Session 6

Cost-effectiveness of the FLEGT approach

Is FLEGT action cost-effective and are results commensurate with investments made?

Facilitators: Paul Zambon and Antoine de la Rochefordière (EU FLEGT AP Evaluation team)

 

Context

The EU FLEGT Action Plan has received considerable funding to date, from different sources, including the EC, multilateral organisations, EU Member States and producer countries. The funding has been used to develop the different tools and elements of the FLEGT process, including stakeholder consultations, legislative reform, VPA negotiations, Timber Legality Assurance Systems and many supporting projects in VPA and non-VPA countries, but also actions for development of demand-side measures and private sector responses in consumer countries and Member States.

In addition to public sector funding, the private sector including SMEs, both in producer countries and Member States, has been stimulated and/or compelled to invest in measures that allow for increased awareness, transparency, capacity to deal with certification or due diligence requirements, imposed by regulations, codes of conduct or procurement policies, and for improved traceability systems, among others. We aim to create an overall picture of the main investments made and benefits they have generated.

Taking into consideration costs and benefits for private and public actors, we will explore the question of overall cost-effectiveness of the FLEGT approach compared to other, previous approaches to reducing illegal logging and related trade, or improving forest governance and management, such as National Forest Programmes or bilateral Sustainable Forest Management projects. We will attempt to assess whether FLEGT is delivering value for money, based on perceptions of the main stakeholder groups.

Objectives

  • Discuss the experiences and views of participants on costs and benefits of FLEGT action.
  • Discuss suggestions for improvement of the cost-benefit relation for the public and private sectors, and the cost-effectiveness of the EU FLEGT AP, compared to other approaches.

Main questions

  1. What have been the most and least cost-effective actions under the EU FLEGT AP, regarding both the public and private sectors? What examples can be provided, mentioning actors and factors explaining why?
  2. Considering the costs and benefits for public and private actors, to what extent has the EU FLEGT AP been cost-effective, and how does it compare to other possible approaches towards the same objectives (such as reduced illegal logging and related trade, improved forest governance, Sustainable Forest Management, and reduced poverty)?

Target audience

Representatives of governments, private sector and civil society from producer and consumer countries and EU Member States, as well as multilateral organizations. 

Print Friendly and PDF