"... The 2003 European Union (EU) Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) Action Plan represents an attempt to link forest governance reforms in timber producing countries with market incentives for legally produced timber. Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPAs) are bilateral trade agreements signed between the EU and a timber producing country, and are a key element of the FLEGT Action Plan. Each VPA has been drafted to reflect the realities and priorities of the producer country, and the negotiation process for each agreement has directly involved national civil society representatives, often for the first time in the forest sector. Civil society in VPA countries and internationally have sought to use the VPA negotiation process to advance community resource rights and other rights. The main objective of this paper is to examine the experiences and efforts of civil society in promoting a rights-based agenda through their engagement in VPA negotiations. It draws on experiences from the six countries that have completed negotiations: Cameroon, Central African Republic, Ghana, Indonesia, Liberia and Republic of Congo. In most cases it is too early to see tangible ?on the ground? evidence as regards stronger community resource rights. It will only be possible to assess the effects when the VPA and its Legality Assurance System (LAS) are being fully implemented and FLEGT licences are issued. Positive effects will also depend on strong implementation of the EU Timber Regulation since this provides the basic market incentive for reform by producer country governments. However, according to the responses received from civil society key informants in VPA countries it is possible to identify considerable progress as regards procedural rights: • It was found that all the VPA processes examined have resulted in significant advances for transparency, especially around concession allocation, logging operations, forest fees and other sensitive information. Transparency in terms of process also improved during VPA negotiations, with civil society organisations (CSOs) gaining insights into, and influence over, policy processes, including legal reform, usually for the first time in the forest sector. • CSOs in most countries regard the VPA process as having been very important for getting customary and other rights onto the agenda, and/or for expanding the political space available to promote rights. This is why procedural rights are fundamental and a pre-condition for progress on substantive rights. VPA negotiations have provided an entry point or platform for raising politically contested rights issues, with some CSOs identifying a small but noticeable shift in government (or forest department) attitudes to community rights. • In four of the countries a formal role for civil society in independent monitoring of VPA implementation has been established. This has been regarded as a major achievement by civil society since the potential for on the ground realisation of rights negotiated in a VPA is strongly related to how well its implementation is monitored - this puts pressure on loggers to respect community rights, and on governments to promote compliance by the private sector. • In some cases the VPA has endorsed legislation with significant rights implications, for example, in Ghana and Central African Republic (CAR). These laws would have little hope of being operationalised without the need to comply with a VPA legality assurance system. • In all VPA processes the review of forest legislation has highlighted gaps or inconsistencies, for instance nonexistent or weak implementing measures for essential laws, conflicting laws, or a failure to recognize customary rights in statutory law. VPA processes have helped clarify the rights status of communities in and around forests, a key first step towards improving them. • VPA processes have also been useful as a conduit for capacity building of CSOs, for example in undertaking independent monitoring activities. According to questionnaire responses, civil society key informants in most VPA countries felt that their capacity to defend community rights has been strengthened as a result of their participation in the VPA process. • There are also early signs that governments that have signed VPAs are more sensitive about forest governance and rights issues because of concerns about their reputation in the eyes of European importers. CSO advocacy campaigns will be able to exploit this sensitivity. On the other hand it must be acknowledged that in terms of promotion of tenure or community resource rights, the VPA process has its limitations. Most energy in the VPA implementation phase has gone into the technicalities of setting up the LAS, with much less attention paid to the rights-based agenda. In general, the VPA mainly affects rights linked to commercial timber production and trade, although some of the legal reforms mandated by VPAs include reforms to core statutory documents such as the Forest Code. There is also a requirement in VPAs that relevant national legislation is adjusted to incorporate international law, which should result in increased recognition of customary rights. It is also recognised that there are major challenges to implementation, primarily the political will required to implement reforms that will impact on the political economy status quo. In some cases there has been a hiatus following successful negotiation of a VPA - civil society actors have sometimes lost their focus, and the state has taken the opportunity to retrench as regards vested interests and pre-VPA attitudes. In sum, the main advances have been in terms of procedural rights - transparency, participation, consultation, monitoring and FPIC ? rather than substantive rights. On the other hand these advances in procedural rights can be seen as being very significant in most of the countries, where, prior to the VPA process, civil society had very weak procedural rights. It can be argued that stronger procedural rights are a pre-condition for progress on substantive rights. Civil society can also see that by being linked to a legal instrument like the LAS there is at least a hope that for the first time advances on paper as regards community resource and other rights can be transmitted to practice. The main conclusion of this paper is therefore that, for the countries examined, the prospects for community resource rights (and other rights) are more hopeful than if there had been no VPA process. As pointed out by a Ghanaian civil society informant ?it is safe to conclude that without the VPA, farmers and forest communities will be worse off. The legally binding framework of the permits regime, access to information and reform agenda when complimented with proper implementation and monitoring by all stakeholders will increase community rights.”...