Maiko Tayna Kahuzi-Biega Landscape (10) CARPE IIb Inception Workshop, Yaoundé, February 2007

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. Method to Get to LUP

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 Kahuzi-Biega NP – PA 660,000 Federation of CBOs Created and Developing Further Nature Reserves for Corridor (UGADEC) CBNRM 1,000,000 Participatory Conservation and Resource Management Itombwe CBNRM 600,000 Tayna Nature Reserve CBNRM 90,000

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 138,000 ha 115,000 ha 333,000 ha 514,000 ha 70,000 ha

In May, 2006, the Tayna Nature Reserve and Kisimba- Ikobo 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 state- managed 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…. Core planning team Landscape 10