Persistent and Pervasive Racial Discrimination against Indigenous Peoples in the
Democratic Republic of Congo
Formal Request to Initiate an Urgent Action Procedure to Avoid Immediate and
Irreparable Harm
Submitted to the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination by
Centre d’Accompagnement des Autochtones Pygmées et Minoritaires Vulnérables (CAMV)
Association Pour le Regroupement et l’Autopromotion des Pygmées (ARAP)
Collectif pour les Peuples Autochtones au Kivu (CPAKI/RDC)
Action Pour la Promotion des Droits des Minorités Autochtones en Afrique Centrale
(APDMAC)
Solidarité pour les Initiatives des Peuples Autochtones (SIPA)
Union Pour l’Emancipation de la Femme Autochtones (UEFA)
Forest Peoples Programme (FPP)
29 June 2006

Contents
Submitting organisations
Executive Summary
I. Introduction
II. Indigenous Peoples in DRC
III. The Human Rights Situation of Indigenous Peoples in DRC
1.
Racial Discrimination against Indigenous Peoples in DRC
2.
Violations of the Rights to Lands, Territories and Resources of Indigenous Peoples
(a) Commercial Resource Exploitation and Forest Zoning
(b) Indigenous Peoples have become ‘conservation refugees’ in DRC
IV. The 2002 Forest Code and Implementation Regulations
1.
The Forestry Legislation Discriminates against Indigenous Peoples in DRC,
Violates their Rights to Justice and Criminalizes their Land and Resource Rights
2.
The Forestry Legislation Violates the Right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent of
Indigenous Peoples in DRC
3.
The Forestry Legislation Violates the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to their Lands,
Territories and Resources
V. Conclusion and Request
VI. Annexes
1.
Statements confirming DRC’s violation of indigenous peoples’ rights.
2.
Relevant measures in DRC’s 2002 Forest Code and Implementation Regulations
3.
Letter dated 12 February 2004 from Congolese NGOs and Indigenous Peoples’ organisations to the Congolese Minister for the Environment, Waters and Forests, the World Bank Resident Representative and the FAO Representative.
4.
Map indicating location of logging concessions and Twa communities/lands.
5.
Government-published list of existing forestry concessions as at 29 th
October 2005, of which at least 103 were granted since the May 2002 moratorium.
6.
Government published list of requests for forestry concession title conversion.
7.
Letter from Mr. John McIntire, Sector Director, Rural, Environmental and Social
Development, African Region, World Bank on “ World Bank involvement in the forest sector of the Democratic Republic of Congo ” to Mr. John Buckrell, Global
Witness, 4 April 2006.
8.
The Inspection Panel, Report and Recommendation on Request for Inspection,
Democratic Republic of Congo: Transitional Support for Economic Recovery
Credit Operation (TSERO) (IDA Grant No. H192-DRC) and Emergency Economic and Social Reunification Support Project (EESRSP) (IDA Credit No. 3824-DRC and IDA Grant No. H064-DRC)-selected highlghts.
Page
19
23
25
28
8
10
10
11
3
5
7
12
14
16
17

Submitting organisations
The Centre d’Accompagnement des Autochtones Pygmées et Minoritaires Vulnérables (CAMV) is an indigenous not-for-profit organisation established on 2 February 1995 in Bukavu, DRC, with the hope of protecting and defending the rights of indigenous ‘Pygmy’ peoples. CAMV was legally registered on 26 September 1997 by provincial act number 112/S-KV/608/97 and has consultative status with the UN ECOSOC. Address: 2 boulevard du Lac, La Botte, Bukavu,
DRC / PO Box 157, Cyangugu, Rwanda. Tel: +243 997 706 371; Fax: +250 538334; Email: camvorg@yahoo.fr.
The Association Pour le Regroupement et l’Autopromotion des Pygmées (ARAP) is a national organisation created in 1999 by indigenous ‘Pygmy’ peoples living on and around the Kahuzi mountain. ARAP was legally registered on 13 February 2001 by provincial act number
JUST.GS.112/S-KV/971/2001. The goal of ARAP is to unite indigenous ‘Pygmy’ peoples to create a spirit of mutual aid to assist their economic, cultural and social emancipation. Address: avenue Patrice Emery Lumumba No. 167, Pavillon 7, Bukavu, DRC / PO Box 127, Cyangugu,
Rwanda. Tel: +243 0810 848586; Email: enamiruwa@yahoo.fr.
The Collectif pour les Peuples Autochtones au Kivu (CPAKI/RDC) is an indigenous ‘Pygmy’ not-for-profit organisation, created on 12 May 1998 and legally registered on 17 February 2001 by provincial act number JUST.GS112/S-KV/962/2001, and registered as an NGO by act number
31.IMINIPLAN/D.PP/SKNK/KAM2004 on 9 August 2004. CPAKI’s principle mission is to defend the rights of indigenous ‘Pygmy’ peoples and support community development. Address:
No. 156 du batiment de l’Hotel Canadien, Pavillon No.7, Bukavu, DRC. Tel: +243 9977 40167 /
0811 627 499 / 0811 833423; Email: cpaki1@yahoo.fr.
Action Pour la Promotion des Droits des Minorités Autochtones en Afrique Centrale (APDMAC) is an indigenous ‘Pygmy’ not-for-profit organisation created on 2 July 1996 in Bukavu.
APDMAC is apolitical and non-religious, and was registered by provincial act number
JUST.GS.112/S-K/740/99 and registered as an NGO on 18 June 1999 by act number
11/MPD/DPPD/SK/NK/bb/99. Address: Batiment de l’Hotel des Postes, Bukavu, DRC / PO Box
127, Cyangugu, Rwanda; Tel: +250 0853 8152 / 0844 7180 / +243 9977 06362 / 9986 11352 /
9977 02596; Fax: +250 538334; Email: apdmac2000@yahoo.fr.
Solidarité pour les Initiatives des Peuples Autochtones (SIPA) is a nongovernmental organisation created in 1999. SIPA works for and with indigenous ‘Pygmy’ peoples living in eastern DRC, specifically in the province of South Kivu. SIPA works mainly in the areas of Kalehe, Bunyakiri and Kalere, but works elsewhere if means permit. Address: No. 156 Avenue Patrice E Lumumba,
Commune d'Ibanda, Bukavu / PO Box 127, Cyangugu, Rwanda. Tel: +243 9977 57992; Email: amwanuka@yahoo.fr.
The Union Pour l’Emancipation de la Femme Autochtones (UEFA) is a not-for-profit, apolitical, non partisan, indigenous organisation created in 1998 and registered under act number
JUST.GS.112/S-KV/954/2001 and act number 626/CAB/MIN/J/2004 on 14 July 2004. UEFA’s main areas of intervention are the protection and promotion of human rights in general and indigenous peoples in particular; and social action including environmental protection,
3

agriculture and improving household incomes. Address: avenue de l’Athénée 3, Bukavu, DRC;
Tel: +243 9986 23642/9976 01819 /9986 11352/ 9977 06221; Email uefa@yahoo.fr.
The Forest Peoples Programme (FPP) is an international NGO established in 1999. FPP works in partnership with indigenous, tribal and forest peoples throughout the world to help them secure their individual and collective rights and maintain control of their lands and natural resources.
FPP has worked with indigenous peoples in central Africa since 1991 and in DRC since 1998, and has published several reports on the situation of indigenous peoples in this region and elsewhere.
1
Address: 1c Fosseway Business Centre, Stratford Road, Moreton-in-Marsh GL56
9NQ, UK. Tel: (44) 01608 652893; Fax: (44) 01608 652878; Email : info@forestpeoples.org.
1 For example: Mulvagh, L and Nelson, J, Central Africa: Great Lakes region and Cameroon , for The Indigenous
World 2005, IWGIA; FPP and CED, Protecting and encouraging traditional sustainable use in Cameroon:
Customary use of biological resources by local and indigenous peoples in Western Dja Reserve, Cameroon ,
Moreton-in-Marsh, August 2005; Caruso, E, The Global Environment Facility in Central Africa: A desk-based review of the treatment of indigenous peoples’ and social issues in a sample of 14 biodiversity projects , Moreton-in-
Marsh, March 2005; Jackson, D, Implementation of International Commitments on Traditional Forest-Related knowledge: Indigenous Peoples’ experiences in Central Africa , Moreton-in-Marsh, December 2004; Nelson, J and
Hossack, L (Editors), Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas in Africa – From principles to practice , Moreton-in-
Marsh, 2003.
4

Executive Summary
This formal request to initiate an Early Warning and Urgent Action Procedure highlights widespread, persistent and systematic violations of the Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Racial Discrimination against indigenous peoples in the Democratic Republic of
Congo. It details the fact that indigenous peoples’ rights to own, control, use and peacefully enjoy their lands, territories and resources are neither recognized nor guaranteed in Congolese law and that these rights are frequently violated in practice, especially in connection with the 2002 Forest
Code, recent implementing regulations and ensuing forestry exploitation operations. At least one hundred and three logging concessions are presently in operation, affecting numerous indigenous peoples and their communities, and plans are being implemented to increase the area available for logging to double its present size (roughly the size of France). National parks have also caused the forced displacement of indigenous peoples, the majority of whom are now landless and destitute, and their survival as distinct peoples is threatened.
Concessions for logging are routinely granted on and around indigenous territories without notifying, consulting with or seeking the consent of the affected indigenous peoples and without regard for their human rights. The 2002 Forest Code and its implementing laws have been elaborated and adopted without the consultation or consent of indigenous peoples. The same is also the case with the establishment and management of national parks.
This request highlights that the 2002 Forest Code neither recognizes nor guarantees sufficient protection for indigenous peoples’ rights to land and resource rights and its implementation actively violates those rights and is causing irreparable harm. The 2002 Forest Code also violates the rights of indigenous peoples to participate in and consent to activities on their traditional lands and territories. Coupled with substantial and highly prejudicial resource exploitation operations, this failure to recognize and guarantee these rights has lead to gross violations of indigenous peoples’ human rights, undermining their means of subsistence and severely compromising their physical, cultural and economic integrity.
Independent observers, such as the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights and
United Nations Rapporteurs, concur and have expressed grave concern about severe discrimination against indigenous peoples in DRC and observed that some indigenous peoples are threatened with extinction due to the State Party’s acts and omissions. As territorial and other rights are not recognized and protected by Congolese law, indigenous peoples are without adequate and effective remedies to assert and defend their rights in domestic procedures leaving them no choice but to seek international oversight, intervention and protection.
International attention is urgently needed as violations of indigenous peoples’ rights under the
Convention in DRC are widespread, systematic and substantial and the nature and impact of the violations is immediate, ongoing and, in some cases, irreversible. DRC is internationally responsible for these violations by virtue of its acts and omissions. The rights presently violated with impunity in DRC are fundamental to the physical and cultural survival of indigenous peoples. Without urgent international attention, the lands, territories and resources of indigenous people in DRC will continue to be irreversibly degraded, depriving the affected peoples of the source of their physical, cultural, economic and spiritual sustenance.
5

Finally, this formal communication respectfully requests that:
(a) the Committee adopts a decision pursuant to its Early Warning and Urgent Action Procedure on the situation of indigenous peoples in DRC in order to give its immediate attention to reversing the acts and omissions of DRC that have given rise to the present massive and persistent pattern of racial discrimination against indigenous peoples. Additionally, we request that:
(i) the Committee commences a dialogue with the State to ensure that the rights of indigenous peoples to own their lands, territories and resources traditionally owned or otherwise occupied and used are recognized and respected; that their rights to participate in and consent to activities that may affect them are recognized and respected;
(j) the Committee stresses that the preceding requires legislative and administrative measures to ensure that these rights are recognized and guaranteed in law and secured in fact;
(b) the Committee requests that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights offer to provide technical assistance to give effect to the preceding;
(c) the Committee requests that the Chairperson of the United Nations Permanent Forum on
Indigenous Issues communicates with the World Bank and other United Nations agencies to ensure that indigenous peoples’ rights are fully accounted for and respected in the design and implementation of technical and project assistance in the natural resource management sector in
DRC;
(d) the Committee recommends that DRC accede to and implement International Labour
Organization Convention No. 169;
(e) or, alternatively, that the Committee conducts a review of DRC’s implementation of the
Convention at the earliest possible date, issues concluding observations on the human rights situation of indigenous peoples and recommends remedial measures.
6

I. Introduction
1. The Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly Zaire, hereinafter referred to as ‘DRC’) ratified the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
(hereinafter ‘the Convention’ or ‘ICERD’) on 21 April 1976. It is therefore bound to respect and guarantee the rights set forth therein without delay. It has failed to do so with regard to indigenous peoples, who continue to suffer pervasive, massive and institutionalized racial discrimination on a daily basis.
2. Since considering the last periodic report submitted by DRC in 1996, the Committee on the
Elimination of Racial Discrimination (hereinafter ‘the Committee’ or ‘CERD’) has issued five decisions under its Early Warning and Urgent Action Procedures expressing its deep concern at reports of grave human rights violations and persistent racial discrimination in DRC.
2
The
Committee has also noted its concern about racial discrimination against indigenous peoples in
DRC. For instance, in its 1996 Concluding Observations, the Committee expressed its grave concern about, among others, “…allegations of large-scale discrimination against the Pygmies
(Batwa) ….”
3
3. Discrimination against indigenous peoples in DRC is particularly marked concerning their land and resource rights. These and other rights are neither enumerated nor guaranteed in domestic law, domestic remedies are unavailable in the case of violations, and generally applicable legal guarantees do not provide adequate and effective protection for indigenous peoples.
4
This disregard for indigenous peoples’ rights is typified in the recently operationalized 2002 Forest
Code, its implementing laws and the large number of forestry concessions that have been issued pursuant thereto, many of which are causing or threaten to cause irreparable harm to indigenous peoples.
4. As detailed below, the situation in DRC has deteriorated to the point that the physical and cultural integrity and survival of indigenous peoples is threatened. This is confirmed by independent experts and expert bodies, including the African Commission on Human and
Peoples’ Rights and the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in DRC (see
Section III and Annex 1, infra ). For example, the African Commission’s Working Group on
Indigenous Peoples/Communities has noted that “[i]ndigenous peoples suffer from particular human rights violations – to the extent that some groups are on the verge of extinction.”
5
These experts have confirmed that international oversight and intervention are urgently required to avoid further irreparable harm to indigenous peoples’ rights, dignity and integrity. In brief, the situation has become desperate.
2 Decision 3 (51) on the Democratic Republic of Congo, 20/08/97. A/52/18, para 19(2) (Decision); Decision 1 (52) on the Democratic Republic of Congo, 19/03/98.
A/53/18, para IIA1 (Decision); Decision 4 (53) on the Democratic
Republic of Congo, 17/08/98.
A/53/18, para IIB4 (Decision); Decision 4 (54) on the Democratic Republic of Congo,
19/03/99 . A/54/18, para 21(4) (Decision); Decision 3(55) on the Democratic Republic of Congo, 25/8/99 . A/54/18, para 23(3) (Decision).
3 Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: Democratic Republic of
Congo 27/09/96. CERD/C/304/Add.18. (Concluding Observations/Comments).
4 African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Report of the African Commission’s Working Group on
Indigenous Peoples/Communities, Gambia, 14 May 2003, page 25.
5 Ibid, page 5.
7

5. In 2002, DRC promulgated a new Forest Code and has subsequently begun adopting a series of implementation laws. Furthermore, 103 forestry “concessions” (equivalent to 147,426 km
2
of forest, or an area the size of England and Wales) have been granted, despite a moratorium on forestry adopted in May 2002
6
. The 2002 Forest Code and the forestry concessions have been brought into effect without the participation of the affected indigenous communities (see Section
IV infra ). Additional implementation decrees continue to be adopted without the participation of indigenous peoples (see Section IV infra ). The 2002 Forest Code and implementing laws violate the rights of indigenous peoples to their lands, territories and resources, and are discriminatory as, inter alia , they fail to provide indigenous peoples with adequate access to justice and criminalize indigenous peoples’ subsistence rights and right to dispose of their natural wealth
(see Section IV infra ).
6. The State has been unresponsive to the efforts made by indigenous peoples to resolve questions surrounding their land, resource and other rights. These efforts have included: submitting a series of complaints to the DRC authorities and the World Bank, the latter of which is providing assistance to the State with regard to natural resources management issues including forestry (see Section III and Annex 7 infra ); submission of a formal request for an investigation by the World Bank’s Inspection Panel, which has since recognised the need for a thorough enquiry (see Annex 8 infra ); informing and sensitizing indigenous communities about the Forest
Code (in the absence of any similar activity by the authorities); and forming a coalition with several indigenous and international environmental and human rights organisations. As noted above, adequate and effective domestic remedies capable of addressing and resolving violations of indigenous peoples’ rights are unavailable as a matter of fact and law (see Section IV infra ).
7. Despite these complaints and other advocacy work, the State has not sought to meet with indigenous peoples’ representatives nor has it taken any action to address their concerns in relation to the impact of the 2002 Forest Code and forestry concessions on their rights.
Indigenous peoples in DRC are therefore rendered defenceless and are left with no alternative but to seek international oversight and assistance. There is an urgent and compelling need for such assistance as they face daily and severe harm to their livelihoods and cultural integrity and their ability to exercise and enjoy their rights. As the African Commission Working Group on
Indigenous Peoples/Communities has noted, the very survival of indigenous peoples in DRC is threatened (see Section III infra ). This request seeks such urgent assistance (see Section V for the specific measures requested).
II. Indigenous Peoples in DRC
8. Indigenous peoples in Central Africa were originally hunter-gatherers in the high altitude forests of the Great Lakes region. It is largely accepted that the hunter-gatherers living in the forest were the first inhabitants of DRC, who were later joined by migrating farmers and animalherders. There are four main groups of indigenous, so-called “Pygmy”, peoples in the vast
6 Ministère de l’Environnement et Ministère de Finances de la République démocratique du Congo, Communiqué de
Presse, No. 3519, 1/11/2005.
This Press Release by the DRC Ministries of the Environment and of Finance lists 141 existing forestry concessions as at 29 October 2005, of which at least 103 were granted since the May 2004 moratorium. See Annex 5.
8

territory of DRC: the Bambuti, Bacwa, Western Batwa , and Eastern Batwa . As there has never been a national demographic census, their total number is unknown; however, estimates of the indigenous population range from 270,000 to four million, which is approximately 0.4%-7% of the total population.
7
9. As the forests of Central Africa were cut down over the years by farmers and animal-herders, many indigenous peoples were forced to abandon their traditional way of life based on hunting and gathering. Some of them developed new livelihoods as potters, dancers and entertainers.
Others became dependant on occasional work, or resorted to begging in order to survive. As indigenous peoples lost their forest refuge, they started to experience increasing prejudice and discrimination from the dominant culture, which despises them for their “Pygmy” origins. For example, the Special Rapporteur has noted that indigenous peoples in DRC are “[o]ften viewed as an animal sub-species” and are “[h]ated and excluded by most of the Congolese population”.
8
10. The forest plays an essential part in ensuring the physical, cultural and spiritual well-being of indigenous peoples, who suffer extreme levels of poverty and ill-health without it. As the
African Commission Working Group notes:
The situation of the Batwa in the DRC is similar to that of the Batwa in Rwanda,
Burundi and Uganda - they live in extreme poverty…The Batwa believe that if they still lived in their forests, their lives would be better because they would be able to collect medicinal plants and practise their customs.
9
11. The physical, cultural, spiritual and economic security of indigenous peoples still living in the forests of DRC are under immediate threat from the dual pressures of conflict and forest zoning to greatly increase conservation and forest exploitation areas. According to a 2004 NGO report:
The pressures on Pygmy peoples’ lands, resources and societies will continue to increase. Civil conflict and population pressure in eastern DRC is causing largescale population migrations into the Ituri forest in the north-east, and an influx of farmers, cash-crop plantations, miners and large-scale bush meat traders, posing major threats to forest biodiversity and local peoples’ livelihoods. Destruction of forest resources, especially foods of high symbolic value such as honey and game, affects Pygmy peoples’ bargaining powers and leverage in traditional exchange systems, further unbalancing social relations with villagers.
10
7 The estimate of 270,000 is found in African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Report of the African
Commission’s Working Group on Indigenous Peoples/Communities , op. cit, page 6; while the estimate of 4,000,000 is found in ARD, Inc. Conflict Timber: Dimensions of the Problem in Asia and Africa, Volume III: African Cases –
Final Report Submitted to the United States Agency for International Development , Vermont, USA, page 17.
8 Interim report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of Congo, 26
September 2002, A/57/437, paragraph 66.
9 African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Report of the African Commission’s Working Group on
Indigenous Peoples/Communities, op. cit, page 37.
10 Jackson, D, Implementation of international commitments on traditional forest-related knowledge: Indigenous peoples’ experiences in Central Africa , op. cit, page 19.
9

III. The Human Rights Situation of Indigenous Peoples in DRC
1. Racial Discrimination against Indigenous Peoples in DRC
12. The human rights situation of indigenous peoples in Central Africa has reached the stage that their physical and cultural survival is severely threatened. The DRC is no different. The African
Commission’s Working Group on Indigenous Populations/Communities has recognised the pernicious effects racial discrimination and human rights violations have had on indigenous peoples:
Terms such as "underdeveloped", "backward", "primitive", and worse are regularly applied to some people and not others in different countries. Along with the negative stereotyping and discrimination comes dispossession of these peoples’ land and natural resources, which leads to impoverishment and threatens their cultures and survival as peoples. Lack of infrastructure, poor access to health services and appropriate education systems, exclusion from true participation in their own development and denial of their cultural and language rights further adds to their marginalisation and impoverishment.
Indigenous peoples suffer from particular human rights violations – to the extent that some groups are on the verge of extinction. While the degree of experience may differ from country to country, the situation is a cause for serious concern and it calls for intervention.
11
13. The African Commission’s Working Group also notes the multiple categories and perpetrators of human rights violations of indigenous peoples in DRC and the harmful effects of conflict on them: “In the DRC the Batwa are frequently subject to arbitrary arrests, physical attacks against their houses and property, beatings from forest wardens, the payment of heavy taxes and expropriation of their land. Many have been killed or tortured by armed groups in the conflict in the DRC.”
12
14. The Human Rights Committee has also observed that indigenous peoples in DRC are subject to racial discrimination, which transcends discrimination experienced by other groups, stating that it is “concerned about the marginalisation, discrimination and occasional persecution suffered by the countries’ numerous minorities, particularly the pygmies (article 27 of the
Covenant).”
13
15. Indigenous peoples in DRC have been disproportionately affected by the decades of armed conflict and civil war. The different warring factions have committed numerous gross violations of the human rights of indigenous peoples, including murder, summary execution, abduction,
11 African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Report of the African Commission’s Working Group on
Indigenous Peoples/Communities , op. cit, page 5.
12 Ibid, page 26.
13 Unofficial translation of Observations finales du Comité des droits de l’homme République Démocratique du
Congo (version non editée), CCPR/C/COD/CO/3, 27 mars 2006.
10

sexual violence, pillaging and cannibalism.
14
This disproportionate treatment and targeting of indigenous peoples is directly related to entrenched and pervasive racial discrimination.
Violence, for instance, is often tied to a belief on the part of the perpetrators that indigenous peoples, as inhabitants of the forest, have some sort of special powers. Rapists often justify rape with the claim that sexual relations with a “Pygmy” woman can cure back-ache.
15
2. Violations of the Land, Territory and Resource Rights of Indigenous Peoples in DRC
16. Disregarding its regional and international human rights obligations, DRC does not recognise or protect the rights of indigenous peoples to own, enjoy, control or use their communal lands, territories and resources; has not delimited or demarcated these lands and territories nor has it taken any other effective measure to guarantee and secure their rights to lands, territories and resources.
16
According to the Constitution all land belongs to the State, and the State acts on this
17 basis to the detriment of indigenous peoples.
17. The customary law of the dominant Bantu society in DRC, which does not recognise indigenous rights to lands, territories and resources, governs lands that have not already been divided into individual plots by the land registration service and those found within non-urban areas. Under Bantu customary law, tracts of land with fixed boundaries can belong to a chief or tribal lineage, and rights to these lands are cognizable before courts and tribunals. However, indigenous peoples, whose customary rights are not cognizable, can be dispossessed of their land without recourse. The methodology used to decide if land is occupied or unoccupied (thus, State property) – a process known as ‘ enquête de vacance ’ – does not recognise the traditional tenure systems of indigenous peoples. Thus indigenous peoples’ lands and territories are legally classified as unoccupied and can be allocated to others at will.
18
18. Indigenous customary land tenure systems in DRC do not recognise individual ownership of land, which is instead considered to be collectively owned. However, Congolese law does not recognise or respect the right of collective ownership of land. Furthermore, the process to obtain individual legal title to land is virtually inaccessible to indigenous peoples. Only a written demand can be made to the land distribution agencies in urban centres; the process can take as long as ten months and costs approximately US$400. This discriminates against the vast majority of indigenous peoples who are illiterate, live far from urban centres and live in abject poverty.
14 Jackson, D, Twa women, Twa rights, in the Great Lakes region of Africa , MRG, London, 2003; Lattimer, M,
‘Erasing the Board’: Report of the International research mission into crimes under international law committed against the Bambuti Pygmies in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo , MRG, London, 2004.
15 Jackson, D, Twa women, Twa rights, ibid, page 13.
16 See US State Department, Congo, Democratic Republic of : Country Reports on Human Rights Practices ,
Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, 8 March 2006, available at : http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61563.htm; Centre d’Accompagnement des Autochtones Pygmées et
Minoritaires Vulnérables, Echos des Pygmées , No.17, jan-mars 2005.
17 Constitution de la République démocratique du Congo , 18 February 2006, article 9.
18 Barume A K, Heading Towards Extinction? Indigenous rights in Africa: the case of the Twa of the Kahuzi-Biega
National Park, Democratic Republic of Congo , IWGIA and Forest Peoples Programme, 2003.
11

19. The failure to recognize and respect collective indigenous ownership of lands, territories and resources, based on traditional occupation and use and indigenous customary law, is discriminatory and violates the right to equality before the law. The Committee has consistently held that the Convention obliges States parties to recognise and respect the rights of indigenous peoples to own and peacefully use and enjoy their traditional lands and resources.
19
When doing so, the Committee often refers to General Recommendation XXIII, which calls upon State parties to recognize and protect the rights of indigenous peoples to own, develop, control and use their communal lands, territories and resources and, where they have been deprived of their lands and territories traditionally owned or otherwise inhabited or used without their free and informed consent, to take steps to return those lands and territories.
20
DRC does not conform to these immediate obligations, and discriminatory treatment of indigenous peoples is entrenched in
Congolese law and in practice.
(a) Commercial Resource Exploitation and Forest Zoning
20. Increased forestry exploitation by logging concessionaires is substantially exacerbating and intensifying the threat to indigenous peoples’ physical, cultural, spiritual and economic security, and has already resulted in further dispossession and irreparable harm to indigenous peoples.
Despite a forestry moratorium put in place in May 2002 and extended by a Presidential Decree of
November 2005, the State has admitted that logging has continued with at least 103 concessions having been issued, most of which are currently being exploited.
21
Congolese law makes no provisions for nor recognizes the right of indigenous peoples to be consulted about and participate in decisions that affect them. Forestry concessions are regularly granted without even informing communities, even if they live within the concession zone.
22
For example, the indigenous communities in areas such as Yeimbo and Banga in the eastern province of Equator were not informed prior to forestry concession operations that were implemented on their lands post-moratorium by SIFORCO (Société Industrielle et Forestière du Congo) or SEDAF (Société d’exploitation-développement agricole et forestier).
23
19 See, amongst others, Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: Sri
Lanka 14/09/2001; Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: Canada
23/08/2002; Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: Botswana
3/08/2002; Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: Costa Rica
20/03/2002; Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: Japan
27/04/2001; and Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: Colombia
20/08/99.
20 General Recommendation XXIII on Indigenous Peoples, 18 August 1997 , paragraph 5.
21 Ministère de l’Environnement et Ministère de Finances de la République démocratique du Congo, Communiqué de Presse, No. 3519, 1/11/2005, op. cit.
22 The map in Annex 4 indicates the location of existing logging concessions and protected areas in DRC, and where they overlap with indigenous communities.
23 Réseau des Associations Autochtones Pygmées (RAPY), en association avec MRG, Les Peuples Autochtones et l’exploitation forestière: Mission d’investigation sur l’impact de l’exploitation forestière sur les communautés autochtones et locales des provinces Orientale et de l’Équateur, République Démocratique du Congo : Témoignages recueillis auprès des communautés autochtones Pygmées et autres communautés locales pour transmettre au Panel d’inspection de la Banque mondiale , June 2006.
12

21. Moreover, the World Bank predicts a potential increase of 60% to 100% in logging in DRC.
World Bank documents refer to the “creation of a favourable climate for industrial logging”,
24
25 and that a region equivalent to 60 million hectares (i.e. an area bigger than France) is to be considered as “production forests”.
26
While the World Bank has agreed to fund reforms in the forestry and mining sectors,
27
indigenous peoples’ rights are not addressed in relation to those reforms and DRC presently has no effective legislative framework to regulate or control the environmental impact of forestry exploitation. Indigenous peoples’ organizations have filed a formal complaint seeking an investigation of the Government and World Bank’s activities with the World Bank’s Inspection Panel. Among others, this complaint alleges serious violations of
World Bank safeguard policies relating to indigenous peoples and environmental impact assessment.
22. The Inspection Panel’s preliminary report notes that the World Bank has recognised that it may have acted too quickly in its support on forestry sector reforms,”
28
The Inspection Panel also observed that the World Bank was not in full compliance with Operational Directive 4.20, its safeguard policy on indigenous peoples.
29
The World Bank recognised the importance of
“reaching out” to indigenous communities, but claims it did not do so because the “forest areas were still inaccessible”.
30
The Panel notes that the Bank recognises its failure to adequately consult with indigenous communities and that it needs to “establish more direct lines of communication with Pygmy leaders and communities.”
31
In response, the World Bank has committed to preparing an Indigenous Peoples Plan,
32
and confirmed that “consultation with local populations, especially indigenous peoples, must follow the principle of free, prior and informed consent.”
33
23. Following a visit to DRC in January 2006 to consider the eligibility of indigenous peoples’ formal complaint, the Inspection Panel announced that it will carry out a full investigation.
34
24 Rainforest Foundation UK, Briefing Paper: New threats to the forests and forest peoples of the Democratic
Republic of Congo, February 2004 citing the following reports: World Bank, Democratic Republic of Congo, Mission de Suivi Sectoriel, 17-27 April 2002; World Bank, Democratic Republic of Congo Mission de Suivi Sectoriel, 1-12
July, 2003; World Bank, Democratic Republic of Congo, Mission de Suivi Sectoriel, 17-27 April 2002.
Available at: http://www.rainforestfoundationuk.org.
25 Ibid, citing World Bank, Democratic Republic of Congo, Mission de Suivi Sectoriel, 1-12 July, 2003 .
26 Ibid.
27 World Bank, Democratic Republic of Congo: World Bank Approves US$90 million Budget Support Operation,
Press Release No. 2006/296/AFR , available at: http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/AFRICAEXT/CONGODEMOCRATICEXTN/0,,co ntentMDK:20750090~menuPK:349472~pagePK:141137~piPK:141127~theSitePK:349466,00.html.
28 The Inspection Panel, Report and Recommendation on Request for Inspection, Democratic Republic of Congo:
Transitional Support for Economic Recovery Credit Operation (TSERO) (IDA Grant No. H192-DRC) and
Emergency Economic and Social Reunification Support Project (EESRSP) (IDA Credit No. 3824-DRC and IDA
Grant No. H064-DRC), undated, (hereinafter ‘Inspection Panel report’), paragraph 47. See Annex 8.
29 Ibid, paragraphs 25 and 41.
30 Ibid, paragraph 48.
31 Ibid.
32 Ibid, paragraph 41.
33 Letter from Mr. John McIntire, Sector Director, Rural, Environmental and Social Development, African Region,
World Bank on “World Bank involvement in the forest sector of the Democratic Republic of Congo” to Mr. John
Buckrell, Global Witness, 4 April 2006, see Annex 7.
34 Inspection Panel report , op. cit, paragraph 66.
13

Unfortunately this will not take place until October 2006, and a final decision by the Inspection
Panel may not be available for many months after this date. As the Panel’s jurisdiction only extends to the World Bank, urgent action is still required to address the State’s acts and omissions that have led to the situation of immediate and irreparable harm against indigenous peoples in DRC.
24. Without regard for indigenous peoples’ rights, including to prior consultation and consent, the
2002 Forest Code determines how the forests of DRC will be zoned.
35
At least 40% of the forest will be allocated to commercial exploitation (known as “permanent production” forests) and 15% to conservation (known as “classified” forests). Although referred to as “protected” forests in the
2002 Forest Code, the remaining forest will also be subject to concessions; however the percentage of Congolese forest, if any, that will be regularised as indigenous-owned remains unknown and is not presently being considered.
36
The State retains ownership of all forestry land, with limited resource ownership rights allocated to concessionaires, and there are little or no use rights recognized for indigenous peoples in all zones (see Section III and Section IV infra ).
25. The State’s bias in favour of commercial forestry exploitation takes no account of customary indigenous property and use rights, and there was no consultation with or participation by indigenous peoples in pilot zoning projects carried out with the assistance of the World Bank and the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). This was confirmed in the Inspection Panel preliminary report, which notes that “OD 4.20 should have been triggered during project preparation”, yet was not addressed even though the World Bank has conceded that indigenous communities live in areas affected by their activities.
37
26. According to the World Bank, the DRC zoning plans could affect at least 300,000 indigenous people and 35 million people in total who live in the forest or rely on them for their survival.
38
Indigenous peoples have been ignored to date and their rights have been disregarded. For those few indigenous peoples that have not yet been forcibly displaced the implementation of the new system of forestry concessions for commercial purposes will result in irreversible damage to the forests on which they depend for their physical, cultural and spiritual sustenance and survival as distinct peoples.
39
For those already displaced, further destruction of the forest will cause irreparable harm to their right to seek restitution of their lands and undoubtedly cause them additional material and immaterial harm.
(b) Indigenous Peoples have become ‘conservation refugees’ in DRC
27. The term ‘conservation refugees’ was developed to describe the massive and debilitating impact of conservation activities on indigenous peoples in Central Africa, such as the
35 Loi 011/2002 du 29 Août 2002 Portant Code Forestier (Law 011/2002 of 29 August 2002, Forest Code) .
All translations of the 2002 Forestry Code and implementation regulations are unofficial translations by the authors.
Excerpts from the relevant provisions in the original French can be found in Annex 2.
36 Forest Peoples Programme et Reseau des Associations Autochtones Pygmée, Guide pour la comprehension du
Code forestier à l’usage des populations locales et du peuple autochtone ‘Pygmee’ , juin 2004, page 10.
37 Inspection Panel Report , op. cit, paragraph 41.
38 Jackson, D, Implementation of international commitments on traditional forest-related knowledge: Indigenous peoples’ experiences in Central Africa, op. cit. page 44.
39 Inspection Panel report, op. cit, paragraph 12.
14

establishment of national parks, which “puts the rights of nature before the rights of people”
40 and which has resulted in the forcible dispossession and displacement of indigenous peoples. In
DRC, as elsewhere in the region, following massive expropriations of traditional indigenous lands and forests and their expulsion from these areas by the State for agro-industry and for conservation purposes many indigenous peoples became landless squatters living on the edge of society. In order to survive, many have been forced to take up farming the lands of others pursuant to sharecropping arrangements that are functionally equivalent to bonded labour.
Despite losing their traditional lands and resources, indigenous peoples have not received any compensation or other reparation for their losses and the vast majority today are denied any access to their traditional lands that have been incorporated into national parks.
41
Indeed, it is not uncommon for indigenous people to report that they have been shot at or branded ‘poachers’ and harassed or worse should they try to access their traditional forest lands.
28. For example, during the 1960s and 1970s, without prior consultation with or the consent of indigenous peoples, hundreds of indigenous families were expelled from the Kahuzi-Biega forest in eastern DRC to make way for a nature conservation area for lowland gorillas. To this day, they have been denied access to the area, have not been involved in park management, and have been denied any share of benefits. Furthermore, they have not been recompensed for the loss of their traditional lands and resources or restrictions on access to the park, and their cultural integrity and well-being has been substantially harmed.
42
While this occurred prior to DRC’s accession to ICERD, the effects and consequences, which amount to violations of the Convention for which the DRC is internationally responsible, are ongoing and continuous.
29. Indigenous peoples expelled from Kahuzi-Biega receive no benefits from the national park.
Some Batwa are employed as trackers, and others are temporarily employed for work such as road-building, yet there is no comprehensive plan to address the issue of indigenous peoples’ rights.
43
Indigenous territories expropriated to create the Kahuzi-Biega National Park became
State land that cannot be used for private use, denying indigenous peoples their right to practise their traditional way of life and culture and unilaterally extinguishing their property rights. The indigenous peoples expelled from the Park consider it to be their territory since time immemorial.
They maintain strong psychological, spiritual and cultural links with the forest, dispute the expropriation of their lands to create protected areas and forest concessions, and lament their loss even today. Nevertheless, the Park authorities refuse to let them enter.
44
40 Dowie, M, Conservation Refugees: When protecting nature means kicking people out in Orion Magazine ,
Nov/Dec 2005, available online at: http://www.oriononline.org/pages/om/05-6om/Dowie.html.
41 See Lewis, J, The Batwa Pygmies of the Great Lakes Region , MRG, London, 2000; Lewis, J. and Knight, J., The
Batwa of Rwanda: Assessment of the Situation of the Batwa and Promotion of Batwa Rights in Post-War Rwanda,
WRM and IWGIA, Copenhagen, 1995; Woodburn, J, Indigenous discrimination: the ideological basis for local discrimination against hunter-gatherer minorities in sub-Saharan Africa , in Ethnic and Racial Studies, Vol.20, No.2,
1997, pp.345-361; Jackson, D, Twa women, Twa rights , op. cit; Nelson, J. and Hossack, L. (Eds), Indigenous peoples and protected areas in Africa: From principles to practice , op. cit; African Commission on Human and Peoples’
Rights, Report of the African Commission’s Working Group on indigenous peoples/communities , op. cit.
42 Barume A K, Heading Towards Extinction? Indigenous rights in Africa: the case of the Twa of the Kahuzi-Biega
National Park, Democratic Republic of Congo , op. cit; Nelson, J. and Hossack, L. (Editors), Indigenous Peoples and
Protected Areas in Africa: From Principles to Practice , op. cit.
43 Ibid.
44 Ibid.
15

30. The African Commission’s Working Group on Indigenous Peoples/Communities has noted the relationship between discrimination against indigenous peoples in DRC, expropriations of their land, and resulting poverty and marginalisation: “The Batwa who have been driven out of their forests have become the poorest of the poor, marginalized from society and suffering the same discrimination as the Batwa in Rwanda and Burundi. They are considered immoral, dirty, deceitful and uncivilised and Batwa children are considered to be good for nothing.”
45
31. The African Commission’s Working Group also observes that expropriation of indigenous lands and territories still continues today as a result of racial discrimination in DRC, and that indigenous peoples are denied access to justice to redress these wrongs:
The Batwa who were driven out of the Kahuzi–Biega forests are now extremely poor, even destitute. Most have no property, and it is very difficult for them to obtain their basic needs. To survive, some have learned from other non-Batwa how to make charcoal from wood to sell and this gives them around $10 every fortnight.
Others who have plots of land try to cultivate them as best they can with potato and vegetables but, given that they are not used to farming, and that the rains have been extremely irregular in recent times, their situation remains one of extreme poverty.
The Batwa in the North of the Kahuzi-Biega Park have settled on plots of land but these land ( sic) , officially unoccupied, may be allocated to someone else by the local authorities. The Batwa have no legal protection once neighbours from other ethnic groups decide to take their land or drive them out of their villages.
46
32. Despite continual conflict, land expropriation and resource exploitation that surrounds them, several indigenous communities in DRC have managed to retain their hunter-gatherer forestbased economy and culture with varying degrees of success. In North Kivu and the Ituri regions there are still traditional exchange relationships between forest-based indigenous peoples and the neighbouring agriculturalist Bantu communities. These indigenous people can find work with the farmers, but they retain a degree of independence and can return to the forest. The indigenous peoples who have managed to maintain their traditional forest-based way of life have avoided the same level of racial discrimination and deprivation that afflicts those who have been forced out of the forest. They are nevertheless facing the same fate in light of forest zoning plans that, without any regard for their rights, will substantially increase protected areas and commercial forest exploitation pursuant to the 2002 Forest Code.
IV. The 2002 Forest Code and Implementation Regulations
33. The Committee has affirmed on numerous occasions that the Convention applies to indigenous peoples and requires recognition of and respect for indigenous land and resource rights and rights to participate in and consent to activities that may affect their rights.
47
It has also
45 African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Report of the African Commission’s Working Group on indigenous peoples/communities , op. cit, page 23.
46 Ibid, pages 12-13.
47 General Recommendation XXIV on Article 1 , para. 1; General Recommendation XXIII on Indigenous Peoples
(1997) , op cit, para. 1 and; Decision 2(54) on Australia, para. 4 – “the land rights of indigenous peoples are unique and encompass a traditional and cultural identification of the indigenous peoples with their land that has been generally recognized.”
16

emphasized “that discrimination against indigenous peoples falls under the scope of the
Convention and all appropriate means must be taken to combat and eliminate such discrimination” against indigenous peoples.
48
The Committee has also urged State parties to
“[e]nsure that indigenous and tribal peoples are granted the right of appeal to the courts, or any independent body specially created for that purpose, in order to uphold their traditional rights and their right to be consulted before concessions are granted and to be fairly compensated for any damage.”
49
34. Despite the State’s obligations under ICERD, the 2002 Forest Code, its implementing regulations and pursuant forest zoning and commercial exploitation violate indigenous peoples’ rights to equality and non-discrimination and present an immediate threat to their lives and livelihoods in DRC. Further, the forestry legislation criminalizes indigenous peoples’ rights and violates their rights to justice. Additionally, the rights of indigenous peoples to prior and meaningful consultation about, participation in and informed consent to activities on their lands and their rights to own and enjoy their lands, territories and resources are routinely violated in law and in fact. These rights are fundamental to the physical and cultural survival of indigenous people, whose existence is under immediate threat from the forestry-related legislation discussed herein.
1. The Forestry Legislation Discriminates against Indigenous Peoples in DRC, Violates their Rights to Justice and Criminalizes their Land and Resource Rights.
35. The 2002 Forest Code is discriminatory on its face as it fails to recognise the existence of indigenous peoples and protect their rights. There is no specific reference anywhere in the Forest
Code to indigenous peoples, and the failure by the State to specifically recognise indigenous peoples, their land and property rights, their traditional land tenure systems and traditional lifestyles present an immediate threat that the State will continue to repeat and intensify the pattern of exclusion that previously resulted in the unilateral and uncompensated expropriation of indigenous peoples’ traditional lands for conservation and forestry exploitation, as discussed in
Section III ante .
36. The forestry legislation fails to recognise and respect indigenous peoples’ distinct forms of socio-cultural and political organization and forces them to adopt alien organizational structures in order to obtain title to their lands. For example, the community forest decree requires that
“[e]very community wishing to manage a community forest will hold a consultation meeting bringing together all the members of the community concerned, under the authority of the invested chief, in order to designate who is responsible for management and to define the objectives and limits of said forest.”
50
Additionally, the community forest information sheet
48 General Recommendation XXIII on Indigenous Peoples (1997) , ibid.
49 Decision 1(67) on Suriname , UN Doc CERD/C/DEC/SUR/2, 18 August 2005 (unedited version), para 4.
50 Décret No.../...Du...Fixant Modalités d’Attribution des Forets aux Communautés Locales , undated, distributed by email faonpp@micronet.cd to civil society focal points on 10/2/2006 for comment by 21/2/200. Current status unknown, article 4. All translations of the 2002 Forestry Code and implementation regulations are unofficial translations by the authors. Excerpts from the relevant provisions in the original French can be found in Annex 2.
17

insinuates that title will be vested in either the “chief” (Article 1) or the person “responsible for management” (Article 2), or both.
51
37. These regulations fail to recognise that indigenous peoples in DRC do not traditionally organize socially or politically in the same manner as dominant Bantu society, and do not have a designated ‘chief’ chosen from amongst their community who is regarded as the actual and/or totemic head of the clan or community. Instead, indigenous peoples organise collectively and adopt decisions pertaining to their traditional lands, territories and resources communally. The obligation of the forestry legislation to organise under the authority of a designated chief and invest title in that person discriminates against indigenous peoples’ traditional forms of organisation. In practice, indigenous communities are often deemed to ‘belong’ to a neighbouring Bantu who designates himself – and becomes known as – their ‘chief’. Therefore the forestry legislation also exposes indigenous peoples to the threat of continuing the pattern of domination and coercion by neighbouring Bantu who falsely claim to represent indigenous peoples and their interests.
38. The community forests decree further discriminates against indigenous peoples, for whom the obligatory registration requirements are unattainable due to their extreme poverty and marginalisation. For example, prior to obtaining title to their forest, indigenous peoples must organise and hold a meeting comprising all the members of the community concerned.
52
However, with no provision in the law for the State to provide indigenous peoples with financial or other assistance to organise this meeting, the process is inaccessible given their wide dispersal and their lack of resources to access transportation and communication. No other provision is made in the forestry legislation to accommodate indigenous peoples’ specific needs in relation to registration of property rights.
39. The provisions governing use rights in the forestry legislation discriminate against indigenous peoples and violate indigenous peoples’ rights to a secure means of subsistence and to freely dispose of their natural wealth. For example, while the Forest Code states that local communities
“living in or beside a concession” have use rights for “domestic” purposes only (even if it is their own concession), it permits agriculture to be practiced in the same area.
53
With no specification to the contrary, the implication is that commercial agriculture can be practised in these forests, while commercial use of forest resources is prohibited. Banning indigenous peoples from exercising their right to sell their forest resources (for example, to supplement household incomes or provide funding for healthcare) constitutes a direct threat to their physical and socioeconomic well-being.
40. There are several instances where the forestry legislation violates indigenous peoples’ rights to judicial remedies and protection and to due process of the law. For example, there is no judicial procedure for appeal or recourse against the Environment Minister’s decision to adopt a gazetting plan or grant a forestry concession on indigenous peoples’ traditional lands and
51 Fiche de Renseignements Pour l’Octroi d’un Permis d’Attribution a Titre Gracieux d’une Concession Forestière a la Communauté Locale , undated, distributed by email faonpp@micronet.cd to civil society focal points on
10/2/2006 for comment by 21/2/200. Current status unknown.
52 Décret No.../...Du...Fixant Modalités d’Attribution des Forets aux Communautés Locales , op cit, articles 3 and 4.
53 Loi 011/2002 Portant Code Forestier , op. cit, article 42.
18

territories.
54
The situation is even graver in light of the fact that the Environment Minister can disregard the findings of public consultations during his deliberations on gazetting plans,
55
or grant concessions by circumventing the normal consultation procedures.
56
There is similarly no appeal procedure for indigenous peoples against forestry concession management plans which may violate their rights, and the forestry legislation fails to provide indigenous peoples with any judicial recourse against concessionaires who breach the terms of their management plans.
Therefore, even where in law and in fact indigenous peoples are able to participate in public consultations, and make their concerns or opposition known, their input can be completely ignored by the State, and they are without any recourse or access to effective judicial or administrative remedies. The failure by the State to ensure access to justice for indigenous peoples presents an immediate risk of further alienation of indigenous peoples’ lands and prevents indigenous peoples from mitigating the immediate and irreparable harm caused by expropriations of their traditional lands, territories and resources.
41. The forestry legislation further discriminates against indigenous peoples by criminalizing their subsistence rights and rights to freely dispose of their natural wealth. For example, the penalty for exercising use rights in a gazetted forest in breach of forestry legislation is imprisonment for a period of two months to one year and/or a 10,000 to 50,000 Franc fine
(US$23-115).
57
Additionally, the penalty for exercising use rights in a “protected” forest in breach of the Code is imprisonment for a period of one month to one year and/or a 5,000 to
25,000 Franc fine (US$11.5-57.5).
58
As indicated in Section IV.3 infra , use rights in gazetted and “protected” forests are extremely limited and fail to recognise or respect indigenous peoples’ rights: they do not recognise hunting as a legitimate activity; and prohibit any use other than for domestic purposes only. A prohibition on indigenous peoples exercising their subsistence rights and freely disposing of their natural wealth poses a grave threat to their cultural and physical survival.
2. The Forestry Legislation Violates the Right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent of
Indigenous Peoples in DRC
42. Indigenous peoples’ right to give or withhold their free, prior and informed consent to activities that may affect their rights is recognised in a range of international and regional human rights instruments, including ICERD. The Committee has noted that states are required to
“ensure that members of indigenous peoples have equal rights in respect of effective participation in public life, and that no decisions directly relating to their rights and interests are taken without
54 Décret No... du... Fixant La Procédure De Classement et de Déclassement des Forets , undated, circulated to DRC
NGO Focal Points by Geert Diemer, Consultant Politique et Institutionel, on behalf of the FNPP team, 18/11/2005 for comment by 29/11/205. Present status of decree unknown.
55 Ibid, article 14. The Minister is merely asked to explain his decision if he makes one contrary to the consultation transcript.
56 Décret fixant la procédure d'attribution des concessions forestières , article 36 which states that the Environment
Minister can “exceptionally grant a forest concession by mutual agreement [with a concessionaire]: (1) when the forestry exploitation or wood conversion industry project uses an ultra-modern exploitation material or technology with little impact on the environment; (2) for the purposes of forestry research or bioprospection.”
57 Loi 01/22 Portant Code Forestier , op. cit, article 150.
58 Ibid, article 151.
19

their informed consent.”
59
The Committee has also recognised indigenous peoples’ rights to
“effective participation…in decisions affecting their land rights, as required under article 5(c) of the Convention and General Recommendation XXIII of the Committee, which stresses the importance of ensuring the ‘informed consent’ of indigenous peoples.”
60
43. In violation of indigenous peoples’ rights, the 2002 Forest Code contains no requirements that indigenous peoples be meaningfully consulted about or participate in decision making or give their free, prior and informed consent to activities on their traditionally owned lands and territories, particularly with regard to forest zoning and management plans, gazetting and commercial forestry concessions. In fact, there is no such requirement in any other law in force in
DRC. The Code’s implementing regulations also contain multiple examples of the State’s failure to respect indigenous peoples’ rights to participate in decision-making and to give their free, prior and informed consent to activities on their traditional lands and territories.
These failures give rise to the immediate and urgent risk of further alienation of indigenous lands and substantially prejudice the possibility of recovery of lands previously alienated.
44. These specific failures include, but are not limited, to:
ƒ
Failure to consult with and ensure the participation of indigenous peoples in the elaboration of the forestry legislation and subsequent implementation.
Despite assurances by the State that there would be active participation by local communities and NGOs in forestry sector reforms,
61
to date there has been virtually no public consultation and public knowledge about the Forest Code and its implementation laws is severely limited.
62
In fact, there is no provision anywhere in the forestry legislation for indigenous representation on any of the committees at the provincial or national level that will approve and oversee activities relating to forestry gazetting, concession title conversion or granting of new forestry concessions, and concession management plans; no obligation that these committees directly consult with affected indigenous communities in a timely and appropriate manner; and no assistance to enable indigenous communities to independently contact these bodies.
63
Congolese civil society and indigenous organisations have expressed their deep
59 General Recommendation XXIII on Indigenous Peoples (1997), op. cit, para. 4(d).
60 Concluding Observations by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: Australia 24/03/2000 , para 9.
61 See, for example, République démocratique du Congo, Ministère de l’Environnement, Conservation de la Nature,
Eaux et Forets, Forum des Nations Unies sur les Forets, Rapport National 2004 , 13 janvier 2004, Point A.2 (page 9),
Point A.3 (page 11).
62 See Annex 3 for a copy of a letter from Congolese civil society and indigenous organisations to the Congolese
Minister for the Environment, Water and Forests, the Representative of the World Bank and the Representative of the FAO, on The Future of the Forests in the Democratic Republic of Congo and the people living within these forests, Kinshasa, 12/02/2004, available at: http://www.rainforestuk.org.
63 See, for example, Arrete Ministeriel No…du…Portant Composition, Organisation et Fionctionnement des
Conseils Consultatifs Provinciaux des Forets , undated, distributed by email address faonpp@micronet.cd to civil society focal points on 18/11/2005 for comment by 29/11/2005, current status unknown; Arrete Ministeriel
No…du…Portant Composition, Organisation et Fionctionnement du Conseil Consultatif Nationale des Forets , undated, distributed by email address faonpp@micronet.cd to civil society focal points on 18/11/2005 for comment by 29/11/2005, current status unknown; Arrete Ministeriel No...Du...Fixant la Procedure d’Elaboration, d’Approbation et de Contrôle de la Mise en Œuvre des Plans d’Amenagement Forestier , undated, copy seen by civil
20

concern at their exclusion from the decree elaboration process on several occasions.
64
The
World Bank has also said it is “concerned with the Government’s capacity to develop and enforce the implementing regulations and states that many of these regulations are still lacking.”
65
ƒ Failure to ensure indigenous peoples participate in the procedure to convert forestry titles into new concessions, post the 2002 Forest Code.
The recently operationalized Presidential decree on converting forestry concessions states that titles granted prior to the adoption of the 2002 Forest Code must be “converted” into new titles otherwise the forest will revert back to State ownership.
66
This legislation constitutes an urgent and immediate threat to indigenous peoples’ rights. There is insufficient obligation in the law on the State to carry out full and thorough consultations with indigenous peoples to ensure their informed participation and to establish their customary property and use rights and delimit and demarcate their lands and territories, and there has been no known consultation with and participation by indigenous communities prior to the list of conversion requests being published by the State,
67
despite assurances by the World Bank that consultations with indigenous peoples should follow the principles of free, prior and informed consent.
68
The failure by the State to ensure a transparent, participatory decision-making process involving indigenous peoples means that forestry concessions will continue to be granted on indigenous lands and territories, thus perpetuating the systematic and pervasive eradication of indigenous peoples’ rights, livelihoods and existence.
ƒ
Failure to ensure sufficient participation by indigenous peoples prior to gazetting forests.
The forest gazetting decree contains no obligation on the State to ensure that appropriate methodology and techniques will be used to enable indigenous peoples’ full and effective participation in public consultation meetings, including financial assistance to travel to society in August 2005, current status unknown, draft elaborated by technical committee led by WWF, see Liste
Harmonisée des Textes d’Application de la Loi Forestière (Référence document: FNPP/DRC – Doc002/2005) .
Any provisions in the forestry legislation that foresee representation by a member of the “local community” in such committees fail to recognise that without specific provisions for indigenous representation it is highly unlikely that indigenous people will be represented by other community representatives due to discrimination and their extreme social exclusion and marginalisation.
64 See Annex 3 for the letter from Congolese civil society and indigenous organisations to the Congolese Minister for the Environment, Water and Forests, the Representative of the World Bank and the Representative of the FAO, on The Future of the Forests in the Democratic Republic of Congo and the people living within these forests .
65 Inspection Panel report , op. cit, paragraph 43.
66 Décret No. 05/116 du 24 Octobre 2005 Fixant les Modalités de Conversion de Concession Forestière et Portant
Extension du Moratoire en Matière d’Octroi des Titres d’Exploitation Forestière .
67 By February 2006, 73 title-holders requesting 235 concession conversions had been registered. See République démocratique du Congo, Ministere de l’Environnement, Conservation de la Nature, Eaux et Forets, Communiqué
Officiel No. 001/CAB/MIN/ECN-EF/2006, 02/02/2006, and see Annex 6 for the list of requests.
68 Letter from Mr. John McIntire, Sector Director, Rural, Environmental and Social Development, African Region,
World Bank on “World Bank involvement in the forest sector of the Democratic Republic of Congo” to Mr. John
Buckrell, Global Witness, 4 April 2006, op. cit. The World Bank is supporting the DRC in the forestry concession title conversion project, as evidenced by the attached Terms of Reference to Mr. McIntire’s letter (Annex 7).
21

meeting locations, which are all to be held in administrative centres.
69
Furthermore, there is no obligation for prior participation by indigenous peoples in the elaboration of the report around which public consultations are based, instead they are asked to comment post hoc on plans that already include delimitations of the area to be gazetted and land use proposals.
70
The public consultation period only lasts between two to six months, which is completely insufficient to guarantee proper consultation with and participation by affected indigenous peoples. There is no guarantee giving indigenous peoples access or consent to the gazette plan or consultation report post consultation to verify its authenticity (including whether their inputs have been incorporated).
71
The failure by the State to ensure a transparent, participatory process for indigenous peoples during the gazetting procedure, or requiring the consent of indigenous peoples to activities on their traditional lands and territories, risks further repetition of the forcible dispossession and displacement of indigenous peoples following expropriations of their lands (as described in Section III ante ), and presents an immediate and urgent threat to their physical, cultural, spiritual and economic wellbeing.
ƒ
Failure to ensure sufficient participation by indigenous peoples prior to granting new forestry concessions.
The methodology, procedure and techniques proposed for the public enquiry preceding new concession granting all fail to acknowledge the complexity and technical nature of the questions on which indigenous communities will be asked to give their opinions, and make no provision for specific assistance to support the meaningful participation of indigenous peoples.
72
There is no obligation that indigenous peoples’ consent will be sought sufficiently in advance of any final authorisation of the concession, nor that indigenous peoples will be given sufficient time to fully understand the information received, request clarification if necessary, seek advice and determine or negotiate conditions in a fair and transparent manner.
The failure by the State to ensure adequate consultation with and consent of indigenous peoples prior to granting new forestry concessions gives rise to the immediate and urgent risk of further alienation of indigenous peoples’ lands and territories for commercial exploitation purposes.
ƒ
Failure to ensure sufficient participation by indigenous peoples when elaborating, implementing, monitoring and evaluating forestry concession management plans.
There is no requirement in the management plan decree for indigenous participation or consultation at any stage of the elaboration, adoption, monitoring or evaluation of a forestry concession management plan, or in the elaboration of documentation upon which the plan is based, including the forest inventory, mapping, socio-economic data and survey of main human activities in the area concerned.
73
Furthermore, there is no appropriate procedure
69 Décret N... du... Fixant La Procédure De Classement et de Déclassement des Forets , op cit, article 6.
70 Ibid, article 3.
71 Ibid, articles 6 and 10.
72 Arrêté Ministériel No...Du...Fixant la Procédure d’Enquête Publique et de Consultation Préalable a l’Octroi des
Concessions Forestières , op cit.
73 Arrête Ministériel No...Du...Fixant la Procédure d’Elaboration, d’Approbation et de Contrôle de la Mise en
Œuvre des Plans d’Aménagement Forestier , op cit, articles 8 and 21.
22

outlined in the decree to ensure that indigenous peoples whose traditional lands, territories and resources have become subject to a management plan are informed about the decision.
3. The Forestry Legislation Violates the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to their Lands,
Territories and Resources.
45. Article 33 of the Forest Code clearly indicates the State’s desire to prioritise commercial and conservation use of the Congolese forest over community forests when it states that “in order to promote the rational and sustainable use of forests, the minister …will take the necessary measures to implement programmes that favour the development of forestry research.” Article
34 goes on to define forestry research as including “management, conservation, exploitation…forestry, and the commercialisation of forestry products.” The definition makes no reference to community forests and indigenous peoples’ rights and interests.
46. The forestry legislation contains numerous examples of the States failure to respect and protect indigenous peoples’ right to own, occupy, use and enjoy their traditional lands, territories and resources. These failures give rise to the immediate and urgent risk of further alienation of indigenous lands and substantially prejudice the possibility of recovery of lands previously alienated. They include, but are not limited, to:
ƒ
Failure to recognise indigenous ownership of their lands, territories and resources, rights to collective title and traditional land tenure systems.
Coupled with substantial and highly prejudicial resource exploitation operations, the failure to recognize and guarantee indigenous peoples’ rights has lead to gross violations of indigenous peoples’ human rights, undermining their means of subsistence and severely compromising their physical, cultural and economic integrity (see Section III ante ). The Forest Code perpetuates this failure by reiterating the States’ exclusive ownership of the forest domain, stating that the “forests constitute the property of the State”
74
, that “classified forests form part of the public State domain”,
75
and that “[p]rotected forests form part of the private domain of the State.”
76
Forestry concessions only grant rights over forestry products “to the exclusion of any right whatsoever on the land”,
77
while the community forests decree states that “[t]he forester will conduct himself in the forest concession attributed to him as a forester and not as the owner.”
78
Without adequate recognition in law of indigenous peoples’ rights to their traditional lands, resources and territories and measures designed to regularise and secure these rights in fact, there is an urgent risk of immediate and irreparable harm to indigenous peoples.
The forestry legislation denies indigenous peoples and their communities legal personality by requiring that community forest title will be vested in only one person (see paragraphs 36-37 ante ). Additionally, the forestry gazetting decree states that public consultations will be
74 Loi 011/2002 Portant Code Forestier , op. cit, article 7.
75 Ibid, article 12.
76 Ibid, article 20.
77 Ibid, article 21.
78 Décret No.../...Du...Fixant Modalités d’Attribution des Forets aux Communautés Locales , op. cit, article 3.
23

based on a report containing “the most recent map of scale 1/200,000 showing the precise limits of the proposed gazetted area and the perimeters of titles included in these limits.”
79
This provision fails to recognise that indigenous peoples hold collective customary title rather than registered title to their lands and territories, and that Bantu customary law does not recognise indigenous rights to lands (see Section III ante ). This denial of legal personality and failure to sufficiently identify and delimit indigenous lands in the forestry concession procedures poses an immediate threat of further alienation of indigenous lands and territories.
There is no provision anywhere in the forestry legislation to ensure that detailed research is carried out on existing land ownership, occupation and use prior to forest zoning, gazetting, and granting concessions.
80
The methodology of ‘ enquête de vacance ’ used to decide if land is occupied or unoccupied (thus, State property) does not recognise the traditional tenure systems of indigenous peoples. Indigenous peoples’ lands and territories are therefore legally classified as unoccupied and can be allocated to others at will. This failure has led in the past to State expropriation of indigenous lands and territories (see Section III ante ). The failure by the current forestry legislation to sufficiently identify existing land use and rights presents an immediate threat of further alienation of indigenous peoples’ lands and substantially prejudices the possibility of recovery of lands previously alienated.
ƒ
Failure to delimit, demarcate and title indigenous peoples’ lands and territories.
The State has to date failed to delimit, demarcate and title indigenous peoples’ lands and territories in order to provide certainty and clarity about the extent and boundaries of those lands and territories and has therefore failed to guarantee security of tenure to indigenous peoples. Addressing these issues is also not contemplated in the forestry legislation or any other law. Explanatory materials supplementing the legislation also provide that community forests cannot exceed an area of 5,000 hectares.
81
Imposing this limitation prior to the identification of indigenous lands presents a certain threat of reducing indigenous peoples’ land base and severely curtailing their traditional lifestyle and cultural survival.
ƒ Failure to respect and protect indigenous peoples’ use rights, cultural rights and rights to their resources.
Use and access rights to a forest once it has been gazetted are severely limited by the forestry legislation. In violation of indigenous peoples’ land and subsistence rights, and rights to freely dispose of their natural wealth, the Forest Code prohibits the creation of any community forests in gazetted forests, and prohibits all use rights in national parks, nature reserves and botanic gardens. The legislation also criminalizes any commercial exploitation of “classified” forests. This failure by the State to recognise and respect indigenous peoples’ customary rights in protected areas presents the same risks of persistent gross violations of
79 Ibid.
80 See, for example, Décret No... du... Fixant La Procédure De Classement et de Déclassement des Forets , op cit, article 3.
81 Fiche de Renseignements Pour l’Octroi d’un Permis d’Attribution a Titre Gracieux d’une Concession Forestière a la Communauté Locale , op. cit.
24

rights as seen in the expropriation of their lands to create conservation zones such as the
Kahuzi-Biega National Park (see Section III ante ).
Article 39 of the Forest Code declares that use rights in classified forests are limited to
“gathering dead wood and straw…gathering fruits and plants for food or medicinal purposes…gathering gum, resin or honey…gathering caterpillars, snails or frogs…taking wood for housing and for artisanal use.”
82
This very specific list fails to permit gathering of many other forest products and resources on which indigenous peoples rely for their subsistence, fails to recognise the traditional indigenous practise of hunting, and fails to recognise other traditional and customary uses by indigenous peoples of their lands, including sacred sites and burial grounds.
Indigenous peoples’ rights to their resources are additionally violated by further provisions in the Forest Code on use rights in forestry concessions. Article 44 states that “[r]esident populations in a forestry concession may continue to exercise their traditional use rights in the concession as long as this is compatible with forestry exploitation ” (author highlight).
83
As highlighted in paragraph 45 ante , the State has already expressed its preference for commercial logging and conservation forestry, rather than community use. In the absence of an express provision to ensure protection of indigenous peoples’ livelihoods and resource rights, and based on past experience, it is highly certain that priority will be given to forestry exploitation over traditional use rights if a conflict arises between the two.
V. Conclusion and Request
47. The rights of indigenous peoples in DRC to practice, enjoy and maintain their culture, to be secure in their means of subsistence, to freely dispose of their natural wealth, to property and to participate in and consent to decisions and activities affecting them are neither recognized nor respected at present. This is especially the case for rights to lands, territories and resources.
Indigenous culture and identity are fundamentally tied to their relationship with their ancestral lands, territories and resources. Without strong, effective and enforceable rights to these lands, territories and resources, their cultural integrity is seriously undermined and threatened.
48. International standards state that indigenous peoples have the collective right to own, use and peacefully enjoy their traditional lands, territories and resources, to freely dispose of their natural resources and to be secure in their means of subsistence. States have a corresponding duty to recognize these rights by, among others, titling, demarcating and ensuring the integrity of these lands and territories. In DRC, this has not been done and these rights are routinely violated both by act and omission. In the case of the former, by promulgating the 2002 Forest Code and implementation regulations, and issuing concessions to logging companies who operate on indigenous lands with impunity and destroy vital subsistence resources; by converting indigenous lands into protected areas without their consent, and; by granting indigenous lands to others. In the latter, by failing to title, demarcate and guarantee indigenous land rights. The 2006
Constitution and 2002 Forest Code explicitly states that all resources belong to the State, which
82 Loi 011/2002 Portant Code Forestier , op. cit, article 39.
83 Ibid, article 44.
25

has the inalienable right to exploit those resources without also providing concomitant guarantees protecting indigenous peoples rights.
49. Subsistence and other use rights (hunting, gathering, cultural practices) are particularly vulnerable in gazetted forests and forestry concessions. Subsistence and use rights are further diminished by the forestry legislation, and the ongoing denial of access to protected areas that were created on expropriated indigenous lands and territories.
50. Neither the 2002 Forest Code nor its implementing decrees, nor existing zoning plans for forests in DRC take into account indigenous governmental institutions and legal systems, nor is either of these otherwise formally recognized in Congolese law. These institutions also have no formal say over or input in deciding the nature and extent of development activities in their territories and activities classified as development frequently have detrimental effects.
51. There is no mechanism in Congolese law to provide for the informed participation and consent of indigenous peoples in decisions that affect them. This is especially the case concerning decisions about their lands and resources and whether conservation areas and concessions are issued thereon or nearby. So far, the State has made no attempt to consult with indigenous peoples, communities and organisations on the forestry legislation provisions that will affect them. Instead, the State unilaterally decides if decrees will be circulated to state-selected civil society organisations (“focal points”) for comment post-elaboration. None of the focal points are indigenous organisations or organisations representing indigenous peoples and no State assistance is provided to enable wider distribution of the decrees to indigenous peoples or to facilitate participation by indigenous peoples in the process.
52. The situation has become desperate as additional implementation regulations continue to be elaborated and adopted without the meaningful prior consultation and participation by indigenous peoples and in violation of their rights. Apart from three decrees that have been published in official journals, the status of all other elaborated decrees is currently unknown. Of an estimated fifty decrees to be elaborated, only 16 have to date been released by the State into the public domain. There is the urgent risk that these regulations will pass into legislation and, when operationalized, the immediate threat that the State will continue to repeat and intensify the pattern of exclusion that previously resulted in the unilateral and uncompensated expropriation of indigenous peoples’ traditional lands for conservation and forestry exploitation.
53. In the context of the preceding, we respectfully request that:
(a) the Committee adopts a decision pursuant to its Early Warning and Urgent Action
Procedure on the situation of indigenous peoples in DRC in order to give its immediate attention to reversing the acts and omissions of DRC that have given rise to the present massive and persistent pattern of racial discrimination against indigenous peoples.
Additionally, we request that:
(i) the Committee commences a dialogue with the State to ensure that the rights of indigenous peoples to own their lands, territories and resources traditionally owned or otherwise occupied and used are recognized and respected; that their rights to participate in and consent to activities that may affect them are recognized and respected;
26

(ii) the Committee stresses that the preceding requires legislative and administrative measures to ensure that these rights are recognized and guaranteed in law and secured in fact;
(b) the Committee requests that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights offer to provide technical assistance to give effect to the preceding;
(c) the Committee requests that the Chairperson of the United Nations Permanent Forum on
Indigenous Issues communicates with the World Bank and other United Nations agencies to ensure that indigenous peoples’ rights are fully accounted for and respected in the design and implementation of technical and project assistance in the natural resource management sector in DRC;
(d) the Committee recommends that DRC accede to and implement International Labour
Organization Convention No. 169;
(e) or, alternatively, that the Committee conducts a review of DRC’s implementation of the
Convention at the earliest possible date, issue concluding observations on the human rights situation of indigenous peoples and recommend remedial measures.
27

VII. Annexes
1. Statement that confirm the lack of recognition and respect in DRC for the rights to lands, territories and resources of indigenous peoples.
Several intergovernmental and non-governmental organisations have confirmed that the rights to lands and resources of indigenous peoples are neither respected nor recognised in DRC. The
African Commission’s Working Group on Indigenous Peoples/Communities has noted that:
Dispossession of land and natural resources is a major human rights problem for indigenous peoples. They have in so many cases been pushed out of their traditional areas to give way for the economic interests of other more dominant groups and to large scale development initiatives that tend to destroy their lives and cultures rather than improve their situation. Establishment of protected areas and national parks have impoverished indigenous pastoralist and hunter-gatherer communities, made them vulnerable and unable to cope with environmental uncertainty and in many cases even displaced them. Large-scale extraction of natural resources such as logging, mining, dam construction, oil drilling and pipeline construction have had very negative impacts on the livelihoods of indigenous pastoralist and huntergatherer communities in Africa. So has the widespread expansion of areas under crop production. They have all resulted in loss of access to fundamental natural resources that are critical for the survival of both pastoral and hunter-gatherer communities such as grazing areas, permanent water sources and forest products
This is a serious violation of the African Charter ( Article 21,1 and 21,2) which states clearly that every peoples have the right to natural resources, wealth and property.
1
The African Commission’s Working Group has also declared that:
Large-scale infrastructure projects and company concessions – taking place in the name of national economic development – have displaced and impoverished many indigenous communities. In most cases the affected marginalized indigenous communities are neither consulted nor compensated.
All over the Great Lakes Region big company concessions are having severe consequences for the lives and survival of the Pygmies/Batwa people.
The Batwa/Bambuti from the DRC suffer from serious problems in relation to their land. The multinational mining, exploitation and infrastructure companies have planned their strategies for activity in the DRC with a view to exploiting the natural resources of the Congo as soon as conditions permit. This will inevitably lead to the destruction of the forest and wipe out the Pygmies’ way of life. The Batwa/Bambuti have been driven out of their forests, with neither financial compensation nor compensation in terms of other cultivable land. A large number of Batwa/Bambuti
1 African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Report of the African Commission’s Working Group on indigenous peoples/communities , op. cit, page 10.

thus find themselves landless and live as tenants on the land of others, who can evict them at any time
2
Even the World Bank has admitted that it failed to ensure effective protection for the environment and local people in its development programme in DRC.
3
According to the
Inspection Panel report, the World Bank recognised that it hadn’t implemented in an appropriate manner its own guarantees on environmental protection and indigenous peoples (“with respect to the EESRSP, the Bank was not in full compliance with processing provisions of OP 4.01, and
OD 4.20 should have been triggered during project preparation”
4
). Furthermore, the World Bank has declared that “OD 4.20 was not triggered because the design of the project as reviewed at concept stage did not reveal the existence of Pygmy communities in project-affected areas”, and
“an Indigenous Peoples Plan will be prepared.”
5
It should be noted that to date indigenous peoples in DRC have not been informed about the elaboration or preparation of any Indigenous
Peoples’ Plan, or asked to participate in this exercise.
In its 2005 annual report on the situation of human rights in DRC, the United States’ foreign affairs department noted that “[s]ocietal discrimination remained an obstacle to the advancement of certain groups, particularly women and indigenous Pygmies (Batwa).”
6
The United Nations’ Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in DRC has noted several times that the rights of indigenous peoples in DRC are systematically violated and that the suffer from widespread discrimination. In her 2003 report, the Special Rapporteur noted that
“[i]ndigenous peoples continue to be subjected to large-scale acts of discrimination by the majority of the population. They are among the first victims of mass violations of human rights.”
7
In her 2002 report, the Special Rapporteur also noted that:
Pygmies’ rights are not respected. Often viewed as an animal sub-species, pygmies are subjected to very difficult living conditions. Hated and excluded by most of the
Congolese population, pygmies often have no access to social infrastructure such as health-care centres and schools. In addition, pygmies live in highly precarious shelters that expose them to all kinds of weather. Pygmies have great difficulty gaining access to land and exercising their inalienable rights as an indigenous people. They are pushed ever deeper into the forest and live on unproductive and infertile lands. The State has failed to implement any coherent programme to support the economic infrastructure and traditional ways of the Pygmies.
8
2 Ibid, pages 15-16.
3 Rainforest Foundation UK, World Bank admits to failures in protecting Congo’s rainforests – official ‘watchdog’ to investigate , 8 March 2006, available at: http://www.rainforestfoundationuk.org.
4 Inspection Panel report , op. cit, paragraph 35.
5 Ibid, paragraph 41.
6 US State Department, Congo, Democratic Republic of the: Country reports on human rights practices 2005 , 8
March 2006, available at: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61563.htm.
7 Interim report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of Congo , 24
October 2003, A/58/534, paragraph 107.
8 Interim report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of Congo , 26
September 2002, A/57/437, paragraph 66.

A special report by the InterRegional Information Network of the United Nations’ Office for the
Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (IRIN), published in April 2006, notes that:
One of the overriding threats facing minorities and indigenous peoples all over the world is the risk of being driven from their land, which is the source of their livelihood, their heritage and often their identity as a people. Many communities have been closely bound to a particular territory for centuries. Yet once their land is earmarked for “development” – such as dams, mining, the timber industry, oil or tourism – they are all too easily evicted with little or no compensation. Removal of communities from their land – mass displacement of people – is one of the worst consequences of “development” projects that fail to understand or to recognise minority and indigenous peoples’ rights. Development projects … that require large swaths of “virgin land” are notorious examples. Equally, the designation in recent years of areas as national parks or wildlife sanctuaries has entirely disregarded the rights and needs of minorities living on the land.In many cases, international pressure or funding may endorse or finance these projects.
Civil or interstate conflicts also lead to the displacement of minorities and indigenous peoples, and their property typically is seized without compensation.
They are often forced to live as refugees or displaced persons for decades, with dire consequences for their cultural identity and means of survival. The right of indigenous people to reclaim their property is regularly denied. Once outside of their ancestral land, the denial of the right to property is frequently used to stop them returning. Displaced minorities… often lack written evidence of ownership – their land rights are seldom recognised or documented.
Although indigenous communities have occupied their lands for centuries, long before the current states may have existed, their practice of collective ownership and lack of documentation is often held by governments or outsiders to mean that they have no rights.
9
And that:
The pygmies of Central Africa are a vulnerable people, and discrimination is part of their daily existence. Their marginalised status means they are likely to require more support than other citizens to claim their right to ancestral lands. In many cases, and over many decades, they have been driven away from their territory without compensation or any prospect of alternative livelihood. Without land or independent means of sustaining themselves, many pygmies live in extreme poverty. “Since we are expelled from our lands, death is following us. We bury people nearly every day.
The village is becoming empty. We are heading towards extinction. Now all the old people have died. Our culture is dying, too,” said a Mutwa man from Kalehe, in the
Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).
10
9 Integrated Regional Information Network (UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs), IRIN In-
Depth Minorities under siege: Pygmies today in Africa , April 2006, page 4.
10 Ibid, page 9.

The international NGO, Minority Rights Group International, in its report on indigenous peoples of the Great Lakes region in central Africa, finds that there is:
In flagrant disregard of the ACHPR the denial of land rights to hunter-gatherers is almost universal in Africa, despite such rights being recognized in other parts of the world such as Australia and Canada. Hunting and gathering is often considered ecologically unsustainable, or a backward or wasteful use of land. Land so used is thought of as available, and is freely, even casually, taken without thought of the ownership rights of hunter-gatherers. The widely held, and strongly discriminatory, notion is that hunting and gathering is not a legitimate use of land and confers no rights to continued occupancy. This contrasts with the widely held view that agricultural, and sometimes also pastoral usage, constitute legitimate land use for which the occupants can claim exclusive rights and cannot be dispossessed without due process and restitution.
Many Batwa communities conceive of their rights over land in terms of collective rights, often clan rights rather than individual title. This is especially true of forest dwelling Batwa. The Batwa’s weak leadership has made it difficult to organize resistance against encroachment by outsiders on land held in common, especially when it remains as forest. Collective rights to land are not recognized in current land law in the region. Only individuals or officially recognized institutions may apply for land titles. Additionally, regulations relating to continued occupancy in claims for land titles discriminate against nomadic Batwa by not taking into account that the majority of their land appears to be unoccupied at any given time.
The Batwa continue to be denied the same access to land as other people. Today, the majority are landless, remaining as tenants and squatters on land held by other people, churches or government. If they hold any land, it is often only the land their house is on. In Uganda (in 1995) 82 per cent of Batwa were entirely landless and those with land found it insufficient for their food needs. In Rwanda (in 1993) only
1.6 per cent of Batwa had sufficient land to farm. Only exceptionally have Batwa been included in post-independence redistribution of land. Most land still held by
Batwa was held by them before independence.
In the past some Batwa had received land from chiefs and lineage heads for services rendered. A few Batwa communities even cleared their own farmland from forest.
Today many of these communities remain on only a small part of their original land.
It has been difficult for Batwa to hold on to land, however, even when they hold recognized rights.
The mountainous region inhabited by the Batwa is extremely fertile and very suitable for farming. Such intense migration of farmers has occurred that these areas have some of the highest population densities in rural Africa. Competition for land is fierce. Very little land remains unexploited and holdings are unequally distributed

among the farming and pastoral groups. With such pressure on land the Batwa are easy victims for expropriation.
11
The international NGO Forests Monitor has also noted that:
As in the other countries of the Central African region, the Pygmy peoples are particularly vulnerable to the negative impacts of logging. Their numbers are relatively high in the DRC, estimates varying between 39,000 and 154,000. They are broadly divided into the Bacwa, Batwa and the Bambuti. They face several threats, such as the destruction of their forests, malnutrition and diseases including tuberculosis and leprosy. Venereal diseases have made many Bacwa women infertile, while in some areas the Bambuti have suffered badly from alcoholism and violence at the hands of both rebels and regular armies. On their forest lands, the historic relationships of exchange with local farmers are being severely disrupted by the influx of farmers from outside the area who want to grow cash crops. Pygmy rights to forest lands appear not to be recognised in customary or national law. The
Pygmies are additionally at risk through some conservation initiatives. Plans for a forest reserve to protect the central Ituri Forest, for example, includes a core area where hunter-gatherers are not permitted to hunt or gather. In the 1970s and 1980s,
Batwa Pygmies were expelled from the Kahuzi-Biega forests in Kivu, without compensation or provision of alternative lands.
12
11 Lewis, J, The Batwa Pygmies of the Great Lakes Region , op. cit, page 17.
12 Forests Monitor, Sold Down The River: The need to control transnational forestry corporations: a European case study , March 2001, Cambridge, available at: http://www.forestsmonitor.org/reports/solddownriver/title.htm.

Annex 2. Relevant measures in the 2002 Forest Code and implementing regulations.
A. LOI N° 011-2002 DU 29 AOÛT 2002 PORTANT CODE FORESTIER (Law No. 011-
2002 of 29 August 2002 Forest Code)
Article 7 :
Les forêts constituent la propriété de l’Etat.
Article 10 :
Le domaine forestier comprend les forêts classées, les forêts protégées et les forêts de production permanente.
Les forêts classées sont celles soumises, en application d’un acte de classement, à un régime juridique restrictif concernant les droits d’usage et d’exploitation ; elles sont affectées à une vocation particulière, notamment écologique.
Les forêts protégées sont celles qui n’ont pas fait l’objet d’un acte de classement et sont soumises
à un régime juridique moins restrictif quant aux droits d’usage et aux droits d’exploitation.
Les forêts de production permanente sont les forêts soustraites des forêts protégées par une enquête publique en vue de les concéder ; elles sont soumises aux règles d’exploitation prévues par la présente loi et ses mesures d’exécution.
Article 12 :
Les forêts classées font partie du domaine public de l’Etat.
Sont forêts classées : a. les réserves naturelles intégrales ; b. les forêts situées dans les parcs nationaux ; c. les jardins botaniques et zoologiques ; d. les réserves de faune et les domaines de chasse ; e. les réserves de biosphère ; f. les forêts récréatives, g. les arborera ; h. les forêts urbaines ; i. les secteurs sauvegardés
Article 13 :
Sont en outre classées, les forêts nécessaires pour : a. la protection des pentes contre l’érosion ; b. la protection des sources et des cours d’eau ; c. la conservation de la diversité biologique ; d. la conservation des sols ; e. la salubrité publique et l’amélioration du cadre de vie ; f. la protection de l’environnement humain ; et g. en général, toute autre fin jugée utile par l’administration chargée des forêts.

Font également l’objet de classement, les périmètres de reboisement appartenant à l’Etat ou à des entités décentralisées.
Les forêts classées avant la date d’entrée en vigueur de la présente loi conservent leur statut.
Article 14 :
Les forêts classées doivent représenter au moins 15 % de la superficie totale du territoire national.
Article 20 :
Les forêts protégées font partie du domaine privé de l’Etat et constituent le domaine forestier protégé.
Les produits forestiers de toute nature se trouvant sur le domaine forestier protégé, à l’exception de ceux provenant des arbres plantés par des personnes physiques ou morales de droit privé ou par des entités décentralisées, appartiennent à l’Etat.
Article 21 :
Les forêts protégées peuvent faire l’objet de concession moyennant un contrat dont la durée ne peut excéder vingt-cinq ans. Ce terme est renouvelable dans les conditions stipulées au contrat.
L’octroi d’une concession forestière confère un droit réel sur les essences forestières concédées, à l’exclusion d’un quelconque droit sur le fonds de terre.
Article 23 :
Les forêts de production permanente sont composées des concessions forestières et des forêts qui, ayant fait l’objet d’une enquête publique, sont destinées à la mise sur le marché.
Elles sont quittes et libres de tout droit.
Article 29 :
Il est créé un conseil consultatif national des forêts et des conseils consultatifs provinciaux des forêts dont l’organisation, le fonctionnement et la composition sont fixés respectivement par décret du Président de la République et par arrêté du ministre.
Article 30 :
Le conseil consultatif national des forêts est compétent pour donner des avis sur :
1° les projets de planification et la coordination de la politique forestière ;
2° les projets concernant les règles de gestion forestière ;
3° toute procédure de classement et de déclassement des forêts ;
4° tout projet de texte législatif ou réglementaire relatif aux forêts ;
5° toute question qu’il juge nécessaire se rapportant au domaine forestier.
Article 31 :
Le conseil consultatif provincial des forêts donne des avis sur tout projet de classement ou de déclassement des forêts dans la province et, en général, sur toute question qui lui est soumise par le gouverneur de province.

Il peut saisir le gouverneur de toute question qu’il juge importante dans le domaine forestier.
Dans l’exercice de leurs fonctions, les membres du conseil peuvent accéder librement à toutes les concessions forestières.
Article 32 :
Le ministre publie chaque année, et ce, avant le 31 janvier, la liste des associations et organisations non–gouvernementales agréées exerçant leurs activités statutaires dans le secteur de l’environnement en général et de la forêt en particulier.
Article 33 :
En vue de promouvoir la gestion rationnelle et durable des forêts, le ministre prend, en collaboration avec les ministères et les organismes concernés, les mesures nécessaires et met en oeuvre des programmes visant à favoriser le développement de la recherche forestière.
Article 34 :
La recherche forestière porte notamment sur la gestion, l’inventaire, l’aménagement, la conservation, l’exploitation, la transformation, la génétique forestière, la sylviculture, la technologie du bois et la commercialisation des produits forestiers.
Article 36 :
Les droits d’usage forestiers des populations vivant à l’intérieur ou à proximité du domaine forestier sont ceux résultant de coutumes et traditions locales pour autant que ceux-ci ne soient pas contraires aux lois et à l’ordre public. Ils permettent le prélèvement des ressources forestières par ces populations, en vue de satisfaire leurs besoins domestiques, individuels ou communautaires. [Author note : all highlight in original text].
L’exercice des droits d’usage est toujours subordonné à l’état et à la possibilité des forêts.
Article 37 :
La commercialisation des produits forestiers prélevés au titre des droits d’usage n’est pas autorisée, excepté certains fruits et produits dont la liste est fixée par le gouverneur de province.
Article 39 :
Dans les forêts classées, les droits d’usage sont limités: a. au ramassage du bois mort et de la paille ; b. à la cueillette des fruits, des plantes alimentaires ou médicinales ; c. à la récolte des gommes, des résines ou du miel ; d. au ramassage des chenilles, escargots ou grenouilles; e. au prélèvement du bois destiné à la construction des habitations et pour usage artisanal.
Article 42 :
Dans les forêts protégées, les cultures peuvent être pratiquées.
Article 43 :
Le prélèvement des produits forestiers à des fins domestiques est libre en forêt protégée. Il ne donne lieu au paiement d’aucune taxe ou redevance forestière.

Toutefois, le ministre peut réglementer la récolte de tout produit forestier dont il juge utile de contrôler l’exploitation.
Article 44 :
Les populations riveraines d’une concession forestière continuent à exercer leurs droits d’usage traditionnels sur la concession dans la mesure de ce qui est compatible avec l’exploitation forestière à l’exclusion de l’agriculture.
Article 150 :
Est puni d’une servitude pénale de deux mois à un an et d’une amende 10.000 à 50.000 francs congolais constants ou d’une de ces peines seulement quiconque, dans une forêt classée, exerce un droit d’usage forestier en violation des dispositions de la présente loi ou de ses mesures d’exécution.
Article 151 :
Est puni d’une servitude pénale d’un mois à un an et d’une amende de 5.000 à 25.000 francs congolais constants ou de l’une de ces peines seulement, quiconque, dans une forêt protégée, exerce un droit d’usage forestier en violation des dispositions de la présente loi ou de ses mesures d’exécution.
B. DECRET N°.../... DU 2006 FIXANT MODALITES D’ATTRIBUTION DES FORETS
AUX COMMUNAUTES LOCALES
Article 3 :
En vue d’assurer la gestion rationnelle des forêts congolaises, les procédures suivies en RDC pour la coupe de bois sont, mutatis mutandis, d’application en ce qui concerne l’attribution des forêts aux communautés locales.
L’exploitant se comportera dans la concession forestière à lui attribuée en tant qu’exploitant et non comme propriétaire.
Article 4 :
Toute communauté désirant gérer une forêt communautaire tiendra une réunion de concertation regroupant l’ensemble des composantes de la communauté concernée, sous l’autorité du chef investi, afin de désigner le responsable de la gestion et de définir les objectifs et les limites de ladite forêt.
Cette réunion est supervisée par l’autorité administrative locale, assistée de responsables techniques locaux concernés.
La réunion est sanctionnée par un procès-verbal ad hoc, signé séance tenante par l’ensemble des participants.

Article 5 :
Le dossier d’attribution d’une forêt communautaire est constituée des pièces reprises dans la
« Fiche de renseignements pour l’octroi d’un permis d’attribution à titre gracieux d’une concession forestière à la communauté locale »
Article 6 :
Pour être recevable et fondée, la requête en obtention d’une concession forestière :
ƒ proviendra du chef investi de la communauté locale requérante ;
ƒ elle remplira les critères prévus à l’article 22 al 1 er du code forestier, à savoir que la communauté locale requérante possède régulièrement, en vertu de la coutume, les forêts sur lesquelles porte la demande ;
ƒ elle sera introduite uniquement entre le 1 er
et le 31 janvier de l’année précédant celle au cours de laquelle la décision favorable ou défavorable du Ministère ayant les forêts dans ses attributions sera communiquée durant le dernier trimestre ;
Article 8 :
Le chef investi de la communauté locale requérante, après avoir rempli, sous l’autorité du chef de secteur, la fiche citée à l’article 7 du présent décret, la signe.
Article 16 :
En cas de décision défavorable du Ministre ayant les forêts dans ses attributions, le dossier sera retourné à la communauté concernée au gouverneur de province, en précisant les motifs du rejet.
C. FICHE DE RENSEIGNEMENTS POUR L’OCTROI D’UN PERMIS
D’ATTRIBUTION A TITRE GRACIEUX D’UNE CONCESSION FORESTIERE A LA
COMMUNAUTE LOCALE
1. Nom du chef investi de la communauté locale requérante………………………
2. Nom du responsable désigné pour la gestion ………………………
4. Superficie de la concession forestière sollicitée (dont le maximum ne peut excéder 5000 hectares) ……………………..
5. Croquis ou plan de situation de la concession forestière sollicitée (à établir par l’autorité administrative locale ou son préposé) :
D. DECRET N° DU FIXANT LA PROCEDURE DE CLASSEMENT ET DE
DECLASSEMENT DES FORETS
Article 3
Dans le cadre des objectifs de l’aménagement du territoire forestier national, l’administration centrale chargée des forêts élabore un projet de classement des forêts.
Le projet comprend notamment :
1) des conclusions des études socio-économiques et écologiques ayant motivé le projet de classement ;

2) une carte de la plus récente édition établie à l’échelle de 1/200.000 et complétée par une indication précise des limites du classement proposé et des périmètres des titres immobiliers compris dans ces limites;
3) une description de la forêt ainsi qu’une identification des entités territoriales qui seront affectées ;
4) une note technique mentionnant les motifs et le but essentiels du classement, la catégorie dans laquelle sera classée la forêt. La note donne aussi en pourcentage le rapport entre la superficie de la forêt à classer et celles des entités locales concernées. [Author note : all highlights in original text].
Article 5
Le Gouverneur de province ordonne à l’administration provinciale chargée des forêts de procéder
à la consultation préalable du public en général et des localités et populations riveraines de la forêt en particulier en collaboration avec les autorités administratives locales concernées, notamment l’administrateur de Territoire et les autorités traditionnelles.
Article 6
L’administration provinciale chargée des forêts procède, dans le mois de la réception du projet de classement, à l’annonce de l’ouverture de la consultation des populations riveraines de la forêt par voie d’affichage pendant deux mois au moins tant au siège de l’administration provinciale chargée des forêts qu’au niveau des entités administratives décentralisées concernées.
L’annonce est également publiée dans les journaux locaux et par toute autre voie appropriée susceptibles d’en permettre une large diffusion..
L’affichage est maintenu pendant toute la durée de la consultation.
Les consultations sont organisées dans le chef-lieu du Territoire et dans les principales localités avoisinantes de la forêt à classer.
Article 7
(...)
Les études socio-économiques et écologiques qui ont motivé le projet de classement, de même que la carte et la description de la forêt sont tenues à la disposition du public dans les principales localités riveraines pendant un délai minimum de deux mois précédant les consultations.
Article 10
Dans un délai de six mois maximum, la consultation est clôturée par un procès-verbal de consultations dûment signé par les parties et indiquant l’accord de consultations. Ce procèsverbal est adressé au gouverneur de province avec un projet de classement. Une copie en est transmise pour information à l’administration centrale chargée des forêts.

Article 13
Le ministre prend l’arrêté de classement.
L’arrêté détermine la localisation et les limites de la forêt concernée, sa catégorie, sa dénomination, le mode de gestion de ses ressources, les restrictions qui lui applicables, les droits d’usage susceptibles de s’y exercer et l’institution chargée de sa gestion.
L’arrêté est enregistré au cadastre forestier. Il est publié au Journal officiel.
Article 14
Lorsqu’il juge nécessaire de prendre une décision contraire aux procès-verbaux de consultations, le ministre est tenu de motiver cette décision.
E. ARRETE MINISTERIEL N° DU FIXANT LA PROCEDURE D’ENQUETE
PUBLIQUE ET DE CONSULTATION PREALABLE A L’OCTROI DES CONCESSIONS
FORESTIERES
Article 1
Tout projet d’attribution d’une concession forestière est subordonné à une enquête publique et à la consultation préalable des parties prenantes.
Article 3
L’enquête publique et la consultation du public ont pour but notamment de :
1) décrire sommairement la forêt à concéder et de la délimiter;
2) identifier les personnes qui sont installées dans la forêt ou autour de la forêt ;
3) déterminer la nature des activités qui s’y exercent et des moyens d’existence et du bien-être social des communautés locales ;
4) identifier les principaux problèmes que posent, sur le plan environnemental et social, l’exploitation forestière et l’industrie de transformation du bois ;
5) évaluer la nature et l’étendue des droits que pourraient détenir des tiers sur la forêt, notamment les concessionnaires fonciers et les communautés locales ;
6) proposer un programme rationnel d’atténuation des impacts environnementaux et sociaux, d’indemnisation et de développement communautaire.
Article 4
La forêt à concéder fait l’objet d’une description portant notamment sur sa superficie, sa situation géographique, ses limites de la forêt, les données cartographiques et topographiques, le réseau hydrographique ainsi que les principales données d’inventaire relatives notamment à la connaissance quantitative et qualitative de la ressource forestière, de la faune et de la flore.
Article 10
La procédure d’enquête et de consultation du public est clôturée par :
1) un rapport d’enquête et de consultation dont les principales constatations et recommandations ont été préalablement discutées avec les parties prenantes identifiées;
2) la signature d’un procès-verbal d’enquête et de consultation dans lequel figurent, au minimum, les éléments d’information visés à l’article 3 du présent décret.

Le procès-verbal susvisé est signé par l’administration chargée des forêts ou, selon le cas, l’expert, organisme ou bureau d’études qui a conduit ladite consultation, ainsi que les représentants des parties prenantes identifiées.
F. DECRET N° DU FIXANT LA PROCEDURE D’ATTRIBUTION DES
CONCESSIONS FORESTIERES
Article 36
Sous réserve de l’approbation par le Conseil des Ministres et sans préjudice des dispositions de l’article 3 du présent décret, le Ministre chargé des Forêts peut exceptionnellement attribuer une concession forestière par voie de gré à gré :
1) lorsque le projet d’exploitation forestière ou d’industrie de transformation du bois utilise un matériel d’exploitation ou une technologie ultramoderne à faible impact sur l’environnement ;
2) à des fins de recherche forestière ou pour des objectifs de bioprospection.
G. ARRETE MINISTERIEL N° DU PORTANT COMPOSITION, ORGANISATION
ET FONCTIONNEMENT DES CONSEILS CONSULTATIFS PROVINCIAUX DES
FORETS
Article 4
Outre le président et le rapporteur, le conseil se compose des membres suivants :
1) le Chef de l’administration provinciale chargée des forêts, premier rapporteur;
2) le Chef de l’administration provinciale chargée de l’agriculture ou son délégué;
3) le Chef de l’administration chargée de l’administration du territoire ou son délégué;
4) le Chef de l’administration chargée des mines ou son délégué;
5) le Chef de l’administration chargée de l’aménagement du territoire ou son délégué;
6) le Chef de l’administration provinciale chargée des affaires foncières ou son délégué;
7) le Chef de l’administration provinciale chargée du développement rural ou son délégué;
8) le Chef de l’administration provinciale chargée de l’industrie ou son délégué;
9) le Chef de l’administration provinciale chargée du tourisme ou son délégué;
10) le procureur général près la Cour d’appel ou son délégué ;
11) un délégué de l’Institut Congolais pour la Conservation de la Nature, s’il y a lieu;
12) un délégué de l’Institut des Jardins Botaniques et Zoologiques du Congo, s’il y a lieu;
13) un délégué de l’Institut National pour les Etudes et Recherche Agronomiques, s’il y a lieu ;
14) un délégué de l’Office National du Tourisme;
15) un expert forestier ;
16) un expert en conservation de la nature; d’enseignement supérieur ou universitaire installé en province ;
18) un délégué provincial du Comité professionnel Bois de la Fédération des Entreprises du
Congo;
19) un délégué des associations représentatives des communautés locales;
20) deux délégués des organisations non gouvernementales dotées de la personnalité juridique et
œuvrant dans le secteur de l’environnement.

Les membres du conseil sont nommés par arrêté du Gouverneur de province sur proposition des administrations provinciales ou organismes dont ils relèvent en tenant compte de leur compétence ou expérience dans le domaine de l’environnement. [Author note : all highlights in original text]
H. DECRET N° DU PORTANT COMPOSITION, ORGANISATION ET
FONCTIONNEMENT DU CONSEIL CONSULTATIF NATIONAL DES FORETS
Article 4
Outre le président et le rapporteur, le conseil comprend les membres ci-après :
1) Six directeurs de l’administration centrale chargée des forêts ayant en charge respectivement le contrôle et l’inspection de l’environnement, la gestion forestière, l’inventaire et l’aménagement forestiers, le cadastre forestier, le développement durable et la gestion des ressources faunes;
2) un délégué du cabinet du Ministère ayant les forêts dans ses attributions;
3) un délégué du Ministère de la Justice;
4) un délégué du Ministère du Plan;
5) un délégué du Ministère de l’Agriculture ;
6) un délégué du Ministère des Affaires Foncières;
7) un délégué du Ministère de l’Aménagement du Territoire;
8) un délégué du Ministère chargé du Développement Rural;
9) un délégué du Ministère chargé des Finances;
10) un délégué du Ministère chargé de l’Industrie;
11) un délégué du Ministère chargé du Tourisme;
12) un délégué du Ministère chargé de la Recherche Scientifique;
13) un délégué de l’Institut Congolais pour la Conservation de la Nature;
14) un délégué de l’Institut des Jardins Zoologique et Botanique;
15) un délégué de l’Institut National pour les Etudes et Recherches Agronomiques;
16) un délégué de l’Office National du Tourisme;
17) un professeur spécialiste de l’environnement;
18) trois consultants juristes ayant participé à l’élaboration du Code forestier et/ou à ses mesures d’exécution ;
19) deux représentants du Comité Professionnel Bois de la Fédération des Entreprises du Congo;
20) quatre délégués des organisations non gouvernementales dotée de la personnalité juridique et
œuvrant dans le domaine de l’environnement;
I. ARRETE MINISTERIEL N° DU FIXANT LA PROCEDURE D’ELABORATION,
D’APPROBATION ET DE CONTROLE DE LA MISE EN ŒUVRE DES PLANS
D’AMENAGEMENT FORESTIER
Article 8
Le plan d’aménagement d’une unité forestière comprend notamment les rubriques ci-après a) la description du milieu naturel dans lequel est compris l’unité forestière; b) un extrait de l’inventaire forestier national relatif à l’unité forestière; c) l’estimation du potentiel de production forestière ; d) la description des potentialités forestières autres que ligneuses e) les données cartographiques;

f) les données socioéconomiques et sur les principales activités humaines en relation avec la forêt ; g) l’évaluation des risques naturels et anthropiques de dégradation de la forêt ; h) les mesures générales nécessaires de protection de l’environnement.
Article 10
Dès réception du projet de plan d’aménagement élaboré par l’administration centrale chargée des forêts, le Ministre chargé des forêts le communique pour avis à la Commission interministérielle chargée de l’examen et de l’approbation des plans d’aménagement.
La commission comprend les membres ci-après :
1) le Directeur chef de Service de l’Inventaire et de l’Aménagement forestier, Président;
2) le Coordonnateur provincial de l’Environnement et Conservation de la Nature du ressort;
3) un représentant du Ministère chargé de l’Aménagement du Territoire;
4) un représentant du Ministère chargé de l’Agriculture;
5) un représentant du Ministère chargé du Développement Rural;
6) le Chef de Division de l’Inventaire forestier ;
7) le Chef de Division de l’Aménagement forestier ;
8) un délégué des organisations non gouvernementales agréées dans le secteur forestier ;
9) un délégué de la population riveraine de la forêt concernée.
Les membres de la commission sont nommés par arrêté du Ministre chargé des forêts sur proposition des ministères et organismes dont ils relèvent en raison de leurs compétences et expériences éprouvées en matière forestière ainsi que de leur intégrité morale.
Ils peuvent être déchus de leur qualité de membre de la commission pour incompétence notoire, acte de corruption ou de concussion et autres manquements aux devoirs de leurs charges.
Article 21
Le plan d’aménagement comprend notamment les rubriques ci-après : a) la description du massif forestier et des données sur la faune de la concession ; b) les données sur l’environnement humain et socioéconomique de la forêt ; c) les données cartographiques au 1/50.000ème relatives à la forêt; d) l’inventaire forestier d’aménagement réalisé conformément aux normes réglementaires définies; e) le calcul de possibilité forestière et de rotation; f) les données relatives à l’affectation des terres et aux droits d’usage forestiers; g) les mesures relatives à la de protection de l’environnement. h) les éléments relatifs aux procédures et opérations annuelles d’exploitation ; i) un résumé des normes d’aménagement du réseau d’évacuation des produits forestiers ; j) les perspectives au-delà de la première rotation ; k) la procédure de révision du plan d’aménagement.
Au sens du présent arrêté, l’affectation des terres consiste à l’identification et à la cartographie de la vocation des terres à l’intérieur de la concession ou de la forêt concédée.

L’inventaire forestier d’aménagement fournit les informations de base permettant de fixer les grandes lignes de l’aménagement de la concession, notamment le potentiel ligneux exploitable ainsi que la matériel d’avenir à moyen terme.

Annex 3: Letter dated 12th February 2004 from Congolese NGOs and Indigenous Peoples’ organisations to the Congolese Minister for the Environment, Waters and Forests, the
World Bank Resident Representative and the FAO Representative.
Centre National d’Appui au Développement et à la
Participation Populaire
Avenue Tabora N°1150 Kinshasa-Barumbu
B.P. 14.582 Kinshasa I / R.D.CONGO
Conseil National des Organisation Non
Gouvernementales de Développement du
Congo
345, Petit Boulevard Lumumba, Kinshasa-
Limete
B.P. 5.744 Kinshasa – Gombe / R.D. CONGO
Kinshasa, 12 February 2004
To His Excellency the Minister for the Environment, Waters and Forests in
Kinshasa – Gombe
The World Bank Resident Representative
The FAO Representative
Copy for information to :
-His Excellency the President of the Republic
- His Excellency the Vice-President Responsible for Economic and Financial Affairs
Re: The future of the forests in the Democratic Republic of Congo and the people living within these forests.
Your Excellency the Minister, Representatives,
We, Congolese civil society organisations, appeal directly to you as those currently defining the objectives and terms of the Democratic Republic of Congo’s future forestry policy.
We are extremely concerned at the current situation. If its objectives and implementing conditions are not reconsidered, the « development » of the DRC’s forests will have major repercussions for the rights and livelihoods of millions of Congolese people, and this will also have serious and irreversible consequences for this vital forest resource.
• We note that, on 24 January 2003, the United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1457 which ‘noted with concern’ that « the plundering of natural resources [in the DRC] continues and constitutes one of the main factors feeding the conflict
». We are concerned to note that the current development of the forestry sector. and of forestry policy and legislation in the DRC, fails to take this fundamental problem into account.
• The management of these forests must under no account by guided by the hypothesis that the development of industrial forest activity necessarily contributes to the development of the people, nor of its most disadvantaged sectors.
• The new Forestry Code for the DRC (Law No. 011-2002 on the Forestry Code) presents several problems, which were identified in research documents commissioned by the

Rainforest Foundation for a workshop organised by the Working Group on Forests / GTF in
November 2003 in Kinshasa. o The Code does not comply with all the DRC’s obligations deriving from various international treaties, including article 8(j) of the Convention on Biological
Diversity; o The Code takes insufficient account of the specific needs of forest-dependent communities and could lead to serious conflicts over community rights and access to forest resources; o The Code fails to take account of the lessons learned from application of similar forestry legislation in Cameroon, and numerous provisions are inappropriate.
• The elaboration of implementation decrees acts is just as worrying, particularly with regard to the opportunities for civil society to participate in this process. For example, among the decrees already adopted or in the process of elaboration, only three (3) have thus far been made available to us.
• Forest zoning is a critical process. It will determine the legal relationship linking the people to the forests, and may thus affect the subsistence resource rights of millions of people living in the DRC’s forests. Thus far, local consultations on defining a methodology and criteria for dividing up the country have only involved the State departments and the private sector.
• Civil society’s knowledge of the existence of the « Coordination Unit » within the Ministry for the Environment, Waters and Forests, and of this Ministry’s responsibilities in developing a
National Forestry Plan, is currently extremely limited.
We, the Congolese NGOs, have for several months been undertaking numerous initiatives aimed at the World Bank, the FAO and the Minister for the Environment, Waters and Forests of the Democratic Republic of Congo to encourage you to secure the effective participation of civil society in the process of implementing the Forestry Code and, more particularly, in the process of elaborating the Forestry Code’s implementing decrees and disseminating them.
The words and good intentions of the World Bank and the FAO have thus far not resulted in any concrete action in response to the concerns of a civil society that has been sidelined in a process which is deciding, at this very moment, and without our contribution, the fate of our country’s ecological heritage and the future of its people. These are people whose subsistence and very existence depend directly on their access to the resources and benefits of a sustainable management of their forests.
This lack of consultation and involvement of civil society heralds the establishment of a forestry policy that is devoid of all popular legitimacy. This policy thus risks being rejected by the population and creating innumerable social conflicts.
Civil society takes note and requires urgent measures
Taking note of the resistance to change the process for implementing the Forestry Code in line with our recommendations, we thus formally request that the following measures be taken:
¦ The immediate adoption of a moratorium on the process for elaborating the
Forestry Code’s implementation decrees.
¦ The initial planned duration of the process is already halfway through. The moratorium must be maintained until the breaches in World Bank and FAO policy have been addressed, and effective civil society involvement secured.
¦ This moratorium will enable a further examination of all texts aimed at implementing the Forestry Code, with the consultation and participation of civil society and all affected communities. The texts in question are those already having

been adopted to date or in the process of being elaborated, along with those considered as « not requiring consultation ».
¦ The implementing decrees and the Code itself must be re-examined in the light of international obligations legally binding upon the DRC, particularly those resulting from international conventions on the protection of human rights or the environment.
¦ An increase in the number of civil society representatives on the Steering
Committee for FAO Project TCP/DRC/2905 from three (3) to six (6).
¦ The traditional and customary rights and practices of local communities must be effectively and systematically taken into account in the process of elaborating the implementing measures, as well as in the development of the National Forestry
Plan and, in particular, the zoning plan.
¦ There must be particular attention paid to the methodology and criteria for zoning, including any recommendations made during the extended consultations with civil society.
¦ The zoning plan must be accompanied by effective local consultations including appropriate participatory techniques, for example, for the demarcation of community territories and for determining land use.
¦ The World Bank and the FAO must ensure that their interventions in the DRC are in accordance with international law, with the obligations resulting from international conventions on the protection of human rights or the environment and with the Constitution of the DRC. In addition:
¦ The World Bank must ensure that its interventions in the DRC are in accordance with the terms of its internal policies and directives.
¦ We would recall here the terms of the note sent to you, Minister, (19 November
2003) calling for better civil society representation on the Committee, and proposing the nomination of the CNONGD , the GTF and one person representing indigenous people’s interests.
¦ A letter from the Secretary General for the Environment, Waters and Forests, dated 7 February last, invites the GTF coordinator to designate three additional experts as members of the Steering Committee, « in the spirit of the note ». We are thus awaiting the consequences of this ministerial progress via the official nomination of the said experts.
¦ The FAO must ensure respect for its commitment to guarantee the participation of all those affected in its interventions in the DRC, in particular in terms of the rights of forest communities.
We, the Congolese NGOs, now await determined actions and a response from you, Minister and
Representatives of the World Bank and FAO, in order to do everything possible to obtain a positive outcome.
In the hope that this call from the Congolese people will be heard by yourselves, we the NGOs working for the well-being of all Congolese send you our utmost respects.

Annex 4. Map indicating location of (illegal) forestry concessions (post 2002 moratorium) and location of Batwa communities/lands.

Annex 5. Government published list of existing forestry concessions as at 29 th
October 2005, of which at least 103 were granted since the May 2002 moratorium.

Annex 6. Government communiqué and list of requests received for conversion of forestry concession title post the Décret No. 05/116 du 24 Octobre 2005 Fixant les Modalités de
Conversion de Concession Forestière et Portant Extension du Moratoire en Matière d’Octroi des Titres d’Exploitation Forestière.

Annex 7. Letter from Mr John McIntire, Sector Director, Rural, Environmental and Social
Development, Africa Region, World Bank, dated 4 April 2006, with subject “World Bank involvement in the forest sector of the Democratic Republic of Congo”, to Mr Jon Buckrell,
Global Witness. Also includes an attachment of the Terms of Reference of the Independent
Expert being provided to the State with World Bank assistance to support the forestry concession title conversion project.

Annex 8. The Inspection Panel: Report and Recommendation On Request for Inspection:
Democratic Republic of Congo: Transitional Support for Economic Recovery Credit
Operation (TSERO) (IDA Grant No. H 192-DRC) and Emergency Economic and Social
Reunification Support Project (EESRSP) (IDA Credit No. 3824-DRC and IDA Grant No. H
064-DRC) – selected highlights.
1. On November 19, 2005, the Inspection Panel received a Request for Inspection,1 dated
October 30, 2005, related to two Projects regarding Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC):
Emergency Economic and Social Reunification Support Project (EESRSP) (IDA Credit No.
3824-DRC and IDA Grant No. H 064-DRC) and Transitional Support for Economic Recovery
Credit Operation (TSERO) (IDA Grant No. H 192-DRC). The Projects are part of a series of
Bank2 funded instruments to support, inter alia , forest sector reform in DRC. The Request received was in French. The Panel registered the Request on December 1, 2005.
2. The Organisations Autochtones Pygmées et Accompagnant les Autochtones Pygmées en
République Démocratique du Congo submitted the Request on their own behalf and on behalf of affected local communities living in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Representatives of local communities of Kisangani in the Orientale Province, of Béni and Butembo in the Nord-Kivu
Province, of Kinshasa/Mbandaka and Lokolama in the Equateur Province, of Inongo in the
Bandundu Province, of Kindu in the Maniema Province, and of Bukavu in the Sud-Kivu
Province, are signatories to the Request. The Request for Inspection includes 32 annexes.
13. The Requesters state that the EESRSP includes the preparation of a forest zoning plan for the forests of the Equateur Province and Orientale Province, where the Pygmies have lived for a long time. The Requesters claim that, if the zoning of the forests occurs without consulting the indigenous peoples and considering their interests and if new forest concessions are assigned, the
Bank will be ignoring its own forestry policies and procedures and will be supporting the violation of indigenous peoples’ rights and harming their interests.
14. The Requesters claim that the implementation of the EESRSP as its now stands will lead to violations of their rights to occupy their ancestral lands, maintain the integrity of their traditional lands, access their traditional lands and existing resources, manage their forests and resources according to traditional knowledge and practices, and protect their cultural and spiritual values.
They claim this would then lead to the destruction or loss of the ir natural living environment and their means of subsistence, impose or force change in their way of life, and cause serious social conflict.
15. The Requesters assert that their “ grievances concern the failings and negligence of the World
Bank.
” The Requesters believe that “ [b]y failing to implement any safeguards, the World Bank, without any input from civil society or involvement of the indigenous communities, opted to hastily adopt a Congolese Forest Code….
”14 According to the Requesters, the EESRSP is based on this Forest Code and fails to take into account their interests. In particular, they claim that the
Bank failed to comply with its policies and procedures regarding environmental assessment, indigenous people, forests and supervision.
33. The Panel notes that the above claims may constitute violations by the Bank of various provisions of the following operational Policies and Procedures:

OP/BP 4.01
OP 4.12
OD 4.15
OD 4.20
OP/BP 4.36
OP/BP 8.50
OPN 11.03
OP/BP 13.05
BP 17.50
Environmental Assessment
Involuntary Resettlement
Poverty Reduction
Indigenous People
Forestry
Emergency Recovery Assistance
Cultural Property
Project Supervision
Disclosure of Information
34. On January 13, 2005, Management submitted its Response to the Request. The Response provides background information on the context of the EESRSP and the TSERO, describes the challenges experienced during Project implementation, discusses the issues raised in the Request, and includes a section on lessons learned and next steps. The Response includes eleven Annexes.
35. Management states that it believes that the Bank made every effort to apply its policies and procedures …” and that “ the Requesters’ rights or interests have not been, nor will they be directly and adversely affected by a failure of the Bank to implement its policies and procedures .”
However, Management recognizes that “ with respect to the EESRSP, the Bank was not in full compliance with processing provisions of OP 4.01, and OD 4.20 should have been triggered during project preparation, even if the component in question, the PFZP [Pilot Participatory
Forest Zoning Plan], was subsequently dropped from the Project before being started.
”
41. As to the Requesters’ criticism of the Bank’s decision not to apply OD 4.20 on Indigenous
Peoples to EESRSP activities, Management explains that “ OD 4.20 was not triggered because the design of the project as reviewed at concept stage did not reveal the existence of Pygmy communities in project-affected areas .” However, Management believes that OD 4.20 should have been triggered when the PFZP was added. With regard to the infrastructure component of the Project, Management confirms the existence of Pygmies in the affected area and states that an
Indigenous Peoples Plan will be prepared.
48. Management is aware that the “ Bank needs to undertake more proactive efforts to inform interested Governments and NGOs.
” With regard to outreach to indigenous peoples,
Management claims that it understood the importance of reaching out to Pygmy groups but states that its efforts were restricted to policy dialogue and to contacts with stakeholders in Kinshasa because the forest areas were still inaccessible. According to Management, “ Bank efforts were hampered by the difficulty in eliciting a unified response from the various interlocutors who claimed to represent the Pygmies .” Management acknowledges that a more proactive outreach
“ would have perhaps enabled the Bank to rely less on advocacy groups and, instead, establish more direct lines of communication with Pygmy leaders and communities.
”
65. The Requesters and the Request meet the eligibility criteria set forth in the Resolution that established the Inspection Panel and the 1999 Clarifications. The Request and Management
Response contain conflicting assertions and interpretations about the issues, the facts, and compliance with Bank policies and procedures.
66. In light of the foregoing, the Panel recommends that an investigation be conducted.