Forest certification has been hotly debated in the last few months. Recent activities include the publication of the final report of the ETC (see EU Forest Watch 17, 23 and 26), the launch of the Pan European Forest Certification Scheme (PEFC) and a meeting in Vienna hosted by the Austrian Environment Ministry, to discuss market demand and certification systems. The trade unions have developed their position on certification and in Switzerland and the UK FSC and national standards are being merged.

At a meeting in Helsinki on 28 October, the Pan European Forest Certification Scheme was presented and its rules were formally backed by forest industry representatives from around Europe. By developing their own certification standards, European forestry industry groups hope to create an international alternative to the estabished FSC. The PEFC initiative could lead to an alternative label.

In the UK, the national FSC standard for responsible forest management and the standard developed by the UK Forestry Commission - the UK Woodland Association Scheme - are almost compatible. The UK FSC members adopted a resolution aiming to develop a single standard endorsed by the FSC and supported by the UK forestry and environmental community.

On 10-11 December, an EU Workshop on Certification took place in Austria.

It highlighted the difficulty of transferring the discussion on certification from the market-place to the political arena. Whereas it is supposed to be a market-based tool, some see certification schemes, such as that of the FSC, as not addressing the needs of small forest owners. Hence, they need to be adapted to serve more broadly in Europe as part of a business strategy.

DGs III and VI spokesmen stated that there is a broad consensus between the EC’s services principally involved with certification. The EU should not impose any certification scheme. However, if SFM standards and certification schemes develop nationally, there may be a role for an EU framework.

They also acknowledged the work of the FSC in highlighting SFM issues, but made it clear that the Commission must neither side with nor attack the FSC scheme, or indeed any other.

The Agricultural Council adopted a resolution on an EU Forestry Strategy at its meeting on December 14 (See EU Forest Watch 28). The EU Member States have incorporated many criticisms of NGOs and forestry industry. The strategy is described as a dynamic process and the Council invites the Commission to report on its implementation within five years.

The substantive elements of the strategy include: sustainable forest management - as defined by the Helsinki Process - , the principle of subsidiarity - as the Treaty makes no provision for a common forest policy - , active participation in all relevant international processes and the multifunctional role of forests - including cultural values. The strategy encourages the need for a participatory and transparent approach with all stakeholders. The Council stresses the importance of the Standing Forestry Committee, the DG VI Advisory Committee (see below) and the DG III Consultative Committee and demands the Commission to report as soon as possible on improving coordination.

After discussing the issue at its last session, the Council has now adopted a resolution on Indigenous Peoples. The need to develop a comprehensive policy as outlined by the Working Paper on Indigenous Peoples (see EU Forest Watch 21, 22 and 24) was recognised. Emphasis should be placed on practical ways to implement this policy. The Commission will report back to the Council in the second half of 2000 on progress achieved.

The resolution states that development cooperation should contribute to enhancing the right and capacity of indigenous peoples to their "self development". The Council reiterates its political will to actively participate in initiatives to support local and indigenous peoples in the framework of the Convention on Biodiversity, as it recognises the role indigenous peoples play in biodiversity conservation.

The Commission has drafted a Communication on a European Community Strategy for Private Sector Development in ACP Countries. It stresses the leading role of the private sector in development. The strategy recommends a common conceptual framework for the different EC support to the private sector development. The strategy recognises the importance of the informal sector, however it does not analyse it. Furthermore the strategy does not discuss the role of natural resources including forests in private sector development. However, the private sector often relies on the productive function of natural resources. This is a worrying development especially in view of the increased allocation of EC funds for private sector development cooperation. The Council held an exchange of views on the strategy and instructed COREPER to proceed with the drafting of a resolution to be adopted at its next session. ?

• January: NGO Meeting on Small Grant Trust Fund, Brussels