Creating synergies between REDD+ and FLEGT VPA in Ghana

Global Environmental Governance with particular emphasis on the Forest sector : "Creating synergies between REDD+ and FLEGT VPA in...: Hello once again, I bring to you a paper authored by a colleague (Saskia Ozinga of FERN) and I which was recently published by the European...

"Creating synergies between REDD+ and FLEGT VPA in Ghana"

Hello once again,
I bring to you a paper authored by a colleague (Saskia Ozinga of FERN) and I which was recently published by the European Tropical Forest Reseach Network (ETRN) and Tropenbos International in the latest of their regular ETFRN News. The latest issue is number 55. In the paper we discuss the potential synergies and linkages that can be built between the REDD+ and FLEGT VPA initiatives building on our experiences of the two processes. It makes a very useful read. Below is an abstract and a link to the article including additional 21 articles on the theme of linkages between REDD+ and FLEGT VPA from authors of may different disciplines/specializations and backgrounds.

Abstract:
The reform of forest governance is now an established part of the global debate on forests. It is widely accepted that better forest governance can be achieved only by improving the relationship between forest owning communities,1 governments, civil society and the private sector in the management of forest resources, especially tropical forests.The principal objective of the FLEGT VPA and REDD+ initiatives is to provide a political and financial framework to bring about improved forest governance. But in reality the initiatives risk reinforcing the status quo and worsening the position of forestowning and forest-dependent communities. These initiatives are managed by different political entities at the international level. Is their institutional arrangement at the national level with regard to negotiation and implementation also different? Do the two initiatives strengthen or undermine each other? And can they both be managed and implemented to bring about improved forest governance? This article provides answers to these questions, focusing on Ghana and based on many years of experience of the campaign carried out by NGO coalition Forest Watch Ghana (FWG) and its partners to improve forest governance.

Creating synergies between REDD+ and FLEGT VPA in Ghana

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

Global Environmental Governance with particular emphasis on the Forest sector : Is Ghana's FLEGT VPA grinding to a halt and failin...: Hello all, I have been silent for a while. I was caught up in some field work abroad. I bring to you the concluding part of my paper on the ...

Is Ghana's FLEGT VPA grinding to a halt and failing to achieve improvements in forest governance?: Concluding part

Hello all, I have been silent for a while. I was caught up in some field work abroad. I bring to you the concluding part of my paper on the title "Is Ghana's VPA grinding to a halt and failing to achieve improvements in forest governance?". Today I will discuss the final challenge and conclude by making some recommendations on the way forward. I will also either attach or provide a link to the pdf version of the document online. Please acknowledge use of any information in the document and cite as follows: Ansah, K.B. (2013) Is Ghana's FLEGT VPA grinding to a halt and failing to achieve improvement in forest governance?, Civic Response, Ghana

So lets roll it to the meat of the matter!

2.5      Non-revision of stumpage fees

Stumpage fees represent the price paid by timber companies to government for the harvesting rights of trees. The Timber Resources Management (Amendment) Regulation (2003), LI 1721 specifies that holders of timber rights permits shall pay stumpage fees which ‘shall be reviewed to reflect market demand and inventory levels of timber species’. It was recommended that the review should take place quarterly. However, since 2004 the stumpage fees[1] for timber exploitation have not been reviewed, contrary to the requirements in the legal provisions. FWG alerted the Forestry Commission to the fact that there had been no review for nearly 10 years. In response, the Forestry Commission mentioned that a review was supposed to happen in 2011,[2] but there has still been no action. The non-revision of stumpage fees leads to loss of revenue for the government, traditional authorities and district assemblies. Forest communities and the public are thus heavily subsidizing timber extraction and the industry. Documents sourced (internally)[3] from the Forestry Commission in June 2011 indicate that the prices being charged currently are ridiculously low. According to the document, the average proposed stumpage fee is in excess of about 250% per species compared to the current price. There is therefore currently a high social cost related to timber exploitation in terms of lost revenue to stakeholders. For example in the case of Milicia excelsa/regia (local name Odum), its proposed revised fee is Ghc 94.49 (US $187.09) per cubic meter, compared with the current fee of Ghc 25.16 (US $49.82) per cubic metre.[4] Coupled with the sheer increase in the number of timber permits (particularly salvage permits), the government, traditional authorities and forest communities are losing millions of dollars. Attempts to push the revision through are blocked by the industry and the Forestry Commission. In 2005, Forest Watch Ghana (FWG)[5] conducted a study that revealed that as much as US $50 million had been  lost from uncollected stumpage and irregularities in the permits regime.[6] It is safe to conclude that traditional authorities (as custodians of the forest resources in trust for the people) and forest communities are losing millions of dollars in timber revenue as a result of the non-revision and therefore need to put pressure on the government to make these changes immediately.

3         Conclusions and Recommendations

While there has been progress in the deployment of the technical specifications of the VPA (Wood Tracking System, legality verification protocols and manuals), the governance reform which is crucial to the VPA is moving very slowly. In addition there has been much less multi-stakeholder consultation in the implementation phase than there was in the negotiation phase. So far most of the policy and legislative reforms undertaken have happened with little local participation or meaningful consultation, contrary to the government’s claims.[7] The contents of the policies on the domestic timber market and timber procurement give us less cause to be optimistic about the reforms envisaged in the VPA because they give less attention to the governance objectives[8] in the VPA. Ensuring that the concerns and recommendations of forest communities are heard and incorporated in the new policy and legislation will be a crucial part of bringing about the reform in governance that the sector needs. The processes at the national level have not been sufficiently coherent and clear, and – discouragingly – have often lacked the political will to fully take on the difficult reform issues regarding land and tree tenure. There is an increasing tendency to maintain the status quo, even around the processes that are taking place, and the CSOs have not galvanized strongly enough around the issues. This is due partly to the changed dynamics in the CSOs concerned. In addition, the government appears to lack the political will to really shift the dynamics of power and give more control to communities, as was hoped with the VPA. The government should stop the rhetoric and actually demonstrate its commitment to governance reform in the sector. Along with the new Forest and Wildlife Policy that has been passed, the new Consolidated Forest Act should be revisited and concluded. It should clarify and strengthen the tenure of forest communities to their forest resources (especially in off-reserve areas in granting economic rights to planters or farmers who cultivatee naturally occurring trees). The government should also have full disclosure on all permits in the sector; it should review stumpage fees, and work to convert all leases into TUCs within the year. There is urgency for the WTS to be implemented at a national scale and for the other aspects of the LAS to be in place. Any delay in issuing FLEGT licences will only serve to strengthen the current distortions, inequities and unfairness in the system. There is need for political will from government to reform the land/tree tenure regimes through a consultative and multi-stakeholder process.

Parliament should exercise its supervisory responsibility over government and ensure that all permits granted for timber rights pass parliamentary ratification. This is to ensure accountability by clamping down on administrative abuses of the permits regime, ensure that revenues due to the government actually accrue to it, and that all the stakeholders constitutionally mandated to receive a share of the revenue actually receive proper compensation for the lost of the resource.

CSOs should reorganize and re-strategize as a matter of urgency to campaign vigorously for coherent forest governance reforms focusing on land and tree tenure reforms. CSOs must continue to ensure that the permits regime in Ghana fully complies with the laws and regulations agreed in the VPA. In this regard, there is a need for sustained action on the campaign for the conversion of all old leases to TUCs. There should be a review of stumpage fees, following which the correct fees should be collected by the government. There is a need for improved efficiency in the use of the district assemblies’ and traditional authorities’ share of the revenue accruing from timber exploitation. Any attempt to amend sections of the legality definition of the VPA to include ‘special permits’ should be rejected.[9] It will only add to the problems with the permits regime and provide opportunities for abuse and corruption, as is the case with salvage permits.

Lastly, the EU and donors to the forestry sector have a responsibility to put pressure on the government to ensure that the reforms to improve forest governance are in place and working. Thus the EU and other donors need to tie the funding of the sector firmly to the government’s performance in achieving governance targets, and use the performance to trigger the release of funds.

There is every reason to be optimistic that the Ghana VPA is capable of achieving its desired objectives of improving governance in the forest sector, transparency and accountability, as long as all stakeholders rise to the challenge. All hands must be on deck to make this change happen.

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

---

[1] Regulation 21 (3) of the Timber Resources (Amendment) Regulation, LI 1721 states that the stumpage fee represents royalties which provide a basic return to the landowner and contributes to the cost of forest management and timber regulation.

[2] FWG has sourced a document from within the Forestry Commission that indicates a proposal for revision of the stumpage fees with old and new figures. The understanding is that there is strong lobbying from powerful lobby groups’ within the sector to prevent these proposals from being approved and implemented.

[3] FWG sourced a document through its allies within the Forestry Commission on the proposal of a review of the stumpage fees.

[4] Using exchange rate of Ghc1 to US $1.98 at the time of writing.

[5] Forest Watch Ghana is a civil society coalition formed in 2004 which campaigns for fair access to forest resources especially for communities, fair benefit-sharing of forest revenues especially for communities and participatory forest governance. FWG was actively involved in Ghana’s negotiation of the VPA and served on the Steering/Implementation Committee and several working groups. It is also involved in monitoring and engaging other forest sector initiatives such as REDD+. Its membership is made up of CBOs, NGOs and individuals and currently stands at around 35.

[6] FWG through the Forest Governance Learning Group published a study (including featuring in the dailies) which highlighted irregularities in the permits regime in Ghana and its impact on the forest sector. Visit the website of IIED for more information under its Forest Governance Learning Group on http://www.iied.org/forest-governance-learning-group

[7] In the 4th memorandum (13–16 March 2013) of the JMRM, the government asserts that the domestic market policy was subjected to a wider consultation. See www.fcghana.org

[8] The VPA document indicates policy and legal reforms with clear governance objectives bordering on rural livelihoods, rights and sustainable cultural and industrial development. Ghana VPA Annex II, page 58.

[9] This proposal is contained in the 5th JMRM memorandum (28–31 May 2013). Available at www.fcghana.org

"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...