|
|
|
Future Glooms On UN Forum On Forests?The following is an extract of the International Institute for Sustainable Development's coverage and analysis of the fifth session of the United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF-5), which was held on 16-27 May 2005 at UN headquarters in New York.
The main task before UNFF-5 was to review the effectiveness of the IAF and redesign the arrangement, if necessary. During the session, delegates:
There was a panel discussion on forest issues in the Asia and Pacific region. The discussion focused on issues relating to China's high demand for forest products, timber certification, empowerment of women in rural Nepal, Japan's contribution to SFM in the region as well as SFM in India. UNFF-5 also convened a high-level segment and policy dialogue with heads of the Collaborative Partnership on Forests (CPF) organisations, during which delegates considered three main issues, namely forest law enforcement and governance and sustainability; restoring the world's forests; and actions for the future. A multistakeholder dialogue was held immediately following the high-level segment. UNFF-5 was perhaps the most anticipated regular UNFF session since the institution's inception in 2000. At the end of it, however, it was also among the most disappointing with many involved conceding failure. The session was expected to be a milestone event, one that was meant to open a new chapter in international forest policy. Instead, UNFF-5 ended up bogged down by intractable country positions and an ambitious negotiating agenda. UNFF-5 was unable to reach agreement on strengthening the IAF and could not produce either a ministerial statement or a negotiated outcome. agreements on forests more difficult than those on other environmental issues. Many delegates had hoped to strengthen the IAF through substantive policy mechanisms. At the very least, these countries wanted to send a message to the international community that forests are important. At its conclusion, UNFF-5 did produce a message, but not the one intended. It signaled to the world that international discussions on forests remain discussions, not particularly productive ones, and that the collective desire to turn dialogue into action remains just that - a desire. This was aptly reflected in Chair Manuel Rodriguez Becerra's closing statement when he said that while many had been hoping for a positive statement to come out ofUNFF-5, this did not happen. He noted that important decisions had been made, but that much work remained to be done. Noting that the international community was up against a forest crisis, Mr. Rodriguez said that countries must lament that they had not responded to the challenge. The sole achievement of UNFF-5 was a tentative ad referendum agreement on national targets and global goals, including the goal of "reversing" the loss of forest cover. However, this accomplishment was diminished by several serious limitations - conditionally agreed national commitments are voluntary and global goals are not quantified or mandatory, and none of them actually have to be "achieved." Even reporting requirements were weak, with a starting date instead of a deadline. These tentative agreements do not provide a basis for a strong international instrument. If they are eventually adopted, the resulting IAF may not be particularly consequential. Since the current round of UN discussions on forestry began in 1990, every round of talks has invariably resulted in an agreement to keep talking. UNFF-5 upheld this tradition by merely pushing discussions into the future. It is questionable, however, whether outstanding issues can be resolved by simply postponing their discussion. Furthermore, one might argue that now even the agreement to keep talking may be in question. Disappointed with a process that delegates variously described as a "quagmire" and "shambles," some publicly threatened to abandon UNFF. On their way out, some hinted that future efforts might be made outside of the UNFF institutional framework. If this happens, it might make UNFF's troubles even more difficult to overcome. Before the gloom settles, several positive developments might be discerned on the horizon. The fact that countries were able to reach a tentative compromise on goals, including "reversing" loss of forest cover, was a step forward on what many predicted would be a major sticking point. Hopefully this compromise will hold when negotiations reconvene at UNFF-6 on 13-24 February 2006. There was other movement as well. New proposals on structure and means of implementation resulted from a thoughtful process by numerous delegates who were invested in the future of global forest policy. Discussions on financial assistance were far less acrimonious than they had been in the past, as various donor countries alluded to different forms of increased funding, perhaps as a "carrot" intended to pull supporters toward their various positions. And finally, a decision to keep talking rather than "call the whole thing off" is a signal that delegates were not yet ready to admit full defeat. UNFF, therefore, cannot be cast as a total failure. |
Advertisement | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNFF-5
began with the lofty goal of reaching a global agreement on all types of
forests. A promising starting point of the session was a near-consensus that the
status quo is unacceptable and that serious changes are needed. Even the
countries that had historically portrayed UNFF in a positive light now publicly
conceded that UNFF was seriously lacking in achievements. This zone of agreement
generated a shared commitment to strengthen the international arrangement on
forests (IAF) and improve the prospects of a substantive outcome that will
provide a much-needed overhaul. But as negotiations continued throughout the
first week and into the second, it became apparent that the gaps between country
and regional group positions were too significant to overcome at this time, and
participants had "bitten off more than they could chew".
MTC’s
