Report on the Canada - Costa Rica Initiative

(supporting the United Nations' Intergovernmental Forum on Forests: Category III)

Prepared for: the CEN Forest Caucus
Prepared by: Lara Ellis
Date: January 2000

Background
One forum for international discussion of forest issues has been at the United Nations. The Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) created the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF) in 1995. After four meetings, the IPF delivered a Proposal for Action, with 140 items. Several contentious issues were earmarked with different options outlined on possible ways to proceed. One such issue was an international forest convention.

The Commission on Sustainable Development accepted the proposals for actions, and made recommendations to the UN General Assembly Special Session. This body saw the need to continue international dialogue about these issues and so established the International Forum on Forests (IFF) which was charged with reporting to the Commission on Sustainable Development in 2000 at the end of its mandate.

The IFF was given a three-pronged mandate:
I. Promoting and facilitating the implementation of the proposals for actions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF) and reviewing, monitoring and reporting on progress in the management, conservation and sustainable development of all types of forests;

II. Considering matters left pending and other issues arising from the programme elements of the IPF process;

III. International arrangements and mechanisms to promote the management, conservation and sustainable development of all types of forests.⁽¹⁾

The third "category" or issue was of great interest to Canada. The Federal Government has been and remains one of the strongest proponents of an international forest convention (i.e. an international legally binding instrument on forests).

Canada-Costa Rica Initiative
Because of the limited life span of the IFF, countries volunteered to take on initiatives in support of its mandated categories of work. Canada and Costa Rica developed and held a series of workshops to look at the third category: "International arrangements and mechanisms to promote the management, conservation and sustainable development of all types of forests". The workshop format called on forest "experts" to examine the need for a legally binding instrument to deal with possible elements of such an instrument.

In Canada, the Canadian Forest Service tested the workshop methodology separately with: CEN forest caucus delegates, First Nations, and the forestry industry in early 1999. After its workshop, the CEN forest caucus released a report, which is available on our web site.

The international and regional expert meetings occurred throughout 1999⁽²⁾; Martin Von Mirbach (Centre for Forest and Environmental Studies, Newfoundland) and Lara Ellis (Wildlands League, Ontario) attended the November regional expert meeting in Mexico City⁽³⁾. This report is available on the CEN website.

The final wrap-up session occurred in Ottawa in early December, 1999, and was attended by Cliff Wallis (Canadian Nature Federation). This meeting was to "provide the basis for informed decision-making on Category III" at the final IFF session in New York early in 2000. An analysis of the pros and cons of the three options under consideration (existing binding agreements, a new legally binding instrument, and a new legally non-binding instrument), was to be delivered along with suggestions on how to proceed⁽⁴⁾.

According to the summary prepared by the Earth Negotiations Bulletin of the draft final report, the IFF will be receiving a strong message that they need to make a decision about this issue, but there is no concrete proposal on what that should be or include:

The report [from the final meeting] states that experts at the meeting agreed that a clear decision on future international arrangement is required at IFF-4, and any permanent arrangement or mechanism should fulfill the four functions, be supported by political will, and treat forest issues comprehensively. This approach should: respect the sovereign rights of States; incorporate global, regional and national considerations; provide for participation of all stakeholders; take into account existing international commitments on forests; promote the use of traditional knowledge in SFM; facilitate financing, technology transfer and capacity building; provide measures to assist with implementing commitments; improve the coordination of existing instruments and initiatives; and take concrete action to strengthen existing commitments.⁽⁵⁾

ENGO involvement
A few ENGOs and IPOs (Indigenous Peoples' Organizations) have engaged in and monitored this issue which has been very valuable in helping increase the knowledge of other Canadian ENGOs. A Canadian ENGO/IPO presence has also been valuable to network with other and international NGOs, stay informed and to promote knowledge and recognition of the Canadian Government's commitments and responsibilities to First Nations, communities and the environment.

For the most part, however, Canadian ENGOs have not had the resources to follow this UN driven forest debate. The low profile, complicated processes, unknown future impact, and nature of the discussion means that this area of international policy development has had less attention paid to it then institutions or events that constituted a more measurable or considered threat (e.g. WTO).

Opposition to a forest convention
ENGO and IPO opposition to a forest convention to date has centred on the fact that a UN focus on a convention or legally binding instrument would allow more time for talk, while real action to protect forests or promote sustainable forestry is avoided.

The ENGO and IPO arguments against a forest convention, as stated in the February 1997, International Citizen Declaration against a Global Forest Convention⁽⁶⁾, were that it would most likely enshrine weak standards, favour commercial trade interests; undermine the biodiversity convention; avoid the real issues (i.e. underlying causes of forest loss and degradation); threaten citizen initiatives (e.g. certification); and delay decisive action.

Is there reason to believe that this has changed? Unfortunately, discussions at the CRCI meetings were rigorously tailored to look at the status of a list of elements to see if they are now, or should be, dealt with by a legally binding instrument. There was no discussion allowed about the way in which they would be dealt. (Martin Von Mirbach's paper on the Mexico meeting explains this in comprehensive detail.) This means that there has been no way to evaluate if the ways in which others would deal with the issues is more or less in line with our own values and/or if these directions would help or hinder our efforts in Canada.

There are some issues, however, that an international forest convention or legally (or even non legally) binding instrument could move forward and that we should not ignore. Technology transfer and financial support for forest conservation from developed countries to countries that require assistance is such an issue. Another consideration is that a UN focus on forests has given forest issues a higher priority than they might otherwise have received in some countries other than our own.

ENGO strategy development
In light of the fact that we know the possible downsides of a forest convention, and have had no reassurance that we are wrong, what are our options?

At a recent ENGO/IPO meeting in Ottawa prior to the final Canada / Costa Rica Initiative meeting, there continued to be opposition to a forest convention or new legally binding instrument. There was however no consensus on a solution to propose in its stead. The participants recognized that two of the main drivers behind forest convention aspirations were: the desire of governments to keep forests a priority internationally, and a need to save face and deliver something now that so much time and money has been spent on the international forest debate at the IPF/IFF.

While Canada continues to push for a forest convention or legally binding instrument it is not clear whether other (once supportive) countries are still on side. That said, a decision about how to proceed on Category III is to made shortly.

If it is decided that negotiations on some sort of international mechanism/instrument will start, Canadian ENGOs will have to make a decision whether or not to participate in good faith in the process (and under what circumstances), and also determine how proactive we want and can be in this process.

If IFF4 does not deliver what the Canadian Government wants, but more discussion and debate, ENGOs will also have to determine a new course of action. There are several ways to proceed, depending on whether or not the possible gains are seen to be worth the investment made on our part.

One consideration in either event is that during this whole debate about a new forest instrument, there has been a continuous emphasis on the international commitments already made. Profiling these in a Canadian context and holding the federal and provincial governments accountable in an organized / comprehensive manner could move the current and future (post-IFF UN activities, and WTO and trade activities) agenda forward. For instance, what are the steps or action the Federal and Provincial Governments should take immediately to fulfill their commitment to the Convention on Biological Diversity?

There is also the possibility of simply reformatting existing information in the context of our international commitments. For example, Global Forest Watch will be releasing a report shortly that will likely demonstrate unsustainable forestry in Canada. Taking this information and pulling out the parts of the National Forest Accord that support/require sustainable forestry would show inconsistency in Canada's words and actions, and hopefully spur change.

Next Steps The Canadian Forest Service invited individuals from the forest caucus for a briefing meeting prior to the development of Canada's draft national position on Category III. The meeting was held January 10^th, 2000 and was attended by Martin Von Mirbach, Cliff Wallis, Rita Morbia and myself from the forest caucus. (An email with copies of correspondence was sent to the forest caucus.) A conference call will be held this week, so that we can relate what was learned at this meeting and use the feedback from the forest caucus to write a short report for the Canadian Forest Service. This report will be delivered to the CFS this week so that our opinions and concerns will be known before the final drafting of Canada's position on Category III.

1. United Nations, Division for Sustainable Development, About the Intergovernmental Process,1999.
http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/aboutiff.htm

2. The official reports of these meetings can be located at: http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/cfs/crc/english/rprt_e.htm

3. For more information on the format and running of these workshops please see: Von Mirbach, Martin.The Costa Rica - Canada Initiative: A participant's report on the regional workshop in Mexico City, Nov. 24-27, 1999. (Centre for Forest and Environmental Studies, 1999.)

4. For more information see: International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD)Summary Report of the Final Meeting of the Costa Rica - Canada Initiative 6-10 December 1999. (Sustainable Developments, Volume 35, No. 1. , 1999.) http://www.iisd.ca/linkages/

5. IISD, Summary Report

6. A copy of the declaration can be found at: http://www.xs4all.nl/~foeint/oppforco.html