|
|
|
Already available on the web¹ the
Commission will officially launch ‘Buying Green’, its handbook on
environmental public procurement on 29 October 2004. But the handbook,
co-produced by DG environment and DG Internal Market, creates some confusion
when it comes to advising on ‘sustainably and legally logged timber’. It is widely agreed, and acknowledged in the
handbook, that ‘sustainable forest management’ explicitly takes into account
both environmental and “social aspects, such as the interests of forest
dependent people”. In complete contradiction to this, however, the
handbook goes on to advise that governments are not able to employ
specifications that address ‘the protection of forest dependent people’ when
putting out tenders for any public timber purchases. Not only is the handbook itself muddled on
this, but it is also in conflict with the original Directive on this issue.²
FERN’s 2004 analysis of the Directive³ shows that governments clearly can
specify ‘sustainability’ as a technical specification in their procurement
policies, and that the definition of ‘sustainability’ includes social
aspects. Only by Member States pushing to promote
socially responsible forest management can this conflict be resolved. This
will require some Member States writing social requirements into their
technical specifications and a subsequent Court Ruling in favour of those
States when they are challenged for doing so. 1 http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/publicprocurement/key-docs_en.htm 2 2004/18/EC 3 FERN (2004) To Buy or Not to
Buy. Available at:www.fern.org |
|
The November 2004 meeting of the
Participants to the OECD’s Export Credit Arrangement¹ will see the European
Commission table a proposal to encourage the export of Renewable Energy
Technologies to developing and emerging markets. However, FERN is deeply
concerned that the proposal will allow Member States to include large hydro
power projects in the definition of ‘renewables’, with no requirement for the
compliance of such projects with the recommendations of the World Commission
on Dams (WCD).²
The new proposal, which aims to provide more
favourable financing terms for a range of Renewable Energy Technologies,
makes no explicit reference to the WCD recommendations. This is in stark
contrast to the newly adopted “Linking Directive”,³ which stipulates that
under the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol, large hydro
power projects must comply with international standards, including the
recommendations of the WCD. The absence of an equally clear and
unambiguous reference to the WCD recommendations in the current EC proposal
for the OECD negotiations is alarming, with a real risk that this
‘renewables’ initiative could end up promoting the export of large dams,
while failing to provide adequate safeguards against their potentially
negative social and environmental impacts in recipient countries. 1 The Arrangement on Officially
Supported Export Credits – a Gentlemen’s Agreement providing a framework for
the orderly use of officially supported export credits. 2 World Commission on Dams: Dams and
Development. A new framework for decision-making. November 2000. 3 See 'Linking Directive'approved,
FW, this issue.
|
|
'Linking Directive' approved
It’s been a golden September for
EU climate negotiators: On 30 September 2004 Russia announced its
ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, allowing it to officially enter into
force within the coming months; meanwhile on 13 September 2004 EU foreign
ministers formally approved rules to link the EU’s new climate emissions trading
scheme to the Kyoto Protocol’s flexible mechanisms (see FW nos. 82 and 84).¹
This ‘Linking Directive’ will give companies covered by the EU emissions
trading scheme direct access to carbon credits from the Kyoto Protocol’s
Clean Development and Joint Implementation mechanisms. While welcoming the fact that the Directive
excludes tree plantation projects from the scheme, FERN remains concerned
that the same Directive will effectively provide highly polluting companies
with a cheap – and unproven – ‘alternative’ to actually reducing greenhouse
gas emissions at home. Whether either of these developments will also
contribute to slowing climate change remains, therefore, to be seen; both
instruments demand only minimal emission reductions and both rely on market
mechanisms based on dubious accounting schemes to achieve even these
reductions. |
|
Following growing evidence of the
social and environmental problems caused by FSC certifications of some large-scale
monoculture tree plantations, the FSC has announced a review of Principle 10
– which spells out criteria for certifying plantations. A policy review
group, consisting of 12 people (2 from each FSC chamber), will develop Terms
of Reference for a technical working group. The Terms of Reference will focus on the
question of what sort of plantations can be eligible for FSC certification.
The process is expected to take up to 2 years. A dedicated website and email
list has been created to allow input into the process. For information contact:
peltis@swipnet.se |
Future of the EU Forestry Strategy
On 15 September 2004 FERN submitted its response to the ‘Commission Questionnaire on the Implementation Review of the EU Forestry Strategy’.¹ The questionnaire provided the last opportunity to comment on the ‘Draft for the Preparation of Commission Staff Working Document’, the basis for the Commission’s assessment of the EU Forestry Strategy. The review process is expected to wind up in the coming months with a Communication on the future implementation of the strategy. This document is now being prepared by DG Agriculture. In FERN’s view, the staff working document still reflects the bias of the original Forestry Strategy towards timber-oriented forestry management practices. Social and environmental aspects of forests and forest use receive only scant attention and the document, for the most part, lacks a thorough analysis of the linkages between the different aspects of forest use. FERN believes that correcting this strong timber bias is a prerequisite for using Europe’s forests to benefit all Europeans – surely the core function of an effective forestry strategy at the EU level? 1 Submission available from FERN or at: www.fern.org |
Ecolabel fiasco
At the 28 September
2004 meeting of the EU Ecolabeling board, four options on how to proceed with
the EU ecolabel for furniture were presented – including scrapping the
existing proposal and starting anew. The presentation followed the board’s
earlier rejection (in December 2003) of the existing draft proposal which had
become unworkable following endless compromise with the PVC and other
industries. FERN finds it alarming
that the EU ecolabel scheme continues to bow so much under industry pressure
that it risks losing any credibility. We would, therefore, remind Member
State governments that they have until the 31st of October to give
comments on how to proceed on this issue. |
Illegal logging
With a decision on the draft ‘Regulation
for a licensing scheme controlling the imports of timber into the EU’
expected in the next 12 months¹ (see FW nos. 85-88), FERN, Greenpeace and WWF
have now presented detailed comments on the draft Regulation.² While supporting the process, the NGOs
conclude that the draft has two major flaws: first, it is not sufficiently
robust on independent verification of legality or on independent monitoring
of the scheme; second, it does not include sufficient safeguards to prevent
the Regulation – and any resulting partnership agreements – from reinforcing
producer-country legislation which is damaging to forests or forest peoples
(See FW no. 88). Although absolutely critical to the success or
otherwise of the proposed scheme, the Commission has so far only partly
addressed this issue of adequate safeguards, and then only in their recently
developed mandate for discussing how partnership agreements with producer
countries should be negotiated. Unfortunately the mandate – seen by FERN – is
confidential, effectively preventing any public discussion on this key issue.
Whether through including the safeguards in the Regulation, or through publicising the negotiation mandate, FERN calls for an immediate public and open discussion on safeguards – including civil society groups in North and South. 2 Available
at: www.fern.org |
|
Germany and biodiversity: On 5-6 November 2004 the German Ministry of
Agriculture and Naturschutzbund Deutschland (NABU), the German section of
Birdlife, will host a workshop on ‘Forest legislation for biodiversity’.
Further information on the meeting is available at: www.birdlife.net/action/change/europe/forest_task_force/index.html International Arrangement on Forests: The September 2004 meeting of the UN’s ad
hoc group on a legal framework for forests (AHEG PARAM)¹ has resulted
in an overview of the possible options for a future International Arrangement
on Forests (IAF).²Given the importance of holding informal discussions
prior to making any decisions on these options at UNFF5 in May 2005, Mexico
has offered to host an open discussion on this in January. 1 United Nations Ad Hoc Group on
Consideration with a View to Recommending the Parameters of a Mandate for
Developing a Legal Framework on all Type of Forests 2 IISD, AHEG-PARAM Final at:
www.iisd.ca/forestry/unff/param |
|
19-21 October: The Forest Dialogue's Forests
and Certification seminar, Maidenhead, UK 20 October: Council Working Group on illegal logging.
Brussels, Belgium 3-4 November: CEEWEB's “Time is life”
conference on halting the biodiversity loss by 2010, Budapest
|
|
EU Forest Watch is
published by FERN, the forest campaign group focusing on EU policy. |
|
FERN Brussels, 20 Avenue des Celtes, 1040
Brussels, Belgium. http://www.fern.org/ |
|
|
