EU Forest Watch
Informing NGOs, MEPs, member states, the European Commission and the media.  Issue 83,  March 2004.

 
Forest certification no panacea
A major new report launched by FERN at the end of February has revealed that the credibility of forest certification is being jeopardised by the business-as-usual forest management practices of key global and national certification schemes.
Footsteps in the forest: Current practice and future challenges in forest certification [1] assesses eight forest certification schemes and links these to current debates on labelling at the WTO and on illegal logging. The main concern raised in the report is that since they are largely certifying the status quo practices of the forestry industry, existing certification schemes are currently undermining the value of certification as a tool to improve forest management. The report concludes that unless existing forest certification schemes improve and tighten their procedures and practices, forest certification can achieve very little in improving forest management.
Of the eight forest certification schemes examined - AFS, CSA, CERFLOR, FSC, PEFC, SFI, MTCC and Certfor - it is revealed that six have standards primarily developed by the forestry sector, thereby putting the independence of certification into doubt. Moreover, while half of the schemes assessed are found to be insufficiently transparent (with summary reports of certifications - or even the standards themselves - not being freely available), it is demonstrated that none of the schemes sufficiently address social issues; specifically rights to land and forest use. However, it is acknowledged that in this last respect the FSC is well ahead of its competitors.     
The report does support the dominant NGO view that FSC is still the only credible scheme, while acknowledging that some schemes have improved their procedures in certain areas.
With regard to the WTO and illegal logging, it is concluded both that the widely perceived threat to forest certification from the WTO has been exaggerated and that forest certification schemes are not the ideal tools to address illegal logging practices - although some schemes are notably better than others at identifying illegal practices.

1 Footsteps in the forest: Current practice and future challenges in forest certification is now available at www.fern.org


DRC: forest peoples set to lose rights
Over 100 environment, development and human rights groups in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) are calling on the World Bank to halt plans to massively expand the logging industry in the country [1]. The planned development would apparently "zone" the entire Congolese rainforest, second only to the Amazon basin in size and diversity, to sell off for commercial logging and other activities.
Leaked World Bank documents reveal that the Bank is aiming to "create a favourable climate for industrial logging" in DRC and envisages a 60-fold increase [2] in the country's timber production. Congolese groups say that these plans will surely have "major repercussions for the rights and livelihoods of millions of Congolese citizens, with serious and irreversible impacts" on the forest environment.
Congolese NGOs' concerns have been "sidelined in a process which is deciding, at this very moment and without our contribution, the fate of our country's ecological heritage and the future of its people." This zoning and selling of logging rights without consultation, or any provision to ensure their future, threatens millions of impoverished forest peoples.
NGOs are now calling on the World Bank to be true to its rhetoric on participation, to its own environmental and social safeguards and to international law, to ensure that forests and forest peoples' rights in DRC are protected.

1 http://www.fern.org/pubs/ngostats/DRC_appeal.htm

2 http://www.fern.org/pubs/briefs/DRC_RF.pdf

Commission's SIA study could fall flat
As part of its sustainability impact assessment (SIA) on the impact of trade negotiations, the European Commission has contracted the University of Manchester's Institute for Development Policy and Management, to carry out a study into the potential economic, social and environmental consequences for forests from ongoing WTO negotiations. Issues to be examined will include the impact of market access and non-tariff barriers, licensing to ensure legal sourcing of forest products and unilateral bans on timber from certain regions or of non-certified timber. [1]
FERN believes that the study's terms of reference are rather broad - a second aim being to assess potential impacts of other policy developments including those on illegal forest products. This study should rather focus on WTO negotiations and include the issue of regional trade agreements such as the EU-Mercusor negotiations. Assessments on new measures, such as on imports of illegally produced timber or on forest certification, should instead be carried out by the EC's relevant directorates.
1 Countries for special study could include Russia, Malaysia, Indonesia, Brazil and Cameroon. Stakeholders are invited to submit their comments or express their interest by 19 March 2004. http://idpm.man.ac.uk/sia-trade/Consultation.htm    

Further steps in revision of the EU Forestry Strategy
In preparation for the revision of the 1998 EU Forestry Strategy [1] the Commission has presented a "Background document and questionnaire on the implementation report of the EU forestry strategy" [2]. While an interesting read, the document - discussed at the Forestry and Cork Advisory Committee on 1 March 2004 - does not detail results of a questionnaire sent to member states to document their experiences with the forestry strategy, nor does it outline lessons learned or ways forward. What is clear is that unlike in 1998, many member states would like to see a stronger role for the EU Forestry Strategy, with some favouring the development of a forest policy to better ensure the interests of the forestry sector. Meanwhile, all agree that harmonisation of national forest regulations and measures within the EU should be outside of the scope of any forestry strategy or policy. NGOs will argue, among other issues, that any revised strategy should seriously address the fact that an increasing number of forest-dependent species is threatened with extinction. 
1 See earlier FW issues for more information        2 Available from FERN

NGOs call for EIR recommendations
Dr. Emil Salim [1] is touring several countries in the EU in early March to meet with the European Commission, MEPs, member state governments and civil representatives, to discuss the recommendations of the recent Extractive Industries Review (EIR) [2]. The EIR is a three-year process, commissioned by the World Bank, to examine the Bank's role in extractive industries (oil, gas and mining) investment and its mission on poverty reduction and the promotion of sustainable development. The review, completed in 2003, acknowledges the failure of the Bank's EI investments, either to improve conditions for local communities, indigenous peoples and the environment or to protect basic rights. The EIR recommends that EI investment is conditioned on the governance situation in a given country and that borrowers and clients engage in consent processes with indigenous peoples and local communities directly affected by extractive projects to obtain their free prior and informed consent. Dr. Salim's report is strongly supported by NGOs who are calling on the Bank to seriously consider - and adopt in a timely fashion - its recommendations.
 1 Dr. Salim, an Indonesian former environment minister, has headed the EIR     2 www.eireview.org

NEWS IN BRIEF
Comment on EC policy document
The European Commission is organising a public consultation on its draft Guidelines for Support to Land Policy Design and Land Reform Processes in Developing Countries. The guidelines aim to establish a common framework for the EU to support, through EC and member states' bilateral co-operation programmes, the design of land policy reform processes in developing countries. The comments received from the consultation will be considered as the EU Council prepares its conclusions and will be reflected in the final version of the EU Task Force Guidelines.

To participate see:
http://www.landcoalition.org. 
Deadline for submission of comments: 12 March 2004

Johannesburg: one year on
The EC has recently released a communication presenting how it has delivered on its commitments since the Johannesburg Summit on sustainable development. The communication, "The World Summit on Sustainable Development one year on: implementing our commitments", can be viewed at:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/wssd/index_en.html

Forest Agenda
31 March-1 April: Forest Council Working Group, Brussels
21-25 April: FME April meeting, Helskinki
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.