Compensation or No Compensation? - That Seems to be the Question
by Karl Ammann

Three years ago a deal between the authorities of Gabon and a French logging company created some controversy. 260 square miles of the Lope Reserve were traded away in return for 160 square miles being added to the reserve. The deal was arranged by officials of the US-based organizaton Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS).

In 2001, the stage moved to Congo Brazzaville. Wildlife Conservation Society annnounced a similar deal at a press conference at the Bronx Zoo. This time involving the Goualogo triangle, bordering the Nouabale Ndoki Park. While maybe having learnt from the above episode, this time around the only reference to compensation was in form of strong statements to the effect that there was NO trade off involved (see below).

Dr. John Robinson, a WCS senior Vice President, called the agreement: "An unprecedented victory for conservation in Tropical Africa".

However these "no compensation" pronouncements were somewhat in contrast with a statements in an earlier World Bank report, pointing out that:

"The Goualogo triangle (15,000 hectares) abuts the Nouabale Ndoki National Park and represents 1.5 % of the total CIB concessions. While logging had originally been planned for this area, CIB is open to reconsider this plan. However CIB is keen on obtaining some form of reward or recognition to compensate for the loss to exploit this area."

National Geographic, in a feature in October 2000 quoted the CEO of CIB, Hinrich L. Stoll (Feldmeyer), as stating:

"You can not just say: 'forget about it (the triangle), it is completely protected', he tells me by phone from his office in Bremen, Germany. "We all want to know how much it is worth it." Once its worth has been gauged in economic and biological terms, also in social ones, then perhaps the international community of conservationists and donors will see it fit to compensate his company - yes and the working people of Pokola and Kabo, Dr. Stoll stresses for what it's being asked to give up."

SGS, the Swiss certification firm, in a letter to CIB in 1999, clarifying Key Shortfalls under the FSC certification system, made the following points:

"Under the FSC it is required that some representative areas are being excluded from the harvest to safeguard ecosystems." "CIB has already identified the triangle near the National Park as of importance to the wildlife in the region. This was done on advise of WCS. Currently the organization is trying to compensate this area with the Forestry Department so that they can leave this area alone."

Then came the New York Press conference on July 7th 2001, resulting in the following declarations:

The New York Times: "African conservation experts said this was the first time a logging company had voluntarily given up land rights without some trade off."

"The Goualogo tract, in the remote north, is bordered by two unabridged rivers and flooded forest" (Not the most feasible of proposition for mechanized logging - is my comment).

"Hinrich L. Stoll, the president of the company said: "There was no compensation to us for this."

The Associated Press: " The logging company received nothing for this land."

Next Dr. Stoll, the CEO of CIB, in a readers letter to Nat. Geographic, stated the following: "CIB has shelved its plans for exploitation of the Goualogo Triangle. There can be no question regarding as this having been some kind of commercial transaction/trade off!"

(Original text: "Ihre Nutzungspläne für das Goualogo Dreieck hat sie (CIB) im ueberigen laengst endguelting beigelegt." "Von einem kaufmaennischen Poker oder Kuhhandel seitens der CIB kann also keine Rede sein.")

Recently Dr. Stoll, via a lawsuit against a German Rainforest organization, who had called him a "Rainforest Destroyer", added the following point: "It is known to the defendants, that in the past CIB has taken the critique and advise provided by serious environmental organizations and implemented those - even if this resulted in an econic sacrifice. (CIB) has given up its rights concerning the Goualogo triangle in order to transform it into a National Park under the management of Wildlife Conservation International." (Original text: "Den Beklagten ist bekannt, dass die CIB Kritik und Anregung serioeser Umweltschutzorganisationen in der Vergangenheit aufgegriffen und umgesetzt hat - auch zum eigenen wirtschaftlichen Nachteil. So hat sie im July 2001 auf ihre Konzessionsrechte fuer das Goualogo-Dreieck verzichtet um das Gebiet unter Federfuehrung der Wildlife Conservation Society in einen Nationalpark umzuwandeln.")

On Aug. 27th 2002, John Robinson, Vice President at WCS, responded to an inquiry regarding the triangle compensation by stating in an E-Mail to the author of the book "Eating Apes":

"The questions that you pass along from Karl reflect his lack of understanding. --- this is the first time I have heard any discussion of 'compensation' between CIB and WCS on the Goualogo (the idea is in itself insulting)."

When questioning the then ITTO president in a telephone conversation on the deal in 2002, I was told - as recounted in the book "Eating Apes":

"The original proposal, to cede the southern corner of the park, so that CIB would not have to build expensive roads through swamp, was rejected in a meeting in January 2002, and it was agreed to compensate CIB with a piece of forest along the CAR border."

An American journalist, doing a feature on forest conservation in Central Africa, put some questions directly to tt-Timber, the Swiss company, which owns CIB. His feedback to me:

"I spoke to them on the phone. They told me they would get back to me. Never heard anything again."

Then a statement from one of the few tourist visitors which managed to get uninvited through to the concession and the WCS headquarters in Kabo. That was in December 2002:

"Goualogo triangle compensation: The new concession that was only given lately is called Pikonda- there are two new concessions there it has not yet been decided who is getting the other one. CIB got the eastern of the two. The location is a bit west of the Sangha on the same line with Matali and Gangaza town on the river. I got this information from Paul Elkan - an American who is the WCS coordinator for the Congo Ndoki NP's buffer zone. He is into the political side of WCS."

Next comes a statement from a Congo based member of the conservation community who talked to Paul Elkan on the same subject in April 2002:

"I did ask yesterday Paul Elkan directly regarding the triangle! For WCS, they held themselves out of these negotiations, what interested them was that the triangle is removed from the CIB concession !" (Original: "J'ai demandé hier, directement à Paul Elkan, des info sur ce triangle ! Pour le WCS, ils se sont tenus en dehors des négociations, ce qui les intéressait c'était que le triangle sorte du lot CIB !")

Followed by a statement from a officer of SECO, the Swiss donor agency providing funding for the buffer Zone management of Nouabale Ndoki Park:

"Compensation of the Goualogo triangle: Pikounda is not a direct compensation to Goualogo. However there is a continuous negotiation process, in which competent Congolese authorities can attribute concessions, ask for social and infrastructure support for the zone and require a management plan. In addition, the forests of Goualogo are not similar to Pikounda. CIB has only a part of UFA Pikounda. This part is slightly bigger in size, but more remote and mainly swampy. This part has been attributed to CIB because the existing road infrastructure permitted CIB to work here, and not another concession. The remaining part of Pikounda (east of the swampy area) will be attributed to another company."

Last but not least: A Congo based NGO official then approached some contacts in the ministry for an answer. The response from the "Director General de l' Econonomie Forestiere", Mr. Jacques Kanwe, was as follows:

"As for new information, that I was able to get some, is the fact that Nouabalé Ndoki benefited from thirty thousand hectares of the concession off CIB, which is rich in wood products (timber) while CIB received sixty thousand hectares towards Pikounda (the locality is situated close to 70 km on the border of the region of Sangha, together with the one of the triangle alongside the river Likouala Mossaka almost on the border with the region of Likouala). This is not a rich zone." (Original: "Pour les nouvelles ce que j'ai pu avoir comme informations c'est que Nouabalé Ndoki a bénéficié de trente mille hectares de la concession de la CIB riche en produits ligneux (bois) en contre partie la CIB a reçu soixante mille hectares vers Pikounda (localité située à près de 70 Km à la frontière de la région de la Sangha avec celle de la Cuvette le long de la rivière Likouala Mossaka presque à la frontière avec la région de la Likouala). Ce n'est pas une zone riche.")

The informer stated: This information was confirmed by the National Reforestation Service (SNR). (Original: Ces informations sont confirmées par le Service national de reboisement (SNR).)

Clearly the final conclusion has to be that a compensation deal has now been completed. That, as in the Lope transaction, the loggers won in terms of area gained.

Deciding on how ecologically or economically important these areas are or were and then to compare them, would most likely end in a never ending and inconclusive debate.

As far as I am concerned, it is a lot less important than what I feel the above responses to very specific questions represent: The total lack of transparency, even when it comes to some of the basic facts.

It is clear that a wide range of players, having in one way or the other been sucked into this 'success' story, had to now evaluate any response to any of the above questions and had to do so within the context of a range of conflicting interests.

It became impossible to get anything specific out of anybody, not even when the questions were being asked by independent third party journalists. (Concerning the surface area which was ceded: It goes from 15,000 hectares - as per World Bank report to 100 square miles and 160 square Kilometres - as per press statements, to the new Likondo concession being "slightly bigger" - as per the Swiss Donor Agency, to 30,000 hectares having been handed over in return for 60,000 - as per the NGO representatives and the ministry officials he interviewed.)

Industrial logging seems to try to operate illegally wherever possible and to take maximum advantage of corrupt systems and poor quality governance, which is of course all best done if and where outside scrutiny can be minimized.

The question which arises is: Can conservationists and NGO's afford to be painted with the same brush when it comes to basic transparency? Are there any established policies and procedures in place when negotiating such partnership deals. If not, why not? If there are, what are they?

Are we walking into a situation where, while logging is green-washed, the timber industry successfully manages to further "black-wash" the conservation establishment?

Karl Ammann, Nanyuki, 14. Oct. 2003