How a VPA promotes good forest governance

What makes governance good?

Coordination. Government departments communicate and coordinate to share information, inform each other and thus enhance overall enforcement of the sector.

Accountability. People take responsibility. Institutional responsibility is clear and articulated. Systems are overseen by independent checks. Governments address the concerns of civil society and people with grievances have access to redress and remedy.

Capacity. Stakeholders have the time, money, skills and knowledge they need to make and implement decisions. The ability to run systems that contribute to a well-managed forest sector is in place.

Clarity. The legislative landscape and institutional roles and responsibilities are clear to all stakeholders.

Credibility. Systems have broad stakeholder support and are open to independent monitoring and reporting.

Transparency. Governments and companies make information accessible to the public, and processes and decision making are open and inclusive.

Participation. Stakeholder representatives are able to take part in decision-making processes.

Law enforcement. Violations are addressed transparently.

Fairness. Policies and laws treat stakeholders equitably and include measures to mitigate negative impacts on poor people. Respect for the law is not a disadvantage.

How VPA processes can address governance challenges

Even before a VPA is fully operational and FLEGT licensing is in place, a VPA process can promote better governance by revealing poor practices. Below are two examples.

Ghana. The usual way for loggers to obtain a timber utilisation contract is through a transparent competitive bidding process. Parliament must ratify the award of an allocation. However, one law allows the Ghana Forestry Commission to award a ‘special permit' at its discretion. During the VPA process to define legal timber, Ghanaian civil society organisations refused to include this ministerial route to allocating timber as a legal mechanism. Civil society organisations felt that ‘special permits' were inconsistent with competitive bidding and, therefore, undermined good governance.

After parties agreed the VPA, the minister continued to issue special permits. In 2013, civil society groups wrote to the joint implementation committee, the JMRM, flagging their concern. The EU raised this with the Ghanaian government, which initially reacted by saying that the special permits were not illegal. The EU indicated that none of the timber produced under special permits could obtain a FLEGT licence, as the definition of legality annexed to the VPA did not include this type of permit. Discussions then took place between the ministry and civil society representatives, with the result that the ministry at the time (2013) agreed that no further special permits would be issued.

Indonesia. The Indonesian Independent Forestry Monitoring Network (JPIK) consists of more than 60 organisations and more than 300 individuals. The network acts as an independent observer in the VPA, by monitoring the timber legality assurance system (called SVLK) and reporting forest crimes.

In 2014, JPIK published a report that found problems with:

• Traceability of raw materials
• Issuance of permits
• Conflicts related to boundaries and tenure
• Verification of the legality of timber produced by converting natural forests to other uses
• Weak enforcement of the SVLK and the lack of sanctions for non-compliance by permit holders

JPIK noted that there has been no attempt to investigate some SVLK-certified companies involved in proven cases of corruption or known to have received illegal timber. JPIK says permit issuance procedures should be included in the legality standard to prevent issuance of certificates to problematic permit holders. JPIK also calls for greater transparency of data and information in the implementation of the SVLK, as well as improvements in filing and resolving complaints from stakeholders.