EU accused of undermining forest partnerships by terminating VPAs – EnviroNews

– Advertisement –

Civil society organisations across nine countries warn that dismantling Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPAs) threatens hard‑won gains in forest governance, transparency, and civic participation.

The European Union’s (EU) decision to terminate VPAs under its Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) initiative has triggered a wave of concern from civil society organisations across nine countries, some of which have finalised VPAs with the EU and others still in the negotiating phase.

They are Ghana, Côte d’Ivoire, Liberia, Cameroon, Central African Republic and Republic of Congo. The others are Guyana, Honduras and Indonesia.

In a joint letter submitted on Monday, June 15, 2026, to EU stakeholders active on VPAs, the groups warned that dismantling VPAs risks undoing years of progress in forest governance and closing off vital civic space.

Signed by Alfred Nkodia on behalf of the groups, the letter accuses the EU of bypassing the very participatory mechanisms it helped establish, excluding civil society, Indigenous peoples, and forest communities from termination processes.

“This is not an oversight. It is a political choice; and one with serious consequences for the legitimacy of any future forest partnership,” the organisations declared.

Governance Gains Under Threat

VPAs were designed as legally binding trade agreements to ensure timber exported to the EU comes from legal sources, while simultaneously strengthening governance, transparency, and accountability in producer countries. Over the years, they have created institutionalised spaces for consultation, improved access to forestry information, reduced corruption risks, and empowered communities living near forests.

Civil society groups argue that terminating VPAs undermines these achievements. The multistakeholder fora, often the only reliable formal space for civil society and forest communities to engage in policy, are now at risk. Without them, vulnerable groups including women, Indigenous peoples, and youth face exclusion from decision-making and exposure to illegal timber traffickers.

The letter stresses that VPAs have built trust between parties, promoted capacity-building, and strengthened legal frameworks and timber traceability systems. These gains, they insist, deserve continuity and investment, not abandonment.

Civic Space and Policy Coherence

Beyond governance, the termination of VPAs raises broader concerns about civic space. By excluding civil society from termination processes, the EU is effectively closing off protected channels of participation. This selective closure risks silencing those who depend on formal mechanisms to be heard, while leaving influence in the hands of those with informal access to power.

The timing of the EU’s decision has also drawn criticism. While demanding compliance with the new EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), the Commission is dismantling the very governance tools that support compliance. Producer countries, often with EU backing, have invested heavily in becoming EUDR-ready. VPAs provide legal evidence and traceability systems that underpin this compliance. Ending them, civil society argues, places an unfair burden on producer countries and undermines the EU’s own zero-deforestation objectives.

Advertisement

Therefore, “The EU cannot credibly pursue this agenda while dismantling the governance tools that support it,” the letter warns, highlighting the contradiction at the heart of current policy.

A Blueprint for the Future

Despite their criticism, civil society groups emphasise their readiness to engage constructively. They argue that the VPA model offers a proven blueprint for future forest partnerships and trade arrangements. Any new framework should build on the VPA architecture by integrating legal reform, traceability, and multistakeholder accountability, rather than starting from scratch.

“Any future forest partnership should retain formal, funded, and protected space for civil society participation,” the organisations insist. Without such mechanisms, new arrangements risk lacking the legitimacy and independence that make them effective.

To safeguard progress, the letter calls for termination and transition discussions to be routed through agreed participatory mechanisms and for the EU to respect provisions made in VPA termination clauses. It also proposes establishing a monitoring body, with branches in each VPA country, to oversee implementation and ensure transparency.

This, they argue, would better coordinate efforts and protect the objectives set out in the agreements. The letter urges the EU and Brussels-based civil society organisations, together with civil society in each of the VPA countries to back this proposal and ensure its implementation.

The Stakes Ahead

For many communities, VPAs represent the only formal space to engage in forest policy. Their termination risks not only environmental setbacks but also democratic decline, as participatory mechanisms are dismantled. Civil society groups acknowledge the EU’s concerns about implementation delays but argue that governance reform is inherently nonlinear. Political transitions have caused setbacks, but they have also tested and strengthened systems. “Measured progress,” they insist, “is a feature of transformation, not a flaw.”

The letter notes the organisations readiness to be genuine partners, and that this is the moment to get it right. “We are asking to be included in the design of processes that affect our forests, communities, and rights. We bring knowledge, legitimacy, and accountability that no government delegation alone can replace.”

As the EU moves forward with new forest partnerships and trade arrangements, the response to this letter will be closely watched. Civil society organisations across the nine countries have made their position clear: “inclusion is non-negotiable.” The EU now faces a choice to build on the legacy of VPAs and set a binding standard for inclusive governance, or to risk undermining its own credibility and objectives.

For forest communities, the stakes are immediate and profound. The structures built through VPAs have provided transparency, accountability, and a voice in decision-making. Their dismantling would not only weaken forest governance but also silence those most affected by deforestation and illegal logging.

By Ama Kudom-Agyemang