08
October 2008 - Democratic Republic of the
Congo — Illegal logging is rapidly destroying
the Earth's stores of natural resources
at a time when runaway climate change threatens
life on every continent. However, a review
of the legality of 156 logging contracts
in Democratic Republic of Congo will put
its ancient forests in peril, rather than
protect them.
Logging titles have
been under the microscope in DRC for three
years, under a review financed by the World
Bank. Greenpeace has been keeping watch
to see if the review actually protects these
ever-diminishing tropical forests, rather
than the loggers' short-term profits.
On Monday 6 October,
the review was announced and at the same
time Environment Minister Jose Endundo made
a public commitment to extend the current
moratorium. While the announcement of the
moratorium is good news, we fear that with
such a flawed review, the reality could
be business-as-usual for unregulated logging
in the region.
Legal precedents ignored
In 2002, a moratorium stopped the allocation
of new concessions in DR Congo, in an effort
to keep logging out of protected areas.
The Government then launched a review in
2005 to determine which existing contracts
could be converted to legal concessions
under the conditions of the Forest Code.
In the initial findings
released this week, the commission responsible
for the review has declared that logging
can now take place under 46 of the 156 contracts
- including 33 that are illegal titles obtained
in breach of the 2002 moratorium.
From the very start,
the terms of reference were flawed and easily
manipulated by companies with vested interests.
For example, the review's own Technical
Working Group said that there was not enough
information on previous permit boundaries
to judge whether companies have been operating
outside of them.
Greenpeace's briefing
paper published today shows how more destructive
logging could occur on these concessions
that were obtained illegally.
No social or environmental
considerations
Even if the terms were followed properly,
the review would still be woefully inadequate.
Social conflicts are
ever-present in these company's concession
areas - violations of human rights are the
rule rather than the exception. However,
the review did not measure or even acknowledge
this aspect of logging.
Without social and environmental
criteria, the process ignores both local
people's livelihoods and the global significance
of tropical forest in stabilising climate
change and protecting biodiversity.
The draft review findings
were kept secret for over a week, only circulated
to the companies concerned and not to forest
communities who are immediately at risk
from logging.
Desperate need for good
governance
The Swiss-German SIFORCO (owned by Danzer
Group) and all the subsidiaries of the Portuguese
NST Group have seen the majority of their
titles approved.
In our report Conning
the Congo, we exposed how companies like
Danzer are cheating local people out of
large amount of tax revenue.
These companies are
now promoting themselves as ready for "sustainable
certification" for European markets.
In fact, they are logging in intact forests,
near biodiversity hotspots and exporting
masses of internationally protected tree
species.
Can we really expect
them to do the right thing?
Without basic regulation,
it is impossible enforce the law or trace
the origin of logs - making a mockery of
international efforts to cut demand for
illegal forest timber.
Now that the Environmental
Minister has committed to extend the current
moratorium we urge the DRC government to
turn this commitment into a reality with
a legally binding Presidential decree. We
also urge those nations who are active donors
of the DRC to provide support so that this
decree can be properly implemented and monitored
while the country works to improve the governance
in the forest sector.
It is also time for
alternatives given the scientific evidence
of the vital role forests play in stablising
global climate change. To protect the remaining
Congo forests, we call for a participatory
land-use plan, based on the needs and rights
of forest-dependent communities.
