|
EU Forest Watch July/August 1999
Prodi's shake-upThe reorganisation of the European Commission by its President-designate Mr. Prodi deserves praise for making the Commission leaner and better co-ordinated. However, concern has been expressed by the European Parliament and NGOs about some of the divisions being made between the future Directorate Generals for development, trade and external affairs. Prodi's disregard for the importance of sustainable development is also criticised. Geographical split maintained Despite the fact that Mr. Prodi1 claims that external relations will be divided by subject and not geographically, aid to Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific will continue to be the responsibility of the development DG, while relations with Latin America and Asia will remain under the DG for external affairs. This is clearly a missed opportunity to harmonise development cooperation across regions and could be subject to criticism in the future. Policy and implementation divided This ‘geographical split’ might have led to the surprising decision to keep policy development and project implementation in two different DGs. Indeed, the unit for priority and programming and the SCR-in charge of implementing aid projects-fall under the DG for external relations whereas policy development will remain in the development DG. It is likely the current problems with the management of the aid programme will be aggravated by this split. One positive change is the merger of the two former DGs’ environment and forest policy units under the development DG. This should allow for more coherent policies. ECHO's (European Office for Humanitarian Assistance) incorporation in the development DG also meets NGO approval. Nielsen versus Patten The division of responsibilities between the Commissioners-designate for development (Mr. Nielsen) and external affairs (Mr. Patten) is unclear. The Parliament asked whether Mr. Nielsen will have to seek final approval for all actions from Mr. Patten. As Mr. Nielsen’s track record in Denmark is impressive, it is hoped he can push for the required changes to improve the EC’s aid performance. Trade and environment The move of the ‘Generalised System of Preferences’ from the development DG to the trade DG is positive. However, to remove the trade policy unit from the development DG leaves it without the expertise to properly renegotiate the Lome Agreement, a concern highlighted by the Parliament. Another surprise is that the external affairs DG has been given responsibility for APEC and NAFTA, which are mainly trade fora, rather than the trade DG. The EEB is concerned that the Treaty’s requirement for environment integration is not reflected in the reforms. They will continue to lobby the vice president Mr. Kinnock to ensure his reforms address the issue of sustainable development.
Participation? On July 5, the Finnish Government and the industry DG hosted a meeting to discuss a Communication1 on EU forest based industries. Two drafts were circulated to participants beforehand. It is expected that once Mr. Liikanen is appointed as industry Commissioner, a final Communication will be sent to the Council and Parliament. NGOs welcomed the Commission’s initiative to discuss its draft Communication with all stakeholders. However, strong criticisms were expressed by environmental NGOs as the second draft paper does not reflect the outcome of the first consultation meeting (Forest Watch 32). Criticisms include the paper's suggestion that environmental legislation should be adapted to the needs of forest based industries. Furthermore the paper only focuses on large companies and does not look at the resource base for the industry, i.e. the forests. In Mr. Prodi’s proposal to restructure the Commission, it is clear that the Industry DG will have to focus more attention on small and medium sized enterprises. The lack of environmental integration, the documents’ poor quality and a flawed participatory process, forced Fern to express its concern in a letter to the industry and environment DGs. The letter urges the industry DG to ensure all aspects of sustainable development and responsible resource management are taken into account in its final Communication and improve its consultation with NGOs. 1 drafts and comments available form Fern. Comments also on Fern's website.
Improved aid to CEEC? In 1998, 30% of EC aid went to Central and Eastern European countries (CEEC) and Russia. Most aid to CEEC has been spent via the Phare programme1. The programme's lengthy and opaque funding procedures have been criticised by NGOs. The new Regulation co-ordinating Phare aid with other Commission financial instruments, adopted by the Council on June 26, addresses this problem to some extent. However, other concerns have not been addressed or have instead been heightened:
Of the 13 countries covered by the Phare programme, the new Regulation covers only support to the 10 CEE countries who are preparing for EU accession. For the first time, the Regulation gives the Commission the explicit responsibility to co-ordinate co-operation with the European Investment Bank and other international financial institutions. The Council meeting also adopted a number of other Regulations affecting forests and environment in Eastern Europe. These include: Regulation for agriculture and rural development support (no 1268/99 and 1257/99) and a structural instrument (No 1267/99) as well as a Regulation amending the Cohesion Funds (No1265/99).
PEFC launched On 30 June, the Pan European Forest Certification Scheme (PEFC) was launched in Paris, as an alternative to the Forest Stewardship Council -FSC- (Forest Watch 34). Forest owners and forestry industry involved in the PEFC, claim the launch was a success, stating that more than 14 European countries are now involved. The PEFC scheme is furthest advanced in Finland, where forest owners hope to have half of the country's forests certified by the end of this year. However, NGOs expressed the view that the PEFC scheme still has a long way to go before it can claim credibility in the market. Among the concerns are that the scheme fails to provide certification standards or a chain of custody. The PEFC scheme can also not be seen as independent as 9 out of 11 seats on the PEFC board represent business interests. The British DIY chain B&Q1, which has nearly 80% of its products certified under the FSC scheme, has announced support for the Finnish scheme. PEFC's supporters have claimed this as a success. However, B&Q's statement only accepts the Finnish scheme and denounces the PEFC scheme as not being a viable alternative to the FSC.
EU wants trade round The European Commission (EC) has sent its Communication1 to Council and Parliament outlining its approach for the next WTO negotiations (Forest Watch 33, 34, 35). The EC advocates a comprehensive trade round, covering industrial tariff reduction, investment, competition, as well as trade and environment. The EU recognises that the debate about the impact of trade liberalisation on the environment has increased and has commissioned the University of Manchester2 to carry out a scoping exercise for a future impact assessment on sustainable development of the next trade round. The Communication concludes that some issues under discussion may be ripe for adoption at Seattle. If they improve the prospects for the launch of the round of negotiations, the Community would look at them positively. Early tariff free treatment to products of least developed countries is listed as an example. 1europa.eu.int/comm/dg01/dg1newround.htm 2http://fs2.idpm.man.ac.uk/sia/
EU Forest Agenda • 15 September: European Parliament to approve the new Commission • 21-23 September: Costa Rica-Canada Initiative in Support of Category III of IFF, European Meeting, Madrid |