REM Rapport Annuel No. 1 OIF Congo Brazzaville - Forests Monitor

CONCLUSIONS
RECOMMENDATIONS
Re‐Sizing of the Mambili FMU and Transfer of the Cotovindou FEU
The modification of the Mambili FMU’s size
was decided without convening a
committee or working group containing the
other parties (logging company, local
authorities, civil society, other ministries).
The legal nature of the operation resulting
in the decision not to terminate the Man
Fai Tai Company’s logging permit for the
Cotovindou FEU but to transfer it to
SICOFOR, is still not known.
C. Outcome of Field Missions: Monitoring of Logging Companies
In the future, any modification to the boundaries of a forest
concession should formally involve, in the form of committee
meetings, the various parties concerned (logging company, civil
society, local authorities, other ministries concerned) so that
they can be consulted on the re‐sizing decision and adopt the
new boundaries proposed by the Forest Administration.
The transfer document elaborated by SICOFOR’s legal advisor
should be made available so as to determine the legal nature of
the operation.
The failure to mark logs, stumps and
abutments, the poor keeping of field
documents, and the tardiness in paying
taxes and fines were the infractions most
frequently encountered by REM during the
first half of the year.
Regarding the cahier de charge, companies
contribute more to obligations pertaining
to MEF than to socio‐economic
development.
Furthermore, non or poor compliance with
provisions in the agreements is not
systematically reported by the DDEFs.
The Forest Administration should pay particular attention to
this problem, notably by implementing more regular and more
rigorous inspections by the appropriate services.
Monitoring of the fulfilment of obligations in specifications
should take into equal consideration the contributions to MEF
operations and those relating to the socio‐economic
development of the departments.
The DDEFs should, in accordance with the provisions of Article
173, paragraph 1 of Decree No. 2002‐437 setting forest
management and utilisation conditions, establish detailed
reports on the non or poor compliance with provisions in the
agreements.
D. Outcome of Field Missions: Monitoring of MEF Agents and Services
Recurrent delays were observed in the
transmission of production and activity
reports from the DDEFs to the DGEF.
litigation registers in the DDEFs visited were
not maintained accurately.
The DDEFs should consistently use the existing legal measures
(official statements of offence) and other coercive measures in
order to obtain the logging documents required by law
(refusing annual logging permits, blocking exports).
Furthermore, the DGEF should make the DDEFs transmit
documents on time to the central level (reminders,
administrative sanctions in the case of repeated or excessive
failures to meet deadlines).
All official statements of offence and settlement proceedings
should be listed immediately in the appropriate registers and
transmitted to the other services concerned.
Litigation follow‐up should be done at the central level to
ensure that the litigation initiated in the DDEFs be treated
according to legal procedure. The IGEF should be in charge of
this follow‐up.
44