|
EU FOREST WATCH January 2000 Issue 40 What will be the follow-up to the IFF? Monitoring implementation Forest Budget Line nearly adopted Carbon fund created WWF scores countries Action on biodiversity EU Forest Agenda
What will be the follow-up to the IFF? While the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF) holds its fourth and many hope its final meeting1, there is still no consensus on the future of the intergovernmental forest debate. 'We compare the situation to the Titanic sinking while the band is playing', Ricardo Carrere of the World Rainforest Movement commented. Although it is too early to judge, there seems to be a growing consensus that any follow-up initiative should focus more on 'implementing' than on 'debating'. The official position of the European Union remains in favour of a global forest convention (Forest Watch 39). However, in order to move forward, many member states are increasingly open to other options, with the possible exception of Spain and Finland. These options range from a body under the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) to a special forest session at the UN General Assembly, and compliance mechanisms under existing instruments, i.e. a forest protocol under the convention on biological diversity. Concern remains that these options will result in more 'dialogue' and not in the action needed to reverse the current forest crisis. Nonetheless there seems to be a consensus among governments and NGOs that another 'talking-shop' must be prevented. All NGOs argue that a focus on action must be the priority of any follow-up initiative. Fern drafted a joint NGO statement explaining the position of the majority of European NGOs on IFF's follow-up2. This statement was presented to the Commission and the Council working group. It calls for the creation of a standing committee under the CSD to ensure proper implementation of the IPF Proposals for Action and highlights the pro's and con's of other options.
Monitoring implementation To honour their pledge to research the implementation of the IPF Proposals for Action, a coalition of NGOs (led by Bionet/ the Global Forest Policy Project-US, and Fern) has started a project to assess the implementation in 20 countries across the globe. Fern is co-ordinating the research in Europe. Early findings for the global and the European report will be presented at the IFF meeting in New York3. The draft European report reveals that although many European countries have made progress towards sustainable forest management, none of them has yet fully implemented the IPF Proposals for Action. It is particularly worrying that the dire situation of Europe's forests has not been fully recognised. The final report will be presented at CSD 8 in April.
1 January 31 to February 11 2 statement available from Fern 3 draft report available from Fern
Forest Budget Line nearly adopted On 26 January, the Regulation for the "Tropical" Forest Budget Line went for its second reading in the European Parliament (EP). Under the co-decision procedure, EP and Council must agree on the text for the Regulation to be adopted. Various informal meetings between these institutions will be held to attempt to reach an agreement in the coming weeks. The main divergence between the Council and the EP regards the committee that approves the annual guidelines for the budget line and grants above 2 million euro. The Council proposes a management committee whereas the Parliament favours an advisory committee. The EP also opposes a time limit on the Regulation. The financial reference amount proposed by the Parliament for the period of 2000-2006 is considerably higher than that proposed by the Council, at 285 million euro. Some Parliament proposals are already incorporated in the Regulation: * prior informed consent and full participation of indigenous peoples; *environmental and social impact assessments before project approval; * improved coordination between the Commission (EC) and member states. Financing is open to NGOs and forest peoples' organisations. However, the EC’s lack of human resources prevents it from managing a large number of small projects. This may limit access for local NGOs and indigenous peoples organisations. The geographical coverage is to be extended to all developing countries.
Carbon fund created On 18 January, the World Bank unveiled its Prototype Carbon Fund (PCF). Four European countries: Finland, Sweden, Norway and the Netherlands are participating in the fund. The Belgian electricity company Electrabel has also joined. The World Bank will manage the PCF and intends to invest in 20 projects over the next five years. The fund is capped at $150 million and investments are set at $10 million for governments and $5million for companies1. Under the Kyoto Protocol of the Framework Convention on Climate Change, specific emission reduction targets are set for industrialised countries. The PCF participant countries probably hope a carbon fund will allow them to buy off their emissions by gaining credits that they can use to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. However, the parties of the Convention must still decide whether this will be allowed. NGOs fear that the PCF might increase industrial tree plantations, portrayed as 'carbon sinks'. Plantations are often grown at the expense of natural forests and exert new pressures on land and water resources in developing countries. They therefore often contribute to social exclusion and environmental degradation. The World Rainforest Movement is currently spearheading a campaign against such plantations and has recently published a briefing2 highlighting its concerns with the concept and the practice of carbon sinks. The EU’s negotiating position is currently against this practice. However, as some member states, notably the Netherlands are heavily involved in the PCF as well as in establishing 'carbon sinks', therefore the EU might come under pressure to change its position.
1 www.prototypecarbonfund.org 2 see WRM web site at www.wrm.org.uy
WWF scores countries On 20 January WWF presented the results of its ‘European Forest Scorecards 20001’. WWF scored 20 countries according to how well they care for their forests. Each country score was made up of 99 issues divided into 7 categories, including production, environmental protection and socio-cultural aspects. Switzerland scored the highest result obtaining 62%, with reasonably good marks for its care of social and cultural aspects of forests. Then came Finland, Sweden, Austria and Slovakia. Finland’s high score may seem surprising but is due to efficient forest production. The scorecards revealed that good results were not always linked to economic wealth or ‘environmental awareness’ with Germany achieving similar results to Poland and Turkey. However, WWF warned that European countries must take better care of their forests. The highest score is 62% and the average is 51%; both are very low. WWF believes that improvements are vital. Problems such as air-pollution, lack of semi-natural or undisturbed forest, insufficient amount of protected forest and high pesticide use, must be addressed. 1 available from WWF EPO office: evonzitzewitz@wwfnet.org
Action on biodiversity On 18-21 January a symposium was held by the IUCN's 'Biodiversity in Development Project' (BDP). The BDP aims to support the European Commission (EC) to integrate biodiversity into development cooperation. In 1999, regional workshops were held in Cameroon, Sri Lanka, Botswana and Peru. They examined the best practice for the integration of biodiversity in aid projects. Eleven participants from the different BDP workshops took part in the symposium to synthesise the results. The BDP will use the outcome to develop strategic tools for increasing awareness among the EC's decission-makers. At the symposium, the European Commission presented its draft Biodiversity Action Plan for economic and development cooperation. This is one of the 4 sectoral plans the EC has to present to the Council to meet the requirements of the European Community’s Biodiversity Strategy. Fern is currently compiling joint NGO comments on the EC's draft Biodiversity Action Plan1.? available from Fern
EU Forest Agenda
|