Forest Caucus Report

A Newsletter of the Canadian Environmental Network Forest Caucus

Ambioterra’s participation in the World Forestry Congress
Boris Romaguer, Ambioterra

My original objective in attending the XII World Forestry Congress was to network as much as possible with other ENGO’s working in the field of forest conservation and management so as to eventually establish collaboration between Ambioterrra and partners in the south. I was particularly interested in developing ties with NGO’s and governmental and research organizations operating in the Amazon basin. Although I did successfully make contacts with such organizations, my role in the Congress progressively had more to do with lobbying than networking.

At the beginning of the daily NGO meetings, there was some contention as to whether the NGO ought to bother trying to influence the final declarations of the Congress. One IUCN representative pointed out that international law hardly ever makes reference to declarations coming from international conferences. It was mentioned that international forest policy never refers to or builds upon texts adopted at the last World Forestry Congress in Antalya, Turkey. The representative suggested that the NGO’s should instead take advantage of the extensive press coverage on forests as a result of the Congress. It was thus suggested to utilize the media attention to transmit our concerns that the governments and industries united at the Congress had not fulfilled the commitments they agreed to. Most of the NGO’s agreed and attempting to influence the declaration was, for the most part, put aside.

Nonetheless, I decided to persevere in trying to influence the process. I agreed that any text coming from this Congress would have little legal weight. However, I disagreed that texts coming from the Congress in Quebec City would be entirely ignored. Perhaps little reference was made to Antalya’s declaration because the environmental groups didn’t succeed in getting sufficiently proactive text. If however, strong text came out of Quebec City, the international community might consider it more seriously. At least, this was my rationalization for trying to influence the process.

In the preparation of the final texts of the Congress, a policy committee and a drafting group were set up. The policy committee, composed of over one hundred specialists designated by the Congress, was in charge of making amendments to: the synthesis reports on areas A, B and C; the final report from the ecoregional sessions; and the final statement. Their synthesis and amendments had to reflect the presentations and deliberations as faithfully as possible.

The drafting group was composed of 13 members and was responsible to formulate the final statement of the Congress drawing upon the summaries of the sessions and synthesis reports provided by the policy committee. Of the 13 members, there were several governmental representatives (such as Canadian Forest Service), inter-governmental organization (FAO, World Bank), indigenous representative and two ENGO representatives (such as WWF-International). This group was headed by someone who had previously worked for NGO’s and was hence quite receptive to NGO input.

My strategy to influence the text was to meet members of the policy committee and the drafting group to point out some of the NGO concerns that we felt were not adequately addressed in the sessions and synthesis. The major concerns of the NGO’s were:

1. Addressing the underlying causes of forest degradation and loss such as: over consumption patterns, inequitable north-south relations and a global economic system that continues to externalize social and environmental considerations.

2. Objecting to the claim that carbon sinks will effectively reduce carbon levels in the atmosphere because there is no certainty that the sinks will permanently store the carbon released.

3. Objecting to the assumption that the establishment of large-scale monocultures timber plantations will help to offset the impact of climate change, produce environmental benefits and alleviate pressure on natural forests.

4. Acknowledging threats posed by the use of genetically engineered trees

5. Strengthening territorial rights and tenurial security of indigenous peoples and local communities.

6. Acknowledging alternative sustainable sources of fibres other than wood.

7. Addressing the need for special protection of unique ecosystems such as mangroves and coastal forests.

8. Ensuring balanced participation and involvement in community-based forestry to ensure representivity of all groups (indigenous, women, youth, educators, socially and physically disadvantaged people).

9. Integrating and building upon internationally agreed targets and agreements related to forests namely the Forest Principles from Agenda 21, the New Work Programme on Forest Biological Diversity of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD); the Proposals for Action of the Intergovernmental Panel and Forum on Forests (IPF/IFF) as well as the Millennium Development Goals.

Other suggestions to include in the final declaration but which did not only come from NGO’s were:

1. Call for a G8 meeting to specifically address the global forest crisis.
2. Respect the CBD’s target to have a significant decrease in the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010.
3. Promote an inter-disciplinary approach in forestry education.

All the above mentioned concerns were transmitted on paper and orally to a representative from WWF- International and Natural Resource Canada, both of whom were in the drafting group. Other persons in the policy committee were also approached namely NGO’s and IGO’s. Several of the points were finally mentioned in the synthesis reports. However given the very broad nature of the final declaration, very few of the points were integrated in the declaration. A notably exception was the incorporation of environmental education which called for “education to strengthen positive behaviour and attitudes toward forests”. Sadly, however, major drivers of forest degradation and loss were not properly addressed in the final declaration such as over consumption and production patterns and destructive global economic institutions. Plantations were promoted but only outside forest systems. The issue of promoting forests as carbon sinks was not even mentioned in the final declaration. As for internationally agreed targets, only the Millennium Development Goals were stated.

Although not all NGO concerns were incorporated, I must confess I was somewhat surprised by the relative transparency and openness of an event organized by the FAO. The few NGO’s that were allowed to sit on policy committee and drafting group were very receptive to hear the concerns of other NGO’s. However, the extent to which the NGO’s actually influenced the process is hard to determine. Whether this Congress will actually have an impact on forest policy or at the ground level is even more difficult to determine.