search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
72 | Feature: FLEGT


SUMMARY


■ The EU adopted the FLEGT Action Plan in 2003


■ A Fitness Check was conducted on FLEGT and the EUTR


■ It concluded that both had failed to achieve their key aims


DON’T DROP FLEGT, PLEADS NGO


NGOs and the TTF have spoken out for FLEGT following suggestions FLEGT licensing and VPAs may be dropped. Mike Jeffree reports


Above: Audit under SVLK, Indonesia’s FLEGT timber legality assurance system


Environmental NGO Fern has urged the EU not to abandon Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) licensing following the release of critical initial findings from the European Commission’s (EC) recent Fitness Check of the EU Timber Regulation (EUTR) and FLEGT. These state that both have failed to achieve key aims and their criticism was further highlighted in a FERN webinar presentation by Hugo Maria-Schally of the EC DG Environment.


TTJ | July/August 2021 | www.ttjonline.com


In a later webinar, hosted by the FLEGT Independent Market Monitor (IMM) (https:// bit.ly/3w0Z5m1), TTF managing director David Hopkins said FLEGT was essentially about improving forest and timber sector governance, which was fundamental to any effort to maintain forests and their climate regulating capacity. But, he said, a weakness of the EU – and UK supported – timber legality assurance initiative was that it didn’t seem to have anybody specifically focused


on “pushing it forward and trying to make it work” and he suggested its management was “possibly in the wrong place”.


The EC Fitness Check did come up with some positive findings, including that FLEGT, had broadened stakeholder engagement in supplier country forest sector policy making and improved governance. The EUTR, meanwhile, had focused the timber trade on keeping supply chains “clean”. However, preliminary conclusions were


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89