![](media/image1.jpeg){width="2.75in" height="0.8159722222222222in"}

118/119 Biodiversity and Tropical Forest Assessment for Sierra Leone

**30 March 2007**

This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for
International Development. It was prepared by the Biodiversity Analysis
and Technical Support team.

**Biodiversity Analysis and Technical Support for USIAD/Africa is funded
by the**

**U.S. Agency for International Development**

**(EPIQ IQC: EPP-I-00-03-00014-00, Task Order 02)**

**and is implemented by**

**Chemonics International Inc.**

**The World Conservation Union**

**World Wildlife Fund**

**International Program Consortium**

CONTENTS

Acronyms i

Acknowledgements ii

Executive Summary 1

Introduction 9

Overview of Biodiversity and Tropical Forest Conservation Status in
Sierra Leone 11

> Status and management of forests and protected areas 12
>
> Status and protection of endangered species 16
>
> Conservation outside of protected areas 17

Legislative and Institutional Framework Affecting Biodiversity

and Tropical Forests 19

> Laws supporting the conservation and improved management of
>
> biological resources and endangered species, including international
> treaties 20
>
> Institutions including government, international donors, and NGOs 24
>
> Priorities requiring immediate attention 27

Threats to Biodiversity and Causes of Biodiversity Loss 29

> Land use 29
>
> Minerals management 30
>
> Fisheries management 34
>
> Other threats 35

Analysis and Assessment of USAID/Sierra Leone Strategy 38

> Program context 38
>
> Strategic objective and elements 38
>
> Commentary on USAID comparative advantage 40
>
> Opportunities for synergy and leveraging program impact 41

Recommendations 43

> Priorities in the short term 43
>
> Recommended medium-term and longer-term interventions 46

Annex 1: Itinerary, USAID/Sierra Leone Mission 48

Annex 2: Scope of Work 50

Annex 3: References 56

Annex 4: Protected Areas in Sierra Leone 58

Annex 5: Primary Species of Four Ecosystems in Sierra Leone 60

Annex 6: Summary of International/Regional Treaties and their
Implementations 61

Annex 7: Key Constraints in Sustainable Natural Resource Management 64

Annex 8: Key Institutions 66

acronyms

\[To be inserted.\]

acknowledgements

The Sierra Leone Biodiversity / Tropical Forestry Assessment team is
very grateful for the assistance provided by Christine Sheckler, Program
Director USAID/Sierra Leone and Tim Resch, Bureau Environmental Advisor
for USAID's Africa Bureau. The team would also like to extend their
appreciation to the many resource persons, technical specialists and
organizational representatives who agreed to meet with the team in
Sierra Leone and who provided information and documentation. For a
complete list, please see Annex 1 of this report.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The USAID Mission to Sierra Leone commissioned this study to help
formulate its country strategy over the next year as well as plan for
biodiversity and tropical forest conservation concerns over the medium
to long term. This Biodiversity and Tropical Forest Assessment has been
prepared to provide information and analysis, as requested by
USAID/Sierra Leone, required by the U.S. Congress, and stipulated in the
U.S. Foreign Assistance Act (FAA) of 1961.

A four-person team was fielded for two weeks as part of the Biodiversity
Analysis and Technical Support for USAID/Africa contract to:

-   Assess current biodiversity and tropical forests in Sierra Leone

-   Identify the most immediate threats to biodiversity and tropical
    forest conservation, including any threats from ongoing artisanal
    diamond mining

-   Identify actions to address conditions and threats currently within
    USAID's projects and possible in future programming

The team consisted of a resident biodiversity expert, an environmental
impact assessor and extractive industry expert, a geologist, and a
forester/environmental policy specialist. They conducted extensive
interviews, upcountry site visits, and a review of available literature
to arrive at its findings**.**

Biodiversity and Tropical Forest Conservation Status

[Located within the Upper Guinea rainforest region, Sierra Leone has one
of the most unique and important collections of ecosystems in the world,
including critical habitat for some of the world's rarest species. The
primary ecosystems within Sierra Leone can be categorized as ocean,
freshwater, brackish water, coastal beaches (rocky, sandy and muddy),
wet lands (mangrove swamps), inland valley swamps, boli-lands, savannah
woodlands, and tropical rain forests. It has been estimated that 70
percent of the country was forested at one time. Mature forest cover
that exists today is estimated to be approximately five percent of the
country's land area, with logging and slash-and-burn agriculture as the
primary disturbance agents.]{.mark}[^1] [The relatively small amount of
forest cover remaining in Sierra Leone is an alarming, given that
historically, Sierra Leone had approximately 1.7 million hectares of
closed high forest with moist evergreen and semi-deciduous forest
types.]{.mark}

Due to the drastic decline in mature forest cover and the continual
pressures of population growth and rudimentary farming techniques, the
status of the forest resources should be considered threatened. While
some actions have been taken at both the government and non-governmental
organization levels to manage forest resources, these efforts are not
yet sufficient to fully combat the ongoing deforestation within Sierra
Leone. The limited funding available for the Government of Sierra Leone
(GOSL) to distribute to the 48 designated reserves is a significant
challenge that is being offset only partially by the donor communities'
involvement. Sierra Leone is in a period of rebuilding, and the
government is hesitant to focus scarce resources on what are perceived
to be secondary priorities.

![](media/image2.png){width="3.4194444444444443in"
height="2.613888888888889in"}

The status of biodiversity conservation and protection of endangered
species in Sierra Leone is similar to that of forests and protected
areas and should be considered tenuous at best. In the [2004 IUCN Red
List of Threatened
Animals](http://www.animalinfo.org/refi.htm#iucn 2004 red list - species search),
four species were listed as endangered and nine as vulnerable for Sierra
Leone. However, reliable post-war estimates of population size and
distribution of endangered species do not exist for any of the species.
Protection of endangered species still appears to be only symbolic, with
only limited circumstances in which management of the habitat appears to
be restricting the hunting of endangered species. Various species have
likely been significantly depleted outside of protected areas as a
result of over-hunting and habitat destruction, and within the protected
areas due to rebel occupations during the civil war.

Outside of designated protected areas, the large number of people in
Sierra Leone combined with their extremely limited economic situation is
resulting in land degradation and loss of forest cover. [There appears
to be a lack of cultural awareness of the value of the existing natural
resources and the need to protect them to provide for a sustainable
future for these communities. The shift away from sustainable natural
resource management practices can be attributed partially to the
decade-long civil war and the resulting lack of adequate livelihoods and
ensuing poverty.]{.mark}

[No one sector of society alone will be successful in redirecting these
trends. In addition to efforts by the government and donors, local
activists and community organizations are critical to achieving
awareness of the conservation needs of Sierra Leone. These organizations
can make inroads to increasing the visibility and strength of
conservation activities through community-based education and trainings.
A few notable examples include the Tacugama Chimpanzee Sanctuary as well
as the efforts of the Conservation Society of Sierra Leone and
Environmental Foundation of Africa.]{.mark}

Legislative and Institutional Framework

Since gaining independence in 1961, Sierra Leone has struggled to
achieve socio-economic stability. In the late 1980s, armed with an
abundance of natural resources available for managed revenue creation,
the GOSL in consultation with its development partners introduced a
series of macroeconomic and structural reforms aimed at stabilizing the
economy and restoring growth. Before any significant turnaround could be
made, the civil war ensued and derailed the social and economic
reconstruction program. [The economy continued to decline to an average
growth rate of negative 4.5 percent per annum between 1990 and 2000.
Both during and after the war, much of Sierra Leone's economic and
physical infrastructure was destroyed and resource exploitation
intensified, particularly in rebel-held strongholds. The decade-long
conflict exacerbated Sierra Leone's poverty situation and caused the
population to exert enormous pressure on the land and its resources for
subsistence, livelihood support, and income --- the results of which
continue to be observed today.]{.mark}

General environmental management is covered by Sierra Leone's National
Environmental Policy (NEP) of 1994 and the National Environmental
Protection Act (NEPA) of 2000. In fulfilling its obligation under the
Convention on Biological Diversity, the Government of Sierra Leone
prepared the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan in 2003.
Although Sierra Leone has endorsed and signed several international
conventions and protocols, they are at different stages of
implementation and in general have not been ratified or harmonized with
the country's existing laws, policies, and programs. The country is
lagging in the implementation of the provisions of these conventions and
therefore the resulting benefits have not been
realized.![](media/image3.png){width="3.421527777777778in"
height="3.7666666666666666in"}

In addition to the GOSL's efforts, which are spearheaded by the National
Commission on Environment and Forestry, Sierra Leone has a large donor
community presence, the largest of which is DFID. However, natural
resource management and environmental protection in Sierra Leone have
been subordinated to development issues in both the pre- and
post-conflict eras. Institutionalized collaboration and partnership
arrangements combined with oversight coordination could be the key to
improving management effectiveness. Such efforts would pool scarce
resources and assign management responsibilities and roles based on
capabilities.

The institutional and legislative frameworks for natural resource
management are in dire need of targeted review and capacity building.
These needs should be addressed with a multi-pronged approach: building
capacity for the National Commission on Environment and Forestry
(NaCEF); reviewing, updating, and enforcing the legislative framework
for natural resource management; creating partnerships and raising
awareness of natural resource management; and providing adequate
financial resources for biodiversity conservation. The GOSL and its
international partners and investors should mainstream natural resources
management into its development goals.

Threats to Biodiversity and Tropical Forest Conservation

The principal threats to biodiversity loss in Sierra Leone can be
attributed broadly to unsustainable land use practices, the influence of
the mining industry, and lack of appropriate fisheries management,
although additional specific and over-arching issues also play a role.

Land use

The combination of nearly six million Sierra Leoneans and less than 5
percent of original forest cover remaining in the country demonstrates
how unsustainable land use can adversely affect forests and
biodiversity. Nearly 80 percent of the labor force depends on the land
for its agricultural subsistence activities, which are primarily
slash-and-burn agriculture and rice cultivation. The combined effects of
poor farming practices such as shifting cultivation, recurrent
bushfires, and overgrazing, along with increasing population and ensuing
shortening of fallow periods of land, have all been identified as
contributing factors to land degradation.

In addition to the increasing demand for agricultural land, urban
development has increased the requirement for timber and fuel wood,
which has led to additional deforestation. Both artisanal and industrial
mining have also affected land resources in mineral-rich areas. With
population pressure and commercialization today, the rate of
exploitation has far outstripped the rate of regeneration by natural
means. The result is deforestation and an acute threat to biodiversity.

Mineral management

Sierra Leone has a variety of valuable mineral deposits, including
diamonds, iron ore, rutile, bauxite, gold, granite, and platinum that
can be found in almost all of the ecosystems throughout the country. A
recent map of Sierra Leone demonstrates a high degree of geographic
overlap between the mineral exploration permits and the protected area
network, which is counterintuitive to the protection of these areas. In
addition, in the forested areas of the south and east of the country,
small-scale artisanal mining of diamonds, and to a lesser extent, gold,
is likely occurring and effecting water quality, forest cover, and
bushmeat resources.

Biodiversity is impacted by the change in habitat, water quality, and
land use after extraction. Because of the lack of any effective
reclamation programs for mined areas, artisanal mining has led to
significant decreased habitat capability in highly mined areas. All
mineral resource extraction will have direct adverse impacts to the
surrounding environment, including its biodiversity. In addition to the
artisanal mining impacts, industrial mining operations can also include
the clearance, excavation, and flooding of farmlands.

The GOSL is in an extremely difficult position of trying to balance the
competing demands of mineral resource extraction for small-scale and
large-scale activities --- on which livelihoods depend --- and
protecting the contiguous natural resources of tropical forests and
biodiversity. Without enacting a functional land rehabilitation program,
educating artisanal miners on sustainable best practices, and addressing
the increasing large scale mining interests, deforestation will
continue.

Fisheries management

The vast majority of fisheries in Sierra Leone are artisanal, with less
than 20 percent accounted for by legal industrial vessel fishing. The
threat from artisanal fishing rests in the fact that the techniques
employed are frequently unsustainable due the use poisons, explosives,
netting with excessively small mesh sizes, and inappropriate gear use
(such as bottom trawls in sea grass beds). The lack of data and accurate
information to determine the extent of the fisheries resources is a
major hindrance to the management of this resource. Without an accurate
picture of the extent of either offshore or inshore fisheries, Sierra
Leone will have difficulty in sustainably managing the industry as it
continues to develop.

Other threats

Additional threats to biodiversity include poverty, urban development,
civil conflict, and the bushmeat and pet trades. Poverty and the effects
of civil conflict have been pointed to as root causes to deforestation
and threatened biodiversity. Urban development and bushmeat extraction
are more localized threats but are just as important to address when
considering future programming.

USAID/Sierra Leone Strategy

According to USAID/Sierra Leone's 2006 Strategy Statement, the primary
U.S. interest in Sierra Leone is the consolidation of peace, stability,
and security. While the United States acknowledges the need for
continued investment, the recently released FY 2008 Congressional Budget
Justification for Sierra Leone shows a marked decrease (almost 50
percent) in requested funds for 2008 in comparison with the 2006 and
continuing resolution 2007 budgets. In light of USAID/Sierra Leone's
limited resources, the Mission will focus on one strategic objective,
"enhance democratic governance," for FY 2006 -- 2008. The Enhance
Democratic Governance SO seeks to broaden community-based political
participation in national dialogue through multiple mutually reinforcing
activities through capacity building, training in advocacy skills, and
civil rights and responsibilities education for citizens.

As part of the approximately USD \$16 million FY 2008 budget, USD \$1
million has been requested for the environment budget line item under
economic growth. The indicators associated with this category are found
under Program Element 8.1: Natural Resources and Biodiversity. The
recommendations developed for this assessment address areas in which
these funds, if allocated, could be used to satisfy both the
biodiversity code and the 8.1 element indicators as the USAID/Sierra
Leone program moves forward. To date, very little emphasis has been
placed on natural resource management programming from the international
community, which leaves an opportunity for USAID promote biodiversity
conservation and related activities.

Three major projects are currently operating in Sierra Leone and are
briefly described below.

LINKS: Promoting Linkages for Livelihood Security and Economic
Development and LEAD: Livelihood Expansion and Asset Development

The LINKS program addresses the reestablishment of livelihoods of the
poor in order to generate income. LINKS is built on the foundation
created by the FFP DRP to improve health status and focuses on
agriculture-based activities. This project intersects with environmental
concerns in its promotion of agricultural activities, land usages, and
established relationships with youth and women. All of these factors
have been considered when formulating the recommendations specific to
this project.

IDMP: Integrated Diamond Management Project

IDMP aims to improve governance of the Sierra Leone diamond sector by
ensuring that government and communities both derive increased benefits
through addressing corruption and promoting equitable and transparent
management of the resource. Many of these activities take place at the
local level in the form of trainings in and around Kono (Northern
District). Due to the direct impact of artisanal diamond mining
activities on the surrounding landscape, IDMP is particularly well
positioned to promote land reclamation and related impact mitigation
activities through its pre-established community networks.

Democracy and Governance

USAID's Democracy and Governance program is focused heavily on good
governance, civic training, and advocacy skills for local communities.
The program has worked to develop community participatory plans on
governance that reinforces the interaction of members with elected the
local government. The community training and outreach format of this
program could provide synergies with biodiversity and environmental
education by utilization of the media outlets and the community
relationships.

Overall, USAID/Sierra Leone has the opportunity to include an emphasis
on the sustainability of natural resources as one of the foundations for
effective democratic governance. Good governance and natural resource
conservation are inextricably linked in Sierra Leone. Historically, some
sources of past political instability can be linked directly to the
manner in which the natural resources of Sierra Leone have been
exploited. Therefore, it is now essential to ensure that an integrated
message of natural resource conservation is emphasized as part of
USAID/Sierra Leone's country programming.

Recommendations

The recommendations presented in this report have been categorized as
either short-term or medium- to long-term actions, at the request of the
mission. Short-term actions include suggestions that are specific to
USAID's ongoing projects as well as potential uses for the previous
biodiversity earmark. Medium- to long-term activities include
recommendations that could be addressed by USAID over the coming years
as well as presented for consideration by the broader donor community. A
full discussion of recommendations is presented within the body of this
report. A summary of recommendations is presented below.

Priorities for the short term

USAID has the opportunity to enact the following recommendations that
are directly related to its three ongoing projects:

-   LINKS: Through the pre-established network of community
    interactions, LINKS can improve education programs by including best
    practices for agro-forestry, community forest management, protected
    area co-management, aquaculture, and apiculture. If any communities
    are close to the 48 designated reserves, then protected area care
    and management should be incorporated into agriculture based
    extension programs.

-   IDMP: As part of the diamond mining initiative, USAID should promote
    a greater emphasis on land reclamation programs. USAID is primed to
    promote more hands-on demonstration reclamation while the current
    education and training program should incorporate modules on
    needs/benefits for environmental conservation. USAID could pursue
    collaboration with the private sector through public private
    partnerships as well as consider developing a foundation for
    management of external private donations related to the diamond
    industry and its environmental impacts. In general, IDMP's
    objectives and focus should be reviewed. By educating local miners
    to earn fair value for diamonds, mining activities may increase,
    which in turn will continue to add to the degradation of lands that
    currently do not have adequate reclamation programs in place.

-   Democracy and Governance: This project is primed to use its
    established resource centers, developed through local governance
    interactions, to distribute materials related to biodiversity
    conservation, forest management, protected area management, and
    other natural resource management best practices. The potential to
    serve as a clearinghouse for conservation opportunities should be
    explored, especially given the lack of information centers in Sierra
    Leone.

USAID/Sierra Leone was issued approximately \$450,000 of Biodiversity
Earmark funds in FY2005. If these funds are still available, they could
be used to support a number of ongoing conservation efforts, including
some transboundary efforts.

-   Give support to the transboundary conservation program with the Gola
    forest on the Liberian border. The Gola trust fund and management
    program has been established and has achieved successes to date, but
    it would benefit from additional funds or from programs supporting
    the current project.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The Outamba Kilimi National Park on the Guinea border could also
    benefit from support for the transboundary conservation program. The
    park is currently understaffed and unable to sufficiently protect
    its boundaries. Additional support or training programs that deal
    with surrounding communities could greatly help this project.

-   Other areas of emphasis include the Tacaguma Chimp Sanctuary, Tiwai
    Island, the Western Peninsula Area Forest, reputable NGOs, and
    capacity support for NaCEF.

Medium-term and longer-term interventions

Interventions suggested for the next two to five years are not as
clearly defined as the short-term activities. These recommendations are
broader in scope and USAID's involvement will be dependent on future
funding for Sierra Leone. Due to the uncertainty of the USAID/Sierra
Leone program and the importance of addressing these issues for Sierra
Leone's future, these topics could be broadcast to the wider donor
community for consideration in their programs.

-   Provide support to the GOSL or NGOs to assist in mainstreaming
    implementation of recommendations of the National Biodiversity
    Strategic Action Plan (2003). Specifically, provide support to the
    objectives that are directly related to the World Bank/GEF proposal
    to prioritize eight protected areas within Sierra Leone. Related
    efforts could be to develop or expand successful community based
    conservation efforts such as those found at Tiwai Island and the
    Gola Forest.

-   As transboundary issues continue to be important in the West African
    context, USAID could provide support for Upper Guinean Rainforest
    Conservation Network with the goal of sustainable management of key
    protected areas for Liberia, Sierra Leone, Guinea, and Côte
    D'Ivoire.

-   Ensure that the new PRSP incorporates issues associated with natural
    resource management, specifically biodiversity and tropical forest
    conservation. Previously, this issue was deemed as cross-cutting and
    did not receive a directed review.

Summary

Sierra Leone is a country in which all ecosystems are at risk of being
lost as a beneficial resource to Sierra Leone and the world. The
ecosystems currently provide habitat to some of the world's rarest
wildlife species (e.g., pygmy hippo, forest elephants, and several rare
primates species). The institutional framework for ensuring that the
function of these ecosystems is available for current and future
generations is extremely weak. The evaluation of ongoing efforts to
implement the Biodiversity Strategic Action Plan indicates that not
enough is occurring to establish the necessary management structure and
ensure that a protected area network is in place and functioning.
However, there are signs of some positive developments in tropical
forest and biodiversity conservation, such as Tiwai Island, Gola Forest,
and Outamba Kilimi National Park.

This assessment indicates that the USAID program has been responsive to
the immediate post-war needs of Sierra Leone and is appropriately
evaluating and transitioning its program emphasis to integrate more
sustainable land use activities. The IDMP activities associated with
mining-related land reclamation are excellent examples of how program
activities have expanded to incorporate additional objectives. Numerous
opportunities exist for similar expansion of USAID objectives and
activities that can serve to benefit the conservation of Sierra Leone's
natural resources.

INTRODUCTION

USAID/Sierra Leone has recently submitted its FY07 Operational Plan and
is developing a country strategy for U.S. bilateral development
assistance to Sierra Leone. This Biodiversity and Tropical Forest
Assessment report has been prepared to provide information and analysis
as requested by USAID/Sierra Leone, required by the U.S. Congress, and
stipulated in the U.S. Foreign Assistance Act (FAA) of 1961. Sections
117, 118 and 119 of the FAA require USAID Missions to examine issues of
environmental impacts and tropical forest and biodiversity conservation
when preparing strategies for development assistance. Specifically, this
assessment is designed to take into consideration the FAA provisions
related to:

Section 117: Consideration of the impact of proposed activities on the
environment and how to implement programs with an aim toward maintaining
and restoring natural resources upon which economic growth depends;

Section 118: Analysis of the actions necessary to achieve conservation
and sustainable management of tropical forests and the extent to which
the actions proposed by USAID meet these needs and

Section 119: Analysis of the actions necessary to protect endangered
species and to conserve biological diversity and the extent to which the
actions proposed by USAID meet these needs.

In 2005, a Biodiversity and Tropical Forest Assessment report was
prepared for the mission. The scope of that report was relative to the
size of the programs in place in Sierra Leone at the time, and the
assessment was conducted without a field trip. Concurrently, in February
2005 a Programmatic Environmental Assessment was prepared to address
small-scale mining impacts in Sierra Leone. Because of USAID's
involvement with programs related to diamond mining, it was deemed
important to address mining concerns in the updated 118/119 assessment.

These reports, along with other literature addressing biodiversity and
other environmental concerns, have been used as a basis for updating
this 118/119 assessment. The updated report seeks to provide a more
comprehensive assessment to inform the USAID/Sierra Leone Mission's
strategic planning, program development, and implementation.

This assessment includes an overview of the status of biodiversity and
tropical forest conservation, an overview of the legislative and donor
community framework particular to Sierra Leone, and an analysis of major
threats to biodiversity conservation and tropical forests.

The report also examines how the proposed activities in the new strategy
for USAID assistance could contribute to conservation needs and includes
recommendations for actions related to the sole strategic objective
(SO), "enhance democratic governance," as well as near-term and
long-term suggestions for additional programming. These additional
suggestions could also be presented for consideration by other donors,
depending on the funding levels and capacity of USAID/Sierra Leone over
the coming years. These recommendations are aimed at supporting
environmental sustainability and conservation objectives in a manner
consistent with the overall strategy of USAID and in ways that help to
address the needs identified in this assessment.

The report findings and conclusions are based on a series of interviews
with key stakeholders, specialists, and program representatives in
Sierra Leone and in Washington, D.C.; and two weeks of field work in
Sierra Leone, including a site visit to areas of Kono/Koidu, the Gola
Forest Reserve, Tiwai Wildlife Sanctuary, the western peninsula, and
adjacent landscapes in the southwest and western regions of Sierra
Leone. Annex 2 provides a complete scope of work for this assessment and
Annex 3 provides a list of documents reviewed and referenced for this
report. Annex 1 presents a schedule of interviews and field work, and
lists contact information for key contacts.

This report was prepared in February and March 2007 by a four-person
team combining experience in tropical forestry, biodiversity
conservation, natural resource management, environmental policy, and
mineral development. Mr. Chris Squire from Sierra Leone was recently
appointed the commissioner of Sierra Leone\'s National Commission on
Environment and Forests and is a professor at Fourah Bay University.
Renee Morin acted as the team leader on the assessment and is an
environmental specialist and chemist with nearly 10 years of experience
conducting environmental impact assessments, with a focus on extractive
industries. Joe Krueger is an environmental law specialist with the U.S.
Forest Service. He has a forest management degree and over 15 years of
experience in environmental impact assessment and land management
planning. John McKay is a licensed geologist working for the U.S. Forest
Service. John has over 25 years of experience working on mineral
resource evaluation and development.

OVERVIEW OF BIODIVERSITY AND TROPICAL FOREST CONSERVATION STATUS IN
SIERRA LEONE

Sierra Leone represents one of the most unique and important ecosystems
in the world. Located within the Upper Guinea rainforest region, Sierra
Leone has a variety of distinct ecosystems that provide critical habitat
for some of the world's rarest species. The diversity of ecosystems
within Sierra Leone are characterized by areas of ocean, freshwater,
brackish water, coastal beaches (rocky, sandy and muddy), wet
lands(mangrove swamps), inland valley swamps, boli-lands, savannah
woodlands and tropical rain forests.[^2] The species that rely upon
these ecosystems are constantly at risk of extirpation within Sierra
Leone, due to the effects of land use activities ---primarily shifting
agriculture, hunting, mining, unregulated timber harvest, and fire.

By various accounts, an estimated 70 percent of the country was forested
at one time. The mature forest cover that exists today is estimated to
be just under five percent of the country's land area, with logging and
slash-and-burn agriculture as the primary disturbance agents.[^3] The
tropical forest cover is characterized by seven different vegetation
types: moist rain forest, semi-deciduous, montane, mangrove, savannah,
farm bush, and swamp forests. Farm bush arises from slash-and-burn
agriculture and is becoming the dominant vegetation type in Sierra
Leone. ![](media/image4.png){width="4.009722222222222in"
height="4.509722222222222in"}

The savannah is limited to the northern parts of the country and is
increasingly being subjected to frequent fires, both man-made and
natural. Most of the moist and semi-deciduous forests are located within
protected areas, often on mountaintops and slopes.

While significantly outdated, Figure 1 shows the general types of
vegetative cover within Sierra Leone and the lack of mature growth
forests.

Status and Management of Forests and Protected Areas

The relatively small amount of forest cover remaining in Sierra Leone is
an alarming, given that Sierra Leone historically had approximately 4.3
million acres of closed high forest of moist evergreen and
semi-deciduous forest types. Today the country has lost nearly 70
percent of its forest cover, with less than five percent of the original
forest remaining in isolated forest reserves on tops of mountains and
hillsides. These reserves are indicated in Table 1 below.

The dependence on fuelwood for subsistence needs, as well as shifting
agricultural practices (slash and burn), place tremendous pressure on
forest resources both inside and outside of the forest reserves. The
status of the forest resources should be considered threatened and the
ability to manage the forest resources, especially outside of protected
areas, should be considered limited at best.

Table 1: Designated Reserves and Corresponding Areas in Sierra Leone

  -------------------- --------------- -------------------- ---------------
  RESERVE              AREA (HA)       RESERVE              AREA (HA)

  Gola                 77,044          Nimini               15,557

  Tonkoli              47,656          Freetown Peninsula   14,089
                                       (Western Area        
                                       Peninsula Forest)    

  Loma                 33,200          Sanka Biriwa         11,885

  Kambui               21,213          Kangari Hills        8,573

  Dodo Hills           21,185          Kuru Hills           7,001

  Tama                 17,094          Kasewe               2,333
  -------------------- --------------- -------------------- ---------------

Sierra Leone currently has 48 forest reserves and conservation areas.
(See Figure 2, Table 2, and Annex 4 for a complete listing.) Most of the
reserves and areas are inadequately protected and managed. The area
within Sierra Leone dedicated as forest reserves is estimated at 284,591
ha, while areas additionally proposed as forest reserves cover 36,360
ha. Protected or community forests situated on chiefdom land but managed
by the Forestry Division are estimated at 11,800 ha. The information
available from the BSAP also indicates an additional 300,000 hectares
within a wetland and marine ecosystem protected area. These are likely
comprised mainly of the mangrove ecotypes. Therefore, the total land
area designated for some form of natural resource management or
protection represents approximately eight percent of the land area. Only
two of the areas, Outamba Kilimi National Park (OKNP) and Tiwai Wildlife
Sanctuary (TWS), have been elevated to the status of national park and
wildlife sanctuary, and both fulfill the IUCN classification system.
Several protected areas (e.g., the Gola forests) have been proposed as
national parks or game reserves.

All of the major ecosystem types are represented within the protected
area system of Sierra Leone. Currently, Sierra Leone has 11 protected
areas with moist forest formations (closed moist and semi-deciduous)
within their boundaries. Three of these protected areas have entirely
moist evergreen forest and they include two strict nature reserves (Gola
North and Gola East) and a proposed national park (Western Peninsula
Area forest reserve). Kangari Hills in central Sierra Leone is made up
of semi-deciduous forest.

Other protected areas with some moist forests within their boundaries
include Lake Sonfon, Loma Mountains, Dodo Forests, Yawri Bay, and Tingi
Hills.[^4] Protected areas with both moist and semi-deciduous forests
have an estimated land area of just over 33,900 ha.[^5] The wetland
ecosystem occupies the largest land area in Sierra Leone, with numerous
"proposed" protected areas. The marine ecosystem has a limited protected
area within 3-4 miles offshore, known as Inshore Exclusion Zone (IEZ),
where industrial fishing vessels are prohibited from fishing. These
areas are protected for the artisan fleets.

Table 2. Summary of Established Reserves by Ecosystem

  --------------- --------------- --------------- ------------------------
  Ecosystem Type  Number of       Total Land Area Categories Represented
                  Reserves                        

  Montane         2               43,720          National Park, Game
                                                  Reserve

  Rainforest      27              124,789         Forest Reserve, National
                                                  Park, Game Reserve, Game
                                                  Sanctuary

  Savanna         3               113,500         National Park, Game
                                                  Reserve, Game Sanctuary

  Wetland         13              350,677         Strict Nature Reserve,
                                                  Game Sanctuary, Game
                                                  reserve, National Park,
                                                  Important Bird Area

  Marine          1               300,000ha       Inshore Exclusion Zone
                                                  (IEZ)
  --------------- --------------- --------------- ------------------------

Figure 2. Map of Protected Areas in Sierra Leone

![](media/image5.png){width="8.75in" height="6.233333333333333in"}

Approximately 173,095 ha of lands are specifically reserved for wildlife
management and protection. The following areas have been demarcated as
Wildlife Protected Areas as defined by the Wildlife Conservation Act of
1972:

![](media/image6.png){width="3.420138888888889in"
height="2.4291666666666667in"}![](media/image7.png){width="3.4208333333333334in"
height="2.3756944444444446in"}

Outamba Kilimi National Park

In 1995, this park was declared as the country's first national park. It
covers an area of 98,420 ha and consists mainly of savanna and closed
forests. Its threatened species include elephants, chimpanzees, and the
bongo. The area is expected to contain some of the highest
concentrations of chimpanzees within Sierra Leone.

Tiwai Islands

This area is mainly a game sanctuary (12,000 ha) in a closed high forest
zone. Rare animals include Pygmy hippos and banded duikers. The Tiwai
Island Game Reserve was gazetted as a result of collaboration between
two U.S. universities (University of Miami and Hunter College) and Njala
University College of Sierra Leone.[^6]

The game sanctuary is managed by a management committee, represented by
individuals from the two chiefdoms in which Tiwai Islands are located.

Mamunta Mayoso

This is a proposed game sanctuary (2,000 ha) of wetland swamp
vegetation. There is a rich variety of birdlife in the sanctuary. A
visit to this area indicated that the area continues to receive pressure
from agricultural exploitation as well as hunting and fishing pressure
including encroachment of the buffer zone.

Western Area Peninsula Forest

This is a protected forest and a non- hunting reserve. It consists of
mainly 17,688 ha of closed forest. Among the rare animals found are
Jentinks duikers and chimpanzees. The management of this area appears to
be losing ground to incidental development within its declared boundary
as well as increasing agricultural exploitation, charcoal production,
and fuelwood and rock collecting. Visible evidences (reduction of forest
cover) can be seen from numerous extraction tracks leading up to the
watershed. Maintenance of sufficient forest cover (greater than 60
percent) is only evident within the inner core of the reserve.

Loma Mountains

This is a 32,816 ha non-hunting forest reserve of montane vegetation
consisting of rainforest and grassland. Leopards are among the rare
animals found in the Loma Mountains.

Sankan Briwa

This montane forest reserve covers an area of 11,997 ha and consists of
forest vegetation and grasslands.

Summary

The successful management of the protected area network is affected by
numerous interrelated issues. First and foremost is the extreme poverty,
which results in significant direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on
the resources that the protected areas are designed to preserve. The
subsistence needs of local communities for resources within the
protected areas include firewood, bushmeat, timber for building, and
land for agriculture production. A considerable challenge lies within
the GOSL's ability to balance the management of the resource values of
protected areas while providing for appropriate compensation to local
communities for the protection of the resource benefits that these areas
provide. The limited funding available to the GOSL to complete these
management plans and enforce their application is a significant
challenge that is being offset only partially by the donor communities'
involvement. The management of Tiwai Island and the Gola Forest provide
excellent examples of the opportunities for the GOSL and the donor
community to join together to pattern the management of other protected
areas.

Status and Protection of Endangered Species

The current status and protection of endangered species should be
considered tenuous at best. The precise classification system that has
been used for defining the status of the various species is unclear. For
the purposes of this assessment, the classification system that was used
for identifying the status for the National Biodiversity Report will be
used. In addition to these characterizations of species status, the IUCN
status of species has been included. Notwithstanding the use of these
classifications for identifying which species are at risk, no reliable
post-war estimates of population size and distribution of any endangered
species exist. Protection of endangered species still appears only
symbolic, with only limited circumstances in which management of the
habitat appears to be restricting the hunting of endangered species.
Fines and punishment associated with protecting endangered species are
neither sufficient nor enforced throughout the country. Most of the
wildlife populations are likely significantly depleted outside of
protected areas as a result of over-hunting and habitat destruction.

Sierra Leone has 15 species of primates, 11 of which are forest species
and six of which are threatened, according to the Biodiversity Action
Plan. These include the western chimpanzee (*Pantroglodytes verus*), the
black and white colobus monkey (*Procolobus polykomus*), red colobus
monkey (*Colobus badius polykomos*), diana monkey (*Cercopithecus
diana*), and olive colobus monkey.

Sierra Leone has 18 species of antelopes, nine of which are threatened.
These include the jentincks (*Cephalophus jentinki*) and zebra duikers
(*Cephalophus zebra*). Other threatened species of mammals include one
species of forest elephant (*Loxodonta africana cyclotis*), which is
believed to be almost extinct, West African manatee (*Trichechus
senegalensis*), pygmy hippopotamus (*Hexaprotodon liberiensis*), leopard
(*Pantera pardus*), an endemic frog (*Bufo cristiglands*) found in the
Tingi Hills, and an endemic toad (*Cardioglossus aureolli*) found in the
Western Area Peninsula Forest.

Relatively few endemic invertebrates are known to exist. They include
two dragonfly species, *Argiagrion leoninum* and *Allohizucha campioni*,
and the rare giant swallow-tail butterfly, *Papilio* *antimachus*, which
reaches its western limit in Sierra Leone.

Annex 5 presents the forested and wetland habitats and their associated
primary species.

Table 3 includes all mammals that occur in Sierra Leone that are rated
as endangered or vulnerable in the [2004 IUCN Red List of Threatened
Animals](http://www.animalinfo.org/refi.htm#iucn 2004 red list - species search).

Table 3. Vulnerable and Endangered Species in Sierra Leone\
IUCN Red List 2004

  ------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------
  [Vulnerable](http://www.animalinfo.org/notes.htm#vulnerable96)     [Endangered](http://www.animalinfo.org/notes.htm#endangered96)

  [African Elephant](http://www.animalinfo.org/species/loxoafri.htm) Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes).
  (Loxodonta africana).                                              

  [African Golden                                                    Diana Monkey (Cercopithecus diana).
  Cat](http://www.animalinfo.org/species/carnivor/profaura.htm)      
  (Profelis aurata).                                                 

  Buettikofer\'s Epauletted Fruit Bat (Epomops buettikoferi).        Red Colobus (Procolobus badius).

  [Jentink\'s                                                        [Wild
  Duiker](http://www.animalinfo.org/species/artiperi/cephjent.htm)   Dog](http://www.animalinfo.org/species/carnivor/lycapict.htm)
  (Cephalophus jentinki).                                            (Lycaon pictus).

  Lion (Panthera leo).                                               

  Pygmy Hippopotamus (Hexaprotodon liberiensis).                     

  Spotted-necked Otter (Lutra maculicollis).                         

  [West African                                                      
  Manatee](http://www.animalinfo.org/species/tricsene.htm)           
  (Trichechus senegalensis).                                         

  Zebra Duiker (Cephalophus zebra)                                   
  ------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------

Conservation Outside of Protected Areas

The large number of people in Sierra Leone combined with their extremely
limited economic situation is resulting land degradation and loss of
forest cover. In rural areas, development of settlements in marginal
areas by the farming community has led to high levels of deforestation
and soil degradation. In urban areas, such as Freetown and Kenema, the
influx of rural-urban migration is increasing the problems of
overcrowding, poor living conditions and sanitation, and inadequate
water supply and housing.

Compounding land-use issues is the lack of private land ownership or
land rights at the community level. Historically, the security of
ownership or long-term land rights and control of resource access leads
to a willingness to apply sustainable resource utilization approaches.
While some of the population continues to relocate to urban areas, a
growing number of Sierra Leoneans are returning to their villages as
peace has been achieved up-country. However, many of these lands have
not been officially gazetted to the impacted communities and thus
responsibility for the lands is not always clear. While conflict may
result, a secondary issue is the lack of coordinated land use
management, which can lead to negative impacts on the surrounding
forests and biodiversity.

Conservation efforts appear to be limited in scope to the overall needs.
A few notable examples include the Tacugama Chimpanzee Sanctuary as well
as the efforts of the Conservation Society of Sierra Leone and
Environmental Foundation of Africa. The efforts of these organizations
in increasing the visibility and strength of conservation activities
have been and will continue to be critical to achieving awareness of the
conservation needs of Sierra Leone.

The private sector may have the ability to effectively manage their
immediate and adjacent environmental issues (as witnessed at the Koidu
Holdings Diamond Mine Operation) but the effects from their conservation
efforts are limited in scope and scale.

LEGISLATIVE AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK AFFECTING BIODIVERSITY AND
TROPICAL FORESTS

When Sierra Leone gained independence in 1961, there were high hopes for
rapid socio-economic growth and development driven by sustained
exploitation of the country\'s natural resources. However, less than a
decade later, the country began to suffer from dramatic economic
decline, social inequalities and political instability that broke down
completely in 1991 with the outbreak of a brutal armed conflict that
lasted until early 2002. Annual economic growth declined from an average
4 percent and 3.5 percent in the 1960s and 1970s respectively, to an
average of 1.5 percent in the 1980s.

In the late 1980s, the GOSL in consultation with its development
partners introduced a series of macroeconomic and structural reforms
aimed at stabilizing the economy and restoring growth. Before any
significant and sustained turnaround could be made, the civil war ensued
and derailed the social and economic reconstruction program. This
resulted in further economic deterioration to an average growth rate of
negative 4.5 percent per annum between 1990 and 2000.

In the era of civil conflict and the post-conflict transition, much of
Sierra Leone's economic and physical infrastructure were destroyed, and
resource "mining" intensified, particularly in rebel-held strongholds.
This was reflected in abysmal social indicators: under-five child
mortality of 28.4 percent; life expectancy of 37 years; adult literacy
rate of 36 percent. The gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in
Sierra Leone was USD \$520. Seventy percent of the population was living
below the national poverty line of USD \$0.75 per day; there was
widespread lack of access to food and shelter; and coping mechanisms
seemed non-existent. The decade-long conflict exacerbated Sierra Leone's
poverty situation and caused the population to exert enormous pressure
on the land and its resources for subsistence, livelihood support, and
income --- the results of which continue to be observed today.

Figures contained in the SL-PRSP suggest that the economy has
transitioned well (4.3 percent GDP growth in 2002, 9.3 percent in 2003,
and 7.4 percent in 2004) after completion of the government's
disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration program for
ex-combatants. In the immediate post-war period (2000-03), agriculture,
forestry and fisheries sectors grew at an average 4.6 percent per annum,
and this was attributed largely to the high demand for basic food and
timber for the housing sector.

Sierra Leone's post-conflict economic performance has been largely due
to recovery in agriculture and mining. Evidently, this overdependence of
the economy on agriculture, forestry, mining, fisheries, and production
of bushmeat has led to over-exploitation of natural resources with
disastrous consequences for the environment. This situation is
compounded by a weak regulatory/legislative and institutional framework
for natural resource and environmental management. Against this
background, Sierra Leone and its partners need to focus on sustainable
management of its biological resources and the environment.

Laws supporting the conservation and improved management

of biological resources and endangered species, including international
treaties

The decline of forests in Sierra Leone has been blamed largely on
slash-and-burn agriculture. However, in many areas, deforestation
followed in the wake of commercial logging, which dates back to the
British colonial period and became a major industry when slavery was
outlawed. By 1840, logging activities had shifted to the interior of the
country, as the supply of valuable timber along the coast became
exhausted. At that time, forest management and legislation was
nonexistent. Subsistence farmers moved directly into the recently logged
areas to burn remaining vegetation and clear the land for agricultural
activities, and the forest was never allowed to regenerate naturally.

In the colonial and immediate post-colonial period, efforts went into
preserving some of the ecosystem types in the country through the
declaration of a number of Protected Areas (PAs). Many pieces of
legislation and policy instruments have been enacted for environmental
management in Sierra Leone. For example, legislation has been
promulgated for forestry, agro-biodiversity, marine biodiversity,
wildlife management, fisheries management, extractive industry and
minerals extraction. General environmental management is covered by
Sierra Leone's National Environmental Policy (NEP) of 1994 and the
National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) of 2000. The new Forestry
Act and the original Wildlife Conservation Act were enacted in 1988 and
1972, respectively. In fulfilling Sierra Leone's obligation under the
Convention on Biological Diversity, the Government of Sierra Leone
prepared the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (BSAP). An
overview of some of these regulatory frameworks is presented below.

The National Environmental Policy

The NEP was approved by cabinet in 1990 and was revised in 1994[^7]. It
aims at achieving sustainable development in Sierra Leone, through sound
environmental and natural resources management. The primary policy
objectives are:

-   Conserve and use the environment and natural resources for the
    benefit of present and future generations

-   Preserve biological diversity and uphold the principle of optimum
    sustainable yield in the use of living natural resources and
    ecosystems

-   Raise public awareness and promote understanding of the essential
    linkages between the environment and development and to encourage
    individual and community participation in environmental improvement
    efforts

Further, the NEP contains, *inter alia*, sector policies on land tenure,
land use, and soil conservation; forests and wildlife; biological
diversity and cultural heritage; mining and mineral resources; coastal
and marine resources; settlements, recreational space, and greenbelts;
and public participation. The policy goal for the land tenure, land use,
and soil conservation is to "use available land in such a way that its
quality is conserved so as to enhance its potential for continuous
productivity and to prevent degradation."

To achieve this goal, GOSL is attempting "to make as priority
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of proposed activities which may
significantly affect the environment and the use of resources."[^8] The
NEP also has a specific goal and policy for water resource management,
which ensures adequate quantity and acceptable water quality to meet
domestic, industrial, transportation, agricultural, and fisheries needs.
Although Sierra Leone has laws prohibiting pollution of water bodies,
the laws are not adequately enforced.

The National Environment Protection Act, 2000

The National Environment Protection Act (NEPA) of 2000 established the
Environment Protection Department (EPD) and authorized the Director of
EPD and Minister of the Environment to administer and monitor the
implementation of the act. The act makes provision for the development
of an EIA for projects in Sierra Leone on agriculture, mining,
construction, waste disposal, and exploitation of water resources. In
compliance with NEPA, the EIA document is to be submitted by the
developer and contain an assessment of potential impacts to the
environment and surrounding population; indicate their public
consultative process; proposed mitigation measures and monitoring plan.

In issuing a license for a project based on an EIA, the minister also
has the authority to establish regulations for national environmental
standards pertaining to the use of natural resources, water quality,
effluent limitation, air quality, wastes, atmospheric and ozone
protection, noise control, pesticide residues, and odors.
Internationally banned chemicals are prohibited in Sierra Leone, as is
the discharge of any hazardous substances into the air, land, or water.

The Forestry Act, June 1988

The Forestry Act of 1988 contains special protection provisions under
which the minister is empowered to declare any area to be a "protected
area for the purpose of conservation of soil, water, flora and fauna."
The legislation stipulates that 'no person may cut, burn, uproot or
destroy trees that are in protected areas or trees that have been
declared as being protected." It also states that the chief
conservator/director of forest may issue a license or concession to fell
and extract a protected tree.

The Wildlife Conservation Act, 1972

The Wildlife Conservation Act of 1972 was enacted to help regulate the
utilization and protection of wildlife resources. However, the bill is
characterized by inadequate capacity for implementation and enforcement
and insufficient and unsustainable sources of funding. The bill is also
outdated and merits review and update to reflect current trends in
wildlife protection.

The Mines and Minerals Act, 1994

Diamond mining has been ongoing in Sierra Leone for about 70 years. The
consequent environmental degradation in Sierra Leone's estimated two
million hectares of diamondiferous lands in the southeastern regions of
the country presents serious challenges to the government. Environmental
problems continue to be exacerbated due to intensified of mining
diamond, gold, rutile, bauxite, and other minerals in the country.

To mitigate the impact of mining on the environment, the government is
exercising its "duty of care" by prioritizing as objective 6 in its Core
Mineral Policy a willingness to address "the adverse impacts on Health,
Communities and the Environment as a result of mining operations."
However, issues related to the adequacy of the provisions of the 2000
NEPA --- including logistics, personnel, implementation and monitoring
capacity, and the fact that mining operations continue to be widespread
--- implies government's restricted ability to implement full
environmental protection activities at the moment. In addition, mining
in the country predates the provisions for environmental management
inherent in NEPA, and vast areas of mined out lands have therefore not
been reclaimed. It is also clear that the financial provisions made for
post mining reclamation activities in the licensing process are
inadequate.

The Mines and Minerals Act of 1994 addresses mining leases and licenses
requirement for open--pit and industrial mining. When a proponent/miner
applies for a mining lease, details on the type, duration, cost,
marketing, and methods of mining are required to be provided and
forwarded to the director in the Ministry of Mines and Mineral
Resources. It is noteworthy that NEPA requires an EIA for prospecting,
exploration, and mining, whereas the Mines and Minerals Act requires an
EIA only for mining.

National Land Policy and Land Commission Act, 2004

A comprehensive land policy has been formulated, and the Lands
Commission Act is being developed by the Ministry of Lands and Country
Planning for approval by the cabinet. The land policy aims at ensuring
"the judicious use of the nation's land and its natural resources by all
sections of the Sierra Leone Society." The policy also provides the
framework to "ensure equal opportunity of access to land and security of
tenure in order to maintain a stable environment for the country's
sustainable, social and economic development." The Land Commission's
functions include the management of state lands, which encompasses the
execution of a comprehensive program for the registration of title to
land throughout Sierra Leone.

International treaties and conventions

Sierra Leone has also endorsed and signed several international
Conventions and Protocols, including:

-   Convention on Biodiversity (CBD)

-   United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

-   United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (CCD)

-   Convention on International Trade in Endangered species of Wild
    Fauna and Flora (CITES)

-   Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar)

-   Convention on Bio-safety, United Nations Convention on the Law of
    the Sea (UNCLOS)

-   Bassel Convention, Vienna Convention, and Montreal Protocol

-   Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants

These conventions and protocols are at different stages of
implementation, but in general, implementation is slow. Many have not
been ratified or harmonized with the laws, policies, and programs of
Sierra Leone. As a result, Sierra Leone trails far behind in the
implementation of the provisions of these conventions. A summary of
International/Regional treaties and their implementation is provided in
Annex 6.

Regional cooperation

Sierra Leone is member of the Mano River Union (with Liberia and
Guinea), the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), and the
African Union (AU).

Summary

Although most of these frameworks are relatively comprehensive, the
prescriptions, guidelines, management practices, and particularly the
governance and accountability structures that permeate the state
management structures are weak. They lack strength because they are out
of tune with current best practices and approaches to resource
management and conservation. This seemingly impressive array of
environmental laws and legislations has not fully provided a platform
for sustainable use of natural resources and proper management of the
environment. This can be attributed to the reasons below, which are
elaborated upon in Annex 7.

-   Systemic weakness in conservation legislations and inadequate
    capacity for their implementation and enforcement for the improved
    management of biological resources and endangered species, including
    international treaties

-   Lack of effective partnerships for conservation to create the
    desired impact, and insufficient and unsustainable sources of
    funding for protected area management

-   Insufficient public awareness about sustainable management and low
    perceptions of the value of management and conservation of natural
    resources and biodiversity

-   Lack of effective data collection, information management system,
    employment, and livelihood improvement opportunities

-   Potential conflicts of interest within sectors by not linking
    environmental and natural resources management responsibility with
    other development interests

-   The relative absence of an autonomous Environmental Protection
    Agency vested with both advisory and executive authority at all
    levels of government to design, monitor, and implement environmental
    polices

-   Lack of a mechanism that ensures environmental and natural resources
    management issues in the sectoral ministries and line agencies in
    order to provide information to carry out effective monitoring of
    environmental policies to be implemented

Institutions including government, international donors, and NGOs

In the past, the public sector organizations assumed full, unchallenged
responsibility for the management of wildlife resources and biodiversity
conservation within protected area systems in Sierra Leone. Most other
stakeholders were alienated, severing partnerships and jeopardizing
full-scale and active public participation by adopting
command-and-control approaches. The areas outside reserves became a
free-for-all --- open access heritage was overused and often abused. The
on-reserve, policing-type management practice and the open access
management style have proven to be counterproductive. A shift in
paradigm to shared management responsibility with other partners,
including the communities, is gradually emerging. It is believed that
institutionalized collaboration and partnership arrangements, combined
with oversight coordination, could be the key to improving management
effectiveness by pooling scarce resources and assigning management
responsibilities and roles based on capabilities.

The National Commission on Environment and Forestry (NaCEF)

Until 2005, the key public institutions responsible for forestry,
wildlife, biodiversity conservation, and environmental protection and
management were the forestry and environment departments. These
departments operated as part of various ministries, more recently
including the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food Security
(MAFFS) and the Ministry of Lands, Country Planning and Environment
(MLCPE).

However, in 2005, the Government of Sierra Leone established the
National Commission on Environment and Forestry (NaCEF). This commission
is responsible for the natural and environmental resource management
responsibilities previously overseen by the departments of environment
and forestry. NaCEF is an executive and policy advisory agency, and its
mandate includes advising policy and involvement in project
implementation, environmental monitoring, and priority setting. A NaCEF
act currently in the parliamentary approval process is intended to
maintain and repeal certain sections of previous acts under the Forestry
and Environment departments, and give NaCEF more direct authority over
its responsibilities.

NaCEF's portfolio of responsibilities includes ensuring that EIAs are
undertaken and monitored for the conservation of natural resources and
biodiversity, environmental protection of projects and activities, and
utilization of natural resources. Other responsibilities include
priority setting within the fields of its mandate, the development and
submission of intervention proposals, and the initiation and conduct of
pilot initiatives in forestry and environment. NaCEF currently has
serious overlaps in legislation with different ministries, which usually
has negative consequences on both environment and forestry efforts. The
key ministries and partners whose activities impact on environment are
listed in Annex 8.

The interfaces with other Ministries and NaCEF are reflected in Figure
3. In addition, the institutional role of NaCEF is laid out as follows:

NaCEF's Institutional Role

-   Advisory

    -   Policies

    -   Legislation

    -   Implementation

    -   Inputs to new legislation

-   Environmental Impact Assessment and Protection

-   Forestry and Conservation

-   Other

    -   Priority setting

    -   Proposals for intervention

    -   Pilot initiatives

Figure 3. NaCEF: Interagency Linkages

![](media/image8.png){width="6.373611111111111in"
height="3.732638888888889in"}

The commission currently suffers from low budgetary allocations from the
Government of Sierra Leone's central fund. The commission is
understaffed and has no allocations for development purposes. Lack of
resources (human, technical, and financial) is incapacitating older and
newly created public sector agencies, making them incapable of
delivering quality services in the management of the country's natural
endowments. Therefore, capacity deficiency is recognized as one of the
key barriers for effective protected area and environmental management,
wildlife protection, and biodiversity conservation in Sierra Leone.

Donor community

Donor coordination in Sierra Leone is being led by the government
through bi-monthly meetings of the Sierra Leone Development Partnership
Committee (DEPAC), chaired by the vice president and including the
government's development partners. Regular dialogue takes place outside
of the formal structures with the main donors (International Monetary
Fund, World Bank, African Development Bank, Islamic Development Bank,
USAID, etc) and specifically with member states present, particularly
the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Germany.

The EC and DFID recently went began development of a Joint Country
Strategy Paper (JCSP), which will lead to a more harmonized, aligned,
and effective delivery of development aid to Sierra Leone. The
integration and mainstreaming of environment is addressed as a
cross-cutting issue of the JCSP.

Currently, no major donors are actively supporting the environment in
Sierra Leone. However, international organizations such as the World
Bank and the UN, particularly UNDP and UNEP, have expressed their
general interest in becoming active in the environmental sector in the
coming years. Previously, the UNDP has sponsored a number of projects on
forestry and biodiversity conservation. UNDP is also currently providing
some support to NaCEF for capacity building. The World Bank is working
with NaCEF on a national project for the protection of wildlife and
biodiversity. The EU is finalizing a proposal for providing a harmonized
legislative framework for NaCEF, as well as providing sponsorship for
some level of capacity building.

Research and Academia

Research and academia in Sierra Leone seem to have an acceptable level
of human and technical resources to assist in the development and
implementation of effective programs for sustainable natural resource
management. The two main universities --- The University of Sierra Leone
and Njala University --- offer curricula in agriculture, forestry,
wildlife and fisheries management, and environmental studies; conduct
research in various disciplines of natural resource management; and
offer considerable expertise in contemporary best practices in
biodiversity conservation and protected area management. However, a lack
of financial resources has always limited how engaged they can be.

International and Local NGOs

In recent times, international and local NGOs have committed resources
to natural resources management in Sierra Leone, and have been actively
involved in decision-making, policy formulation, and implementation of
programs for wildlife protection and biodiversity conservation.
Generally, capacity among local NGOs is low compared to their
international counterparts, most of which work through local
organizations.

Prominent local and international NGOs in the environment and natural
resource sector include the Environmental Foundation for Africa, Friends
of the Earth Sierra Leone, Conservation International, BirdLife
International, the Conservation Society of Sierra Leone (a BirdLife
International partner), and the Royal Society for the Protection of
Birds (a BirdLife International partner in the UK). These and other
prominent groups are briefly described below, but no reliable
information is available on the existence and capacity of
community-based organizations in rural Sierra Leone.

  -------------------- --------------------------------------------------
  Organization         activity areas

  The Conservation     CSSL promotes the conservation and sustainable use
  Society of Sierra    of Sierra Leone's natural resources through
  Leone (CSSL)         research, education, advocacy and support to site
                       management groups. CSSL also undertakes campaigns
                       for the protection of wildlife, parks and
                       sanctuaries.

  Environmental        The mission of EFA in Sierra Leone is to restore
  Foundation for       and protect the environment and its natural
  Africa (EFA)         resources. It has acquired experience in terms of
                       operation in conflict zones, humanitarian and
                       refugee operations, post-conflict reconstruction
                       and rehabilitation.

  Commonwealth Human   CHEC promotes conservation of the ecology through
  Ecology Council      education, and it disseminates environmental
  (CHEC-SIL)           information through the mass media. It also
                       supports GOSL in promoting, through education,
                       policy implementation and project execution.

  Green Scenery and    This NGO is actively involved in tree planting and
  Friends of the Earth awareness raising campaigns on the protection and
                       management of the environment and natural
                       resources.

  Organization for     ORIENT promotes self-sustaining rural development
  Research and         through the promotion of agriculture and
  Extension of         appropriate technology to enhance and improve the
  Intermediate         socio-economic status of the people in rural areas
  Technology (OREINT)  
  -------------------- --------------------------------------------------

Civil society in environmental management

The environment and natural resource base in Sierra Leone has
deteriorated substantially. While many of the above-mentioned NGOs have
significant interactions with civil society, there is still a lack of
awareness among large sections of the population on the environmental
issues facing the country and the role that citizens should play in the
protection and improvement of the environment. The introduction of
environmental education in the educational system in the country and
raising public awareness have also been limited, but will be the key to
improving the current situation.

Priorities requiring immediate attention

Natural resource management and environmental protection in Sierra Leone
has been subordinate to development issues in Sierra Leone in both the
pre- and post-conflict eras. The country's civil war exacerbated the
problem through destruction of basic infrastructure and community coping
mechanisms. The scale of this destruction is perhaps significantly
responsible for why government and its international partners have been
embarking on projects aimed at rebuilding without due consideration for
sustainable natural resource management. Even the recently concluded
country PRSP considers sustainable environmental and biodiversity
management only as a cross-cutting issue. Specific provisions have not
been made for natural resource and biodiversity conservation. The
country is therefore running the risk of accomplishing rebuilding goals
but ending up with a major natural resource management crisis. Conscious
effort should be made to reverse these trends.

The institutional framework for natural resource management in the
country is in dire need of targeted review and capacity building. The
legislative framework is a close second in terms of its need for
attention. These issues must be addressed on a sustainable basis through
a multi-pronged approach: building capacity for NaCEF; reviewing,
updating, and enforcing the legislative framework for natural resource
management; creating partnerships and raise awareness of natural
resource management; and providing adequate financial resources for
biodiversity conservation.

Sierra Leone has 48 Protected Areas. Government allocation to NaCEF for
the management of so many protected areas is inadequate. Currently,
allocations cover only low personnel salaries and some office costs, and
do not make any provisions for the management of the Protected Areas or
undertaking new initiatives. In a bid to evolve a strategy to save some
of the ecosystem types in the country, a representative sample of eight
areas has been selected for sustainable management as conservation
concessions. The effort incorporates the establishment of a trust fund
to meet future development and management costs. This national
development need requires support, and the Government of Sierra Leone
and its international partners should back the effort, given its global
benefits.

Despite international involvement on environmental protection projects,
mining projects in Sierra Leone can be categorized generally as
investment and development priorities without any consistent
consideration for internationally accepted standards for environmental
protection. The Government of Sierra Leone and its international
partners and investors should mainstream natural resources management
into their development goals.

THREATS TO BIODIVERSITY AND CAUSES OF BIODIVERSITY LOSS

The principal threats to biodiversity loss in Sierra Leone can be
attributed broadly to unsustainable land use practices, the influence of
the mining industry, and lack of appropriate fisheries management.
However, these are indirect causes. Biodiversity loss in Sierra Leone is
directly rooted in civil conflict, poverty, and the absence of adequate
employment and alternative livelihoods. An examination of the causes
that threaten species, ecosystems, and ecoregions is presented below.
However, very few long-term studies or monitoring programs are tracking
trends in threats to biodiversity. Monitoring programs could be
conducted efficiently if integrated as part of long-term study programs
of universities and research organizations.

Land Use

When traveling the major upcountry roads in Sierra Leone, one can
witness the tangible and pervasive evidence of land use needs that are
outstripping the available resource capacity. This visual observation is
directly supported by the current figures associated with human
population (nearly 6 million) and loss of forest cover (less than 5
percent of original cover remaining).

Sierra Leone has a total land area of approximately 7.2 million
hectares, about 5.4 million of which is cultivable. (About 4.3 million
hectares are low fertile arable upland and 1.1 million hectares of more
fertile arable swamps.)[^9] With nearly 80 percent of the labor force
depending upon this land for their agricultural subsistence activities
(largely slash-and-burn, with rice cultivation making up the bulk of the
subsistence activity), the overall health of these lands will depend
upon how well farmers are able to maintain the soil, water, and living
resources. The combined effects of poor farming practices --- shifting
cultivation, recurrent bushfires and overgrazing, increasing population,
ensuing shortening of fallow periods of land --- have all been
identified as contributing factors to soil erosion resulting in land
degradation.

At present, forest resources are subjected to increasing deforestation
due to the rapidly growing population and consequent demand for more
agricultural land, urban requirement for timber and fuelwood, mining for
minerals, and recurrent bush fires. With population pressure and
commercialization today, the rate of exploitation has far outstripped
the rate of regeneration by natural means. The result is deforestation
and an acute threat to biodiversity.

This problem is especially acute if the protection and maintenance of
biodiversity in Sierra Leone is predicated on its ability to manage its
protected areas. Currently, there are only limited circumstances (Gola,
Tiwai, and perhaps Outamba Kilimi National Park) in which it appears
ecosystem functions may be being protected and maintained. The lack of
any agreed-upon management scenarios for the vast majority of the
protected areas is leading to encroachment, resource degradation, and
loss of function of ecosystem services from these areas.

According to a study completed in 2004,[^10] logging, firewood
collection, and mining ranked as the top three perceptions of the
actions most responsible for land degradation. The report indicated that
poverty, corruption, and low public awareness were the top three root
indirect reasons for these practices.

Minerals Management

Sierra Leone has a variety of valuable mineral deposits that can be
found in almost all of its ecosystems. Diamonds, iron ore, rutile,
bauxite, gold, granite, and platinum are some of the minerals under
active exploration or production by either artisanal or industrial scale
mining.[^11]

The status of diamond production indicates that among the 19
diamond-producing countries, Sierra Leone ranked 14th (less than 0.3
percent of total production) in the extraction of jewelry quality stones
and 8th (just over 0.4 percent of the total level) in the production of
industrial diamonds in 2003. At 512,000 carats, Sierra Leone ranked 12th
(about 0.3 percent) in overall world production in 2003.[^12] Although
Sierra Leone's production in total carats in 2004 increased overall by
about 36 percent to 696,000 carats, this was not enough to significantly
alter the country's relative rankings for production. This is also in
contrast to the peak diamond production of the country in the 1960s ---
about 2 million carats per year.

The vast majority of diamond production (nearly 90 percent by
weight)[^13] is from artisanal extraction methods. Of the 2300 active
artisanal mineral leases, nearly half were issued in the Kono District.
The number of unlicensed artisanal operations is estimated to be much
higher than the 2300 active licensed operation,[^14] but a precise
number for the extent of illegal operations is unavailable.

Small-scale artisanal operations typically involve the digging of pits
within alluvial river channels and excavating for black sands that are
associated with diamond-bearing gravels. Up to 100 individuals work on a
one-acre site. The diggers use shovels to extract the target gravel,
which is most often carried off in pans or sacks to an area where the
gravels are washed using a sieve. The actual number of diggers
associated with artisanal mining operations is not known, but is
estimated to range from 60,00 to 200,000.[^15]

Several references in numerous documents[^16] indicate a potential
decline in artisanal diamond activity. The current situation appears
that most areas available for artisanal operations will continue to be
reworked by speculators. There were very few instances in which
reclamation had occurred in mined-out areas, which would indicate that
no further economic return could be expected from that area.

Several large companies are involved currently in diamond prospecting
and exploration activities in Sierra Leone, but only one company is
extracting minerals under its lease arrangement. Koidu Holdings has two
well-defined kimberlite pipes and several dykes being developed. The
site visit to Koidu Holdings operations in Kono indicated that their
operations will likely continue for the next 20 to 30 years, if current
assumptions hold true. Review of the Koidu Holdings operations did
indicate that they are being undertaken with substantial consideration
of the local communities' concerns. However, the performance of the
larger companies to manage their environmental effects and complete site
reclamation is still unproven.

Expansion of rutile (the mineral used to produce titanium metal),
bauxite, and platinum mining industries are likely, given that Sierra
Leone has one of the world's largest rutile resources and that titanium
usage is on increasing globally for industrial and military
applications. Until 1995, Sierra Leone produced one-fourth of the
world's supply of titanium.

Platinum is only mined commercially in a few places in the world: Africa
and the United States. The main uses of platinum are catalytic
converters in vehicles and jewelry. This resource is known to occur in
Sierra Leone and may yet attract commercial interests. The other mineral
resources that may also attract commercial interest are chromite,
molybdenite, and iron ore. These minerals are in high demand on a global
scale, especially from China and India. Interest in these resources is
already being expressed in the increase and size of mineral exploration
licenses being authorized.[^17]

As relative stability of governance returns and continues in Sierra
Leone, and prices for metals and minerals increase, the mining industry
will inevitably expand and play an important role in Sierra Leone's
economy.

Effects of mineral extraction and management on biodiversity

Loss of biodiversity and tropical forests

As Figure 4 indicates, there is a high degree of geographic overlap
between mineral exploration permits and the protected area network. Not
only does mineralization occur in these areas, but the apparent rights
to these minerals have been sold. If exploitation occurs within these
areas, the potential to significantly affect biodiversity and forest
cover should be considered very high. In the forested areas of the south
and east of the country, small-scale artisanal mining of diamonds (and
gold, to a lesser extent) is likely occurring and affecting water
quality, forest cover, and the exploitation of wildlife from an
increased demand for bushmeat to sustain workers.

The majority of the artisanal activity, which accounts for most of the
mining activity in Sierra Leone, may have individually insignificant
effects on biodiversity and tropical forests but cumulatively
significant effects. In addition to diamond and gold alluvial mining
activities, there is visible evidence of extensive "rock mining" for
gravel starting on the outskirts of Freetown and reaching most areas of
the upcountry. The environmental impact of artisanal operations such as
these are typically limited in scale but greatly increase the total area
affected, if a high-quality gemstone or rich rock deposit is found. In
combination with the lack of any effective reclamation programs for
mined areas, artisanal mining has led to significant areas with
decreased habitat capability. The effects to the environment and
biodiversity from mining activity can
include:![](media/image9.png){width="3.4243055555555557in"
height="2.4069444444444446in"}

![](media/image10.png){width="6.259722222222222in"
height="6.134722222222222in"}

-   Siltation of dams and rivers

-   Indiscriminate deforestation

-   Additional degraded lands from settlement patterns of miners

-   Ground and surface water pollution, including acidic mine drainage
    and heavy metal pollution from copper, lead, arsenic, mercury, or
    cyanide, if the excavation is in highly mineralized zones (typically
    not the case for diamonds).

-   Dust pollution

-   Water table depression as a result of pumping water through shafts,
    and in some cases through boreholes

-   Oil pollution from leaks from vehicles and machinery

-   Habitat fragmentation, decreased habitat effectiveness, and
    increased mortality of wildlife

Biodiversity is impacted by the change in habitat, water quality, and
land use after extraction. All mineral resource extraction will have
direct adverse impacts to the surrounding environment, including its
biodiversity. In almost all cases, the impacts can only be mitigated and
never eliminated. Artisanal, alluvial diamond mining activity has led to
considerable habitat loss and increased erosion and has directly
impacted in excess of 120,000 ha in the eastern and southern regions.
The occurrence potential for diamonds is estimated to cover an area of
almost two million hectares.[^18] The current artisanal mining practices
will likely lead to continued environmental impacts, unless improved
methods and management activities are
introduced.![](media/image11.png){width="3.548611111111111in"
height="2.5930555555555554in"}

Indirect impacts from mineral extraction include both positive and
negative changes to the local communities' economic base and increased
pressures to social structure. Industrial mining operations for
diamonds, bauxite, and rutile can include the clearance, excavation, and
flooding of farmlands. Surrounding communities are generally either
displaced or relocated, which can disrupt their livelihoods and impact
their cultural heritage. Changes in livelihoods can also have indirect
effects on biodiversity, when new areas must be cleared for agriculture
or fuelwood extraction.

government ability to manage mineral resources

The Government of Sierra Leone is in an extremely difficult position of
trying to manage mineral resource extraction for small-scale and
large-scale activities, on which livelihoods depend. Numerous
documents[^19] have analyzed the GOSL's ability to manage its mineral
resources with respect to the current economic condition. These
documents indicate negative findings, and the interviews conducted for
this assessment seem to confirm that this is still the case. The
Programmatic EA does list numerous recommendations for the GOSL that, if
implemented, would begin to address some of the issues related to better
conservation of biodiversity and tropical forests.

lack of funding to reclaim impacts to land from past and current mineral
activities

Legal mineral resource extraction, whether large-scale companies or a
single operation (artisanal miner), requires the payment a license fee.
The fee collected has allocations for mine site reclamation. In all
cases, the amount is far below the actual cost of reclamation and the
fees are not being applied to reclamation on the ground. Currently, the
only potential funds for mine land reclamation come to communities
through DACDF payments.[^20] Because much of the artisanal mining
activities are not recorded or legally licensed, raising funds for
sustainable reclamation practices is not currently achievable. The DACDF
payments are limited to diamond production and are not connected to any
other forms of mining. Therefore, any other type of mining, such as gold
or platinum, by local artisanal miners does not generate these payments
to the communities.

The Programmatic EA describes a typical financial assurance requirement.
If implemented, it would reduce the future cost to the GOSL by supplying
the necessary funding if the operator fails to complete its obligation
of reclaiming the site. However, bonding of new activities does not
generally assist in reclaiming past mine disturbance. The funding of the
cost for reclaiming past mining activities, especially the artisanal
diamond mining, will ultimately have to be supported by the GOSL, the
general public, or other outside funding.

Fisheries Management

As with many industries in Sierra Leone, fisheries were greatly affected
by the civil war. Peak catches occurred before 1990 and were severely
diminished during the war, with a slight rebound recorded in 2003.[^21]
Even with the decrease in recorded catches, fisheries remain the most
important economic activity along the coastline of Sierra Leone. The
vast majority of fisheries remain artisanal, with less than 20 percent
of estimates being accounted for by legal industrial vessel
fishing.![](media/image12.png){width="3.546527777777778in"
height="2.45in"}

According to discussions with the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine
Resources, much of the offshore, coastal, and upland surface water
resources are underexploited. This perception may be skewed by the
inability to account for expanding illegal fishing operations both
offshore and inshore and their unrecorded catches. On a recent upcountry
trip, a representative from the ministry noted that Senegalese fishermen
were firmly established in several upcountry river systems. This type of
fishing is not regulated, and because the records that do exist are
inaccurate, it is difficult to assume that fish stocks are stable and
not on a decline, especially for preferred species. Studies indicated
that *Sardinella* *maderensis* and *Ethmalosa fimbriation* are reported
to be the most exploited fish species in the marine ecosystems, and
*Penaeus notalis* is the most exploited shrimp species.

Artisanal fishing also frequently employs unsustainable practices,
involving the use of beach seine netting. The mesh sizes are small
(usually less than 25 mm diagonal stretch length) and are illegal in
Sierra Leone. They are extremely detrimental to marine resources, as
they take even the smallest fishes and shrimps that could have lived to
adulthood and formed the next breeding population. Other practices such
as poison, explosives, and inappropriate gear use (such as bottom trawls
in seagrass beds) have also been observed in Sierra Leone.

The lack of data and accurate information to determine the extent of the
fisheries resources is a major problem. In addition, the management of
fisheries through monitoring, control, and surveillance of industrial
and artisanal fishing activities is currently ineffective. These factors
combine to not only threaten marine biodiversity but the ability of
Sierra Leone to benefit from its marine resources. Most of the fleet
management functions, logistics, and marketing are executed offshore by
foreign partners, and records are frequently not available to the
relevant authorities.

OTHER THREATS![](media/image13.png){width="3.547222222222222in"
height="2.546527777777778in"}

Poverty

Poverty is one of the biggest indirect threats to biological diversity
in Sierra Leone. The majority of the population depends entirely on
natural resources for their livelihoods, and the majority of the
population lives below the poverty line. These poor, especially in rural
areas, depend on biodiversity for food, fuel, shelter, and medicines.
Such high demands, coupled with unsustainable practices of exploitation
and utilization, has placed undue pressure on the natural resource base
and had a considerably negative impact on biological diversity.

Urban development

The capital of Sierra Leone, Freetown, has been growing steadily since
the end of the civil war. However, its geography allows little
opportunity for this increasing population to inhabit the area. The
Western Area Peninsula is directly adjacent to Freetown and contains a
water reservoir, forests, and animal species, including the chimpanzee
(*Pan troglodytes verus*). The perimeter of the reserve is being
encroached upon at an alarming rate, as the population overflow of
Freetown is constantly in search of virgin land. This constant pressure
from development not only is depleting forest resources but has
secondary impacts on indigenous species and water quality.

Civil conflict

The war was equally damaging to the environment, as the breakdown in law
and order led to unprecedented exploitation of both land and marine
resources. Illegal logging activities in all protected areas went
unchecked and brought the attendant problem of creating easy access to
remote parts of the forest for hunters. Trade in wild animal pets
involving chimpanzees rose, as did the demand for bush meat in most
urban centers. A large number of displaced and unemployed refugees in
the post-conflict period were forced to exploit forest resources at
unsustainable levels. Marine resources were also exploited by foreign
fishing vessels, as resources needed for patrolling the vast ocean
expanse were lacking. In the Outamba Kilimi National Park, a large herd
of buffalos, primates, and hippos were reported slaughtered, while in
the Gola rainforest, illegal logging activities are reported to be
continuing today, but at what officials say is a slower rate.

Bush meat and pet trade

Bush meat is an important protein source and forms an integral part of
the diet of rural and urban populations. All manner of wildlife is
hunted for the increasing bush meat trade, and in all the big towns and
cities, demand for the meat of wild animals is increasing, which
generates a considerable amount of income. Even threatened and
endangered wildlife have not been spared from the trade, and throughout
many of the protected areas, hunting pressures are on the rise.

Perhaps more devastating to the wildlife population of this country is
the taking of wild animals for trading as pets. Chimpanzees are
endangered in West Africa, and comprise the majority of wild animals
captured for the pet trade. Even though Sierra Leone has outlawed the
capture of chimpanzees as pets, the laws are not strictly enforced and
continue to deplete the wild population. The Tacugama Chimpanzee
Sanctuary was specifically founded to rescue, rehabilitate, and
eventually reintroduce chimps into the wild. The sanctuary has over 80
rescued chimpanzees at its site today.
![](media/image14.png){width="4.049305555555556in"
height="3.017361111111111in"}

National level threats

The assessment team identified the following macro-scale threats to
biological diversity conservation:

-   Poor economic performance limits access to acceptable livelihoods

-   Limited public awareness of and education in the role of
    environmental health and conservation

-   Incomplete legislative framework and inadequate regulatory capacity

-   Institutional structure and capacity precludes effective
    environmental management

Analysis and Assessment of USAID/Sierra Leone Strategy

Program Context

Sierra Leone suffered from decades of poor governance that eventually
led to an intense and violent civil war in the 1990s. This civil
conflict only recently concluded in 2002. United Nations peacekeeping
forces were a visible presence in Sierra Leone until 2005. Multiple
international donors (UN, USAID, and DFID, which has the largest
presence) currently operate programs in Sierra Leone.

While the current peace and stability are tenuous, Sierra Leone is on
the road to recovery. Interviews with representatives of the
international community indicated that Sierra Leone is in a period of
transition from strict peacekeeping and stability efforts to more
general development goals focused primarily on governance and
infrastructure.

According to USAID/Sierra Leone's 2006 Strategy Statement, the primary
U.S. interest in Sierra Leone is the consolidation of peace, stability,
and security in the country, and in its neighboring countries,
specifically the two other members of the Mano River Union (Liberia and
Guinea). In keeping with the State-USAID Joint Strategic Plan, continued
investment in Sierra Leone through development assistance will also
demonstrate the international community's commitment to address the
challenge of failed states in Africa.

The government of Sierra Leone also recognizes the need for foreign
investment as a means to improve the country's economy and generate
growth and employment. Near-term efforts are focused on revitalizing
mining (gold, diamond, platinum, rutile, bauxite), agriculture,
fisheries, and tourism. In keeping with this focus, USAID's programs
have targeted good governance in the diamond and gold mining and
agriculture sectors over the past five years. Those industries have
close ties to environmental impacts (and thus biodiversity
conservation), which mandates that any programs focused on extractive
industries or land use incorporate objectives that will minimize impacts
and thus conserve biodiversity and tropical forests. To date, very
little emphasis has been placed on natural resource management
programming from the international community, which leaves an
opportunity for USAID promote biodiversity conservation and related NRM
activities.

Strategic Objective and Elements

While the United States government acknowledges the need for continued
investment, the recently released FY 2008 Congressional Budget
Justification for Sierra Leone shows a marked decrease (almost 50
percent) in requested funds for 2008 in comparison with the 2006 and
continuing resolution 2007 budgets. Historically, however, USAID's
financial contribution to Sierra Leone has always been heavily
outweighed by the rest of the donor community (especially DFID). In
light of USAID/Sierra Leone's limited resources, the Mission will focus
on one Strategic Objective, "enhance democratic governance," for FY 2006
-- 2008, building on the previous SO "Strengthening Good Governance" as
described below.

As part of the approximately USD \$16 million FY 2008 budget, USD \$1
million has been requested for the environment budget line item under
Economic Growth. The indicators associated with this category are found
under Program Element 8.1: Natural Resources and Biodiversity. This area
is defined as: "conserve biodiversity and manage natural resources in
ways that maintain their long-term viability and preserve their
potential to meet the needs of present and future generations.
Activities include combating illegal and corrupt exploitation of natural
resources and the control of invasive species. Programs in this element
should be integrated with the Agriculture Area under Economic Growth and
Conflict Mitigation and Reconciliation Area under the Peace and Security
Objective, when applicable and appropriate."

Specific activities planned for the FY2008 budget were not available at
the time of this assessment. However, the recommendations section to
follow suggests areas and broadly defined programs in which these funds,
if allocated, could be used to satisfy both the biodiversity code and
the 8.1 element indicators as the USAID/Sierra Leone program moves
forward.

The "Enhance Democratic Governance" SO seeks to broaden community-based
political participation in national dialogue through multiple mutually
reinforcing activities. The program is working to enhance the
effectiveness and responsiveness of nascent local government councils
and civil society organizations through capacity building, training in
advocacy skills, and civil rights and responsibilities education for
citizens. Training programs are not only directed to the general public
but also to specific municipal office holders and paramount chiefs.

Currently, three major projects in Sierra Leone are operating: Democracy
and Governance (ending late 2007), Integrated Diamond Management Program
(ending mid-2007), and LINKS (ending December 2007). The Food for Peace
(FFP) Title II Development Relief Program (DRP) was completed in
February 2007. A follow-on to LINKS and DRP, titled LEAD, is scheduled
to begin later in FY 2007. A brief description of the active projects
and their potential intersection with environmental concerns is
presented below.

LINKS: Promoting Linkages for Livelihood Security and Economic
Development and LEAD: Livelihood Expansion and Asset Development

The LINKS program, comprised of a consortium of six partners, addresses
the reestablishment of livelihoods of the poor in order to generate
income to support their households. LINKS is built on the foundation
created by the FFP DRP to improve health status and focuses on
agriculture-based activities. LINKS operates primarily in the
northeastern area of Sierra Leone in multiple chiefdoms and places
emphasis on the large contingent of marginalized youths. LINKS has also
promoted the expansion of rural economic activities and the
establishment of linkages from the rural communities to the mezzo- and
national-level markets.

Through these linkages, previously isolated farm communities are
integrated into society and participate in good governance practices
introduced to community-based organizations such as farm associations,
cooperatives, and field schools. Specific activities pursued through
LINKS include microcredit lending to entrepreneurs, particularly women
and youth; business skills development; and agro-processing enhancement.
The initial focus has been on the sale of staple crops of rice, cassava
and vegetables, but has expanded to include other commercially viable
products such as oil palm, cocoa yam, cashews, and ginger.

The proposed follow-on project, LEAD, aims to refine objectives to
target the most food-insecure households in Sierra Leone. In addition,
LEAD incorporates changes necessitated by the evolving war-to-peace
situation and two years of LINKS and DRP lessons learned.

These related projects intersect with environmental concerns in their
promotion of agricultural activities and land usages and their
established relationships with youth and women. All of these factors
have been considered when formulating the recommendations specific to
this project.

IDMP: Integrated Diamond Management Project

IDMP aims to improve governance of the Sierra Leone diamond sector by
ensuring that both government and communities derive increased benefits
through addressing corruption and promoting equitable and transparent
management of the resource. Many of these activities take place at the
local level in the form of trainings (such as the SMARTER program) in
and around Kono (Northern District). There is also a national component,
in which IDMP works with the relevant ministries and senior government
officials to promote management of the industry in a manner that
encourages investment and reduces the opportunity for criminal
exploitation.

Spanning the local and national arenas, IDMP has formed the Diamond Area
Community

Development Fund that devolves funds from diamond export taxes toward
community development within diamond producing chiefdoms. This tax can
be used at the discretion of the receiving chiefdom and paramount chiefs
but is not generally targeted for land reclamation efforts. Some
preliminary land reclamation programs have been attempted and have
achieved some success, although the efforts have been isolated to date.

Due to the direct impact of artisanal diamond mining activities to the
surrounding landscape, IDMP is particularly well positioned to promote
land reclamation and related impact mitigation activities through its
pre-established community networks.

Democracy and Governance program

USAID's Democracy and Governance program has been in place since 2004
and is heavily focused on good governance; civic training; and advocacy
skills for local councils, community leaders, civil society
organizations, and community participants. The objective of this program
is to ensure responsive governance, transparency, and accountability at
all levels of the GOSL. The program has worked with 82 local communities
to help them develop community participatory plans on governance that
reinforced the interaction of members with elected local government
entities and accountability of elected officers. Outlets for trainings
generally use a multi-media approach and include radio-broadcast
information pieces.

The format of this program could provide synergies with biodiversity and
environmental education by utilization of the media outlets and the
community relationships.

Commentary on USAID Comparative Advantage

While the current USAID/Sierra Leone role in biodiversity conservation
is limited, the potential exists for USAID/Sierra Leone to become a key
partner with the GOSL in support of conservation of biodiversity and
tropical forests in Sierra Leone. The USAID/Sierra Leone Mission and USG
are capable of facilitating the involvement of large, international NGOs
with an interest in biodiversity conservation and sustainable
development. Organizations like Conservation International, World
Wildlife Fund, and The World Conservation Union (IUCN) are capable of
bringing significant amounts of public and private sector funding as
well as networks of capable professionals, scientists, and dedicated
field researchers in support of environmental programs and biodiversity
conservation. Based on its experience in forming, leading, and
participation in multi-partner collaborations, USAID is positioned to
effectively collaborate with and support the work of a number of NGOs
and organizations, such as CARE, working in humanitarian relief, health
care, education, and rural development.

USAID/Sierra Leone and USG can also use their positions in Sierra Leone
to collaborate with and strengthen private sector operators, and to
identify and support actions aimed at increasing the importance of
conservation measures in sustainable development of Sierra Leone's
natural resources. Through its program focus on local governance,
USAID/Sierra Leone has the ability to encourage more accountability for
conservation activities. With the active support and encouragement of a
stronger and broader array of civil society organizations, local NGOs,
producer organizations and private sector groups, the USG, with other
development assistance and international organizations, can continue to
provide a voice for development activities that consider the
conservation and equitable distribution of Sierra Leone's natural
resources.

Strengthening the capacity of local government councils, providing
effective advocacy skills, informing citizens of their rights and
responsibilities, and helping to build a better informed society through
strengthening of professional media will assist in spreading the need
for appropriate conservation measures. Training and mentoring programs
for community activists, newly elected local leaders, and some paramount
chiefs and members of parliament can encourage informed dialogue,
transparency, accountability, responsibility, and leadership. Such
efforts would enhance the level of active community participation
required to build effective conservation programs. To date, the Mission
has used this approach to address equity issues such as diamond
valuations. The experience with these approaches can serve as a possible
template for USAID to integrate natural resources conservation
objectives into its local governance programs.

Opportunities for Synergy and Leveraging Program Impact

With its program emphasis on strengthening democratic governance,
USAID/Sierra Leone has the opportunity to include an emphasis on the
sustainability of natural resources as one of the foundations for
effective democratic governance. Good governance and natural resource
conservation are inextricably linked in Sierra Leone. The sources of
some of the past political instability can be linked directly to the
manner in which the natural resources of Sierra Leone have been
exploited. Therefore, it is now essential to ensure that an integrated
message of natural resource conservation be emphasized as part of three
main areas: broadening community-based political participation,
promoting civic dialogue and informed participation in public affairs,
and strengthening the efficiency of Government of Sierra Leone and local
communities to manage the diamond mining sector.

As the USAID/Sierra Leone program evolves, it has an opportunity to
continue to advance responsible governance at the local level while
ensuring that issues of biodiversity and tropical forests are considered
and addressed. USAID can continue to work with local communities (e.g.
community-based resource management committees, local and district
councils, and civil society) to ensure that best management practices
are adopted and areas that have been damaged by reckless and
irresponsible mining are restored. USAID can facilitate discussion with
communities and local governments to identify and prioritize land usage
needs. USAID can facilitate trainings with miners and farmers to train
them in environmentally friendly means of advancing their livelihoods.
The program could address issues such as deforestation, overcutting and
overgrazing of sloping forest landscapes, degradation of watersheds, and
the importance and benefits of protected areas.

The result of expanding the mission objective of incorporating
conservation measures and training will be improvement in the areas of
food security, income generation, poverty alleviation, and conservation
of its natural resources. USAID's activities in highlighting the
importance of protecting tropical-forest resources and biodiversity ---
especially for vulnerable species such as chimpanzees --- will provide
important opportunities at the local level to highlight the benefits of
forest-related land use planning and management. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

The assessment team has formulated a set of recommendations for program
actions that USAID may wish to consider for improving its contribution
to natural resources management and biodiversity conservation in Sierra
Leone. The recommendations do not address all the actions needed to
conserve biological diversity. However, the recommendations presented
are broken into actions specific to USAID in the short term (including
potential uses for the previous biodiversity earmark) and medium-term to
long-term activities that could be addressed by the broader donor
community, depending on USAID's presence in Sierra Leone in the future.

The short-term recommendations are targeted as specific actions based on
the pre-existing USAID programs. These are incremental additions to or
changes in USAID's current and projected program areas, which seems to
be the most practical approach to addressing biodiversity conservation
given current and foreseeable funding constraints.

The biodiversity earmark fund recommendations are focused toward
contributions to ongoing activities in Sierra Leone or on creating new
projects. The mid- to long-term recommendations are more broadly based
and should be distributed to as wide an audience as possible within the
donor community, so in the case that USAID is unable to pursue these
activities, other organizations may be able to contribute.

Priorities in the Short Term

USAID programming

This section describes specific actions that could be pursued by USAID
under its three existing projects.

LINKS and LEAD

-   Incorporate a broader perspective of sustainable land use practices
    into pre-existing education programs, especially through the Farmer
    Field School system. In order to emphasize sustainable land use
    practices, this program should integrate, to the extent possible,
    best practices for forest management (including agro-forestry,
    community forests, benefits of protected areas management,
    apiculture, and aquaculture) into the pre-existing education
    programs.

-   Any plans for irrigation projects related to agricultural
    development need to consider the potential effects on wildlife and
    surrounding ecosystems. LINKS/LEAD should seek to ensure that
    fisheries projects are coordinated with adjacent protected areas in
    order to reduce pressures on wildlife.

-   Review the 48 designated reserve areas (see Figure 4, page 32) and
    their respective boundaries and confirm that LINKS and LEAD
    activities are not infringing on their borders. Consider these
    boundaries in future agriculture based extension efforts and educate
    the program recipients of their existence and need to respect these
    resources.

IDMP![](media/image15.png){width="3.547222222222222in"
height="2.5215277777777776in"}

-   As part of the diamond mining initiative, USAID should promote a
    greater emphasis on land reclamation programs with IDMP and its
    follow-on. Explore potential to go beyond education programming such
    as SMARTER and into more hands-on demonstration reclamation.

    -   Utilize successes of the women's land reclamation program,
        Ciniva, as a springboard

    -   Integrate the Ministry of Youth and Sport's Youth Employment
        Scheme (YES) program into reclamation activities

    -   Continue to coordinate with Foundation for Environmental
        Security and Sustainability's (FESS's) reclamation program and
        contact the Conservation Society of Sierra Leone (CSSL) to
        discuss its upcoming project.

        Additionally, the current education and training program should
        continue and incorporate modules on needs/benefits for
        environmental conservation and increase public involvement with
        the GOSL decision-making process

        A foundation for donations from diamond companies may be
        established in the near future, with the help of USAID. To the
        degree that IDMP is involved with the development of the
        foundation, the project should influence the disbursement of
        funds toward land reclamation, education, and other
        environmentally friendly components.

        Investigate potential for public private partnerships (3Ps) with
        local major mining companies, such as Koidu Holdings and Sierra
        Leone Diamond Company (SLDC). The availability of Global
        Development Alliance (GDA) monies should also be researched.

        The Diamond Community Development Fund will provide funds to the
        district councils affected by alluvial mining. These monies
        should be reserved to improve community services and not used to
        deal with land reclamation issues. The current regulatory
        structure that includes fees from mining licenses must be
        strengthened so that proper land reclamation can be systemized.

        Ensure that issues that are preventing responsible mining
        practices, specifically inadequate reclamation activities, are
        addressed within the government through coordination in Freetown
        and at the local level. The IDMP's Freetown presence on the
        political front could be leveraged to bring attention to these
        issues through the government context.

        Provide support for a national cadastral survey that can be used
        to develop and monitor regulation of mineral operations in the
        context of IDMP. (This support could also occur outside of the
        IDMP program.)

        Support development of a bonding system to provide for the
        reclamation of impacted lands. Specific trials of bonding
        schemes could be supported by IDMP with incentives to become a
        bonded operator via subsidies could be pursued. For example,
        funding from broader foundations could be used to facilitate
        cost-share bonding mechanisms.

        Looking forward: Review IDMP objectives and focus. By educating
        local miners to earn fair value for artisanal-mined diamonds,
        the industry of alluvial mining may become more attractive to
        those who currently mine and those who may begin to mine. These
        increases will continue to degrade lands in common mining areas,
        such as Tongo Fields, that currently do not have adequate
        reclamation programs in place.

Democracy and Governance

-   Given its involvement in local governance issues, this project could
    use its established resource centers to distribute materials related
    to biodiversity conservations, forest management, protected area
    management, and other natural resource management best practices.
    Potential exists to serve as a clearinghouse for conservation
    opportunities. For example, understanding the process that resulted
    in the establishment of trust fund benefits to surrounding
    communities of Gola Forest could facilitate similar arrangements in
    communities in project areas.

Biodiversity Earmark Funds (if available)

-   Provide funds for survey and population census for chimpanzees for
    Western Reserve Area currently supported by the Tacaguma Chimp
    Sanctuary.

-   Provide capacity building programs for NaCEF staff and support for
    instituting the legal framework for ensuring the development of
    NaCEF at the parliament level.

-   Provide support for expansion of community based NRM projects such
    as eco-tourism or alternative livelihoods training adjacent to Tiwai
    Island.

-   Support transboundary conservation program with the Gola forest on
    the Liberian border. The Gola trust fund and management program is
    well on its way and would benefit from additional funds or from
    programs supporting the project that is currently in place.

-   Support transboundary conservation program with OKNP on the Guinea
    border. The staffing level is insufficient to protect the current
    boundaries. Additional support or training programs that deal with
    surrounding communities could greatly help this project and aid in
    the conservation of a large contiguous forest that is home to
    diverse wildlife, including chimps.

-   The Western Peninsula Forest Reserve houses a critical watershed
    that feeds the city of Freetown via the Guma water reservoir. No
    significant initiative is currently underway to address the serious
    encroachment issues in this forest that will ultimately impact the
    limited water supply. DFID is studying the issue, but much more
    needs to be done. In addition to water resource issues,
    deforestation and gravel mining combined with urban expansion are
    threats to biodiversity within the reserve. USAID could join efforts
    that the NGO and donor programs are considering, or use funds to
    spearhead coordination of these groups and GOSL (including NaCEF) to
    directly address this critical issue.

-   Investigate the potential to involve the UNDP's Youth Employment
    Scheme program into wildlife reservation protection, maintenance,
    and management activities as well as ecotourism initiatives. This
    program could be similar to the Civilian Conservation Corps survey
    and conservation programs in the United States that followed World
    War II.

-   Support the NGO consortium Environmental Forum for Action (ENFORAC)
    in its efforts to provide a civil society voice to biodiversity
    conservation.

-   Provide additional support via direct funding or programs to the
    eight priority conservation areas project (also a potential medium-
    or longer-term activity) recommended by the Global Environment
    Facility.

-   Support the farmer field school with a specific sustainable land use
    practices module. This program should integrate, to the extent
    possible, best practices for forest management, including
    agro-forestry, community forests, benefits of protected areas
    management, apiculture, aquaculture, into their pre-existing
    education programs.

Recommended Medium-term and Longer-Term Interventions

-   Expand the environmental documentation requirements to more
    adequately address potential impacts from proposed mineral
    activities. Strengthen the technical and internal governmental
    review process with emphasis on public input.

-   Protected areas should be withdrawn from mineral entry. Deal with
    mineral ownership/cadastral issues on the local and national level.

-   Provide support to GOSL or NGOs to assist in mainstreaming
    implementation of recommendations of the National Biodiversity
    Strategic Action Plan (2003). Specifically, provide support to the
    following objectives, which are directly related to the World
    Bank/GEF proposal to prioritize eight protected areas within Sierra
    Leone.

    -   Establish and ensure management of eight protected areas in
        representative ecosystems in Sierra Leone

    -   Build local capacity for the effective management of the eight
        areas

    -   Establish a sustainable funding mechanism for the long-term
        management of all 8 protected areas

        Provide support for Upper Guinean Rainforest Conservation
        Network, with the goal of sustainable management of key
        protected areas for Liberia, Sierra Leone, Guinea, and Côte
        D'Ivoire.

        Provide support to National Land Use Planning exercises, with
        emphasis on biodiversity conservation.

        Ensure that the new PRSP incorporates issues associated with
        natural resource management, specifically biodiversity and
        tropical forest conservation.

        Provide additional support to successful community-based
        conservation efforts. The management of Tiwai Island and the
        Gola Forest provide excellent examples for other communities to
        follow in the management of their local forest resources.

Annex 1

**ITINERARY: USAID/SIERRA LEONE 118/119 MISSION**

**FEBRUARY 18 -- MARCH 1, 2007**

+----------+----------+-----------------------------------------------+
| DATE     | LOCATION | ACTIVITIES                                    |
+==========+==========+===============================================+
| Sunday   | Freetown | 9:00 pm - Arrive at Freetown                  |
| February |          |                                               |
| 18       |          |                                               |
+----------+----------+-----------------------------------------------+
| Monday   | Freetown | 9:30 am - Meet with NaCEF Staff               |
|          |          |                                               |
| February |          | Executive Commissioner, Chris Squires         |
| 19       |          |                                               |
|          |          | Director of Enviroment, Syril Jusu            |
|          |          |                                               |
|          |          | Asst. Director of Forestry, Adul-Abib F.      |
|          |          | Couteti                                       |
|          |          |                                               |
|          |          | Deputy Director of Forestry, Hassan Mohaned   |
|          |          |                                               |
|          |          | Asst. Director of Forestry, Sheikh A.         |
|          |          | Mansaray                                      |
|          |          |                                               |
|          |          | Senior Game Supernatant, kalie I. Banguis     |
|          |          |                                               |
|          |          | Forest Officer, Alusine S. Fofana             |
|          |          |                                               |
|          |          | Environmental Officer, Samuel A. Lappin       |
|          |          |                                               |
|          |          | District Forest Officer, Kate Garnett         |
|          |          |                                               |
|          |          | 1:00 am - Meet with Ministry of Mineral       |
|          |          | Resources                                     |
|          |          |                                               |
|          |          | Director of Mines, Mr. Wurie                  |
|          |          |                                               |
|          |          | 12:30 am - Meet with Ministry of Tourism &    |
|          |          | Culture,                                      |
|          |          |                                               |
|          |          | Mr Kawa and Mr. Navo                          |
|          |          |                                               |
|          |          | 3:00 pm - Meet with NaCSA                     |
|          |          |                                               |
|          |          | Executive Director, Mr. Sylfannah             |
|          |          |                                               |
|          |          | 5:00 pm - Evening Working Session             |
+----------+----------+-----------------------------------------------+
| Tuesday  | Freetown | 11:00 am - Meet with Christine Sheckler,      |
|          |          |                                               |
| February |          | USAID/Sierra Leone Mission                    |
| 20       |          |                                               |
|          |          | 4:00 pm - Meet with U.S Ambassador, Thomas    |
|          |          | Hull                                          |
|          |          |                                               |
|          |          | 7:00 pm - Dinner with Carl Harris, MSI        |
+----------+----------+-----------------------------------------------+
| W        | Mamunta  | 10:00 am - Depart Freetown                    |
| ednesday | Mayoso   |                                               |
| February | Reserve  | 1:00 pm - Arrive at Mamunta-Mayoso Reserve,   |
| 21       |          |                                               |
|          | Kono     | meet with Manager in Forestry Department, Mr. |
|          |          | Kamara                                        |
|          |          |                                               |
|          |          | 3:00 pm - Depart for Kono                     |
|          |          |                                               |
|          |          | 7:00 pm - Meet with Kiodu Holdings            |
|          |          |                                               |
|          |          | Mine Engineer, Jan Kettler                    |
+----------+----------+-----------------------------------------------+
| Thursday | Kono     | 10:00 am - Meet with USAID IDMP Project       |
| February |          | Staff, Kono                                   |
| 22       | Tongo    |                                               |
|          | Fields   | Project Coordinator, Ansumana Barbar Turay    |
|          |          |                                               |
|          |          | 12:00 am - Visit Projects: Mine Reclamation   |
|          |          | to Farming Sites                              |
|          |          |                                               |
|          |          | Kiodu Holdings Kimberlite Mine                |
|          |          |                                               |
|          |          | 1:30 pm - Depart for Tongo Fields.            |
|          |          |                                               |
|          |          | 3:00 pm - Meet with MSI Officers, Tongo       |
|          |          |                                               |
|          |          | Project Coordinator, Albert Mani              |
|          |          |                                               |
|          |          | Mary Febrail, Daniel B. Farmer                |
|          |          |                                               |
|          |          | 4:00 pm - Visit Projects: Mine Reclamation to |
|          |          | Farming Sites                                 |
|          |          |                                               |
|          |          | 4:30 pm - Depart Tongo Fields                 |
|          |          |                                               |
|          |          | 6:00 pm - Arrive in Kenema                    |
|          |          |                                               |
|          |          | Meet with RSPB/Gola Forest Conservation staff |
|          |          |                                               |
|          |          | Gilbert Koker                                 |
+----------+----------+-----------------------------------------------+
| Friday   | Gola     | 7:00 am - Working Session                     |
|          | Fore     |                                               |
| February | st/Tiwai | 9:00 am - Depart Kenema to visit Gola Forest  |
| 23       | Island   | East and West (accompanied by Gilbert Koker)  |
|          |          |                                               |
|          |          | 2:00 pm - Depart Gola for Tiwai Island        |
|          |          |                                               |
|          |          | 4:00 pm - Arrive at Tiwai,                    |
|          |          |                                               |
|          |          | Meet Tiwai Manager, Mr. Magona                |
+----------+----------+-----------------------------------------------+
| Saturday | Tiwai    | 9:30 am - Visit sites by boat surrounding     |
| February | Island   | Tiwai                                         |
| 24       |          |                                               |
|          | Freetown | 11:00 am - Depart Tiwai                       |
|          |          |                                               |
|          |          | 6:00 pm - Arrive in Freetown                  |
+----------+----------+-----------------------------------------------+
| Sunday   | Freetown | 8:00 am - Working Session                     |
| February |          |                                               |
| 25       |          | 1:00 pm - Meet with Environmental Foundation  |
|          |          | for Africa (EFA), Tommy Garnett               |
+----------+----------+-----------------------------------------------+
| Monday   | Freetown | 9:30 am - Meet with Ministry of Agriculture & |
| February |          | Food Security: Director General, Emmanuel K.  |
| 26       |          | Alieu                                         |
|          |          |                                               |
|          |          | 11:00 am - Meet with UNDP                     |
|          |          |                                               |
|          |          | Progamme Specialist, Peace and Development,   |
|          |          |                                               |
|          |          | Ms. Lorna French                              |
|          |          |                                               |
|          |          | 12:00 pm - Meet with FAO                      |
|          |          |                                               |
|          |          | Assistant FAO Program Representative, A C     |
|          |          | Lahai                                         |
|          |          |                                               |
|          |          | 1:00 pm - Meet with World Bank                |
|          |          |                                               |
|          |          | Country Manager, Engilbert Gudmundsson        |
|          |          |                                               |
|          |          | 3:00 pm - Meet with DFID                      |
|          |          |                                               |
|          |          | Infrastructure Adviser, Morag Baird           |
|          |          |                                               |
|          |          | 4:00 pm - Working Session                     |
+----------+----------+-----------------------------------------------+
| Tuesday  | Freetown | 8:30 am - Meet with CARE/LINKS                |
| February |          |                                               |
| 27       |          | Chief of Party, John Perry                    |
|          |          |                                               |
|          |          | 10:00 am - Visit Tacugama Chimpanzee          |
|          |          | Sanctuary                                     |
|          |          |                                               |
|          |          | Project Director, Bala Amarasekaran           |
|          |          |                                               |
|          |          | 2:00 pm - Afternoon Working Session           |
+----------+----------+-----------------------------------------------+
| W        | Freetown | 8:00 am - Morning Working Session             |
| ednesday |          |                                               |
| February |          | 10:30 am - Meet with Ministry of Fisheries    |
| 28       |          | and Marine Resources, Director of Fisheries,  |
|          |          | ABC Jones                                     |
|          |          |                                               |
|          |          | 11:30 am - Meet with Conservation Society of  |
|          |          | Sierra Leone,                                 |
|          |          |                                               |
|          |          | Executive Director, Daniel Dauda Siaffa       |
|          |          |                                               |
|          |          | 3:00 pm - Afternoon Working Session,          |
|          |          |                                               |
|          |          | Preparation for Exit Brief                    |
+----------+----------+-----------------------------------------------+
| Thursday | Freetown | 8:00 am - Morning Working Session             |
| March 1  |          |                                               |
|          |          | 12:00 pm - Exit debriefing with USAID Staff   |
|          |          | to obtain additional information, discuss     |
|          |          | assessment findings and recommendations and   |
|          |          | finalize report outline and schedule          |
|          |          |                                               |
|          |          | 1:00 pm - Depart for Ferry                    |
+----------+----------+-----------------------------------------------+

Annex 2

**SCOPE OF WORK**

**TROPICAL FORESTRY AND BIODIVERSITY (FAA 118 AND 119) ANALYSIS\
FOR USAID/SIERRA LEONE**

**I. Purpose and Objective**

USAID/Sierra Leone is currently in the process of developing Operational
Plans for FY 2007 and FY 2008 as well as a new Mission Strategic Plan.
The purpose of this task is to conduct an assessment of: (1) the current
state of biodiversity and forest conservation in SL; (2) the actions
necessary in Sierra Leone to conserve tropical forests and biological
diversity, and (3) the extent to which the actions proposed for support
by the Agency meet or could meet the needs thus identified. This
assessment is intended to serve as a planning tool to assist
USAID/Sierra Leone in better integrating environment concerns into their
proposed programs in the near term and over the next five years. The
assessment is also necessary for the purposes of complying with sections
118 and 119 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, as well
as critical to inform the Strategic Framework for Foreign Assistance and
country strategy guidelines under ADS 201.3.4.11 and ADS 204.5.

Current guidance is included in the REFERENCES FOR USAID FY2007
OPERATIONAL PLANS dated January 10, 2007. USAID/Sierra Leone will
conduct an evaluation of the Diamond Program in late March 2006, which
this evaluation is expected to complement.

**II. Background**

Sierra Leone emerged from eleven years of violent civil war in January
2002. While its progress since then has been significant, the transition
to peace and stability is fragile, and much work remains to be done. The
scars of decades of poor governance and civil war manifest themselves
both physically and psychologically.

Mismanagement of natural resources and political instability are also
linked in Sierra Leone, as 'conflict' diamonds provided a significant
source of funding for all sides in the civil war. Illicit mining remains
a serious problem (30-50 percent of diamonds are reportedly still
smuggled across the border[^22]) though progress is being made with the
increasing value of legal diamond exports, at least in part due to the
Kimberly Certification Process (KCP). Other natural resources, such as
land, timber, offshore fisheries, and bauxite must also be properly
managed in order to ensure a sustainable future for Sierra Leone.

**USAID Portfolio** The primary U.S. interest in Sierra Leone is the
consolidation of peace, stability and security in the country, and by
extension, across West Africa. The fragility of the three states of the
Mano River Union (Liberia, Guinea, and Sierra Leone), as well as Cote
d'Ivoire, is a substantial concern for the future development of all
members of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS).

USAID/Sierra Leone is working to enhance the effectiveness and
responsiveness of newly formed local government councils and
civil-society organizations by promoting open debate, through general
capacity building, training in advocacy skills, and education of
citizens on their rights and responsibilities. Training and mentoring
programs for Paramount Chiefs, Members of Parliament and newly-elected
local leaders will enable and encourage informed dialogue. Mass media is
one tool that is being used to implement the program.

The USAID/Sierra Leone LINKS Program, which has been operational over
the last year. LINKS promotes unity and reconciliation, and encourages
resettlement by rebuilding vital public infrastructure in devastated
communities, stimulating economic activity and enabling socially
marginalized youth, both young men and women, to become gainfully
employed through new or expanded economic activities. In addition, LINKS
is building on the foundation created by the Food for Peace (FFP)
Development Relief Program to improve health status and establish
agriculture-based livelihood activities. The initial focus will be on
the sale of staple crops of rice, cassava and vegetables, given their
importance to the livelihoods of the target groups. In the coming year
the program will be expanded to include other commercially viable
products such as oil palm, cocoa yam, cashews and ginger. It will be
important to insure that this program development and expansion take
into account the opportunities of and challenges to sustainable natural
resources management.

The diamond sector, after agriculture, is the largest employer in Sierra
Leone and revenues from the legitimate alluvial diamond trade have the
potential to contribute substantially to the national budget, thereby
increasing government resources to implement the PRSP. The integrated
Diamond Management Program aims to improve governance of the Sierra
Leone diamond sector by ensuring that both government and communities
derive increased benefits through addressing corruption, and promoting
equitable and transparent management of the resource. The U.S. continues
to support the Kimberley Process, a voluntary agreement between industry
and national governments to encourage legitimate and transparent trade
in diamonds.

USAID/Sierra Leone will address biodiversity and tropical forests in a
manner that supports its operational unit program (or something along
those lines) strategic objective strategic objectives are no longer used
through advances in responsible governance at the local level. USAID
proposes to work with local communities (e.g. community-based resource
management committees, local and District councils and civil society) to
improve management of resources and benefit the environment. Communities
will participate in discussions with local governments to identify and
prioritize land-use needs, while town meetings and the media will help
to disseminate information on the process. USAID's activities in
protecting tropical forest resources and biodiversity, especially for
vulnerable and internationally protected species such as chimpanzees and
sea turtles, will also provide important opportunities at the local
level to highlight the benefits of forest-related land-use planning and
management.

**III. Statement of Work**

Under the direction of a team leader, the assessment team shall evaluate
biodiversity and tropical forest concerns in Sierra Leone. The focus of
all activities taken under this assignment is three fold: 1) Assess the
conservation status of biodiversity and forests in SL 1) to identify
actions necessary to better conserve biodiversity and tropical forests,
and 2) to describe how and to what extent actions proposed in the
country operational plans meet, or could meet, the biodiversity and
tropical forest needs thus identified.

The assessment team shall perform the following activities:

A\) Data Collection:

1\. Prior to departure, hold meetings with the Bureau Environmental
Advisor and other Bureau for Africa technical staff, and any other
Washington, DC-based organizations (such as conservation NGOs with
active programs in Sierra Leone) to gather relevant information on
regional programs and agency environmental regulations.

2\. Meet with USAID/ Sierra Leone to get an understanding of the
Mission's ongoing sectoral assessments, program goals and objectives
under its proposed strategy. The Mission also may provide the team with
advice and protocol on approaching USAID partners and host country
organizations with respect to this assignment. The team will discuss
organizations to be contacted and any planned site visits with the
Mission and coordinate as required.

3\. Obtain, review and analyze existing documentation on biodiversity
conservation (and tropical forest conservation) in Sierra Leone, such as
that prepared by government agencies, bilateral donors, and national and
international NGOs. Examples of such documentation may include the
National Biodiversity Conservation Strategies and Action Plan (NBSAP),
National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP); Global Environment Fund (GEF)
project reports; reports by FAO, UNESCO, UNEP, or UNDP; reports by
conservation NGOs, etc. Available online materials will be gathered
priory to the country visit.

4\. Meet with relevant ministries and agencies, donor organizations,
international NGOs, and other organizations which are involved in forest
and biodiversity conservation, cross-cutting issues, or which are
implementing noteworthy projects, and gather relevant information.

5\. Conduct one to three priority site visits, if necessary, to
supplement the understanding gained from interviews, literature, and
other second-hand sources. The preliminary itinerary includes a site
visit to coastal ecosystems as well as a 1-2 day visit to view the area
in which diamond mining is occurring. Short side trips to local
governments, agricultural lands, and protected areas will be
incorporated as feasible.

B\) Analysis:

Summarize the status of biodiversity (and tropical forests) in Sierra
Leone. Summarize the social, economic, institutional, legal, and policy
context for their use and conservation, including actions currently
being taken by government, other donors, NGOs, and the private sector.
Identify the key direct and indirect threats to biodiversity (and
tropical forests). Identify the actions necessary to conserve and
sustainably manage natural resources and biodiversity (and tropical
forests) in Sierra Leone, based on analysis of country donor and NGO
responses currently in place to meet these needs. Prepare a report on
the status of biodiversity conservation efforts in Sierra Leone and
implications for USAID or other donor programming which shall define the
actions necessary for conservation.

C\) Report:

Prepare a report describing the analysis and conclusions. This report
shall clearly meet the legal requirement of FAA Sec 118 and 119.

Title Page, including the date of completion of the analysis report

Table of Contents

A. Introduction, describing the purpose of the analysis and methods used
in conducting it, including the timing of the analysis in relation to
the timing of USAID strategy development.

B. An overview of the social, economic, legislative, and political
context for sustainable natural resources management and the
conservation of biodiversity and forests in Sierra Leone.

C. An overview of the status of tropical forests and terrestrial and
marine biodiversity in Sierra Leone, including ecosystem diversity,
species diversity, threatened & endangered species, genetic diversity,
agricultural biodiversity, ecosystem services, and protected areas.
Economic importance and potential values of biodiversity will also be
included.

D. A summary of government, NGO, and donor programs and activities that
contribute to conservation and sustainable natural resources management,
including a brief assessment of their effectiveness, strengths, and
weaknesses.

E. An assessment of the threats to tropical forests and biodiversity,
including direct threats and indirect threats or root causes of the
direct threats.

F. Programmatic actions necessary to conserve biodiversity and forests
in Sierra Leone.

G. An assessment of how USAID SL's program currently addresses the key
threats to biodiversity and forest conservation, including how
activities can be modified to more effectively address these issues for
future planning.

H. All references used and cited in the report, including web URLs.

I. Appendices will include: the SOW for the analysis, biographical
sketches of analysis team members, a list of persons contacted and their
institutional affiliation, and other background or supporting material
as needed, including maps and photographs. Copies of key document,
relevant maps and images, and copies of photographs obtained during the
assessment should also be appended in a CD ROM with electronic versions
of all written materials.

**IV. Methodology**

AFR/SD Biodiversity Analysis and Technical Support (BATS) will cover the
technical assistance and associated expenses, plus the service of one
local consultant for up to 10 work days. Mission to provide nomination
for local consultant to chemonics. As previously discussed,
usaid/freetown will provide vehicle and driver for essential
work-related travel.

A four-person team with the following composition and expertise is
desirable to conduct this analysis:

**International Technical Assistance (3 persons).** Team Leader who is a
senior Level Specialists with post-graduate qualifications in forestry
or a closely related field. The Team Leader will have Knowledge of USAID
Strategic Planning process related to Tropical Forestry and Biodiversity
(FAA Sections 118 and 119). The team should include a Biodiversity
specialist With Experience in tropical ecology and conservation. The
team should include a social scientist with a NRM background. Experience
in the coastal West Africa region and in Sierra Leone is desirable.

**Local Technical Assistance (1 persons).** Senior Level Natural
Resource Management Specialists with demonstrated experience in Sierra
Leone environmental law, the policy and legal frameworks governing
environmental management in Sierra Leone and the analysis of relevant
policies. Good contacts within Sierra Leone government agencies, NGOs,
international donors, and private sector preferred.

**V. Deliverables:**

The primary deliverable under this task order is an assessment of: (1)
The status of biodiversity and forest conservation in SL; (2) the
actions necessary in Sierra Leone to conserve tropical forests and
biological diversity, and (3) the extent to which the actions proposed
for support by the Agency meet the needs thus identified in the
Assessment.

There shall be four deliverables under this activity:

1\. Preliminary Work Plan and Schedule: The Contractor shall provide
USAID with a work plan and schedule prior to traveling to Sierra Leone.

2\. In-Country Mission Exit Briefings: The team shall meet with
USAID/Sierra Leone to provide them with a brief of the report findings.
The exit brief shall be accompanied by a short written summary of
initial key findings and recommendations.

3\. Draft Report: The Contractor shall submit a draft report to the
Environment Office no later than March 12, 2007. The draft report shall
follow the generic outline discussed above, as refined during the course
of the contract in consultation with USAID.

4\. Final Report: The final report is due no later than two weeks after
receiving USAID/ Sierra Leone comments on the first draft report.

The Contractor will furnish electronic file versions of all submissions
(first draft and final report) in English, and one photocopy ready
version of the final report. Copies of key documents, including and maps
and photographic material, will be appended on a CD ROM.

**VI. Schedule and Logistics**

Meetings in Washington, DC, will take place between February 1 and 16.
The Mission will assist the team by providing key references and
contacts as well as logistical support where necessary.

**VII. Supporting documentation**

[Tropical forestry and biodiversity (FAA 118 and 119) analyses: lessons
learned and best practices from recent USAID
experience.](http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNADE195.pdf) (655 KB)
Associates in Rural Development, Inc. (ARD); USAID. Bur. for Economic
Growth, Agriculture and Trade. Ofc. of Environment and Natural
Resources. Sep 2005. 74 p. PN-ADE-195

[Best practices for biodiversity and tropical forest
assessments](http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNADE673.pdf) (508 KB)
Chemonics International Inc.; USAID. Bur. for Economic Growth,
Agriculture and Trade. Ofc of Agriculture. Apr 2005. 28 p. PN-ADE-673

USAID Sierra Leone Strategy Statement 2005 with attachments, including
118/119 Biodiversity Report for Sierra Leone
[**2005.doc**](http://www.encapafrica.org/documents/biofor/sierraleone_strategy05a_biodiv.doc)
(116kb)

[**First CBD Sierra Leone National
Report **](http://www.biodiv.org/doc/world/sl/sl-nr-01-en.pdf)-- English

![](media/image16.png){width="8.333333333333334in"
height="8.333333333333333e-3in"}[**Sierra Leone National Biodiversity
Strategy and Action
Plan **](http://www.biodiv.org/doc/world/sl/sl-nbsap-01-en.pdf)--
English 2003

[**Programmatic Environmental Assessment for USAID Support to
Small-Scale Artisanal Mining Activities in Sierra
Leone**](http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNADE366.pdf) February 2005

Links Program Evaluation for USAID/Sierra Leone

Diamond Program Evaluation SOW

ANNEX 3

REFERENCES

Allan, T. 1990. Tropical Forestry Action Plans Inter-Agency Forestry
Review. Sierra Leone UNDP, Rome.

Bakkar, M.I., G.A. Fonseca, R.A. Mittermeier, A.B. Rylands, and K.W.
Painemilla. 2001. "Hunting and Bushmeat Utilization in the African Rain
Forest." Advances in Applied Biodiversity. Science 2:1--170.

Clausen, Robert (WARP/REA) on the behalf of USAID. 2004. Trip notes from
Sierra Leone April 19-23, 2004. Unpublished.

Coakley, George J. 2004. The mineral industry of Sierra Leone. U.S.
Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook---2004.

European Union. 2006. Country Environmental Profile (CEP) Sierra Leone.

Foreign Investment Advisory Service (World Bank). 2006. DRAFT REPORT:
Competitiveness and Corporate Social Responsibility in Sierra Leone.
Industry Solutions for Tourism and Mining

Government of Sierra Leone, Geologic Survey Division. November 2006.
Sierra Leone Mineral Potential Report.

Government of Sierra Leone, National Commission on Environment and
Forestry (NaCEF). 2005. Strategic Action Plan.

Harcourt, et al. 1992 Sierra Leone. In: The Conservation Atlas of
Tropical Forests: Africa, J.A. Sayer, C. Harcourt and N.M. Collins (eds)
pp244 -- 250. IUCN and Macmillan Publishers, U.K.

International Monetary Fund, June 2005. Sierra Leone: Poverty Reduction
Strategy Paper. IMF Country Report No. 05/191.

Koroma A. P., 2004. Causes of Forest Loss and Degradation and Issues of
unsustainable Forestry in Sierra Leone

National Biodiversity Strategy Action Plan. 2002 Biodiversity and of the
Sustainability

of the use of Biological Resources in Sierra Leone. Action Plan Report.
MCHE. Freetown.

Squire, Chris B. 2001. Sierra Leone's Biodiversity and the Civil War: A
Case Study Prepared for the Biodiversity Support Program. Washington,
D.C.: Biodiversity Support Program.

Trade Environment Database. Sierra Leone Mining and Environment (Leone
Case) Case Number 195. American University.

Turay, Ansumana, IDMP. February 207. Personal communication with IDMP
Project Coordinator.

USAID. 2003. Conflict Timber: Dimensions of the Problem in Asia and
Africa. Volume III African Cases.

USAID/Sierra Leone. June 2005. FY05 Annual Report.

USAID. February 2005. Programmatic Environmental Assessment for USAID
Support to Small-Scale Artisanal Mining Activities in Sierra Leone.

USAID. 2005. Biodiversity and Tropical Forest Assessment for Sierra
Leone (118/119).

USAID, 2005. Best practices for biodiversity and tropical forest
assessments. Bureau for Economic Growth, Agriculture and Trade. Office
of Agriculture. PN-ADE-673.

USAID/Sierra Leone. 2006. FY 2006 Operational Plan (draft).

USAID, March 2006. Integrated Diamond Management Program, 6th Quarterly
Activity Report: 1 January through 31 March 2006: Prepared by Paul
Temple, Management Systems International for review by United States
Agency for International Development.

USAID/Sierra Leone. 2006. Strategy Statement, May 2006.

ANNEX 4

PROTECTED AREAS IN SIERRA LEONE

  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- -------------- ------------- --------------
  Protected Area                                                                    Area (ha) **Category**   **Ecosystem   **Proposed or
                                                                                                             Type**        Existing
                                                                                                                           Status**

  Loma Mountains Forest Reserve                                                     33,201    National park  Montane       National Park

  Tingi Hills Forest Reserve                                                        10,519    Game reserve   Montane       Game Reserve

  Gola Forest (North, East & West)                                                  76,100    Forest reserve Rainforest    Strict Nature
                                                                                                                           Reserve

  Kambui Hills                                                                      21,228    Forest reserve Rainforest     

  Kangari Hills                                                                     8,573     Game reserve   Rainforest     

  Tiwai Island                                                                      1,200     Game Sanctuary Rainforest     

  [Western Area                                                                     17,688    National park  Rainforest    National Park
  Peninsula](http://www.nacef-sl.org/Protected_Areas/western_area_penn.html)                                               

  Nimini South Forest Reserve                                                                 Forest Reserve Rainforest     

  Dodo Hills Forest Reserve                                                                   Forest Reserve Rainforest     

  Bo Plains                                                                         2600      Game Sanctuary Savanna       Game Sanctuary

  Kuru Hills Forest Reserve                                                                   Game reserve   Savanna        

  [Outamba-Kilimi](http://www.nacef-sl.org/Protected_Areas/outamba_kilimi.html)     110,900   National Park  Savanna       National Park

  Bagru-Moteva Creek                                                                          Game reserve   Wetland       Game Reserve

  Bonthe Mangrove Swamp                                                             10,100    Strict nature  Wetland        
                                                                                              reserve                      

  Bumpe Mangrove Swamp                                                              4900      Game Sanctuary Wetland       Game Sanctuary

  Kpaka (Pujehun)                                                                   2500      Game reserve   Wetland       National Park

  Lake Mabesi                                                                       7500      National park  Wetland       National Park

  Lake Mape                                                                         7500      National park  Wetland       National Park

  Lake Sonfon                                                                       8,072     National park  Wetland        

  [Mamunta-Mayawso](http://www.nacef-sl.org/Protected_Areas/mamunta_mayawso.html)   1,000     Game Sanctuary Wetland       Strict Nature
                                                                                                                           Reserve

  Sewa-Waanje                                                                       10,000    Game Reserve   Wetland       Game Reserve

  Sulima Mangrove Swamp                                                             2600      Strict nature  Wetland       Strict Nature
                                                                                              reserve                      Reserve

  Yawri Bay                                                                         33,605    Game reserve   Wetland       Game Reserve

  Nimini North Forest Reserve                                                                 Forest Reserve Rainforest     

  Gboi Hills Forest Reserve #1                                                                Forest Reserve Rainforest     

  Gboi Hills Forest Reserve #2                                                                Forest Reserve Rainforest     

  Lalay Forest Reserve                                                                        Forest Reserve Rainforest     

  Gori Hills Forest Reserve                                                                   Forest Reserve Rainforest     

  Tonkolili Forest Reserve                                                                    Forest Reserve Rainforest     

  Tama Forest Reserve                                                                         Forest Reserve Rainforest     

  Farangbaia Forest Reserve                                                                   Forest Reserve Rainforest     

  Wara Wara Hills Forest Reserve                                                              Forest Reserve Rainforest     

  Malal Hills Forest Reserve                                                                  Forest Reserve Rainforest     

  Kasewe Forest Reserve                                                                       Forest Reserve Rainforest     

  Bojene Hills Forest Reserve                                                                 Forest Reserve Rainforest     

  South Kambui Forest Reserve                                                                 Forest Reserve Rainforest     

  Moyamba Forest Reserve                                                                      Forest Reserve Rainforest     

  Waterloo Forest Reserve                                                                     Forest Reserve Rainforest     

  Singamba Forest Reserve                                                                     Forest Reserve Rainforest     

  Port Loko Forest Reserve                                                                    Forest Reserve Rainforest     

  Occra Hills Forest Reserve                                                                  Forest Reserve Rainforest     

  Mongheri Forest Reserve                                                                     Forest Reserve Rainforest     

  Tabe Forest Reserve                                                                         Forest Reserve Rainforest     

  Yelibuya Island                                                                   3900      Strict Nature  Wetland       Strict Nature
                                                                                              Reserve                      Reserve

  Sierra Leone River Estuary                                                        259,000   Important Bird Wetland        
                                                                                              Area                         
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- -------------- ------------- --------------

ANNEX 5

Primary species of four ecosystems in Sierra Leone

  -------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  FAUNA of VARIOUS ECOSYSTEMS IN SIERRA LEONE  

  **Lowland rainforest ecosystem fauna**       

  Jentinks duiker (Cephalophus jentinki)       Royal antelope (Neotragus pygmaeus)

  Zebra duiker (Cephalophus zebra)             Black duiker (cephalophus niger)

  Pygmy hippopotamus (Hexaprotodon             Ogilbys duiker (cephalophus ogilbyi
  liberiensis)                                 brookei)

  **Montane ecosystem fauna**                  

  Maxwells duiker (cephalophus maxwelli)       Hippopotamus (Hyemoschus aquaticus)

  **Savanna ecosystem fauna**                  

  Aardvark (Orycteropus afer)                  Cape clawless otter (Aonyx
                                               capensis)

  Western dassie (Procavia capensis)           Spotted neck otter (Lutra
                                               maculicollis)

  Common hippopotamus (hippopotamus amphibus   Ratel (Mellivora capensis)
  amphibus)                                    

  Red river hog (potamochoerus porcus)         African civet (Viverra civetta)

  Giant forest hog (hylochoerus meinertzhageni Palm civet (Nandinia binotata)
  ivoriensis)                                  

  Warthog (Phacochoerus aethiopicus)           Genet (Genetta spp)

  Water chevrotain (Hyemoschus aquaticus)      Dwarf mongoose (Helogale parvula)

  Red flanked duiker (Cephalophus rufilatus)   Marsh mongoose (Herpestes
                                               paludinosus)

  Blue duiker (cephalophus monticola)          Egyptian mongoose (Herpestes
                                               ichneumon)

  Yellow backed duiker (cephalophus            Cusimanse mongoose (Crossarchus
  sylvicultor)                                 obscurus)

  Bushbuck (tragelaphus scriptus)              Serval (Leptailurus serval)

  Waterbuck (Kobus ellipsiprymnus defassa)     African wild cat (Felis sylvestris)

  Forest buffalo (Syncerus caffer)             Leopard (Panthera pardus)

  African elephant (Loxodonta cyclotis         
  africana*)*                                  

  **Wetland ecosystem fauna**                  

  West african manatee (Trichechus             
  senegalensis)                                

  Source:                                      
  <http://www.tacugama.com/environment.html>   
  -------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------

ANNEX 6

Summary of international/regional treaties and their Implementations

+------------+-----+-------+---------------------+--------------------+
| > C        | >   | Ra    | > Objectives        | > Implementation   |
| onvention/ |  Ad | tific |                     | >                  |
| >          | opt | ation |                     | >                  |
| > Treaty   | ion |       |                     |  Programs/projects |
|            | >   | Date  |                     |                    |
|            | > d |       |                     |                    |
|            | ate |       |                     |                    |
+------------+-----+-------+---------------------+--------------------+
| > 1\.      | >   | > 1   | > 1\. Promote       | > 1\. Development  |
| >          |  Ju | 2^th^ | > Conservation of   | > of National      |
| Convention | ne, | >     | > Biological        | > Biodiversity     |
| > on       | > 1 | Dec., | > Diversity         | > Strategic Action |
| >          | 994 | >     | >                   | > Plan (NBSAP).    |
| Biological |     | >     | > 2\. Sustainable   |                    |
| >          |     |  1994 | > use of its        |                    |
|  Diversity |     |       | > components        |                    |
| > (CBD)    |     |       | >                   |                    |
|            |     |       | > 3\. Fair and      |                    |
|            |     |       | > equitable sharing |                    |
|            |     |       | > arising out of    |                    |
|            |     |       | > the utilization   |                    |
|            |     |       | > of genetic        |                    |
|            |     |       | > resources         |                    |
+------------+-----+-------+---------------------+--------------------+
| > 2\. The  | > J | >     | > 1\. To contribute | > 1\. National     |
| >          | an, |  2003 | > to ensuring an    | > Biosafety        |
|  Cartagena | > 2 |       | > adequate of       | > Framework        |
| > Protocol | 000 |       | > protection in the | > Project launched |
| > on       |     |       | > field of living   | > in 2002          |
| >          |     |       | > modified          | >                  |
|  Biosafety |     |       | > Organisms         | > 2\.              |
| > to the   |     |       | > resulting from    | > Establishment of |
| >          |     |       | > modern            | > Biosafety        |
| Convention |     |       | > biotechnology     | > Clearing house   |
| > on       |     |       |                     |                    |
| >          |     |       |                     |                    |
| Biological |     |       |                     |                    |
| >          |     |       |                     |                    |
|  Diversity |     |       |                     |                    |
+------------+-----+-------+---------------------+--------------------+
| > 4.United | > J | > 2   | > 1\. To combat     | > 1\. Development  |
| > Nations  | une | 5^th^ | > desertification   | > of National      |
| >          | > 1 | Sept. | > and mitigates the | > Action program   |
| Convention | 994 | >     | > effect of drought | > (NAP).           |
| > to       |     | >     | > in countries      | >                  |
| > Combat   |     |  1995 | > experiencing      | > 2\. Development  |
| > Deser    |     |       | > serious droughts  | > of Medium Size   |
| tification |     |       | > and or            | > Projects (MSP)   |
|            |     |       | > desertification   | > to combat land   |
|            |     |       |                     | > degradation      |
+------------+-----+-------+---------------------+--------------------+
| > 5\. The  | >   | >     | > 1\. To achieve    | > 1\. Initial      |
| > United   | May | April | > stabilization of  | > Communications   |
| > Nations  | > 1 | >     | > green house gas   | > to Fulfill the   |
| >          | 992 |  1996 | > Concentrations in | > Country's        |
|  Framework |     |       | > the atmosphere at | > Obligations to   |
| >          |     |       | > a level that      | > the UNFCCC.      |
| Convention |     |       | > would prevent     |                    |
| > on       |     |       | > dangerous         |                    |
| > Climate  |     |       | > anthropogenic     |                    |
| > Change   |     |       | > interference with |                    |
|            |     |       | > the climatic      |                    |
|            |     |       | > system            |                    |
+------------+-----+-------+---------------------+--------------------+
| > 6\.      | > D | >     | > 1\. To strengthen | > 1\. National     |
| > Kyoto    | ec. |  (Adv | > the commitment of | > Capacity Self    |
| > Protocol | > 1 | anced | > developed country | >                  |
|            | 997 | >     | > Parties with a    | > Assessment       |
|            |     | > s   | > view to reduce    |                    |
|            |     | tage) | > their overall     |                    |
|            |     |       | > emissions         |                    |
+------------+-----+-------+---------------------+--------------------+
| > 7\. The  | > S | >     | > 1\. Protect human | > 1\. Phasing out  |
| > Vienna   | ep. |  Apr. | > Health and the    | > of Ozone         |
| >          | > 1 | >     | > environment       | > Depleting        |
| Convention | 987 |  1993 | > against adverse   | > Substances (ODS) |
| > on       |     |       | > effects resulting | > by 2010.         |
| >          |     |       | > from              | >                  |
| Protection |     |       | > modifications of  | > 2.Capacity       |
| > of Ozone |     |       | > the ozone layer   | > building of      |
| > Layer    |     |       | > form              | > Institutions     |
| > and      |     |       | > anthropogenic     | > dealing with ODS |
| > Montreal |     |       | > emissions of      |                    |
| > Protocol |     |       | > substances proved |                    |
| > on       |     |       | > scientifically to |                    |
| >          |     |       | > have high ozone   |                    |
| Substances |     |       | > depleting         |                    |
| > that     |     |       | > potential         |                    |
| > Deplete  |     |       |                     |                    |
| > the      |     |       |                     |                    |
| > Ozone    |     |       |                     |                    |
| > Layer    |     |       |                     |                    |
+------------+-----+-------+---------------------+--------------------+
| > 8\. The  | >   | >     | > 1\. To reduce     |                    |
| > Basel    |  Ma |  Apr. | > trans- boundary   |                    |
| >          | r.1 | >     | > movements of      |                    |
| Convention | 989 |  1993 | > hazardous and     |                    |
| > on the   |     |       | >                   |                    |
| > Control  |     |       | > other wastes to a |                    |
| > of       |     |       | > minimum           |                    |
| > Tra      |     |       | > consistent to     |                    |
| nsboundary |     |       | > their             |                    |
| >          |     |       | > environmentally   |                    |
| >          |     |       | > sound Management  |                    |
|  Movements |     |       | >                   |                    |
| > of       |     |       | > 2\. To treat      |                    |
| >          |     |       | > hazardous wastes  |                    |
|  Hazardous |     |       | > and other wastes  |                    |
| > Wastes   |     |       | >                   |                    |
| > and      |     |       | > 3\. To minimize   |                    |
| > their    |     |       | > the generation of |                    |
| > Disposal |     |       | > hazardous wastes. |                    |
+------------+-----+-------+---------------------+--------------------+
| > 9\.      | >   | > Not | > 1\. To provide    |                    |
| > Protocol | Dec | > yet | > for a             |                    |
| > on       | > 1 |       | > comprehensive     |                    |
| >          | 999 |       | > regime for        |                    |
|  liability |     |       | > liability and for |                    |
| > and      |     |       | > adequate and      |                    |
| > co       |     |       | > prompt            |                    |
| mpensation |     |       | > compensation for  |                    |
| > on       |     |       | > damages resulting |                    |
| > damages  |     |       | > from the          |                    |
| >          |     |       | > trans-boundary    |                    |
|  resulting |     |       | > movements of      |                    |
| > from     |     |       | > hazardous wastes  |                    |
| > tran     |     |       | > and their         |                    |
| s-boundary |     |       | > disposal          |                    |
| >          |     |       | > including illegal |                    |
|  movements |     |       | > traffic of those  |                    |
| > of       |     |       | > wastes            |                    |
| >          |     |       |                     |                    |
|  hazardous |     |       |                     |                    |
| > waste    |     |       |                     |                    |
| > and      |     |       |                     |                    |
| > their    |     |       |                     |                    |
| > disposal |     |       |                     |                    |
+------------+-----+-------+---------------------+--------------------+
| > 10\.     | >   | > A   | > 1\. To protect by |                    |
| > Bamako   | Jan | pril. | > strict control    |                    |
| >          | > 1 | >     | > the human health  |                    |
| Convention | 991 |  1993 | > of African        |                    |
| > on the   |     |       | > population        |                    |
| > ban of   |     |       | > against adverse   |                    |
| > the      |     |       | > effects which may |                    |
| > import   |     |       | > result from       |                    |
| > into     |     |       | > hazardous waste   |                    |
| > Africa   |     |       | > by reducing their |                    |
| > and the  |     |       | > generation to a   |                    |
| > control  |     |       | > minimum in terms  |                    |
| > of       |     |       | > of quantity and   |                    |
| > trans-   |     |       | > or hazard         |                    |
| > boundary |     |       | > potential         |                    |
| >          |     |       | >                   |                    |
|  movements |     |       | > 2\. To adopt      |                    |
| > of       |     |       | > precautionary     |                    |
| >          |     |       | > measures ensure   |                    |
|  hazardous |     |       | > proper disposal   |                    |
| > wastes   |     |       | > of hazardous      |                    |
| > within   |     |       | > waste and to      |                    |
| > Africa   |     |       | > prevent dumping   |                    |
| > (Bamako  |     |       | > of hazardous      |                    |
| > c        |     |       | > wastes in Africa. |                    |
| onvention) |     |       |                     |                    |
+------------+-----+-------+---------------------+--------------------+
| > 11\.     |     | > 9th | > 1\. To strengthen | > 1\. Enabling     |
| >          |     | >     | > National Capacity | > activities to    |
|  Stockholm |     | Sept. | > and to enhance    | > facilitate early |
| >          |     | >     | > knowledge and     | > action on the    |
| Convention |     |  2003 | > understanding     | > implementation   |
| > on       |     |       | > amongst           | > of the Stockholm |
| >          |     |       | >                   | > Convention on    |
| Persistent |     |       | > decision makers , | > Persistent       |
| > Organic  |     |       | > managers,         | > Organic          |
| >          |     |       | > industry and the  | > Pollutants       |
| Pollutants |     |       | > public at large   | > (POPs) in Sierra |
| > (POPs)   |     |       | > on POPs           | > Leone.           |
|            |     |       | >                   |                    |
|            |     |       | > 2\. To develop a  |                    |
|            |     |       | > National          |                    |
|            |     |       | > implementation    |                    |
|            |     |       | > Plan (NIP) to     |                    |
|            |     |       | > manage the        |                    |
|            |     |       | > elimination of    |                    |
|            |     |       | > POPs.             |                    |
+------------+-----+-------+---------------------+--------------------+
| > 12\.     |     | > 7th | > For the           | > Guinea Large     |
| > Abidjan  |     | >     | > Cooperation in    | > Marine Ecosystem |
| >          |     | June, | > the Protection    | > to Combat Living |
| Convention |     | >     | > and Development   | > and Fisheries    |
| > And      |     |  2005 | > of the Marine and | > Marine Depletion |
| > Protocol |     |       | > Coastal           |                    |
| > on       |     |       | > Environment of    |                    |
| >          |     |       | > west African      |                    |
| Management |     |       | > Region.           |                    |
| > And      |     |       |                     |                    |
| >          |     |       |                     |                    |
| Protection |     |       |                     |                    |
| > Of       |     |       |                     |                    |
| > Coastal  |     |       |                     |                    |
| > and      |     |       |                     |                    |
| > Marine   |     |       |                     |                    |
| > E        |     |       |                     |                    |
| nvironment |     |       |                     |                    |
| > In The   |     |       |                     |                    |
| >          |     |       |                     |                    |
| Sub-Region |     |       |                     |                    |
+------------+-----+-------+---------------------+--------------------+
| > 13\.     |     | > 7th | > 1\. To manage     |                    |
| > Ramsar   |     | >     | > wetland systems   |                    |
| >          |     | June, | > so that the human |                    |
| Convention |     | >     | > uses of these     |                    |
| > On       |     | >     | > areas are         |                    |
| > Wetlands |     |  2005 | > undertaken in     |                    |
|            |     |       | > such a way as to  |                    |
|            |     |       | > retain their      |                    |
|            |     |       | > natural capital   |                    |
|            |     |       | > for future        |                    |
|            |     |       | > generation.       |                    |
|            |     |       | >                   |                    |
|            |     |       | > 2\. To encourage  |                    |
|            |     |       | > and support       |                    |
|            |     |       | > countries to      |                    |
|            |     |       | > develop and       |                    |
|            |     |       | > implement         |                    |
|            |     |       | > national policy   |                    |
|            |     |       | > and legislative   |                    |
|            |     |       | > frameworks,       |                    |
|            |     |       | > education and     |                    |
|            |     |       | > awareness raising |                    |
|            |     |       | > programs, as well |                    |
|            |     |       | > as inventory,     |                    |
|            |     |       | > research and      |                    |
|            |     |       | > training          |                    |
|            |     |       | > projects.         |                    |
+------------+-----+-------+---------------------+--------------------+

Annex 7

Key Constraints in Sustainable Natural Resource Management

**Lack of Effective Partnerships for Conservation to Create the Desired
Impact**

In the past, the public sector organizations assumed full, unchallenged
responsibility for the management of wildlife resources and biodiversity
conservation within protected area systems in Sierra Leone and thereby
alienated all other actors, severing partnerships and jeopardizing
full-scale and active public participation by adopting
command-and-control approaches. The off-reserve areas became a
free-for-all, open access heritage that was overused and abused. The
on-reserve, policing-type management practice and the open access
management style have proven to be counterproductive. A shift in
paradigm to shared management responsibility with other partners is
emerging, albeit at a slow pace. There are barriers that need to be
removed quickly and these are associated with public sector reluctance
and the mistrust among the partners. Lack of effective collaboration may
be influencing the levels at which the wealth of experience and
knowledge residing with individual stakeholder groups can be harnessed
for enhancing decision-making, planning, implementation, and monitoring
of state policies, programs, and plans toward poverty alleviation,
sustainable resource management, and biodiversity conservation. It is
believed that institutionalized collaboration and partnership
arrangements could be key to improving management effectiveness by
pooling scarce resources and assigning management responsibilities and
roles based on capabilities.

**Insufficient and Unsustainable Sources of Funding for PA Protection**

Current state budgets for both government and non-governmental
institutions working in the field of wildlife protection and
biodiversity conservation are insufficient and their reliability may be
insecure. While the treasury allocates funds for staff emoluments and
other recurrent expenditures, there are hardly any funds earmarked for
development. It is unlikely that this situation will change in the near
future as the state's sources of funds are not likely to increase
significantly in the near future However, the lack of additional funds
is not because the government attaches less importance to the sector,
but rather because it has to deal with a myriad of other challenges with
resources that are scarce. Current financial flows into the sector have
been of short-term duration and channeled through support to projects.
Thus, to be able to sustain appreciable levels of financing in the
sector, an ensemble of new and innovative ways of financing would have
to be developed in support of priority actions at both the national and
sub-regional levels. These could be in the form of environmental trust
funds, debt-for-nature swaps, debt relief mechanisms, forestry-based
carbon off-set projects, user fees, charges and taxes, private sector
activities.

**Insufficient public awareness about sustainable management and low
perceptions of the value of management and conservation of natural
resources and biodiversity**

There is generally a low level of education/awareness and a lack of
appreciation for the role of wildlife and biodiversity in human life in
Sierra Leone. There is little understanding generally for the
environment-poverty nexus, and a broad-based program of public education
is needed to get people adequately informed about the potential benefits
of wildlife protection and biodiversity conservation and hence motivate
them to change their attitudes and adopt rational resource utilization
and management practices within the key biodiversity sites.

A challenge to valuing biodiversity is making stakeholders aware of
alternative uses of conserved areas that may have a higher consumptive
or non-consumptive value than those they know. Advances in technology,
ecotourism, and general changes in attitudes towards natural systems are
significantly changing the way biodiversity systems are valued and
appreciated. Spreading this awareness may require curriculum reviews and
development at all levels of the country's formal and non-formal
educational system (primary-tertiary). In addition, this will have to be
supplemented with public education campaigns and outreach programs using
multimedia and indigenous cultural education systems, and should target
all actors.

**Issues related to lack of employment and livelihood improvement
opportunities**

The 2003 UN Human Development Index report classified Sierra Leone as
the poorest nation, mainly because of the high population of poor
people, especially in the rural areas. The poor who survive on less than
US\$0.75 a day depend heavily on the productivity of these ecological
sites and the associated biological resources; their survival is
intrinsically linked with these environments for food, shelter, health,
and sanitation needs, and their income sources are largely derived from
here. Population pressures, lack of access to improved technologies,
declining soil fertility, and lack of employment and survival choices
increasingly stress these systems and resources and perpetuate this
vicious poverty-degradation cycle.

The Sierra Leone Household Survey of 2003/2004 has shown that, while
indeed the Sierra Leonean economy is agriculture and natural
resource-based and is providing employment for over 75 percent of the
population, the incidence of poverty is highest in social groups in the
agricultural sector, where the predominant farming technology is the
destructive slash-and-burn shifting cultivation associated with short
fallows periods. Sierra Leone's natural assets are under serious threat
from human-induced activities, and the recent internal conflicts have
contributed to the degradation of environmental and land resources of
Sierra Leone. Coping mechanisms and measures for reversing resource
degradation have been mostly ineffective. While the Government of Sierra
Leone tackles the issue of environmental degradation by reviewing and
reforming policy and institutional frameworks, it must simultaneously
find ways to quickly provide choices for the people to participate in
economic development, to expand opportunities for economic growth, to
create jobs, to reduce their levels of poverty, and to improve their
livelihoods.

**Lack of effective data collection and information management system**

Data and information on SL's ecological systems, wildlife resources, and
biodiversity is scanty, unreliable, and obsolete, and their collection,
storage, and dissemination seem to have been uncoordinated. When they
are available, they are stored in formats that make retrieval and
sharing exceedingly difficult. Other barriers may include a lack of
institutional framework, weak governance, poor enforcement regimes and
inadequate management capacity at all levels for managing data and
information. There is a need for the development of an information
management system that will provide the platform for gathering, storing
and analyzing geo-referenced data and disseminating syntheses of
information on Sierra Leone's ecological sites, resource protection and
biodiversity conservation in various formats (Management reports, PA
brochures, web site, etc.).

Annex 8

Key institutions

**The following are some of the key institutions with
environment-related functions in Sierra Leone:**

-   Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security (MAFS)

-   Ministry of Lands and Country Planning (MLCP)

-   Ministry of Works and Technical Maintenance (MWTM)

-   Ministry of Transport and Communications (MTC)

-   Ministry of Health and Sanitation (MOHS)

-   Ministry of Social Welfare and Gender (MSW&G)

-   Ministry of Youth and Sports (MYS)

-   Ministry of Mineral Resources (MMR)

-   Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB)

-   Ministry of Development and Economic Planning (MODEP)

**Other Partners include:**

-   Private sector/NGOs/CBOs

-   Ministry of Works and Technical Maintenance (MTM)

-   Road Transport Authority (RTA)

-   Sierra Leone Roads Authority (SLRA)

-   Ministry of Labour & Social Security (MLSS)

-   Ministry of Energy and Power (MEP)

-   National Power Authority (NPA)

-   Sierra Leone Maritime Administration (SLMA)

-   Ministry of Transport and Communications (MTC)

-   Civil Aviation Department ( Civil Aviation Authority)

[^1]: BSAP, 2003

[^2]: Sierra Leone Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, 2003

[^3]: ibid.

[^4]: Allan, 1990; Harcourt et al., 1992

[^5]: Harcourt et al.,1992

[^6]: Bakarr et al., 1999

[^7]: GOSL, 1994

[^8]: GOSL, 1994

[^9]: Lands and Water Division, 1999

[^10]: Koroma A. P., 2004. "Causes of Forest Loss and Degradation and
    Issues of Unsustainable Forestry in Sierra Leone."

[^11]: "Support to Small-Scale Artisanal Mining Activities in Sierra
    Leone," February 2005 (Programmatic Environmental Assessment for
    USAID)

[^12]: Ibid.

[^13]: Government of Sierra Leone Gold and Diamond Office, 2004

[^14]: Personal communication, IDMP Project Coordinator Ansumana Turay,
    2007

[^15]: "Support to Small-Scale Artisanal Mining Activities in Sierra
    Leone," February 2005

[^16]: Ibid.

[^17]: Overlaps between Industrial Mining Rights and Protected Areas,
    SLIS Map code 0149, 07 Feb, 2007

[^18]: Geological Survey Division, Sierra Leone, November 2006

[^19]: Sierra Leone Mining and Environment (Leone Case) Case No. 195, at
    <http://www.american.edu/ted/leon.htm>. "Programmatic Environmental
    Assessment, for USAID Support to Small-Scale Artisanal Mining Act
    ivies in Sierra Leone," February 2005.

[^20]: IDMP, Quarterly Report, 1 January through 31 March 2006

[^21]: 230,000 tons per year (in the period of 1985 to 1990) --- a drop
    of total catch during the war to about 60,000 tons per year, and a
    slight increase thereafter to a total of 82.623 tons in 2003.
    European Union, Country Environmental Profile (CEP) Sierra Leone,
    September 2006.

[^22]: EIU 2005