The second Intergovernamental Panel on Forests discussed a lot of issues, yet remained more of a warm up for the final session
Still in the Woods
THE second session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF)
was held from March 11-22 in
Geneva. Delegates conducted their first
substantive discussions of six programme elements: underlying causes of
deforestation and forest degradation;
fragile ecosystems affected by desertification and the impact of air pollution
on forests; needs and requirements of
countries with low forest cover; international cooperation in financial assistance and technology transfer for sustainable forest management; assessment
of the multiple benefits of all types of
forests; and methodologies for proper
valuation of the multiple benefits of
forests.
The IPF was set up by the Economic
and Social Council, on the recommendation of the third session of the
Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD), as an open ended ad
hoc body to pursue consensus and
coordinate proposals for action to
support the management, conservation
and sustainable development of forests.
In pursuing its mandate, the IPF is
focusing on I I issues clustered into
five interrelated categories and will submit final conclusions and policy recommendations to the CSD at its fifth session
in 1997.
The first meeting of the IPF took
place in New York from September 11 -
15, 1995. At this meeting, delegates had
elected Martin Holdgate (UK) as co-chair from the developed countries and
N R Krishnan (India) and Manuel
Rodriguez (Colombia) as co-chairs
from the developing countries, with
Krishnan serving as co-chair for the first
two sessions and Rodriguez for the final
two sessions. The issues debated in
IPF-1 included the implementation of
United Nations Convetion for Environmental Development's (UNCED) decisions related to forests, coordination of
bilateral and multilateral assistance,
scientific research and forest assessment, criteria and indicators for
sustainable forest management, trade
in forest products, and review of
international organisations and multilateral institutions. It also discussed
possible contributions to their work
from ongoing processes, surbh as the
biodiversity convention, and from
expert meetings that will be sponsored
by individual countries and international
organisations.
The debate during the last two ways
Of IPF-2 was indicative of the status and
ultimate meaning of the entire session.
In refusing to grant authority to the
meeting's conclusions and insisting that
all discussions were transitional, delegates acknowledged what their fairly
non-committal statements had been
indicating for two weeks: IPF-2 was a
warm up. Yet even if delegations were
deliberately structured to initiate discussion without negotiations on less
controversial, substantive matters, IPF-2
did illuminate areas that may remain
contentious through the remainder of
the Panel's work. On questions like the
relative emphasis on forests and
forestry, the roles of national or global
measures, and the IPF's relationship to
other negotiations and bodies, this
meeting sketched some of the boundaries and turning points of delegates'
early collective thinking.
On the impact of air-borne pollutants,
the European Union (EU) said that air
pollution is an external factor that cannot be influenced by the forest
sector itself. The EU supported the proposed topics for consideration and
highlighted the need for national commitments. Almost all the countries discussed their problems and gave suggestions. Delegates from Denmark said that
the link between pollutants and elemental inputs from the atmosphere should
be considered during afforestation
efforts. Germany said that air pollution
illustrates that sustainable development
of forests is related to factors beyond
control of the forest community. It supported monitoring effects over long
periods, raising awareness to influence
politicy decisions and taking measures
to improve forests stand.
Holdgate introduced the programme for needs and requirements
of countries with low forest cover
(LFCS), and UNEP senior programme
officer Bai Mass Taal introduced the
document which attempts to identify
the Ucs based on FAO statistics and
definitions. It concludes that LFCS
require cooperation to reduce their
dependence on foreign forest goods
and services, and that they may consider investing in "minimum permanent
forest estate". The document also
proposes actions.
Australian delegates said that the
needs of developed and developing
countries should be identified. Work
should be done on inventory methodology, and greater emphasis given to
timber production values. Plantations
can contribute directly to protecting
biodiversity and indirectly to decreasing
pressure on native forest resources.
While Iran urged the panel to consider
global issues and to examine the causes
behind LFCS such as poverty and the lack
of technology and expertise, Colombia,
which has a relatively high forest
cover, said that the list of recommendations should be prioritised so that
all countries can improve degraded
areas.
A number of delegates and NGOs
suggested that the IPF needs to clearly
define how it will reconcile forests,
including their ecological, social and
aesthetic goods and services, with
forestry, which has its primary focus on
timber production and ech6nomic
values. Interventions and reports pointed to imbalances and preferences in
both directions. One delegate noted that
a document explaining the cause of low
forest cover did not refer to timber
extraction. Delegates and-observers say
that the attention to,forestry is partly
an institutional issue. Many IPF delegates are from forestry or economic,
rather than environmental ministries.
Furthermore, the bodie& preparing discussion reports have traditionally dealt
primarily with the timber value of
forests.
The debate over the role, of plantations was another aspect of the balance
of forests and forestry concerns. A number of delegations said repeatedly that
plantations have a role to play by taking
production pressure off natural forests.
NGos and a small number of delegations
resisted assigning a role to plantations,
suggesting that if they replace natural
forests they threaten biodiversity
and other values that are less directly
economic.
Much of the debate at the IPF-2
seemed to demonstrate a lack of coordination with other fora. Several times
delegations admonished the Panel to
consider its terms of reference and
remain focused. An example of this was
Argentina's comment that the debate on
traditional forest-related knowledge
resembled a session of the Convention
of Biological Diversity's (CBD)
Conference of the Parties. Much of the
discussion of this programme element
focussed on the potential commercial
value of traditional knowledge, even
more explicitly than the CBD. Other
areas of overlap included benefits-sharing, although without explicit mention
of intellectual property rights or prior
informed consent.
The discussions on finance, production and consumption, and timber
certification at IPF-2 demonstrated that
delegates were largely unaware of
progress made at the Working Group
on Finance. Furthermore, by the last
day, some delegates tried to. further
extend IPF'S mandate, adding, for example, seemingly unrelated items of
biotechnology and biosafety to the
co-chairs' summary on traditional
forest-related knowledge.
The issue of international institutions and relevant legal mechanisms was
given initial consideration in Geneva, as
m+dated by IPF-1. Delegates welcomed
technical input from the Swiss/Peruvian
initiative and other guidance in this
area. Nevertheless, till date the IPF has
no4tt solicited positions on its ultimate
rec6mmendations to the broader world
of forest policy. Within the initial comments on institutional and legal instruments, consistent views on the existence
of Institutional gaps or overlaps have led
to liproliferation of suggestions for the
proper response. Those suggesting criteria and indicators or certification
beyond the national level have not yet
explained how to pursue or implement
those objectives.
What the IPF has expressed is an
intention to determine its own priorities. A number of delegations have suggested that the CBD should not address
forests or forestry policy beyond its
implications for biodiversity. Additionally, the discussion offinance issues
suggests that some believe the IPF Must
act independently, even when issues
are concurrently considered by other
bodies. At this juncture, it is impossible
to say what recommendations, agreements or commitments the IPF might
produce until delegates agree that the
time for negotiation has arrived. The
discussions initiated at IPF-2 will no
doubt reach that point during the
Panel's final two sessions.
We are a voice to you; you have been a support to us. Together we build journalism that is independent, credible and fearless. You can further help us by making a donation. This will mean a lot for our ability to bring you news, perspectives and analysis from the ground so that we can make change together.
Comments are moderated and will be published only after the site moderator’s approval. Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name. Selected comments may also be used in the ‘Letters’ section of the Down To Earth print edition.