Logging victory: post-match analysis

So that was it. Blink and you’d miss it. It was the moment we’d all been waiting for, the focus of our campaigning all summer. The logging vote.

"With this, we are sending a signal to the world that the EU will no longer serve as a market for illegally harvested timber," said European Environment Commissioner Janez Potocnik. Never mind that it took them so long and the Commission sat on it for 5 years before anything was done. About time, Janez!

But what happened and what does it all mean?

I was the first to admit that I was surprised to see the breakdown of votes. 49 in favour, 6 against and 2 abstentions. I’d assumed a more ostentatious show of European democracy with MEPs streaming through distant corridors of power, those from the UK with emails from their constituents pricking their conscience.

But something more subtle and more impressive actually happened. The Environment Committee voted. Aside from the poetry of voting on a piece of legislation you helped to propose in the first place, the Committee members were really voting on behalf of their Parliamentary groups.

The Parliamentary group gets together frequently and MEPs sitting on each Committee report back. Our MEP emails meant that even though our MEPs might not be on the Environment Committee, they will have made representation to those who are.

It also means that votes which don’t have so much support get pushed to the end, while those which do get voted on first. If there’s not enough time, votes at the end aren’t made.

So emailing our MEPs meant that the vote was 4th and there was enough time to get to it. Then those MEPs which sit on the Environment Committee vote on behalf of all the MEPs in their group. So the 49 votes is really 644 votes.

Then that vote is the end, right? Well, not quite. There are still some hoops to jump through. And it’s quite possibly not going to go to plan. But since this was such an overwhelming majority and the vote was on what is called a ‘codecision’ (that was agreed broadly between the Environment Committee of the European Parliament, the Council of Ministers and the European Commission) it might be unlikely that it’ll be adulterated too much.

The legislation has 2 key elements and it’s good to get a handle on them. First, it’s going to be illegal to import timber over a border into the EU. But the actual sanctions are going to be up to individual member states to decide. They’ll be asked to make sure they’re proportionate and reflect the damage done globally.

And the second is the traceability requirement. If you trade in timber or timber products (and paper further down the line) you’ll have to, at the very least, prove where it came from.

So there’s more to do to get the legislation worked out at a national level once it’s been ratified in Europe. That’s a process that will take time, and the formal adoption with all the implementation worked out won’t start until 2012.

Here at Progressio we’re all about ‘the ripple’ – the effect we have beyond what we’re actually doing. News from ABC online is that the Australian federal government is under pressure to adopt regulations now that the EU have. Forestry Minister Tony Bourke has indicated the government intends to keep its election promise; almost AUS$1 billion worth of illegal timber is imported into Australia every year. So that’s almost good news.

And we’ll keep plugging away. But in case you were wondering about that taste in your mouth? It’s the sweet taste of success. Enjoy it.

Photo: Satu Hassi, a Finnish Green MEP votes through the logging legislation