VERIFORInstitutional options for

verifying legality in the forest sector

A PARTNERSHIP

BETWEEN

Funding agencies

European Commission [80%]• Budget Line b7-620, ‘Program on Tropical Forests and

other Forests in Developing Countries‘

Government of Netherlands [20%]

Additional funding from: GTZ/CIM, Government of Germany

• Support for Latin America component, 2005-7

Structure of this presentation

1. VERIFOR’s aims

2. Project sequencing

3. Sources of learning

4. Project outputs

5. Conceptual matrix

6. Some policy messages

7. Contacts

VERIFOR’s objectives

Project objectives:

1. To combat illegal logging by helping to build internationally & nationally credible systems of verification

2. To do so in ways that are: equitable

• socially just & not damaging to the poor developmentally sound

• develop & strengthen national policy processes

VERIFOR foci

Verification – as additional control arrangements Where there is doubt about the functioning of ‘normal control

systems’ ‘Cross-checking’ arrangements Can be routinised or exceptional

Institutional dimensions of verification Policy Institutions ~ rules & principles (cf. technical means) Social Issues

• Public accountability and legitimacy• Effects upon the poor

Producer-country orientation A focus on ‘national ownership’ Practical and appropriate advice and instruments

Project sequencing

Phase One: International and inter-sectoral learning

Learning from existing systems & practices• Forest sector and extra-sectoral case studies

Phase One Experts Meeting in 2006 (Mallorca) & Regional Meetings and Events (Asia-Pacific/Africa/Latin America)

Phase Two: Policy process development

Help interested parties build verification systems with international credibility

Networking & sharing of knowledge

Some sources of learning ~ ‘strands of knowledge’

1. Existing forest management and monitoring systems

– e.g. Ecuador, The Philippines, Brazil, British Columbia

2. The experience of forest certification

3. The experience of environmental rights monitors and watchdogs

– e.g. Cambodia, Cameroon, Honduras, Indonesia

4. Extra-sectoral experience– e.g diamonds, nuclear TBT, UNFCCC, CITES, election monitoring

Project outputs

1. Publications: [www.verifor.org]– Forest sector country case studies [13]– Extra-sectoral case studies [7]– Briefing papers – Concept papers– Book on forest sector verification (2007 publication date)

2. Information sharing & training events

3. Seminars

4. Networking and exchange visits for lesson-learning

POLITICAL MANDATE

LEGAL BASIS DESIGN RESULTS

The object:The aims of verification-Good governance -Conservation-Growth -Poverty reduction

The object:The ‘rules of the game’Legal framework -Legal tradition-Standards of performance-Rights & responsibilities -Compliance regime -Access to information & justice

The object:The design of the verification systemBuilding blocks-Organisational characteristics-Architecture

The object:The Outcomes of verification Public support-Progressive governance-Effects on poor-Objectives met-Collateral factors

Process:The drivers -Individual and organisational drivers (internal and external) -Political culture

Process:Policy closure – actors and authority-Supervision-Facilitation-Participation

Process:The delivery of verification-Participation-Resolution of conflicts-Phasing

Process:Measurement and interpretation

Key theme: - OWNERSHIP

Key theme: - LEGALITY STANDARD

Key theme: - INDEPENDENCE

Key theme: - IMPACTS

The Conceptual Matrix

–

Some policy messages~1

1. ‘Forest verification must be embedded in a ‘forest governance system’ in which the policies, legal framework and institutional architecture work in a coherent manner’ [eg. Brazil, Ecuador case studies]

2. An important principle of verification system design is to reduce concentration of functions, and instead try to distribute them between autonomous bodies which do not respond to the same command and control chain’.

3. Counter-balancing power arrangements result in more effective and transparent verification systems

‘Political imbalances in the operation of in forest ministries are as threatening to forest governance as illegality, and may need to be addressed in parallel’

Some policy messages~2

4. ‘Effective verification systems are likely to emerge from the concerted efforts of all the major stakeholders to jointly resolve a shared problem’ [see Verifor Brief 4, on extra-sectoral learning; Indonesia case study]

5. New technologies can significantly enhance forest governance systems, but cannot substitute for them. [see Verifor Brief 7]

6. ‘The convergence of certification and verification is a high risk development; certification is best seen as a separate process to verification, but the two should be mutually supporting’ [see Verifor Brief 6]

Who to contact

• PROJECT WEBSITE: WWW.VERIFOR.ORG

• Project Director: David Brown, ODI

• Focal Point for S. America: Hans Thiel, Ecuador

• Focal Point for C America: Guillermo Navarro, CATIE Costa Rica

• Focal Point for Africa: Timothée Fometé, CIFOR-Cameroon

• Focal Point for Asia: Robert Oberndorf, RECOFTC