International
NGO/IPO Forest Policy Implementation Monitoring Project
Intergovernmental
Panel on Forests (IPF) Proposals for Action
January 2000
By
Rita Morbia
Sierra Club of Canada
Suite #412 – 1 Nicholas St.
Ottawa, ON
Canada K1N 7B7
tel: 613-241-4611
fax: 613-241-2292
email: sierra@web.net
Table of Contents
Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 3
Executive Summary...................................................................................................................... 4
Description of Process................................................................................................................. 5
Process, Participation and
Transparency.................................................................................. 6
Progress on the Proposals for
Action......................................................................................... 8
Implementation of Related
Agreements................................................................................... 11
Conclusions................................................................................................................................. 11
Introduction
The International
NGO/IPO (nongovernmental organization / indigenous peoples organization) Forest
Policy Implementation Monitoring Project is focused on the Intergovernmental
Panel on Forests (IPF) Proposals for Action.
Its main goal has been to determine what governments around the world
have done to fulfill their pledge to implement the IPF Proposals for
Action. The IPF mandate was focused on
continuing international policy debate and discussions dealing with
forests. Although, the work plan was
broad in scope, it related to the following areas:
·
Implementation of
UNCED (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development) decisions
related to forests at the national and international level including an
examination of sectoral and cross-sectoral linkages;
·
International
cooperation in financial assistance and technology transfer;
·
Scientific research, forest
assessment and development of criteria and indicators for sustainable forest
management;
·
Trade and environment
relating to forest products and services;
·
International
organizations and multilateral institutions and instruments including
appropriate legal mechanisms;
Canada was an active
participant in IPF negotiations, which led to the adoption by IPF member
governments of a comprehensive set of “Proposals for Action” in February
1997. Subsequently, this agreement was
endorsed by the UN Commission on Sustainable Development in April 1997, and
more formally by the UN General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) in June
1997. Prime Minister Chrétien was among
the heads-of-state at UNGASS who publicly pledged their nations to fully
implement the IPF Proposals.
The 20 or so
countries taking part in this initiative have each been assigned country
monitors. Sierra Club of Canada is the
country monitor for the Canadian portion of this review and this report is the
outcome of a standardized questionnaire circulated to relevant government
officials for their input.
Canada contains 10%
of the world’s total forest, covering 417.6 million hectares. Forestry is one of this country’s most
important industries, directly and indirectly employing a workforce of over
800,000 individuals. Approximately 70%
of Canada’s forest is provincially managed, while federal and territorial
governments manage about 23% between them.
The remaining forested land base is under private ownership. It is important to note that forestry,
according to the Canadian constitution is an area of provincial
jurisdiction. Thus each province has
its own policies and / or legislation.
The federal government’s role in forestry is limited to areas such as
science and technology, trade, international affairs, management of federal
lands and Aboriginal matters related to forestry.
Major forest issues
in Canada include, but are not limited to:
·
high annual allowable
cuts
·
forestry practices
that lead to forest degradation, both over the short-term and long-term
·
conversion to
plantations
·
loss of old-growth
forests
·
globalization and
trade
·
tenure reform
·
loss of biodiversity
·
equitable sharing of
resources with First Nations / land claim agreements
Although follow-up on
implementation of many of the IPF Proposals for Action would help Canada’s
forests, there are some others, for example, relating to trade liberalization,
which would most likely be detrimental.
The Preliminary Report on Implementation states, “Canada’s trade and
environmental policies which strongly support a rules-based trading system and
free trade are consistent with the IPF proposals . . . Canada has promoted and
will continue to promote the adoption of global free trade in forest
products."[1] In general, there has not been a lot of activity,
government or otherwise specifically related to the implementation of the IPF
Proposals for Action. Thus, the few
gains made on forest issues in Canada since 1997 have not been related to UN
level international policy arrangements.
Canadian government
officials were very helpful in the course of this review. Due to the time constraints involved,
telephone interviews were conducted with the relevant personnel. Their responses are contained in this
report.
Although Canada is a
very active participant in international policy dialogue relating to forest
issues, the government has not developed any implementation procedures specific to the IPF Proposals for
Action. According to officials,
however, many of the IPF Proposals for Action are contained in the National
Forest Strategy (NFS). This Strategy
contains action items that are implemented on a voluntary basis. The next NFS review is scheduled for Fall
2000. There has also been no
stakeholder involvement relating to setting up Canada-specific implementation
for the IPF Proposals for Action, with the exception of an informal
brainstorming session held with the provinces.
Although the government does not feel the need for policy revisions or
new programs to fully implement the IPF Proposals for Action, there has been no
formal gap analysis with resulting documentation to determine where any of the
proposals are contained in ongoing initiatives such as the NFS and where or if
further progress may be required.
“The IPF proposals for action, as reflected in Canada’s National Forest Strategy (1998-2003), will guide future efforts to improve sustainable forest management as the world enters a new millenium. The IPF framework serves as a useful blueprint for moving forward as we strive to ensure that forest resources worldwide can meet the demands of the planet’s current and future inhabitants. However, the forest community is growing increasingly weary with the slow pace of change. In this regard, the dialogue now taking place within the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests must produce concrete recommendations that build on recent successes and put words into action through binding measures that result in clear accountability for implementing sustainable forest management worldwide by sovereign nations.”[2]
In reality, the IPF Proposals for Action have done little to change the situation in Canada’s forests. An additional consideration is that although many of the IPF Proposals for Action would likely have a positive impact on Canadian forests, it is not apparent how some other proposals would be beneficial. However, it is troubling that Canada would spend so much time and so many resources to negotiate an agreement and then not actively follow-up on implementation.
First contact with
Canadian government officials was made via fax on Nov. 23, 1999. On advice of those familiar with the
Canadian delegates at IPF and IFF negotiations, an introductory letter was sent
to Mr. Jacques Carette, Director-General of the Canadian Forest Service
(CFS). The questionnaire was attached
to this fax and the documentation was also copied to Denyse Rousseau, Deputy
Director of the Environmental Relations Division, Department of Foreign Affairs
and International Trade, as well as Ralph Roberts, Chief Forester of the
Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA).
Having followed up
with telephone calls, it was apparent that government representatives would be
unable to provide a written response to the questionnaire in the allotted
timeframe. Canada was, at that time,
also hosting a Canada-Costa Rica Initiative meeting and Canadian officials able
to respond to the questionnaire were otherwise occupied with this meeting.
A second fax was sent
on Dec. 1, 1999, indicating, in the interests of time, my willingness to set up
a telephone interview as an alternative to government officials having to draft
their own written answers. Mike
Fullerton and Rosalie McConnell, both of the Canadian Forest Service were also
added to the distribution list. They
have both been core members of Canadian delegations in international
negotiations on forest policy, past IPF and/or IFF meetings. An interview with Ralph Roberts was secured
and conducted on Dec. 13, 1999.
After speaking with
Ms. McConnell, it became apparent that the appropriate CFS officials would not
be able to respond to the questionnaire in the month of December at all. Subsequent to speaking with members of the Monitoring
Initiative Steering Committee, it was determined that the deadline could be
extended to Jan. 12, 2000. On Jan. 8,
2000, a telephone conference call was held to obtain the government’s response
to the questionnaire. Participants
included Jacques Carette (Director General, Policy, Planning and International
Affairs, Canadian Forest Service, Natural Resources Canada), André Rousseau
(Director, Federal-provincial Relations, Policy, Planning and International
Affairs, Canadian Forest Service, Natural Resources Canada) and Rosalie McConnell
(Senior Policy Advisor, International Affairs, Policy, Planning and
International Affairs, Canadian Forest Service, Natural Resources Canada).
Thus government
responses have been constructed from the two separate telephone interviews
mentioned above - the first, with a CIDA representative and the second, with
CFS representatives. Additional
documentation has been appropriately referenced. It has not been my aim to, in any way, interpret or change the
intent of any of the government answers.
Commentary has been limited to the ‘conclusions’ section. However, since government officials did
choose to participate in a telephone interview instead of drafting the answers
themselves, they have run the risk, however slight, of possible misperceptions
arising as the conversations were not transcribed verbatim. In paraphrasing their answers, the intention
was only to make responses readable, and I am confident that I have succeeded
without any change to the substance of the responses received. Lastly, I would like to mention that
government officials were helpful, honest and frank and I am grateful for their
participation in this initiative.
Process,
Participation and Transparency
1.
As your government identified a focal point within the
government at the national level, as well as other responsible parties,
agencies, and/or departments, to lead the implementation process on the IPF
Proposals for Action? If so, please list these parties and the nature of their
responsibilities. Also, because many of the Proposals for Action are
cross-sectoral in nature, cooperation across agencies and sectors is essential
for effective implementation. Please describe how inter-agency and
inter-sectoral coordination is being facilitated in your country.
From the Canadian federal government’s point of view, the Canadian
Forest Service (CFS), housed within the Department of Natural Resources, is the
lead agency on the IPF Proposals for Action.
However, from a constitutional point of view, it is the provinces that
have jurisdiction over forestry issues.
In that respect, the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers[3]
is the lead agency. CFS works
extensively with CCFM which has 14 representatives, one for each province and territory
as well as a federal representative.
Another vehicle for implementation is the National Forest Strategy
Coalition (NFSC)[4].
Neither the CCFM, nor the NFSC have been identified, formally, as IPF
implementers, although, CFS does work with them closely. For example, the Preliminary Report[5]
presented in Geneva in1998 was produced with their collaboration. Each agency works on forestry issues at
various levels. In addition there is a
coordination system that exists at the macro level within the federal
government.
It is important to note that the Canadian government did not want to
implement the IPF proposals for action in isolation on a separate level. For them, it “just didn’t make sense to do
that” because so many of the IPF proposals for action were contained within the
National Forest Strategy (NFS)[6],
both the previous and the current strategy.
The agencies that have been referred to as focal points should be viewed
largely within the context of the National Forest Strategy and the NFSC.
Cross-sectoral discussions have taken place at the interdepartmental
policy level. The NFSC includes 20
departments and agencies that are federal.
The main tool for IPF and IFF implementation is the National Forest
Strategy. Although, the government hasn’t
made a formal link to say that the NFS is the formal vehicle for implementation
of IPF, in reality, it is the primary tool that is used. From a federal perspective, Minister of
Natural Resources, Ralph Goodale will shortly be circulating a federal action
plan on the NFS.
As well, the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) is also
involved in implementation of the IPF Proposals for Action as they pertain to
ODA and related aspects. CIDA also
works closely with CFS as well as other government departments such as the
Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Agriculture Canada, and
Environment Canada. More specifically,
there is a cross-sectoral group within the government called the CIDA Forestry
Advisors Network that discusses these issues.
Although CIDA hasn’t formally ‘sat down’ with other government
departments to determine what their responsibilities consist of, with respect
to implementation of the IPF Proposals for Action, it is understood that their
mandate relates to Canada’s aid programme and they will help developing
countries implement the IPF Proposals for Action in areas such as technology
transfer, etc.
Other vehicles for implementation include a Criteria and Indicator
working group and an Aboriginal working group through the CCFM.
2.
Has your government
developed a step-by-step timetable for implementation, review, and reporting?
If so, please describe this process.
The timetable for implementation, review, and reporting would include
items set out in the National Forest Strategy.
The NFS states “The Strategy will be formally evaluated by an
independent third party at the mid-term and at the end, and the results will be
published” (pg. xiv). This mid-term
review will occur at the end of 2000. It will assess the progress made with
respect to the NFS. There will be a
full review in 2003.
This strategy accounts for a large number of the commitments contained
in the IPF Proposals for Action. The
government has not cross-referenced each, number by number, but they are
confident that a large number of the proposals form part of the strategy.
CFS is currently working with the provinces, and should be able to
publish a first report on Criteria and Indicators (C&I) by April 2000. In 1997, a technical capacity report on
C&I was completed. The C&I
initiative, which falls under the CCFM is the preferred implementation vehicle
for this aspect of the IPF Proposals for Action.
As the federal government has no constitutional jurisdiction over
forestry, they work on the basis of “moral persuasion.” The provinces, territories and federal
government work together under the CCFM where there is a working group on
international dialogue and regular discussions take place. If necessary, the CCFM ADM International
Committee consisting of Assistant Deputy Ministers can be consulted. When developing draft interventions and such
for international negotiations, the federal government works closely with
provinces. More often than not,
provinces are on official delegations to these meetings.
Thus, there are no timetables specifically relating to IPF proposals for
action but the National Strategy has a timetable associated with it.
3.
Has your government
established a process to identify and involve all relevant stakeholders and
their institutions in the implementation of the Proposals for Action? If so,
please describe this process, list the stakeholders that have been and are
currently involved, and describe the basic nature of their involvement (e.g.,
have they been provided information, participated in meetings, submitted
written comments, engaged in implementation programs in the forest, etc.).
“Yes, and no.”
There is no formal process to identify and involve all relevant
stakeholders and their institutions linked to the implementation of IPF
Proposals for Action.
However, in preparation and follow-up to IPF and IFF, there have been
consultations with stakeholders. These
have included representatives from aboriginal associations, ENGOs, industry,
those with socioeconomic concerns and the provinces. This type of communication has been done “religiously.” Last year, there were several 3 day
facilitated sessions with each of the above-mentioned groups meeting to discuss
Canada’s future direction regarding international forestry policy, but not
specific to IPF Proposals for Action.
There has been nothing especially labelled an “IPF implementation
group.”
Relating to IPF proposals found in the National Forest Strategy, there
have been extensive stakeholder participation for the NFS when it was being
developed under the CCFM. This
stakeholder participation has been ongoing throughout the NFS. “CCFM dialogues with the forest community. Dialogue has evolved to a level where you
could say the Canadian forest community is working together and giving their
vision and co-operating in the implementation.”
Furthermore, there is a network of 11 Model forests in Canada which
include a component of public participation. “Forcast” is a coalition of
science and technology organizations involved in forest research. They have a plan of action that’s closely
linked with the NFS. CFS is the
“bottleneck” of all these initiatives and thus, they are the body that
integrates all of these initiatives when it comes to reporting on implementation. For example they are aware of how IPF
proposals for action listed under ‘research’ are implemented through whatever
means exists. The government, however,
emphasized that it is “almost impossible for us to do an exercise strictly for
IPF.”
CIDA has also been helping developing countries through involvement with
the International Forestry Advisor’s Group, who are counterparts from the donor
community. There has been a focus on
developing the theory and practice of national forest programs, and expanding
them to ensure better participation.
There should be a recognition that assistance to developing countries is
dependent upon requests received.
Progress on
the Proposals for Action
4.
Has your government done a comparison of existing government
policies and programs, directly or indirectly related to forests, against the
IPF Proposals for Action, to identify any gaps in effective implementation, and
possible contradictions between the IPF proposals and existing government
programs? If so, please describe the status of this gap analysis process.
As part of the series of workshops last year, an exercise with provinces
included reviewing the IPF Proposals for Action. Discussions with provincial representatives included what they
could not meet or exceed relating to the IPF Proposals for Action. There was no documentation that resulted
from this meeting for public consumption because it was a brainstorming
exercise. However, CFS is “fairly
confident” that Canada makes or exceeds or deals with the applicable IPF
Proposals for Action. Not all IPF
Proposals for Action actually apply to Canada.
This question is related to the evolution of forestry legislation and
policy in Canada. Forestry legislation
and policy has evolved although CFS couldn’t state if any changes were or were
not influenced specifically by the IPF Proposals for Action. The other workshops, all held separately
with industry, First Nations, and environmentalists were more focused on next steps
and did not discuss the IPF Proposals for Action. Only in the provincial portion, did they look at how the
provinces, and thus Canada fared against IPF Proposals for Action. CCFM has strong position on international
forest policy. Thus, to discuss what
this meant, their workshop could focus on what has already been committed to:
IPF Proposals for Action.
As previously mentioned, there was no documentation that resulted from
the provincial workshop as it took more of a brainstorming approach, and thus,
lacked any formal structured reporting.
The 1998 Preliminary Report[7]
demonstrates how Canada fares with respect to implementation. Furthermore, it is a preliminary report that
gives some examples, but is by no means exhaustive.
CIDA indicated that there were no gaps, technically speaking, but that
Canada did have priorities in other areas for ODA. Thus, there are financial limitations and there was a recognition
that Canada should be spending more on forestry.
“The endorsement of the IPF’s proposals by the Special Session of the
United Nations General Assembly in June 1997 was opportune in that the timing
coincided with domestic consultations.
Therefore, the proposals were taken into account when developing
Canada’s new national forest strategy.
While no formal assessment of their relevance was undertaken as a
separate exercise, the degree to which many were integrated in the five-year
initiative is evidence of their applicability to the Canadian context and
Canada’s commitment to responding to the international forest community’s call
to action.”[8]
5.
Has your government
identified specific IPF Proposals for Action that it considers priorities for
implementation in your country? If so, please list them and list the criteria
used for selecting these priorities. In particular, does your country have a
national strategy for addressing the underlying causes of deforestation, and
was this used as a means of prioritizing the Proposals for Action?
“First of all, there’s no deforestation in Canada, so it is difficult to
use it as a priority criteria.”
Mr. Carrette indicated that when he speaks to provinces, recognizing the
extensive forest that Canada retains, and recognizing the criticism that Canada
has received in the past regarding forestry issues, he stresses that everything
is a priority. The global community has
to move as a block.
However,
some IPF Proposals for Action “don’t make a whole lot of sense” and “you had to
be in the room to figure out what they were getting at.” There has also been the criticism by the
international community that amongst the proposals, there’s duplication and
overlap. When Canada views the
proposals, some of them are consistent with previously established
priorities. Examples include C&I initiatives
and some of the research aspects. In
some cases, Canada was already involved in implementation. As well, the government stated that “We
couldn’t really go through each proposal one by one, we sort of grouped them
and went from there.” CFS representatives
wanted to stress that some of the proposals have been so skilfully negotiated
they have been rendered meaningless.
Canada doesn’t favour a continuation of that kind of approach. Canada was in the room when the IPF
Proposals for Action were negotiated, but the proposals are voluntary. The language used include words such as
‘encouraged’, ‘urged’ and ‘recommended’.
In no case, can the Panel dictate what countries should or should not
do.
When Canada reviewed the proposals, there was follow-up only with those
applicable to Canada’s situation. The
C&I initiative is a good example.
Canada even influenced some of the wording relating to C&I at the
negotiations. In the case of C&I,
there has been extensive follow-up. In
addition to implementation, Canada houses the Montreal process
secretariat. The C&I framework,
domestically, has been put on a fast-track process. This may also persuade other countries into faster
implementation. In its approach with
its own provinces, Canada uses moral persuasion to assert the Proposals for
Action in an effort to ensure that the country meets or exceeds the
proposals.
There has been no formal process with any criteria to set priorities on
implementation of the IPF Proposals for Action.
CFS asserts that there is no deforestation in Canada. Their definition of deforestation is
removing trees and using the land for another purpose. Initiatives in Canada relating to the Kyoto
Protocol have been trying to determine the amount of deforestation domestically
and although there is no good estimate, CFS maintains that by and large, the
deforestation rate, if it exists, is very low.
Although this is not a response to the IPF Proposals for Action, in
terms of CIDA’s development assistance, the government has identified forestry
as a priority in its current policy framework.
6.
Please describe
briefly the concrete action(s) your government has taken to implement specific
IPF Proposals for Action in your country. This should consist primarily of a
description of any NEW programs that have been initiated, as well as the
potential need to revise existing policies, to achieve the effective
implementation of the IPF proposals, and a clear plan and timetable for
initiating such new programs.
Canada has seen no need for any new programs to respond to the IPF
Proposals for Action. In terms of
forestry policy, Canada feels it is “leading the crowd.” As well there are no IPF Proposals for
Action that have caused Canada to shift its policy in a major way. Proposals for Action requiring a major shift
aren’t necessary because Canada is “in good shape.” There are already had a number of programs that deal with the IPF
Proposals for Action.
Prior to the Earth Summit in Rio, Canada was already developing its
National Forest Strategy, and those involved were aware of advances in the
global policy arena. As needed,
concepts have been incorporated into the NFS, if they apply at all. An example is sustainable forest management,
and IPF is one instrument, “we’re in tune with, but we’re not at the beg and
call of one instrument.”
Although new programs have been initiated that have an impact on the
forest and probably relate to the proposals for action, Canada doesn’t claim
that they have been developed as a result of the IPF Proposals for Action.
CIDA indicated that they were significantly involved with 12 countries
and their development of National Forest Programmes. There have also been discussions to help operationalize National
Forest Programmes. Bilateral
negotiations are currently a work in progress, where shortly, there will be
more movement.
Implementation
of Related Agreements
7.
Have your country's
efforts to implement the IPF Proposals for Action been closely coordinated with
its efforts to implement the Convention on Biological Diversity, International
Tropical Timber Agreement (and its Objective Year 2000 goal), Framework
Convention on Climate Change (and Kyoto Protocol), and (where relevant)
Criteria and Indicators initiatives, the G-8 Forest Action Programme, or any
regional forest-related agreements? If so, please describe how.
When there is a forest component to any agreement , it flows through CFS
as the main bottleneck. Thus, the same
group of people are involved in many aspects of these components including
coordination. CFS is also responsible
for maintaining the secretariat for the NFSC and are involved with the
CCFM. They try to use their position to
make some advances. These same
people/division work on all the mentioned agreements, and are involved in
interdepartmental discussions as well. They work closely with other
departments.
CIDA indicated that developing countries were striving to make the most
efficient use of human resources, and each agreement required an action plan at
the national level. Canada has been
sensitive to this issue and has helped developing countries integrate
multilateral environmental agreements (MEA), making the most efficient use of
human resources. Unfortunately, there
has been no global formula for a holistic and integrated manner of
implementation. On another level,
Canada is working on developing a mechanism for helping developing countries
build capacity. CIDA is updating its
own forest policy and integrating MEAs, but “it is a problem.” There is recognition that each agreement
“seems to have its own track and its own bureaucracy.”
Conclusions
It is apparent that
for the Canadian government, implementation of the IPF Proposals for Action is
not a high priority. Canadian
bureaucrats maintain that Canada is already heavily involved in implementation
through existing initiatives and that there is no need for further action. One is left with the general notion that all
is well in Canadian forests. However,
it is also apparent that the Canadian government has not closely analyzed the
Proposals for Action to determine if existing policies and programs are indeed
covered and being implemented through established initiatives. Many of the responses pointed to a lack of
formal structure associated with implementation of the IPF Proposals for Action
and as the items contained, are in themselves, voluntary, this informality
easily translates into a lack of focused action.
The National Forest
Strategy was referred to, as the main implementation vehicle for the IPF
Proposals for Action. Many forest
activists question the efficacy of the Strategy. Elizabeth May, Executive Director of the Sierra Club of Canada
has written about Canada’s lack of commitment to many international and
domestic agreements, “A key commitment under the Biodiversity Convention is the
protection of endangered species, but Canada still has no endangered species
legislation [a bill is scheduled for introduction in February or March 2000 –
eight years after the Earth Summit in Rio]. . . Canada has created a
Biodiversity Strategy, but it is only a non-binding statement of intent and
does not have the force of law.
Similarly, Canada has a National Forest Strategy. But for all its good words, the only level
of enforcement is the provincial governments.
Even if Canada succeeds in its current effort to negotiate an
international convention on the world’s forests, the federal government will
have no way to implement its policy.
Jurisdiction over forests in Canada remains with the provinces. The federal government has only the power to
beg.”[9]
Furthermore, there is evidence that IPF Proposals for Action have not been effectively integrated in the NFS. Martin von Mirbach, an NGO advisor to the Canadian delegation throughout the IPF wrote to the secretariat of the National Forest Strategy Coalition in November 1997[10] offering specific advice, including wording changes on how IPF Proposals for Action could be integrated into the NFS. His suggestions were not heeded. Moreover, it became evident during the NFS drafting process that there was a lack of effective communication between the CFS officials involved in IPF and the NFS drafting committee. It would seem as though the NFS drafting committee never explicitly considered the full range of IPF Proposals for Action.
On the issue of deforestation, a study commissioned by the Forest Sector Table for the Climate Change process (where CFS was the lead agency in commissioning, reviewing and accepting the report) stated that deforestation in Canada amounted to between 54,000 and 80,000 hectares per year.[11] Forestry and agriculture were the top two causes of this deforestation.
It would take a more
detailed analysis to determine whether implementation of the IPF Proposals for Action,
in their entirety, would actually prove beneficial for Canadian forests. However, in terms of fulfilling this
particular international commitment, Canada has only done so incidentally, when
their previous priorities were already pointed in a similar direction. The C&I initiative is one example. Canada would have pursued this programme,
irrespective of the existence of the IPF Proposals for Action.
The Canadian
government has not formally identified an agency or body whose responsibility
it is to oversee and coordinate the implementation of all the IPF Proposals for
Action, although by default CFS seems to assume most of this role. There is no timetable for implementation,
review or reporting specific to these proposals. Stakeholders, other than the provinces have not ever been asked
to participate in any implementation procedures. No structured gap analysis has been initiated and no priorities
have been set. There have been no new
programmes or revisions of existing policies relating to the IPF Proposals for
Action. Finally, integration of other
international agreements with a forest-related section has been only loosely
coordinated.
That Canada would have spent so much time and so many resources to negotiate an agreement and then choose to not actively follow-up is problematic.