Joint NGO comments on the EC Discussion Paper

1. The paper contains much of merit particularly in the analysis. However the main problem is that the proposed actions do not address the problems identified in the analysis. Furthermore the lack of prioritisation gives the impression of a 'wish-list' rather than of a strategic policy paper.

2. In comparison with earlier EC Documents namely the 1989 Tropical Forest Communication, the Regulation for Operations to Promote Tropical Forest and the Guidelines for Forest Sector Development Co-operation (1996) there is a shift in policy from social and environmental objectives to more economic objectives. The environmental and social principles as mentioned in the Guidelines document are not properly reflected in this Paper. They should not only be included but the Communication should elaborate their implementation. The Discussion Paper identifies a variety or problems to address, yet then favours a trade and economic perspective in their treatment. A more environmental and social perspective is needed.

3. The current Discussion Paper rightly states that the underlying causes of forest loss lie outside the forest sector and that these causes are social and economic in nature. The paper also states that the EC will efficiently use its potential to assist developing countries in reconciling conflicts. The Communication should therefore develop ways to address these underlying causes and to reconcile conflicts. They are currently missing in Chapter 6.

4. Whilst the paper refers rightly to the important role of the EU in forest-sector lending (including grants) it does not put this in the context of the scale of non-forest sector lending, which is an order of a magnitude greater and with potentially mixed impacts on forests. Chapter 6 should contain concrete actions to ensure that non-forest sector lending will be scrutinised in order to ensure that no negative effects on forests and forest peoples occur.

5. The paper is not exact in its terminology. Words like forests and forestry are used as if they were interchangeable while they are not. Sentences like " improve the sustainability of forestry conservation" are misleading. Terms like "the private sector" requires clarification to distinguish between large TNC's and small-scale enterprises. A clear distinction should be made between primary forests, secondary forests and plantations.

6. There should be a clear commitment in the Communication to reform refine and improve the Commission's own practice and policies in keeping with the spirit and objectives of the Communication for example concerning transparency of decision making, participation of all stakeholders, better co-ordination and monitoring of compliance with procedural requirements.

7. The Communication should address the current problems with EC aid in general and EC aid to tropical forests specifically as mentioned in different studies.[1] The problems of lack of staff, pressure to spend, lack of co-ordination both within the EC and with Member States, lack of transparency and insufficient implementation of existing policies (i.e. EIAs etc) need to be addressed urgently and can not be avoided in the Communication.

· It is understandable that the EC sees National States as their major partners and therefore must recognise the principle of national sovereignty. However as several potential partner countries act against the wishes of a significant part of their population and or in violation of international agreements, the Communication should state this problem and explore solutions beyond the state-level, in line with statements in the Treaty (article 130u.2) and the DG VIII mission. è6

· Based on recent CIFOR research[2] corruption and illegal logging should be added to the list of underlying causes as they are seen as one of the major underlying causes. è3

· With its focus on economic solutions, the paper's message is consistently one of consumption, whereas one of the great problems is the increasing demand for wood and wood products which is or will be unsustainable. This should be mentioned in the paper. Further attention should also be given to the reduction of waste at all stages of production. To be added

· The reference to the Pan European Process should be dropped as this process is not an example of a proper participatory process. è10

· We would suggest to change the ‘suggested interventions in four major strategic areas to the following 'five major strategic areas':

1. Support of the development of national, regional and local forest plans with full and informed participation of all stakeholders (including local communities), which take into account the full economic, social, ecological, cultural and spiritual roles and values of forests. Reconciling conflicting demands on forests should especially be emphasised.

2. Support for forest conservation activities both within primary and secondary forests while recognising that forest conservation can only be effective when the interests of the local people are properly addressed.

3. Support for sustainable and socially equitable forms of land use outside forests which will have an impact on forest areas.

4. Improve the efficiency of utilisation, marketing and processing of timber in order to generate better distribution of the benefits of forest management. Particular attention should be paid to the reduction of waste in the production process as well as the problem of ever-increasing demand and insufficient re-use and recycling within Europe.

5. Contribute to the development of research and technology transfers related to the above

· Note that FAO definition of forests is not a forest definition but a tree cover definition. Plantations are not man-made forests but agricultural crops. The EC should use more defined and up to date figures from IUCN and WCMC (like the Atlas on Tropical Forests), WRI and CIFOR which do distinguish between forests and plantations. The Communication should also take into account the EU's own research and data collection by the Joint Research Centre (JRC Trees II[3]). è2 and 4

· The sentence " the major issue in forest conservation is that the beneficiaries…..." is unclear. A suggested improvement: "The major issue in forest conversion is that the beneficiaries of conversion do not pay the costs associated with externalities".è6

· Drop Box 1 and last paragraph of 2.1. as information is out of date or based on false assumptions, or change paragraph with more recent information from CIFOR which takes into account the underlying causes. The 'cause and effect relationship' between population growth and deforestation is an outdated one and is not supported by most recent research by CIFOR and the own EU's JRC,[4] and recent publications (i.e. Leach and Fairhead) which come to opposite conclusions. è3, 5 and Box 1

· It is rightly stated that SFM could make a clear contribution to sustainable development but that there is as yet very little practical experience in implementing it and many vested interests ensure that it won't be implemented. It is also rightly stated that no financial incentive encourages private entrepreneurs to manage forests sustainably. It therefore follows that vested interests, corruption, incentives to sustainable management and disincentives to unsustainable management need to receive more attention. è2

· It would also be advisable to exercise the pre-cautionary principle when funding projects in primary tropical rainforests as the sustainability of large-scale commercial forest management in the humid tropics has not yet been clearly demonstrated. è2

· Subsidies in forest sector (i.e. for plantations) are of significant concern, as there are many cases where pulp wood plantations have lead to deforestation, social disruption and human rights violations. è5

· It should be clearly stated that large scale mono-culture plantations cannot be supported with development money since no evidence indicates that these plantations contribute to sustainable forest management or forest conservation. Doubt has been raised whether they contribute to development in general[5]. To be added.

· It should be acknowledged that part of the problem lies in consumer countries i.e. Europe itself with its ever-increasing demand of wood and wood- products and insufficient re-use and recycle. To be added.

· The two paragraphs on forests as carbon sinks should be deleted since they contain inaccuracies and fail to acknowledge carbon release from burning wood, uncertainties surrounding carbon release from exposed soil after logging, the fact that forest clearing and replanting does not replace the loss of the carbon load in the soil. "Carbon storage" forestry is not a legitimate target for development assistance until much more is known about the options. More research is needed è3 and è4

· Specific reference should be made to primary/ancient forests and to their relative superiority to secondary forests and plantations in terms of biodiversity and ecological services. The absence of such a distinction suggests, disturbingly, that no differentiation between primary forests and others will be made in decision-making in specific instances. Also the eco-region approach should be take into consideration. To be added.

· This section correctly identifies several aspects of the problem. However, where different forest valuation methods are discussed, the paper states that determining economic value of the ecological functions “is meaningless if the downstream beneficiaries are not willing to pay for these services.” Notably, it is not just a matter of the downstream beneficiary’s willingness to pay for the services, but the need to recover the costs of losing/degrading these services in accordance with the Polluter Pays principle. The problem must also be approached from the angle of requiring those who damage the ecological functions to pay for their loss, through such mechanisms as administrative fees, fiscal policy, civil liability for environmental harm, et cetera. è4

· The economic (and social) importance of the informal sector should be recognised. Research is needed to evaluate the contribution of this sector to society. To be added.

· The paper rightly identifies pricing systems for forest products as being in need of revision. However it wrongly asserts that "Low official revenues from forestry activities are a major reason why forests attract little attention from officials in planning and finance ministries". It should be included here that both old and new evidence shows that systems of official rent capture are often kept deliberately weak and unproductive precisely so that unofficial and private 'rents' can be maintained at high levels, often to the direct benefit of some government officials and politicians. è3

· The text rightly identifies the lack of representation of local communities at all levels and the problem with land tenure and ownership as well as the importance of a truly participative process, including participation in decision making. This text should therefore lead to action points including encouraging local stewardship. It also follows that access to information is an essential part of a truly participative process,[6] not only to benefit NGOs in recipient countries but also in Europe. As a first step and in light of the Convention on Public Participation recently signed by the EC, the Communication should state the intention to improve this situation, i.e. by publicising the project information sheets, country strategy papers, EIAs, etc on the web. è 2. To be added.

· The text wisely states that "a fundamental and agreed principle in any forest activity is the importance of a participative process A general acknowledgement of democratic principles is an essential element." It therefore follows that the EC should consider measures to strengthen civil society particularly in those countries where it is not appropriate to continue development cooperation because the governments resolutely refuse to allow such democratic practices to operate. è3. To be added.

· The text rightly addresses the declining influence of the State and the weak institutional capacity for the control and sustainable management of forests. The new institutional arrangements mentioned (democratisation and decentralisation) are not widely practised and give a false impression of a positive development. Therefore the last paragraph of this section should be dropped.

· The paper rightly and astutely identifies one of the key issues in forest sector governance where it states that " a serious problem is the existence of vested interests in inertia due to private economical interests, administrative routine, lack of adequate knowledge on forest resources. Solving this problem is fundamental to successful forest policy implementation and enforcement. This can only be achieved through open participation sustained by a transparent information process on forest resources and changes. Accountability, monitoring, verification are needed so that trends, significant changes and abuses can be publicly exposed". NGOs applaud this analysis and would like to see this analysis reflected in the actions outlines in Chapter 6.[7] è2

· Where the Kyoto Protocol is mentioned, the unresolved controversial aspects concerning its innovative mechanisms (Clean Development Mechanism) that must be carefully monitored -particularly with regard to their impacts on forests-, should be mentioned. è4 to be added.

· Take pro-active measures in relation to international trade regulation, possibly on the basis of ITTO Target 2000. The EU should discourage the tabling of new MAI-type initiatives. It should also discourage the development plans, currently being proposed in the WTO that tend towards increasing pressure of TNC's in decision-making in areas such as land-use and protection of foreign investors; that tend to take decision-making further away from local communities and that tend to view environmental protection measures as barriers to trade. è7 to be added.

· The statement that the EU endorses the outcomes of IFF should be dropped as there is no outcome yet. Rather than the as-yet non-existent global forest convention, a concrete strategy should be outlined for implementing international obligations under FCCC, CBD etc. è7

· The GSP new Regulation, in as far as forests are concerned, is troublesome as it is not based on certification but on countries merely stating that they comply with the ITTO criteria for SFM. Although it is positive that the GSP regulation includes "whistle-blower" provisions. The kind of checks the EC intends to implement itself to confirm or deny these claims is as yet unclear. However the GSP regulation in as far as ILO criteria are concerned is supported by NGOs. è 7

· As the EU is a signatory to the CBD and the Convention on Desertification the EU should fulfil its existing obligations under these conventions. Particular attention must be paid to procedural obligations, notably EIAs and SIAs which are currently poorly implemented.

· Delete the reference to the Pan European process as it is not a good example of a participatory process. è2

1. Support for the development of national and regional forest plans with full and informed participation of all stakeholders (including local communities), which take into account the full economic, social, ecological, cultural and spiritual roles and values of forests. Reconciling conflicting demands on forests should specifically be emphasised.

2. Support for forest conservation activities both within primary and secondary forests while ensuring that forest conservation can only be effective when the interests of the local people are properly addressed. Capacity building of civil society is therefore essential.

3. Support for sustainable and socially equitable forms of land use outside forests which will have an impact on forest areas.

5. Contribute to the development of research and technology transfers related to the above

In general we feel that in terms of prioritisation the effectiveness of the EU's engagement could be greatly enhanced by adopting to the following approach, which should be reflected in the Communication:

1. Financial and Technical support should normally be accompanied by policy dialogue between the EU and the recipient countries. Such dialogue will seek to pursue the overall objectives as stated in the Communication.

2. Policy dialogue should be conducted on the basis of meaningful and equitable participation of all the relevant stakeholders (the importance of which is recognised in the Discussion Paper) in an open and transparent manner.

3. Prioritisation should be given to countries and to processes which support and encourage such equitable participation, and which serve to increase the openness and transparency of policy development and implementation.

6.1. Change objective to: Support for the development of national and regional forest plans with full and informed participation of all stakeholders (including local communities), which take into account the full economic, social, ecological, cultural and spiritual roles and values of forests and with a special emphasis on reconciling conflicting demands on forests

· First bullet point agrarian reform should be added. Add: This will often involve proper research in land tenure rights and support for forest peoples to get their rights recognised.

· Second bullet point. Add: This will involve strengthening of small farmers economy

· Add new bullet point: Restrict the opening of new roads in forest areas and ensure all road building projects have been preceded by a proper Environmental and Social Impact Assessment.

· Third bullet point needs to be elaborated to indicate how the EC intends to achieve this.

· Add bullet point: Control the opening of new sawmills in the uncontrolled logging areas and develop efficient locally based mechanisms to control illegal logging[8].

· Fifth bullet point should be reformulated to ensure no development funding will go to international companies setting up large-scale monoculture plantations. It should also be made clear that plantations can never be created when there is a dispute about land ownership.

· Point (1) The EC could elaborate on its policy when there is no possibility for local stakeholders to participate because of lack of democracy or lack of organisation of local stakeholders. It should be added that in many cases capacity building of local stakeholders is a precondition to proper participation.

· Point (7) is a very valuable point and it should be added that this is particularly relevant at the local level.

· Add action point: Enhanced support for traditional management systems that maintain forest cover and ecosystem functions.

· First bullet point. There is no justification for supporting a global legally binding instrument[9]. The promotion of a global forest convention is not supported by NGOs and should in any case get less attention than the implementation of existing international obligations.[10]

· Action point (1) Internationally accepted principles of environmental policy and law prevention of harm, precaution where actual consequences are unclear, polluter pays should be taken into account where specific actions are proposed. Maintaining a strong presence, as stated in paragraph (1), without stating why and with what aim is useless. It should be acknowledged that constant deference in favour of the WTO is out of place, especially where environmental and social objectives are pursued. It should be recalled that multi-lateral environmental agreements such as FCCC, CITES and the CBD have roughly the same number of signatories and are not lower in terms of international law than the WTO.

· Action point (4) The brackets in point (4) should be dropped. The EC should address the problem of illegal logging and try to develop measures that no illegally logged timber can enter the EU, as well as ensure that CITES is being implemented properly. (See also 6.1.2)

6.2. Change objective to: Support for forest conservation activities both within primary and secondary forests while ensuring that forest conservation can only be effective when the interests of the local people are properly addressed. Capacity building of civil society is therefore essential.

· This suggests that conservation efforts will be restricted to core protected areas; yet attention must be given to conservation outside such areas as well.

· Add bullet point: Support government services to conserve an ecologically representative sample of key forest types in sufficient quantity as to safeguard the maintenance of ecosystem functions.

· Fifth and sixth bullet point. Worrisome references are made to “conservation of natural forests integrated in plantation mosaics” and “facilitating small-scale plantations and woodlots...where the estimated yields and economic benefits justify such investments”. It should be clarified that the EC does not financially support plantations where this involves destruction of natural forests.

· First bullet point: Change to Integrating forest development with agriculture through agroforestry and participatory land use planning.

· Add bullet point: Develop eco-tourism projects with full participation of local people taking care to ensure conservation of old-growth forests, when there is a proven benefit for all local communities involved.

· Add bullet point: Ensure allocation of tenure rights and land demarcation as well as user rights for local communities.

· Add action point: Encourage the development of community co-ordination cells (village level, or section of village or cross cut several villages). This should involve conflict resolution techniques, mapping of territories etc. Co-ordination cells can develop their negotiation power and begin to control private sector and other vested interests

6.3. Change objective to: Support for sustainable and socially equitable forms of land use outside forests which will have an impact on forest areas.

6.4. Improve the efficiency of utilisation, marketing and processing of timber in order to generate better distribution of the benefits of forest management. Particular attention should be paid to the reduction of waste in the production process as well as the problem of ever-increasing demand and insufficient re-use and recycling within Europe.

6.4. Contributing to development of research, information and technology transfer

· Add action point: Support practical actions to improve the efficiency of utilisation, marketing and processing of timber and non-timber forest products through equitable and comprehensive approaches. For example the high waste and collateral damage that is typical during production could be eliminated with relative ease, and more innovative strategies to use wood residues should be developed.

· Add bullet point: Facilitate the training of (non traditional) local communities on

· (10)Understanding local forest dependent peoples knowledge and their conceptual framework, organisation and management systems

· Add to bullet point 1: Not just for forestry projects but for all projects in or near forest areas.

· Add bullet point: Use the appropriate mechanisms in order to guarantee effective participation of local stakeholders in projects design and implementation as well as projects and programs continuity through small grants permitting small operations and preliminary work by local actors, progressive scaling up of projects, regular evaluations and long term commitment of the funding agencies.

· Several European bodies are mentioned including the Standing Forestry Committee and the Consultative Committees while it is difficult to see how these committees could contribute to better co-ordination of development aid to tropical forests. What should be added is: Participation in decision-making processes should be improved by involving interest groups and NGOs on all levels, and on both sides (donor, recipient), and by developing provisions which ensure a wide access to information where EU projects are concerned.

· Add: Ensure increased co-operation between donors and project operators and partners (NGOs, local organisations, public administration) at the national level by organising appropriate workshops seminars, and making use of networks operating at national and regional levels.

It is clear that the current level of staffing is not adequate for implementing the aid programme in a satisfactory manner. There is also a clear lack of coherence and co-ordination between different EC aid flows to tropical countries. Several evaluations of EC aid have pointed out that there are severe problems with EC aid. The recent ECO Evaluation has shown that 53% of all tropical forest projects, particularly EDF projects, have a poor performance. Therefore a Communication should first of all address the problems and develop appropriate solutions. Without addressing this it is unlikely that the Communication can be implemented.

[1] ECO Gesellshaft fur sozialogische Programmberatung "Evaluation of the Forestry Component of EC Programmes in Developing Countries" 1998, ERM "Evaluation of the Environment Performance of EC Programmes in Developing Countries 1998", Rainforest Foundation "Out of Commission"

[2] Arnoldo Contreras "Underlying Causes of Deforestation", presented by David Kaimowitz CIFOR at IFF Intersessional on Underlying Causes January 1999.

[3] Tropical Ecosystems Environment Sensing remote sensing programme which has agreed to co-ordinate its methodologies with the FAO to exchange information in order to develop an independent set of data checking the FAO figures and refining results.

[4] Identification of deforestation hot spot areas in the humid tropics, JRC (1998)

[5] Pulping the South, World Rainforest Movement 1997

[6] The inadequacy of provisions concerning access to information in the two recently proposed regulations for budget line B7-6200 and B7-6201 in this area illustrate that the Commission itself has difficulty implementing such provisions.

[7] The IIED series on Policies that work for Forests and Peoples could be of use here. Particularly the Ghana and Papua New Guinea case studies provide a useful analysis as well as a list of conditions to be met to ensure proper forest sector governance.

[8] See IIED Policies that Work for Forests and Peoples: Ghana

[9] As shown by studies commission by the EC (EFI/IUCN/CIFOR, options for strengthening the international legal regime for forests; December 1996 and IIED for the WCFSD, Purpose and Potential of a Global Forest Agreement 1996)

[10] No concrete strategy is outlined for implementing international obligations, no real discussion is given as how compliance with obligations under, for instance, CBD, Convention to Combat Desertification, will be approached on a practical level, e.g. how to ensure that the benefits of genetic resources go to the local community (CBD); how to protect indigenous rights and traditional use of forest resources (CBD); how to encourage transfer of technology (FCCC, CBD). A serious attempt to incorporate the lessons of practical failures concerning the implementation of these conventions should be made.

Joint NGO comments on the EC Discussion Paper

General Comments