The Costa Rica-Canada Initiative:
A participant's report on the regional workshop in Mexico City, Nov. 24-27, 1999

Martin von Mirbach
Centre for Forest and Environmental Studies
Corner Brook, Canada


1. Introduction

The Costa Rica-Canada Initiative was established to support the work of the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF), namely to "identify possible elements of and work towards a consensus on international arrangements and mechanisms, for example a legally binding instrument on all types of forests." After an initial meeting in Costa Rica in February 1999, the initiative carried out eight regional workshops. The meeting in Mexico City was the last of these workshops. The initiative will culminate in a final international meeting in Ottawa in December, with the results from that meeting brought forward to the fourth meeting of the IFF, in February 2000.

I attended the Mexican regional meeting as an environmental NGO delegate selected (along with Lara Ellis of the Wildlands League) by the Forest Caucus of the Canadian Environmental Network. All participants, whether governmental or non-governmental, were attending in their personal capacity as "experts," and therefore neither this report nor the official report of the meeting can be presumed to represent the views of any of the agencies or governments with delegates in attendance.

The workshop had about 25 participants from 11 countries in North and Central America as well as the Caribbean. Total attendance swelled to about double that when including facilitators, rapporteurs, organizers and observers. No-one attended from the United States of America, a significant omission explainable in part because of the American Thanksgiving holiday and in part because of a strong scepticism about the initiative on the part of the U.S. government, NGO and industry sectors.

A consistent methodology was applied (or attempted) at all the regional meetings. The steps taken were:

a) Identify and refine a number of "elements" that relate to sustainable forest management, using as a starting point a set of 72 elements identified at the initial Costa Rica meeting;

b) Assess whether they're currently being dealt with by either a legally binding instrument (LBI) or a non-binding instrument;

c) Identify possibilities for improving work on each element, through strengthening existing elements, establishing new non-binding elements or establishing a new LBI; and

d) Assess the pros and cons, for each element, of establishing a LBI.

The official report of the meeting (not yet available to me) will report on the findings of the workshop, and I will not attempt to summarize these findings in my report. Nor does my report attempt to do justice to the commitment, knowledge, intelligence and enthusiasm of the participants, which resulted in many insightful interventions and stimulating discussions during both formal sessions and informal breaks. Instead, this report will focus on some of the shortcomings in the methodology that was used, in order to help NGOs and others better understand the limitations of the conclusions that may be drawn from this initiative, as well as to help develop a better sense of how to move forward.


2. Shortcomings of the Workshop

In discussing the shortcomings below I can only speak with authority about what happened in the plenary sessions and in my particular working group (which was one of three working groups). There were particular difficulties in my working group, such as the fact that we never did step (b) in the methodology outlined above. However, when I outlined my concerns during a plenary session on the third day, several people from all three working groups approached me during subsequent breaks to express their agreement with my views. Therefore I can offer these observations with some assurance that they reflect the misgivings of a significant number of workshop participants.

2.1 Confusion about the "elements"

The 72 elements that we started with were a confusing grab-bag of disparate ideas. This was immediately pointed out by participants, and several suggested improved ways to reorganize them, but the problems ran deeper than this. Even a thematic grouping could not hide the fact that the list was fundamentally incoherent. Some of the "elements" described

It was extremely difficult to assess whether each of these elements could be addressed by a LBI, since what "addressed" means will differ from case to case, as well as between participants with differing interests and perspectives.

2.2 Lack of adequate preparatory material or in-depth analysis

In the voluminous workshop material (which English-speaking participants only received after the workshop had begun) there was much information about the text and mandates of various agreements and initiatives. However, it would have been helpful to have had at least an initial independent assessment of what these agreements and initiatives have actually accomplished and, even more importantly, what they have not accomplished. This is not an easy task, admittedly, but it's difficult to assess the relative merits of various options without having frank discussions of the strengths and weaknesses of various alternatives. There was no such in-depth gap analysis in either the preparatory discussions or in the working group discussions I participated in. I did have several good discussions along these lines during the breaks, but unfortunately these discussions will never find their way into the report of the meeting.

2.3 Inadequate assessment of pros and cons

While we had many engaging discussion of "pros and cons," they were for the most part discussions of the pros and cons of the element itself, rather than the pros and cons of using a LBI to address the element. In particular, we rarely discussed the pros and cons of options other than a LBI, or compared the pros and cons of a LBI with the pros and cons of other options. We never discussed the pros and cons of actually negotiating a LBI. We did not really compare views on what we thought would be necessary to "address" an element, and without this shared understanding it's hard to know if we actually had a shared objective. Instead of in-depth discussions of these important issues we had frequent passionate interventions that a particular element was "very important" and could therefore best be dealt with by a LBI. We did not have a discussion of why a LBI would succeed where other measures had failed, or at least not a discussion that moved beyond generalities such as the need for "political will" and "rules-based systems." The text box below outlines one proposed methodology for actually doing an adequate assessment of using a LBI to address a particular element.


Primary Forest Conversion: A Case Study of the "Pros and Cons"

Element 37 in the CCRI refers to "primary forest conversion." Discussions in Working Group 2 in Mexico determined that this actually referred to two separate issues: forest conversion (to other land uses) and primary forest conversion (to managed secondary forests or plantations). On the latter point, three participants stated that a LBI could be a potential tool to address this issue; the other participants remained silent. In order to do a thorough assessment of the pros and cons of using a LBI to address primary forest conversion, the following steps should be carried out:

1. What does "address" mean? For some participants it may mean to limit, reduce or halt primary forest conversion. For others it may mean to legitimize primary forest conversion. It is necessary to set specific objectives.

2. Identify several hypothetical outcomes of a LBI, such as:
  • a recognition in the preamble of the importance of primary forests;
  • a general statement that countries will use their "best efforts" to conserve primary forests, where appropriate;
  • a specific requirement to incorporate policies regarding primary forest conversion in national and sub-national forest plans, without specifying any targets;
  • a statement that logging primary forests is permitted as long as a "healthy" forest returns in its place - not necessarily the same forest type;
  • adoption within a LBI of FSC Principle 9; or
  • a strong, specific, quantifiable target to limit or halt the conversion of primary forests.
3. For each of these hypothetical outcomes, evaluate it for:
  • its effectiveness in meeting a particular objective;
  • its political acceptability at an international level; and
  • the likelihood of its incorporation in a LBI
4. Identify potential alternative approaches to address primary forest conversion, both within and outside of the intergovernmental process, and assess the pros and cons of these alternatives using the same criteria of effectiveness, acceptability and the likelihood of their being used successfully.

2.4 Inadequate assessment of the full range of instruments

At the initial meeting in Costa Rica, participants noted that the methodology was limited to considering legally binding agreements, non-binding agreements and a few selected initiatives (criteria and indicators). The matrix developed for that meeting did not allow for consideration of the past, present and possible future role of organizations such as FAO, IUFRO, CIFOR, etc, or of various other mechanisms such as the Inter-Agency Task Force on Forests, or of initiatives outside the UN system, such as those proposed by the World Commission on Forests and Sustainable Development. In response to this comment the organizers abandoned the restrictive matrix for the regional meetings. In a private conversation with the organizers I was assured that all of the above options were implied in the concept "non-binding instrument." This seems to me to be a peculiar way to describe an organization such as the FAO, however, and in any case the participants were not informed that the term "non-binding instrument" was to be understood in the broadest possible way. The scope of the preparatory materials was not expanded to include consideration of these organizations and initiatives. No-one spoke to these issues in the introductory presentations. The facilitators did not appear to have been briefed about how to encourage participants to consider the full range of agreements, organizations and initiatives. In discussing pros and cons we were asked only to analyze the pros and cons of a LBI. But how is it possible to do an adequate assessment without considering the full range of options?


3. Conclusions

Based on the simultaneous translation of a quick read-through of the final report from the workshop, it appears as though the final report states that the workshop "concluded" and "recommended" that a significant number of elements should be dealt with in a new LBI. It is hard to know what to make of this statement, however, since: a) we were told repeatedly that it was not a consensus meeting but that the purpose was to capture the full range of views; (b) the facilitators did not test for consensus or to determine a majority view; and (c) the workshop participants were not given the opportunity to hear, let alone respond to or refine, the final findings of the working groups. This open-ended facilitation technique is useful for stimulating constructive discussion, but it is not a good way to come to definitive conclusions. Based on the process used, the only general conclusions that can be drawn is that at least one person felt that a legally binding instrument would be a useful option for any element so identified. This is hardly an earth-shattering conclusion.

In the end, the combination of shortcomings described above left me with the strong impression that I had just participated in a transparent and open process to build support for a forest convention. This is a far cry from the official premise of the workshop, which was meant to be rigorously unbiased and objective with respect to the controversy surrounding a proposed forest convention. Whether this was deliberate or accidental is not for me to say, but in any case the larger interest of moving the forest agenda forward would in my view have been better served had more attention been paid to an adequate assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of a broader range of options.


4. Recommendations

These recommendations are directed towards NGOs and others with an interest in using international forest policy initiatives in order to improve on-the-ground forest practises as well as the overall condition and extent of forests around the worldwide.

1. Ensure that the findings of the regional workshops are not misrepresented, either at the Ottawa meeting or at IFF4.
As described in section 3 above, it is not possible to credibly draw general conclusions or to determine significant trends from the results of the regional meetings. People may need to be reminded that the purpose of the regional meetings was to identify the full range of views, not to reach agreement or come to conclusions.

2. Adequately assess the potential of existing instruments, initiatives and organizations.
This task was begun but not completed by the Swiss-Peru Initiative undertaken as part of the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests. A thorough assessment would include:

a) the mandate of each instrument, initiative or organization;
b) its effectiveness at accomplishing the elements of its mandate;
c) its impact in influencing practises on the ground;
d) what it is not currently accomplishing, or not accomplishing adequately;
e) why it is not accomplishing these objectives;
f) the potential for strengthening the instrument, initiative or organization; and
g) financial and policy implications of using a particular instrument, initiative or organization to achieve certain objectives.

Steps (b)-(e) require an independent analysis, and are unlikely to be credibly assessed by the respective organizations themselves. Indeed, because of various sensitivities it may not be possible to carry out this assessment in any formal way, but in that case the means must be found to do it informally.

3. Continue to press for an adequate analysis of the full range of options.
Box 1 above describes the steps that should be taken in order to do an adequate analysis of the pros and cons of using various instruments to bring about effective actions on the ground. For many issues it may be difficult to achieve consensus on the objectives (Step 1). In these cases it may be preferable to either explore the pros and cons according a a range of different objectives, or to carry out the analysis within the confines of an interest group that shares a particular objective. In the case of primary forest conversion, for instance, it may be futile for NGOs to attempt to assess the pros and cons together with industry representatives, since their ultimate objectives are in conflict. In other areas (such as better coordination) there is likely to be more agreement about objectives, and more potential to jointly explore the pros and cons of various alternatives.

4. Accentuate the positive
Delegates at IFF4 will be under considerable pressure to make some difficult decisions. They will likely not respond very positively to being told what not to do, or being scolded for not having taken more effective actions to date. It would be preferable to offer them practical, politically realistic options.

5. Explore initiatives outside the U.N. system
The limitations of the UN system are legion: it is an exasperatingly sluggish and cautious forum for actually moving the international agenda forward. For all its limitations, in certain cases it remains the best (or the only) way forward. In other situations, however, there are other options for bringing about progressive change. Some types of options are listed below in general terms, with examples that are not meant to be comprehensive or definitive.
  • Encourage and support multilateral initiatives (e.g., G8 Action Plan, regional initiatives)
  • Support and strengthen NGO/Government linkages (e.g., initiatives through the IUCN)
  • Promote new initiatives that involve NGO/Government collaboration (e.g., ForesTrust, proposed by the World Commission on Forests and Sustainable Development)
  • Support and promote initiatives involving diverse interests and NGO-industry collaboration, but are independent of government (e.g., Forest Stewardship Council)
  • Raise the profile and political influence of NGO-led initiatives that feed into intergovernmental processes (e.g., the Underlying Causes initiative)
  • Ensure the credibility, impact and widespread application of independent NGO-led initiatives (e.g., Global Forest Watch)
These options should of course be assessed for their pros and cons, using a methodology similar to that outlined in Box 1 above.


Further Information

The official report from the Mexico meeting, when available, will be posted on the website of the Costa Rica-Canada Initiative, at http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/cfs/crc/

The website of the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests is http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/iff.htm


Corner Brook, December 1, 1999

Martin von Mirbach
Sustainable Development Chair
Centre for Forest and Environmental Studies
P.O. Box 822
Corner Brook, Newfoundland
Canada A2H-6H6
Tel: 709-637-8646
Fax: 709-634-8767
Email: mvonmirbach@northatlantic.nf.ca