Issue #38

• EC funded project wins prize

• Models of sustainable forest management

• Decline in forest health

• Forests in Development: good policy, no money

COAMA was initiated in 1989, as a positive response to extensive recognition of indigenous land rights by the Colombian Government, under President Virgilio Barco (86-90). Over 20 million hectares of the Colombian Amazon is now designated as indigenous collective territories and conservation areas.

The main objective of COAMA is to support indigenous communities and organisations in managing their territories and conserving the Amazon’s biodiversity, within the national legal framework. The programme comprises a network of Colombian NGOs, with the Gaia Foundation (UK) as its European counterpart. They work directly with indigenous organisations in the region, and over 200 indigenous communities. Field activities include: inter-cultural education, indigenous and constitutional law, capacity-building, land-use planning, and non-timber forest products. Some activities have also been carried out with grassroots organisations in the urban centres of the Colombian Amazon, to promote a more sustainable development model.

COAMA has been funded through 2 phases under the Tropical Forest Budget Line since 1993 with about 6 million euro. A complementary programme of micro-projects, funded by the Development DG, totalling approx. 450,000 euro is also co-ordinated by the COAMA network.

The project is a good example of what can be achieved in conservation and development through action at the grassroots level and full involvement of Southern NGOs in project execution. The project is almost 100% Colombian managed. The approach exemplified by this project contrasts with that put forward in the EC Communication on Forests and Development (see other article) which emphasises government level interventions and where the examples of best practice highlight a top-down, rather than bottom-up approach. Unfortunately, it seems grassroots projects are being abandoned by the EC as they are too labour intensive.

COAMA representatives will be visiting NGOs and the European Commission in Brussels, on November 24.

1. http://www.coama.org.co

At the third International Workshop on Model Forests1 in Gunma, Japan, participants from 16 mainly Asian countries addressed topics related to sustainable forest management.

Stakeholder identification and engagement, public and private sector partnerships and the sharing of information and experiences on sustainable forest management through networking were the main themes. Japanese field studies provided the basis for discussion. An EC project in East Kalimantan was presented as a potential model forest in the future. The initiative will be presented to the Intergovernmental Forum on forests in February 2000. ?

1 www.idrc.ca/imfu/map.html

A new report on the condition of forests in Europe has been presented by the Commission. The report based on a monitoring project which started in 1985, shows that Europe’s forests are in a dire state.

Forests cover 36 % of Europe. They fulfil important environmental, social and economic functions. However, the forest situation has deteriorated since the last report in 1997. That report stated that more than 60% of all beech and nearly 50% of oak trees were damaged. The current report says that all main tree species show deterioration in crown conditions, most visibly with beech, oak and maritime pine. Soil acidification is widespread, and Central Europe is especially affected.

1 http://ue.eu.int

On November 11, the Development Council adopted three new Communications: Forests and Development, Environmental Integration (See next article) and Climate Change.

For the first time, the EC organised a press and NGO briefing before a Council meeting. This is a welcome initiative that should be repeated. However, more time for discussion and an improved invitation policy would be appreciated. Almost none of the NGOs who had participated in the consultation on the Forests and Development Communication, were invited to the briefing.

Mr. Houtman, Director for Sustainable Development, stated that the Commission intends to strengthen consultation with NGOs. Fern is looking forward to the Commission's plans to do so.

NGOs were pleased to see that many of the joint NGO comments on the draft Communication, which Fern presented to the Commission in March, have been included in the final text. The Communication rightly emphasises the interlinkages between forests and other sectors of the economy and the need for coherence between EC policies. The list of best practices attached to the Communication did, however, show a bias in favour of larger top-down projects.

Given the diverse activities that are eligible for EC support, Fern hopes that clear priorities will be made in subsequent country and regional strategy plans. The development of such plans offers a good opportunity to involve environment and development NGOs in a proper consultation process. Such a consultation process would ensure that Northern and Southern NGOs are actively involved from the inception phase to the final policy document.

The Council adopted a Resolution on Forests and Development. Its recommendation to 'involve' indigenous peoples in decision making processes seems to backtrack on the Council's earlier Resolution on Indigenous Peoples which makes 'informed consent' a condition for any EC project. The emphasis on national forest programmes seems to indicate the Council wants bigger national level projects, involving the public and private sector.

Despite all the discussions on tropical forest policies, it seems there will be little money for tropical forest projects next year. The tropical forest budget line, which provides half of the funds for tropical forest projects, will not be up and running until sometime next year, as its new Regulation has not yet been adopted. Furthermore, the Council has proposed to decrease its annual budget from 45 to 9 million euro. A decision the Parliament will hopefully reverse.

Mr. Lowe (Development DG), indicated at the press briefing that forest projects would in future mainly be funded by the EDF and Asia and Latin America (ALA) budget lines. At the moment few of the EDF's national programmes even mention forests and when they do, as in the case of Cameroon, forest projects are to be funded by the TFBL. There are no ALA funded forest projects in Latin America.

The 1998 ECO evaluation of EC forest projects (Forest Watch 27) found that the quality of ALA and EDF projects tended to be poorer than those funded by the TFBL. Also, they tend not to support NGO initiatives. Therefore, if the EDF and the ALA budget lines must finance tropical forest projects, fundamental changes are necessary.

Two more Councils have adopted draft strategies for integrating environment and sustainable development into their area of work: the Development and Agriculture Council. A draft strategy to integrate environment in the internal market has already been adopted (Forest Watch 35).

The Commission report presented to the Council on 'Integrating environment and sustainable development into economic and development co-operation policy' contains good points. Particularly, the demand for more qualified staff within the Commission and the paper's emphasis on capacity building are welcomed. However, the lack of reference in the paper to the important role civil society plays in dealing with environmental problems is worrying. NGOs are disappointed there was no consultation in the drafting of this paper.

EU development ministers called on the European Commission and member states to "actively review the scope for greater policy coherence" when integrating environment and sustainable development. They demanded a specific strategy including a timetable.

The Agriculture Council adopted a more detailed strategy on environmental integration. The strategy was attacked by the EEB as a failure as it contains no targets, indicators or timetables. In a recent report: "EU agricultural policy after 2000", the EEB labels the EU's green agricultural policy a sham.

The Council report states that the EU Forestry Strategy is a good example of the integration process. This is disputed by NGOs who strongly criticised the Forestry Strategy for being biased towards the production aspect of forests (Forest Watch 28).