www.fern.org

19 January 2001

Make or break for creating an effective UNFF

Fern, along with a number of other NGOs, has repeatedly expressed in the run up and during IFF4 that any instrument to follow up the IFF should focus on monitoring and evaluating implementation of the IPF Proposals for Action, as well as other commitments made within CBD, ILO, and others such as the Rio Declaration and Agenda 21. This is the only way to promote action on the ground that reverses forest loss and rekindles the flagging momentum currently hindering the forest debate.

Monitoring and reporting on progress is key to achieving implementation

The UNFFs monitoring and reporting function is key to achieving implementation. It therefore should:

1.       Receive and review national reports on implementation of the IPFs proposals for action and other relevant actions. Receive and review NGO, IPO and other submissions on national activities and reports.

2.       Provide validation of data (special rapporteurs, expert review panels)

3.       Develop an agenda for the UNFF meeting on obstacles to implementation encountered and possible solutions.

4.       Use the outcome of the UNFF meeting to further guide the work of the UNFF, as well as the work of the CPF,

• through the development of action plans
• by developing new initiatives or subcommittees on specific problems ­such as: illegal logging, lack of recognition of land rights and user rights
• by identification and mobilisation of financial resources etc.

The UNFF as well as the CPF 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 needs to be secured to allow the full participation of these groups in the monitoring, reporting, implementation and evaluation process.

The UNFF can facilitate national implementation, including international cooperation at the country level.

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

Engaging stakeholders creates political momentum

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

The UNFF can catalyse, mobilise and generate financial, technical and scientific resources.

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. The UNFF should give guidance to the CPF according to the outcome of the implementation reports and the CPF can be asked to play a role in issues highlighted by the reporting process, depending on the nature of the institution. Opening up of GEF funds for forests could be part of the mobilisation of new resources, however this must not siphon funds away from the CBD.

Reporting should be harmonised. Reports could be reviewed according to themes or regions.

Reporting requirements must be designed in a comprehensive and well-coordinated way with other instruments such as the CBD and the CSD. In this way the UNFF could draw in the thematic work of the instruments, institutions and programmes of the international forest regime. This would avoid duplication of work, and encourage engagement of other sectors in forest related discussions. This would also help avoid repetitions of the recent clashes of forest related discussions that happened in November - December 2000[1], and again from 12^th- 16^th March 2001.[2]

Implementation does not only mean the elaboration of National Forest Programmes (NFPs)

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. The elaboration of NFPs is about process.

Ministers will only attend if there is something interesting to hear

The ministerial segment must be fully used to draw attention to successes and obstacles in making progress on halting forest loss and to get political backing and commitment for actions that need to be taken (i.e. to address illegal logging, land rights etc.). It must be used to drive political support for national as well as international level action. The participation of Major Groups is vital to ensure that they can play a role as ‘brokers’ who can help to communicate in politically astute ways between governments and the UNFF, as well as the UNFF and the people in the forests. This has been done in the past through multi-stakeholder dialogue groups. Such a mechanism could be considered for the UNFF as well.