Comments on the Draft Report of the Technical Expert Group on Forest Biological Diversity [1]

[Figures in bold relate to numbered paragraphs in the draft document]

General Comments:

The draft report, as it stands, requires substantial amendments before it can make a useful contribution to discussions about forest biological diversity (FBD). The Forest Peoples Programme considers this report particularly deficient in its treatment of social issues related to forests, biodiversity and natural resource management.

In particular, we are disappointed that the draft report fails to adequately address the need for the participation of indigenous and local communities in the assessment of status and trends in forest conservation and sustainable forest management. Notwithstanding the brief mention of the “ecosystem approach” (Chapter V: 22), the report is seriously deficient in its discussion of traditional knowledge, sustainable use and protected area management. The draft makes almost no reference to the mountain of evidence that demonstrates the value of the full and effective participation of indigenous peoples and local communities in the conservation of biological diversity and has failed to conform with the requirement to consider the issues under Article 8(j) set out in its mandate.[2]

Another weakness of the report is that it fails to include a cross-cutting analysis across the different chapters and is inconsistent in its treatment of many issues. It also lacks positive and innovative proposals for improving the conservation of biological diversity through the implementation of agreed governmental commitments under the CBD. Examples of best practice and novel approaches are also limited to just a few cases. These major deficiencies mean that the report, as its stands, adds very little value to existing understanding of trends in forest biodiversity.

However, we are pleased to note that the draft document acknowledges the importance of securing land and resource rights for forest communities as a precondition for sustainable forest management (Chapter 2: paragraph 106 and Chapter 3: 55). The list of underlying causes summarised in the report is also comprehensive.

Key Criticisms:

The Forest Peoples Programme questions the usefulness of the draft report as a platform for recommendations to SBSTTA and COP6 on the following grounds:

·        The report is largely disconnected from the provisions and decisions of the CBD (except for some brief points in Chapter V: 3-4). The report demonstrates almost no awareness of decisions taken under the CBD with respect inter alia to decision V/6 setting out the principles of the ecosystem approach, decision V/7 concerning identification, monitoring and assessment, decision V/8 with respect to alien species, decision V/15 on Incentive measures, decision V/16 on Article 8(j) and related provisions, decision V/18 on impact assessment, liability and redress, decision V/19 on national reporting, decision V/24 on sustainable use, decision V/25 on biological diversity and tourism and decision V/26 on access and benefit sharing.

·        The ecosystem approach and Article 8(j) are explicitly referenced in the terms of reference for the expert group. Only passing reference is made to the ecosystem approach and there is no consideration of the relevance and opportunities for innovation represented by the principles of the ecosystem approach adopted in decision V/6. There is no real engagement with Article 8(j) and the programme of work agreed by the COP nor any evidence of the inclusion of expertise in the area of traditional knowledge required under decision V/4 establishing the expert group. 

·        The report lacks a comprehensive analysis of the obstacles to implementing agreed governmental commitments under the CBD (other than in a de facto way with its list-like approach to the underlying causes of deforestation in Chapter 3: 47-64) and fails to identify innovative ways forward in the implementation of the Convention.

·       The report makes only limited reference to National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) and does not evaluate their effectiveness to date.[3]  No effort is made to consider the need for a participatory approach in the preparation of such strategies, to evaluate existing participatory approaches, and the options for synergies across biodiversity related conventions and processes in accordance with existing decisions.

·      The report fails to consider the potential for innovative and participatory approaches to monitoring and reporting which overcome the limitations of the lack of capacity and scientific knowledge of biodiversity by harnessing traditional local knowledge of forest species, soils, behaviour, ecology and ecosystem processes.

·      The report adopts a largely negative approach to the impacts of human activity on Forest Biological Diversity (other than the neutral list of “positive trends in forestry and forest policies” in Chapter IV that lacks a critical analysis of the effectiveness of these initiatives). The report thus undervalues the potential for conservation models based on community management and indigenous knowledge, in line with article 10c of the Convention, and completely fails to acknowledge that indigenous and traditional land use practices including shifting cultivation can and do enrich FBD.[4]

·       In Chapter II the report adopts an extremely narrow and dismissive economistic approach to what are called “other notions” of value of forest biodiversity that are not readily susceptible to market valuation. This contradicts the principles embedded within the ecosystem approach and the principles informing the programme of work on Article  8(j) and related provisions.

·       The analysis put forward in Chapter II fails to recognise the relationship between cultural, spiritual and other values of biodiversity and the knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous peoples and local communities and their bearing on the maintenance and promotion of sustainable use of forest biodiversity (see Chapter II: 67-68). [5]

·        The treatment of NTFPs within Chapter II and elsewhere in the report focuses on the market value of such products and is based on a partial view of the literature which ignores the vital contribution of forest biodiversity to the subsistence, nutritional status, health and well-being of indigenous peoples and local communities. As a result the report fails to explore the contribution of the maintenance of forest biodiversity to the avoidance, as opposed to alleviation, of poverty among forest peoples. 

·        While proposing “a thorough stakeholder analysis at global level” in Chapter II: 72 the report generally fails to dissaggregate the human component of forest biodiversity. Thus, no effort is made to consider estimates of the numbers and types of forest peoples and forest dependent groups, and the difficulties in the collation and analysis of such data. As a result we possess no clear picture of the ways in which they benefit from forest services, impact upon such services, and contribute to the maintenance of such services. The report entirely fails to engage with the growing number of decisions under the Convention which promote the participation of indigenous peoples, local communities and other stakeholders.

·        The treatment of the issue of protected area management contains only limited consideration of best practice in protected area management and community-based protected area management (with the exception of the few examples in Chapter IV: 36-38, and a few IUCN cases in Annex IV). The report fails to consider the role that the demarcation of indigenous territories is playing in the conservation of forest biodiversity, i.e. in South and Central America, the role that the demarcation of such territories can play in the conservation of traditional knowledge and cultural diversity, and the potential for innovative ways forward in the conservation of forest biodiversity represented by synergies between the demarcation of indigenous territories and existing participatory protected area models.

·        The importance of the full and effective participation of indigenous peoples and other forest-dependent communities in the management of biological diversity is only mentioned in passing and the technical expert group has so far failed to comply with its mandate to identify “…strategies for enhancement of collaborative management with local and indigenous communities” under decision V/4 (Chapter IV: 55,57).

·       The issues of plantations, Assisted Natural Regeneration, carbon sinks and other restoration initiatives are treated in a neutral and unproblematic way. No effort is made to explore the debates surrounding these issues or to evaluate the potential negative impacts on FBD and forest peoples.[6]

·       In connection with plantations the report fails to recognise the problems associated with plantations in different forest ecosystems, the role of plantations in the promotion of perverse incentives (decision V/15) and the need to apply the precautionary principle to the introduction of exotic species (decision V/8).

·        In connection with Climate Change the report assumes that indigenous and local communities will inevitably benefit from proposals for carbon credits under the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol and fails to consider the opposition to such proposals expressed by the First and Second International Indigenous Forum on Climate Change in the negotiations leading up to COP6 UNFCCC. Furthermore, the report fails to consider the potential conflicts between the conservation of FBD under the CBD and proposals surrounding sinks under the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol.

·        The report treats forest certification in a neutral way and fails to explore the serious differences between existing certification schemes that impinge on their capacity to protect FBD and respect the rights of forest peoples. [7]

·        The report generally assumes that tourism and ‘ecotourism’ are environmentally sustainable and beneficial to indigenous peoples and local communities. The report demonstrates no awareness of decision V/25 and its annex which provides a useful summary assessment of the positive and negative social and environmental impacts of tourism.

·        The exclusive biological focus in Chapters I and II means that opportunities to identify innovative and practical ways forward are missed. Thus, the discussion of the lack of scientific knowledge regarding species diversity in forests (Chapter 1: 51) and proposed science programme (Chapter 1: 77-78) fails to consider the potential importance of indigenous knowledge of forest biodiversity in addressing this problem and providing opportunities for practical measures to conserve FBD and “enhancement of collaborative management with local and indigenous communities” in accordance with the mandate of the technical expert group. This is particularly true when we consider that the general principles of the work programme for Article 8(j) and related provisions establish that “Traditional knowledge should be valued, given the same respect and considered as useful and necessary as other forms of knowledge” (decision V/16).

·        This is symptomatic of the wider failure of the expert group to consider the implications of the growing body of research on the relationship between cultural diversity, traditional knowledge and the conservation of biodiversity. This research reveals that the majority of human cultural diversity is found within tropical forest regions[8].

·        The report contains factually incorrect information e.g., that PROFOR II is moving to the World Bank (this is not yet decided)[9], and treats the highly controversial proposals regarding sinks and carbon trading under the UNFCC as established fact. The report assumes that indigenous and local communities are in agreement with the transformation of their knowledge into a commodity through IPRs. The available statements [from indigenous peoples including inter alia] the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity (which possesses advisory status to the COP through decision V/16) reveal that they hold deep reservations on this issue.

·      The report features no critical evaluation of the effectiveness, successes and failings of international and national policies and programmes affecting FBD.

·       The report fails to make reference to key emerging concepts relating to the conservation of FBD and recognition of the subsistence and cultural values of forests e.g., High Conservation Value Forest (HCVF).

Recommendations:

To ensure that this report is useful, builds on existing knowledge and past decisions of the COP, the authors should:

·        Focus much greater attention on practical action that can be taken to promote the conservation of forest biological diversity in accordance with the mandate.

·        Ensure that the report and its recommendations build upon and are consistent with the provisions of the Convention and decisions taken during COP5.

·        Evaluate existing strategies and plans on the national, regional and international level, identify obstacles to their effective implementation, and suggest ways forward in the implementation of the provisions of the CBD.

·        Pay particular attention to ways of making National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) more effective at the national and local level, especially with regard to the implementation of articles 8j and 10c of the CBD.

·        Apply the cross-cutting ecosystem approach in an interconnected and consistent manner in each chapter in accordance with the Convention, and use this holistic approach to identify innovative ways to promote the conservation of FBD.

·        Review all decisions which emerged from COP5 with respect to the participation of indigenous peoples, local communities and other stakeholders in the conservation of biodiversity. On this basis the report should formulate recommendations on mechanisms for the full and effective participation of indigenous peoples, local communities and other stakeholders in the conservation of forest biodiversity.

·        Ensure input to the report (and other work of the AHTEG) from specialist indigenous experts in accordance with decision V/4 and decision V/20 para 31 a-c.

·        Provide an overview of the relationship between cultural diversity and biodiversity based on the available literature and explore its relevance to the conservation of forest biodiversity.

·        Explore the available statistics on forest peoples, identify obstacles and gaps in information and propose ways forward.

·        Identify the range of goods and services provided to forest and forest dependent people and the contribution of forest goods and services to subsistence, nutritional status, health and well-being of forest peoples and forest dependent people. 

·        Take traditional knowledge seriously and recognise the importance of traditional knowledge for the maintenance of forest biological diversity and sustainable use under Article 8(j) and Article 10(c) of the Convention.

·        Examine the role of traditional knowledge in overcoming the deficit in scientific knowledge with respect to monitoring and assessment and propose innovative ways forward in monitoring and assessment based on the principle of the full and effective participation of indigenous peoples and local communities.

·        Identify traditional forest systems of conservation and sustainable use of FBD in accordance with the objectives of the programme of work under decision IV/7 through the provision of a representative and comprehensive sample of case studies.

·        Collate the available data on areas of forest designated as indigenous territories and reserves relative to officially designated protected areas and link this to existing international standards on indigenous rights and protected areas.

·        Explore the potential inter-relationship between indigenous territories/reserves and protected areas models in the prevention of fragmentation and creation of strong combined networks of indigenous territories and protected areas on the landscape and regional level.

·        Identify obstacles to the establishment of such territories and reserves, review existing experiences (i.e. Ecuador, Brazil, Venezuela, Panama), and potential ways forward.

·        Make a comprehensive list of best practice success stories to generate a concise list of lessons learned and recommendations to SBSTTA7 and COP6.

·        Recognise that plantations can have an adverse effect on FBD.

·        Provide a balanced and objective analysis of the potential impacts of plantations and carbon sinks on FBD and forest peoples.

·        Ensure that the matrixes in different chapters are mutually consistent.

·        Add to the annexes listing major actors in the international forest regime a section that summarises the effectiveness of their policies, projects and programmes (where this is known).[10]

·        Consider the merits of the creation of a Working Group on Forest Biological Diversity with a mandate to develop a protocol under the Convention.

Paul Oldham and Tom Griffiths, 25 May 2001

[1] Notification SCBD/STTM/JPLD/DH dated the 4th of April 2001 calling for peer review of the untitled draft document prepared by the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Forest Biological Diversity. Chapter I: “Status of Biological Diversity”, Chapter II: “Overview of Forest Ecosystem Functioning and Related Goods and Services”, Chapter III: “Major Threats to Forest Biological Diversity”, Chapter IV: “Trends of FBD”, Chapter V: “Initiatives Addressing FBD” with annexes.

[2] See, for example, Colchester, M (1995) Salvaging Nature: indigenous peoples, protected areas and biodiversity conservation UNRISD Gland; Kempf, E (Ed)(1993) Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas Earthscan, London; Borrini-Feyerabend, G (Ed)(1997) Beyond Fences: seeking social sustainability in conservation;  Beltrán, J (2000) Indigenous and traditional peoples and protected areas: principles, guidelines and case studies IUCN, Gland; WWF (2000) Indigenous and Traditional Peoples of the World and Ecoregion Conservation WWF International - Terralingua, Gland.

[3] A recent review of NBSAPs undertaken by the GEF found that most have failed to take account of social issues and have not established adequate participatory mechanisms for multistakeholder participation. See GEF (2000) Interim Assessment of Biodiversity Enabling Strategies GEF Washington DC

[4] See, for example, Posey D and Balee W (Eds)(1989) Resource Management in Amazonia: indigenous and folk strategies New York Botanical Garden, New York

[5] Posey, D (et al) (1999) Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity: A Complementary Contribution to the Global Biodiversity Assessment. Intermediate Technology Publications and UNDP: London.

[6] See, for example, World Rainforest Movement (1999) Tree Plantations: impacts and struggles WRM, Montevideo; FERN (2000) Sinking the Kyoto Protocol: the links between forests, plantations and carbon sinks FERN, Moreton-in-Marsh. See especially, paragraph 15, CBD Secretariat note, 27 October 2000 Climate Change and Biological Diversity Note submitted by the executive secretary of the CBD to the UNFCCC at its sixth session and the UNFCCC Subsidiary Body on Scientific and Technological Advice in its thirteenth session, The Hague 13-24 November 2000. See also, Blaser J and Douglas J (2000) “A future for forests? issues and implications for the merging forest policy and strategy of the World Bank” ITTO Newsletter 2000, www.itto.or.jp/newsletter/v10n4/3.html

[7] See FERN (2001) Behind the logo: an environmental and social assessment of forest certification schemesFERN, Moreton-in-Marsh

[8] WWF-Terralingua (2000) Indigenous and Traditional Peoples of the World and Ecoregion Conservation: An Integrated Approach to Conserving the World’s Biological and Cultural Diversity. WWF-Terralingua: Gland, Switzerland.

[9] See page 46, World Bank (2001) A  Revised Forest Strategy for the World Bank Group  Draft, May 04, 2001

[10] See, for example, World Bank (2000) A Review of the World Bank’s Forest Strategy and its Implementation: Volume I - main report  OED, World Bank, Washington DC