFOR Ouattara Mahamane, Spécialiste Suivi Evaluation, UIAP Dossan Rene Kouakou, Directeur de la Coopération, SENAT Nalin Kishor, Governance Specialist, Banque Mondiale Meerim Shakirova, Operations Officer, Banque Mondiale Julie Kouame, Assistante Programme, Banque Mondiale Stakeholder-led Forest Governance Assessment in Côte d’Ivoire 25 Annex 2: Workshop Agenda Jour 1 Horaire Activités Responsable 08h30-09h00 Accueil et installation des participants Secrétariat REDD+ 09h00-09h15 Allocution d’ouverture SODEFOR Autorité locale (Préfet) 09h15-09h30 Présentation du programme de la journée et Facilitateur (Akindele) introduction 09h30-09h45 Présentation des programmes PIF et PROFOR Meerim Shakirova (Banque Mondiale) et leurs liens 09h45-10h00 Présentation des étapes franchies dans Meerim Shakirova (Banque Mondiale) évaluation de la gouvernance forestières en Côte d’Ivoire 10h00-10h30 Présentation du niveau de mise en œuvre du Mr. KOUADIO Georges (Coordonnateur Général) projet PIF Côte d’Ivoire 10h30-11h00 Pause-café 11h00-13h00 Présentation de l’outil de gouvernance, sa prise Nalin Kishor (Banque Mondiale) en compte dans le cadre du PIF et exemples basés sur des cas pays 13h00-14h00 Pause-Déjeuner 14h00-14h30 Constitution de groupes de travail, présentation Facilitateurs (Akindélé) des termes de références et résultats attendus 14h30-16h30 Travaux en groupe Akindélé /Nalin Kishor/Meerim 16h30-16h45 Pause-café 16h45-18h00 Travaux en groupe (suite) Akindélé /Nalin Kishor/Meerim Jour 2 Horaire Activités Responsable 09h00-9h15 Synthèse jour 1 et rappel agenda jour 2 Akindélé 09h15-10h45 Travaux de groupes Akindélé /Nalin Kishor/Meerim 10h45-11h00 Pause-Café 11h00-13h00 Restitution des travaux de groupe en plénière Facilitateur/participants Echanges et Discussions 13h00-14h00 Pause-déjeuner 14h00-16h00 Notations et priorisations des indicateurs Participants 16h00-16h45 Synthèse et prochaines étapes Akindélé /Nalin Kishor 16h45-17h00 Pause-café 26 Stakeholder-led Forest Governance Assessment in Côte d’Ivoire Annex 3: List of Indicator Questions and their Scores GROUP 1 SCORING OF INDICATORS P, C and SC Indicator Question Score 1.1.1a 1. Does the country have a national forest policy/strategy? 4 1.1.1b 2. Do forest development plans and budgets address the main drivers of deforestation 2 and forest degradation? 1.1.1c 3. In forest sector policy-making and planning, do the ministries in charge take into 4 consideration activities on private forestlands? 1.1.1d 4. Do government policies consider nonmarket values, such as ecosystem services and 4 traditional social uses of the forest? 1.1.1e 5. Does the forest law require the government to inventory the public forests and create 5 plans for them? 1.1.1f 6. Where the law grants discretion to government officials, does the law include standards 5 for exercise of that discretion? 1.1.2 7. Are the laws governing use of forest resources consistent and clear? 4 1.1.5 8. Has the country signed and ratified key forest related conventions (CITES, Convention 4 on Biological Diversity, Convention on Combating Desertification, Ramsar (Wetlands), and key regional agreements)? 1.2.2 9. Does the law recognize traditional and indigenous rights to forest resources? 4 1.2.4 10. Does the law provide effective means to resolve disputes related to land tenure, 4 ownership, and use rights? 1.3.1 11. Do national development policies promote sustainability in the forest sector? 3 1.3.2 12. Do the sectors that directly depend on forests and the sectors that directly affect 2 forests provide for forest- and tree-related activities in their plans and budgets? 1.3.3 13. Does the law support and enable sustainable livelihoods of forest-dependent 4 communities? 1.3.4 14. Are land use policies consistent with forest policy goals and priorities? 3 1.3.6 15. Are there mechanisms within the government to address cross-sectoral forest-related 3 policy, planning, or practice concerns? 1.4.1 16. To what extent are forest-related mandates of national agencies mutually supportive? 3 1.4.3 17. Are forest agency budgets based on national goals for sustainable forest management 3 and independent of forest revenues, donor funding, and other distorting factors? 1.5.1 18. Does the law have specific provisions for sharing benefits or income from public forests 2 with local communities? Stakeholder-led Forest Governance Assessment in Côte d’Ivoire 27 GROUP 2 SCORING OF INDICATORS P, C and SC Indicator Question Score 1.5.2 1. Do forest-dependent communities generally view access to forest resources as fair? 2 1.5.4 2. Do the market prices of forest products and services reflect environmental costs 1 incurred in their production and use? 1.5.6 3. Does the law conserve and protect nonmarketed goods and services that are closely 1 related to forest resources, such as ecosystem integrity, water quality, and cultural resources? 1.5.7 4. Do laws require forest sector activities to meet sustainability safeguards and standards? 1 2.1.2 5. Are there any formal mechanisms for people who forest policy affects to influence 3 policy? 2.1.4 6. To what extent is participation in forestry decision-making processes gender sensitive? 1 2.1.5 7. What is the extent to which government engages with, creates space for, and supports 4 the participation of civil society, indigenous peoples, and forest-dependent communities in forest-related planning and decision-making? 2.1.7 8. Are there practical and effective avenues for stakeholders to seek review or reconsider- 3 ation of the decisions of the forest agency? 2.2.1 9. Does the legal framework support public access to information about forestry? 4 2.2.2 10. Do relevant authorities give public notice of proposed forest policies, programs, laws, 3 and projects? 2.2.3 11. Are concession and sale allocation processes transparent and free of corruption? 3 2.2.7 12. Do private agencies, corporate entities, businesses, and civil society organizations 2 operating in the forest sector function in an open and transparent manner in adherence to the rule of law? 2.3.1 13. Does the forest sector have credible, strong, and independent civil-society organiza- 2 tions, including monitors and watchdogs? 2.3.2 14. Do stakeholders have the capacity to be actively involved in forest management and 2 planning? 2.4.2 15. Do all public forests have current valid management plans? 1 GROUP 3 SCORING OF INDICATORS P, C and SC Indicator Question Score 3.1.1a 1. Do forest agencies hire only people whose qualifications match advertised job 3 descriptions? 3.1.1b 2. Is the salary and benefit package for agency staff adequate to attract and retain com- 2 petent staff? 3.1.1c 3. Do the agencies’ field foresters have the capacity to oversee the areas assigned to 1 them? 3.1.1d 4. Is there a system for assessing the effects and outcomes of public forestry 2 expenditures? 3.1.1e 5. Do stakeholders perceive the forest agency as being trustworthy and competent? 2 3.1.3 6. When the agency monitors its forest management practices, is the monitoring compre- 3 hensive and transparent? 3.1.4 7. Does the forest agency practice adaptive management? 4 3.1.5 8. Are the collection, sharing, and redistribution of forest taxes, royalties, charges, and 3 rents effective? 28 Stakeholder-led Forest Governance Assessment in Côte d’Ivoire P, C and SC Indicator Question Score 3.1.6a 9. Is the government fully implementing the forest laws? 3 3.1.6b 10. Do forest agencies have sound management plans for public forests, and are they 3 implemented? 3.2.1 11. Are the sanctions for forest offences large enough and graduated to fit the offences? 3 3.2.3 12. Does the government’s forest law enforcement strategy include effective measures for 2 prevention, detection, and suppression of forest crimes? 3.2.4 13. Are reports of serious forest crimes routinely investigated? 4 3.2.7 14. Are prosecutors and judges knowledgeable about the effects of forest offences and 2 supportive of suppression of illegal activities? 3.2.8 15. Are the decisions of judges and arbitrators enforced? 4 3.3.1 16. Are forest boundaries clearly surveyed and demarcated on the ground? 4 GROUP 4 SCORING OF INDICATORS P, C and SC Indicator Question Score 3.3.2a 1. Are there serious conflicts between the state and stakeholders that interfere with forest 3 use? 3.3.2b 2. Are there serious conflicts between different communities and user groups in the 2 context of forest access and use? 3.3.2c 3. Are informal ways of resolving conflicts over forest resources and management widely 4 used? 3.3.4a 4. Can people rely on the stability and security of rights to forest resources to plan 2 activities? 3.3.4b 5. Do forest-dependent communities have secure access to the resources that they 2 depend on? 3.4.1 6. To what extent are forest-related activities of national and subnational governments 1 coordinated and mutually supportive? 3.4.2 7. If the government has more than one agency that is responsible for forests, to what 2 extent are those agencies actions coordinated and mutually supportive? 3.4.4 8. Do mechanisms within the government to address cross-sectoral forest-related policy, 3 planning, or practice issues function well? 3.4.6 9. Is the country implementing key forest-related conventions (CITES, Convention on 2 Biological Diversity, Convention on Combating Desertification, Ramsar (Wetlands), and key regional agreements)? 3.5.1 10. Are forest-related procurement rules in the public sector effectively implemented? 2 3.5.3 11. Do private sector operators in the forest sector have a reputation for being honest and 3 trustworthy? 3.5.4 12. Does the public have an opportunity to report corrupt practices to an appropriate 3 authority? 3.5.5 13. Do complaints of alleged forest corruption lead to investigation and appropriate 3 sanctions? 3.5.6 14. Are regular audits of the forest agencies undertaken, and is action taken on the 4 findings? 3.5.7 15. Are the systems for forest revenue collection, expenditure, budgeting, accounting, 3 redistribution, and audit resistant to corruption? Stakeholder-led Forest Governance Assessment in Côte d’Ivoire 29 Stakeholder-led Forest Governance Assessment in Côte d’Ivoire