|
|
||||
|
The
Regulation to control imports of illegally sourced timber from specific
partner countries is now in its final stages of preparation and could still
be completed before the end of the summer. But while the Commission has
stated that this Regulation’s legal basis should be
article 133 (commercial policy) of the EU Treaty, the European Parliament,
together with some member states, has put forward the case for it to be
article 175 (environment). While this may not seem to be particularly
important to those unfamiliar with EU process, this discussion is actually of
great significance: article 133 will not allow the Parliament to amend the
Regulation, instead giving full power to the Commission for its finalisation
and implementation. And amending the Regulation – as it is currently
envisaged by the Commission – may be essential given the recent findings of
impact studies on the proposed licensing scheme. These studies (see FW
no. 85) have revealed that the scheme as it stands is
unlikely to have much – if indeed any – positive impact on the ground. There
also remain doubts as to whether agreements between the EU and wood exporting
countries can help to bring more socially just forest laws in those
countries. NGOs have stated on several occasions that only a Regulation
enabling customs authorities to take action against all illegal timber
imports would make any sense – a position even supported by the Dutch Timber
Trade Federation, which has just signed a joint statement with Dutch NGOs
asking for such legislation.[1] In a parallel development, a process
to define ‘legality’ has now been concluded in Indonesia. The resulting
definition is based on seven principles, 18 criteria and numerous
sub-criteria as well as a detailed guidance note.[2] It will be field tested in 1 See: www.fern.org 2 http://www.illegal-logging.info/papers/Z%20Introduction%20and%20Principles.htm#Principles |
||||
|
Cologne’s Carbon-Expo Trade Fair (9-11 June) saw
representatives of the Rural Worker’s Trade
Unions from Minas Gerais, 1 The PCF is expected
to decide on the final list of projects, which will pursue CDM registration,
in the coming months. Not all projects currently in the PCF portfolio will
remain in the final list. See also: FW no. 76 |
||||
|
EU
|
||||
|
With funding for fossil fuel projects
outweighing that for renewables by a ratio of 22 to
1, [1] no-one can really argue that the World Bank is
serious about either tackling climate change or supporting renewable energy
projects. So when a significant series of recommendations of the World Bank’s Extractive Industry Review (EIR) were put forward
last year they were welcomed by many NGOs across the world. The
recommendations include halting funds for oil projects and developing strict
rules for free, prior and informed consent. Now, in the latest stage of this
process, the World Bank has released its “Draft Management Responses to
the World Bank Group Extractive Industries Review”, inviting the public
to comment.[2] However, as expected, the response accepts neither
the phasing out of financing fossil fuel projects, nor the right of
indigenous peoples and local communities to consent to projects. Instead it
proposes that “free, prior and informed consultation leading to broad
community acceptance” be the accepted standard. Even outside the NGO
world, scepticism about whether extractive industries can be made to work
effectively and durably for the poor is growing. Indeed, the Financial
Times notes that: “the fact that these industries have systematically
helped relieve poverty in countries that do not already have somewhat
successful economies and the rule of law, still needs to be proven”. The Bank’s Board is expected to give its final verdict within
30 days of 21 June. 1 FoE et al (2002)
Marketing the Earth. The World Bank and Sustainable Development. p16 2 Available at: www.worldbank.org/ogmc |
||||
|
15
June saw the launch of a potentially significant legal case against the German
Government. Initiated by two NGOs – Germanwatch and
Friends of the Earth Germany (BUND) – the case challenges the Federal
Ministry of Economics and Labour (BMWA) to disclose information on the
contribution to climate change of international projects backed by the German
Export Credit Agency (ECA), Hermes AG.[1] Hermes is a public agency
providing government-backed guarantees and investment insurance to German
corporations seeking to do business in developing countries or emerging
markets that are considered too risky (either politically and/or
economically) for conventional corporate financing. In its bid to secure
export opportunities for German companies, Hermes provides billions of
dollars of funding for energy, mining and transport projects around the
world. Given the greenhouse gas-intensive nature of many of these projects, Germanwatch and BUND are campaigning to assess the impact
of German exports on climate change. To this end they have requested
information on all Hermes-backed projects on energy production dating back to
1997, when the Kyoto Protocol was adopted. The NGOs note that under the Environmental
Information Act of the Federal Republic of Germany, [2] Hermes
and the Government are obliged – yet so far refuse – to disclose such
information . 1 See: www.germanwatch.org/rio/herbpe04.pdf 2 Umweltinformationsgesetz
des Bundes (UIG), transposition of the EU Directive
90/313 on access to environmental information. |
||||
|
NEWS
IN BRIEF On 18 June, EU member states adopted their new
Constitution. Although unavailable for some 10 days on the Commission’s
website, FERN found the final text’s full 249 pages on the EUABC
website of Danish MEP Jens Peter Bonde. While the
new Constitution has retained language on sustainable development and
European integration, this now appears in an arguably less prominent place.
More that 80% of the 25 member states must now ratify the new Constitution
within the next two years before it can enter into force. |
||||
|
20-23 July: 36th Session of ITTC. 22-24 July: Global Forest Coalition meeting. 26-30 July: UN Conference for the negotiation
of a successor agreement to the ITTA 1994. 2-3 September: NGO strategy session on ECAs. Brussels, Belgium |
||||
|
