NGO view on EUTR Rudi Kohnert, FERN - Writingthefuture.org

A civil society <strong>view</strong> on the
importance of FLEGT
(so far)
Rudi Kohnert
May 2013
The campaigning <strong>NGO</strong> for greater environmental and social justice, with a focus on forests and
forest peoples rights in the policies and practices of the EU

Structure of presentation
Ways of looking at FLEGT
(and how FERN looks at it)
What has been good about the
process so far
What part the EUTR plays in this
Summary of achievements,
challenges and key messages

Facets of FLEGT
Agreement to facilitate clean trade
‘Trade barrier’ / bureaucratic hurdle
Technical challenge
Weapon against illegal loggers
Tool to promote good governance
Opportunity for citizens to be heard
And defend their rights

An anecdote from a rural Lao woman ….

Perspectives
Logging has to be sustainable,
and not deprive forest-dependent
communities of their livelihoods
So…..
- it is important that the people whose lives depend on forests,
have a say in how they are managed
Otherwise …..
- those with economic and political power can decide on
definitions of (il)legal timber in their own interests (and
marginalise or even criminalise forest-dependent communities)
.

Outcomes attributed to broader stakeholder
participation in Vietnam
1. Significance for forest-dependent communities
2. Significance in supporting FLEGT
3. ‘Political’ significance

Creating space for CSO participation
in the Vietnamese VPA process
Political – under control of one-party state
(no room for dissenting opinions)
Legal space – Since ~2005, <strong>NGO</strong>s tolerated but not if their positions can
be characterised as subversive
Cultural – individual subservient to society
Economic - emphasis on exports; pressure to sign a VPA quickly
Points to government selection of participants it wants to see
involved including ‘cosmetic’ civil society representation
(‘invited for their expertise’)

Political significance
Hitherto, the government was
dismissive of local <strong>NGO</strong>s, and
either (conveniently?) ignored
them or didn’t even know of their
existence, so….
Already a major (possibly unique
to-date) step for V<strong>NGO</strong>s to be part
of the process

The other side of the coin – what can go wrong
Consultation has sometimes been tokenistic (CSOs being used to legitimise
the process)
Stalemate in Malaysia around key CSO issues about:
disputes over land (should be settled prior to logging),
timber harvested in disputed areas (should be considered illegal),
customary laws (should include unwritten but recognised customary
practices),
the definition of legality (needs a clause that timber and its products
be free from ‘aboriginal or native customary’ claims)

The EU FLEGT Action Plan
A range of measures to combat illegal logging:
‣ Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPAs)
‣ Government Procurement Policies
‣ Financial due diligence
‣ EUTR

FERN believes…
VPAs are a real tool for for improving forest
governance.
Governments, private sector and civil
society are coming together to negotiate;
as all see in VPAs a potential way towards
better F LE – G - T
The EUTR motivates governments to
engage in the process (provided it works)

Legality and limits of regulation
Enforcing laws
Improving Governance
• Focus on legality.
• Focus on clamping down
on offenders.
• (not focusing on the
underlying causes of
illegalities)
• Focus on justice.
• Focus on ‘process’.
• Focusing on
participation,
coordination, capacity,
accountability and
transparency

Achievements to date
Participation has increased dramatically (though not
everywhere);
Capacity of governmental bodies and local civil society
actors has increased;
Greater coordination within local platforms and networks
(CRN) and among stakeholders
Land tenure and legal reforms, linked to VPA, are higher on
the agenda;
Transparency / accountability? Too early to say but hopeful.
Benefits for communities? Too early to say but hopeful.

But the process is threatened by….
∆ Increasing demand and financial investment in
agricultural commodities and mining (land grabbing)
∆ Low quality or no broad stakeholder participation
∆ With no progress on licences the EUTR will be harder
to comply with, and credibility in the agreement could
be eroded and undermine the successes to date

Key points
‣ VPAs have potential to improve governance if
local CSOs are able to make use of space
provided;
‣ despite no FLEGT licences yet, valuable
achievements have already been registered
from a CSO perspective
‣ <strong>NGO</strong>s on same side as the private sector in
wanting progress on licences to make
compliance with the EUTR easier
‣ If the EUTR is not properly enforced, it will
undermine the achievements and potential
achievements of VPAs

www.fern.org
rue d’Edimbourg 26
1000 Brussels
Belgium
rudi@fern.org
The campaigning <strong>NGO</strong> for greater environmental and social justice, with a focus on forests and
forest peoples rights in the policies and practices of the EU