Development Commissioner Pinheiro, speaking at the October ACP-EU summit, has stated that the European Investment Bank has been approached by the governments of Chad and Cameroon for funding of a controversial oil pipeline running between the two countries.

The project has been the subject of intense NGO scrutiny. The 1600-km pipeline is to be built by a Consortium involving Exxon, Shell and Elf. Part of its funding is to be provided by the World Bank.

World Bank approval has already been delayed for two years, however, because of the Bank's persistent failure to comply with the terms of its own operational directives on indigenous peoples and environmental protection.

Exxon's Environmental Impact Assessment and Environmental Management Plan have been criticised by official German and Dutch assessments, as well as by the Bank’s own environmental experts.

MEPs and NGOs fear that the disturbance to local lifestyles and economies created by the pipleline may lead to increased unrest in an already disturbed area, possibly creating a new Ogoni-style human and environmental tragedy. 

1. Background

The Intergovermental Forum on Forests (IFF) held its second meeting in Geneva from August 24 to September 4, 1998. The meeting’s agenda included, inter alia, monitoring the progress of implementation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Forest’s Proposals for Action (see EU Forest Watch 12) and discussions on matters left pending from the IPFs programme of work, such as trade and environment.

In light of the urgent need to halt forest destruction worldwide, and considering the lack of consensus on many crucial aspects of the forest crisis, NGOs at the meeting were concerned about the half-hearted commitment of many governments to the international forest process.

Despite calls for monitoring and suggestions of assistance, very few governments have thus far considered implementing the IPF Proposals for Action, which provide a framework within which to analyse the factors contributing to deforestation and forest degradation at the national level.

The meeting also failed to take the opportunity to hold a substantive discussion on how to tackle underlying causes of deforestation on which no action has yet been agreed, such as trade in illegal logging products. Yet the European Union pointed out that 'a solution to this issue is critical for the successful implementation of sustainable forest management.'

Discussions on the contentious issue of binding instruments will not take place before IFF 3, in May 1999. However, there appeared to be growing recognition of the need to reconcile the different approaches to the issue being taken by those who support the idea of a forest convention.

Various initiatives and intersessionals scheduled to take place before IPF 3 are expected to bring to light some of the factors driving deforestation and forest degradation (for Intersessional on Underlying Causes, see EU Forest Watch 23).

An analysis is also being carried out of forest-related issues already covered in existing international agreements, in an initiative by Costa Rica and Canada.

'Substantial financial support' would henceforth be adopted by use of the management procedure, with final decisions on funding left to the Council if the committee rejects the proposals. Until now, such funding has been decided under a more complicated regulatory committee procedure.

Comitology procedures have come in for strong criticism over the past two years. The much-used regulatory committee, in particular, in some cases gave the Commission excessive powers in relation to the Member States, with no oversight by the European Parliament.

That procedure has now been modified. The new version gives greater discretion to the Commission in deciding whether to submit measures to the Council if they cannot be agreed by committee. However, measures submitted to the Council will have to take the form of a legislative proposal, to be decided by qualified majority voting.

The formulation of the workings of the various procedures is still relatively unclear. Nonetheless, the committee system as a whole has been made more transparent.

The October Environment Council committed the EC and Member States to making ‘substantial’ progress at the upcoming fourth Conference of the Parties to the Climate Change Convention in Buenos Aires.

The Council noted the complexity involved in the inclusion of sinks, ‘such as links with biodiversity, forest and desertification issues’. It also asked the Commission to indicate how EC Overseas Development Aid (ODA) might better serve the Convention’s goals, while specifying that these funds should not be used to finance the acquisition of certified emission reduction units.

The Commission is hoping that forest issues will be clarified by a report being elaborated by the IPCC, entitled Land Use Change and Forestry. The report is intended to define what is meant by 'forest', as well as clarify terms such as 'afforestation', 'deforestation' and 'reforestation'. The report is meant to be finalised by May 2000.

The Parties must also decide certain politically sensitive issues concerning the use of carbon sinks. Some developed countries want to be able to offset their emissions by planting forests in developing countries.

This could encourage replacement of natural forests by plantations in developing countries, a trend strongly opposed by NGOs and some European governments.

• 3-6 November: UN/ECE Timber Committee Workshop on Recycling, Energy and Market Integration, Istanbul, Turkey

• 27-29 October: European Workshop on Underlying Causes of Forest Degradation, Bonn

• 2 -13 November: Fourth Conference of the Parties to the Climate Change Convention, Buneos Aires

• 16-17 November: Informal Donor Co-ordination Meeting on the Guyana Shields, Brussels