16 September 1999

The current discussion paper tries to give an exhaustive overview of the current debate on an international forest policy dialogue. We feel however that the paper is too lengthy and lacks a clear presentation of the proposed functions and options for this future forest policy dialogue. We were pleased that many of our comments have been taken on, however our ‘key points’ have got somewhat lost in the text. A more concise paper clearly outlining the functions of a future forest policy dialogue (or IFF follow up) as well as identifying the stumbling blocks and conditions for such a dialogue would have been preferable.

The way the functions of a future policy dialogue have been formulated in the current paper are not clear enough and leave lots of room for ‘talking’. We feel the objectives for such a dialogue should be spelled out cristal-clear, and should include

1) monitoring of implementation of the IPF’s proposals for action,

2) establishing ongoing co-ordination with other instruments dealing with forests

3) discussing issues which have not been sufficiently addressed.

The basic conditions for such a dialogue would be that

1) there is full participation of all Major Groups, including NGOs and IPOs as well as the private sector.

2) that lessons learned with the TFAP process and ITTO will be taken on board.

1) the lack of political will of governments to implement the commitments already made (as a result of differing perspectives and priorities), rightly identified in the paper.

2) the fact that governments have been 'boxed in' by the sovereignty principle enshrined in international environment conventions like the CBD on the one hand and the 'free trade regime' of the WTO on the other hand

Any future dialogue should ensure that:

1. all commitments taken to date are implemented,
2. the limited role governments have in the current international regime to address the root causes of forest loss is understood,
3. participation of all 'major groups' is ensured

If these conditions have not been met it might be better not to start a future forest policy dialogue. Clear terms of reference would need to be developed for this dialogue.

• We acknowledge that the participation of all stakeholders in various contexts appears in the draft text including in adapting the UNCED decisions and global goals, and in the development of national strategies and plans. It is vital that this continues to be clearly stressed throughout the coming months of discussion.

• The paper clearly states that the most important work is done and should be done at the national level. The limited role governments have in the current international regime to address the root causes of forest loss must be stressed. Local, regional and national solutions must be found for addressing the serious problems facing forests.

• We strongly agree that there is a distinct lack of political commitment to implement the IPF proposals for action and to comply with already existing instruments. This been a major hindrance to achieving consensus and implementing goals. This is not a result of the fragmented nature of the regime as suggested in the text but the stumbling blocks mentioned above.

• The current paper constantly refers to 'sustainable forestry development' which is a new term and should not be introduced at this stage without full explanation and definition. Indeed it could be misinterpreted by environmental NGOs as being contradictory to the aim of sustainable forest management which is the accepted term.