January 2004
The global forest crisis continues unabated despite more than ten years of global forest policy dialogue in the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF, 1995-1997), followed by the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF, 1997-2000) and finally the UN Forum on Forests (UNFF, 2000-ongoing). Much of the forest policy dialogue in these fora has been dominated by either discussing the need for an international, legally binding instrument – like a forest convention - or preparing to discuss the need for such an agreement, to the detriment of concise and committed government action to halt the crisis.
2004 and 2005 will again be dominated by process discussions as intergovernmental forest policy makers once more prepare to discuss the need or otherwise for a legally binding agreement. Governments are no closer to implementing concise means to address the crisis than they were ten years ago, and it remains unclear how such an agreement, whose contents remain undefined, would be successful in addressing those issues that would need to be tackled, when /where the UNFF and its predecessors have failed to reverse the devastating trend. A number of agreements already exist, which provide guidance on the steps required to halt the crisis: The Expanded Work Programme on Forest Biological Diversity of the Convention on Biological Diversity, the IPF Proposals for Action, which governments pledged to implement several years ago, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, the Statement of Forest Principles, Chapter 11 of Agenda 21. The question thus arises: Is there anything a (new) intergovernmental body or agreement could do to reverse the forest crisis that is not taken on by these already existing initiatives? And if there are gaps, what are the prospects that these issues would be addressed in a forest convention. If they were not, how would a convention avoid becoming an empty talk shop like the UNFF?
Without providing answers to these obvious questions, proponents of the forest convention maintain that an international, legally binding instrument specifically focused on forests is necessary to implement existing commitments and to generate additional funds and political will required to halt forest loss. In past Briefings, FERN and other NGOs have presented their fears that negotiation of a forest convention could easily mean another lost decade without decisive action to stop and reverse forest loss. Worse, if such a convention would fail to consider the underlying causes of forest loss – lack of recognition of indigenous peoples’ rights, unsustainable consumption and production patterns and unsustainable financial and timber trade flows - it could entrench rather than alleviate the driving forces of deforestation and forest degradation.
In addition, many indigenous peoples and local
communities fear that a legally binding instrument would further entrench
narrow and potentially harmful interpretations of national sovereignty over
natural resources, as may happen in the ongoing CBD negotiations[1].
FERN believes that a stricter control and redirection
of financial flows, the securing of land and user rights of indigenous peoples
and local communities, respect for human rights and a reduction of consumption
of forest and agricultural products combined with a price increase are among
the essential measures to reverse the forest crisis. It appears unlikely that a new legally binding instrument (LBI)
would address these issues as the same governments now promoting a forest
convention have in the past argued that negotiations on pricing of forest
products and financial flows fall within the mandate of the World Trade
Organisation and could hence not be addressed within the forest policy dialogue,
and that the issue of indigenous peoples’ rights is a matter of national
sovereignty, thus equally outside the remit of a forest convention1 FERN does not share the view that these
two crucial issues at the heart of the forest crisis cannot be addressed in the
international forest policy debate – in fact, they must be if effective action
is to result from this dialogue.
FERN therefore calls on governments to refrain from supporting a Legally Binding Instrument on Forests unless they are prepared to ensure that any such instrument:
§ Is consonant with international human rights
§ Recognises and respects the customary rights of indigenous peoples and communities who live in and depend on forests
§ Addresses the underlying causes of deforestation and forest degradation, including the need for readjustment of financial flows and reduction of consumption
§ Promotes genuine community based forest management that empowers forest peoples
If these aspects are not dealt with, we fear that a new Legally Binding Instrument on forests risks perpetuating the current unsustainable forest regime that impoverishes local people and damages forests.
If governments believe that it
is not possible to include the above mentioned issues in a Legally Binding
Instrument, then FERN considers implementing the positive elements in the
Convention on Biological Diversity’s expanded work programme on forest
biological diversity the most cost-effective way forward. At the same time, if
the UNFF is to continue it needs to be drastically reformed, in line with
different demands repeatedly put forward by FERN and other NGOs; they include
inter alia reform and improvement of the participatory processes and modes of
major group engagement and a focus on monitoring and reporting on the
implementations of IFP Proposals for Action2
Throughout the past ten years of international
forest policy dialogue process, the debate on a global forest convention has
prevented progress on other issues. It is unacceptable that this fruitless
dialogue should continue to divert attention from actions and activities that
tackle the root causes and therefore the effects of deforestation and forest
degradation.
1 For more information on the issue of State Sovereignty and Multilateral Environmental Agreements see McKay, Fergus: Indigenous Peoples, State Sovereignty and the CBD; Forest Peoples Programme 2004; available at www.forestpeoples.org
2 For a full list of the demands see ‘The Credibility test for the UNFF”, FERN , April 2000; “Make or Break of UNFF”, FERN, January 2001; all documents are available at www.fern.org