FERN views the European Commission’s Action Plan on forest law
enforcement, governance and trade (FLEGT) and the accompanying Council
Conclusions as a good first step in the fight against forest crime. However,
neither document is binding on either the Commission or the Council. Further
steps depend on the commitment of civil servants and continued political
pressure.
To draw a quick parallel, a couple of years ago the Commission drafted
an Action Plan on Biodiversity and Development Cooperation and the Council
endorsed Conclusions. Currently the Commission and Council are monitoring their
implementation. The Commission admits
the will was not there to implement the Action Plan and the Council can’t seem
to remember that its Conclusions also applied to Member States.
Therefore continued political pressure, commitment, adequate staff
resources and strategic coordination amongst EC departments are necessary to
implement the FLEGT Action Plan.
I will structure the rest my intervention in three sections: a quick
review of the Commission’s Action Plan; a critique of the Council Conclusions
and finally some basic comments on the ongoing process.
The Commission recognizes the seriousness and complexity of the problem
and that the European Union as a major consumer of timber and wood products
should direct demand towards only legally harvested timber.
Also the Commission acknowledges that law enforcement without equitable
and coherent laws could have a negative impact on vulnerable and poor
communities.
Nevertheless the Commission shied away from proposing new legislation to
make it a crime to import illegally sourced forest products. The Commission
also failed to propose legislative amendments to existing legislation such as
the third money laundering directive that could list illegal logging as a crime
or that environment and social impact assessments become mandatory for member
state export credit agencies let alone the European Investment Fund set up
under the Cotonou agreement.
If you want to consult a more detailed analysis or read the joint NGO
statement you can consult FERN’s website: www.fern.org
Considering the economic interests of certain Member States in the
forest sector it is quite amazing that the Council endorsed Conclusions and
agreed to them in such a short timeframe.
The Conclusions underline the importance of strengthened land tenure and
access rights, especially for marginalized rural communities and indigenous
peoples, effective participation, increased transparency and reduced
corruption.
The Council goes on to request that the Community and member states,
inter alia through the mid-term reviews of Country Strategy Papers, introduce
forest sector governance into strategies and development cooperation
programmes, especially in regions and countries with significant forest
resources and provide adequate funds.
The Council also urges Member States to review and inform the Commission
about national legislation. FERN’s work has shown that different ministries are
ill informed of legislation outside their area of expertise so it will probably
be necessary to provide concise information and relevant questions to guide their
review.
The Council has not yet provided the Commission with a full mandate to
negotiate FLEGT partnership agreements and postponed to later a debate on this
mandate.
Furthermore both for the Regulation to set up a license of legality and
making it a crime to import illegally sourced forest products, the Commission
is only supposed to review the external and internal impacts of these measures
and report to the Council. Denmark is the only country to invite the Commission
to present a proposal by mid-2004. The Commission’s workplan does indeed list
this legislative proposal to be ready by June 2004.
Well,… the UK and the Commission have consulted the Finnish government
last week, which is good. Supposedly, a Commission consultation has taken place
with accession countries.
The Commission is also organizing a meeting with industry. This will be
the third or fourth meeting with EU level industrial federations and most
likely include some Finnish companies. NGOs are not informed about these
meetings, the excuse being that industry is too frightened to voice their
concerns in front of NGOs. However, there is no will on the part of the
Commission to set up a real consultation process including NGOs, even though
they have considerable expertise on illegal logging. Meetings only take place
if NGOs push.
This despite the fact that there are minimum standards for public
consultation, which include representation of all stakeholder groups, well
defined objectives and prior information on the issues to be discussed. If the
Commission continues to consult only industry, it will no doubt be advisable
for NGOs and other stakeholders to seek advice from the EC ombudsman and
introduce a complaint.
This lack of open and wide consultation bodes ill for the broad
stakeholder participation, the Commission wants to ensure in the FLEGT
partnership agreements or the transparent dispute settlement mechanism both
cited in the Action Plan.
A well-informed and structured consultation process developed
pro-actively by the Commission services in charge of the FLEGT process with
broad stakeholder participation is a precondition to improving forest
governance!
The last issue I would like to cover is implementation. As I mentioned,
the Council Conclusions ask for forest sector governance to be included into
the country strategy papers. The European Commission has taken this forward.
Indeed the Guidelines for the review of country strategy papers under the
African, Caribbean and Pacific and the European Community Partnership Agreement
includes the integration of actions to ensure forest governance.
Hopefully, DG Development and Aidco will ensure this is translated into
concrete actions. This will require for example that key country desk officers
and delegations are informed and understand the issues that underlie illegal
logging. DG Development and Aidco will need to assist delegations and their
partner governments develop appropriate activities in cooperation with national
NGOs and local communities to implement the FLEGT Action Plan.
According to the revue ‘Europe Environment’, the Commission has also
finalized the programming for its forest budget line. The priorities include
activities that support the FLEGT Action Plan. The focus seems to be on research
to collect data and understanding of illegal logging; development of
traceability methods and best practice in applying the law. Again support for
development of an effective and broad stakeholder consultation process, as part
of all the activities to support forest law enforcement does not seem to be
highlighted. It is also unclear whether existing laws are to be reviewed so as
to improve these laws making them coherent and ensuring they contribute to
sustainable development. The emphasis should be on fair land tenure and access
rights as well as boost local control over forests.
Our concern is that funding will go towards the easier technical
solutions and not the more complicated issues of participation and policy
reform.
To conclude the Commission’s Action Plan and Council’s Conclusions are a
good first step. There are nevertheless shortcomings in both documents.
However, more importantly in the implementation to date, the major precondition
prior informed, broad and effective consultation is not being put in place.
There is a need for concise, timely and regular information emanating from the
Commission. There is also a fear that funding will go to more research and
technological solutions without addressing more complicated issues such as legislative
reform, land tenure, transparency and corruption as well as local communities.
The end.