| EU's buying rules put pressure on member states A new report1 from FERN shows that the power of the EU to contribute to responsible forest management is being undermined by weak timber procurement policies within member states. It also finds that the EU’s new Procurement Directives – due to be approved this month – do not prevent green timber procurement, although they do make it difficult. Government purchase of timber is estimated to account for 18% of timber imports into G8 countries, worth $20 billion annually, thus making it a formidable economic force in the timber market. Yet of nine member states examined in FERN’s report, only two – Denmark and the UK – currently recognise the complexity of defining legal and sustainable sources of timber, and provide guidance on EU and international procurement rules. Meanwhile, Germany and the Netherlands are developing such policies, but Finland, Portugal, Italy, France and Ireland are not. The report also assesses how the EU’s current and revised Procurement Directives restrict or encourage responsible timber procurement. The answer is that the revised Directives will allow member states to require ‘legal and sustainable sources’ to be contract conditions, but authorities will have to define, in terms that can be evaluated objectively, what is meant by ‘legal and sustainable’. With the revised Directives likely to be endorsed by the Council and Parliament this month, and member states having 21 months to bring their domestic legislation in line with the EU policy, there is a window of opportunity that can be exploited. Member states should use the year ahead to develop strong timber procurement policies that take maximum advantage of the Directives’ potential, and bring positive results from the EU’s significant economic power. 1 To buy or not to buy: Timber procurement policies in the EU will be available on 15 January 2004. |
CDM rules allow subsidies for mega-plantations Industrial-scale tree planters will be able to use the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) to subsidise unsustainable plantations according to the rules adopted for carbon sink projects at the ninth Conference of the Parties to the climate change convention (COP9).1 FERN’s key concern is that carbon credits generated from sinks projects make no lasting contribution to slowing climate change, and that the inclusion of sinks projects in the CDM sanctions higher fossil fuel emissions.2 An assessment of the COP9 agreement reveals further disturbing details: industrial monoculture tree plantations, possibly using genetically modified trees or displacing local inhabitants, will be eligible, and impact assessments are required only if the country hosting the project considers them necessary. This is disturbing given that the first plantation project to seek registration under the CDM – the Plantar project in Brazil – has already received vociferous national and international criticism for its poor envrionmental and social record. Adding insult to injury, the rules provide indigenous peoples, communities and stakeholders with no more than a cosmetic opportunity to comment on sinks projects. Finally, brief references to international environmental agreements, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, and the Convention to Combat Desertification, were deleted from the final text. In light of the failure of the CDM rules to provide any meaningful safeguards against environmentally and socially destructive sinks projects, FERN renews its call on EU member states not to use any sinks projects to reach their Kyoto targets. Specifically, FERN urges governments to keep the European Emission Trading System free of carbon sink credits. 1 See UNFCCC document FCCC/SBSTA/2003/L.27 for the full text of the rules. 2 For FERN’s detailed concerns see Forest Fraud: Say no to fake carbon credits at www.fern.org. |
Poland uncomfortable in forest chair Irony is not dead in Poland. On 1 January, Poland became the official chair of the European Ministerial Process on the Protection of Forests in Europe (MCPFE), with the objective of tackling “the most important issues in forests and forestry, and making recommendations in favour of the protection and sustainable management of forests in Europe”. Yet Poland’s State Forest Inspectorate is currently on the receiving end of international condemnation and a prosecution case concerning damage to Bialowieza forest – Europe’s best-preserved old-growth forest.1 The case is being brought forward by a coalition of Polish NGOs alarmed by the illegal cutting of hundred year-old trees in Bialowieza by Polish State Forest, and by the government’s inability to protect the forest from the activities of its own forestry agency. Bialowieza is home to 5,000 different plant species and over 11,500 animal species, including bison, wolves and lynx. Despite its rarity, only 17% of the Polish part of Bialowieza is considered a national park, with the remaining 82% vulnerable to logging. Conservation organisations are calling for the whole of the forest to be declared a national park – which would surely be a highly popular diplomatic coup to mark Poland’s hosting of the MCPFE. 1. Further information: www.wwf.pl and http://republika.pl/bialowieza_forest/ |
EIB postpones decision on Lao mine The president of the European Investment Bank (EIB), Philippe Maystadt, has announced a delay to the Bank’s decision to finance a controversial mining project in a highly forested region of Lao PDR (see FW 80). The decision has been postponed until at least the end of January while the EIB seeks assurances that the project will be properly monitored. Maystadt added that the Bank is not against this kind of project in principle, and that developing countries should be supported in extracting their natural resources. While the EIB is waiting to receive its assurances, the Bank’s Board could do no better than to review advice from several experts in the field. On Laos, the official European Commission recommendation is to “avoid large scale infrastructure projects”.1 On extractive industries, a recent independent review for the World Bank recommended that finance should not be provided for projects in countries with weak governance2 (a well documented criticism of Laos). Finally, they could also look at the assessment by Friends of the Earth International3 that estimates that 99% of the wealth generated by this project will flow out of Laos and straight into the pockets of corporate investors, with little benefit and high costs for the Lao population. 1 The EC-Lao PDR CSP 2002-2006, http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/lao/csp/index.htm 2 www.eireview.org 3 Undermining lives in Laos, FOEI, www.fern.org (investment) |
NEWS IN BRIEF ECDG in hot water The UK’s Export Credit Guarantees Department (ECGD) has reported bad debts of 10.3 billion pounds. ECGD is one of many European Export Credit Agencies (ECAs) currently receiving criticism for their support of projects that undermine sustainable development. A broad coalition of NGOs is calling for the European Commission and member states to implement several key reforms of ECAs. See www.fern.org. Tropical Forest Budget Line A call for proposals has been issued under the Tropical Forest Budget Lines. The deadline for proposals is 9 March 2004. Eligible proposals need to tackle one or more of the following issues: good governance in forests (including illegal logging), climate change and forests, and forest values. Project costs need to be between one and 3.5 million euros, over a maximum period of five years. For more information see http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/europeaid/cgi/frame12.pl. BTC court case against Commission Human rights groups have applied to the European Court of Justice to take the European Commission to court over the Baku-Tibilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) oil pipeline. The groups will be claiming that the legal agreements underpinning the project break Turkey’s obligations under its EU Accession Partnership, and that the Commission therefore has a duty to act in relation to Turkey’s pre-accession funding. More information: The Corner House, tel: +44 1258 473 795. Email alternative EU Forest Watch is available by email. To view an example of the electronic format see www.fern.org, and to change how you receive your copy please contact info@fern.org. FERN wishes all our readers a happy new year. We start 2004 by saying thank you and goodbye to our communications manager Jessica Wenban-Smith who has edited EU Forest Watch since 2000. We wish her well and look forward to introducing our new editor soon. |
Forest Agenda 9-20 February: COP7 of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. |
| EU Forest Watch is
published by FERN, the forest campaign group focusing on EU policy. To unsubscribe please send an email to info@fern.org requesting removal from our list. |
| FERN Brussels, 20 Avenue des
Celtes, 1040 Brussels, Belgium. www.fern.org Tel: +32 (0)2 742 2436. Fax: +32 (0)2 736 8054. E-mail: info@fern.org FERN UK, 1c Fosseway Business Park, Stratford Road, Moreton-in-Marsh, GL56 9NQ, UK. Tel: +44 (0)1608 652 895. Fax: +44 (0)1608 652 878. E-mail: info@fern.org |
| PHOTO: Kakamega
Forest. Half of Kenya’s only tropical rainforest has already been lost. What is left provides a unique sanctuary for biodiversity and a vital resource for local people, many of whom depend on it for fuel, medicine and food. Credit: A. Arbib. |