U.S. Forest Service Technical Assistance Trip

U.S. Forest Service Technical Assistance Trip

Financed by the U.S. Agency for International Development Central African Regional Program

for the Environment (USAID/CARPE)

Atelier de Formation des Guides sur la Planification et l’Aménagement du Territoire en Afrique Centrale (COMIFAC et RAPAC)

Mission Dates: 18-23 July 2011

Report Submitted by:

James BECK

Bill CONNELLY

Adam WELTI

Mission Report – July

Table of Contents Executive summary ....................................................................................................................................... 1

1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 2

2.0 Summary of mission .......................................................................................................................... 2

2.1 Training of Trainer’s Session - July 18 ........................................................................................... 2

2.1.1 Objectives:............................................................................................................................. 2

2.1.2 Methods: ............................................................................................................................... 2

2.1.3 Results: .................................................................................................................................. 3

2.1.4 Recommended next steps: ................................................................................................... 3

2.2 USFS RAPAC working group training session – July 19-20 ............................................................ 3

2.2.1 Objective: .............................................................................................................................. 3

2.2.2 Methods: ............................................................................................................................... 3

2.2.3 Results: .................................................................................................................................. 5


2.3 RAPAC working group workshop – July 21-23 .............................................................................. 6

2.3.1 Objectives:............................................................................................................................. 6

2.3.2 Methods: ............................................................................................................................... 7

2.3.3 Results: .................................................................................................................................. 7


3.0 Recommendations ............................................................................................................................ 8

3.1 Improvements for training at various levels ................................................................................. 8

3.2 Summary of recommendations to revise guides .......................................................................... 9

3.3 Recommended near term follow-up activities ........................................................................... 10

Annex 1 – Agendas ...................................................................................................................................... 11

Annex 2 - List of participants ...................................................................................................................... 15

Annex 3 – Training materials (exercise 1 and 2) ......................................................................................... 17

Annex 4 – Draft TOR for ad hoc RAPAC/USFS/CARPE protected area guide working group ..................... 22

1

Executive summary The US Forest Service (USFS) International Programs office is an implementing partner in the USAID

Central African Regional Program for the Environment (CARPE) providing targeted technical and capacity

building assistance aimed at improving forest management in the Congo Basin. The USFS is

concentrating efforts on the land management planning processes of the CARPE partners and the host

country governments for multiple-use forest management at a large landscape scale. These experiences

have allowed the USFS to adapt large scale forest management planning techniques in the US into the

creation of a series of land use planning and management guides for CARPE. Guides have been

produced for Landscapes, protected areas (PA) and community based natural resource management

(CBNRM) zones, and extractive resource zones (ERZ). Following the COMIFAC workshop which

presented the four (4) USFS/CARPE guides, the USFS and CARPE participated in the RAPAC working

group meeting to train RAPAC staff and partners on the concepts and use of the Landscape and PA

guides.

As a part of a RAPAC working group meeting held in Douala, Cameroon, the USFS, with funding from

CARPE, participated and/or led different elements of the trainings and workshops that took place from

July 18-23. There was a training of trainers working session on July 18, the USFS-RAPAC training on July

19-20, and the RAPAC working group workshop which followed from July 21-23 (with RAPAC funding

and leadership).

The overall goal was to build the capacity of participants from RAPAC to use the guides within the

context of their respective programs.

The specific objectives of the series of trainings/workshops were to:

Train select RAPAC and COMIFAC staff as trainers;

Train RAPAC staff and working group on concepts and use of guides and monitoring of results;

and

Support the RAPAC working group to review and technically validate the protected area guide.

The following key next steps and recommendations were developed:

Stand up a remote, ad hoc technical working group (USFS/RAPAC/CARPE) to improve the PA

guide drawing from recommendations resulting from the trainings and workshops.

Continue to improve other training materials and revise the other USFS/CARPE guides in coming

months in line with the road map resulting from the COMIFAC workshop in April 2011.

This report is designed to complement the forthcoming report (French) of the RAPAC working group

meeting produced by RAPAC (July 21-23). Its goal is to provide an English summary of the series of

trainings and workshops during the week of July 18th for USAID and future USFS missions.

2

1.0 Introduction The goal of this report is to provide a summary analysis of the different elements of the joint USFS,

USAID/CARPE, COMIFAC, and RAPAC working sessions on the USFS/CARPE land use and management

planning guides during the period of July 18-23, in order to:

1. Better orient future COMIFAC, RAPAC, USAID/CARPE, and USFS activities and detailers;

2. Summarize the proceedings of the trainings and workshop; and

3. Summarize the final recommendations and contributions from the RAPAC participants for the

revision of the USFS/CARPE/COMIFAC suite of guides.

RAPAC periodically convenes its technical working group for trainings and workshops as needed. As a

part of such a RAPAC working group meeting held in Douala, Cameroon, the USFS, with funding from

CARPE, participated and/or led different elements of the trainings and workshops that took place from

July 18-23. There was a training of trainers working session on July 18, the USFS-RAPAC training on July

19-20, and the RAPAC working group workshop which followed from July 21-23 (with RAPAC funding

and leadership) (see annex 1 for agendas). The USFS team was composed of Jim Beck, Bill Connelly, and

Adam Welti. USAID/CARPE was represented throughout by Nicodeme Tchamou. Other core

participants throughout the sessions included: Jean Pierre Agnangoye and Sebastien KAMDEN (RAPAC

ES); Daniel Mbolo Bamela (COMIFAC ES), and Aime EPANDA (PACEBCo).

The overall goal was to build the capacity of participants from RAPAC to use the guides within the

context of their respective programs.

The specific objectives of the series of trainings/workshops were to:

Train select RAPAC and COMIFAC staff as trainers;

Train RAPAC staff and working group on concepts and use of guides and monitoring of results;

and

Support the RAPAC working group to review and technically validate the protected area guide.

2.0 Summary of mission

2.1 Training of Trainer’s Session - July 18

2.1.1 Objectives:

The training of trainer’s workshop provided the opportunity for RAPAC, PACEBCO and COMIFAC

designated staff to become more familiar with the guides so that they could eventually train other staff

within their organizations on their application. A list of the workshop trainers and participants is found

in annex 2.

2.1.2 Methods:

Through presentations and discussion, USFS staff, Jim Beck and Bill Connelly presented key concepts on

the landscape planning and protected areas guide. With a working group atmosphere, to allow

3

discussion and debate, the presentations included question and answers, as well as opportunities for

clarifications and edits in order to ensure the guides and training were as appropriate and useful as

possible for the larger group.

2.1.3 Results:

Changes in the presentations, in order to ensure improved comprehension for the full group, were

completed as necessary. Some edits were necessary as translations were not always clear. Additionally,

discussions were held resulting in modifications of presentations for the following large group

workshop. Additional focus was placed on core learning competencies (why plan and how to plan) as

well as building the case for the USFS/CARPE approach developed in the guides.

2.1.4 Recommended next steps:

1) Continue to improve the training materials (presentations, guides, other) for future training

workshops (USFS).

2) Consider development of a trainer’s guide for the suite of USAID/CARPE guides and could be

consolidated in part from materials in this training and related trainings (USFS, USAID, others).

Example modules of this trainer’s guide could be:

i) Concepts

ii) Process

iii) Plan contents

iv) Implementation and Monitoring and Evaluation1

3) Focus trainings on core competencies to be transmitted (why plan and how to plan) (USFS).

4) Make case for the need for various planning steps through description of advantages and

disadvantages of going through or skipping a step, respectively (USFS).

2.2 USFS RAPAC working group training session – July 19-20

2.2.1 Objective:

The specific objective of the training session was to train RAPAC staff and working group on concepts

and use of guides and monitoring of results.

The learning/competency objectives were twofold:

1) Why planning? - Improved understanding of why land use and management planning are

critical.

2) How to plan? - Improved understanding of the major planning steps a planning team should

undertake.

2.2.2 Methods:

The following methods were employed:

1 Discussion ensued about differing perspectives of having module 4 together as presented in the guides or separate

as some others prefer.

4

Presentations of the guides along with a case study of its application in one of the

COMIFAC/CBFP landscapes and protected areas,

Small group interactive exercises on landscape and protected area planning (see annex 3), and

Other methods of technical exchange and training on the concepts and processes of planning as

well as contents of operational management plans.

The training began with a brief opening with comments from the US Forest Service (Jim Beck), RAPAC

(Jean Pierre Agnangoye); COMIFAC ES (Daniel Mbolo Bamela), and USAID/CARPE (Nicodeme Tchamou).

Jim Beck served as moderator for the majority of the training. USFS trainers engaged participants in an

interactive training and technical exchange that included the following interventions (see agenda in

Annex 1):

Overview context and concepts presentations

o Introduction –Jim Beck, USFS

o Rôle de l’USFS et contexte des guides (USAID/CARPE/USFS et COMIFAC) sur la

planification territoriales en Afrique Centrale – Jim Beck, USFS

o Concepts du planification territoriales en Afrique Centrale – Bill Connelly, USFS

Presentations of the guides along with a case study of its application in one of the

COMIFAC/CBFP landscapes and protected areas,

o Présentation brève de l’ensemble des guides pour la planification territoriales – Bill

Connelly, USFS

o Exemple de planification au niveau du paysage TNS – Zacharie Nzooh, WWF

o Présentation du Guide de planification pour la gestion des aires protégées en Afrique

Centrale – Jim Beck, USFS

o Exemple de planification de l’aire protégée, Reserve Communautaire du Lac Tele – Felin

Twagirashyaka, WCS

Small group interactive exercises on landscape and protected area planning, and

o Exercice 1: Travaux en groupes sur la planification intégré a grand échelle/paysage – Jim

Beck, USFS

o Exercice 2: Travaux en groupes sur la planification pour la gestion des aires protégées –

Bill Connelly, USFS

Other methods of technical exchange and training on the concepts and processes of planning as

well as contents of operational management plans.

o Plenary and small group discussions and report outs

o Presentation on an Exemple d’un outil suivi et évaluation du Programme CARPE –

Nicodeme Tchamou, CARPE

o Discussion of Revue des connaissances acquise en planification et évaluation de la

formation (points forts/faibles et recommandations) - Bill Connelly, USFS

5

2.2.3 Results:

While a formal evaluation was not conducted, broadly speaking, the 13 trainees demonstrated their

increased understanding of the planning concepts, process, and plan contents. They improved their

competence of the two core learning objectives: why plan and how.

Some summary feedback is captured here below:

1) Presentations of the guides were clearer then the guides themselves – therefore, future

revisions should benefit from this understanding.

2) The USAID/CARPE planning guides for landscape level engagement and protected area

management were generally validated as conveying the core concepts, processes, and

contents for useful and operational plans in the region. The following comments were

made for improvements:

o Additional clarity on the optimal duration of the planning process (~2 years cited as

USFS optimal).2

o Feasibility study as an additional and early planning step.3

o Plan elaboration costs or at least core budget lines needed.

o Possible sources for financing plan development and implementation and more robust

discussion of the core challenge of securing funding for these important activities.

o Perhaps a text box or section on common barriers preventing sound land use and

management planning and what some solutions might be.

o Add some ideas/clarity on different levels of “revision” and when they are appropriate.

o Underline that training/education/capacity building is most often a very important

element of a public participation strategy.

o Clarify the difference or similarity between the concept of a vision and a desired

condition.

o Discussion of monitoring indicators at the various levels (desired conditions, objectives,

etc.) and their importance in “results based management.”

o Strengthen public participation sections to convey perhaps even more clearly that

planners need to engage and understand how local communities in and around a PA see

the resources and view the issues to be able to conduct a planning process that will

bear fruit.

o Would like more specific examples showing the hierarchy and relationship of desired

conditions, objectives, and management actions/activities.

o Clarify that although there is recognition that planners will never have as much data as

they would like, still planners need to have some minimal data before advancing – good

to make note of some of the base data requirements (and other core conditions for that

matter) before proceeding.

2 Beyond the EA or EIS element for USFS projects/plans under NEPA and NFMA in the US.

3 While familiar with the problem of unfunded mandates, it seems odd though to talk of feasibility studies for

documents and processes universally found in the laws and regulations of the region pertaining to protected areas.

6

o A Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats (SWOT) type situational analysis is also

of interest in orienting planning and should be referenced in some form early in the

process (and results included in plan introduction).

o Make clearer in the planning process steps to include sufficient time and enabling

conditions for plan review by various stakeholders prior to final approval.

o Clarify what is at stake and the key challenges in the guides.

o 2011 IUCN guide suggested as another new and useful reference.4

3) Planning at the landscape and/or protected area level is ideally carried out in the context of

a plan national d’affectation de terre, schema directeur d’amenagement de terre, or a

related process. Most countries have not conducted such a process or many are unsatisfied

with results where they have occurred. Therefore, the suite of USFS/CARPE guides on land

use and management planning can help fill gaps and promote such important processes at

various levels.


The following next steps are proposed:

1) Update guides as described in the following section (2.3.4) and in more detail in the annex 4,

jointly bringing together COMIFAC, RAPAC, USFS, and USAID staff inputs.

2) Further develop and hone training materials, the guides themselves, and other content to be

packaged into a trainer’s guide (training modules) (USFS, USAID, and other partners).

a. See recommendations from train the trainer’s workshop (2.1.4).

b. Develop more formal evaluation methods for future trainings to improve follow on

work.

c. Develop/gather more specific examples of planning concepts and processes put to use

in Central Africa context.

d. Develop more small group exercises and materials along lines of those used in this

workshop (annex 3) to have more interactive exercises to draw from for future trainings.

3) Where possible, work closely with all presenters during the course of the training to review

content and otherwise ensure common messages and the most useful examples of planning are

highlighted (USFS).

2.3 RAPAC working group workshop – July 21-23

2.3.1 Objectives:

The objectives of the RAPAC session following the general training session was for the members of

RAPAC to deepen their understanding of the protected areas guide, compare it with other such tools in

the region and globally, and to conduct a critical review of the guide. A final phase of the workshop was

to make recommendations for the improvement of that guide.

4 Thomas, Lee and Middleton, Julie (2011). Lignes directrices pour la planification de la gestion des aires protégées.

Gland, Suisse: UICN. x + 67pp.

7

2.3.2 Methods:

The workshop was divided into three major parts:

1. The first part consisted of presentations from most of the RAPAC members present. After a

brief comment from each of the members of RAPAC at the session about the guides presented

in the overall session (July 19-20), a number of specific prepared evaluations followed. Each was

an evaluation of the Protected Areas Guide in a particular context. Each of these is summarized

below:

a. A comparison of the Guide to the direction in the plans for protected areas in the

Central African Republic (Zowoya).

b. A comparison of the Guide to the directives for forest planning in the Republic of the

Congo (Nganga).

c. A comparison of the Guide to the directives for planning of a protected area in

Cameroon (Tiebou).

d. A comparison of the Guide to the guide for planning in Gabon (Obame)

e. A comparison of the Guide to the guide used to develop the plan for the Rio Campo

Reserve in Equatorial Guinea (Ngwa)

f. A comparison of the Guide to the regulations used for the plan for the national park of

Mbam and Djerem (Fosso).

g. Lessons learned from using the Guide in planning Lake Tele (Twagirashyaka)

h. A comparison of the Guide to the new direction for the planning of protected areas by

UICN (Tchamba)

i. A critique of the Guide with a synthesis of the observations of the different members

(Mahamat)

Each of these presentations included a discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the guide

and included some discussions among the members following the presentations.

2. The second approach following the presentations was for a breakout into three groups for more

detailed discussion to make recommendations for changes to the guide. Three groups were

formed to cover 1) General Concepts or Chapters I and II in the Guide, 2) the planning process,

Chapter III, in the Guide, and 3) Plan Content. These groups began their work late Thursday

afternoon and all day Friday without Forest Service participation.

3. The final method was a report out of the complete work to the Forest Service including Jim,

Beck, Bill Connelly, and Adam Welti. The recommendations of this report are summarized in the

next section.

2.3.3 Results:

On the final day of the workshop, the three groups reported their recommendations regarding,

principally, the Protected Area guide, but some ideas could apply to other guides as well. The following

is a brief summary of each group. Complete details are also available:

8

Group 1 (General Concepts) This group identified 26 concepts needing definitions and suggested definitions for each of them. There was some further discussion about some of the suggestions, but no resolution. Group 1 also identified with a short description 5 key principles:

1. Participation 2. Adaptive management 3. Landscape approach with regional integration 4. Establishment of zoning and definition of prescriptions 5. Planning based on desired conditions or vision

Group 2 (Planning Process) This group proposed a table of contents for the Protected Area guide, identified the composition of a planning team, and identified and defined 16 steps in the planning process. They also offered a general suggestion to insert text boxes into the guide with examples and guidelines to facilitate better understanding. Group 3 (Plan Content) This group prepared an outline and description of the content of a plan for protected areas. This outline contained the following sections:

1. Introduction 2. National and Regional Context 3. Description of the Protected and the Surrounding Area 4. Management Considerations 5. Management Measures (Desired Conditions, Objectives, Results, Zoning, Management

Actions/Axis, Guidelines, logical framework) 6. Plan Implementation (Implementation Structures, Budget, Monitoring


Lastly, a road map was drawn out for next steps to jointly improve the protected area guide such that the document becomes the official, regionally validated RAPAC and therefore, COMIFAC planning guide. A final presentation outlined this roadmap for future work.5 The following were the key steps identified:

1. A small team of Forest Service and RAPAC working group members would examine the recommendations and proposed changes to the documents.

2. Circulate the guide with proposed changes to those involved in the workshop 3. Workshops with the individual countries for education and acceptance by those countries 4. Approval by COMIFAC 5. Organizing a curriculum guide or materials for trainers to conduct training on the guide(s) 6. Training of trainers 7. Plans for greater distribution and extension of guides into planning processes in Central Africa

3.0 Recommendations

3.1 Improvements for training at various levels The following improvements are proposed:

5 It was noted that this road map should be integrated with the broader road map that resulted from the COMIFAC

meeting on the land use and management planning guides in April 2011. No conflicts were seen between the two

road maps but simply that integration of the PA guide improvement, validation, training, and dissemination would

be useful within the broader process for the other guides/tools for planning.

9

1) Further develop and hone training materials, the guides themselves, and other content to be

packaged into a trainer’s guide (training modules) (USFS, USAID, and other partners).

a. Focus trainings on core competencies to be transmitted (why plan and how to plan).

b. Make the case for the need for various planning steps through a description of

advantages and disadvantages of going through or skipping each step, respectively.

c. Develop more formal evaluation methods for future trainings to improve efficacy of

follow on training sessions.

d. Develop/gather more specific examples of planning concepts and processes put to use

in the Central Africa context.

e. Develop more small group exercises and materials along the lines of those used in this

workshop to have more interactive exercises to drawn from for future trainings.

2) Where possible, work closely with all presenters during the course of the training to review

content and otherwise ensure common messages and the most useful examples of planning are

highlighted (USFS).

3) Continue and expand the training the trainer’s model to support the regional and national

institutions to get out in front and increasingly provide the training content themselves going

forward.

3.2 Summary of recommendations to revise guides The following are a set of recommendations that emerged from the series of trainings and workshops

for changing the guides; with particular emphasis on the PA guide. The smaller working group identified

following the workshop should be used to validate these suggestions and adjustments (see annex 4).

These are presented in order of general to specific and somewhat in terms of the tasks that should be

resolved first to facilitate more rapid progress:

Review suggestions on the overall, common, four part structure of all of the guides (ERZ may be a possible exception) and determine whether to retain or modify the current structure (See Group 2 suggested table of contents for PA guide). Consider what structural changes might be appropriate for the protected area guide within a common general framework for all guides.

Review the principles, concepts, and definitions presented by Group 1 and determine whether and where these should be included in the PA guide and possibly the other guides. Work through the USFS/RAPAC ad hoc group to clarify explanations and definitions of concepts that seem to be of particular difficulty, such as desired conditions.

Review proposals for the steps of planning (inconsistent sections within current versions of guides, proposal from group 2, and possibly other sources). Proposal: Identify general steps applicable to all four guides and, within the general steps, identify more specific steps that may be unique to specific guides. Once identified and validated with the USFS/RAPAC ad hoc working group, adjust all text to match the identified steps across guides and within guides.

Review and reconsider what is the content for a plan. Should the general plan content be the same for all four guides, similar to the suggestion for planning process above or should it vary based on the specific guide. Review group 3 proposals and make adjustments accordingly to PA guide and possibly other guides.

10

USFS works with COMIFAC and partners for country level input6 to develop a cross walk table of terminology, laws, concepts, processes as they are used in the guide and in each country where they exist. This analysis could further support the national level trainings and clarification of the value added of the guides – including a strategy of individual country implementing actions.

Seek out examples in an African context to add further clarity and visual zing to the guides. For protected areas guide, RAPAC working group members are well placed to assist in gathering these.

Organize graphics, text boxes, maps, photos, to highlight content in the PA and other guides.

Through the USFS/CARPE/RAPAC ad hoc group, a complete review of the guide should be undertaken to identify specific translation problems. For those problems, RAPAC members could suggest new phrases that fit the French understanding better than translated text from English. Build a glossary/vocabulary French/English for specific phrases and meanings as this work proceeds. Example: roadmap/feuille de route.

There are a number of additional observations and suggestions contained in the presentations made by RAPAC members on Thursday July 21 as well as those summarized in section 2.2.3. These should be specifically examined by USFS and the RAPAC working group to determine if additional adjustments should be made.

3.3 Recommended near term follow-up activities The key and agreed upon action to coordinate follow up on this important series of trainings and

working sessions was the formation of an ad hoc RAPAC/USFS/CARPE working group to improve the PA

guide. More specifically, a working group will be composed of USFS/CARPE staff and RAPAC staff and

partners to further improve the PA guide. The working group will interact remotely (telephone and

email) as described in annex 4. The group will draw from the following sources of information to update

the guide: 1) the COMIFAC presentation workshop recommendations; 2) the RAPAC training and

technical review workshops recommendations; and 3) other USFS/RAPAC expert opinion (see annex 4

for more information).

6 Such as collecting Arrêtés/Décrets and other materials that reflect the current planning process in each of the

Central African countries.

11

Annex 1 – Agendas

Training of Trainers – July 18, 2011

Formation des Formateurs

Des Guides sur la Planification et l’Aménagement du Territoire En

Afrique Centrale

Hôtel Résidence La Falaise, Douala, Cameroun - le 18 juillet 2011

AGENDA

Formation des Formateurs COMIFAC et RAPAC

09h00-09h30 Introduction des TDRs pour la journée - USFS

09h30-10h30 Revue des Concepts de Planification en Afrique Centrale – USFS

10h30-11h00 Pause –café

11h00-13h00 Instruction sur la Présentation du Guide pour la planification et

l’aménagement intégré des paysages - USFS

13h00-14h00 Pause-Déjeuner

14h00–15h30 Instruction sur la Présentation du Guide pour la planification des Aires

Protégées - USFS


16h00-17h00 Discussion sur la Formation du Groupe de Travail RAPAC

17h00 Suspension des travaux

12

USFS/RAPAC Training Workshop – July 19-20, 2011

Atelier de Formation des

Guides sur la Planification et l’Aménagement du Territoire en

Afrique Centrale

Hôtel Résidence La Falaise, Douala, Cameroun - le 19-20 juillet 2011

AGENDA

1ère Jour : Formation de Groupe de Travail RAPAC

08h00-09h00 Arrivée, Enregistrement et installation

09h00-09h15 Cérémonie d’ouverture

09h15-09h30 Introduction - USFS

Vue d’ensemble des guides TDR formation Présentation du programme d’atelier

09h30-10h30 Rôle de l’USFS et contexte des guides (USAID/CARPE/USFS et

COMIFAC) sur la planification territoriales en Afrique Centrale – USFS


10h45-11h45 Concepts du planification territoriales en Afrique Centrale – USFS

11h45-12h15 Présentation brève de l’ensemble des guides pour la planification

territoriales – USFS

12h15-13h00 Exemple de planification au niveau du paysage TNS – Nzooh, WWF

13h00-14h00 Pause-Déjeuner

14h00–15h30 Exercice 1: Travaux en groupes sur la planification intégré a grand

échelle/paysage - USFS

15h30-16h00 Restitution des travaux en groupes

13


16h30-17h00 Discussion de la pertinence des guides en matière d’aménagement du

territoire au niveau sous régionale – COMIFAC/RAPAC

17h00-18h00 Discussion / Clarifications en plénière

18h00 Suspension des travaux

2ème Jour :

09h00-09h15 Bref rappel des travaux de la journée 1 – USFS

09h15-10h30 Présentation du Guide de planification pour la gestion des aires protégées

en Afrique Centrale – USFS

10h30-11h15 Exemple de planification de l’aire protégée, Reserve Communautaire du

Lac Tele – Twagirashyaka, WCS

11h15-11h30 Pause-café

11h30-13h00 Exercice 2: Travaux en groupes sur la planification pour la gestion des

aires protégées – USFS

13h00-14h00 Pause-déjeuner

14h00-14h30 Restitution des travaux en groupes

14h30-15h00 Exemple d’un outil suivi et évaluation du Programme CARPE - CARPE

15h00-16h00 Revue des connaissances acquise en planification et

évaluation de la formation (points forts/faibles et recommandations) -

USFS

16h00-16h30 Pause-café

16h30-17h30 Perspectives et prochaines étapes – USFS, COMIFAC, RAPAC, CARPE

17h30 Fin de l’atelier

14

RAPAC Working Group Workshop – July 21-23, 2011

Analyse du guide de planification de gestion des aires protégées proposé par USFS

GTS/RAPAC, Douala 18-23 juillet 2011

15

Annex 2 - List of participants

HOTEL RESIDENCE LA FALAISE – DOUALA, 18-23 JUILLET 2011

18 July

No. NOMS ET PRENOMS PAYS TELEPHONE/EMAIL

1. MBOLO DANIEL BAMELA CAMEROON [email protected] +237 99 75 29

51

2. BILL CONNELLY USA [email protected]

3. EPANDA MANFRED AIME CAMEROON [email protected],

[email protected] +237 99 035 962

4. TCHAMOU NICODEME RDC +243 817007195

5. KAMBA KAMDEM SEBASTIEN GABON [email protected]

6. Jean Pierre AGNANGOYE GABON [email protected]

7. Jim Beck USA [email protected]

8. Adam Welti USA [email protected]

BATUPE PASCALINE ([email protected]) played an important logistical and administrative

support role throughout.

19-20 July

No. NOMS ET PRENOMS PAYS TELEPHONE/EMAIL

1. MBOLO DANIEL BAMELA CAMEROON [email protected] +237 99 75 29

51

2. BILL CONNELLY USA [email protected]

3. EPANDA MANFRED AIME CAMEROON [email protected],

mailto:[email protected]











16

[email protected] +237 99 035 962

4. TCHAMOU NICODEME RDC +243 817007195

5. GABRIEL NGUA AYECABA EQUATORIAL

GUINEE

+240 22 22 70 560

6. KAMBA KAMDEM SEBASTIEN GABON [email protected]

7. Jean Pierre AGNANGOYE GABON [email protected]

8. Jim Beck USA [email protected]

9. Adam Welti USA [email protected]

10. OBAME ENGONE Jean-Paul GABON

11. TIEBOU Joseph CAMEROUN

12. MAHAMAT Habibou CAMEROUN

13. FOSSO Bernard CAMEROUN

14. TCHAMBA Martin CAMEROUN

15. NGANGA Innocent GONGO (Braza)

16. TWAGIRASHYAKA Felin CONGO

17. ZOWOYA Florent RCA - Bangui

NZOOH ZACHARIE ([email protected]) made a valuable presentation on July 19 but was otherwise

not involved in this training. BATUPE PASCALINE ([email protected]) played an important

logistical and administrative support role throughout.

21-23 July*

*Same participants as 19-20 July, except some members of USFS/USAID team participated on 21 and 23

July.







17

Annex 3 – Training materials (exercise 1 and 2)

Instructions for Exercise 1

Exercise 1 - Paysage

1. Description de la carte et contexte :

Voici une carte qui montre les zones de forêt, l'agriculture, le développement humain

(villages, villes, et les villes) et les routes principales sur une carte.

Il montrera également des grands fleuves et au moins une frontière administrative.

La carte présente également quelques informations supplémentaires sur le paysage.

La carte représente une surface d'environ 1.000.000 hectares.

Les zones où l'accès routier et le développement de l'agriculture sont en expansion et il

y a peu de possibilités économiques dans la région.

2. La carte contient les suivantes:

Une aire protégée est identifiée (polygone en rouge)

Une concession forestière partageant une partie de son limite avec l’aire protégée

(polygone en bleu foncé)

Deux titres de prospections miniers (polygone en noir et jaune)

Des zones de fortes concentrations connues d'éléphants (points en vert) et les gorilles

(points en rouge)

Des forets sacres des Peuples autochtones (points en gris)

D’autres couverture forestière/terre typique dans les images LandSat (rose = Foret

dégradé et impact/présence humaine important ; vert = foret secondaire ou en

transition ; vert fonce – foret primaire intact)

La plupart du paysage ne semble pas attribuer d’une utilisation de terre formelle sauf

que la ou se trouves des polygones

3. Le groupe est une équipe de planification.

a. Le groupe de travail doit designer au moins 2 personnes ; Un modérateur du groupe

qui facilite la discussion et la participation de tous les membres. Ensuite, un

rapporteur qui prend des notes et prépare le rapport de restitution.

b. Utilisez le Guide pour la planification de l’aménagement intégré des paysages

(spécialement les listes de taches) pour faire de travaille

c. Soyez créatif et utilisez des exemples de votre pays. Tout doit être complétée dans

le temps disponible! C’est mieux que avoir un plan complétée en temps raisonnable

que avoir un plan parfait!

d. Vous êtes demandé à répondre aux questions indiquées dans le plan général

comme suit:

Par un paysage hypothétique chaque groupe identifiera :

Les étapes du processus de planification

18

La composition d’équipe— membres noyau dure et consultants (définir le jeu de qualifications de chaque individu faisant partie de l’équipe et leurs rôles et responsabilités pendant toute la durée du processus de planification)

Les donnés et principes écologiques, économiques et sociales pertinentes et plus importante pour la planification (est-ce qu’il y a des lois ou règles générales qui sont important ici)

Les parties prenantes et comment on va impliquer ces parties (Documenter les considérations qui ont été prises en compte pour établir la liste des parties prenantes).

Une stratégie de participation publique qui décrira comment les parties prenantes interviendront dans les décisions de gestion et l’exécution du plan

La duré du plan Les volets du plan ou une alternative

a. Macro zonage du paysage (vous êtes encourager d’ajoutez des zones) b. Les conditions désirées pour la paysage (et les conditions extérieures au

paysage qui pourraient affecter les valeurs et les difficultés éventuelles) c. Objectifs d. Lignes Directrices e. Mesures de Suivi

Map for Exercise 1

19

Instructions for Exercise 2

Exercise 2 – Aire protégées

1. Description de la carte et contexte :

Voici une carte qui montre les zones de forêt, l’agriculture, le développement humain

(villages, villes, et les villes), les routes principales, et un fleuve sur une carte.

La carte représente une surface d'environ 100.000 hectares.

2. La carte contient les suivantes:

Une aire protégée est identifiée (polygone en rouge)

Un titre de prospections minières - de manganèse (polygone en noir et jaune)

Un titre d’exploitation pétrolière (polygone en noir et crème)

Des zones de fortes concentrations connues d'éléphants (points en vert) et les gorilles

(points en rouge)

Une agglomération important des campements braconniers (points en gris)

D’autres couverture forestière/terre typique dans les images LandSat (rose = Foret

dégradé et impact/présence humaine important ; vert = foret secondaire ou en

transition ; vert fonce – foret primaire intact)

La plupart du paysage ne semble pas attribuer d’une utilisation de terre formelle sauf

que la ou se trouves des polygones

3. Le groupe de travail doit designer au moins 2 personnes ; Un modérateur du groupe qui

facilite la discussion et la participation de tous les membres. Ensuite, un rapporteur qui

prend des notes et prépare le rapport de restitution.

Utilisez le Guide pour la planification de l’aire protégé (spécialement les listes de

taches) pour faire de travaille

Soyez créatif et utilisez des exemples de votre pays. Tout doit être complétée dans

le temps disponible! C’est mieux que avoir un plan complétée en temps raisonnable

que avoir un plan parfait!

Vous êtes demandé à répondre aux questions indiquées dans le plan général

comme suit:

Note: Bien que la nature générale de cette carte est similaire à celui de l'exercice 1, ce sera à

une échelle plus fine, couvrant une superficie d'environ 100.000 hectares. Les participants

seront assignées à se concentrer sur le zone de l’aire protégée.

20

Par cette situation hypothétique chaque groupe va utiliser le guide propre pour former les

réponses de questions spécifique :

Groupe A :

Décrirez les étapes du processus de planification avant d’élaborer le plan (étapes 1 jusqu'à 5 –

version corrigé) sur page 10-11 – c'est-à-dire l’identification et mis en place de l’équipe de

planification jusqu'à la spécification des méthodes (voir stratégie) de participation publique.

Groupe B :

Elaborer le plan d’aménagement pour l’aire protégé et peut-être les défies de planification des

autres zones en dehors l’aire protégé (étapes 6 jusqu'à 8 – version corrigé) - – c'est-à-dire la

définition des conditions désirés jusqu'à l’identification des microzones. Décrit les processus

pour valider et obtenir l’approbation officiel du plan (les étapes 9 jusqu'à 10 – version corrigé) -

c'est-à-dire l’élaboration d’une stratégie de renforcement des capacités jusqu'à l’approbation du

plan.

Groupe C :

Elaborer le suivi et évaluation de program mise en œuvre pour le plan de l’aire protégé (étape

13). Veuillez trouver les conditions désirés (2eme document) pour ce plan de l’AP en question

pour mieux vous orienter de faire vos taches.

Supplément d’information pour le groupe C

Conditionnes désires:

1. -l’aire protégé soutienne la population des gorilles au même niveau

2. L’aire protégée incluait une population des éléphants

3. -l’aire protégé a un programme d’éducation et un lieu pour le publique pour l’éducation

dans l’AP

4. -il n’y a pas de chasses dans l’AP

5. -il y a un tampon de 200 mètre autour de l’AP sans les routes ou chemins pour protégé

l’intégrité de l’AP

6. -la communauté de CBA a les sources de viande suffisant qu’ils non pas la nécessité de

faire la chasse du gibier

Objectifs :

1. -les populations des gorilles dans l’AP ne diminuent pas

2. -en cinq ans après de l’approbation du plan, on a construit un centre de l’éducation dans

l’AP

3. -il y a assez ecogardes pour protégé les points d’accès de braconniers

4. -dans 5 années il n’y a pas d’évidence de braconniers dans 80% de l’AP

5. -les chemins ou les routes autour de l’AP dans le tampon de 200 mètre sont fermer et

les processus de reboisement a déjà commencer sur les routes or chemins qui existent

aujoud’hui.

21

6. -dans les marchés de ville de CBA, il n’y a pas des viandes du gibier

7. -dans les marches de ville de CBA, il y a viande qui vienne des animaux domestiques

Map for Exercise 2

22

Annex 4 – Draft TOR for ad hoc RAPAC/USFS/CARPE protected area

guide working group

RAPAC – US Forest Service

Projet de termes de référence (MoU) pour le groupe de travail pour

finaliser la consolidation du guide de planification de la gestion des aires protégées en

Afrique centrale.

Introduction and background

The US Forest Service International Programs office through the USAID Central African Regional Program for the

Environment (CARPE) has adapted large scale forest management planning techniques in the US into the creation

of a series of land use and management planning guides for CARPE. Guides have been produced for Landscapes,

protected areas (PA), community based natural resource management (CBNRM) zones, and extractive resource

zones (ERZ). In view of improving this suite of planning tools and promoting broader use across COMIFAC and its

member countries, USFS has recently engaged with COMIFAC ES, RAPAC, PACEBCo, CARPE, and partners in a series

of technical presentations, trainings, and review/evaluations. Specifically, following the COMIFAC presentation

workshop (April 2011) and RAPAC training and technical review workshops (July 2011), it was decided that a small

USFS/RAPAC ad hoc working group should be formed to make improvements to the USFS/CARPE PA guide,

incorporating those identified at the two previously mentioned workshops on the subject matter.

PA guide revision ad hoc working group overview:

A working group will be composed of USFS/CARPE staff and RAPAC staff and partners to further improve the PA

guide. The working group will interact remotely (telephone and email) as described below. The group will draw

from the following sources of information to update the guide: 1) the COMIFAC presentation workshop

recommendations; 2) the RAPAC training and technical review workshops recommendations; and 3) other

USFS/RAPAC expert opinion.

Objective:

The ad hoc USFS/RAPAC PA guide revision working group will draft an improved PA planning guide by September

15th

incorporating recommendations resulting from recent events and analyses.7

Proposed working group composition:

USFS/CARPE – Jim Beck (USFS lead), Jason Ko, Bill Connelly, Marc Bosch, and Nicodeme Tchamou

RAPAC - Sébastien Luc KAMGA KAMDEM (RAPAC lead), TIEBOU Joseph, and MAHAMAT Habibou

Proposed timeline and responsibilities for tasks:

7 September 15th is the target for the PA guide to be ready in time for a proposed PACEBCo training. In case the PACEBCo

training is further delayed, the updated PA guide should be completed no later than November 1st in advance of the RAPAC

committee meeting.

23

Task Week (July 25 – Sept 9)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Finalize TDR (RAPAC/USFS) X

Finalize RAPAC workshop report and recommendations (RAPAC) & share with all X X

Gathering/synthesizing recommended PA guide revisions (USFS) & share with all

before call

X X

Conf call to review and decide on key revisions to be made (USFS/RAPAC) X

RAPAC team makes draft changes and shares with USFS (RAPAC)* X X

USFS team reviews and makes any further changes and shares with RAPAC (USFS)* X

Conf call to discuss final draft (USFS/RAPAC) X

Final changes are incorporated to produce an updated PA guide (USFS) X

* Text changes, additions, deletions, etc. will be made with track changes mode on to facilitate review

U.S. Forest Service Technical Assistance Trip

Documents

Transcript of U.S. Forest Service Technical Assistance Trip