SUMMARY REPORT TO THE CANADIAN FOREST SERVICE FROM THE
FOREST CAUCUS OF THE CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL NETWORK

Deliverables in the CEN-CFS contract:
In contracting to meet with the Canadian Forest Service, the Forest Caucus of the CEN agreed: to identify key global forest issues and exchange information and views regarding which current and future international arrangements, mechanisms and instruments might assist in addressing them. In this regard, R is understood that the workshop offers the opportunity for preliminary discussions with domestic ENGOS on an international forest convention and that no conclusions regarding ENGO views on the subject should be made as a result. The CEN also agreed to prepare a brief document following the workshop, summarizing specific issues, concerns or recommendations regarding priority issues, areas of common ground and advice on how best to involve ENGOs in further dialogue on the subject.

Please note that:
  • Participants attended the workshop in their individual capacity, and organizational affiliations are provided for information purposes only.
  • In particular, several organizations listed have previously expressed positions with respect to a forest convention, and this brief should in no way be viewed as a modification of those views.
  • This brief does not necessarily represent the views of the Canadian environmental Network, the CEN Forest Caucus, or its members.
  • The Canadian Forest Service has agreed that it would be inappropriate to draw' any conclusions from this workshop with respect to Canadian ENGO views about. a forest convention.
  • This brief represents our best attempt to reflect the diversity of views that were expressed, as well as to identify any commonalities that emerged- It should not, however, be considered a final, consensus report, largely because this was by prior agreement simply a preliminary discussion.
  • One participant has chosen to provide individual comment to CFS, independent from this brief.


    • I- Priority Issues

    The issues are presented here in the five categories suggested by the CFS for the workshop.

    Environmental Issues
    - conservation of biodiversity
    - conversion of primary forests
    - transformation and modification of forests
    - maintenance of forest resilience and integrity
    - basic needs: air and oxygen; soil and water conservation
    - development of ecological standards
    - linkages between fibre harvest and other economic activities from forests exotic tree species
    - rehabilitation of fragile ecosystems
    - impacts of pollution
    - carbon storage and sequestration
    - mitigating climate change
    - impact of manufactured chemicals and biocides

    Forest Management
    - defining sustainability, forest health
    - assessment and inventories including Environmental Assessment
    - traditional knowledge, non-timber resources, fuelwood, and the negative and
    - positive aspects of plantations
    - fire, insects, and disease in natural forest systems
    - information sharing
    - ecologically unsustainable logging

    Social Issues
    - equity and disparity
    - cultural and spiritual values
    - access
    - greed and corruption
    - indigenous peoples issues including intellectual property rights social and cultural values education
    - basic survival needs

    Economic Issues
    - perverse policy and economic incentives
    - use of alternative fibre sources
    - secondary and non-timber products
    - short-term profithg at the expense of sustainability
    - benefit odernalization (private and public gain)
    - forest services
    - cultural and spiritual values of forests

    Institutional and Policy Instrument Issues
    - auditing and enforcement of the implementation of international agreements
    - governance and coordination of international action, and reformation of institutions


    II- The key concerns and discussion points

    Until a key imbalance can be addressed - that environmental agreements are not enforced but trade agreements are - there is no point in negotiating further agreements aimed toward improvement with respect to environmental issues.
    Parficipants want to know how, a convention would address current problems: not only theoretical problems, but specific ones out there in the forest. They could see value in considering a protocol on a specific, critically important issue, such as primary forest conversion, wft the thought that this might be faster than negotiating a full convention.
    Biodiversity is something that theoretically has a solution: the Convention on Biological Diversity. But we siae-what it looks like on the ground: unimplemented. We note the massive amount of accounting (and national resources) diverted to fulfil the political commitments ma@ at Kyoto, and are concerned that conventions and protocols require massive, respurce and energy intensive, work on process before they begin to generate results' This level of work is taxing for Canada, and impossible in many places.
    The treaty-making process primarily involves governments talking to each other. The people who make the agreements thereby commit not only themselves, but also many other people, to changing their behaviour. However,'people with entrenched interests in the status quo are going to be resistant to change, as we have seen in the response of the oil industry to binding agreements on greenhouse'gases. If forest corporations arenl prom, oting practices that protect biodiversity, the question is: why not? If it is because they don't understand iti importance, then perhaps what we need is more understanding rather than a new convention. If it is because they are entrenched In unhealthy ppftems of practice that they do not choose to change, the negotiation of a convenfiap that protects forest health may simply give them something else to fight against.
    Within Canada we need an agreement on what we are trying to sustain. If Canada signs on to both CBD and MA, it doesn't make sense. , We wish to emphasize the conflict of different processes hat destroy with one hand what is built with the other.

    Questions and suggestions toward further consultation:
    There is a very high level of frustration among Canadian NGOS about the fact that existing conventions and internal commitments have not resulted in rapid positive change on the ground. Because we see inaction with respect to other conventions, and do not see Canada pushing hard for enforcement, our key questions are:

  • How, and how fast, would a Forest Convention result in positive change toward healthy and sustained forests at the local level, both in Canada and worldwide?
  • Is the federal government confident that the provinces are committed to achieving healthy and sustained forests, and will support the provisions of any new binding international instruments?
  • Under what circumstances, and how soon, might the Canadian policy on a forest convention be reviewed?
  • What are the opportunities for review and development of Canadian forest policies generally, particularly regarding key issues like primary forest conversion?
  • What commitments do we have of access to the negotiating process, and what confidence ought we to have that our contribution to that process would be a genuine and serious part of the negotiation?

    • Whether or not Canada continues to put energy into taking a lead role toward the creation of a new Convention, we would like to know what the -CFS sees as the way, in the short term, to address the key issues:
    - conversion of primary forests, and forest degradation
    - short term financial considerations overriding long-term sustainability environmentally perverse trade rules
    - logging in excess of AACS; illegal logging
    - consumption


    III- Suggestions and requests for future consultation opportunities

  • For the sake of clarity, we'request precirculaton of materials early enough to allow an initial round of pre-rpeeting responses.
  • Focus future meetings on outcomes, directions, and tools for implementation.
  • Among the participants -are some who are focused particularly on co mmunity level -Practices, agreements and implementation, and others whose expertise and focus is more particularly on large-s@le legal instruments. We wish to make use of both sets of expertise in an interactive and synergistic way that results in the maximum benefit to forests and people, in forest communities.
  • We recommend that there be other meetings between CEN and the CFS before the muffi-stakeholder plen@ planned for late 1 999.
  • We recommend increased youth participation into CFS's planning process.
  • We strongly recommend the following sequence of tasks for our future consultation:
    • - state clearly the intended:outcome (desired future);
    - state clearly to what degree the various players in Canada agree now;
    - provide an analysis of what enabling agreements exist now that could potentially lead Canada and the world toward the desired future;
    - identify and analyse the gaps in the existing enabling agreements, the barriers to the implementation and enforcement of existing agreements, and the existing and proposed perverse agreements;
    - design an implementation plan that will lead from, current reality to the desired future, that the essential stakeholders agree to follow, and which has a firm commitment to monitoring and enforcement.

    Before providing definitive advice on how the CFS should best engage further with ENGOs in Canada on this subject, it is vital to be clear about the terms of reference of any such consultative process. Does the CFS want to engage in dialogue with the stakeholder community about the full range of options understood to be part of IFF Category 111, or only about possible elements of a legally binding forest convention? If the former is the case, how can such consultations be truly meaningful, given itanada's stated position on the mafter? What dear evidence can CFS provide that they and other relevant departments (especially DFAIT) are prepared to re-examine and, if necessary, revise Canoda's stated policy? If minds are already made up, what is the point of further consultations?


    February 15,1999

    CFS Workshop Participants list

    Ecoforestry Institute
    Fax (250) 370-2483

    J. Denys Bourque
    Club d'ornithologie du Madawaska
    Fax (506) 739-5085

    Tyhson Banighen
    Turtle Island Earth Stewards
    Fax (250) 832-9942

    Michel Palmer
    Voice of the Earth Society
    Phone/Fax: (902) 825-3954

    Judy Huntley
    Bert Riggall Fdtn
    Phone/Fax: (403) 628-2422

    John Fester
    Yellowhead Ecological Ass.
    Fax: (250) 587-6432

    Gary Schneider
    Environmental Coalition of PEI
    Fax: (902) 566-4037

    Cliff Wallis
    Canadian Nature Federation
    Fax: (403) 271-1408

    Yuill Herbert
    Blue Green Society
    Fax: (506) 536-4230

    Juergen Hansen
    The Green Group
    Fax. (250) 494-9267

    John McInnis
    Fax: (250) 361-9520

    Lara Ellis
    Wildlands League - Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society
    Fax (416) 979-3155

    Martin von Mirbach
    Center for Forest and Environmental Studies
    Fax (709) 634-8767

    Rita Morbia
    Sierra Club of Canada
    Fax: (613) 241-2292

    Amelia Clarke
    Sierra Youth Coalition
    Fax: (613) 241-2292

    Leigh Herbert
    Shuswap Environmental Action Society

    Andrew Doutz
    (participated on the first day only)
    IUCN, Canada office
    Fax: (514) 287-9057

    Carole St-Laurent
    (participated on the first day only)
    VWVF International
    Fax: (416) 480-3611