institutions

august 2000

The Friends of the Earth International Forest Program was established in November 1999 as a joint effort of 39 Friends of the Earth groups from all over the world to promote and shift economic signals, consumption, land use and land tenure patterns to secure the long-term conservation and sustainable use of the world's forests. This paper has been drafted by a working group on institutional arrangements consisting of Friends of the Earth groups from Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, England, Wales and North Ireland, Finland, France, Nigeria and Paraguay. Fore more information please contact Simone Lovera, Elias Diaz Pena or Miguel Lovera, Sobrevivencia/Friends of the Earth-Paraguay, <survive@quanta.com.py>

This paper is fully in line with and complementary to the recommendations in the summary report on the joint NGO/IPO Global Strategy Meeting on Institutions, Arrangements and Mechanisms for Action on Forests. The views and expertise of the NGOs and IPOs who were at that meeting have been a great source of inspiration for this paper and we would like to express our gratitude to them for their input in this respect.

We specially thank Mr. William Mankin, of the Global Forest Policy Project, for the valuable contributions made during the preparation of this work.

1. Introduction

Any proper analysis of possible institutions, arrangements or mechanisms to be established, abolished, reformed or strengthened after the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF) has conveyed its last session in February 2000 should start with an analysis of the goals and functions these institutions, arrangements and mechanisms should serve. It should be realized in this respect that Friends of the Earth International and most other NGOs and Indigenous Peoples Organizations (IPOS) support other goals (eg. forest conservation, securing Indigenous Peoples´ rights), than certain governments (promotion of timber trade and other interests of the forestry sector). Likewise, Friends of the Earth International and many other NGOs and IPOs attach greater priority to some functions than to others.

It should also be kept in mind that numerous existing institutions, instruments and initiatives in the field of global forest policy, both governmental and non-governmental, will remain in place, whatever the IFF recommends. It is important that enough attention is paid to the need to implement, strengthen, and, if necessary, reform existing commitments like the Proposals for Action of the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF PfA), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the 2000 objective of the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO). It can be expected that no existing institution or instrument will relinquish any of its authority or mandate, and independent initiatives (e.g. the Forest Stewardship Council-FSC) will continue to defend their independence. Therefore, it should be ensured that new institutions, arrangements or mechanisms do not duplicate these existing ones. Meanwhile, enough attention should be paid to the need to reform and/or strengthen other existing instruments and institutions, in order to ensure that they function as effectively as possible and that they do not threaten the world's forests or forest-dependent peoples ("mainstreaming").

Although the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF) and the IFF have furthered international political understanding and consensus on some issues, they have not lived up to their promise. Repeated NGO/IPO requests for concrete action and a focus on priority issues, which recognize the seriousness of the global forest crisis, have not been met. Trade agendas, anti-certification proposals, and the single-minded push for a new Forest Convention have dominated the debate. Despite the IFF's mandate to facilitate the implementation of the IPF Proposals for Action, little was achieved in this regard, with the exception of one worthwhile joint initiative of six countries and a number of NGO/IPO initiatives. If a new forum within the UN system is established, the chances that this forum will be much different are limited as the options for structure and procedures of a new forum within the UN system are very limited.

The international forest policy debate is driven by several different actors, each of which has a different set of primary goals. In order to keep a clear perspective on what is actually wanted from global institutions, mechanisms and/or arrangements, there should be clarity on the fundamental goals of different stakeholders.

Friends of the Earth International fosters two independent yet mutually related objectives for global forest policy:

OBJECTIVE I - Forest conservation, restoration, sustainable forest management (SFM)/ sustainable use of forests and equitable sharing of the costs and benefits of forests. It should be noted that this objective can only be achieved through addressing the direct and underlying causes of forest loss.

OBJECTIVE II - Securing the rights and land tenure of Indigenous Peoples and other forest-dependent peoples.

2. Analysis of the Potential Functions of Global Forest Institutions, Arrangements and Mechanisms

FUNCTION I - Ensuring compliance with the legal authority of agreements supporting the above-mentioned goals.

Existing instruments

It should be noted in this respect that legal authority is only a function if it is used to ensure compliance. The following existing legally binding agreements provide legal authority the above-mentioned goals.

Legal Authority regarding objective I - Forest conservation, restoration, sustainable forest management (SFM)/ sustainable use of forests and equitable sharing of the costs and benefits of forests.

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) will continue to have a clear mandate and legal authority for the conservation and sustainable use, and the equitable sharing of the costs and benefits of forest ecosystems. It has an ongoing forest programme and is expected to establish an expert panel on forests at the Fifth Conference of the Parts. (COP5 - 2000). The CBD has recognized the IPF Proposals for Action as an instrument to implement its legally binding objectives. However, it is widely recognized that a number of governments have used the IPF/IFF and a proposed global forest convention as a means of preventing the CBD from carrying out its mandate in the field of forests. Moreover, to be effective, the CBD would have to strengthen its forest programme and the secretarial support to this work program. It would also have to pay more attention to its program element on analyzing and addressing the root causes of forest loss, to its third objective of benefit-sharing and to compliance in general. Other existing legally binding instruments, like CITES, the Ramsar Convention for the Protection of Wetlands, the Desertification Convention and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) can effectively support conservation and sustainable use of forests, provided they foster a holistic view upon the multiple values and functions of forest ecosystems.

Forest restoration can also play an important role in combating desertification and drought, so effective compliance with the Convention to Combat Desertification would contribute to this goal too. It has been suggested that the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change could play a role in forest restoration if it would include conservation and restoration of forest ecosystems and exclude tree plantations from the list of potential actions that contribute to halting climate change. If tree plantations are included too, however, it is likely that this will lead to diminished funding for forest restoration, as plantations provide an opportunity for fast cash, and forest restoration tends to take more time. It should also be noted that climate change will form a major threat to forests in the next century, so any decision or mechanism which weakens the Climate Convention itself would do more harm than good to the world´s forests.

Legal authority regarding objective II- Securing the rights and land tenure of Indigenous Peoples and other forest-dependent peoples.

The International Labor Organization (ILO) Convention no. 169 provides an important basis for securing the rights of Indigenous Peoples. Moreover, the UN Declaration on Human Rights, the UN Covenant on Social and Economic Rights, and the UN Covenant on Political and Civil Rights form universal instruments, which have often been violated in conflicts triggered by deforestation of Indigenous Peoples´ territories and other conflicts over land tenure. Article 8j of the Convention on Biodiversity and the related decisions of the Conference of the Parties of the Biodiversity Convention form additional legally binding instruments. It should be noted, however, that Indigenous Peoples have expressed doubts whether the CBD will be able to effectively protect their rights, considering the lack of progress in the elaboration and implementation of article 8j. The IPF Proposals for Action, Agenda 21 and the Forest Principles also form international agreements recognizing these rights, although these instruments are not formally legally binding.

There is an obvious need to finalize the negotiations on the draft Declaration on Indigenous Peoples. Further codification of Indigenous Peoples' rights and the rights of other forest-dependent peoples could be useful, but it should be emphasized that any such codification should be the result of a process in which these Peoples themselves have full and equitable participation. This implies that the establishment of a Permanent Forum of Indigenous Peoples under the Economic and Social council of the UN (ECOSOC) should precede further codification.

Compliance Mechanisms

Effective compliance with the above-mentioned existing instruments would cause a major improvement in the condition of the world´s forests and the situation of forest peoples. Strengthening the compliance mechanisms within these legally binding instruments is of utmost importance. There is a clear need for establishing an effective compliance mechanism under the CBD. This compliance mechanism should also cover the IPF Proposals for Action, as they have been recognized as an instrument to implement the CBD. The UN Commission on Human Rights has established a compliance mechanism to promote the implementation of the various Human Rights Conventions. This mechanism should be further strengthened. It should also be explored whether a similar Compliance Committee could be set up in the field of sustainable development.

The UN General Assembly Special Session to review the implementation of the results of UNCED (UNGASS) and the UN Commission on Sustainable Development have a clear mandate to collect and discuss the national reports, which are required under the various legally binding instruments. Forests should remain part of the rolling agenda of these High-level Institutions (both meetings include Ministerial segments), so that they can continue to monitor progress on the implementation of the results of UNCED related to forests and forest peoples every 2 or 3 years.

Last but not least it should be emphasized that compliance with international agreements is first and foremost a challenge at the national and local level. Governments and civil society at the national and local levels should be empowered to develop effective implementation strategies for the above-mentioned instruments. Financial and other support from the global level should be clearly focussed on enabling these local and national processes.

A new UN forum or legally binding instrument

As stated above, existing instruments already provide enough legal authority regarding the goals, which are supported by Friends of the Earth International. A new legally binding instrument would form a threat to these existing instruments as it would distract attention away from compliance with them. There is a need for further codification of the rights of Indigenous Peoples, but unless governments are prepared to give Indigenous Peoples a full and equal place on the negotiating table, any such negotiations would lead to inequitable results. It should also be avoided that legally binding instruments take an instrumental approach towards Human Rights (that is, that these rights are recognized as an instrument for sustainable forest management only).

A new institutional mechanism with a clearly specified and exclusive mandate in the field of monitoring and promoting compliance could be beneficial. However, such a compliance mechanism should form part of the established regimes: the Commission on Sustainable Development, the Commission on Human Rights and the relevant legally binding instruments.

Due to their special position in international politics and law, genuine and equitable participation of Indigenous Peoples in any new UN forum would form a conditio sine qua non for seriously addressing their rights and responsibilities regarding forests. A Permanent Forum for Indigenous Peoples under the ECOSOC could play an important role in strengthening Indigenous and other forest-dependent peoples´ rights and monitoring violations to these rights.

Other new institutions, mechanisms and arrangements

Over the last fifteen years or so, NGOs and IPOs have produced numerous critical analyses of international forest policy implementation. In the last few months, NGOs/IPOs active in the IPF/IFF have committed themselves to monitor and report on government implementation of the IPF Proposals for Action. Unfortunately, funds have been limited until now, but given the results of past NGO/IPO efforts, the potential influence of NGO/IPO monitoring and reporting projects to catalyze government and institutional response remains high.

Numerous IPO and NGO coalitions have been doing and will continue to do extremely important work in the area of defending Indigenous and other forest-dependent peoples´ rights. Due to the fact that many conflicts regarding land rights and land tenure are of a highly contentious and political nature, these independent groups tend to be in a better position to defend such basic human rights. Some new proposals in this regard include establishing independent, multi-stakeholder review panels to analyze and monitor existing national legislation to protect Indigenous and other forest-dependent peoples´ rights, and education programs to raise the awareness of Indigenous communities on the existence of such legislation.

Compliance, public awareness, media attention and political will are closely interrelated. An informal, but large-scale event on forests, which could be organized bi-annually or tri-annually (for example just prior to an UNGASS or a CSD-meeting) would form an excellent opportunity to present both governmental and independent reports on compliance and discuss the root causes of the lack of compliance.

FUNCTION II - Streamlining and promoting financial flows which contribute to the above-mentioned goals.

This function has often been mentioned as an important one. It should be noted that there is an inherent tension between the coordination of financial flows and equitable participation of recipient countries in the global forest policy debate. Many recipient countries rightfully feel too much coordination of financial flows as a threat to their national sovereignty. Thus, coordination of financial flows should not go beyond compliance with the decisions of fora in which recipient and donors countries have equal participation. Of course, the most important international agreement that should be complied with is the target of 0.7 percent GNP for development aid in general and the additional UNCED target of 0.1 percent new and additional resources for global environmental services.

Existing mechanisms?

The informal International Forestry Advisors Group, in which all ITFF-members and many bilateral donors participate, attempts to coordinate financial flows to forestry and forest conservation, and has played a valuable role in coordination of financial flows. Until now, it had a clear focus on compliance with the IPF proposals for action and other existing agreements in the field of global forest policy. Considering the above, it would not be appropriate to including issues in the mandate of this informal mechanism which go beyond compliance with existing agreements.

A new UN forum or legally binding instrument?

Obviously, financial flows should be the result of an agreement on substance. The debate on financial flows as such has never lead to much success. Given the track record of the IPF/IFF to achieve this goal, it is difficult to imagine how a new forum could achieve a much better result. It is noteworthy that IFF did not seem to care about the fact that the financial documents upon which its discussion was based did not make a distinction between financial flows to sustainable forest management and financial flows to non-sustainable forest management. It appears that this forum was more interested in financial flows to the forestry sector as such than in the question whether these flows actually contributed to more sustainable forest management.

It has been suggested that a new legally binding instrument would lead to increased resources for forests. However, it would be denying a sad political reality to presume that the financial resources triggered by such an instrument would be either new, or additional. Rather, the recipient countries would end up with a gift out of their own pocket...

Other new institutions, arrangements or mechanisms

The most successful financial flows contributing to the objectives mentioned above have been contributing to small-scale, local community-driven projects. The amount of funds needed for these projects tends to be limited. Regretfully this has proven to be a handicap, as many bilateral and multilateral donors lack the capacity to deal with small grants. There is a clear need to expand existing small-grant and micro-credit facilities for community-based organizations, IPOs and NGOs and to establish new facilities.

FUNCTION III - Providing Scientific Advice and Analyzing the underlying causes of the global forest crisis

Existing initiatives?

Analizing the root causes of forest biodiversity loss forms part of the forest work program of the Convention on Biodiversity. This work program element is closely related to Article 6b of the Convention, which requires the integration of biodiversity concerns into other sectoral policies and strategies. The Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA) of the Convention on Biodiversity is the main body to provide scientific advice on this issue, but the work of the SBSTTA on this theme has been quite disappointing until now. While we could blame some on the IFF-process distracting away attention from CBD, there is a clear lack of institutional capacity within the CBD-Secretariat too. It should also be noted that SBSTTA-meetings are attended by a combination of scientists and professional diplomats, and traditional knowledge does not have the status it should have. In general, it has proven to be difficult to engage in a serious dialogue on the underlying causes of forest loss at any intergovernmental forum. Representatives in intergovernmental meetings tend to have a limited mandate and are seldom in a position to discuss sectoral policies, which are outside the scope of their own Department.

The CSD forms a forum where representatives from different sectors can come together to discuss their role in the underlying causes of the global forest crisis, but even at CSD the discussions on forests tend to be dominated by representatives from forestry departments.

The Center for International Forest Research (CIFOR) has done interesting analytical work on the underlying causes of forest loss, but much of its work has received the recognition by intergovernmental bodies it deserves.

The Underlying Causes Initiative, which was established by NGOs and IPOs in cooperation with UNEP and a large number of other intergovernmental and governmental partners, succeeded to implement some of the most important Proposals for Action of the IPF relating to the underlying causes of forest loss. A main assett of the Underlying Causes Initiative is its informal nature, which allows the participants to think beyond established departmental mandates and openly debate the economic and social root causes of the global forest crisis. The NGOs and IPOs who organized the IPF/IFF-related global workshop on underlying causes are continuing their work in a follow-up project.

A new UN Forum or new legally binding instrument?

Even if it had a clear scientific mandate, it is very unlikely that an Intergovernmental body would ever be able to give objective, independent advice, free from pressure from sectorial interests. It would also be uncertain how Indigenous Peoples' knowledge could be included in a serious way, while ensuring that such knowledge is protected against bio-piracy. Moreover, a new body would duplicate the work of the expert panel on forests the CBD SBSTTA is about to establish.

As the negotiations on a new legally binding instrument will undoubtedly be a process which is highly influenced by power centers, it would be as good as impossible to include any serious discussion on the root causes of the global forest crisis.

Other new institutions, arrangements or mechanisms

Public and political will forms an important condition for conservation and sustainable use and addressing the direct and underlying causes of the global forest crisis. National multi-stakeholder initiatives form a promising instrument to advance the discussion on the direct and underlying causes of forest loss and to create the political will to address these causes.

Another proposal to advance the discussion on direct and underlying causes of forest loss and to stimulate political will at the global level is to organize an informal, large-scale forest meeting. It has been proven that a combination of research and informal, participatory debate forms the best instrument to advance the discussion on these complicated matters and to stimulate actors to take concrete action in this respect. Such a large-scale event should draw together a broad group of local and national stakeholders from all countries in the world, as well as sufficient media attention. It should be informal in nature, to allow an open and participatory debate of all stakeholders on the root causes of the global forest crisis. It should be organized at most bi-annually, to ensure media attention and wide participation. To safeguard the informal nature of the event, a multi-stakeholder coalition should be formed to organize it, with NGOs and IPOs taking the lead.

FUNCTION IV - Maintain the international "spotlight" on forests.

Existing mechanisms?

In the 1980s forest issues gained a much higher international political and media profile. Concerns over increasing deforestation raised by NGOs/IPOs and the public led directly to the Earth Summit's forest negotiations. Although there had not been a central, high-level, international "forest forum" prior to that time, a number of existing international institutions and agreements worked on forest-related issues, and more were created by the Earth Summit. Several important NGO initiatives also now exist (e.g., the Forest stewardship Council - FSC).

Even without establishing any new forum, there will be an average of one global Ministerial Level Meeting on forests per year (CSD, CBD, FAO-sponsored events, UNGASS), with 2002 already featuring 3 of such high-level meetings. Since all existing mechanisms will continue to exist one could seriously question whether there is a need for yet another regular high-level meeting. It might be much more effective to ensure the existing processes receive more media attention.

A new UN forum or legally binding instrument?

Regretfully, the UN and media seldom go hand in hand. Only real Summits with large participation tend to draw media attention. Regular UN-meetings, ministerial or not, are hardly ever noticed by the press. Spacing is important in this respect: a large meeting once every two or three years is likely to draw far more media attention than a meeting every couple of months.

It has been suggested a new legally binding instrument would raise the profile of forests. Even if this were true, it tends to be true for the negotiating phase only. Once a Convention or Protocol is in place, media attention tends to drop rapidly. Moreover, as there has been so little consensus on the need to start negotiations on another Convention in the first place, it is likely the negotiations themselves would become an extremely polarized and tiresome process. Media attention for this process might actually give the challenge to address the global forest crisis an aura of failure, thus doing more harm than good.

Other new institutions, arrangements or mechanisms

There is a clear need for all stakeholders in the process to ensure the global forest crisis receives more media attention. Organizing a major informal event every 2 or 3 years, preferably back-to-back with one of the existing Ministerial level meetings and in any case with a clear focus on the global forest crisis, would be one possible instrument to draw more media attention. In general, however, all efforts should be made to ensure forests keep high on the agenda of the public and the UN itself, including the UN General Assembly. This implies that the case should be made that forests deserve to be on the UNGASS agenda for 2002, 2007 and thereafter, until major progress has been made in addressing the world's forest crisis.

FUNCTION V - Provide an opportunity for ongoing dialogue and debate on important unresolved and/or emerging forest-related issues in an effort to seek consensus.

It should be noted that the question Who debates is at least as important as the question What is debated. Thus, this function is very closely linked to the next one: without genuine and equitable participation of NGOs and, especially IPOs and other forest-dependent peoples, FOEI does not support ongoing dialogue.

Existing mechanisms?

A large number of existing institutions provide forums for dialogue and debate on current and emerging issues. For example: the FAO has its bi-annual Committee on Forestry (CoFo) meetings, with their ministerial segments; the ITTO has semi-annual meetings of its Council to discuss current and emerging timber-trade issues; the CBD and other binding treaties (CBD, FCCC, CCD, CITES) each have high-level meetings of their Conference of the Parties; the World Bank holds frequent meetings and facilitates debate on a range of issues; the regional Criteria and Indicators (C&I) initiatives have periodic meetings, some regularly scheduled; the World Forestry Congress meets every several years; the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (UNCSD) meets annually, with specific issues like forests addressed every few years; and UNGASS meets every 5 years.

A new UN forum or legally binding instrument?

Considering the amazing list of existing forums which regularly cover all aspects of forests one could possibly think of, yet another intergovernmental debate on forests would only duplicate the existing debates and distract attention away from compliance with the decisions of the existing forums.

Other new institutions, arrangements or mechanisms

As stated above, there is a need for an informal debate between governments, scientific experts, local stakeholders and other groups in civil society on the root causes of the global forest crisis. Yet, in order not to overlap existing debates, such an informal meeting should be held bi-annually or even tri-annually and back-to-back with an existing forum with a comprehensive focus, for example UNGASS or the CSD.

FUNCTION VI – Involvement of all relevant stakeholders in the international forest policy debate.

Action and participation are two sides of the same coin. Stakeholders which have been actively involved in the policy debate on forests will be more inclined to implement the results of that debate. Governments only have a limited role to play in terms of real action in the field of forests: non-compliance with international and national law forms an important underlying cause of forest loss world-wide. Without genuine and equitable participation of non-governmental stakeholders and IPOs, international forest policy is unlikely to provide results which are environmentally and socially appropriate, and it is unlikely to provide results which will reach beyond words.

Existing mechanisms?

NGO/IPO participation in governmental forums has improved to a major extent over the last years. Some innovative examples are the multi-stakeholder panels organized by the Commission on Sustainable Development, the tri-partite structure of the ILO, and a number of precedent-setting occasions within the CBD-and Convention on Desertification process (eg. NGOs chairing contact groups). In general, however, NGO and IPO participation in important negotiations is a matter of the discretion (good mood and/or political intentions) of the chair of the meeting and too often NGOs or IPOs have been excluded from debates which were of utmost importance to them.

For any international meeting, finding funds for travel is always a difficult challenge. It is unlikely funding will be available to bring a large number of NGO and IPO stakeholders to frequent meetings of any UN forum.

A new UN forum or new legally binding instrument?

A new UN forum or INC would have to work with the established ECOSOC rules for NGO-participation as a basis, although it could allow for more equitable NGO/IPO participation if there was enough political will. It is unrealistic to presume this political will would be there if it concerns a UN forum with decision-making power, though. Any "Intergovernmental" or "formal" body would not provide for genuine participation. The establishment of a new UN forum or INC would also require additional fundraising efforts to pay for NGO/IPO travel and still only a limited group could actually attend such regular meetings.

Other new institutions, arrangements or mechanisms

A number of IPO- or NGO/IPO-lead initiatives under the IPF/IFF (Leticia, the Underlying Causes Initiative) have proven that a serious debate between governmental and civil society representatives on an equal level is possible, provided NGOs and IPOs have a clear role in these initiatives from the start. It should be realized that 10, 50 or even 100 NGO and IPO representatives can impossibly represent the wide range of stakeholders from all over the world which should be involved in the global forest debate. However, funding to allow larger numbers of NGOs and IPOs to participate in forest policy meetings forms a major challenge. Frequency is important here: it is more likely funds can be found to bring a substantial number of people to a meeting which takes place every 2 or 3 years, than to bring them to a meeting which takes place every couple of months.

FUNCTION VII - Coordinate the work of existing international forest-related instruments and institutions so that they work more coherently and more effectively.

It should be noted that while FoEI supports interagency coordination in general, it would be hesistant to support a coordination mechanism, which would be strongly dominated by one, forestry-oriented, agency.

Existing mechanisms?

The Interagency Task Force on Forests (ITFF) forms a rather unique example of an interagency coordination mechanism. Until recently, the ITFF formed an informal regular meeting of representatives of 8 leading agencies and instruments in the field of forests. ITFF is currently strengthening its mandate and has developed an ambitious action program to implement the IPF Proposals for Action. Until some months ago, the Division for Sustainable Development/IFF-Secretariat provided the secretariat to the ITFF, while FAO provided a chair, but recently, the secretariat has also moved to FAO. This is of great concern to many of the NGOs/IPOs, which have been following this mechanism. It should be emphasized that UN DESA and ECOSOC have an explicit UN mandate for interagency coordination, so it would be far more appropriate to keep the secretariat of this task force in New York.

ITFF meets regularly with the International Forestry Advisors Group, which is a regular informal meeting of the world´s main bilateral donors in the field of forest.

Although the ITFF has not been very transparent or participatory until now, it could be required to open up. It has made some attempts to meet with NGOs and IPOs, but these meetings have not been very successfull as they were briefings rather than real debates. To ensure both transparency and participation, it would be more appropriate if a small NGO and IPO delegation could participate in the meetings of ITFF itself.

It is still uncertain to what extent the ITFF will lead to interagency coordination not only at the global, but also at the regional and national levels where there is the strongest need for better coordination between different agencies. Competition for funds has lead to some remarkable examples of non-coordination at the national level. But the political intention amongst the ITFF-members is definitely there.

A new UN forum or legally binding instrument?

As all the ITFF members will continue to exist, both a new UN forum and a new legally binding instruments would further fragment UN work on forests, rather than strengthen interagency coordination. It has been suggested that ITFF could not continue without a specific governmental forum to serve, but there are many examples of successfull interagency coordination independent from one UN forum. In fact, it has been noted by some that the preparation of documentation for the IPF/IFF process has distracted the attention of ITFF away from real action in terms of badly needed coordination at the national and local levels.

A new legally binding instrument would duplicate much of the work of the two Conventions which form part of ITFF, and it is unrealistic to presume these existing instruments would be willing to give up their mandate on forests (which, for example, constitute 60 % of the world's biodiversity). Thus such a "holistic" instrument as some call it would only lead to further fragmentation and competition.

Other new institutions, arrangements or mechanisms

As stated above, ITFF is in itself well equiped for this function, provided it is opened up and its secretariat is moved back to New York, away from the overwhelming influence of FAO.

FUNCTION VIII - Promote and defend independent forest certification and labelling programs.

Existing initiatives?

Independent forest certification and labelling has been originally initiated by NGOs/IPOs, and it has rocked the forest policy world. Most NGOs/IPOs want it to remain independent and non-governmental, and to simply run and win the race in the marketplace. Work on certification in many existing multilateral institutions, as well as in the IPF/IFF, has constituted a real threat to this independence.

The non-governmental Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) continues to set the pace for the application and evolution of this forest policy tool. Several newer certification initiatives, led mostly by industry and private forest owners, are competing with the FSC in the marketplace. In a number of countries, independent certified-product buyers' groups have sprung up to match demand with supply. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) tried but failed to develop a (relatively weak) standard for forest certification, and fortunately is unlikely to try again.

A new UN forum or legally binding instrument?

As stated above, the independence of certification and labelling schemes have formed their main assett. Any formal debate on certification within a new UN forum or a negotiating commission for a new forest convention would seriously harm these instruments.

Other new institutions, arrangements or mechanisms

There might be a need for new NGO or IPO initiatives, but it should be ensured that such initiatives strengthen existing initiatives like the FSC, rather than duplicating or otherwise down-playing this not perfect yet best available global mechanism.

FUNCTION IX - Continue the existing Criteria & Indicators (C&I) initiatives.

Existing mechanisms?

A number of forest assessment initiatives (e.g., Helsinki Process, Montreal Process) have grown up independently of the intergovernmental debate in the IPF/IFF, although they have received some momentum from the debate. Unfortunately, that momentum also has generated proposals for 'harmonization' and 'mutual recognition' based on a weak 'core set' of C&I, and 'country certification', all of which represent serious forest policy threats.

A new UN forum or legally binding instrument?

A new forum or legally binding instrument is unnecessary to advance the existing C&I initiatives. Particularly a new Convention would seriously weaken the existing in initiatives at it would agree upon a common set of Criteria and Indicators which is no doubt of lower standard than the voluntary C&I which are applied at the moment.

Other new institutions, arrangements or mechanisms

It is not clear that new NGO, IPO or other initiatives could make a significant contribution to the further development and implementation of C&I, although NGO/IPO data-collection and monitoring efforts can contribute valuable data.

****************

ANNEX 1: Summary Report of a joint NGO/IPO Global strategy meeting on

Institutions, Arrangements and Mechanisms for Action on Forests

The meeting, which was held in Ottawa on 4 and 5 December brought together over 25 representatives of Indigenous Peoples and NGOs from Africa, Asia, CIS, Latin America, Oceania, Europe and North America. The aim was to discuss concerns about current institutional arrangements in the field of global forest policy, to analyze strengths and weaknesses of these arrangements and to look for ways forward. This diverse group of participants agreed on, amongst others, the following points.

The recommendations of this meeting are fully endorsed by Friends of the Earth International

1. There is a clear need for immediate action on compliance with existing commitments relating to forests, Indigenous Peoples and other forest peoples.

2. To ensure this action, workable mechanisms with clearly defined functions should be developed. Such mechanisms should, as a minimum:

- Focus on compliance by all countries with existing international agreements;

- Be transparent, accountable and open to independent scrutiny; and

- Ensure genuine and equitable participation of all stakeholders, including in particular Indigenous Peoples and other forest peoples;

- Where governments are involved, a balanced representation of the different governmental departments related to forests should be ensured.

3. Both a new forest convention and/or another intergovernmental forum for policy debate and deliberation would distract attention from urgently needed compliance with existing commitments. For these and other reasons, all participants in the meeting opposed these two mechanisms.

4. Governments should submit reports, drafted in a transparent and participatory manner, on compliance with and implementation of all existing instruments, in particular the IPF PfA, CBD and the ITTO 2000 objective to the UN General Assembly Special Sessions (UNGASS) to review the UNCED commitments.

5. CBD and other legally binding instruments should establish compliance mechanisms.

6. The meeting supported the call for the establishment of a Permanent Forum for Indigenous Peoples at the level of ECOSOC. The rights of Indigenous Peoples should also be recognized through the proposed UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

7. ITFF should be reformed to ensure that, amongst other things, it is transparent and includes meaningful participation of IPOs, NGOs and Labour Unions.

It was noted that the policy debate on forests will continue in a number of other fora, including:

- the Convention on Biodiversity as far as conservation, sustainable use and equitable sharing of the benefits of forests, and the protection of Indigenous Peoples' rights and knowledge is concerned;

- the Commission on Human Rights and the various forest-related bodies as far as the rights of Indigenous Peoples and other forest-peoples are concerned.

- the ITTO as far as trade in tropical timber is concerned. However, if ITTO is to be continued it should be reformed and cover timber from all types of forests.

IPOs and NGOs will continue to explore the creation of new independent initiatives outside the intergovernmental arena, in partnership with other major groups, the private sector, and supportive governmnents, including:

- organizing a major global forest meeting with a focus on compliance prior to the UNGASS 2002.

- independent monitoring initiatives.

ANNEX 2. ACRONYMS

C&I Criteria and Indicators IFF UN Intergovernmental Forum on Forests

CBD Convention on Biological Diversity IPF UN Intergovernmental Panel on Forests

CCD Convention to Combat Desertification IPO Indigenous Peoples' organization

CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species ISO International Organization for Standardization

CSD UN Commission on Sustainable Development ITTA International Tropical Timber Agreement

FAO UN Food and Agriculture Organization ITFF Interagency Task Force on Forests

FCCC Framework Convention on Climate Change ITTO International Tropical Timber Organization

FSC Forest Stewardship Council NGO Non-governmental organization

GEF Global Environment Facility SFM Sustainable Forest Management

UNDP UN Development Program UNEP UN Environment Program

UNDESA UN Department on Economic and Social Affairs