Illegal Logging Update and Stakeholder Consultation
Chatham House, 10 St. James’ Square, London SW1.
Thursday 19th – Friday 20th January 2006
Chairs: Duncan Brack, Victor Bulmer-Thomas, Jade Saunders, Richard Tarasofsky (Chatham House); John Hudson, Hugh Speechly (DFID)
Thursday 19 January
Victor Bulmer-Thomas, Director of Chatham House opened the meeting. He noted that this was the largest Update Meeting held so far, an indication of the increasing importance of illegal logging on the international agenda. Hugh Speechly of DFID gave a short introduction to the morning session.
Ministerial Presentation and Question and Answer Session – Gareth Thomas MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary for International Development, UK
Mr Thomas spoke of the UK government’s priorities regarding illegal logging during the past year, and the ‘highlights of 2005’. He touched on the UK presidency of the G8 and the commitments made there by Ministers regarding illegal logging and associated trade. The UK Presidency of the EU was seen as an opportunity to take forward the FLEGT process with the UK’s four main objectives for this being met by the end of January 2006. Revised timber procurement guidance has been published and CPET established to support public sector buyers.
The UK government’s priorities for 2006 and beyond were given as:
· Supporting governance and law enforcement reforms in partner countries (those agreed under the FLEGT scheme)
· Reviewing ‘additional options’ to tackle illegal logging, namely whether legislation prohibiting import of illegal timber could work in practice
· Encouraging other major importing countries to take necessary steps
· Working with the private sector to encourage good practices
· Building on the UK government’s procurement policy
Plans to explore the possibility of a FLEG process in Latin America during 2006 were announced, as was the allocation by DFID of £24 million to fund further work on illegal logging over the next five years, the bulk of which will go towards supporting transparency and governance in FLEGT partner countries.
The Minister's full speech is available at www.illegal-logging.info/events/Gareth_Thomas_MP_Speech.doc
Discussion
The discussion was wide-ranging and concerns were raised about various areas such as UK procurement policy’s exclusion of social impacts criteria and a lack of harmonisation of procurement policies, both of which were attributed by Mr Thomas as being the result of the relative immaturity of both CPET and the development of any procurement policy by a number of EU member states.
A number of participants highlighted the need for FLEGT and development of procurement policies to be supported by anti-corruption efforts. The Minister acknowledged that much of the work on illegal logging would not work in isolation and pointed to existing programmes of work dedicated to anti-corruption that come together with the work on illegal logging to form a ‘web of strategies’.
Industry representatives voiced their support for the work being described but also made concerns over the lack of a level playing field clear and the feeling of there being little clear guidance about developing verifiable sources. Best practice guidelines were requested that could provide clarity to companies trying to navigate a path acceptable to both the WTO and procurement policies. Mr Thomas agreed that there was more that the UK government could do in this area and stated that he was taking this point on board.
In response to a question on whether Central America was being considered with regard to future FLEG processes, the minister expressed ‘genuine gratitude’ for any campaigning that groups could do in moving towards FLEG processes with any Central or Latin American countries.
FLEGT Action Plan / Voluntary Partnership Agreement Negotiations
Update and Plans – Neil Scotland, European Commission
The six months since the last update meeting have seen a lot of activity, with the adoption of FLEGT legislative proposals in December and the planning of development assistance to partner countries. A second group of projects supporting the action plan are under way to improve engagement of developing countries with FLEGT, particularly targeting South East Asia and Central Africa. The proposals for the Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPAs) have been agreed, along with the regulation setting out the framework and implementation of the licensing scheme.
The next phase involves building partnership agreements, and a programme of consultations in partner countries is already under way. Efforts have been made to engage all member states in some degree of activity. Programmes are already under way in Cameroon, Congo, Gabon, Ghana, Indonesia and Malaysia. There is a consultative process taking place to try to develop a clear picture of what the partnership agreement with Indonesia will involve.
Development assistance is a vital part of EU FLEGT and €27.5 million has been earmarked by the Commission supporting reforms to governance within partner countries, as well as a further €16 million funding for pilot projects that support forest governance which falls outside of the partnership agreements.
During the year ahead the range of countries that consultations are being held with will be expanded, and existing planned partnership agreements negotiated. Another vital area of activity is the scheduling and coordination of the donor support to partner countries to ensure that they are adequately resourced to implement their VPA.
The full PowerPoint file of this presentation is available at http://www.illegal-logging.info/presentations/180106/scotland.ppt
Discussion
There was concern that there had been no broader opportunity to discuss the principles of the VPAs and that the negotiating mandate is not currently publicly available. The response to this was that approval of any VPA would depend on the legal basis for it, so as such it might not be possible to make the approval of any individual VPA a public process. It was confirmed that every member state had taken part in discussions in Brussels of the VPA mandate.
The issue of whether there is inbuilt funding and mechanisms for sharing of country experiences as part of any VPA was considered, with the suggestion of regular syntheses of progress, establishment of a learning group and the reinterpretation of experience at a country level. The Central Service Contract is to provide some consistency and inter-regional lesson learning is a part of the Caribbean process in particular.
The question was raised of the acceptability of existing certification schemes as part of the licensing scheme and it was clarified that although the Commission can’t say at this stage which schemes will be acceptable, there is a clear provision within FLEGT for existing schemes to be considered, to avoid any duplication of effort.
NGO Response – Sebastian Risso, Greenpeace
There is a gap between those agendas of Greenpeace and the EU: the former’s agenda being the protection of the last ancient forests, and the latter’s being the identification of legality and the development of governance. There is a risk of undermining good practice with a weak definition of legality and as such a ‘positive’ definition of legality that includes sustainability is vital.
With regards to the VPAs, the budget announced is not substantial enough to prevent inconsistencies, more funding is needed quickly. It is a concern that the VPA mandate was concluded without any civil society consultation, also that certification schemes with existing weaknesses are to form an important part of the VPA system.
The EU needs legislation that bans illegal timber to underpin FLEGT if it is to make companies accountable for what they buy and sell in Europe. The imminent publication of a report by the Commission on additional legislative options is anticipated and clear recommendations and timelines are urgently requested.
The full PowerPoint file of this presentation is available at http://www.illegal-logging.info/presentations/180106/risso.ppt
FLEGT Impacts Indicators – Emily Fripp, Independent Consultant
DFID are funding work to develop of a set of ‘Indicators of Response’ which are to provide a means of measuring whether funding allocated to work on illegal logging is producing the desired level of impact. Examples of such markers could include whether suppliers are changing and whether there has been an increase in volumes of certified or verified wood being traded. In addition to this there have been marked changes in focus from the media and NGOs with a move towards corruption, society and the military and a means to monitor such changes would be another application of such indicators.
These indicators must be able to monitor changes at each level in the supply chain. It is possible that monitoring a core set of products and countries will be more desirable than trying to monitor everything. A total of 20 indicators have been proposed, covering producer, consumer and processing countries and activities in both public and private sectors.
Next steps are further consultation to reach a consensus on the indicators to be used and on how the whole project is to be implemented, who by and who will fund it. Current ideas include: a coalition between organisations like the FAO and ITTO; an NGO coalition or an independent body; an international financial institution like the World Bank.
The full PowerPoint file of this presentation is available at http://www.illegal-logging.info/presentations/180106/fripp.ppt
Discussion
It was clarified that the indicators being developed were not just to assess the impact of FLEGT but are to look at work on illegal logging much more broadly, covering policies and governance initiatives, public and media awareness and the social impacts of work being done. The project will draw on information already being collected as far as possible, to minimise any duplication of effort. The next draft of the research should be available on www.illegal-logging.info by April 2006, and will be available for stakeholders to comment on. Further to this there will be another round of consultation and a meeting for interested parties.
Additional Legislative Options – Duncan Brack, Chatham House
The FLEGT Action Plan requested that EU member states consider any existing domestic legislation that might be applied to exclude illegal timber being imported from countries that do not sign up to the licensing scheme. A meeting to report on country studies that are being carried out to explore this possibility in the UK, Germany, Estonia, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain, is being held on 31st January 2006 in Brussels.
At the outset it had been felt that existing legislation would not be substantial enough, however some strong common themes have emerged from the country studies, as well as complexities associated with each legislative option.
The UK study looked at four main legislative options, and a legal opinion of the findings has been commissioned which should be available by March 2006. They were all found to have the potential for use, but all suffer from practical difficulties. There is a need for overseas cooperation with each, and enforcement agencies tend to have higher priorities so the FLEGT licensing scheme if universal would still be the best option.
The UK legislation looked at was:
· Theft Act 1968
· Civil proceedings could be brought by the original owner of the good for their recovery
· Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 which prohibits customs misdeclaration
· Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
The results of the Estonia, Italy and Netherlands studies were briefly looked at as well as some initial thoughts on options for new legislation.
The full PowerPoint file of this presentation is available at http://www.illegal-logging.info/presentations/180106/Brack.ppt and the draft country studies can be seen at http://www.illegal-logging.info/documents.php#313
Discussion
The country reports will all include the penalties associated with breaching of the legislation considered. The issue of whether this legislation could be applied to illegal timber originating in countries not part of the licensing scheme but laundered through countries with a VPA under the FLEGT scheme was raised. It was established that the circumvention issue would be looked at by Chatham House in other work.
There was some discussion of the impact of technology in supporting legislative options, and it was agreed that good tracking systems greatly improve the continuity of evidence and that making tracking a legal requirement of trading timber products might be an important step.
Public Procurement
Joan Walley MP – Chair, House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee Sub-Committee on Sustainable Timber
The Environmental Audit Committee published a report on Public Procurement of sustainable timber in 2002, which concluded that promises in this area had not been backed up by sufficient action on the part of the UK government. Three years on the situation is much improved with regard to central governmental procurement and it was felt that the establishment of CPET had made a significant difference in this area.
The current concerns held by the Select Committee are:
· Public procurement cannot be truly sustainable until it takes social criteria into account, and the UK interpretation of EU legislation in this regard is unconvincing
· CPET must be sure to endorse only sound certification schemes
· Lack of data on procurement should be urgently remedied
· The lack of harmonisation of EU procurement policies, to provide clarity to producer countries working towards export of sustainable timber products
It was also felt by the committee that the FLEGT licensing scheme would fail without broader legislation underpinning it, and failing this at the EU level, the UK should follow Germany’s example and legislate independently.
The House of Commons Environmental Audit Sub-Committee on Sustainable Timber’s most recent report is available at http://www.illegal-logging.info/documents.php#312
Discussion
It was established that the report demanded mandatory disclosure of UK procurement data and calls for expansion of the requirement for procurement of sustainable timber to local government and semi-autonomous bodies (central government would have to legislate to extend the policy to local government).
Public Procurement of Timber in Denmark – Christian Lundmark Jensen, Danish Forest and Nature Agency
The Danish Environment Protection Act of 1991 put a responsibility on to public institutions to ensure sustainable procurement. The Danish timber procurement policy was developed when it became clear that there was no real international consensus on what a timber procurement policy should look like.
The Danish model has seven central criteria for sustainable forest management, including ‘socio-economic, cultural and spiritual’ considerations, which is notable in the context of debate in other countries such as the UK over whether it is possible to include these under EU legislation. Tools have been developed for Danish public purchasers including distributed guidelines, a website and workshops.