Informing NGOs, MEPs, |
|
UNFF
pulls off yet another resounding failure As expected, the fifth and final
session of the United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF) ended in complete
failure. Member governments were unable – or unwilling – to agree
on anything, except to postpone any decisions to another, previously
unscheduled meeting to be held in February next year. Even before the meeting started it
was clear to most observers that UNFF 5 had already spectacularly failed.
Faced with the straightforward mandate of reviewing the UNFF process in time
for the meeting, delegates provided instead only feeble excuses about
‘lack of data’. After five years, and charged with the goals of
monitoring and implementing the IPF (Intergovernmental Panel on Forests)
Proposals for Action, the UNFF merely marks the latest and most dramatic in a
series of failed intergovernmental processes on forests dating back to
Rio’s apparently long-forgotten Earth Summit in 1992. NGOs and Indigenous Peoples Groups
(IPOs) attending the meeting described the process
as ‘utterly ineffective’ in curbing deforestation and forest
degradation¹ – a position with which several national governments
concur. To many participants UNFF has proved to be nothing more than ‘a
dismal failure’. What is clear from this latest
display of collective inadequacy is the lack of genuine commitment to
improving the plight of the world’s remaining forests and forest
peoples. In the end the Ministerial meeting was apparently too disinterested
even to come up with a statement on either the session itself or the overall
process. The critical roles that forests play in the long-term apparently
hold little interest for the world’s most powerful decision makers,
while ill-informed short-termism is clearly still
very much in vogue. Only a few governments –
most notably the EU – are to be applauded, their refusal to take a
backward step preventing anything worse than inertia. Sadly, however, the new
UNFF 6, which will take place from 13-24 February 2006 in FERN is now urging EU governments
to stop the UNFF at its sixth meeting, since there is no sign that any new
agreement emerging from this process would even attempt to address the forest
crisis in an open and effective way. A full analysis of UNFF 5 will be
available from FERN later this month. 1 These assessments are supported
by various studies, including: The Indigenous Alliance of Indigenous and
Tribal Peoples of the Tropical Forests (2005) Our Knowledge for Our
Survival- Traditional Forest Related Knowledge and the Implementation of
Related International Commitments (2 Volumes), Chiang Mai, Thailand. |
|
EC
to play key role in Aceh reconstruction On 23 May 2005, the Commission
approved plans for €323 million of its €350 million post-tsunami
reconstruction programme.¹ The strategy recognises that existing
environmental degradation contributed to the scale of the disaster (FW nos.92 and 94) and makes sustainable development the key objective of the programme. In a new briefing,² FERN evaluates
the EC co-operation plan with the area that was hardest-hit by the tsunami:
the Indonesian 1 European Commission (2005) Tsunami Indicative Programme: 2 FERN (2005) After the tsunami: EC and environment in rebuilding |
|
MTCC
under attack The MTCC (Malaysian Timber Council
Certification scheme) is once again accused of certifying illegal timber. In
a new report,¹ Greenpeace condemns the MTCC chain of
custody as ‘flawed and unworkable' relying, as it does, on verification
by loggers themselves. It also raises questions about recent Danish and Meanwhile, Malaysian NGOs and IPOs have joined forces to offer the MTCC one last chance
to engage in open dialogue with civil society groups. An April letter to the
MTCC sets out a series of issues which must be addressed, including the need
to:
• conduct an independent
review of the MTCC’s structure and
operations;
• address the
scheme’s current imbalance in representation from the timber industry;
• revise the current
system of issuing single certificates to whole states;
• address the issue of recognising and protecting customary rights when creating
‘permanent forest estates’;
•
address forest management as well as timber certification. As yet, the MTTC has not replied. 1 Greenpeace (2005) Missing
links: why the MTCC certificate does not provide proof for legality or
sustainability’. Available at: www.greenpeace.org/international |
|
Gold
threat to Romania Civil society groups have lodged a
complaint with the Romanian Environment Ministry (13 June 2005) regarding
plans to operate Europe’s largest open-cast goldmine in Rosia While the battle to save Rosia Montana has triggered modern Romania’s
biggest civil society movement,¹ the European Parliament has warned that
‘the Rosia Montana mine development poses a
serious environmental threat to the whole region’.² Having only recently witnessed the collapse of the Baia Mare tailings dam in 2000 – the gravest
environmental disaster since Chernobyl – Romania’s latest mining
project could trigger a similar event. FERN is calling on the Romanian
government to respect affected communities’ legally guaranteed rights,
and allow them to have their say in the decision-making process. 1 See: www.rosiamontana.org 2 European Parliament resolution on
|
|
FERN
fights bogus carbon claims The European Commission’s
‘Green Week’ (31 May-03 June 2005) sparked controversy this year,
claiming that the event would be ‘climate neutral’. FERN
dismissed the claims – that paying extra for the conference could
offset any climate damage it might cause – as ‘misleading’.
Meanwhile, plans for more plantations projects to offset climate change have
now been submitted for approval to the Executive Board of the Kyoto
Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).¹ These include several
which are based on very questionable carbon calculations, as well as the
controversial V&M do Brasil project (FW no.
93), which has now been submitted for the third time. In a new briefing note,² (attached) FERN
use clear examples to demonstrate that while carbon ‘offset’
projects can salve our conscience, they cannot solve the problem of excessive
fossil fuel use. FERN is now calling on the Commission to drop bogus Green
Week ‘offset’ plans and false claims of 'zero net effect' based
on phony carbon accounting. 1 Project
documentation: www.unfccc.int. Comments
available at: www.sinkswatch.org and www.fern.org 2 Carbon ‘offset’ - no
magic potion that ‘neutralises’ fossil
fuel emissions |
|
NEWS
IN BRIEF Putting pressure on EIB The EIB
reform campaign has launched a new tool to help open up the European
Investment Bank (EIB) to public scrutiny. The tool, a database which lists
EIB-financed projects for the last decade, provides open access to details about
environmentally and socially damaging projects funded by the Bank across the
developing world. The database can be accessed at: www.eibprojects.org |
| 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. http://www.fern.org/ Tel: +32 (0)2 742 2436. Fax: +32 (0)2 736 8054. E-mail: info@fern.org FERN Tel: +44 (0)1608 652 895. Fax: +44 (0)1608 652 878. E-mail: info@fern.org |
