8 July 1999
Fern's comments on EU background paper "Functions of a Global Forest Policy Dialogue", by Christian Mersmann and Markku Ahu.
1. Summary of key points
Fern believes that any future global forest policy dialogue should be firmly based on the outcome of the IPF/IFF process and should reflect the commitments made during UNCED to ensure participation of all 'Major Groups' in all decision making processes.
History has taught us that commitments made by governments in international environmental processes are often not implemented. The commitments made by ITTO members are a good example. Very few governments have seriously started implementing the IPF proposals for action. Any future dialogue should therefore look into mechanisms to ensure commitments are being implemented. The creation of an independent panel to monitor the implementation of the IPF's proposals for action is something NGOs have repeatedly called for.
Any future dialogue should recognize the limited role governments have in the current international legal regime to address root causes of forest loss, which include land tenure regimes, agriculture and excessive and illegal logging. It is also essential that earlier studies which show that most problems facing forests do not need international but national, local or regional solutions, are taken into account.
Rather than starting a global forest policy dialogue from scratch lessons learned from other international processes dealing with forests like TFAP and ITTO should be taken on board as should the outcome of the IPF-IFF process and all relevant studies carried out within these processes, notably those focusing on international agreements.
2. Context and Justification
In trying to answer the two guiding questions posed we feel it is important to reiterate the functions of the IFF which seem to have become somewhat opaque during the proceedings of the discussions. The IPF was set up by the CSD to advance the discussion and to identify actions to improve the forest situation in north and south. The IPF and particularly the IPF intersessionals have proven to provide a good forum for discussion on a range of issues and have advanced the debate considerably. The over 130 'proposals for action' provide a basis for governments to start developing a process to halt and reverse the forest crisis.
However just as most governments have not fulfilled their promises to provide comprehensive reports to ITTO on achievements made towards the sustainable management of forests by the year 2000, neither has much been done towards achieving the implementation of the IPF's proposals for action. Even though the first mandate (mandate A) of the IFF was exactly this.
NGOs urged the IFF before its first meeting to focus attention on the implementation of the IPF's proposals for action. At the same time they stated that an independent panel to monitor the implementation of the IPF's proposals should be created.
The role of any future global forest policy dialogue must concentrate on the implementation of the IPF proposals for action. A future dialogue which does not have this as its absolute priority is making a mockery of four years of the IPF and IFF processes.
3. Achieving the objectives of the UNCED
At UNCED there was no agreement on a forest convention, as forests were treated as a 'political football' between 'North' and 'South'. The Northern countries did not want to fully accept their responsibility in causing global environmental problems, nor did they want to recognize the severity of the problems facing the Northern forests. At the same time the Southern countries were using forests to advance a wider agenda relating to North/South equity issues. The resulting non-legally binding forest principles were ambiguous, vaguely worded and did not address the fundamental causes of forest problems.
A more important outcome of UNCED was the commitment -formulated in Agenda 21 and in the Rio Principles- to involving full participation of 'Major Groups' in all decision making processes. This has not been followed up by most countries and vital stakeholders still remain barred from many decision making processes at local, national and international level. On the contrary we feel that participation of 'Major Groups' has declined since UNCED.
The lesson learned from TFAP is that participation of all stakeholders in decision making processes, particularly of those directly affected is essential. This point should come clearly across in any discussion paper.
4. Existing International Forest Regime
The lack of power of local communities and national governments to take necessary actions.
The text implies that the international community has a great role to play in identifying basic functions and major deficiencies of the international forest regime. The truth is however that governments themselves have limited the role they can play internationally to address the forest crisis:
Environmental negotiations pursued through UNCED have established the internationally agreed legal principle that forests are matters of national sovereignty. Causes of forest destruction like inequality in land distribution, lack of access to resources and road construction can therefore not easily be addressed at the international level. The principle of sovereignty is prominent in the UNCED forest principles. It is however this principle which often restricts the power of the forest peoples to own, manage and conserve their forests.
On the other hand, international negotiations to promote the liberalization of trade pursued through WTO have made illegal unilateral action by states to restrict trade in products produced by environmentally destructive means. Causes of forest destruction like unrestricted (often illegal) and unsustainable logging can therefore not easily be tackled at the international level as they will be seen as GATT illegal.
With the World Trade Organisation getting ready to expand its powers to include issues like investment, government procurement and competition, the power of governments to be able to decide against investments and trade measures which are detrimental for forests and forest peoples decreases even further.
Any global dialogue should recognise the way national governments have boxed themselves in by adopting these international agreements.
The lack of political will
In the paper fragmentation in the international forest regime is highlighted as a problem. However we do not see this a reason for the noted lack of efficiency and synergy in the international scene. The insufficient political will of governments, clearly noted in the paper, to even report on progress made towards international agreed actions let alone the implementation of these actions is a serious problem. Any IFF follow up which does not recognize this problem is doomed to fail.
Failures to implement instruments to date stem from lack of will for a number of reasons:
More action needed at national than at international level
On top of this, gap analysis carried out for the EU by EFI, as well as others by IIED and the WCFSD, show that most of the global aspects of forests (biodiversity, climate and land rights) are already being addressed at the international level by the CBD, FCCC and ILO. Most actions needed to reverse forest loss will have to be taken at the national level.
We feel that the greatest scope at present for involvement of the international community is in playing a monitoring role and stimulating role to ensure proper actions are being implemented.
5. Basic Functions of the future global forest policy dialogue
As mentioned earlier, the IPF proposals for action already describe some ways to make progress in resolving the forest crisis. Only by creating the political will to implement many of these action points achievements can be made.
We therefore strongly believe that the functions of a global forest policy dialogue should focus on: