Transcript Slide 1

Maiko Tayna Kahuzi-Biega Landscape (10)
CARPE IIb Inception Workshop, Yaoundé, February 2007
Method to Get to LUP
The core planning team is composed
of Consortium members and
delegates from ICCN. The complete
planning team will include national
government agencies (e.g. Ministries
of Environment, Rural Development,
Agriculture, Finance and Planning,
Science Research and Technology)
and members of local communities
representing traditional governance,
local NGOs representing special
interest groups, marginalized or
religious groups, and representatives
from the private sector. In this
Landscape, the DRC military and
MONUC will become integrated into
the complete planning team.
Endorsement of all levels of government and all stakeholders
of a A Land Use Plan Document:
Vision for Management of Natural Resources
A set of Strategies
Good Practices
Including Actual Management Plans for Macro-Zones already
accepted by government
Tool that will evolve adaptively over time but provides
starting point (first reference document) for collective vision
about a region that holds globally important biodiversity
Its development is a stakeholder consultation process
The Question: How to define macro-zones for the
landscape during the preparation of the
Integrated Land Use Planning Strategic Document
During two landscape meetings
and during follow-ups in late FY 06
(CARPE IIa), we looked at our
previous zones and made strategic
decisions about how to best define
macro-zones in the Landscape.
RFA: These plans will identify the macro-zones (Protected areas,
Community Based Natural Resource Management areas, Extractive
Resource Zones) on the landscape where CARPE partners will focus
their activities. These plans should include a justification why a given
macro zone and set of activities were chosen and how changing needs
and future trends will be monitored.
A landscape map with delineated macro-zones is a required
component of a landscape land use plan.
CARPE IIa
5 Zones
Maiko NP – PA 1,000,000
Tayna Nature Reserve CBNRM 90,000
Federation of CBOs Created and
Developing Further Nature Reserves for
Corridor (UGADEC) CBNRM 1,000,000
Kahuzi-Biega NP – PA 660,000
Participatory Conservation and Resource
Management Itombwe CBNRM 600,000
Background on UGADEC
Federation of CBOs Created and
Developing Nature Reserves for
Corridor (UGADEC) CBNRM
(Union des Associations de Conservation
des Gorilles pour le Développement
Communautaire à l'Est de la République
Démocratique de Congo).
TAYNA 95,405 ha
115,000 ha
138,000 ha
333,000 ha
514,000 ha
70,000 ha
In May, 2006, the Tayna
Nature Reserve and KisimbaIkobo Nature Reserve were
created by Ministerial Arreté
And
The ICCN (DRC Wildlife
Authority contracted the local
NGOs (UGADEC members)
to manage the protected area.
These new PAs entered the
DRC network of protected
areas
The Question: How to define
macro-zones for this landscape as
we went from CARPE IIa to IIb
As we prepared for Land Use Planning
and in our gaps analysis and
thinking, we realized that:
1. We were looking at PAs and
developing PAs from almost only a
conservation perspective.
Community held lands near PAs were looked at through the lens of
National Parks: participatory and community conservation were
activity level tasks listed under PA zones.
Even in the UGADEC zone, we focused more on developing the
integral zones, rather than addressing the needs of the entire
Collectivités, which were in fact, the sponsors for these initiatives
The Question: How to define
macro-zones for this landscape as
we went from CARPE IIa to IIb
We also we realized that:
2. From the point of view of Land Use
Planning, we were not dealing with
large areas of the Landscape
Source of threats to preservation of forests and biodiversity but
also containing potential people-centered solutions
Those areas near PAs have their own natural resource planning
needs that are quite different from National Parks, and they
needed to be empowered to engage in their own long-term land
use planning
Conclusions:
1. Separate CBNRM macro-zones defined for areas outside of statemanaged NPs, which would place a more balanced emphasis on
community resource management, since local people would be
engaged to develop plans for their areas, rather than these areas being
perceived through the lens of NPs.
2. For the UGADEC zone, it was recognized that the entire areas of
collectivités should be emphasized in the land use planning process,
balancing the focus between biodiversity protection in the developing
integral zones of planned Nature Reserves with the total areas for
which communities would plan.
3. In CARPE IIb, partners now intend to engage local communities in
resource use planning over effectively the entire Landscape, reflecting
the lessons learned in CARPE IIa, and an evolution into a much
broader macro-zoning and planning approach.
Advantages:
1. Permits us to track activities and budgets spent on interventions outside
of protected areas (people-centered approach)
2. Causes us to shift our focus on land use planning in CBNRM areas just
adjacent to PAs, and thus address the resource planning needs of local
people
3. Permits us to address most areas of the Landscape (via LUP) and thus
mitigate threats (ultimate and proximate), while seeking out more
integrated and balanced solutions
* Does not suggest that National Park Management Plans should omit
community and participatory conservation programs
Nature Reserves that evolve
out of CBNRMS:
Why PA classification?
Why not consider them part
of micro-zoning?
1. Places proper emphasis on these zones in the workplans – similar to NPs
2. Addresses needs of these macro-zones to develop independent management plans
3. Provides them equivalent status to National Park macrozones
More PAs will evolve out of
CBNRM zones, and following
our macrozoning taxonomy,
should be PAs equivalent to
Tayna, Kisimba, and NPs. Each
will be autonomous.
A suggestion would be to classify
these as CBNRM-derived PAs, a
kind of “hybrid” macrozone, and
when we provide expenditure
reporting, class these with
CBNRM expenditures.
THANKS….
…..
THANKS….
Core planning team
Landscape 10