Institutional Mechanisms for REDD+ - Case Studies Working Paper

Designation of beneficiaries:
Beneficiaries from social agreements are identified in the Forest Code and implementing regulation as
neighboring communities who have recognized customary claims 79 overlapping with the forest concession.
These communities are identified by the concession holder through a legally required socio-economic survey
necessary for obtaining a concession title. The concession holder has to negotiate with all communities whose
customary claims overlap with the areas be logged within the concession. Negotiations take place as the
concession holders are preparing the management plan. The negotiation guide officially endorsed by the
Ministry of Environment mentions that the socio-economic survey conducted by the concession holder
should identify who the legitimate authorities are and requires that affected communities set up a ―negotiation
committee‖ that is representative of all community members (including women, youth, and indigenous
people). They can request the assistance of an NGO or any individual (e.g., mayor, parliamentarian, expert)
who will be able to take part in the negotiation sessions as an observer.
Design of benefit-sharing rules:
The law is very clear that the beneficiaries are communities and not individuals within communities 80: Article
89 of the 2002 Forest Code provides a list of ―socio-economic infrastructure and services‖ to be provided by
logging companies: ―construction of roads, renovation and construction of hospitals and schools, and
facilitation of transportation services for people and goods.‖ While this list does not aim to be exhaustive
(local management committees can add other benefits), it does frame the type of benefits to be provided. It
also de facto eliminates the question of how benefits will be shared within a given community.
However, the question of benefit-sharing between communities neighboring the same concession is open,
since one social agreement can apply to more than one community. If the law specifies that decisions within
local oversight committees are based on a consensus, it does not provide any rule for how decisions should
be made within the negotiation committee or CLGs.
Delivery of benefits:
The model of social agreement provided in the annex of Arrêté 023 lists each and every infrastructure and
service to be provided by the logging company, together with the blueprint of any building, the exact location
of any road, and a financial estimate for each of these elements. In addition, the social agreement must
include a description of how maintenance costs will be covered after the agreement period. Finally, it
identifies what costs should be covered by the State (e.g., teachers‘ salaries, hospital operating costs).
The logging company is responsible for the delivery of those benefits that fall under its responsibility. The
logging company may keep the funds, but the management responsibility for the local development fund is
shared with local communities through the CLG (Arrêté 023).
The CLS monitors the implementation of the social agreement and the activity of the CLG.
2.4.5 CONSULTATION OF WITH LOCAL COMMUNITIES
Arrêté 023 creates permanent institutions at the local level to ensure that local communities are involved in the
choice of benefits they want to receive, the management of these benefits, and the control of their delivery.
Contrary to project-based committees, these institutions are designed to last for the long-term.
79 A map of customary claims is one of the documents required by DRC government to grant a logging concession.
80 Arrêté 023 actually requires that the logging company gives priority to community members in employment opportunities (under the condition
that they have the required skills). However, as in the case if Ibi-Batéké, this type of socio-economic opportunity is rather a positive externality
than a guaranteed benefit.
PRRGP INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS FOR REDD: CASE STUDIES – WORKING PAPER 37