Sofia
Ryder,
FERN[1]
Despite
more than a decade of intergovernmental talk, forests are still disappearing at
an alarming rate and illegal logging is rampant. Tired of hearing words but not
seeing substantial actions to address the global forest crisis, at the May 1999
third session of the United Nations Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF),
eighteen Non- Governmental Organisations (NGOs) and Indigenous Peoples
Organisations (IPOs) committed themselves to “Initiate a monitoring and review
of implementation, by selected countries in different regions, of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF) proposals for action, and to report
their findings at IFF4”.
The
proposals for action, adopted by governments at the UN General Assembly Special
Session (UNGASS) in June 1997 -but not of a legally binding nature[2]-
are a package of over a hundred action points. They aim to address a range of
forest related issues. Even though the proposals for action fall short of
addressing some of the underlying causes of deforestation[3],
implementation of these proposals would be an important step towards halting the
present global forest crisis.
But
after three more years of talks about forest destruction at the IFF, which was
the IPF in a new disguise, hardly any progress had been made in implementing the
proposals for action and forest destruction continues at an unprecedented rate.
Some
of the reasons given by governments[4]
for lack of implementation were that,
·
The
structures put in place for reporting on implementation are weak.
·
The
proposals themselves were elaborated in a way that was vague and did not
provide countries with a clear framework for implementation.
·
The
proposals are not legally binding, therefore implementation is voluntary[5]
·
Implementation
is not the sole responsibility of the government, but also of NGOs, the
private sector and international institutions.
The
reasons were hardly more than lame excuses. The study shows that those
shortcomings were apparent a) because governments negotiated them in such a way
that they would be vague and represent a lowest common denominator approach and
b) there was little will to implement the proposals (none of them would have
been insurmountable).
Further
conclusions of the independent study showed that few countries had initiated a
process to implement the commitments resulting from the IPF proposals for
Action. Whatsmore, few countries
provided the substantive report on progress required of them by the UN
Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD). National policies and programmes
were hardly reviewed[6]
(if they had, this was usually coincidence rather than as a result of the IPF
proposals) and some parties who might have been responsible for implementation
weren’t even aware of their existence!
The
global steering committee consisting of NGOs and IPOs from eight geographic
regions worked with regional coordinators to select and assist country
researchers. They also played a part in drawing together a framework
questionnaire for collecting data and bringing together the conclusions from the
study. Twenty-two countries were monitored, focusing on those with significant
forest cover, large timber imports or exports, and prominent role in the forest
policy debate.
The
questionnaire was distributed and discussed with governments via the country
coordinators. It focused on the seven basic aspects of implementation including
process, participation, transparency, gap analysis, prioritisation, concrete
action and coordination. NGOs, IPOs and academics were also invited to
contribute to the report.
A
draft of the report was distributed at the final session of the IFF and a
meeting held to initiate a second phase of review and comment. At the same time,
comments and suggestions from governments and peer reviewers (including NGOs,
IPOs and academics) were gathered and incorporated by the country researchers.
The
results:
As
a result of the global NGO/IPO monitoring project:
·
Selected
governments were named and shamed in areas where lack of progress had been
made.
·
Where
some implementation had been achieved, parties were given an opportunity to
present where problems or successes lay.
·
NGOs/IPOs
were able to highlight to governments the need for implementation and less
dialogue in the future work of the forest forum.
·
The
importance of participation of NGOs/IPOs and other parties in policy
implementation and development was demonstrated.
·
New
parties became engaged in the process, creating new links between those
engaged in policy discussions and those engaged in field level implementation.
·
A call
was made for independent monitoring of commitments made at an
intergovernmental level. The rationale was to ensure awareness and
participation of all parties and to allow independent scrutiny of commitments
made at an international level.
The
report was released at the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) in May
2000 and is available at www.forestpolicy.org.
Manuel
Rodríguez-Becerra Co-Chairman, UN Intergovernmental Panel on Forests and Member
of the World Commission on Forests and Sustainable Development in his remarks on
the project stresses the importance of the lessons learned through this project,
both in terms of compliance and participation in policy making and
implementation. He states,
“Keeping the Promise, an independent review of the
implementation of the IPF Proposals for Action, is a key contribution to the
IPF's follow up.
The review identifies in all countries particular and
valuable efforts directed to the conservation and sustainable use of
forests…many of them coincide with concrete IPF Proposals for Action, a
positive fact that, however, does not arise from an explicit attempt to comply
with the agreement.
… The report stresses the prevailing low level of
participation of key stakeholders in the forest policy making process:
indigenous people, rural folks and environmental groups.
…The independent review is a successful experience
of NGO and indigenous people’s participation in the follow-up of international
agreements that deserves commendation and support.”
Three
years after the commitments were made, again it has been decided that one of the
key mandates of the new follow up forest forum[7]
will be to promote the implementation of the IPF proposals for action.
Following
the independent monitoring initiative, some NGOs pushed for an
institutionalisation of independent monitoring into the forum’s workplan. This
was rejected by many governments who would probably not want to be exposed for
their apparent lack of will to address current forest problems.
It
can only be hoped that as a result of the independent monitoring project, a more
serious attempt will be made to implement the proposals for action this time
around, though providing a good transparent structure to ensure compliance will
be key to achieving this.
NGOs
intend to continue their independent monitoring initiative to ensure that
governments comply with international forest related commitments, to praise
those that make good progress, and to ensure meaningful engagement and input of
NGOs IPOs and local communities in intergovernmental fora, where important
decisions affecting their livelihoods are made.
[1] Fern is an NGO which
advocates changes in European Union activities in order to achieve:
conservation and sustainable management of forests; respect for the rights
of forest peoples; greater transparency in EU aid to tropical forest
countries.
[2] There is a current large divide in opinion as to whether a forest convention is desirable
[3] See NGO report “Addressing the underlying causes of deforestation and forest degradation” available from Fern
[4] See NGO report ‘Keeping the Promise’ A review of NGOs/IPOs on the Implementation of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Forests ‘Proposals for Action; in select countries (www.forestpolicy.org)
[5] NGOs believe that if a legally binding forest convention were to be set up, it would be watered down beyond credibility in order to be digestible by all governments
[6] Only in one case did a select group of countries put together a workshop to produce a practitioners guide to implementation and as a result some progress was made (The six country initiative in support of the UN Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF))
[7] UN Forum on Forests (UNFF)