This paper contains NGO recommendations on:
- Introduction: A question for governments
- Terms of Reference of the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests
- Implementation of the IPF Proposals for Action
- Reviewing, monitoring and reporting on progress in forest management,
conservation and sustainable development
- Considering matters left pending by IPF (trade, aid and technology
transfer)
- International Arrangements and Mechanisms to promote forest
management, conservation and sustainable development
- The role of the Inter-Agency Task Force on Forests (ITFF)
Present at the meeting:
Marcus Colchester/Maurizio Ferrarri, Forest Peoples Programme
Saskia Ozinga/Ariane Crampton, Fern
Joji Carino, International Alliance of Indigenous Peoples of the Tropical
Forests
Stefan Leiner WWF European Policy Office
Steve Howard, WWF UK
Miguel Lovera, NC-IUCN
Georgina Green, Friends of the Earth
Patrick Anderson, Greenpeace International
Steward Wilson, Forest Monitor
Jutta Kill, Urgewald Germany
George Marshall, Rainforest Foundation International
Simon Counsell, Rainforest Foundation UK
Introduction: A question for governments
Parallel international negotiations on environment and trade pursued over the
past twenty years, have created a situation today where further progress to
resolve the crisis in the world's forests is extremely problematic.
On the one hand, the environmental negotiations pursued through UNCED have
established the internationally agreed legal principle that forests and most
natural resources are matters of national sovereignty.
On the other hand, parallel international negotiations to promote the
liberalization of trade, pursued through the GATT/WTO, have simultaneously made
illegal, unilateral action by states to restrict trade in products produced by
environmentally destructive means.
This means that the two main avenues by which governments can seek to moderate
the impact of unrestrained economic activities on the environment are now
blocked. Unilateral action at the national level to restrain destructive trade,
violates international law in the form of trade agreements, while
intergovernmental action at the international level is blocked by the
overriding supremacy of national sovereignty in environmental agreements.
Progress to resolve the forest crisis is, thus, paralysed by neoliberal and
nationalist dogmas, which governments have now enshrined in international law.
Environmental NGOs accept neither of these dogmas and have been arguing
against them for many years.
By adopting inappropriate international laws, Governments limited their options
for progressive change. They have boxed themselves in and it is now up to them
to work out how they envisage breaking out of this box.
Top
1. Terms of Reference of the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests
1.1. Main area of work
NGOs feel strongly that the IFF should focus most of its attention on promoting
and facilitating the implementation of IPF's proposals for action. This should
be clearly reflected in both the work programme and the terms of reference.
1.2. Participation
It is stated in the proposed programme of work of the IFF that 'major groups
participate as observers in the IFF, on an open-ended and fully participatory
basis, in accordance with the rules of procedure of the Commission on
Sustainable Development'. Indigenous Peoples are currently disadvantaged by
the ECOSOC rules and procedures as only 13 of their organizations have
consultative status (only one from the South) and they are seeking increased
aperture in UN processes. As stated in IPF action proposal 77f.
NGOs therefore call for additional measures and resources to improve
participation by Major Groups. Specifically:
- accreditation procedures should be made easier to promote the participation
of currently marginalised groups, like indigenous peoples and community based
organisations.
As a start the IFF should give consultative status to the 90 indigenous
peoples groups who are currently accredited by the UN organisation on Human
Rights (the Open Ended Working Group on the Draft Declaration of Indigenous
Peoples Rights).
- bilateral agencies should provide funds to allow effective participation of
Major Groups.
- sessions 2 and 3 of the IFF and intersessional meetings should be held in the
regions to promote the participation of Major Groups.
1.3. Need for intersessional meetings
Governments should continue their support for intersessionals which should all
be open to full participation by Major Groups, as a way of promoting consensus
building and deepening debate.
Top
2. Implementation of the IPF Proposals for Action
Mandate (a) of the IFF
2.1. To set up an independent panel to monitor the implementation of the IPF's
Proposals for Action.
The TFAP (Tropical Forest Action Plan) experience has taught us the importance
of an open and participatory review process to actively monitor the
implementation of the IPF's programme of action. NGOs therefore call for the
establishment of a special independent panel including representatives of Major
Groups to monitor the implementation of the IPF's programme of action at the
international level.
Special independent national panels including representatives of Major Groups
should be established to monitor the implementation of national forest
programmes and other forest related activities.
NGOs feel the following action points should be prioritised for urgent
implementation:
(References to the IPF proposals for action are given in brackets)
2.2. Facilitating an intersessional meeting on the underlying causes of
deforestation and encouraging donors to facilitate fully participatory regional
and national meetings on the same theme. NGOs are willing to host such an
intersessional meeting (IPF action points 28, 30).
2.3. Establishing participatory national and international processes to
formulate policies aiming at securing land tenure for local communities and
indigenous peoples (17f, 29).
2.4. Establishing national and regional networks of ecological representative
protected areas with the full participation of Major Groups, as well as
promoting regeneration and restoration of degraded forest areas, involving
indigenous peoples, local communities, forest dwellers and forest owners in
their protection and management (46c, 58b).
2.5. Providing an assessment and sharing relevant information on illegal trade
and proposing measures to counter such trade. NGOs are keen to collaborate with
Governments and the private sector in carrying out this assessment (135b)
2.6. Assessing long term trends in supply and demand for wood and considering
actions to promote the sustainability of the wood supply and means for meeting
the demand (28a). An action plan to reach a sustainable level of consumption
should be developed.
NGOs are concerned about:
2.7. the risk of national forest programmes repeating past mistakes. NGOs urge
the immediate revision of on-going programmes to ensure they are open,
transparent and accountable processes, that are fully participatory and
cross-sectoral.
2.8. the indiscriminate promotion of plantations as an important element of
sustainable forest management and as a complement to natural forests (28). NGOs
stress the potential negative impacts of industrial scale tree-plantations and
urge that plantations only be promoted after careful appraisal of their social
and environmental implications (58(b)ii). Preference should be given to the
regeneration and restoration of degraded forest areas by indigenous peoples and
other local communities (58(b)iii).
2.9. the risk of urging countries to attract private sector investment
indiscriminately (69). Effective, legal and institutional mechanisms for
regulating the activities of the private sector are required if investment is
to provide sustainable environmental and social benefits.
2.10. governments supporting voluntary codes of conduct (116, 128c) as they
have proven to be ineffective and do not allow independent scrutiny, at least
until a thorough assessment of their potential effect has been conducted as
mentioned in recommendation 4.3.
2.11. urging countries to remove all unilateral measures (bans and boycotts)
(130 a, b). The indiscriminate lifting of all trade restrictions can have
serious impacts on local businesses and employment, local livelihoods and
environments and can lead to losses to the national exchequer. Trade
restrictions should only be lifted after careful examination of the costs and
benefits and participatory consultation on a case-by-case basis.
Top
3. Reviewing, monitoring and reporting on progress in forest management,
conservation and sustainable development
Mandate (b) of the IFF
Within the context of both the ITTO and the IPF, countries were asked to submit
reports on the progress made towards conservation and sustainable development
of their forests. However hardly any reports were sent and many were of poor
quality.
3.1. There is a clear need for in depth national reporting and effective
monitoring on the national forest situation. Governments should make this a
priority.
Top
4. Considering matters left pending by IPF in particular trade and environment
and the need for financial resources
Mandate (c) of the IFF
NGO Recommendations re financial resources:
4.1. The IFF should ensure that foreign assistance takes into account local
needs. There is a risk that any proposed new forestry aid programme will repeat
the mistakes made in the early phases of the Tropical Forestry Action Plan,
where it transpired that aid monies were primarily benefiting political elites,
logging companies, plantation industries and urban bureaucrats, while denying
local peoples' rights to their lands and intensifying pressure on primary
forests.
4.2. A thorough review of current aid mechanisms related to forests is thus
necessary taking into account the views of local communities, and NGOs such as
environment and development groups. Clear standards should also be agreed. New
transparent, participatory mechanisms need to be elaborated to ensure that
future forest-related bilateral and multilateral aid is effective.
Recommendations re trade and environment:
4.3. The IPF made little progress in identifying means to improve the
regulation of private companies, particularly transnational corporations and
private capital, to ensure they operate in socially and environmentally
acceptable ways. Independent cross-sectoral studies should be carried out to
examine the positive and negative impacts of private companies on forests. The
studies should examine the effectiveness or otherwise of voluntary codes of
conduct, third party certifications, environmental and social impact analyses,
government monitoring, legal regulations and make recommendations for improving
the performance of the private sector. Particular attention should be paid to
the impacts of agribusinesses including plantation companies, as well as
logging, mining, oil, gas and other extractive enterprises.
Recommendations re technology transfer:
4.4. Much attention has been focused on the need for technology transfer.
However a thorough examination should take place of the impacts of
inappropriate technology transfers from North to South and South to North, e.g
exporting the Scandinavian plantation forestry model to countries in the South
like Thailand.
Top
5. International Arrangements and Mechanisms to promote sustainable forest
management and conservation:
Separate IFF mandate
5.1. Although the IFF has been given the mandate to work towards consensus on
international arrangements and mechanisms, it should not start this work until
a thorough independent assessment of gaps in, and obstacles to, national
implementation of existing agreements, with the full participation of Major
Groups, has been conducted. Particular attention should be given to the
adoption and proper implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity
and ILO 169. European Governments are particularly urged to sign on to ILO 169,
and publicly support the draft UN Declaration on Indigenous Peoples Rights.
Top
6. The role of the Inter-Agency Task Force on Forests (ITFF)
The meetings of ITFF are presently not open to NGOs or Governments.
Consequently the ITFF proposals are shaped by the agencies' preconceptions and
their desire to share out roles amongst themselves. Action point 135 of IPF
states however that the ITFF should work in a transparent and participatory
manner.
Therefore NGOs recommend:
6.1. Mechanisms and resources should be identified to allow the full
participation of Major Groups in the ITFF process.
At present, NGOs have not thoroughly discussed the ITFF's implementation
programme. A detailed critique will follow in time for the first IFF meeting in
New York. However NGOs and Indigenous Peoples Organisations are concerned that
discussions about Traditional Forest-Related Knowledge are limited to a minimal
interpretation of Article 8j of the CBD.
20 Av des Celtes, 1040 Brussels, Belgium
Phone: 32 2 742 24 36 Fax: 32 2 736 80 54
fern@arcadis.be
Top