VZCZCXRO7644
RR RUEHBZ RUEHDU RUEHGI RUEHJO RUEHMR RUEHRN
DE RUEHKI #1095/01 3501216
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 161216Z DEC 09
FM AMEMBASSY KINSHASA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 0433
INFO RUCNSAD/SADC COLLECTIVE
RUEHXR/RWANDA COLLECTIVE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 KINSHASA 001095 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
AID/W for COO/ODP, AA/AFR, AFR/EA, AFR/DP, AFR/SD, EGAT/ESP 
STATE for AF/C, OES/EGC 
TREASURY PLEASE PASS TO WORLD BANK USED 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: SENV EAID EFIN ETRD PGOV CG
SUBJECT:    Greenpeace, Rainforest Foundation, Global 
            Witness Blast World Bank over DRC Forest Policy 
 
¶1. (U) Summary:  In an eight -page "open letter" to the World Bank, 
co-signed by Greenpeace Africa, Rainforest Foundation UK, Rainforest 
Foundation Norway and Global Witness, the four agencies raised 
wide-ranging questions to the World Bank regarding the forest policy 
reform program in the DRC.  In the letter entitled "The World Bank 
and the Forest Sector in the Democratic Republic of Congo: a Cover 
Up?" the watchdog NGOs asserted that the Bank had not implemented 
several important elements following the conversion of industrial 
logging titles completed in early 2009, and that the new $64 million 
Bank IDA Forest Sector project approved by the Bank's Board earlier 
this year has not supported good forest governance.  It generally 
raises questions about lack of transparency, asserts a rise in 
social conflict between logging concessions and local communities, 
hints that the moratorium on logging concessions has not been 
respected by the GDRC and asks a rhetorical question as to whether 
the Bank investment in logging sector reform is money well spent. 
End Summary. 
 
Can they do anything right? 
----------------------------- 
 
¶2. (U) The eight-page letter is divided into four topical areas with 
numerous assertions and questions under each category, with each 
section describing what the NGOs view as a long series of Bank 
failures in designing and implementing forest sector reform in the 
DRC.  It rehashes a long litany of the Bank's purported errors and 
misguided policies in the forestry sector, mainly citing a lengthy 
list of press releases and "studies."  The letter invokes the 2007 
independent Bank Inspection Panel Report which found that the Bank 
did not follow its own internal policies regarding "indigenous 
people's" and includes references to 45 different documents, 
previous press releases, studies and other documents on the subject. 
 The first of four general categories is a long discussion, with 
specific examples cited, that the required stoppage of all logging 
activities by the cancelled title holders is not being respected. 
Furthermore, that logs from the cancelled permits were marketed 
after the permitted period and that in some cases logging is still 
continuing in the cancelled holdings.  The second point is that the 
forest governance systems planned under the new Bank grant such as 
an independent observer, a log tracking system, and a planned 
contract to a private firm to verify legal timber has not yet been 
put in place.  (Comment:  It is true that the DRC government has not 
made public its actions to seize assets and close down the 
concessions, but this is more a result of a lack of capacity and 
resources than an attempt to foster illegal activities.  End 
comment.) 
 
¶3. (U) The letter further asserts that the lack of these controls 
has created fears among local communities and conflicts between 
logging companies and communities over social contracts and rights 
of the communities over the forests.  The letter then asks a number 
of pointed questions of the Bank about whether certain controls 
included in the Bank project document (PAD) have really been 
implemented and if not, what the Bank intends to do to ensure that 
the project is carried out according to its design.  The third point 
questions whether in fact there has really been a moratorium on the 
granting of new logging concession as required by Bank 
conditionality, citing "civil society" reports that artisanal 
Qconditionality, citing "civil society" reports that artisanal 
logging and other types of exploitation are occurring without 
permits.  The letter implies then, that artisanal logging de facto 
constitutes an expansion of logging activities in violation of the 
moratorium agreement.  (Comment: The "civil society reports" cited 
are mainly from the newly established Greenpeace Congo office, with 
few if any reports from local or national NGOs as inferred.  End 
Comment. 
 
¶4. (U) The four signatory NGOs fundamentally question whether 
logging is a viable economic sector for the DRC, citing the 
minuscule amount of tax revenue projected for the year 2015 from 
logging taxes, which they assert is estimated at $17 million against 
the tens of millions the Bank is granting to the DRC to manage the 
sector.  (Comment:  while the projected "area tax" revenue is indeed 
$17 million, based on the greatly reduced post-title conversion 
logging concession area multiplied by the present "area tax" rate, 
the figure ignores all the additional tax revenue potentially 
generated by logging, which would certainly be a large multiple of 
the "area tax" amount.  End Comment) The open letter also invokes 
the Bank Independent Inspection Panel Report from 2007 that found 
that the Bank did not follow its internal policies related to the 
protection of forest and "indigenous" peoples in the implementation 
of forest policy reform and suggests that it may be following the 
same course in the new project. 
 
Forest Policy Reform a Prerequisite for REDD 
--------------------------------------------- - 
 
 
KINSHASA 00001095  002 OF 002 
 
 
¶5. (U) The letter closes by scolding the Bank for squandering the 
policy reform process, and it makes a case that the Bank itself is 
not respecting its own norms, a situation similar to the case found 
in the Independent Inspection Panel investigation.  It then darkly 
hints that if logging is allowed to continue, that the DRC may not 
be eligible to participate in the Global Climate Change REDD 
(Reduction of Deforestation and Degradation) payment schemes such as 
the Bank's own Forest Carbon Partnership Facility.  It exhorts the 
Bank to do all within its power to preserve the large intact DRC 
humid tropical forest from logging and to promote instead the 
environmental services use of forest resources such as REDD. 
 
 
¶6. (SBU) Comment:  Greenpeace has long opposed industrial logging in 
the Central Africa tropical forests; the Rainforest Foundation UK 
raison d'etre is to advocate for indigenous peoples' rights, and the 
Rainforest Foundation  Norway played a major role in the Government 
of Norway's decision to provide major financial support to promote 
the REDD concept for tropical forests.  Global Witness has been 
active in the DRC forest sector, in part funded by the World Bank to 
act as an Independent Observer during the early period of the forest 
title conversions process.  All of these groups have a long track 
record of criticizing the Bank and the GDRC for mismanaging the 
forest sector and putting "indigenous peoples" at risk. 
 
 
¶7. (SBU) Comment continued:  The Bank has had difficulty managing 
the reform process, but the criticism of the Bank by the NGOs seems 
to be more directed toward the GDRC.  The letter's strong 
undercurrent against industrial logging seems designed to discourage 
commercial logging in lieu of REDD activities, which they assert 
will bring more social benefits and preserve tropical forests. 
While some of these points are valid, the NGOs ignore the well known 
fact that the principal drivers of deforestation in the Congo Basin, 
and particularly in the DRC, are millions of poor rural villagers 
eking out a living through slash and burn agriculture, harvest of 
trees to make firewood and charcoal for sale coupled with a lack of 
any real management capacity over artisanal activities by the 
government authorities.  Deforestation mapping of the DRC confirms 
that industrial logging is not currently a significant source of 
deforestation in the DRC.  Most donors active in the DRC support the 
GDRC's efforts to reform the forestry sector as the country's second 
largest private formal sector employer after mining and do not see a 
necessary contradiction between logging and environmental services 
payment schemes such as REDD.  End Comment. 
 
GARVELINK