FERN and Forest Peoples Programme

1.  Assessment of International Arrangement on Forests (IAF)

After four formal UNFF sessions and several international meetings there is general disappointment among many social justice and environmental NGOs that the IAF has not built on the open and progressive practices of the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF), the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF) and the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD). There is a consensus that the IAF has done little or nothing to advance implementation of international commitments on forests at the local and national levels.[1] NGO criticisms of the existing IAF relate to (but are not limited to):

·         Restrictive participation practices for major groups in UNFF sessions that fall behind the best practice in other UN fora (no speaking to text and no interventions in contact groups etc)

·         Repeated dismissal of major group proposals on ways to improve the usefulness, transparency and accountability of the IAF

·         Defective Multi-stakeholder Dialogue (MSD) organisation that has created a “ghetto” of civil society participation cut off from the deliberations of governments [2]

·         Preoccupation in UNFF sessions with narrow “process issues” and negotiation of texts  (e.g., terms of reference for expert groups)

·         Failure to act promptly on the critical issue of monitoring and reporting

·         Lack of balanced and geographically representative country reports on progress in implementation (many forested countries such as Brazil, Cameroon, Congo Brazzaville, Ghana, Venezuela, Suriname have never reported to any of the UNFF meeting) [3]

·         Little substantive debate on obstacles and successes in implementation of international commitments

·         Aversion to open discussion of human rights, including the rights of indigenous peoples [4]

·         Failure to generate clear action and political commitments on key issues such as Traditional Forest Related Knowledge [5]

·         Strong influence of forestry industry and plantation interests [6]

·         Weak UNFF resolutions that have not been acted on by ECOSOC [7]

·         Few concrete tangible outcomes from UNFF sessions

·         Continuing lack of transparency in Collaborative Partnership on Forests (CPF) meetings and CPF policies and activities (e.g., ineffective CPF Network, partial information on the FAO NFP Facility)

·         Forest-related policies and projects of some key CPF members have failed to promote implementation of international commitments on forests and forest people, and in the worst cases have undermined application of agreed principles and standards (e.g., World Bank and Global Environment facility (GEF)) [8]

·         Weak linkage between the international forest policy-making and national policies and practice.

·         Failure to facilitate the implementation of the IPF/IFF Proposals for action [9]

The assessment above demonstrates that the UNFF and CPF have not fulfilled key parts of the IAF’s mandate. In particular, the IAF has failed to: “... provide a coherent, transparent and participatory global framework for policy implementation, co-ordination and development … based on the Rio Declaration (and) … chapter 11 of Agenda 21 (Forest Principles).” [emphasis added]

II.  Essential issues for international forest policy

Whatever processes governments decide to develop to deal with forest issues at the international level, FPP and FERN believe that to be credible and effective such processes must:

·         Fully address social and rights issues, including international human rights

·         Recognise and respect the customary rights of indigenous peoples and other forest dependent communities

·         Give focused attention to the underlying causes of deforestation and forest degradation, including the need to change financial flows and reduce unsustainable consumption patterns

·         Promote and support genuine community-based forest management that empowers forest peoples

·         Uphold, reinforce, and be consistent with, intergovernmental commitments made under existing and developing international forest-related agreements, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity

To be credible and consistent with Agenda 21, future intergovernmental processes on forests must also establish new procedures to promote the effective involvement of major groups in international forest policy making by ensuring.

a)       The full and effective participation of all major groups, including NGOs and indigenous peoples

b)       Complete transparency in all intergovernmental deliberations on forest issues.

Measures to achieve this should include steps to guarantee:

·         Opportunities for major groups to speak to text in official sessions of intergovernmental discussions on forests

·         Assured access for major groups to all sessions and all their component meetings, including contact groups and friends of the chair meetings

·         Dedicated funds for disadvantaged Indigenous Peoples’ organisations (IPOs) and NGOs so they are able to participate in official sessions and intersessional meetings

·         Well-resourced and official support for processing visa applications for major group participants from developing countries

·         Agile and timely accreditation procedures

·         Opportunities for representatives of NGOs and IPOs to obtain official recognition as experts

·         Translation of all meeting documents and draft intergovernmental decisions into major UN languages

c)       Creation of a specific international fund for major groups to compile monitoring reports on progress in implementation, including financial resources for capacity building

d)       Improved mechanisms for monitoring, assessment and reporting on progress in the implementation of international forest-related commitments. To be effective, such mechanisms must involve third party assessment, peer review processes, independent evaluations and parallel reporting.

Any intergovernmental follow-up to the current IAF that fails to take on board the issues and required improvements summarised above, will not be considered credible by most social and environmental NGOs, including the FPP and FERN.