"Is Ghana's FLEGT VPA grinding to a halt..." Discussion of the challenges continues

"Is Ghana's FLEGT VPA grinding to a halt..." Discussion of the challenges continues...: After a rather long break I am back to continue with the discussion on the challenges of Ghana's forest sector and will focus on inform...

"Is Ghana's FLEGT VPA grinding to a halt..." Discussion of the challenges

After a rather long break I am back to continue with the discussion on the challenges of Ghana's forest sector and will focus on information disclosure, transparency, accountability and multi-stakeholder participation.

2.4      Inadequate disclosure of information, transparency, accountability and multi-stakeholder participation

Along with the challenge of disclosure of information, transparency and accountability, there is the problem of weak stakeholder participation and consultation in the sector. Ghana’s VPA negotiations were hailed internationally and locally as an inclusive, multi-stakeholder participatory process. It was a marked improvement in the level of trust and engagement between government and CSOs. As pointed out in the press release of the first JMRM, the European Commission commended and encouraged Ghana to continue with the participatory approach it had established during the negotiation phase and to further strengthen stakeholder involvement.[1] There was an indication from the EU that increased support to the forestry sector was in recognition of these good governance and multi-stakeholder processes. However, since the ratification of the VPA in 2009, the level of involvement and trust between CSOs and government has dwindled. Although there has been one isolated case[2] of truly participatory and inclusive multi-stakeholder policy-making since the VPA was ratified, the general multi-stakeholder and participatory governance environment in the sector has been weak. It is hoped that the multi-stakeholder process that characterized the review of the Forest and Wildlife policy becomes the norm rather than an isolated case.

In general, participation and stakeholder involvement in reform has amounted to little more than attendance at information meetings, at which the government’s proposals are expected just to be rubber-stamped, since concerns raised by CSOs are barely incorporated in the outcome of these processes or in the final versions of the documents. The lack of a genuine multi-stakeholder approach in the REDD+ process has undermined the FLEGT VPA process, as they run parallel to each other. Even though both processes are managed by the Forestry Commission and the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources (MLNR), there does not seem to be a common approach or any attempt to address synergies on forest governance. CSOs are given less time and information to undertake proper consultation to take into account the views of their constituents (forest communities, etc). There has been a drastic change in approach by the government in consulting with stakeholders, compared with the negotiation phase. For instance, CSOs were barely consulted during the development of the VPA legality verification protocols and manuals,[3] which are a key element of the VPA.[4]  Disclosure of information on the performance of both parties to the implementation of the VPA has also been inadequate. In the 4–6 July 2011 memorandum of the JMRM,[5] parties agreed to publish an annual report on progress in implementing the VPA. Such reports are important for CSOs to monitor the government’s performance and inform their constituents. This encourages transparency, accountability and good governance in the sector. Such reports will also help to expose malpractice, for instance in the awarding of permits. Also at the last JMRM,[6] the government encouraged CSOs to provide a list of information that it would be useful to have in the public domain. CSOs have not responded to this request so far. It is important that CSOs respond to the request by publishing a list of the information that is needed to increase transparency and accountability in the forest sector.

While the government clearly has not respected the multi-stakeholder nature during the VPA implementation, it is fair to say that since the VPA was ratified in 2009, the CSO dynamics have also changed. Some key front-line CSO activists have gone on to different assignments, leaving a vacuum. The transition process has not been as coherent and effective as it should have been. This obviously has taken some energy and enthusiasm out of the CSO movement in the sector. This reduced civil society engagement might also have contributed to the slow pace at which the Ghana VPA has been moving, since there is inadequate pressure from CSOs on the government to move forward on meaningful governance reform in the sector. In the VPA implementation phase, the CSOs’ campaigns have often been reactive rather than proactive. There is obviously a need for reorganization and the injection of some new energy and potentially younger activists into the civil society movement to drive the agenda forward.

---

[1] Reference is made to the press release from the first JMRM meeting on 27–29 January 2010 and available on the FC website at www.fcghana.org

[2] With regard to the development of the new Forest and Wildlife policy, progress was made in the multi-stakeholder consultation process. There was substantial time allowed for CSOs to consult with the constituents, and the views proposed in memoranda and documented comments to the draft texts were on the whole incorporated in the final document that was passed.

[3] CSOs’ concern about reduced consultations on the legality verification protocols and manuals is contained in the 28–31 May 2013 JMRM memorandum. Available at www.fcghana.org

[4] The third JMRM memorandum of 4–6 July 2011 states that these manuals have been drafted and are ready to be tested on the field. Available on the FC website at www.fcghana.org

[5] The memorandum of the JMRM of 4–6 July 2011 mentioned that a structure of a 2010 report had been agreed and that the 2010 report would be published as soon as possible. However, at the time of writing(August 2013) no such report was in the public domain.

[6] Memorandum of the fifth JMRM held on 28–31 May 2013, andavailable at the FC website: www.fcghana.org

Global Environmental Governance with particular emphasis on the Forest sector : Is Ghana's FLEGT VPA grinding to a halt...? Discus...

Global Environmental Governance with particular emphasis on the Forest sector : Is Ghana's FLEGT VPA grinding to a halt...? Discus...: I continue the discussion of the challenges of the Ghana FLEGT VPA process and why I believe there is need for urgent and coherent action by...

Is Ghana's FLEGT VPA grinding to a halt...? Discussion of challenges continues

I continue the discussion of the challenges of the Ghana FLEGT VPA process and why I believe there is need for urgent and coherent action by all stakeholders to steer the VPA on the path to deliver some real gains in forest governance. Today I will focus on the issue of non-conversion of logging leases to Timber Utilization Contracts according to the requirement of the Timber Resources Management

2.3     Non-conversion of “old” leases to Timber Utilization Contracts (TUCs)

The coming into force of the Timber Management Act (Act 547, 1998) and Amendment Act (Act 617, 2002) obliged the government to convert all old leases[1] (pre 1997) which were granted timber companies into the new permit type (i.e. TUC). An important reason for the introduction of the law was to block all the leakages of revenue losses to government and forest stakeholders from exploitation of timber resources and also to ensure the right market price are paid for timber. Ghana’s legality matrix recognizes the TUC and not the leases as a legal permit type for harvest of timber for domestic and international trade. The VPA thus enforces an obligation on government to convert all these leases into TUC and for the right timber rent fees to be charged. Since the coming into force of the law, this conversion has not been done because of struggles between the industry and government on technicalities and alleged illegal legitimacy (or locus) of government to do so. So far the government has been weak in dealing with this challenge even upon persistent pressure from CSOs[2]. A handful of TUCs have actually been granted by the Forestry Commission (62 out of over 800)[3]. Majority of permits are salvage permits, TUPs, leases and special permits. This is maintaining the status-quo and ensuring that poor forest communities are subsidizing the operations of timber companies. This means that by continuing to operate these permits, Ghana will flood the market with timber that cannot be given a FLEGT license and this will cause a delay in the date of issuing FLEGT licensed timber to Europe and other markets.  This will not only have an impact on the domestic market but also questions Ghana’s political commitment to implementing the VPA negotiated with the EU in 2008.

---

[1] Leases were another permit type but this was outlawed by the Timber Resources Management Regulation, 2003. The leases were not granted upon competitive bidding processes. Also the TUC had different regimes for revenue collection to ensure that government maximizes its economic benefit from the exploitation of the resource

[2] CSOs also raised the issue at the 4^th JMRM of the VPA held from 13^th -16^th March, 2012. Available at the Forestry Commission website, www.fcghana.org. This is in addition to the letters sent to the FC and MLNR by FWG to protest the administrative abuse of the salvage permits.

[3] The information is sourced from Global Witness analysis of official Ghana logging permits lists which shows that three quarters of Ghana’s logging permits could break Europe’s new timber law. It is available at http://www.globalwitness.org/ghanapermits

Global Environmental Governance with particular emphasis on the Forest sector : "Is Ghana's FLEGT VPA grinding to a halt...Challen...

 "Is Ghana's FLEGT VPA grinding to a halt...Challen...: Today I continue with my series on the paper: Is Ghana's FLEGT VPA grinding to a halt and failing to achieve improvement in forest governance

"Is Ghana's FLEGT VPA grinding to a halt...Challenge of administrative abuse of permits regime"

Today I continue with my series on the paper: Is Ghana's FLEGT VPA grinding to a halt and failing to achieve improvement in forest governance? I will tackle the challenge of administrative abuse of the permits regime and its consequences and why all stakeholders especially government needs to do more to achieve improvements by enforcing the VPA requirements. 

2.2      Administrative abuse of timber permits regime

Ghana’s timber permit regime is still faced with irregularities and the underlying challenge of corruption and abuse of the system has worsened since the VPA was ratified. Several studies and statements from CSOs have pointed to this challenge but authorities (Forestry Commission and its parent Ministry) have remained adamant to not only admit the problem but also fail to find lasting solutions that address them.  An example of the challenge facing the permits regime is the administrative abuse of salvage permits[1]. In 2010, Forest Watch Ghana communicated to the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resource and Parliament’s Select Committee on Lands and Forestry on alleged cases of abuse of the timber permits regime resulting from analysis of the process of awarding the permits and the content of over 100 salvage permits that had been issued between 2009 and 2010. These concerns were also raised during the Joint Monitoring and Review Mechanism (JMRM)[2] of the VPA. The analysis showed that in the over 100 salvage permits issued, an average of 130 trees were allocated per permit. Several permits were granted for harvesting more 300 trees and at least one permit had been issued for an excess of 1000 trees. In total the number of trees according to the FC that needed salvage in 2009 and 2010 was in excess of 15, 800. It is intriguing to note that the Forestry Commission in contrast to its own practice however had held Timber Utilization Contracts (TUC)[3] auction for lots as small as 40 trees in the past. In a recent report published by Global Witness[4], there has been a sharp increase in salvage permits issued since 2010. The number of salvage permits issued in 2009 and 2010 had increased by about 360% (from 120 to 430)[5] compared to the number issued between 2011 and 2012. There are a number of legal difficulties that arise from the abuse of the salvage permits. First of all, these permits are awarded in contravention of the Timber Resources Management Act (1997), Act 547 and its amendments. Section 9 of the Timber Resources Management Regulations, 2003 (LI 1649) says that timber rights can only be allocated by auction involving pre-qualified bidders. As far as records available to CSOs suggests, none of these were auctioned (or at least not publicly). Secondly, Article 268 of Ghana’s Constitution requires parliamentary ratification of all grants of natural resource rights. CSOs maintain that salvage permits as a category of permits needs parliamentary ratification. This allows parliament to verify that due process has been followed. None of these salvaging permits received parliamentary ratification. In recent times when the issue had been put forward to the Forestry Commission, their response has been that they have acted within their legal remit citing provisions in the 1992 Constitution article 269 (2) which states “parliament may, by resolution supported by votes of not less than two-thirds of all the members of parliament, exempt from the provisions of clause (1) of this article any particular class of transactions, contract or undertakings”. There is no evidence that such a waiver has been provided by parliament. The Forestry Commission must therefore come clean and explain to the public the rate of increase in issuance of salvage permits in recent years (2009 to 2012). There are critical questions that need answers. What processes did the Forestry Commission go through to determine that so many trees needed salvage? In each case what assessments were carried out? Who was consulted? What was District Assembly’s involvement? What other alternatives were considered? How is all of this documented? With this challenge persisting, Ghana’s timber carries a high risk for EU importers. In light of the EUTR, such importers should be worried. The FC’s blatant abuse of the salvage permits upon persistent pressure from CSOs will not only undermine the credibility of Ghana’s timber exports to the EU, undermine the credibility of the Ghana-EU VPA and pose a high risk to EU buyers but is also a decoy to evade the transparency and competitive requirements of the law[6].  

---

[1] Section 38 (1) of the Timber Resource Management Regulations, 1998 (LI 1649) as amended allows the FC to issue salvaging permits “... for the salvage of trees from an area of land undergoing development such as road construction, expansion of human settlement or cultivation of farms (emphasis added)”. This is contained in FWG’s media statement challenging the administrative abuse of salvage permits. In law, there is no exact number trees to be awarded for salvage, however in practice if the number is reasonably high (more than 40 by the FC’s own standards), it is prudent to rather allocate the rights to harvest the timber through a TUC than a salvage permit to allow for the maximum revenue to be derived from the operation.

[2] The JMRM is made up of representatives of the EU and the Government of Ghana responsible for monitoring and reporting on the implementation of the VPA. The concerns raised are recorded in the Aide Memoir of the JMRM held from the 4-6 July, 2011 and available at the FC website at www.fcghana.org 

[3] TUC is the only type of permits allowed for medium to large scale timber companies to harvest timber and process for trade. Permits are awarded through competitive bidding according to the Timber Resources Management Regulation (2003) and are expected to bring in the maximum revenue possible to government in the exploitation of timber resources.

[4] Records on permits issued between 2009 to 2012 obtained by GW from the Forestry Commission was used in analysis and subsequent report on abuse of permits system in Ghana; available on http://www.globalwitness.org/ghanapermits

[5] Data on permits issued by government that was provided to GW by the Forestry Commission, contained information on all types of permits including salvage permits issued from 2009 to 2012. The analysis is also based on data sourced by FWG in 2011 which showed the number of salvage permits issued by Forestry Commission in 2009 and 2010.

[6] Timber Resources Management Act, 1997 and the Timber Resources Management Regulations, 2003

Global Environmental Governance with particular emphasis on the Forest sector : Is Ghana's FLEGT VPA grinding to a halt...? Challe...

Global Environmental Governance with particular emphasis on the Forest sector : Is Ghana's FLEGT VPA grinding to a halt...? Challe...: Continuing from earlier post (in the series) on the paper "Is Ghana's FLEGT VPA grinding to a halt and failing to achieve improvem...

Is Ghana's FLEGT VPA grinding to a halt...? Challenges of the forest sector

Continuing from earlier post (in the series) on the paper "Is Ghana's FLEGT VPA grinding to a halt and failing to achieve improvements in forest governance?". I delve into the challenges of the forest sector. I will first talk about the challenge of over-exploitation of timber and Chainsaw Milling. My intention here is to point and dwell more on the underlying causes of this challenge and the solutions to address the underlying causes. 

2         Challenges of the forest sector

2.1      Overexploitation of timber and Chainsaw Milling 

One of the main challenges of the forest sector is the overexploitation of forest resources. There is excess installed capacity of the timber processing mills (5 million m³ installed log processing capacity)[1] compared to the supply of raw material. Currently Ghana is harvesting timber at unsustainable levels (both in the on and off-reserve areas). An estimated 4.5 million m³ is extracted annually, which is more than double the Annual Allowable Cut (AAC) set by the Forestry Commission at 2 million m³. This problem of overharvesting is closely linked with the Chainsaw Milling (CSM) issue. According to estimates from recent studies[2], CSM alone is currently supplying 2.5 million m³ (above the ACC) to both domestic and international wood market. Majority of lumber found on the various timber markets scattered across the country (Takoradi, Ofankor, koforidua, Sokoban wood village, etc) come from Chainsaw Milling operations. There are several underlying causes for overexploitation of timber and CSM. Unfair benefit sharing arrangements, lack of clear and secure tenure arrangements for land and trees, unfair access to the forests especially for communities are some of them. The domestic timber market policy and the procurement policy have been discussed by stakeholders for some months now (started in 2012). There is scepticism among some civil society organizations (CSOs) whether these policies have the requisite reform approach to halt and reverse the trend of deforestation or even tackle the problem of CSM heads-on. The objective and approach of any workable proposal should be the involvement of the Chainsaw operators in the bidding process for timber permits and regulate their operations. It should also include strategies to introduce their operations to efficient machinery like the logosaws and improving benefit sharing between government, farmers and landowners.

---

[1] The Annual Allowable Cut (based on sustainable levels) of timber in Ghana is set at 2 million m³ by the Forestry Commission

[2] The report on Chainsaw milling in Ghana, drivers, contexts and impacts 2010 by Emmanuel Marfo (works with the Forest Research Institute of Ghana, FORIG) provides information and statistics on the dynamics and impacts of Chainsaw Milling in Ghana. Most of the statistical data on chainsaw milling and its impacts were source from the publication. 

Feedback and some clarifications regarding my earlier post on "why carbon trading is not the solution to the climate change crisis"

I received some positive feedback from my earlier post on the subject of carbon trading and why I believe that a future climate regime should avoid including that mechanism of financing any realistic improvements in the climate change crisis from a colleague in the sector. It was an engaging discussion and based on that I would want to offer a few clarifications.

1. In principle, I am not against the substance of "off-setting" schemes as long as they are not financed by carbon trading tools. This is clearly what I mean! The fact that you can pollute (release carbon into the atmosphere) somewhere are take actions in another place to capture the carbon (through improved agriculture technologies that enable the soil, crops or trees to capture more carbon than they usually will) or plant trees to capture the carbon is not that a bad idea. How you finance such a scheme of this off-setting is my problem, in which case I am totally against the idea of financing it through carbon trading i.e polluters trading money in exchange of carbon credits that is owned through any of the tools mentioned above in tropical forest countries. I am totally against it because of the reasons I gave in the earlier post. The second and equally important reason is that such a mechanism does not force radical shift in the way western economies behave to cut emissions. This is "business-as-usual" usual scenario and this does not solve the climate crisis. We are told by the IPCC that we need to cut emissions drastically if we are to avoid the catastrophe that awaits us as a human race. There is need to cut consumerism in the West, reduce our carbon dioxide emissions, shift our energy dependence on coal among others. The off-setting schemes as currently being pushed will only maintain the status-quo. Keep on polluting and plant trees or undertake among others agro, forestry based technologies in tropical countries to capture that carbon.

2. In principle I am also not against, any "off-setting" mechanism that helps farmers in Africa for instance in practicing new technologies that helps to improve their cocoa yields and also capture carbon (for instance through shade-tolerant cocoa agroforestry technologies). It will improve their yields, help to create forest resources and obviously improve their livelihoods.I am an Agroforester by training so I am aware of the benefits of such a scheme. I am totally against, rewarding the farmers through the carbon emissions captured by these agroforestry technologies through carbon trading.

3.I am totally in favour of a fund-based mechanism for rewarding the efforts of communities, farmers and tropical forest governments for capturing excess carbon in the atmosphere. The technicalities of how such a fund should be run to ensure that farmers and governments who invest in such carbon capturing technologies are rewarded should be in the domain of any international climate change mitigation regime discussions.

4. In conclusion, I reiterate that I am not in support of any climate change mitigation effort (in a future global climate change regime) that focuses on using carbon trading as a tool to achieve an off-set scheme. The West must do more to cut emissions, we must also encourage tropical countries and their communities to invest in improved farming technologies, agroforestry, and forest mitigation technologies that ensures sustainability and helps to reduce the global carbon dioxide levels. Such investments should be rewarded through a fund-based mechanism and not carbon trading. I understand what the benefits are of one over the other.

I hope this provides some clarifications. And of course this is an on-going debate at the international level. And this is my take on some of the issues.

Is Ghana's FLEGT VPA grinding to a halt...Introduction

In a 7-part series, I will be bringing you closer to the contents of my paper with the title: "Is Ghana's FLEGT VPA grinding to a halt and failing to achieve improvement in forest governance". Today, I will deal with the introduction and follow it subsequently with details of the challenges that the sector still face and then conclude with some proposals on the way forward. I have already provided the summary to this paper in an earlier post on my blog. I will at the end provide a link to where you can access the full paper. So lets get into the details now!

1         Introduction

1.1      Ghana’s forest sector

Forests remain important in the socio-economic sectors of Ghana. Locally, forests remain a sacred place of connection for communities for spiritual and cultural purposes. Forests provide raw materials for building and are an important source of food for forest fringe communities. It offers employment, income and supports several hundreds of rural livelihoods. At the national level, the forest sector is estimated to contribute 4% to the GDP. However, Ghana’s forest cover has reduced from an estimated 8.6 million ha to 1.6 million ha since the turn of the century. The timber industry export provided 10% of foreign exchange for the country between 1990 and 2000 which declined to 8.1% in 2005 and to 1.3% in 2011. The forest sector provides direct employment for more than 270,000 people (both formal and informal sectors) and livelihood to around 650,000[1] people (indirect employment/income). Chainsaw milling (CSM)’s contribution to the domestic timber market is estimated at US $554 million (GHc 280 million)[2] while the formal sector in terms of export of timber provides around US $180 million (between 2009 and 2010)[3]. The EU remains an important export destination of Ghana’s timber[4].  

1.2      Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT)

In 2009 Ghana and the European Union ratified a Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) to regulate the trade in timber and timber products within the framework of the Forest Law Enforcement and Governance, Trade (FLEGT) Action Plan. On the demand side, significant progress has been made with the coming into force of the EU’s Timber Regulation (EUTR) in March 2013, which prohibits the import of illegal timber and places a responsibility on importers to check their suppliers to ensure that they purchase legal timber. Penalties are determined by individual EU countries but could be up to two years imprisonment or a 50,000 EURO fine[5]. Even though the responsibility of proof of illegality rests with the importing companies in the EU, there is the risk of blacklisting of exporting companies in Ghana when it is proven that their timber is exploited in violation of the Ghanaian laws once the VPA comes into force. Under the EUTR, importing companies have the responsibility to ensure due diligence is undertaken on all timber products imported and demonstrate measures to mitigate any risks involved with their trade. On the supply side, the VPA is to ensure that a FLEGT licence covers consignment of shipment of timber to the EU proving its legality with the country’s laws on forestry. As will be shown in the subsequent paragraphs it is very likely that most of Ghana’s exported timber does not currently meet the legality definition of the VPA because necessary legal reforms in the sector has not yet been achieved. The VPA is also aimed at assisting timber producing countries to improve governance in the forest sector in return for guaranteed market access for timber into the EU. The Ghana VPA includes a wide range of necessary policy and legal reforms that will promote transparency, accountability and good governance[6]. Since the VPA came into force in 2009, most activities have focused on how to put technical specifications of the Legality Assurance System (LAS) in place and to pilot the Wood Tracking System (WTS) which is part of the LAS to ensure traceability of timber along the value chain from the forest of origin to the port of export. Since the pilot system was completed in 2012, little progress has been made with regards to scaling it up at the national level.

1.3      Governance reforms envisaged by the VPA

The promised governance improvement integrated in the VPA and towards improved transparency and accountability is not happening. The fundamental challenges are deepening rather than abating. Ghana is moving at a snail’s pace with the VPA implementation and this threatens the credibility of the VPA process, the created momentum and its appropriateness to improve forest governance. This paper highlights the persisting challenges in the forest sector and explains why there is the need for CSOs to put pressure on government and the EU to move forward on them or risk plunging the whole FLEGT VPA into a credibility crisis.  The paper further aims to inform the general public on the remaining challenges in order to galvanise stakeholder support to demand the necessary governance reform. The focus of this paper is on the governance reform aspects of the VPA that is necessary to ensure accountability, transparency and coordination of capacity for participation. It will indicate the progress made since the VPA was ratified in 2009 and then conclude by providing some recommendations on the way forward.

---

[1] This represents 2.6% of the population of the country

[2] GHc is Ghana cedis (national currency for Ghana). Using an exchange rate of GHc 1 to $ 1.98 at the time of writing the paper

[3] This data is sourced from the Ghana government’s Forest Investment Plan. The Plan is the government’s proposal for funding from the Forest Investment Program of the Climate Investment Fund run by World Bank (WB), African Development Bank (AfDB) and the International Finance Corporation (IFC) 

[4] According to the June 2013 edition of the TIDD of Forestry Commission’s report on the trade and export performance of the industry, Europe emerged as the major destination for Ghana’s wood products export during Jan-June 2013. Export to various European countries in Jan- June 2013 amounted to Euro 29.76million (48.48%) from a volume of about 56,700m3 (41.28%). Report available on http://www.fcghana.org/assets/file/Publications/Industry_Trade/Export_Reports/year%202013/June_2013.pdf

[5] Information is sourced from a recently published study of Global Witness that alleges massive abuse of Ghana’s timber permits systems and alarms of high-risk coming from Ghana. Available on http://www.globalwitness.org/ghanapermits

[6] Press release from the first (1^st) Joint Monitoring and Review Mechanism (JMRM) of the Ghana-EU VPA published on January 29, 2010. Available at the Forestry Commission website: www.fcghana.org

Is Ghana's FLEGT VPA grinding to a halt and failing to achieve improvement in forest governance?

A new paper from Kingsley Bekoe Ansah (to be published soon). Just a preview of the abstract.

Summary

Even though forests remain important in the socio-economic sectors of Ghana, they are declining at an alarming rate (approximately 135, 000 ha annually)[1]. As a result their contribution of providing raw materials, employment, income and support for rural livelihoods is under threat. In 2009, Ghana ratified a Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) with the European Union (EU) to halt deforestation and improve governance in the forest sector by regulating the trade in timber and timber products into the EU market. According to the VPA, Ghana is expected to reform the policy and legislative framework of the forest sector to improve governance. Ghana is also expected to install a Legality Assurance System (LAS) to monitor and verify the legality of processed timber for domestic and international markets. Five years since the VPA was ratified, the governance challenges facing the forestry sector persists and in some cases it has even worsened. Overexploitation of timber resources is continuing at alarming rates fuelled in part by the Chainsaw Milling (CSM). There is still unclear and unfair access and benefit sharing of naturally occurring trees on farmlands. Government’s abuse of the permits regime (especially salvage permits) is on the rise. Concession leases have not been converted to Timber Utilization Contracts (TUCs) as mandated by law and the VPA. There is inadequate accountability, transparency and disclosure of information on forestry operations.  Stumpage fees have not been revised since 2004 as stipulated by law[2] resulting in millions of US dollars loss in revenue and high social cost in timber exploitation.  And finally, Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) dynamics have changed resulting in decreased momentum and involvement in the implementation phase of the VPA. These challenges clearly threaten the ability of the VPA to live up to the expectation of improving forest governance in the sector, halting trade in illegal timber and improving sustainable forest management.

There is urgency for all stakeholders to work towards achieving the objectives of the VPA. Government should stop the rhetoric and actually demonstrate commitment to governance reform by reviewing and enforcing new stumpage fees and convert all leases to TUCs. Parliament should exercise its oversight responsibility by investigating the administrative abuse of the permits regime (especially the salvage permits) by government, recommend and implement corrective measures. CSOs should re-organize and re-strategize to maximize the effect of their seat at the table and influence the process to ensure reforms respond to the objectives of the VPA. CSOs need to provide workable and credible proposals and alternatives on the way forward. They need to hold the government accountable to all forest stakeholders. The EU and donors of the forestry sector need to put pressure on government to ensure that governance reforms are implemented. The implementation of governance reforms should therefore be strictly tied to funding and that release of funding is tied with achievement of governance reform targets set. A reformed land and tree tenure regime that fairly and equitably shares the benefits from tree exploitations and rewards farmers for nurturing trees on their farms should be pursued vigorously by the government and all actors in the sector.  

In conclusion, there is hope for the Ghana VPA to achieve its objective of ensuring improvements in transparency, accountability and good governance in the forest sector.  However all stakeholders must rise to the challenge and show the same level of commitment, enthusiasm, optimism and good will that characterised the negotiation process.

---

[1] Data is obtained from the Ghana government Forest Investment Plan. Available at www.fcghana.org

[2] The Timber Resources Management (Amendment) Regulation (2003), LI 1721 provides for timber right holders to pay stumpage fees which “shall be reviewed to reflect market demand and inventory levels of timber species”.

Carbon trading is not the solution to the climate change crises

There is a universal agreement on the problem of climate change (even though there are still scepticism by a few on the cause of the problem). Excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the major cause. We (as humans) need to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide we push into the atmosphere and design solutions to capture the excess already in the system. But is carbon offsetting the solution? Carbon off-setting can be explained simply as polluting (continuing to emit carbon in mostly the Global North) and planting trees in another place in the Global South (to capture this carbon that is emitted). With this arrangement industries in the Global North can continue to increase production and expand and increase consumerism while they buy the credit for this pollution in the Global South (using their forests as collateral). Carbon trading as it is called has potential to displace several thousands of local people in tropical countries increasing land grabbing and further entrenching poverty. This is another attempt by "carbon cowboys" to commodify forests and trade it for their selfish, parochial interests. This is a bad solution to the problem (as I also explained to David Shukman of the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8139351.stm). Tropical countries need to be fully compensated (and here I mean ensuring that there is no elite capture in the tropical countries) for keeping their forests and using it in a sustainable manner that improves their livelihoods. This means that there is "wise use of forests and sustainable forestry practices" and NOT "no use" of forests. The public, civil society organizations must rise up against attempts by the World Bank and the likes to go that dangerous roading of carbon trading.