Combating corruption Perceptions
Recommendations
There are laws, but they are not applied.
Implementing the laws that already exist would help the sector greatly.
In practice, it is more efficient to be outside the law: less cost, less risk, less bureaucracy, higher profit margins. The incentives for action on the part of forestry personnel, police, or other officials are few, while “looking the other way” can produce benefits. A community or individual that makes a complaint about irregular activity has to finance the authorities’ supervision and control actions.
A national cross-sectoral plan for fighting corruption in the forest sector is needed. If one already exists, the participants have not heard of it and they demand that it be disseminated publicly as soon as possible. The government should implement clear sanctions for independent foresters who “make trees appear” in the management plans. Consider withdrawing their license and/or tuition fees. Forestry personnel should feel secure in the fulfillment of their duties in terms of job stability, personal security, and legal support. If a bad official commits an intentional error, the forest administration should retain the legal responsibility for having hired that official. Being outside the law should be more expensive than complying with the law: Peru must increase the cost (risk) of illegal wood, for example through stronger penalties for the financiers, and through more systematic legal monitoring regarding how misdemeanors committed are followed up on. The government should implement a clear and transparent mechanism to monitor the complaints in the sector. This is critical for the public to regain confidence in the system. The forest authority should implement cross-sectoral agreements to share relevant information in a compatible fashion. For example, with Customs and Taxes. The personnel in positions of control throughout the wood transport route urgently need access to databases that would permit them to at least verify the authenticity of the documents they are shown. A fair legal structure is needed to redistribute the responsibility among the different actors involved in illegal logging based on their earnings, and not concentrate only on the person who cuts down the tree. “Due diligence” should be the standard that replaces “good faith.” Given the pervasive black market for GTFs, this document cannot be used to prove the legality of origin. The State should recognize the value of local actors in monitoring and controlling the forests: guarantee them access to relevant information, listen to their legal and other complaints, permit them to monitor investigative and judicial processes, and make available to them training and the necessary updates on legal reforms in the sector. It is urgent to publically disseminate the laws, Criminal Code, and other regulations that affect the sector. The forestry personnel and local public prosecutors, as well as indigenous communities and local NGOs, should be prioritized. 25