 Informing NGOs, MEPs, member states, the European Commission and the media. Issue 87, August 2004. |
|
| EU plan on illegal logging may do more harm than good NGOs
have expressed concern over the Commission’s proposal for a Regulation
establishing a voluntary licensing scheme for imports of timber into
the European Union.¹ The draft Regulation, which was presented at
the Parliament’s constitutive session on 20 July 2004, and which is
intended to control imports of illegally sourced timber from some
partner countries into the EU, does not clearly stipulate that
verification of legality will require the involvement of an independent
body, free of government or other vested interests.²
1
Ref of the communication (available from FERN):
http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/04/980&format=HTML&aged=0&langauage=EN&guiLanguage=enFurthermore, the proposal is apparently built on the assumption that ‘relevant national legislation’ – a term which the proposal fails to define – is adequate and sufficient to prevent environmental and social harm. In practice, this is often not the case. Existing laws may be unjust or conflicting, or else may provide inadequate protection for either the environment or indigenous peoples’ rights. A Regulation based on such a vague reference to ‘relevant national legislation’ thus risks legalising destructive logging practices and legitimising unjust laws. Despite demands from both the Parliament and civil society that the Commission engage the Parliament through the EU’s co-decision procedure, the proposal is still based on Article 133 of the Nice Treaty (commercial policy). This essentially undermines the principal aims of the EU action plan on illegal logging (ie: environmental protection and the use of sustainable natural resources), and denies the Parliament the ability to have any real input into the decision-making process (see FW no.85 and FW no.86). NGOs further criticised the slow process of researching and developing effective legally binding measures to control all imports of illegal timber – as demanded by the Parliament, the Council, NGOs and some timber trade federations (see FW no.86). The Regulation, as it stands, will apply only to producer countries volunteering to negotiate partnership agreements with the EU. With negotiations for such agreements currently underway with only three producer countries, the proposed Regulation will clearly allow illegally sourced timber to continue to flow into the EU indefinitely. FERN maintains that a more effective measure, and a strong political signal to producers, would be a framework legislation allowing EU customs authorities to prosecute criminals and seize illegal shipments. Depending on its implementation, the current proposal could simply legitimise unjust producer country legislation that ignores indigenous peoples’ rights and allows destructive logging. 2 FERN will develop a detailed critique of the proposed Regulation in the coming weeks |
|
UNFF guidelines available The
guidelines for the Voluntary National Report for UNFF 5, and the
questionnaire to facilitate the review of the UNFF, are both now
available on the web.¹ The National Report will be essentially the
same as for previous UNFF sessions, the main difference being that
rather than addressing new thematic issues, only information relevant
to those issues from earlier sessions must be described. Member states
are again encouraged to involve civil society in this process.
The review questionnaire, which may also be completed by ‘relevant forest organisations’, is useful. For organisations who have followed the UNFF it is easy to fill in, providing an opportunity to give the UNFF secretariat useful feedback and analysis for the UNFF review. The deadline for submission is 30 September 2004 for non-governmental contributors; governments have a month longer. 1 http://www.un.org/esa/forests/reports-unff5.html |
|
World Bank decides on EIR Just
days before the 60th anniversary of the World Bank on 22 July 2004,
civil society and the Green/EFA Group of the European Parliament made
one more appeal to the Bank’s Management to fully adopt the
recommendations made in the Extractive Industries Review (EIR).¹
The report, commissioned by the Bank and welcomed by many civil society
groups, clearly stated that oil, gas and mining projects funded by the
Bank have failed to contribute to poverty alleviation because certain
conditions relating to governance and the right to informed consent are
not currently in place (see FW no. 83).
On 19 July, 128 NGOs, mostly from Southern countries, called for an immediate moratorium on the Bank’s investment in the extractive sector until the necessary conditions are met. Almost 50 Indigenous Peoples Organisations (IPOs) also urged the Bank’s Board of Directors to refrain from funding EI projects until it can demonstrate that indigenous peoples’ rights – including their right to free, prior and informed consent – are recognised in its policies and practices. As Forest Watch goes to press, the Board is making its final decision on the EIR recommendations. First indications are that the Board will not accept the moratorium, but that it will demand much stricter monitoring of EI projects and their impact on poverty reduction. A revision of the Bank’s energy strategy is also foreseen, allowing for a further shift towards renewables in the future. 1 See: www.eireview.org |
|
Member states miss deadline to transpose Only
nine out of the now 25 EU member states have met the 21 July 2004
deadline for transposing the new Directive on Strategic Environmental
Assessment (SEA) into national law.¹ The new Directive aims to
improve public participation in environmental impact assessments at the
strategic level, rather than merely at project approval level as was
required under the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
Directive.² However, as Environment Commissioner Margot
Wallström pointed out, “the benefits of the new law will only be
achieved if all member states implement it”.³
1 Directive 2001/42/EC. The purpose of the SEA is to consider environmental and health factors alongside social, economic and other matters in strategic decision-making during the preparation of policies, plans, programmes and legislation. 2 Directive 85/337/EEC amended by 97/11EC 3 Commission press release: New Directive to improve public participation in environmental impact assessments. 20 July 2004 |
|
NEWS IN BRIEF Forest
Communities refuse EC funds: The 22
organisations that comprise ACO-FOP,¹ in the Guatemalan Department
of Petén, withdrew from the “Forest
Livelihoods for the Poor” project in June 2004, citing lack of
transparency on the part of the project's managing organisation, Alianza para un Mundo Justo
(Partner of a Just World).² The project, funded by the European
Commission through the Tropical Forest Budget Line, started in 2003 in
Guatemala, Nicaragua and Honduras. It aims to build capacity of
community-based forest enterprises to develop market linkages for
producers and facilitate the sale of FSC-certified timber to
Europe.³ The Commission Delegation in Guatemala is investigating.
1 Association of Forest Communities of Petén De-partment, Guatemala 2 See: www.justworld.org.uk 3 FSC: Forest Stewardship Council; and see: www.justwoodtrading.com UNECE launches environmental democracy website: 13 July 2004 saw the unveiling of a new United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) website on environmental good practice. The Århus Clearinghouse,¹ aims to highlight and promote awareness of issues covered by the Århus Convention.² The new website provides a forum for the exchange of information on laws, policies and good practices relevant to the rights of public access to information, public participation and access to justice on environmental issues. NGOs may also submit information to the clearinghouse. 1 See: http://aarhusclearinghouse.unece.org 2 See: http://unece.org/env/pp EIB: “no responsibility” for consultation: The European Investment Bank (EIB) has responded to an open NGO letter sent in May 2004, noting its ‘regret’ that NGOs feel ‘misused’ regarding the Bank’s claims to have undertaken dialogue with them regarding the highly controversial Veracel Pulp Mill project (see FW no.84). The Bank merely states that they will change any wording referring to ‘NGO consultation’, and recalls that public consultation, as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), is the responsibility of the promoter(s) – in this case, Aracruz Cellulose and Stora Enso – and not that of the bank. Draft Budget 2005: The European Council has agreed the draft EU budget for 2005, with the Tropical Forest and Environment budget lines both due to increase. However, with the Council’s refusal to use the EU’s flexibility instrument¹ to finance 190 million Euro of aid to Iraq, the geographical budget lines for Asia and Latin America, and the thematic line for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR), are all ear-marked to be cut. It is anticipated that this decision will be amended by the European Parliament at the budget’s first reading in the autumn. 1 An additional reserve to be used in case of unexpected expenditure only |
|
Forest Agenda 1-10 August: Gender and Forestry. Arusha, Tanzania. Contact: unff@un.org 3-4 September: NGO strategy session on ECAs. Brussels, Belgium 9 September: FSC meeting on plantations. Bonn, Germany 10-12 September: FSC annual meeting. Bonn, Germany 20-24 September: 7th Taiga Rescue Network Biennial Meeting. Vladivostok,Russia |
|
| 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. |
|
|
|
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. |