FLEGT

 

 

 

 

Illegal logging has a devastating effect on communities and biodiversity. It causes vast carbon emissions and can keep poor countries in a dangerous and damaging cycle of poverty and corruption. Despite this, illegal timber and wood-based products are unwittingly bought by consumers and companies, undermining efforts to deal with the issue by making illegal logging financially viable. Illegal logging is however also often an integral part of the economy, providing support for political parties and local communities. The challenge is therefore to tackle the root causes of illegality, which include corruption, lack of clarity about land rights and the excessive influence of the timber industry over forestry policies and legislation.

 

Legal forest use, when based on laws that are environmentally sound and socially just, can ensure environmental protection whilst providing livelihoods to some of the world’s poorest peoples. The EU Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) Action Plan, and especially the Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPA) between wood producing countries and the EU, aim to ensure that wood being sold in the EU can be shown to be legal.

 

VPAs are based on the national laws of each producing country, and to date all VPAs are endorsed by the government, civil society and companies. The law that needs to be enforced is agreed after an in-depth assessment of its relevance, and reforms to address weaknesses are made when they are deemed necessary. They ensure that wood can be traced from tree to the point of export. The result is that people in forest rich (but often poor) countries won’t have their precious resources stolen, and consumers can be more sure that they are not harming people and forests with their purchases.

 

For more detail about the FLEGT Action Plan please see our presentation below: What is EU FLEGT?

 

Results 1 - 10 of 30

Documents

15/07/2011 English Civil society publications, FLEGT, Indonesia, Malaysia

Although Malaysia was one of the first countries to start negotiating a VPA, it has not yet finalised an agreement. The Ministry of Plantations Industries and Commodities never developed a proper consultation process making Malaysia the exception when compared to other VPA countries. But the signing of the VPA with Indonesia and the adoption of the EU Timber Regulation - which could have an impact on the export from Malaysia to the EU as traders may be concerned about the risk of to importing illegal timber - has now led to renewed interest in Malaysia in signing a VPA with the EU.

25/08/2010 English Cameroon, Central African Republic, Congo Brazzaville, DR Congo, Ecuador, FLEGT, Gabon, Ghana, Guyana, Indonesia, Liberia, Malaysia, Vietnam

PDF version of the slideshow which appears on the FLEGT page

03/05/2010 English FLEGT, Malaysia

The research underlying the production of this report is coordinated by the Institute for Development of Alternative Livestyle Lifestyle (IDEAL) on behalf of JOANGOHUTAN. In this report, we argue that Malaysia, and more cogently the Sarawak state government, are in violation of national, state and international laws in recognising NCR, despite clear court decisions upholding NCR.

03/05/2010 English FLEGT, Malaysia, Legality Assurance System (LAS), Legality Definition

Regarding definition of legal timber, concerns of Social NGOs expressed during the 3rd multi-stakeholder consultation, November 2007 including:

20/11/2009 English FLEGT, Malaysia

The Network of Indigenous Peoples & NGOs on Forest Issues (JOANGOHutan) and  the Indigenous Peoples' Network of Malaysia (JOAS) raised four core categories of  issues on FLEGT-VP with mInistry of Plantation Industries and Commodities through submissson dated 1 August 2008 and meeting with the Minister of Plantation Industries and Commodities on 15 August 2008.

The responses of the Ministry dated 17 November 2008 to the various issues raised are tabled in this document (re-typed)

20/11/2009 English FLEGT, Malaysia

The MPIC has furnished us with their responses dated Nov 17, 2008 to the two documents submitted during our dialogue with them. We however found that the reply from MPIC has failed to adduce any new information on the range of issues raised, apart from the positive inclusion of the Aboriginal Peoples’ Act 1954 in Principle 4 (Peninsular Malaysia) into the TLAS.