8-country initiative

Fern’s (UK) , Forest Peoples Programmes’ (UK), the Rainforest Foundation’s and Pro Regenwald’s (Germany) response to the

The above mentioned NGOs would like to thank the initiators of the 8 Country Initiative for taking this initiative and the transparency of the process. We think it is important to start this discussion in due time before the first meeting of the UNFF.

Do you agree that the functions of the International Arrangement on Forests as outlined in the IFF4 report determine the basic framework of the UNFF programme of work?

Fern, along with a number of other NGOs, repeatedly expressed in the run up and during IFF4 that any instrument to follow up the IFF should focus on monitoring and implementation of the IPF Proposals for Action and other commitments made.

This is vital in order that the work of the UNFF results in actions on the ground to halt and reverse forest loss and rekindles the flagging political momentum currently hindering the forest debate. The IPF process had some merits as it had a more or less concrete outcome in the form of the Proposals for Action. The IFF process was widely seen as a failure as it did not promote and facilitate the IPF Proposals for Action, as was its main mandate. Its other mandate of furthering discussion and policy dialogue did not lead to any concrete results.

The mistakes of IFF must therefore not be repeated (i.e. hijacking of the constructive work on forests by endless discussions over a forest convention, lack of promoting and facilitating the implementation of the Proposals for Action, sometimes duplicating work already carried out in other fora). Therefore the functions of the UNFF must be limited to 1) the facilitation and promotion of the implementation of the IPF proposals for action as well as other commitments made within CBD, ILO and other conventions as well as other internationally agreed actions such as the Rio Declaration, Agenda 21, and 2) to reporting on the progress being made at national, regional and international levels.

All the other functions (b,c,d,f) as described in the draft resolution of 22 September 2000 (report of the fourth session of the IFF) should be treated as means to facilitate and promote the implementation of the Proposals for Action and other actions and should not be seen as self-standing functions without a clear goal.

To ensure the UNFF does focus on implementation, monitoring and reporting a mechanism needs to be developed that requires governments and other stakeholders to report on progress made, as well as obstacles encountered. Government reports could be reviewed by a peer group analogue to the DAC of the OECD, as well as by NGOs. Obstacles need to be discussed and if found they are common such as illegal logging- action plans need to be drawn up. Such a mechanism should be transparent, open to scrutiny and fully participatory i.e. full participation of governments (all relevant departments), indigenous peoples, NGOs and other Major Groups. Funding need to be secured to allow the full participation of these groups in the monitoring, reporting, implementation and evaluation process.

· How can the UNFF facilitate national implementation, including international cooperation at the country level?

By creating effective monitoring and reporting mechanisms for such implementation, that includes participation of all sectors of society as requested by the IPF Proposals for Action. Obstacles encountered should be clearly listed in the reports as well as possible solutions. These obstacles and solutions will then form the basis of a policy discussion at the UNFF with concrete recommendations as outcome, such as an action plan, studies, transfer of financial resources etc.

Access to the reports and UNFF discussions by independent parties not only results in involvement, and awareness by all parties responsible for implementing commitments made, but opens up the process to independent scrutiny, mobilisation of political support for implementation at the national level and responsibility felt by all for compliance with the commitments made.

Through the establishment of a committee which reviews reports received from governments and independent parties on progress in implementation of existing agreements.

a) Receives and reviews national reports on implementation of the IPFs proposals for action and other relevant actions Receives and reviews NGO and IPO submissions on national activities and reports

c) Develops an agenda for the UNFF meeting on obstacles encountered and possible solutions.

d) Uses the outcome of the UNFF meeting to further guide the work programme of the UNFF, including the work of the CPF, by developing new initiatives or subcommittees drawing up action plans on specific problems such as illegal logging, lack of recognition of land rights and user rights-, by identification and mobilisation of financial resources etc.

· How can the UNFF address the call to catalyse, mobilise and generate financial, technical and scientific resources (valuation of goods and services, investments, benefit sharing, scientific priorities etc.)?

The suggestion that there is a lack of financial resources might be false. There are many resources available that need directing in an appropriate manner potentially through the work of the UNFF. Co-ordinated research and transfer of funds are important but should be seen in the context of a clear action plan to address a specific problem. It is therefore essential that the UNFF develop such a plan on the basis of the governments and independent reports described above.

· What kind of guidance should the UNFF provide to the CPF in implementation given the legal and administrative status of UN organisations, international institutions and global instruments participating in the CPF?

The UNFF should give guidance to the CPF according to the outcome of the implementation reports and subsequent evaluation of these reports by the chosen UNFF committee if relevant. The CPF can be asked to play a role in issues highlighted by the reporting process, depending on the nature of the institution.

· Which conditions should the UNFF seek to improve at the international level as to facilitate national implementation in the North and the South?

All of the above a commitment to transparency, the full participation of Major Groups, national reporting and the willingness to dialogue. Forests have been and still are a political football between North and South, with the North claiming that all problems are in the South and refusing to address the issue of consumption and its own forest decline, and the South wanting funds in return for addressing the problems of deforestation, many of which are of a political nature and do not necessarily need funds. This deadlock needs to be broken if any progress is to be made.

· What should be the basic concept of the ”plan of action for the implementation of the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action” and what should be the role of the UNFF in its implementation?

Most of the implementation of the Proposals for Action needs to take place at the national level. The UNFF should coordinate and attempt to ensure compliance through

d) Take action to address the obstacles listed. This can be by mobilising resources, developing action plans, creating sub committees, asking the CPF and or the NGO community to co-ordinate some research.

Priorities identified as a result of implementation experiences (gaps, obstacles, failures) at a national level. The IFF Intersessional on Underlying Causes identified several obstacles including the lack of access to land and resources in several countries North and South, the unequal terms of trade in the current trade regime, the under valuation of most forest services etc. A study presented by CIFOR at the same intersessional highlighted illegal logging and misguided government policies, such as road building and subsidies, as the most relevant underlying causes to address. It is important that the UNFF takes the outcome of this intersessional as well as CIFOR’s report into account.

· How should the UNFF address the aim of increasing the common understanding on the management, conservation and sustainable development of all types of forests in a comprehensive way and what should be the product and results (recommendations, proposals for action, declarations etc.) in view of setting favourable and/or enabling conditions at national level?

Forest management is not merely a technical issue but foremost a political issue. As IIED notes in its series ‘forest policy that works for forest and peoples’ “almost every aspect of forestry is a political activity”. A sustainable forest management policy that works “should take into account the historical and political context and the ways in which real change is made”. In many cases this means a process of dialogue and discussion between all stakeholders. This leads to the conclusion that if the political situation in a certain country is such that there is no possibility for all stakeholders to participate in an open debate, the chances for a change for the good where forests are concerned are slim. As forests are on somebody’s land, the question of who owns the forests and who should have access to the forests as well as who is allowed to decide on ‘what to do with the forest’ are the most important issues to address when working on towards sustainable forest management. The UNFF will have to ensure that its members will acknowledge that ‘almost every aspect of forestry is a political activity’.

· How should the UNFF draw in the thematic work of the instruments, institutions and programmes of the international forest regime to consolidate the work on comprehensive approaches to the management, conservation and sustainable development of all types of forests?

Through implementation of reporting requirements, in a comprehensive and well coordinated way with other instruments such as the CBD and the CSD. It might be advisable to develop jointly reporting mechanisms with the CBD, as CBD parties will have to draft up special reports on forests for COP6 in 2002. Nonetheless it should be clear that all the IPF proposals for action should be addressed.

§ How should the UNFF organise its thematic work on issues and/or clusters of issues that effectively lead to policy guidance for governments and civil societies to achieve the management, conservation and sustainable development of all types of forests? How should the UNFF identify emerging areas of priority?

See above. Thematic issues that need addressing at the international level should be identified by national reports provided by governments and NGOs to the UNFF. The thematic work is identified as those gaps and obstacles to implementation highlighted through the work on compliance by the special UNFF committee dealing with compliance.

· What should be the objective and the anticipated results of the high-level ministerial segment of the UNFF, including its interactions with the group of heads of international organisations?

The Ministerial aspect is new to the IPF-IFF process and should be welcomed. It is sometimes said that one of the key problems government civil servants face is the lack of knowledge of international commitments by internal staff. One reason for this is the low political profile given to these commitments by national politicians.

To draw attention to successes and obstacles in making progress on forest related issues, to highlight commitments made and ensure implementation and to get political backing and commitment for actions that need to be taken (i.e. to address illegal logging, land rights etc) as well as to raleigh political support to make things happen at national as well as international level should all considered to be objectives for the high level ministerial segment. The participation of Major Groups is important to ensure that they can play a role as ‘brokers’ who can help to communicate in politically astute ways between governments and the UNFF and the UNFF and the people in the forests.

· What role can international organisations and other interested parties play in promoting continued policy development and dialogue with the UNFF?

Independent groups must be involved in independent monitoring on implementation in order for progress on compliance to be made. Funding should be made available for indigenous peoples and NGOs to fully participate in these processes.

· In order to overcome overlaps and to fill gaps, what should the UNFF expect from the CPF in terms of coordinated and consolidated action on the implementation of the results of the UNFF considering the current programmes and activities of the individual organisations?

· What level of guidance should the UNFF provide to the CPF and how should it be delivered (e.g. should it be delivered to the chair of the CPF through the Ministerial Segment and/or through the governing bodies of the relevant organisations)?

The UNFF should guide the activities of the CPF according to the gaps and obstacles identified in the reporting process, see above. The organisations that are part of the CPF should also present an annual report to the UNFF outlining progress made and obstacles encountered. These reports should also be discussed at the UNFF meeting.

Furthermore several organisations in the CPF, such as the FAO, do not have a rosy record on forests and improvement of their policies and practices is important to further the debate on sustainable forest management. The UNFF should not shy away from these discussions.

· Given the fact that not all forest-related organisations, institutions and instruments will be members of the CPF, what would be ways and means of enhancing cooperation and coordination with institutions and instruments other than CPF members.

The UNFF should call on all other forest related organisations, institutions and instruments to report on their activities that are relative to the work of the UNFF in order to avoid contradiction or duplication. Research institutions as well as NGOs and NGO networks often provide very valuable information that should be taken into account. Close contacts with NGO networks and research institutions to be aware of their activities and how they fit into the UNFF’s work plan is important.

· What could the UNFF achieve in terms of a new approach to international cooperation aiming at changes in international conditions for financial and technology transfers?

· What guidance could the UNFF give for countries to prepare for a new understanding of international cooperation and to change national conditions accordingly?

An attempt to coordinate and harmonise reporting on relative institutions and instruments should be made to enhance coordination of efforts and avoid contradiction and duplication.

In terms of a new understanding of international co-operation it is important that the UNFF listens to voices from the South such as the South Center, to ensure the UNFF does not fall in the same trap as the UN report ‘We and the people of the 2001 century’, which presents a very Northern biased few on development.

· What consequences would this new view on international cooperation have with regard to "taking steps to devise approaches towards appropriate financial and tech. transfer support" (Point 3 (c)(ii) of the draft ECOSOC resolution)?

It would open the debate on trade, debt relief and aid including transfers of technical support, and link these debates in a manner that equals the participants in this debate. There is no equal trading system at this moment as the current trading system favours countries in the North, therefore there is no equal debate

· What system of monitoring, assessment and reporting should the UNFF establish considering the already existing various reporting requirements of other forest-related processes at the international and regional levels?

See above on coordinating and harmonising existing reporting requirements to avoid duplication and increase coordination and focus of output. Independent reporting is vital and validation of data is essential. Use should be made of Initiatives such as Global Forest Watch and NGO monitoring programmes to present an honest picture of the forest situation in relevant countries.

Reporting and evaluation of reports must form the basis of the entire work programme of the UNFF.

· What should be the relationship between the work of the UNFF, FAO/FRA 2000 and other relevant monitoring measures, including the C&I processes, taken by other institutions, including NGOs?

The UNFF should use where possible existing data to avoid duplication of work. Nonetheless validation of data is essential.

· How could the UNFF achieve monitoring, assessment and reporting on progress in achieving the management, conservation and sustainable development of all types of forests world wide beyond the reports of its own work?

Explained above. It is clear that it is not possible for the UNFF to properly deal with country reports of all countries at every session. It is therefore proposed to deal with a maximum of 10 countries from one region, per UNFF session, to look at progress made and obstacles encountered. Only with a limited number of reports can a well-founded discussion take place.

Besides its regular meetings, the UNFF would have a high-level ministerial segment which would include a policy dialogue with the heads of organisations participating in the CPF. This ministerial segment is intended to give guidance to the UNFF and to endorse the results of its deliberations politically.

· Should this function of the UNFF have its own measures identified in the programme of work and what should be the objectives and specific activities?

Possible objectives would be to foster compliance between the different institutions and governments and these institutions. If the work of the UNFF results in implementation, evaluation and focus on how to counter obstacles, then political momentum presented by the high level ministerial, will automatically be strengthened.

· Are there politically appropriate indicators for this function, in particular with regard to the engagement of the high-level ministerial segment and the liaison with the governing bodies of international and regional organisations, institutions and instruments?

There probably are but we have had insufficient time to think this through at this moment.

· In which way and by which means should the UNFF consider the parameters of a mandate for developing a legal framework on all types of forests within five years based on the assessment under UNFF function 2 (e) (Point 3 (c)(i) of the draft ECOSOC resolution)?

Further consideration of this issue under the UNFF will stall future progress and draw political will and resources away from the pressing implementation of existing commitments, and the issues that can and should be addressed based on the reports. The debate pro and contra ‘ forest convention’ has so far been a debate used by governments to opt out of commitments made rather than a debate to move forward on issues that should be addressed by such a convention. Unless this debate focuses on issues to be addressed, based on the reports, it is a waste of time and resources.

Explanatory note: The individual functions to be performed by the UNFF are not considered to be independent and to be fulfilled in parallel. The programme of work of the UNFF therefore needs to be designed in a way that linkages between the functions are established, synergies created and effectively used. Since the identified functions are meant to be performed by the international arrangement as a whole, including the UNFF and the CPF, the programme of work for the UNFF needs to address links and synergies between the functions for its policy and thematic work as well as for its relationship with the CPF.

· Which functions are specifically related or reinforcing and what are the consequences for the programme of work?

As stated before, the overarching function should be implementation of existing commitments and the monitoring and evaluation of this implementation and providing guidance on how to move forward should be the content of the UNFFs work programme. Dialogue can then be well focused on emerging obstacles to implementation or particular lessons learned.

· What does the establishment of links and the creation of synergies between the functions of the UNFF mean for the overall concept of the UNFF programme of work?

The result of the above would be a UNFF programme of work that is well focused, relevant to the work of all forest related fora, avoiding duplication and resulting in changes on the ground, and rekindle political momentum to address the forest crisis.

Explanatory note: The discussion on the concept and basic elements of the UNFF programme of work should not include a broad debate on the structure of the different parts of the international Arrangement on Forests like the UNFF itself and the CPF.

However, since the UNFF and the CPF should perform the same functions in a complementary way, the elaboration of the UNFF programme of work and particularly the implementation of its results has to rely on a good understanding and broad consensus on the "terms of reference" for the UNFF and the CPF.

· How could the CPF assist the UNFF in the implementation of the MYPW and how could UNFF and CPF cooperate and complement each other?

The CPF should support the implementation of existing commitments by having focused work programmes based on obstacles or successes identified in the monitoring and evaluation work of the UNFF. They should also contribute by submitting their own annual reports to the UNFF on progress made and obstacles encountered.

· How would you consider the position of the UNFF and the CPF vis-à-vis the international forest regime as a whole?

As stated above, the UNFF (along with the CPF) has a vital role in coordinating forest related commitments, harmonising the reporting on implementation of existing forest related commitments and identifying gaps and synergies, to ensure maximum effectiveness and avoiding duplication or contradicting activities.

· What should be the operational instruments of the UNFF and the CPF (e.g. action plans, programmes of individual organisations like FAO, UNDP, UNEP, ITTO, World Bank etc.)?

· What would be the role and terms of reference of the ad-hoc expert groups envisaged in the CSD decision and the draft ECOSOC Resolution?

Ad hoc expert groups should work on overcoming the specific obstacles presented by the UNFF following monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of existing commitments. They could function in a similar way to the technical expert groups of the CBD, which are currently making progress in some controversial and complex issues. It goes without saying that these groups must be open, transparent and fully participatory, and contribute positively to the work of the UNFF on promoting implementation and compliance.

· Should there be other instruments of the UNFF like government-led or NGO initiatives, or other processes?

Question is unclear. Other instruments of the UNFF? There are many non-government led initiatives existing, most of which have an important role to play. As forests are a cross sectoral issue, developments as the creation of a UN permanent forum for indigenous peoples are extremely relevant as is the progress being made in the CBD by including indigenous peoples in the roster of experts and the strong emphasis put on indigenous peoples participation. Furthermore the IPF and IFF intersessionals were seen by many as one of the most relevant features of the IPF-IFF process not in the least because they were ‘informal’ allowing participants to be more open and frank than during official IPF-IFF sessions. To bring some of the solutions to the forest crisis closer, an open frank and honest debate, focused on concrete mostly political issues- is essential. NGO and other sectors of civil society will have to plan a role in this debate, in line with the IPF Proposals for Action.

· To understand that these causes are in most cases political in nature -and can not be solved by foresters alone,

· That developing forestry master plans, national or international forest plans can and should not be introduced in a top down manner

· That ‘constructive engagement, analysis, debates and negotiations at local, national and international level’ will provide a start to reverse the forest crisis

· That forests will continue to be lost if there is no political change in societies where local and indigenous peoples have no equal say in the debate on the future of often their- forests.

· That ‘forestry can and should be an activity that changes the political environment for the better’ (IIED, policy that works for forests and people)

The IPF and IFF processes were processes led by foresters without sufficiently acknowledging the points mentioned above. If the UNFF is to be successful it is essential that forests are being dealt with in a truly holistic manner, as described in the Rio principles, with full and equal participation of all Major Groups, as described in Agenda 21. Crucial underlying and direct causes of forest loss, as identified by CIFOR as well as a coalition of NGOs, such as unequal distribution of land, lack of access to resources, government policies that do not correct market mechanisms and strengthen export of commodities, illegal logging should be discussed in a participatory and open manner leading to joint bottom up solutions to these major problems, many of which as the 6 Country Initiative has shown- are at the national and not at the international level.