EU Forest Watch

Issue 44 June 2000

Published by Fern

Amerindians ask the EU to respect its own policy

A group of indigenous people from Guyana visited the European Commission in June to  discuss a controversial road-building project that could devastate local communities in Guyana and Brazil. The outcome of the talks left  the future of the road project unclear.

    The three representatives of the Amerindian Peoples Association  voiced their concerns over a proposed EU-funded road upgrade project that would link Guyana's capital, Georgetown, with Lethem on the Brazilian border. The road would run primarily through indigenous peoples’ territories in southern Guyana, initially affecting 25 communities and subsequently affecting many more communities in Guyana and northern Brazil.  Some of these communities do not have any title to their ancestral lands while others are actively disputing the land titles issued by the Government as being insufficient for their needs.

    The group from Guyana told  Commission staff that the existing road in Guyana was already causing them serious social, environmental and human rights problems, and that these would increase if the road were upgraded. They also claimed that there had been insufficient consultation; that the road was linked to plans to establish large-scale agro-industrial complexes and an expansion of logging and mining, all of which would damage tropical forests and further erode the rights and wellbeing of affected communities. The Amerindians asked the Commission to stick to the EU's resolution on indigenous peoples, which gives indigenous peoples the right to object to projects in their traditional territories.  They also asked for assurances that any funding provided by the EU would be conditional upon the recognition of traditional land rights and measures to protect the environment.

    In response, the Commission is reported to have said that the proposal to fund the road would be rejected because of its high costs and negative environmental impacts. The Commission favours a regional project for the state of Rupununi to include sustainable management of natural resources, agricultural development, and health and education components. According to the Commission the project would be based on prior informed consent of the local population. However, the Amerindian representatives stated that a 10-minute chat with Guyana’s government officials over terms of reference did not constitute a proper consultation. The Commission promised to look into this and to ensure an informed consultation before final terms of reference are drawn up. However, the Commission warned that the Brazilian Government is interested in funding the road.

NEWS IN BRIEF

l  The government of Japan is to undertake an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of trade liberalization in the forest product sector. The Parliament has accepted a  proposal from the Forestry Agency for the project, which will be managed by the Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute. For  information contact APEC Monitor NGO Network: toyo@jca.apc.org.

l The European Community signed a new trade and aid agreement with the ACP countries on 23 June 2000. The follow up of the Lome agreement,  has a 'preparatory period' ending in 2008  with a budget of 23.4 bn Euro for this period.

l One in ten species in Finland is threatened according to a new report by the Finnish Minsitry of Environment. The report finds that about 1,500 species are threatened, while 250 are critically endangered. A further 186 species have become extinct in Finland in recent years. The report identifies the disappearance of old-growth forests as the biggest threat to biodiversity in Finland, followed by the disappearance of farm habitats such as meadows.

l Calls for a World Environment Organisation were renewed this month when Italy, France and the Netherlands backed the idea suggested last year by Mike Moore, DG of the WTO. With the Commission for Sustainable Devlopment due to wind up its business in 2002, the WEO could be its successor.

Carbon sinks emerge as hot potato

EU holds firm on carbon sinks

On 22 June the Environment Council reaffirmed its position in favour of rejecting carbon sinks in the Clean Development Mechanism as an appropriate tool to combat climate change.(see Forest Watch 42 & 43).

    The Council expressed serious concern about the scale of carbon sinks if they were widely embraced. The position statement indicates that November's debate1 on the Kyoto Protocol's CDM will be hotly contested, with the inclusion or exclusion of carbon sinks into the CDM being a key issue.                            Fern welcomed the Council’s concern over the scientific and other uncertainties and risks associated with carbon sinks.

    In the context of Joint Implementation projects (Article 3.3 of the Kyoto Protocol), the Council concluded that the inclusion of forest-based sinks activities should not undermine incentives for domestic emission reductions and that definitions of forest, deforestation, afforestation and reforestation should be consistent with sustainable forest management and the conservation of biological diversity.

Opinion divided

In contrast to the EU, some governments, notably those of the US, Japan and Russia, meeting in Bonn2, argued for a broad and largely unrestricted use of carbon sinks to meet emission reduction targets - a position many NGOs believe could jeopardise the environmental integrity and credibility of the Kyoto protocol3.

Sinks that stink

A special report on Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry presented at the Bonn meeting was later criticised for its lack of impartiality. Some of the authors of the IPCC report4 were shown by the World Rainforest Movement to have financial incentives for the conclusions drawn. The report's findings about the possible benefits of "carbon offset forestry"5 were shown by WRM research to be  unrealistically and unjustifiably optimistic.

    The 377-page IPCC  report describes the technical uncertainties involved in accounting for carbon stored or 'sequestered' in forests, but fails to adequately analyse the effect of changes in land use on forest-dependent people and their livelihoods.  NGOs are concerned that the current climate debate reduces forests to a single commodity - carbon - which will be tradeable under the Kyoto Protocol, and that this threatens to give rise to tree plantations without consideration of the social and environmental impacts of such projects (see WRM declaration attached). NGOs including WWF, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace hold similar positions.

1 At the 6th Conference on the Parties of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

2The 12th meeting of the Subsidiary Bodies of the UNFCCC.

3 Press release available from Fern

4 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) advises the UNFCC on scientific, technical and socio-economic issues relating toclimate change.

5 Available from Fern.

Major U-turn on UNFF talks

In a U-turn that has alarmed NGOs, 'Major Groups' have been excluded from the latest discussions about the shape and direction of the new United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF). Informal consultations between the IFF secretariat and a select group of governments clearly contravene previous public commitments to include 'Major Groups' (e.g. NGOs, unions, industry) in the consultation process.  

    Some EU member states  favour the Food and Agricultural Orgainsation (FAO) to host the secretariat of the  UNFF. This has concerned NGOs who feel that so far the FAO has exercised a narrow vision of forests that fails to incorporate  social, environmental and cultural values.

Progress at the CBD

At the fifth Conference of the Parties, NGOs reported that the Conference on Biological Diversity has made considerable progress in increasing social awareness, including on the rights of indigenous peoples and the need for local community driven projects.

Forest Agenda

* 1 July: French get EU Presidency

* 11 July: WWF hosts "The FSC a partnerships for forests" presentation.

EU Forest Watch informs NGOs, MEPs and European Commission officials about the forest debate in Brussels.  It is published by Fern, an NGO created by the World Rainforest Movement.  Fern advocates changes in EU activities in order to achieve:

• conservation and sustainable management of forests,

•  respect for the rights of forest peoples,

•  greater transparency in EU aid to tropical forest countries.

For more information visit our website

http://www.greennet.org.uk/fern

Contacts

Chantal Marijnissen & Sofia Ryder,

Fern, 20 Av des Celtes,

1040 Brussels, Belgium.

Tel:  32 2 742 24 36 / 733 36 53

Fax: 32 2 736 80 54

fern@arcadis.be

Saskia Ozinga & Jutta Kill

Fosseway Business Park,

1C Stratford Road

Moreton-in-Marsh

UK - GL 56 9NQ

Tel:   44 1608 652 895

Fax:  44 1608 652 878

saskia@gn.apc.org