FLEG Process and ENPI FLEG Regional Program Alexei Slenzak World Bank Budapest November 24 - 25 2010.

FLEG Process and ENPI FLEG Regional

Program

Alexei SlenzakWorld BankBudapest

November 24 - 25 2010

Background Forest Law Enforcement and Governance (FLEG) –

a multi-stakeholder process in

response to widespread failure of forest governance, characterized by illegal logging,

associated illegal trade and corruption

2

Ministerial Forest Law Enforcement and Governance Initiatives

created the political “space” at national and regional levels to address the complex FLEG issues in partnership

with major stakeholders from civil society and the private sector

3

• The East Asia Ministerial Conference on FLEG, September 2001, Bali, Indonesia

• The Africa FLEG Ministerial Conference, October 2003, Yaoundé, Cameroon

• The Europe and North Asia Ministerial Conference on FLEG, November 2005, St Petersburg, Russia

www.worldbank.org/fleg

4

• St Petersburg Declaration

• Indicative List of Actions

• Continuing dialogue

• EC – Improving Forest Law Enforcement and Governance in the ENPI East Countries and Russia (2008-2011)

5

6

Full participants (7): • Armenia• Azerbaijan• Belarus • Georgia• Republic of Moldova• Russian Federation• Ukraine

Observers (5+1): • Kazakhstan• Kyrgyz Republic• Tajikistan • Turkmenistan• Uzbekistan• + Turkey

• Implementing Organizations– World Bank, WWF and IUCN

• Support selected pilot activities – active involvement of governments, civil society

and the private sector

• ~80% of activities at a country level– and strategically targeted sub-regional & regional

actions.

7

Overall objective

8

To contribute towards:

– legal and sustainable forest management and utilization practices

– a strengthened rule of law, and

– improved local livelihoods, focusing on environmental sustainability, human right aspects and gender equity

Specific Purpose

9

To:

improve forest governance by implementing some

priorities from the ENA-FLEG Ministerial Declaration,

through selected pilot activities, with the active

involvement of governments, civil society and private

sector

PROGRESS

• Implementing Organizations– World Bank, WWF and IUCN

• PMT and PCTs

• NPACs, OC and JCT

• First year’s activities underway/ completed

10

Program Management Team (PMT)

World Bank, IUCN, WWF

Program Management Team (PMT)

World Bank, IUCN, WWF

Joint Information-Communications Team

World Bank, IUCN, WWF

Joint Information-Communications Team

World Bank, IUCN, WWF

Country Program Coordination Team (PCT)

World Bank, IUCN, WWF,Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus,

Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine and Russia

Country Program Coordination Team (PCT)

World Bank, IUCN, WWF,Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus,

Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine and Russia

National Program Advisory Committee (NPAC)

World Bank, IUCN, WWF,Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus,

Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine and Russia

National Program Advisory Committee (NPAC)

World Bank, IUCN, WWF,Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus,

Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine and Russia

Operational committee (OC): representatives of

participating countries (one from each country), World

Bank, IUCN, WWF, European Commission and donors.

First OC meeting: September 23, 2009, Kyiv

Operational committee (OC): representatives of

participating countries (one from each country), World

Bank, IUCN, WWF, European Commission and donors.

First OC meeting: September 23, 2009, Kyiv

PROGRESS• Examples:– Substantive analysis

– Communications• Website• Newsletters

– Workshops and other fora

– Surveys

– Processes

12

14

Expected PROGRAM RESULTS

1. Increased awareness and commitment

2. Effective national and regional FLEG action processes in place

3. National ownership and capacity increased

4. Improved regional collaboration

5. Engagement of key trading partners

6. Continuation of the official ENA-FLEG process

7. SFM practices being implemented

15

First Regional Conference in Chisinau• Brought together delegates from participating and

observer nations

• FLEG focal points reported progress

• Addressed issues on: – constraints to developing partnerships; – the role of training; and – addressing FLEG issues through regional partnerships.

16

Conclusions

• ENPI FLEG Program achieving results

• Agenda needs to be sustained and mainstreamed

• Feeds into and depends on the Forest Policy process

17

FLEG UKRAINE PROGRAM: KEY ACTIVITIES AND RESULTS

(September 2009 – November 2010)

What are the issues? (analytical work on typology of forest crime and IL)

– Analysis of statistics, information from law-enforcement and supervisory authorities, registry of court decisions and media publications

– Assessment of volumes of timber of doubtful origin (balance assess. method)

– Analysis of practices of planning and organization of forest use

– Identification of high risk areas

19

Analysis of legislation and recommendations for improvement

– Comparative analysis of legislation (Ukraine – EU policies/regulations/directives)

– Corruption risks of forest legislation and specific laws and regulations (Forest Code, Regulation on State Forest Guard Service, Regulation on SFC).

– Analysis of legislation regulating forest harvesting/felling– Analysis of legislation on State Forest Guard Service and

development of recommendations on its improvement– Analysis of legislation on long-term lease of forest lands

20

Sociological surveys

– Expert interviews (local authorities, forest authorities and enterprises, forest guards) - general assessment of the situation, identification of issues and potential solutions

– Opinion poll of local population in the three “high-risk” areas of the Carpathian region (assessment of situation in forest sector, access to forest resources and attitude to forest crime)

– Sociological survey among SME ( access to forest resources)

21

Support to State Forest Guard Service

– Preparation and publishing a manual for forest practitioners “Administrative violations and procedural steps to document illegal logging(forest crime)”

– Preparation of a training course “Methods of prevention of illegal harvesting and illegal timber trade”

22

Development of timber tracking system

– Learning from experience in other countries on the issues of timber quality classification and accounting• Study tour of forest practitioners to Latvia• Translation of standards and methodologies used in

Poland and Latvia – Development of practical recommendations on

confirmation of the legality of timber origin

23

Awareness on FLEG issues and consolidation of efforts

– Workshops in Kiev and other regions– Press-events– Publications in media and targeted dialogue with

journalists– Internet – Participation in international events

24

Thank You!www.enpi-fleg.org

25