Ministerial segment at ENA FLEG Conference (Saint-Petersburg, Russia, November 22-25, 2005) Chatham House, January 20, 2006

ENA-FLEG road map  Invitation at UNFF-4 (May 2004)  National Preparatory Processes  Civil society and Industry processes (dialogue)  Preparatory Conference (Moscow, 2005)  Interim Period (Drafting/Informal consultations)  Ministerial Conference (St.-Petersburg)  [G8 Summit in Russia]  [Beyond]

Some key policy issues Definition of illegality – No “one size fits all” definition Risk that a single definition imposed from outside will reinforce unjust concession allocation procedures Ensure that a focus on illegal trade to Europe does not neglect illegal domestic consumption and illegal trade with non-discerning markets Ministerial Conference – excellent start but a “means” not an “end” Functional licensing systems must include provision for full and transparent disclosure on issues like concession allocation etc.

Negotiations Segments –Ministerial –Civil Society NGOs Private sector Consultations –Report –Feedback

Changes in perception before – Ministerial Declaration and Indicative Action Plan (MDIAP) during – Geographical scope (definition of ENA Region) –International issues –Regional issues –National issues after – Ministerial Declaration and Indicative List of Actions (MDILA) –Preamble –Commitments National issues within ENA region International issues –Indicative List of Actions –Annex

Preamble We, the representatives of the Governments from Europe and North Asia (ENA region countries) and from other participating countries as well as the European Commission present at the Ministerial Conference on Forest Law Enforcement and Governance in St.- Petersburg,… Albania, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bulgaria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, China, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uzbekistan

MD key commitments National (11): 1.Mobilize political commitment within broader national governance and development agenda 2.Review and update of forest policies, legislation and regulations 3.Interagency cooperation and human and institutional capacity 4.Sustainable forest management… International (11): 12. Strengthening cooperation using as much as possible existing structures, exchange of information and experiences 13.Cooperation and national capacity strengthening in monitoring trade in timber and timber products 14.Cooperation to combat poaching and illegal trade on wildlife associated with illegal logging 15.Monitoring, assessment and reporting of progress on FLEG 16.Partnerships with and among private sector and civil society…

MD key commitments (cont.) Institutionally related (7) 23.Endorsing ILA as the framework of possible actions to implement the MD 24.Relevant international and regional organizations, institutions, processes and scientific organizations (Annex 1) to support implementation of MD and ILA 25.The ISC to extend its role in facilitation the ENA FLEG process by focusing on the implementation of the MD and ILA 26.The WB to continue its important role by facilitating the implementation of the MD and ILA 27.Meeting (multi-stakeholder) within two to three years to exchange experiences on implementation and lessons learned 28.Next FLEG ministerial conference within five years 29.Invite other countries to associate in the MD and ILA

1 CIFOR Center for International Forestry Research 2 CBD Convention on Biological Diversity 3 CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna 4 EBRD European Bank of Reconstruction and Development 5 EFI European Forest Institute 6 FATF Financial Action Task Force 7 FAO Food and Agriculture Organization 8 GEF Global Environmental Facility 9 ITTO International Tropical Timber Organization 10 IUFRO International Union of Forest Research Organizations 11 MCPFE Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests of Europe 12 OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development 13 UNCTOC United Nations Convention on Transnational Organized Crime 14 UNCCD United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification 15 UNDP United Nations Development Programme 16 UNECE United Nations Economic Commission for Europe 17 UNEP United Nations Environment Programme 18 UNFF United Nations Forum on Forests 19 UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 20 ICRAF World Agroforestry Center 21 IUCN World Conservation Union 22 WCO World Customs Organization 23 WB World Bank 24 WTO World Trade Organization

Indicative actions National Actions: 1.Policy frameworks 2.Legislation systems 3.Institutions and capacity building 4.Sustainable forest management 5.Rural development, livelihoods and poverty alleviation International Action: 1.Forest related policies 2.Trade and customs 3.Research 4.Collaborative implementation of actions

Major results The MD and LIA were adopted (taking into account the diversity of countries’ interests, economical and political environment, and etc.) The MD reflects the situation in the region and around that is different of that in Asia and Africa It includes issues raised by NGOs and private sector New arrangements for civil society and industry participation The MD reflects debatable modern topics, such as corruption, need of transparency, participatory approach, certification, and etc. Majority of ENA FLEG MinConf participants have admitted that St.-Petersburg MD is a step forward because it utilized lessons learnt from previous processes

Conclusions An action-oriented and demanding MD and ILA was negotiated and accepted in St. Petersburg by governments The ENA FLEG Ministerial Conference achieved an unprecedented degree of collaboration and joint commitment between the governments, private sector and civil society To avoid loss of momentum and frustrations experienced with the other regional FLEG processes concrete, immediate and coordinated action is needed The MD places a great degree of responsibility on the WB to facilitate this process Support of international community is needed especially for poorer countries in the ENA region (Caucasus, Central Asia, Moldova, countries on the Balkans, etc.)

What occurs now in Russia Different segments of civil society are attracted and mass media is involved in ENA FLEG The National Action Plan is drafted Positive issues: cross-sectoral/inter-agency character of the NAP has concrete information for the first time, such as thematic sections, timeline, responsible and executive bodies are specified Negative issues: the NAP is not a part of overall Russian national forest policy (that is not formulated yet), it has a PR character, many items are not thoroughly expressed (general performance, achievable results, executors, unrealistic timeline), and some directions are absent at all. NAP does not include NGO and private sector opinions

What occurs now in Russia (cont.) A WG for the NAP improvement Is proposed to be created under the Russian Ministry of Natural Resources, representatives of NGOs and business are invited to participate in the WG The FLEG process is internally driven, at least in Russia, but this is mostly due to the efforts of international and national NGOs Externally, support of G8 is urgently needed to bring ENA FLEG process in Russia back to the governmental level

Thank you very much for your kind attention!