Incoherence and Community development policy

On 1 March, the Commission presented its discussion paper ‘The European Community’s development policy'. It stresses that EC aid must focus on a limited number of fields to become more effective. The paper contains several proposals that will be welcomed by Parliament and NGOs, i.e. to place the European Development Fund under the Commission’s budget, and to mainstream environment and gender issues. Nonetheless the paper is disappointing both in its content and the procedure followed until now. The shortcomings of this draft provide an illustration of what Parliament would like to see addressed, as stated in its recent resolution on coherence between Union policies.

The paper is a response to a highly critical evaluation of EC aid and the demand from the Council, repeated by the OECD's Development Assistance Committee (DAC), to present a statement on development policy and a framework for prioritising objectives. The requirement¹ to integrate environment in all Community policies is ignored. The fact that environmental degradation often affects marginalized groups most is not recognised. The Council’s request to base the Communication on all existing policies was not implemented. All recently adopted statements on forests, environment and indigenous peoples have been ignored.

The paper states that Community aid should focus on poverty alleviation and the integration of developing countries in the global economy, but a clear analysis is lacking. Although the paper recognises that globalisation in some cases marginalises disadvantaged groups further, no counterveiling strategy is developed.

The Council demanded a document based on ‘the widest consultation possible’ to discuss at its spring meeting, as well as a policy statement and a framework for prioritisation. Both are badly needed. However, the EC makes only obscure reference to future consultation.

As for the framework, the draft suggests certain priorities without explaining them, and fails to sketch a convincing new policy or to address properly the criticisms of previous evaluations. The Commission must ensure a new version will develop a policy statement and a framework for prioritisation, but only after full consultation with development and environment groups in North and South

Parliament adopted a resolution on 'Coherence of different Union policies' at its plenary on 17 February in Strasbourg. The resolution emphasises the importance of a standard environmental clause in agreements and the promotion of compliance with the Rio and Copenhagen commitments.

In a debate with Commissioner Nielson, Parliament declared unacceptable the current situation where other Community policies undermine its development policy. Despite the Council resolution of June 1997 asking for a paper on coherence, Nielson avoided giving the Parliament a clear answer. However, the Commission has the publication of a communication on coherence in its workplan for March.

¹Article 3 of the Treaty

A precautionary tale

On 2 February 2000, the Commission released its communication on the precautionary principle¹. The procedure to adopt this communication was closely guarded. Environmental NGOs were not only not consulted, but repeated requests for drafts were ignored or rejected. By contrast, the European chemical industry association (CEFIC) and the American Chamber of Commerce in the EU were pleased that the Commission had taken account of their views.

The principle of precaution was developed to permit protective action where potential harm is a concern but scientific evidence inconclusive. This is important as frequently, causal linkages and long-term cumulative effects are revealed years later. Also, frequently less harmful alternatives exist. In this regard, the communication is disappointing and represents a step backward from existing formulations of precaution.

The paper seems to justify taking no action when there is concern, rather than taking precautionary action: a frequent theme in the communication is that "Recourse to the precautionary principle does not necessarily mean adopting final instruments designed to produce legal effects that are open to judicial review". Also, precaution is linked to risk assessment, which means years of waiting before any binding action (if any) is taken, as shown by an inactive EU chemical policy.

The next steps are unclear. One small consolation is that the Commission "wishes to stress that this communication is not meant to be the last word."

¹Com (2000)1, 2.2.2000

To be perfectly unclear..

On 26 January, the Commission proposed a regulation regarding public access to documents of the Parliament, Council and Commission. As illustrated by the "precautionary tale", the Commission’s policy on transparency could stand a great deal of improvement. Unfortunately, the draft regulation is unlikely to deliver this. It has, however, launched the protests of various civil liberties groups, as well as a public dispute between the European Ombudsman, Jacob Soederman and Commission President Romano Prodi¹ .

According to the Ombudsman, "when the Prodi Commission released its (secretly drafted) proposal a few weeks ago, no Commissioner was present to defend its merits – no surprise, considering how few it contains." He contends that exceptions in the proposed legislation make it possible "for some of the Commission’s most important work – as well as its more venal aspects – to remain cloaked in secrecy."

President Prodi, on the other hand, affirms that "the new code is just a step on the road to greater transparency." With regard to the allegation of 'secrecy', he responds that the discussion paper was "widely distributed, debated and criticized," although he refrains from revealing to, and by whom. As for the vast list of exceptions, he reassures us: "I can guarantee that withholding documents would be very much the exception."

Despite certain positive inclusions, the substance of the proposed regulation comes as a disappointment mainly because of the long list of reasons for which the Institutions not only could, but “shall” refuse access to documents because this might undermine certain concerns. These concerns include such poorly defined or subjective items that one could almost always find a justification for a refusal if one wanted.

¹24 February and 9 March 2000, The Wall Street Journal Europe.

PEFC endorsement?

On 2 March, the Pan European Forest Certification Scheme (PEFC) announced a public consultation for the first three national forest certification schemes to be recognised by the PEFC: Finland, Sweden and Norway. Although these schemes have been on the PEFC website since the end of last year, the PEFC chairman is now actively encouraging people to send their comments to the consultants involved.

These schemes are operational and are seeking PEFC endorsement to use its logo. The Finnish scheme has certified 13.5 million ha of forests. In Sweden, the swedish scheme has certified 1 million ha. Norway expects that 90% of its harvested timber will be certified by the end of this year. It is expected that the PEFC-certified forests will rise to 25-30 million ha if the schemes are endorsed.

Environmental and social NGOs are still sceptical about the PEFC scheme. Criticisms that the PEFC certification system is unbalanced have not yet been addressed. Furthermore the certification criteria used are widely seen as less strict than the Forest Stewardship Council criteria. NGO doubts were strengthened when it became apparent, in February, that some Norwegian forest products certified under the national scheme came from forest areas that violate the principles of sustainable management.

Conciliation for forests?

On 22 February, the Development Committee of the European Parliament approved the proposed tropical forests and environment regulations together with a number of amendments.

On March 14th, the proposed forests' regulation was approved in the European Parliament plenary session, dropping the most problematic amendment: unlimited duration of the regulation. However, potential obstacles to the adoption of the regulation remain; notably whether the Council will accept Parliament's proposal on the types of committee that the Council can use to supervise the Commission’s activities.

Should Council not agree with the regulation as approved by Parliament, a procedure known as Conciliation must be engaged, in order to find a compromise between the positions of Parliament and the Council. This could set back the adoption of the regulation by several months, i.e. until autumn.

EU Forest Agenda

• 15 March: Monitoring of forest condition in Europe, informal meeting between the Commission and NGOs, Brussels

• 20-22 March: NGO meeting on impact of trade on forests, Brussels

• 25 April - 5 May: Convention on Sustainable Development meeting, New York q