• a) Existing instruments have not been thoroughly evaluated
• b) The problem is essentially national not international in nature
• c) Current governance structures will lead to lack of participation
• d) The right issues are still not being addressed
• e) There are no adequate means for regulating the private sector
• f) The countries supporting a convention have in many cases strong links between government and forest industry
• g) The institutional "home" of a convention remains uncertain
• h) No revision of aid practice is proposed
• Conclusions
• Signatories
• References

  THE CASE AGAINST A PREMATURE GLOBAL FOREST CONVENTION
The undersigned NGOs feel that it is premature to call for a global forest convention or any other legally binding global instrument on forests for the following reasons:

[Top]

a) Existing instruments have not been thoroughly evaluated
Other 'global' attempts to address the forest crisis, like the Tropical Forest Action Plan (TFAP) and the International Timber Trade Organisation (ITTO), have not achieved their goals. The causes of this failure have not yet been properly analysed. In our opinion such an analysis would show one of the main causes to be lack of participation by local people in the decision making process. The international process should focus on properly implementing and evaluating existing instruments before commencing a new global process.

[Top]

b) The problem is essentially national not international in nature
While it is recognised that there is a global forest crisis, the main issues that need tackling could be better addressed by effective regional, national or local action. Sovereignty arguments mean that a Convention would not be able to 'impose' binding solutions to national problems. Climate change and loss of biodiversity are global issues, linked to the forest crisis, that have already been addressed in the Climate Change and Biodiversity Conventions.

[Top]

c) Current governance structures will lead to lack of participation
The current participation level in international decision-making processes is unsatisfactory. International decision-making processes presently give exclusive authority to governments. Despite the rhetoric of Rio, 'Major Groups' such as indigenous peoples and NGOs have no direct voice in decision-making. Until new mechanisms of participation are devised, therefore, many sectors of civil society will only have a very indirect influence on the elaboration, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of international instruments. Any international decision making process is hampered from the start unless this issue is properly addressed.

[Top]

d) The right issues are still not being addressed
The real causes of deforestation and forest degradation are not being addressed. These are unsustainable consumption of wood and wood products, especially in the North, and lack of landrights and land security, especially in the South. There has been inadequate coverage of these issues and no consensus on how to tackle them.
Even on issues that are being addressed, such as Criteria and Indicators for sustainable forest management, there is no agreement between the various regional processes underway, and any convention would almost certainly enshrine the lowest common denominator.

[Top]

e) There are no adequate means for regulating the private sector
At present, there are no plausible mechanisms proposed at the international level for regulating the activities of the private sector, like timber and mining companies. As the private sector is one of the major forces in both deforestation and forest degradation, its activities need to be regulated. However, as in many countries governmental decisions are unduly influenced by the private sector, sufficient political will is lacking to implement this sort of regulation. This political will first needs to be created.

[Top]

f) The countries supporting a convention have in many cases strong links between government and forest industry
From both North and South, governments from countries with a powerful timber industry favour a forest convention, seeing a potential market advantage and a way to impose their standards (eg Canada, Finland and Malaysia). On the other hand, countries with a less influential timber industry fear from the imposition of global norms for forest management, and tend therefore not to be in favour of a global instrument as this might disadvantage them in international trade (eg USA, Brazil). At the same time, forestry departments from poor countries, keen to get international financial assistance to bolster their influence and effectiveness, favour a convention as a vehicle for more aid. International agencies favour a convention in so far as it will strengthen their role and budgets.

[Top]

g) The institutional "home" of a convention remains uncertain
If a global agreement on forests comes into existence, it should not be managed by the FAO which in the past has not been very sensitive to social issues such as landrights. Undersigned NGOs believe that an interagency approach for the enforcement of a convention would be preferable. However, interagency and cross-sectoral cooperation is not ready for sharing responsibilities in an open, transparent and accountable way.

[Top]

h) No revision of aid practice is proposed
To date, global initiatives to combat deforestation and intergovernmental processes of resource transfer have both been dominated by donor and recipient government concerns, to the exclusion of local communities and indigenous peoples. No new mechanisms are proposed to ensure effective public participation or considerations of cross sectoral issues.

[Top]

CONCLUSION:

A convention is likely to be drawn up principally to promote the financial and commercial interests of its proponents. A premature forest instrument focused on technical forestry considerations to the exclusion of other values of forests could do more harm than good.

[Top]

Signatories
Jean Paul Jeanrenaud, World Wide Fund for Nature, International, Bill Barclay, Greenpeace, International, Ricardo Carrere, World Rainforest Movement, Georgina Green, Friends of the Earth, England, Wales & N. Ireland, Gemma Boetekees, Friends of the Earth, Netherlands, Simon Counsell, Rainforest Foundation, UK, Nick Hildyard,The Ecologist, UK, Korinna Horta, Environmental Defence Fund, USA, Jutta Kill, Urgewald, Germany, Marcus Colchester, Forest Peoples Programme, UK, Ariane Crampton, Fern, Brussels, Saskia Ozinga, Fern, UK, Youth and Environment Europe, Netherlands, Rudolf Fenner, Robin Wood, Germany, Wolfgang Kuhlmann, ARA, Germany, Angie Zelter, Reforest the Earth, UK, Aaron Schneider, Center for International Studies, Canada, Tom Roche, Irish Woodworkers for Africa, Ireland, Jonas Rudberg, Swedish Society for Nature Conservation.

[Top]

References
Background report for the European Commission (EFI/IUCN/CIFOR, December 1996, Options for strengthening the international legal regime for forests):

"The tentative conclusion to be made at this point in time is that a truly effective Convention on Forests is not very feasible."

Background report for the European Commission:

"As long as the outcome of existing legal and policy tools is unknown or contentious, it will be difficult to agree on new ones."

'Existing agreements and initiatives need critical and independent evaluation.'

Background report for the European Commission:

"In principle, forest problems are more easily solvable at the national level than at the international level".

Background report for the European Commission:

"Any international efforts at rule-making... may need to incorporate specific measures to enable and facilitate participation from a broad cross-section of interested stakeholders."

Background report for the European Commission:

"Therefore given the vast regional differences, it simply may not be possible to have a global set of Criteria and Indicators."

"Conventions may enshrine weak definitions of sustainable forest management and give green light to bad practice."