The issue of deforestation was brought under the spotlight last week, with the European Commission unveiling two initiatives to combat the problem on a global scale, including a proposal to reduce gross tropical deforestation by 50% by 2020. The package consists of a legislative proposal to control the import of illegally sourced timber entering the EU market, and a Communication proposing means of tackling deforestation and its impacts on climate change.

Proposal for a regulation 'Laying down the obligations of operators who place timber and timber products on the market'

The long waited legislative proposal to control illegal timber imports into the EU, initially foreseen by 2004, was welcomed by many. Despite acknowledging the importance of this proposal– illegal logging currently accounts for 19% I would keep this vague. We have no way of knowing such an exact figure....of timber imports into the EU, MEPs and green groups condemned the initiative for lacking ambition. 

Green MEP Caroline Lucas slammed the proposal as “toothless and inadequate to stop the influx of illegally logged timber into the EU”. This was a sentiment shared by NGOs. Global Witness, Friends of the Earth, WWF and Greenpeace all criticised the proposed measures as being too weak. Global Witness called the proposal an attempt to “not make it illegal to import illegally harvested timber into Europe”.
 
Under the proposed regulation, operators must seek sufficient guarantees to minimise the risk of placing illegally harvested timber and timber products on the market. In addition to methods aimed at deterring illegal logging, the Commission has called for incentives for legal and sustainable management and use of forests. Most NGOs feel that assessing the due diligence of a timber trader is subjective and therefore the law will not deter illegal practices. Greenpeace suggests reforming the draft regulation into an effective and credible instrument by attaching sanctions to trade in illegal timber and false labelling of products.

The pulp and paper industry also reacted negatively. Teresa Presas, the managing director of the Confederation of European Paper Industries (CEPI), expressed frustration that the proposal “focuses only on wood using industries in Europe 'rather than'dealing with…root causes” of illegal logging.

Tackling illegal logging has become increasingly relevant: It causes enormous damage to forests, to local communities and to the economies of producer countries. However illegal logging is still a lucrative business and, without sufficient means to control the trade in illegal timber, EU’s imports continue to fuel illegal logging and related criminal activities. 

NGOs are now waiting “for the European Parliament and Council of Ministers to agree to the changes that are necessary to make this legislation effective.”

Addressing the challenges of deforestation to tackle climate change

But illegal logging is not the only threat to forests worldwide. And with forest loss causing 20 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions, addressing the causes of deforestation has become high in the political discussions against global warming.

The Communication on deforestation outlines the Commission’s position on this issue. The NGOs welcomed the Communication for recognising that, to address forest loss, governance and local peoples’ tenure rights must be secured. Iola Leal from FERN, an environmental and human rights NGO, said that the recognition that “the first step to forest protection is clarification of and commitment to local communities and indigenous peoples’ rights” is very important, and the only way forest conservation can work.

The Communication outlines the dangers of including forests in the ETS, and proposes not to include them in the market for at least a decade. It shows concerns about unresolved questions regarding monitoring deforestation and related carbon emissions, country reporting, verification of reports and liability. The possibility of flooding the market with forest credits also featured prominently. These concerns are shared by most forests and human rights NGOs, who have concerns about the ability of carbon markets to address deforestation and halt climate change. 

“Opening the door to using forests as an offset, as opposed to taking strong action to require Member States to reduce emissions, can only make matters worse,” says Leal of FERN. “There is increased evidence that the focus on forests as part of a new climate regime may lead to further land grabs by governments and companies keen to make money from the carbon stock in forests, with attendant human rights abuses, while failing to reduce deforestation and climate chaos.”

The Communication proposes the creation of a Global Forest Carbon Mechanism (GFCM) to tackle deforestation and forest degradation, which should at least in part be funded by the EU's emission trading system (ETS). It states that funding should be made available in the first place to tackle the issue between 2013-20 and that the amount of funding will be dependent on the mitigation efforts made by developing countries. If 5% of ETS revenue were made available for the scheme, it is estimated that the EU would be able to contribute up to €2.5 billion to GFCM.