|
Forest Watch November 1998
EU Forestry Strategy to be Adopted The European Commission has for the first time produced a Communication on an EU Forestry Strategy. The draft Strategy is the Commission’s response to the Parliament’s request for a European Forestry Strategy as laid out in the Thomas report1. The Strategy was presented at the Agricultural Council meeting on November the 23th and 24th. In its Strategy, the Commission concludes that the existing forestry measures2 , together with the proposals on rural development in the context of Agenda 2000, provide adequate contributions to an EU Forestry Strategy. No additional actions are foreseen except the development of an EC framework for voluntary forest certification and labelling. This despite the fact that according to the EU’s own research 25% 3 of all forests are damaged and Europe is the only continent with hardly any primary forests left. NGOs have strongly criticised the Strategy as it ignores many of the EU's international commitments and does not analyse the impact of past and present EU activities on forests. In particular the Strategy fails to implement many of the EC Biodiversity Strategy's forest objectives. If the Forestry Strategy is adopted it is unclear how these objectives will be implemented. It is therefore surprising that DG XI - responsible for the Biodiversity Strategy - has endorsed the draft Forestry Strategy. Little attention is given to forest sector cooperation and no attempt is made to produce a coherent Forestry Strategy incorporating elements of the draft Communication on Forestry Development Cooperation currently under discussion. As certification is a market tool, the possible development of an EU certification framework including an EU logo was not welcomed either by NGOs, forest owners or parts of the forestry industry. NGOs described this action as "the last thing we need"(4). NGOs, forest owners, parts of the forestry industry and some Member States share their criticism about the lack of participation or consultation in drafting the Strategy. This report has been developed ‘in secrecy’ without any possible input from NGOs, the European Parliament or even sufficient comments from the Member States. In order to ensure Member States have a further possibility to comment on the draft Strategy, two Council Working Group meetings are being organised. It is expected the Council will then pass a Resolution at its next meeting on 14 December. 1A4-0414/96 2 Council regulations relating to CAP, forest fires, atmospheric pollution and EFICS (867/90 and 3528/86 and 2158/92, 1615/89) 3 Forest Condition in Europe (1996) 4 NGO press release and background papers available from Fern
Underlying Causes in Europe1 On October 28-29 a seminar was held in Bonn, Germany, to discuss the underlying causes of deforestation and forest degradation in Europe. The outcome of the European seminar, together with the results of the 6 other regional seminars will be presented at an Intersessional meeting in Costa Rica later this year. At this meeting, recommendations will be made for the third meeting of the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF), in May 1999. The European seminar was attended by NGOs, government officials and scientists. Ten case studies were presented, six of which focused on a European region (Hungary, Romania, Estonia, Austria, Sweden, Portugal and the UK). Three focused on Europe’s impact on forests outside the EU (aid, trade and private investment)2 . The case studies make clear that forest degradation is a severe problem in Europe. The main causes are air-pollution, logging, infrastructure projects and substitution with fast growing plantation species. Plantations are, according to current FAO definitions, classified as forests. This is seen as a problem. The main underlying causes identified at the meeting were linked to a variety of issues, including lack of local control, forest legislation focused excessively on timber production, Western Europe has an important impact on forests in the Baltics, Eastern Europe and the tropics. There is ample room for improvement in European development cooperation (see Forest Watch 27). Several case studies show how the export of a Western European forestry model has degraded forests both outside and within Europe. Accession countries view the impacts of future EU membership differently. Some, like Estonia, see EU membership as a tool to improve the forest situation while others, such as Hungary, consider it as a possible threat. The participants discussed several recommendations for the global meeting in Costa Rica. These will be published in a synthesis report, including summaries of all the case studies3 ?
1 See Forest Watch issues 23 and 24 2 Case studies will be available at the wrm website (www.wrm.org.uy) and the Fern website (www.gn.apc.org/fern) 3 available from Fern from mid-December
ETFAG Meeting On 20 and 21 October 1998, the 8th ETFAG (European Tropical Forests Advisory Group) meeting took place in Edinburgh. The managerial problems within the European Commission (see Forest Watch 27) were openly discussed with most Member States expressing support for the EC forestry development programme. The nomination, at DG VIII, of a permanent civil servant for forestry policy was welcomed by the Member States. A positive and pro-active response to the ECO and Rain Forest Foundation evaluations was agreed. Member States criticised the weakness of the EC presence in the Brazilian pilot programme. The draft communication on EC Forestry Development Cooperation was discussed as well as the renewal of the regulation on operations to promote tropical forests. DG VIII also announced a new West Africa forest initiative similar to the SADC studies (see Forest Watch 23). The next (mini) ETFAG will take place in Brussels in March/April. Guyana Shield Donor Coordination The European Commission hosted a donor coordination meeting in Brussels on the 16th and 17th of November to review donor strategies and consider prospects for donor collaboration. A background paper for this meeting was prepared by the Overseas Development Institute (ODI). The paper, which was well received, states that donor initiatives have heavily focused on environmental issues to the exclusion of other issues, which now urgently need to be addressed. The paper gave priority to the need to resolve indigenous and tribal land rights. Government representatives acknowledged this need and welcomed international assistance to address it. Given the very different situations in the various countries making up the shield (Colombia, Venezuela, Guyana, Suriname, French Guyana and northern Brazil), there was less certainty as to whether a regional approach would help decision-making. Innovative mechanisms to finance conservation and sustainable management options were discussed but national representatives stressed the need to prioritise national development objectives. A follow up meeting would be held in the Guyanas to concretise proposals, funded by the Commission. UNDP also offered its assistance. Erratum At the last moment the Parliamentary budget committee decided to set the tropical forest budget line (B7-6201) to 45 MECU not 40 MECU (see Forest Watch 27). New Editor Fern has appointed a new editor: Chantal Marijnissen. EU Forest Agenda • 3 December: DG VI Advisory Committee on Forestry and Cork, Brussels • 10-11 December: Informal EU-Workshop on Certification of Sustainable Forest Management and Labelling of Timber and Timber Products, Vienna • 1 January: Germany takes over the EU Presidency from Austria
|