December 2004

A       Background

Following the Earth Summit held in Rio, Brazil in 1992 many indigenous peoples’ organizations and civil society organisations were disappointed that governments had failed to take decisive action to address the forest crisis. As destruction and degradation of the World’s forests continued, governments were heavily criticised for failing to even implement the voluntary Forest Principles and Agenda 21 agreed at Rio[1]. Indigenous and civil society organisations, including the International Alliance of Indigenous-tribal Peoples of the Tropical Forests, made several submissions to the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) highlighting the failure of governments to properly implement Rio commitments on indigenous peoples, forests and sustainable development.

IPF and IFF processes

In response to this criticism, governments agreed to discuss forest issues further under the Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF), which met from 1995-1997 and then under the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF) where further international deliberations on forests took place between 1997 and 1999.

The IPF process was generally praised for being a relatively open and participatory UN process. In 1996, indigenous peoples co-organised with the government of Colombia and Denmark an International Meeting of Indigenous and Other Forest Dependent Peoples on the Management, Conservation and Sustainable Use of All Type of Forests. The meeting resulted in the Leticia Declaration which contained specific indigenous recommendations for combating the global forest crisis. The indigenous proposals for action dealt with national forest policies, the underlying causes of deforestation, traditional forest-related knowledge, finance and technology, criteria and indicators and international instruments and mechanisms [See Leticia Declaration].

At the end of the IPF process, some of the indigenous recommendations were partially incorporated into 135 IPF Proposals for Action on forests approved by the United Nations General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) in June 1997 (Rio + 5) – see below.

The following IFF process was less effective as it became bogged down by disagreements on a Forest Convention. Despite these obstacles, indigenous peoples and NGOs were again able to make input to the forest policy deliberations. They were also successful in initiating another inclusive intersessional meeting, this time on the “Underlying Causes of Deforestation”, which was held in Costa Rica in 1999.[2]

IPF/IFF Proposals for Action

The IPF and IFF processes together generated a total of generated 280 IPF/IFF Proposals for Action.[3] These proposals constitute intergovernmental consensus on actions needed on forests at the country level and internationally. They therefore have the status of international soft law. However, on the downside, the proposals contain much discretionary language and weak terminology and regularly assert State sovereignty over natural resources. In many cases, proposals such as those on plantations and technology address the priorities of governments, industry and commercial interests. Nonetheless, a significant number of Proposals for Action go some way to addressing indigenous and civil society concerns and recommendations relating to forests. These proposals for action, inter alia, call for:

·       mechanisms which provide opportunities for the participation of indigenous people in the design of national forest programmes and policies

·       respect for the customary and traditional rights of “indigenous people and local communities” and secure land tenure arrangements

·       recognition of the important role of the traditional forest-related knowledge (TFRK) of indigenous people

·       implementation of Article 8(j) of the CBD

·       recognition and support for traditional resource use systems incorporating traditional forest-related knowledge…including new instruments and mechanisms to enhance the security of forest-dependent groups

·       social mapping techniques in collaboration with indigenous people to assist in forest management planning

·       participatory research with indigenous people to develop resource management approaches to reduce pressure on forests

·       mechanisms to involve indigenous people in the regeneration and restoration of degraded forests and in their protection and management

·       actions to ensure that trade policies take into account community rights

·       steps to ensure equal opportunities for women, in particular indigenous women and women in rural areas, to benefit from forestry operations

·       national policies to address the underlying causes of deforestation and forest degradation

Some serious gaps in the proposals

Notable gaps in the proposals were the omission of any mention of international human rights standards, a failure to call for adoption of the Draft UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, no prohibition of forced resettlement, no commitment to annul forest concessions imposed on indigenous territories; no direct treatment of territorial rights; no recognition of the right to self-determination and no call to respect to respect the right of prior, free and informed consent.

B       International Arrangement on Forests (IAF)

In its final report to CSD in February 2000, the IFF recommended the establishment of an “International Arrangement on Forests” by ECOSOC. The IFF recommended that this arrangement should be composed of a United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF) and a Collaborative Partnership on Forests (CPF) comprised of forest-related UN agencies, international and regional organisations, institutions and instruments. In October 2000, ECOSOC adopted resolution E/2000/L.32 establishing the international arrangement on forests under which the IAF is required 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) ”

·       “facilitate and promote the implementation of the IPF/IFF proposals for action…including through national forest programmes”

·       “strengthen political commitment to the management, conservation and sustainable development of all types of forests”

·       “…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[4]

1        United Nations Forum on Forests

The founding ECOSOC resolution allocates six functions to the UNFF:

a)             Facilitate and promote implementation of the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action

b)             policy development and dialogue to foster a common understanding of SFM

c)             enhance co-operation and policy and programme co-ordination

d)             foster international and cross-sectoral co-operation

e)             monitor and assess progress through reporting

f)              strengthen political commitment

The UNFF was also mandated to take specific actions:

i)        make recommendations for developing a legal framework on forests;

ii)       devise approaches for financial and technology transfer

iii)      provide guidance from the UNFF to the CPF

iv)      review the international arrangement on forests in five years (i.e., in 2005)

These functions and actions are to be carried out via six instruments available to the UNFF: (i) a policy forum (ii) high level ministerial segments (iii) one-day dialogues with Ministers and heads of organisations (iv) multi-stakeholder dialogues (v) ad hoc expert groups and international expert meetings (vi) Plan of Action.

Later international meetings involving indigenous peoples’ organisations and NGOs acknowledged additional complementary means available to the UNFF: intersessional meetings, international expert meetings, regional and international workshops; country-led initiatives, side events at UNFF sessions.[5]

2        Collaborative Partnership on Forests (CPF) [6]

Under the ECOSOC resolution mentioned above, the Collaborative Partnership on Forests was formed in April 2001. The 14 current members of the CPF are:

Secretariat of the CBD
Secretariat of the UN Convention on Combating Desertification (UNCCD)
Secretariat of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
Secretariat of the UNFF
Secretariat of the Global Environment Facility (GEF)
Food and Agriculture Organisations (FAO)
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
World Bank
International Tropical Timber Organisations (ITTO)
International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO)
Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR)
World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF)
IUCN

Under the ECOSOC Resolution, the role of the CPF is to:

a)             support the UNFF, particularly in the implementation of its Plan of Action;

b)             enhance co-operation and co-ordination among its members;

c)             strengthen political commitment;

d)             facilitate implementation of IPF/IFF Proposals for Action;

e)             assist the UNFF in monitoring and reporting on progress, particularly progress in the implementation of the IPF/IFF proposals for action.

The CPF operates a “focal agency system” whereby each agency or organisation is charged with support to the UNFF on particular issues according to: “…the mandate, competence, resources and comparative advantage of each member”. The CBD secretariat is the focal agency for Traditional Forest Related Knowledge and is backed by three CPF “supporting agencies”: CIFOR, GEF and UNCCD. The World Bank is the focal agency for the “social and cultural aspects of forests” and supporting agencies include all the other CPF members. [7]

The CPF holds regular high-level meetings (closed to outsiders) and CPF “focal points”[8] in each of the above agencies have compiled reports for UNFF formal sessions on particular agenda items according to the role as “focal agency” for specific forest issues. In UNFF4 held in May 2004, for example, the CBD secretariat prepared a background paper on Traditional Forest-related Knowledge.

During the organisational meetings and consultations in 2000-01, indigenous peoples’ organisations and NGOs pressured the UNFF secretariat to open up the CPF to major groups and to enable the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII) to become a member of the CPF. However, these proposals were not accepted. Instead a “CPF network” was created in 2002 with the stated intention of facilitating major group participation.

C       Indigenous and NGO experience of the UNFF and CPF

At the outset of the UNFF, indigenous peoples and social and environmental NGOs had hoped that the forum would foster action-orientated discussion on forest issues and help promote implementation of international forest-related commitments. There was some expectation that a critical review of the policies and activities CPF members might be also be secured through a useful UNFF monitoring and reporting on progress. However, after four formal UNFF sessions and several international meetings there is general disappointment among indigenous peoples’ organisations and civil society that the forum has not built on the open and progressive practices of the IPF/IFF and CSD, and has done little to advance implementation of international commitments on forests at the local and national levels. Indigenous and NGO criticisms of the UNFF 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)

·       Defective MSD organisation that has created a “ghetto” of civil society participation cut off from the deliberations of governments[9]

·       Preoccupation in UNFF sessions with “process issues” and negotiation of texts

·       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[10]

·       Failure to generate clear action and political commitments on key issues such as Traditional Forest Related Knowledge[11]

·       Strong influence of forestry industry and plantation interests[12]

·       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)[13]

·       Weak UNFF resolutions that have not been acted on by ECOSOC[14]

·       Few concrete tangible outcomes from UNFF sessions

·       Continuing lack of transparency in CPF meetings and CPF policies and activities (e.g., portfolio of the FAO NFP Facility)

·       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[15]

Many indigenous peoples’ representatives and NGOs that have attended the UNFF sessions, consider that the most useful aspect of these meetings been informal side event meetings, which have fostered more critical and open discussions on the forest crisis and obstacles to implementation. At the same time, there is a general view that inter-sessional meetings have been more useful than formal UNFF sessions.

What future for the international arrangement on forests?

The International Arrangement on Forests is to be evaluated at the fifth session of the UNFF in May 2005, where governments will assess the UNFF and CPF and decide on future options for the treatment of forest issues at the international level.[16] As part of this process, indigenous experts and other participants at the expert meeting on TFRK held in Costa Rica in December 2004 will discuss the effectiveness of the UNFF. The government of Mexico is also to host a country-led initiative on the Future of the International Arrangement on Forests in January 2005. In 2004, international forest policy discussions have again become dominated by the polarised issue of a Forest Convention. There are disturbing signs that forest policy debate is again set to become bogged down as some governments continue to advocate the establishment of a legally binding instrument (LBI) on forests, while others are strongly opposed to the concept.[17]

For their part, indigenous peoples’ organisations and social NGOs point out that it is not at all clear that a forest convention would better conserve forests and provide better protections for the rights of indigenous and other forest-dependent peoples.[18] This sceptical position towards an LBI is based on previous and recent backward government positions expressed in the UNFF where States show a marked reluctance to deal with social justice and human rights issues, and seek to strengthen governmental powers and State sovereignty over natural resources.

[18] Joint Statement: can a legally binding agreement on forests make a difference? Joint NGO-IPO statement, September 2004 – available at http://www.fern.org