|
EU Forest Watch May 1999: Issue 34 Intergovernmental Forum on Forests Underlying Causes A Forest Convention? Trade and Environment IPF proposals for action WTO and forests Development Council ALA Evaluation Sustainable Development EU Forest Agenda
Intergovernmental Forum on Forests At the third Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF) in Geneva, 3-14 May, delegates discussed a range of issues including underlying causes of forest loss and trade and environment. The overall outcome was disappointing as no concrete progress was made on implementation of the action proposals put forward by the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF). NGOs expressed their disappointment in a statement to the Plenary (available from Fern). With only one more session to go, the future of the intergovernmental dialogue on forests is high on the agenda. Underlying Causes The outcome of the Underlying Causes process, led by a coalition of NGOs and the Government of Costa Rica (Forest Watch 23, 31), was presented. Although organisers' expectations were greater, the process was viewed favourably and a number of its action proposals were adopted in the official text, including: creation of procedures for the effective participation of all interested parties in decision making processes, improvement of access to land, internalising externalities and a study of land tenure issues (Final report: www.wrm.org.uy) . A Forest Convention? The Governments of Costa Rica and Canada initiated a process which they hoped would lead to the adoption of a forest convention. Support for the initiative became obscured as friction between parties emerged. There was a feeling that the initiative has been dominated by Canada. It seems that an increasing number of Governments, including EU Member States doubt the benefits of a convention and are willing to look at alternatives. There are still six months to look into international means to solving the forest crisis and it is hoped that the EU will take an active role. Trade and Environment Acutely differing perspectives on both the impact of trade on forests and the possible role of the IFF in trade negotiations, resulted in an extremely vague document. NGOs and some Government officials felt that the IFF process has been dominated by narrow economic interests, whilst the impact of trade regimes on forests needs further clarification. Christoph Bail of DGXI (Environment) made a strong plea not to use the IFF as a platform for discussion on trade liberalisation as an adjunct to the WTO, whilst other countries (Brazil, Canada) pushed this issue. Behind the scenes there were feverish debates on a possible Forest Products Agreement to be tabled at the WTO’s Ministerial Conference (see following article). IPF proposals for action It became clear that most of the IPF's proposals for action are not being implemented. The EU and NGOs urged for implementation but it is doubtful how much progress will be made by Governments including those part of the EU, by IFF IV.
WTO and forests On May 13, trade experts and environment NGOs met in Brussels to discuss the impact of WTO on forests. Of particular concern to NGOs is the possibility of a Forest Products Agreement that would be further compounded if it is negotiated before the WTO's Third Ministerial meeting in November. The agreement proposed by the US and supported by Canada and New Zealand, would lower tariffs for forest products and possibly include non-tariff barriers. NGOs have drafted a joint position paper opposing it (available from Fern). Other areas likely to be discussed that affect forests and forest peoples, are the liberalisation of agriculture and investment. A new version of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) is envisaged. It emerged at the meeting that research on the impact of trade liberalisation on forests is scarce. 'Sustainability Impact Assessments' as proposed by the EU on future trade agreements are essential. These assessments must be based on social and environmental impact analyses of the Uruguay Round. NGOs urge the CSD to fulfil its commitment to develop a framework for assessing environment and social trade impacts by its next meeting. NGOs feel that the European Parliament has a clear role to play in the EU's negotiations and therefore urge the Parliament to reformulate its 'REX Committee' on external affairs. Transparency is a precondition for any negotiations.
Development Council On May 21, the Development Council (press release available from Fern) discussed the evaluations of European Community -EC- aid (Forest Watch 30). As the evaluations have stressed the need to improve the quality of aid, the Council invited the Commission to prepare an action plan to resolve identified problems. This action plan and its implementation will be reviewed at all future Council meetings. The Council first wants the Commission to develop an integrated and strategic development policy. The policy paper will be presented in the first half of the year 2000 after the widest consultation possible. Partnerships between EC and civil society must increase. The merger of the development DGs, to harmonise and simplify the organisational framework, will be studied. The Commission culture must change from focusing on inputs to achieving results. The management committees and their regulations must be revised to increase their efficiency. More powers should be transferred to the delegations. Addressing the problem of insufficient human resources, the Council encourages the Commission to acquire specialist staff and to take measures to reach a better balance between resources and activities, i.e. by focusing on a narrower range of activities. How this relates to the Council's intention to further decrease the Commission's staff is unclear. The Council acknowledges the need to disseminate more information on the EC's programmes and invites the Commission to establish a performance based monitoring system. Improved complementarity between EC and Member States’ aid, is addressed in a Council Resolution. The Commission must draft a framework for country strategy papers and report periodically on all activities undertaken to improve complementarity.
ALA Evaluation After the evaluations of the European Communities' aid to ACP and MED countries (Forest Watch 30), the ALA evaluation is now available. All were discussed by the Council (see previous article). The absence of information on the EC's aid programme to Asian and Latin American Countries (ALA) hampered the quality of the evaluation: out of 2000 projects less than 100 evaluations were available and only 45 contained sufficient information to prepare the field study. Information on crosscutting issues was poor.
The evaluation expresses fears that to date there is no coherent database of projects, evaluations etc. It states that recent reorganisations of development services raises the need for incentives to foster cooperation. The evaluation concludes that more power should be given to the delegations.
Sustainable Development On May 27, at a seminar on sustainable development, Mr. Lowe, the Director General of DG VIII (Development), stressed the need to develop the means of its ACP partners to build regional infrastructure that does not ravage the environment and cause social dislocation. The projects specifically mentioned were cross-border roads in Central Africa and a planned oil pipeline which would cause environmental damage and social upheaval. He stated that he is under pressure from environment NGOs. ACP representatives stressed the need for a longer inception phase based on small-scale pilot projects driven by local communities as opposed to large scale projects implemented by foreign consultants. Mr. Lowe said he believes that sustainable projects result from the initiatives of local people.
EU Forest Agenda
|