Report by the Forest Peoples Programme

Summary

This meeting was convened to produce a discussion document on the five-year work programme for the UNFF. Despite an open and transparent process inviting comments from governments, agencies, donors and NGOs, the meeting itself was closely steered by the secretariat of the initiative who tended to focus on the UNFF as a platform for “common understanding of SFM” and “continued policy dialogue”. NGOs like Fern and FPP stressed that the basic UNFF mandate in the ECOSOC resolution is centred on the need to implement the IPF/IFF proposals for action. They argued that implementation and an action-orientated approach should be grounded in a bottom-up approach based on monitoring and reporting from major groups as well as governments and forest related agencies. The case was made that this monitoring and reporting should drive the priorities and activities of the UNFF multi-year programme of work (MYPOW).

Whilst a few government sponsors of the meeting strongly resisted these proposals, others agreed that the monitoring and reporting function would be key to ensuring implementation. Some saw this monitoring based on existing sources of information. An NGO proposal for some form of UNFF monitoring sub-committee to receive and review implementation reports was rejected as impracticable by some, though no other innovative suggestions were put forward. Some government participants stressed that the UNFF should foster the harmonisation of C&I and definitions for SFM. Other government participants were not very concerned with monitoring or common understanding, but rather with how the UNFF could channel funds to Southern governments to implement their National Forest Programmes (NFPs) plus how the UNFF could address trade issues. One or two country participants continued to promote the idea of a Forest Convention. This was rejected by most other participants, but the proponents pointed out that the ECOSOC resolution tasks the UNFF to do studies on a “legal framework”.

Throughout the workshop and plenary sessions, some NGO participants like Fern and FPP with the support of some governmental participants argued that any focus on C&I, definitions and trade would divert the UNFF away from a new participatory approach geared towards implementation of the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action. They stressed that reliance on existing monitoring systems would simply constitute “business as usual” where forest issues are addressed by top-down, government and agency-led strategies. They made the point that a focus on SFM “definitions” and “government-led” initiatives has proved to be ineffective in achieving action on the ground in the past and that the UNFF must adopt innovative structures and procedures if it is really promote SFM and implementation.

Several NGOs flagged the fact the UNFF risks being left behind by other more dynamic global forest initiatives that have move ahead by seeking new SFM standards through collaborative partnership (e.g., FSC). Most NGOs supported this position. At the same time, however, WWF, WRI and Greenpeace were also concerned that the UNFF deal with specific issues like illegal logging, trade and environment.

At the end of the meeting, the secretariat tried to provide in the final report their perception of the general debate on the UNFF work programme. NGO participants complained that this approach had failed to recognise the richness of the discussion. They argued that there was no consensus on many key issues and that the final report should reflect this fact. After a monumental struggle in the drafting session that went through the final night of the meeting, NGOs and IPOs managed to ensure that the final report more or less captured the diversity of ideas and the divergent views expressed during the meeting.

It remains to be seen how the discussion document will influence the first UNFF session, but there are danger signs that the UNFF will be reproduced in the image of the IFF with a focus on dialogue and definitions, rather than action. It also remains to be seen if the Ministerial segment of the UNFF can be used to identify resources and stimulate flagging political will to remove obstacles to implementation.

Despite reference to “multi-stakeholder dialogues”, no concrete or novel proposals were put forward by the secretariat or country representatives for addressing the accreditation blockage to wider NGO and IPO involvement in UN dialogues. This was considered by some to be a wider problem for the UN and ECOSOC, not the UNFF. However, others maintained that if the UNFF is to become a truly participatory forum, then new ways must be found to enable better civil society participation both from within and outside UN formal rules.

Possible Advocacy Strategies

Despite a negative feeling among some NGOs and government representatives at the end of the consultation, it should be noted that the final meeting report does cover all the recommendations made by participants. In other words, nothing serious from the proposals that were put on the table during the 8-country initiative has been lost yet. However, if some of the more innovative government and NGO proposals and recommendations do not influence the final structure and work programme of the UNFF, the whole exercise will be seen as window-dressing transparency and participation. In the meantime, effort must be kept up to try and ensure that that the UNFF focuses on implementation of the IPF/IFF PfA using a bottom-up approach based on participatory monitoring and reporting. Without this approach, the UNFF will inevitably become another talking shop and top-down initiative.

§         NGOs must try and ensure that that the IFF is not recreated in the UNFF. In particular, social and environmental groups should repeatedly reiterate the point that the ECOSOC resolution instructs the UNFF to:

(a) Focus on the implementation of the IPF/IFF PfA and that monitoring must concentrate on fulfilling PfA commitments.

(b) Ensure inputs from and meaningful involvement of major groups (re. para.4j of the resolution).

§         NGOs should maintain the position that the monitoring and assessment function of the UNFF is central to its primary functions to promote the implementation of agreed commitments and to strengthen political commitment towards SFM. The argument is solid and is proven by the expert meeting report that indicates the largest number of expected outputs from the UNFF stem from its monitoring and assessment function (page 11-12 under section 2.4.5 of the report).

Need for assessment of National Forest Programmes

A number of NGOs and some governments at the Eight-country initiative were very concerned that governments and some NGOs tend to equate the Proposals for Action (PfA) with National Forest Programmes (nfps). They point out that the Proposals for Action encompass both general issues and particular themes relating to underlying causes, traditional forest-related knowledge, fragile ecosystems, trade and pollution that extend beyond nfps which, by definition, have the specific target of implementing Sustainable Forest Management. Nevertheless, the 1999 Six-country Initiative Practitioner’s Guide to the implementation of the IPF Proposals for Action emphasises that nfps should be the main vehicle for the implementation of all of the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action (see page 7 and 9ff of the Six Country Initiative report). There is therefore a need to clarify this issue and to evaluate specific nfps to see if all the Proposal for Action groupings are being dealt with, and if they are, whether they are being dealt with adequately using a cross-sectoral and holistic approach.

Background to the Eight-Country Initiative Meeting

In October 2000, the UN adopted resolution E/2000/L32* to establish a United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF) as an intergovernmental subsidiary body of ECOSOC (para. 3a). The resolution also proposes the formation of a “collaborative partnership on forests” (CPF) involving the “relevant organisations of the UN system and other relevant international and regional organisations” (para.3b). Together, the UNFF and CPF will constitute the “international arrangement on forests” whose main purpose would be to promote the implementation of internationally agreed actions on forests and provide “a coherent, transparent and participatory global framework for policy implementation, co-ordination and development…” (para. 1, emphasis added). In paragraph 2, the resolution identified six basic functions for the “international arrangement on forests”. Namely to:

(a) Facilitate and promote the implementation of the IPF/IFF proposals for action;

(b) Provide a forum …to address emerging areas of priority concern;

(c) Enhance co-operation and policy and programme co-ordination;

(d) Foster international co-operation (including N-S + public-private partnerships);

(e) Monitor and assess progress;

(f) Strengthen political commitment to SFM.

The Resolution asserts that the UNFF “should ensure the opportunity to receive and consider inputs from representatives of major groups as identified in Agenda 21, in particular through the organisation of multi-stakeholder dialogues” (para.4j).  Under the resolution, the UNFF is also instructed to establish a multi-year programme of work (MYPOW) at is first session in June 2001. To this end, a group of 8 governments decided to launch an international expert consultation called the “Eight-Country Initiative” to discuss and propose basic elements for the MYPOW.

The 8-Country Initiative

This government-led initiative involving Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, Iran, Malaysia, Nigeria and Germany was organised in September 2000 by the IFF secretariat and GTZ Germany. Prior to the Bonn meeting, the steering committee for the initiative circulated a questionnaire to some 1000 interested parties - including NGOs - asking them to identify the priorities for the UNFF work programme under each function (see Fern/FPP response at www.greennet.org.uk/fern). The 50 responses received were summarised in a pre-meeting draft synthesis report.

8-Country Initiative Synthesis report

Many NGOs agree that the questionnaire and invitation to comment constituted an open and transparent effort to obtain multiple inputs from government and civil society and that this participatory process is to be congratulated. Close scrutiny of the draft report revealed that it had captured the variety of responses and concerns in its detailed summary (section 4).  Regrettably, the generic summary in section 3 discarded or diluted key civil society recommendations relating to the need to apply a bottom-up approach to the UNFF focus on implementation based on monitoring and reporting involving NGOs, IPOs and civil society. Instead, the UNFF would rely on existing sources of information like the FAO FRA.

The 8-Country Initiative meeting

The meeting was attended by governments and international agencies as well as the private sector and NGOs. As well as the 8 country hosts, other governmental participants included Argentina, Austria, Cameroon, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Denmark, Ecuador, European Commission, France, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Japan, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Portugal, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Uganda, UK (Mike Dudley, Head, FC International Policy), USA. International organisations included FAO, ITTO, MCPFE and the World Bank. Industry participants included ATIBT and Confederation of European Forest Owners.

Environmental and social NGOs included: Earthlink, Earth Negotiations Bulletin, Ecologic, Fern, Forest Peoples Programme, Friends of Siberian Forests, Global Forest Policy Project, Greenpeace International, Organisation of Indigenous Peoples in Suriname/COICA, IIED, IUFRO, Latin American Forest Network, Pacific Bioweb, Pro Naturaleza, Rainforest Foundation (Cameroon), Sobrevivencia, Global Fire Monitoring Centre, Third World Network, World Rainforest Movement, World Resources Institute, WWF (Europe + International).

The largest delegation was made up of the 8-Country Initiative Secretariat (22 people, mostly from Germany).

Purpose of the meeting

At the outset of the meeting on the first day the 8-country initiative secretariat summed up the findings of the synthesis report and reiterated that the UNFF would have insufficient funds and resources for its own monitoring and reporting system (a week after the meeting, it was confirmed that resources for monitoring have not been decided upon yet). In response, NGO participants called for a clear information on practical (financial) constraints to UNFF activities prior to any discussions on its work programme. No concrete information on finance for the UNFF or its constraints was provided. The secretariat did stress however that the UNFF cannot oblige the CPF to do anything, but only provide its members with guidance on issues of implementation and policy co-ordination. Another consistent message was that the UNFF would be the same sort of body as the IFF with a small secretariat.

Participants at the meeting were reminded that they were there in a personal capacity and that they should focus discussions within the framework of the ECOSOC resolution. It was stressed that the final product of the meeting would be a general discussion document to be sent to the Secretary’s General’s office in January 2001. The document will form the basis for “informal” UN meetings in February 2001 that will establish the UNFF agenda for its first full session in June. Government participants, particularly the Co-chair from Nigeria, underlined the fact that NGOs will only be involved in UNFF dialogues to “enrich the discussion”. Participants were reminded that UNFF decisions will be taken by governments. It was emphasised that major group participation will be governed by ECOSOC rules.

Workshop discussions

The meeting was divided into 4 working groups that all addressed the same set of new questions centred on the UNFF functions. Each working group reported back to the plenary the next morning. Many participants felt that the questions were “closed”, sometimes unclear, tightly bound to the ECOSOC resolution. However, the workshops generated serious debate. Workshop participants held divergent views on the priorities for the UNFF programme of work and so consensus was reached on only a few major points. There was more or less consensus that the main function of the UNFF must be the implementation of existing commitments, but there was a lack of concrete suggestions about how to ensure this. It was clear from the discussions that the 8 governments who launched the initiative had their own agendas and want these to be recognised in the UN work programme. It is noteworthy that these sponsoring governments were guaranteed participation in the final drafting committee.

The workshop discussions revealed that there were fundamental divisions between some governmental and non-governmental views on the priorities for UNFF’s structure, procedures and its work programme. On the one hand, certain governments preferred a conservative approach  - keeping the UNFF more or less in the model of the IFF with emphasis on dialogue and “guidance” to the CPF. NGOs argued that the UNFF must adopt a radically new approach to properly comply with its mandate to focus on implementation. It should be noted that not all governments were in the conservative camp, some were at least open to proposals for a UNFF with a novel participatory and action-orientated approach (e.g., UK, Australia, Sweden). Basic positions presented in workshops and plenaries were as follows:

§         Southern governments are keen that the UNFF functions to channel new funds to SFM through an International Forest Fund (e.g., Brazil and African countries). These participants were also concerned that the UNFF should address trade issues.

§         Many country participants consistently pushed for a UNFF focus on National Forest Programmes and FAO partnerships to support implementation (e.g., Germany and Japan). These participants recommended that NFPs form a key element in the UNFF work programme.

§         Some government participants resisted the more innovative proposals for independent monitoring, some arguing that any new reporting mechanism would duplicate existing efforts. The IFF and 8-country secretariat made it clear that the UNFF could not set up a full reporting body due to lack of funds and staff. Some parties (e.g., Brazil) even suggested that there should be no change at all to the IFF secretariat and that they should continue to receive reports without any expansion or support.

§         Many government participants and the 8-country initiative secretariat perceived that the UNFF under its implementation, co-operation and monitoring functions should focus on harmonisation of C&I and common understanding of SFM among countries and regions.

§         Some governments participants (Canada, France, Russia) continued to promote a “legal framework” on forests and stressed that the ECOSOC resolution requires the UNFF consider a mandate for developing a convention based on recommendations made by expert groups (para.3(c)(i)). This generated stiff opposition from other governments and NGOs.

§         Government participants emphasised that the CPF is not a formal body, is not a UN agency and is not answerable to the UN, but rather to its members’ governing bodies. The UNFF should therefore establish channels through its high level segment to governments who sit on the boards of the CPF member organisations.

§         Government parties were keen that the CPF remain based on the ITFF model with limited membership.

§         Some NGOs with the support of some governmental participants argued that the CPF must be opened up to wider participation, expand its membership and be more transparent than its predecessor (the ITFF).

§         NGOs stressed that the UNFF work programme should be driven by the obstacles to implementation identified through its monitoring and assessment function - this would a form the principal basis for UNFF dialogue and recommendations.

§         NGO experts pointed out that existing national-international reporting mechanisms are either ineffective or inappropriate to assess the implementation of the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action. They suggested that the monitoring and assessment function must be achieved by establishing innovative UNFF structures and procedures for monitoring, reporting and evaluation. These procedures would be flexible and open to implementation reports from Major groups as well as a range of different experts and sources.

§         Many participants also highlighted that monitoring should also bring out successes and best practice in implementation. Specifically, information from monitoring would form the basis for (i) identification of next steps and further action needed in the UNFF work programme (ii) identifying priorities for attention of the high level ministerial segment (iii) UNFF guidance to the CPF on implementation (iv) guidance to the CPF on how to enhance co-ordination of international policies and programmes (v) guidance on best practice for funding partnerships for implementation and SFM (vi) recommendations to individual countries (vii) recommendations for replicating success and eliminating obstacles (viii) draft resolutions to be submitted to the HSL and the GA (ix) reviews of UNFF effectiveness (x) UNFF reports to ECOSOC.

§         Most NGOs stressed that the UNFF must do something original to foster and promote implementation. Crucially, it should adopt a bottom up and participatory approach based on collaborative partnership between governments, agencies, donors and civil society.

§         Some NGOs and a few governments (e.g., Germany) saw a need to survey and disseminate examples of the most efficient mechanisms for funding implementation. There is a need to use existing funds more efficiently rather than establish new funds for disbursement through existing flawed donor-recipient models.

§         Some NGOs and a few governments (e.g., Japan) thought a focus on trade would generate long debates in the UNFF and undermine its mandate to focus on implementation.

§         A number of NGO and governmental participants underlined that the UNFF must avoid duplication of other forest- related instruments like the CBD and must co-ordinate fully with these bodies to find useful synergies for implementation.

Overall Analysis

(a) Despite a participatory and transparent process in the circulation of the questionnaire and writing of a synthesis report, the meeting was disappointing as only a few governmental participants demonstrated a strong will to establish an innovative body focused on implementation.

(b) The common call for a participatory and bottom-up approach made by most NGOs and some governments was only acknowledged as one view in the final meeting report.

(c) The discussion tended to drift away from monitoring and implementation towards “fostering common understandings of SFM”, “agreeing criteria and definitions”, “co-ordination” and enabling “continued policy development”. This tendency is reflected in the final meeting report.