|
Informing NGOs, MEPs, |
|
|
Principles for partnerships on illegal
timber Amid
ongoing talks over the EU’s timber licensing
scheme (see FW nos. 85-89), FERN, Greenpeace and WWF have presented their ‘Principles for Partnership
Agreements’ to the EU Council Working Group on the issue. The
presentation, which was made during the Group’s November 2004 meeting
in NGOs
firmly believe that the success, or otherwise, of the EU plans will depend
largely on the content of these agreements. Hence, FERN, in close
co-operation with Greenpeace and WWF, has developed these Principles,¹
which focus on three different levels: 1) the process for developing a
Partnership Agreement; 2) principles for responsible forest management; and
3) principles for the licensing scheme. The NGOs argue that to be effective,
any such agreements must be: ·
based on clear analysis of existing
forest-related laws, including customary laws; ·
developed in proper consultation with
all stakeholders – particular environmental NGOs and indigenous organisations; ·
supported by the development of a
usable and just definition of legality.² The NGOs also argue that producer
countries should be required to license all timber products exported, and to
all countries – not just to the EU. Otherwise, as prior analyses have
shown,³ the effects of any restrictive
measures will be of limited value. FERN,
Greenpeace and WWF will shortly issue another proposal, developed by legal
experts, for a Regulation to halt the import of certain timber and timber
products from non-partner countries. 1 Available at: www.fern.org. 2 Lessons can be learned from this process as carried out recently in
Strengthening
the social component of a standard for legality of wood origin and production
in www.illegal-logging.info
3 See, for example, Indufor’s
assessment of EU FLEGT available at: www.illegal-logging
or FERN’s 2004 discussion paper, Licensing of Legal Timber: Logic and Design of an EU Scheme,
available at: www.fern.org |
|
|
ECGD
faces legal challenge over bribery rules The
In
order to comply with international treaty obligations, the |
|
|
Development
Aid Following
the Commission’s September 2004 proposal to simplify EC development
assistance (see FW no.90), the EU and civil society have started to organise a debate around the implications of the proposal
for developing countries. The proposal, as it stands, is open to allowing a
shift of funds away from the poorest countries and towards those in which the
EU has a clear economic and/or political interest. The
European Parliament has already set up a Working Group on the issue.
Meanwhile, as Development Commissioner Louis Michel is getting used to his
new office, civil society has organised for a wide
and coherent evaluation of the proposal. The result so far: a joint letter of
concern to the EU Presidency in mid-November, followed by a joint NGO
statement released this month¹. For
those who find the whole discussion incomprehensible, FERN has produced a
Briefing Note clarifying the changes introduced by the new proposal. The
document² spells out basic recommendations to
consider in future debates. 1
Available at: www.fern.org 2 Available at: www.fern.org |
|
|
Banca
Intesa pulls out of pipeline Following
evidence of grave safety failures and incompetence connected with BP’s
hugely controversial Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) oil
pipeline, Prior
to Intesa's decision, experts testified, before an
Inquiry Committee of the UK Parliament two weeks ago, that the safety coating
chosen for the Georgian and Azeri sectors of the pipeline will not be
sufficient, leaving the pipeline open to corrosion, leakages and, possibly,
explosions. The pipeline, which passes through several areas of outstanding
natural beauty on its way to delivering Caspian oil to Western markets, has
been supported by financial guarantees from British, Italian, Japanese and
American export credit agencies (ECAs). 1 Financial Times. 1 December 2004 |
|
|
To
bind or not to bind – legally Governments
have been debating the pros and cons of a forest convention since
before the UNCED meeting in Now,
as we face the run-up to the next meeting – the last in this format
– of the United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF) in May 2005, the coming
months will see an increase in governmental discussion on the need, or
otherwise, for a Legally Binding Instrument (LBI)¹
on forests. Environmental
and social NGOs would, of course, welcome some legally binding agreement on
forests – if it contained the
right language; including recognition of customary rights of local and
indigenous peoples, and regulation of the forestry industry. Unfortunately,
it has always been clear that the political will required to tackle these
issues under an LBI will be lacking; hence widespread NGO opposition to an
LBI which would, in practice, prove meaningless. In
the EU, the old position was in favour of an LBI
– though without specifying what should be in it. A new position,
following ongoing discussions, is not expected before January, with a formal
Council position not anticipated before April. Many, however, do seem to have
understood that an LBI is not the way forward, with rumours
that even pro-LBI Canada is losing interest in this approach. In
preparation for the months ahead, WWF has published ‘The International Arrangement on Forests at the Crossroads:
Tough Choices Ahead’ spelling out the failures of the current system
and presenting ways forward.² But given that, among
NGOs, only FERN-FPP³ provided comments
on the evaluation of UNFF – while among governments only 27 have sent
in national reports – one wonders about the value of the next important
meeting in this process: an ‘informal consultation’ to further
discuss the options to go forward, to be held in Mexico at the end of
January. 1 Past
discussions have focused specifically on a Con-vention;
today discussions focus on LBI’s –
which may be either a Convention or some other legally binding agreement. 2 Available
at: www.panda.org/downloads/forests/iaftoughchoices30aug04.pdf 3
|
|
|
NEWS
IN BRIEF Nigerian NGOs demand EU support: NGOs unite against illegal
logging:
A unique alliance of NGOs – including WWF, Conservation International,
Greenpeace and the Rainforest Foundation – have jointly called for a
halt to the expansion of logging in the rainforests of the Democratic
Republic of Congo (DRC). The groups maintain that no expansion in logging
should be allowed until the Congolese authorities comply with strict
conditions on issues such as community access and indigenous rights. For
more information contact: simonc@rainforest.uk.com Striking for indigenous rights: Following a
high-level meeting with UN representatives, six indigenous protesters ended a
4-day hunger strike at the UN in For
more information contact Miriam Ross at: mr@survival-international.org New FERN publications: In addition to its
new publication on development aid (see front page), FERN is pleased to
announce two new briefings produced together with Taiga Rescue Network: Forest Focus, which forms part of a
series of briefings on EU legislation relating to European forests; and ENA-FLEG: a key task for civil society,
which outlines the needs and possibilities of the Russia FLEG process, the
latest international process to start in the global fight against illegal
logging. |
|
|
6-17 December:
Conference of the Parties to the Climate Change Convention (COP10). Buenos 13-18 December: Thirty-seventh session
of the International Tropical Timber Council, 25-28 January: Country-led
initiative on the future of the international arrangement on forests for
UNFF, 26-30 January 2005: World Social Forum, Porto Alegre, Brazil |
|
|
EU Forest Watch is
published by FERN, the forest campaign group focusing on EU policy. |
|
|
|
|
PHOTO:
|
