A SUMMARY REPORT OF THE THIRD SESSION OF THE CSD ...endorsed the recommendation of the third session of the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) to establish an open-endedad

REPORT OF THE THIRD SESSION OFTHE CSD INTERGOVERNMENTAL

PANEL ON FORESTS9-20 SEPTEMBER 1996

The Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF) held its thirdsession from 9-20 September 1996 in Geneva. Delegates undertooksubstantive discussions on eleven programme elements: I.1(national forest and land-use plans); I.2 (underlying causes ofdeforestation); I.3 (traditional forest-related knowledge); I.4(ecosystems affected by desertification and pollution); I.5 (needs ofcountries with low forest cover); II (financial assistance andtechnology transfer); III.1(a) (forest assessment); III.1(b) (valuationof forest benefits); III.2 (criteria and indicators); IV. (trade and theenvironment); and V.1 (international organizations and multilateralinstitutions). They also initiated discussion on programme elementV.2 (legal mechanisms).

The objective of IPF-3 was to produce a document containingelements to be considered for inclusion in the Panel’s final report tothe CSD. Delegates did not engage in negotiations or drafting ofthe elements at IPF-3, but made comments and proposedamendments to be negotiated at IPF-4. While some regard IPF-3 asa success in that it provided an opportunity for a meaningfulexchange of views on the issues, others expressed disappointmentat the Panel’s inability to reach the negotiating stage on any of theprogramme elements and noted that this task may prove dauntingduring IPF-4.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE IPFThe Economic and Social Council, in its decision 1995/226,

endorsed the recommendation of the third session of theCommission on Sustainable Development (CSD) to establish anopen-endedad hocIntergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF) topursue consensus and coordinated proposals for action to supportthe management, conservation and sustainable development offorests. In pursuing its mandate, the IPF is focusing on 12programme elements clustered into five interrelated categories. TheIPF will submit final conclusions and policy recommendations tothe CSD at its fifth session in April 1997.

The first session of the IPF took place in New York from 11-15September 1995. At this meeting, delegates adopted the IPF

programme of work and attempted to set the dates and venues offuture meetings. Several issues that have typically divided Northand South again proved difficult. Members of the G-77 and Chinawere resistant to any proposal that could foreseeably lead to a lossof national control over forests and forest products. There was alsoconcern about the subject of criteria and indicators (C&I) andwhether proposed intersessional workshops should constitute anofficial part of the Panel process. Developed countries questionedthe need to extend the length of Panel meetings and expressedserious concerns about the Panel’s work.

The IPF held its second session from 11-22 March 1996 inGeneva. Delegates conducted their first substantive discussions onsix programme elements and completed initial consideration of theothers. During the final two days of the meeting, delegatesconsidered the Co-Chairs’ summaries. They labeled thesetransitional in nature to signify that the summaries did not representnegotiated text. Delegates agreed to begin negotiations at IPF-3 onitems that had received substantive consideration at the secondsession, although another substantive discussion was scheduled onthe programme element on financial assistance and technologytransfer. Delegates left Geneva satisfied that they had expressednational positions on a range of forest issues, but were somewhatfrustrated that all of their positions were not always reflected in thereport of IPF-2.

A SUMMARY REPORT OF THE THIRD SESSION OF THE CSD INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON FOREST S

Vol. 13 No. 25 Published by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) Monday, 23 September 1996

This issue of theEarth Negotiations Bulletin© <[email protected]> is written and edited by Chad Carpenter, LL.M. <[email protected]>, Pamela Chasek,Ph.D. <[email protected]>, Deborah Davenport <[email protected]>, Emily Gardner <[email protected]>, and Kira Schmidt<[email protected]>. The Managing Editor is Langston James “Kimo” Goree VI <[email protected]>. The sustaining donors of theBulletinare theInternational Institute for Sustainable Development <[email protected]>, the Dutch Ministry for Development Cooperation and the Pew CharitableTrusts. General support for theBulletin for 1996 is provided by the Overseas Development Administration (ODA) of the United Kingdom, the Ministryof Foreign Affairs of Denmark, the Swedish Ministry of Environment, the Swiss Federal Office of the Environment, the Ministry of the Environment ofIceland, the Ministry of Environment of Norway and the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety.Specific funding for this volume is provided by the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Natural Resources Canada and the Canadian Pulp and PaperAssociation. The authors can be contacted at their electronic mail addresses or at tel: +1-212-644-0204; fax: +1-212-644-0206. IISD can be contacted at161 Portage Avenue East, 6th Floor, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 0Y4, Canada; tel: +1-204-958-7700; fax: +1-204-958-7710. The opinions expressed inEarth Negotiations Bulletinare those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of IISD and other funders. Excerpts from theEarthNegotiations Bulletinmay be used in other publications with appropriate citation. Electronic versions of theBulletinare automatically sent to e-maildistribution lists (ASCII and PDF format) and can be found on the gopher at <gopher.igc.apc.org> and in hypertext through theLinkagesWWW-serverat <http://www.iisd.ca/linkages/> on the Internet.

IN THIS ISSUE

A Brief History of the IPF .................................. 1

Report of the Third Session .............................. 2

A Brief Analysis of IPF-3................................. 11

Things to Look For ......................................... 12

REPORT OF IPF-3Co-Chairs Sir Martin Holdgate (UK) and Manuel Rodriguez

(Colombia) opened the session, emphasizing its importancebecause delegates must arrive at negotiated conclusions andrecommendations for transmission to the CSD. They applauded thelevel of progress made during the intersessional period andencouraged consideration of reports produced at intersessionalworkshops. A workshop on traditional forest-related knowledgesponsored by Denmark and Colombia was announced forDecember.

The Director of the Division for Sustainable Development, JokeWaller-Hunter, highlighted progress made during the intersessionalperiod and encouraged the Panel to take advantage of workaccomplished. Common understanding has emerged with regard toseveral programme elements including land-use planning, nationalforest plans and forest assessments. Further deliberation on C&I,valuation of forest goods and services and underlying causes ofdeforestation is needed. The IPF should adopt realisticrecommendations and refrain from taking a “wish list” approach.

The provisional agenda (E/CN.17/IPF/1996/13) was thenintroduced. The proposed agenda of work consisted largely of twoparallel working group sessions. Preliminary conclusions were tobe drafted during the first week and negotiated into final text duringthe second week. Programme element V.2 (legal mechanisms)would be discussed in plenary. SWITZERLAND suggested thatplenary be extended to facilitate the adoption of conclusions. Theprovisional agenda was adopted.

The EU, supported by GABON and SENEGAL, expressedconcern regarding the unavailability of certain documents in allworking languages, noting that the Panel’s work could be impeded.

The floor was open for general comments. The EU highlightedthe need to formulate clear and appropriate conclusions as well asconcrete proposals for action. Cross-sectoral issues must beacknowledged and incorporated. COLOMBIA and the ALLIANCEOF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES emphasized the importance ofintersessional activities, such as the upcoming meeting sponsoredby the Colombian and Danish governments on traditionalforest-related knowledge. MEXICO said the Panel should deliverpractical conclusions that spell out means to implement them.FINLAND reported that the Nordic forestry ministers met in Julyand expressed their support for the IPF’s work and urged it toformulate recommendations for concrete action. He underlined thatthe Panel’s work should be holistic and intersectoral, and a policyforum must continue to exist after IPF-4 to maintain momentum.

After the opening plenary, the majority of the Panel’s work wasconducted in two parallel working groups. Working Group I,chaired by Sir Martin Holdgate, considered programme elementsI.1-I.3 and III. Working Group II, chaired by Manuel Rodriguez,considered programme elements II, IV, I.4 and I.5. Programmeelements V.1 and V.2 were taken up in plenary and joint workinggroup sessions.

Delegates conducted an initial round of discussions during thefirst week, based on the Secretary-General’s reports on eachprogramme element. The reports were prepared by the IPFSecretariat in collaboration with the UN agencies participating inthe Inter-Agency Task Force on Forests, governments sponsoringintersessional initiatives and NGOs. The reports reviewed thecurrent status of international work on the programme elements andprovided an appraisal of recent developments, with specialreference to issues raised by the Panel during IPF-2.

The Secretariat then prepared “draft negotiating texts” that werebased on the first week’s discussions. These texts served as thebasis for a second round of discussions during the second week.The Secretariat then produced revised “draft negotiating texts” for

most programme elements. These texts incorporated alternativedrafting suggestions for negotiation during IPF-4, with directattributions to the proposing delegations incorporated in the texts.

A third round of discussions was undertaken on several of theserevised texts on the final day of the session, but time did not permitfurther discussion of all programme elements. The objective of thislast round of discussions was to arrive at some preliminary,adreferendumagreement on “easy” parts of the texts and to identifythe most controversial parts. This text will be incorporated into aforthcoming document to be entitled “Elements for furthernegotiations at the Fourth Session of the Panel.” This documentwill note that all programme elements are open for furtherdiscussion and negotiation with a view to arriving at a generalagreement on conclusions and proposals for action that the IPF willsubmit to the fifth session of the CSD in April 1997. The reportwill also incorporate the findings of upcoming intersessionalinitiatives.

PROGRAMME ELEMENT I.1: NATIONAL FORESTAND LAND USE PLANS

Working Group I took up initial consideration of programmeelement I.1 on 9 and 10 September. Jean Clement (FAO)introduced the Secretary-General’s report on progress throughnational forest and land use plans (E/CN.17/IPF/1996/14). Thereport, based on the outcomes of workshops held in South Africaand Germany, covers definitions of terms, future challenges andproposals for IPF action. It notes progress made, but identifies aseries of obstacles to overcome, at both the global and nationallevels, in the areas of: policy and institutional reforms; investmentprogramming and funding; capacity building; and internationalcooperation. The report urges the adoption of a universal concept ofnational forest programmes (NFPs), while recognizing the need torespect national sovereignty, particularly with regard toimplementation. NFPs should consider the needs of all stakeholdersand employ international cooperation.

During the initial debate, GERMANY presented options foraction produced by a German expert consultation on implementingthe Forest Principles, including a code of conduct. SWEDENhighlighted an upcoming Sweden/Uganda initiative on sustainableforestry and land use. The EU supported the basic principle ofNFPs in the report and emphasized public and private investmentsand capacity-building as an objective. NORWAY, BRAZIL,SWITZERLAND, MOROCCO and ITALY supported some formof a continuing international forum for forest dialogue. SENEGAL,supported by the PHILIPPINES and MALAYSIA, expressedconcern regarding this proposal. FINLAND emphasized integrationof forest planning into wider land use planning and incorporation ofcriteria and indicators (C&I) into NFPs. NEW ZEALAND,supported by the PHILIPPINES, CHINA, the REPUBLIC OFKOREA, COSTA RICA, COLOMBIA and MOROCCO, stressedflexibility in addressing countries’ different conditions. The USalso supported this, noting countries’ varying land ownershippatterns and mechanisms for public participation. MALI stated thatNFPs should reflect established policies. The NETHERLANDSsupported the universal development of NFPs. JAPAN suggested apilot phase. NORWAY sought universal terminology. PAPUANEW GUINEA supported forest planning for all countries andinternational cooperation for capacity building. INDIGENOUSPEOPLES’ ORGANIZATIONS noted that land use is closelylinked to social and cultural issues. CANADA said NFPs are thebest way to achieve sustainable forest management (SFM) andshould incorporate national-level C&I, views of all stakeholdersand biodiversity concerns. BRAZIL noted the relationship betweenC&I, NFPs and resource and technology transfer. COSTA RICAnoted historical deforestation in developed countries.

Vol. 13 No. 25 Page 2 Monday, 23 September 1996

A draft negotiating text was discussed on 16 September. TheG-77/CHINA, supported by UGANDA, proposed new languageurging donor countries to provide new and additional resources fordevelopment and implementation of NFPs. With INDIA and theIUCN, he proposed replacing a reference to SFM with“conservation, management, and sustainable development of alltypes of forests” from the Rio Statement of Forest Principles. TheEU sought a continuing forum for international consultation ratherthan a consultative body, and, supported by INDIA and the IUCN,encouraged governments to form Forest Partnership Agreements(FPAs). The US urged substituting “SFM” for “NFPs.” INDIA andthe IUCN emphasized incorporation of a broad spectrum offorest-dependent communities into NFPs. UKRAINE asked forlanguage on capacity building for developing countries andcountries with economies in transition. CANADA proposedlanguage stressing linkages to the Convention on BiologicalDiversity’s work on biodiversity and forests.

A revised version of the draft negotiating text, with annotationsbased on earlier textual comments, was discussed on 20 September.Countries only addressed paragraphs relating to proposals foraction. The G-77/CHINA called for definitions of terminology usedin the text and questioned FINLAND’s proposal calling for landuse plans as a means to promote “land use husbandry.” The USagreed with a proposal urging countries to “monitor” NFPs andadded “or other forest policy frameworks.” He opposedinternationally acceptable definitions that apply to all forests, butsupported definitions for key terms and concepts for C&I. Heemphasized that participation of interested parties and major groupsin forest use planning and decision-making only applies to publicforests, and stressed the need for recipient countries to make a clearcommitment to SFM. He generally supported INDIA’s proposedlanguage stressing community forestry as well as language on“further exploration of voluntary partnerships” rather than specificFPAs. While the EU supported CANADA’s inclusion of languagewelcoming the input of the Conference of the Parties to theConvention on Biological Diversity, the US and the G-77/CHINAopposed it.

Discussions on this programme element will continue at IPF-4.

PROGRAMME ELEMENT I.2: UNDERLYING CAUSESOF DEFORESTATION AND DEGRADATION

Working Group I held initial discussions on programme elementI.2 on 12 September. Ralph Schmidt (UNDP) introduced theSecretary-General’s report on underlying causes of deforestationand forest degradation (E/CN.17/IPF/1996/15). The reportaddresses methods for judging optimum forest cover and considersthe usefulness of a diagnostic framework to assist countries inidentifying the causes of deforestation and forest degradation(D&FD). The report contains conclusions and proposals for actionon consumption and production patterns, a national policyframework and application of the diagnostic framework.

The G-77/CHINA, COLOMBIA, MALI and the PHILIPPINESnoted a lack of proposals for addressing social and economicfactors in D&FD and dissimilarities between deforestation anddegradation. Along with the EU and BRAZIL, the G-77/CHINAemphasized historical lessons. NORWAY noted that nationalpolicy frameworks must adhere to similar principles in allcountries. INDIA noted that deforestation can physically crosspolitical boundaries. The PHILIPPINES emphasized natural causesof forest destruction. UGANDA and ZIMBABWE called forbalanced treatment of developed and developing countries and saidactions can precede studies. The NETHERLANDS called fordetermination of desired forest cover.

On the diagnostic framework, SOUTH AFRICA supported itsestablishment. CHINA called for voluntary diagnostic frameworks.

KENYA called for a flexible diagnostic framework andcapacity-building assistance, and rejected efforts to compare casestudy results. ZIMBABWE called for diagnostic frameworks toaddress implementation strategies and financing requirements.ECUADOR encouraged international support for testing adiagnostic framework.

On consumption and production, MALI, supported byUGANDA and ZIMBABWE, stressed energy needs as a cause ofD&FD, and, supported by CAMEROON and INDIA, called forpoverty alleviation. ECUADOR and GABON called for increasedattention to the effects of oil prospecting and consumption. The USsought characterization of long-term trends in consumption andproduction of forests and forest products. The EU, supported by theNETHERLANDS and FINLAND, noted unplanned causes ofD&FD and supported further analysis of international causes.FUNDACION NATURA said international causes of deforestation,such as poverty, transboundary pollution and consumption patterns,must be addressed. NEW ZEALAND noted the role of plantationforests in mitigating forest degradation and encouraged their use.

A draft negotiating text was discussed on 18 September. TheG-77/CHINA, supported by COLOMBIA, emphasized: productionand consumption patterns; non-market values of forest goods andservices; studies on historical causes of D&FD; and discriminatoryinternational trade practices. COLOMBIA proposed languageacknowledging the need for an international meeting to discuss theunderlying causes of D&FD.

The G-77/CHINA proposed Forest Principles language on“management, conservation and sustainable development of alltypes of forests” for several locations in the text. The US proposedusing “SFM.” Supported by JAPAN and CANADA, he said areference to environmental impact assessments should be includedas an example of mechanisms to improve policy formulation andcoordination rather than as a separate point. The EU specifiedlanguage on the “promotion of open and participatory programmesfor the implementation of NFPs, taking into account D&FD.” Shealso called for: formulation of mechanisms aimed at the equitablesharing of benefits from the forests; policies for securing landtenure for indigenous peoples and local communities; and promptgovernment action when direct or indirect causes have beenidentified.

On production and consumption patterns, the US called forfurther study of the conclusions from a recent Norwegianconference on consumption and production patterns as underlyingcauses of D&FD. The EU deleted a statement that poverty andconsumption patterns have a major influence on deforestation andurged governments, “where relevant,” to prepare strategic studiesof the implications of “current” consumption and productionpatterns for forests. JAPAN proposed deleting language to addressterms of trade, discriminatory trade practices and unsustainablepolicies related to sectors such as agriculture and energy.

On diagnostic frameworks, the EU proposed deleting languagestating that such frameworks should not be used as a basis for ODAconditionality. NEW ZEALAND, on behalf of AUSTRALIA,CHILE, CHINA, SOUTH AFRICA and UGANDA, urgedcountries to actually use the diagnostic framework as an analyticaltool in assessing options for utilization of forests and forest lands.CANADA called for all countries to undertake case studies usingthe diagnostic framework, as well as research, technology transferand capacity-building activities. Environmental NGOs called fordonor assistance to developing countries for strategic analysis ofpolicies contributing to D&FD. CANADA added assistance forcountries with economies in transition.

On plantation forests, NEW ZEALAND, on behalf ofAUSTRALIA, CHILE, CHINA, SOUTH AFRICA and UGANDA,noted the role of plantation forests as an important element of SFM.

Monday, 23 September 1996 Vol. 13 No. 25 Page 3

JAPAN added language supporting the conversion of plantationforests. NORWAY stressed the need for plantations to meet social,economic and environmental conditions, including conservation ofbiodiversity.

A second version of the draft negotiating text, containingannotations based on earlier textual comments, was discussed on 20September. Countries only addressed paragraphs relating toproposals for action. Discussions on this programme element willcontinue at IPF-4.

PROGRAMME ELEMENT I.3: TRADITIONALFOREST-RELATED KNOWLEDGE

Delegates undertook the first round of discussion on programmeelement I.3, traditional forest-related knowledge (TFRK) on 10September. Co-Chair Sir Martin Holdgate introduced theSecretary-General’s report on the issue (E/CN.17/IPF/1996/16).The report contains a general overview of the nature of traditionalknowledge, its relationship to property rights and the distinctionsthat need to be drawn regarding its integration into SFM.

In the discussion that followed, the Convention on BiologicalDiversity Secretariat urged wider application of TFRK and, withthe EU and GABON, equitable sharing of benefits. JAPAN,supported by AUSTRALIA, CANADA and the G-77/CHINA,emphasized the Convention on Biological Diversity’s majorresponsibility on the issue. The EU, COLOMBIA, UKRAINE, theNETHERLANDS, the PHILIPPINES and UNESCO saidindigenous peoples should be consulted in the development of landuse plans and SFM programmes. DENMARK called for socialequity in participation regarding the development of forest and landuse plans.

COICA and the INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE OFINDIGENOUS TRIBAL PEOPLES sought recognition ofindigenous peoples’ rights to their intellectual property andterritories and, with MALAYSIA, urged that TFRK be protected bynational legislation. COLOMBIA said intellectual property rights(IPR) should be determined at the State and international levels.Environmental NGOs called for international legislation on IPR.PAPUA NEW GUINEA said that TFRK should be addressed on apiecemeal basis and called for the establishment of incentives forcontributions. BRAZIL and NORWAY sought asui generistype ofprotection for TFRK. The US supported partnership agreements,but questioned IPF attempts to facilitate contracts betweengovernments and TFRK owners. GERMANY sought delineation oftraditional, local and contemporary knowledge.

Delegates considered revised text on TFRK on 17 September.The US said the Convention on Biological Diversity shouldcomplement rather than direct the IPF’s work on TFRK. He addedthat the introduction of new technologies and economicopportunities could accelerate forest loss and undermine forestcommunities and TRFK. CANADA encouraged support forcapacity building of indigenous people and local communities, andtheir participation as full partners in SFM. JAPAN urgedgovernments to identify knowledge, innovations and practicesrelevant to the practical application of SFM.

The G-77/CHINA called for heightened protection ofindigenous people’s IPR and rights to patents. The EU soughtrecognition of the knowledge and rights of forest owners.NORWAY said instruments regarding TFRK should be developedand implemented to be mutually supportive while avoidingduplication of work. A NAPGUANA representative noted thatindigenous peoples could contribute more effectively if the reportswere available in languages other than English. He urged thatTFRK be viewed as an integral part of indigenous people’s livesand not just as a marketable commodity. Environmental NGOscalled on governments to collaborate with indigenous peoples,

concerned groups and institutions in the compilation of TFRK atnational and local levels. The INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE OFINDIGENOUS TRIBAL PEOPLES reported on an upcomingintersessional meeting on TFRK sponsored by Denmark andColombia to be held in Colombia, from 9-13 December 1996.

Delegates briefly revisited TFRK during the final session ofWorking Group I on September 20. The US supported asui generisregime for the protection and equitable sharing of benefits arisingfrom the use of TFRK. The G-77/CHINA supported participatoryapproaches and management of TFRK but called for inclusion oflanguage emanating from the Rio Declaration and Forest Principlesrather than that proposed by the EU referring to “community forestmanagement, land-use resource management, research training andextension, the formulation of criteria and indicators and conflictresolution.” The EU supported JAPAN’s proposal invitinggovernments to work toward identifying knowledge, innovationsand practices that are relevant to the practical attainment of SFM.Discussions on this programme element will continue at IPF-4.

PROGRAMME ELEMENT I.4: FRAGILEECOSYSTEMS AFFECTED BY DESERTIFICATION,AND THE IMPACT OF AIRBORNE POLLUTION

Working Group II considered programme element I.4, fragileecosystems affected by desertification, and the impact of airbornepollution on forests on 12 September. Jean Clement (FAO)introduced the Secretary-General’s report (E/CN.17/IPF/1996/17).The report is divided into two parts. The first part addressesprogress related to afforestation, reforestation and the restoration offorest systems, particularly in countries with fragile ecosystems andthose affected by desertification and drought, and focuses onnational dryland programmes, capacity-building, land tenure,periodic assessment, preventive and restorative measures andcoordination. The second part addresses progress related to theimpact of airborne pollution on forests, focusing on emissionreduction, periodic assessment, research and rehabilitation ofaffected areas. Based on delegates’ comments, a draft negotiatingtext was produced by the Secretariat. Delegates considered this texton 18 September and, based on the comments, a revised draftnegotiating text was produced for consideration on the final day.

During the course of these discussions, delegates offered thefollowing comments. On desertification and drought,environmental NGOs asserted that poor resource management maybe caused by a lack of alternatives as opposed to a lack ofeducation, and recommended new language regarding support forparticipatory research with indigenous people and localcommunities in resource management. GERMANY recommendedthat strategies on desertification should be integrated withinexisting forest and land use programmes. CANADA said nationalforestry action programmes provide the best framework foraddressing reforestation and afforestation by providingcross-sectoral linkages, participation of stakeholders, policy andlegislative reviews and institutional strengthening. DENMARKnoted that the provision of financial means and incentives forprivate owners will not ensure successful afforestation efforts. TheIUCN suggested that bilateral and multilateral agencies andgovernment planners shift investment emphasis away fromplantations toward improving communities’ tenure rights.

The US added language encouraging countries to undertake theobligations contained in Article 5 of the Convention to CombatDesertification (CCD) and emphasized the need to avoidduplication with the CCD. He said the proposed formulation ofguidelines for conservation and environmental management ofplantations is premature. Supported by JAPAN and theG-77/CHINA, he proposed deleting a reference to long-terminstitutional and legal arrangements in a proposal on strengthening


partnerships. The G-77/CHINA emphasized the need for financialresources and technology transfer to promote forest landrehabilitation. He added language on: the positive andcost-effective results from plantations of fast-growth trees in termsof soil protection; the use of protected areas as anin-situconservation strategy for ecosystems affected by drought anddesertification; and the promotion of protected areas in arid andsemi-arid regions, including preservation of water resources andtraditional and historical uses. The EU called for new language on:the important role of education, training and extension systemsaimed at specific groups; institutional and land tenure reform;coordination and harmonization of national forest and land useplans at the regional level; and consideration of dryland issues inNFPs and promotion of stakeholder education and training indrylands management.

On the impact of air-borne pollution on forests, TURKEY calledfor promotion of technical cooperation to encourage capacitybuilding in research. The US called for further work under existingmonitoring systems on ways to assess and monitor national levelC&I for SFM on air-borne pollutants. JAPAN emphasized the needfor region-wide forest monitoring systems and testing andapplication of the critical loads approach, and proposed languageencouraging governments to adopt a preventive approach forreducing transboundary air pollution in the context of nationalsustainable development strategies. The G-77/CHINArecommended deleting proposals to incorporate reduction of airpollution into national sustainable development strategies and toencourage regions to enter into binding agreements to reduce theimpact of air-borne pollutants.

Discussions on this programme element will continue at IPF-4.

PROGRAMME ELEMENT I.5: NEEDS ANDREQUIREMENTS OF COUNTRIES WITH LOWFOREST COVER

Working Group II considered programme element I.5, needs andrequirements of countries with low forest cover. Bai-Mass Taal(UNEP) presented the Secretary-General’s report(E/CN.17/IPF/1996/18), which was discussed on 12 September.The report acknowledges the strong dependence on forest goodsand services for subsistence; major problems of countries with lowforest cover (poorly protected watersheds, decreasing number ofendemic species and scarcity of forest products); concentration ofinvestment in countries with abundant forest cover; and the needfor special attention to the needs and requirements of countries withlow forest cover. It contains proposals for action on NFPs; forestplantations; importation and substitution; participatorymechanisms; information collection and dissemination; capacitybuilding; and coordination mechanisms.

On 19 September, delegates conducted a second round ofdiscussions on a revised negotiating text that contains conclusionsand proposals for action on the definition of low forest cover;NFPs; and international cooperation. The text calls for a moreprecise categorization of countries with low forest cover as theFAO’s global Forest Resource Assessment 2000 (FRA 2000)currently defines such countries as those having 20% and 10% andof minimum crown cover for developed and developing countries,respectively, and has no scientific foundation or opportunity forglobal comparability.

The US recommended a universal definition of 10% be adoptedfor all countries. SOUTH AFRICA recommended expanding thedefinition of countries to include countries in which the lack offorests has resulted in an unfulfilled national demand for forestproducts.

INDONESIA called for increased assistance and technologytransfer for low forest cover countries. AUSTRALIA noted that

low forest cover is only a crude criterion for allocating forestfunding. Environmental NGOs called for: special care to avoidreplacing natural species with large-scale tree plantations;assessment of financial, socio-cultural and environmental costsassociated with increasing plantation cover; and exploration ofmeans to reduce demand for pulp and paper, particularly innorthern countries. The EU called for: special attention to the needsof least developed countries with low forest cover; closecoordination with Convention on Biological Diversity activities toestablish networks of protected areas; and the retention of naturalspecies where appropriate. With the US, he noted that officialdevelopment assistance (ODA) is “an important,” rather than “themost important,” source of funding to countries with low forestcover. UKRAINE added references to buffer zones and ecologicalcorridors to conserve biodiversity and to support countries witheconomies in transition with low forest cover. The US, supportedby JAPAN, proposed deleting paragraphs on permanent forestestates, non-wood substitutes and Forest Partnership Agreements(FPAs).

The G-77/CHINA proposed language on the need to emphasizenatural regeneration of degraded forest areas by involvingcommunities and indigenous people in their protection andmanagement. He called for: national and international measures toprotect distinctive or rare forest types in countries with low forestcover; financial assistance, transfer of technology and know-how;provision of new and additional resources; and assistance todeveloping countries in data gathering and analysis. Discussions onthis programme element will continue at IPF-4.

PROGRAMME ELEMENT II: INTERNATIONALCOOPERATION AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER.

Working Group II considered programme element II(international cooperation and technology transfer) on 10September. Co-Chair Manuel Rodriguez introduced theSecretary-General’s report (E/CN.17/IPF/1996/19) and a documentcontaining a summary of the report and the proposals for action(E.CN.17/IPF/CRP.1). The report recognizes that there are limitedopportunities to increase funds from international public resourcesother than official development assistance (ODA) to finance SFM.Several case studies quoted in the report highlight the potential forraising additional financial resources at the domestic level indeveloping countries, although most of these countries have limitedability to raise sufficient funds to finance SFM activities. Thereport also discusses: public finance; market-based instruments;private sector investment; policy reform to attract investments; andestablishment of information systems to speed up investments. Italso proposes: a working group on innovative ways to generatefinancial resources; a code of conduct for forest-based privatecompanies; and a set of indicators for evaluating internationalcooperation.

On technology transfer, the report notes that the majority oftechnologies for forest management required by developingcountries are well-known and are already being utilized in somecountries. The proposed measures to encourage effective transferinclude: using technology needs assessment as a tool for analyzingrequirements; strengthening research and development institutions;exploring the possibility for new international research institutionsfor SFM; and developing global databases. The report highlightsthe need to optimize existing available funds. The report also statesthat in-country coordination and coordination among donors arecrucial, and NFPs are a good basis for setting priorities oncooperation.

Delegates first discussed the report on 10 September. Based onthe comments of delegations, the Secretariat produced a draftnegotiating text, which delegates considered on 19 September.


Based on further comments from delegates, the Secretariatproduced a revised draft negotiating text, which was considered onthe final day of the session. During the course of these discussions,delegates offered the following comments, proposals andsuggestions.

On public finance, delegates offered a number ofrecommendations for inclusion. The G-77/CHINA recommendedprovision of predictable levels of funding to support long-termobjectives in the conservation, management and sustainabledevelopment of forests, as called for in Agenda 21. He also soughtsubstantial new and additional financing, and noted that ODA forforests is insufficient and declining. The G-77/CHINA alsoproposed replacing all references in the text to “SFM” with“management, conservation and sustainable development offorests” from the Forest Principles. The US said references to theForest Principles should only be included as needed and proposedrecognizing the need to increase the absorptive capacity of markets.He noted that SFM is not given sufficient priority in ODA andhighlighted community-based enterprises. The EU proposed notingthat ODA has been insufficient to achieve SFM and called fordonor agencies to finance national initiatives aimed at developingNFPs in developing countries. NORWAY recognized that ODAwill continue to be important to support SFM, but to maximizeeffectiveness, these funds should be combined with other sources.

On private sector investment, delegates disagreed on theproposed code of conduct and the proposed working group oninnovative ways to generate financial resources. BRAZILsupported the proposed working group and recognized the need fora code of conduct. MALAYSIA, COLOMBIA, SWITZERLANDand MOROCCO supported the code of conduct and the workinggroup. JAPAN questioned the need for a working group and saidthe code of conduct requires further consideration. NEWZEALAND, supported by the G-77/CHINA, JAPAN andCANADA, suggested removing the brackets from “voluntary”codes of conduct. CANADA said the code must not overshadowthe need for regulation of foreign investment at the national level.GABON questioned whether the proposed code of conduct wouldbe national or international and suggested the former would bemore appropriate given differences in countries’ circumstances.The US said it is premature to include voluntary codes of conduct,but their potential should be explored.

Delegates offered other comments on private sector investment.The G-77/CHINA proposed adding: fair and even distribution ofprivate capital flows among developing countries; strengthening ofnational regulations and enforcement; and cooperation with majorgroups. The EU, supported by AUSTRALIA, proposed includingthe negative social and environmental aspects of policies andregulations. GERMANY highlighted the need for closerinvolvement of the private sector in development of NFPs.FINLAND emphasized favorable conditions for long-term privateinvestment in SFM, including incentives for small-scale andmicro-enterprises, internalization of environmental costs, andappropriate pricing of environmental goods and services. TheREPUBLIC OF KOREA recognized the need and potential tomobilize private investment in SFM in developing countries, butnoted that a lack of information and insecurity of investment createobstacles to realizing this potential. CHINA noted an overemphasison national and private investment at the expense of internationalfinancing and technology transfer from North to South.

On technology transfer, the US proposed noting that technologyneeds assessment is one approach among many and questioned theutility of establishing new research institutions. Supported byAUSTRALIA, the US proposed that the IPF identify researchpriorities. Supported by the UK, the US proposed that bilateral andmultilateral donors give priority in financing technologydevelopment, exchange and transfer to each country’s assessment

of its technological requirements. JAPAN called for references toNorth-South, South-South and trilateral cooperation. CANADArecommended a reference to related work on cooperation beingconducted under the Convention on Biological Diversity. TheG-77/CHINA proposed noting that technology mainly resides inthe North, in particular technologies in the private domain,therefore considerable potential exists for North-South cooperationin technology transfer under favorable conditions.SWITZERLAND called for improved knowledge sharing andextension mechanisms.

On coordination, the G-77/CHINA called for development ofindicators for monitoring the “adequacy” as well as theeffectiveness of international cooperation. She proposed deletingreferences to an external agency to support in-country donorcoordination and mandatory coordination among UN organizations,and proposed changing the name of the section from “coordination”to “cooperation.” AUSTRALIA called for a shared vision of SFMtoward common objectives. The EU noted that NFPs shouldprovide the basic framework for national and internationalcooperation including priority setting. The US proposed that NFPsprovide a good basis for priority setting “in many countries,” andfor national level coordination “in recipient countries.” The US alsoinvited countries to give priority to SFM in programming the ODAavailable to them. CANADA proposed a reference to internationalinstruments related to forests, particularly the Convention onBiological Diversity and the Framework Convention on ClimateChange.

On information systems, the G-77/CHINA deleted a reference toInternet-based information systems, noting that many developingcountries do not have Internet access. GERMANY proposed areference to effective implementation of NFPs through improvedinformation systems. The RUSSIAN FEDERATION proposedinviting the FAO to develop a global “depository box” forinformation on available technologies and potential fundingsources for SFM.

Working Group II met on the final day to consider a reviseddraft text on this programme element. The G-77/CHINA noted thatlanguage from the Forest Principles on “conservation, managementand sustainable development” of forests did not need to be usedthroughout the document, but noted that some agreed terms wereneeded. She proposed that specific references to the Convention onBiological Diversity should be replaced with more generallanguage. The EU proposed deleting a list that described prioritiesfor technology transfer and capacity building. CANADA noted thata clearinghouse for technology transfer was under consideration bythe Conference of the Parties (COP) to the Convention onBiological Diversity and expressed hope that COP-3 would provideclarification. The US called for clear references to developing,recipient or other types of countries throughout the text. UGANDAsaid that the text’s references to NFPs in a section on coordinationappeared to impose an element of conditionality. JAPANquestioned a reference to the development of indicators forinternational cooperation. Discussions on this programme elementwill continue at IPF-4.

PROGRAMME ELEMENT III.1(a): ASSESSMENT OFFOREST BENEFITS

Working Group I conducted the first round of discussions onprogramme element III.1(a), assessment of the multiple benefits ofall types of forests, on 10 and 11 September. Jean Clement (FAO)introduced the Secretary-General’s report (E/CN.17/IPF/1996/20).The report addresses: the need to make primary forest data widelyaccessible; forest resource assessment processes, such as FAO’sFRA 2000; and country capacity building. AUSTRIA, supportedby CANADA and PORTUGAL, called for comprehensive FRAs


incorporating social and cultural aspects. He said C&I should beused to prioritize data gathering. JAPAN emphasized the need tostandardize key definitions and classifications used in FRAs.NORWAY and VENEZUELA called for prioritization of datacollection and recognized the importance of capacity building.AUSTRALIA said national forest inventories are an essential toolfor planning and decision-making and urged clarification regardinghow inventories will match up against C&I.

The EU and the US requested information on the time frame andresource planning for FRA 2000 and called for utilization ofexisting data. The US urged FAO to consider ways to improveFRAs beyond the year 2000, redirect existing resources toward itand collaborate with UNEP. SWEDEN, supported bySWITZERLAND, suggested “rolling” resource assessments ratherthan assessments every ten years. He sought strengthening ofnational capacities and institutions for data collection.

UNESCO warned against confusing a proposal for the collectionof “core data” with those for a global harmonization of C&I.UNESCO, COLOMBIA and UNEP called for collaboration withother forestry and educational organizations. CHINA emphasizedthe need for transparency in funding FRA 2000. The US supporteduser payment for resource use, data collection and capacitybuilding. FINLAND, the US and the EU supported a user-paysapproach to garnering funds for FRA 2000. GERMANY expressedconcern regarding the FAO’s ability to financially and technicallycomplete FRA 2000 at this time. He called on the FAO to prepare adetailed analysis of progress and available resources for review atIPF-4. FAO acknowledged the funding shortage for FRA 2000,stating that the problem goes beyond the simple transfer ofresources from one programme to another.

Delegates began the second round of discussion on forestassessments on 17 September. In reviewing the revised text, the EUhighlighted regular data updates, accessibility to assessmentprogrammes, comparability of data collection methodologies andliaison with the Convention on Biological Diversity to ensure thatgaps in knowledge are quickly addressed. The G-77/CHINA calledfor use of national forest assessments, where appropriate, in thedevelopment of NFPs. The G-77, supported by CANADA andenvironmental NGOs, sought the assessment of a broad range ofvalues, including non-timber values, in FRA 2000. The G-77 alsosupported JAPAN’s proposal calling for the standardization ofterms and definitions used in assessments. The US called for: thedevelopment of plans for implementation of assessments; thedeletion of language from the Forest Principles on “sustainable use,conservation and equitable sharing of benefits;” and the need forcapacity building. Environmental NGOs urged the use of anecosystem approach in assessments and consultations with allstakeholders to identify the range of forest benefits.

A revised draft negotiating text was produced but not discusseddue to time constraints.

PROGRAMME ELEMENT III.1(b): FORESTVALUATION

Working Group I conducted the first round of discussions onprogramme element III.1(b), forest resource valuation, on 11September. David Cassels (World Bank) introduced theSecretary-General’s report (E/CN.17/IPF/1996/25). The reportacknowledges the need to: identify and measure the various valuesof forests; develop methodologies to measure forest values; anddetermine how valuation will contribute to the attainment of SFM.

Many countries noted overlapping responsibilities with theClimate Change and Biodiversity Conventions. MEXICO,supported by JAPAN, the EU, COLOMBIA, CANADA,MALAYSIA and environmental NGOs, called for assessment ofthe non-economic benefits of forests. The US and NORWAY

differentiated between research on technical aspects of valuationand policy recommendations, noting limitations to “across theboard” solutions. BRAZIL and the US recommended that the IPFencourage other organizations to conduct research onmethodologies. NORWAY highlighted the development ofappropriate policies and regulations to control rent-seeking.

TURKEY noted the Forest Principles’ emphasis on thepromotion of public awareness and, with NEW ZEALAND,stressed difficulties with recommending that governments seek tocontrol pricing. The NETHERLANDS highlighted the need torecognize the value of soil conservation and carbon sequestration,particularly in swamp forests. The WORLD BANK noted the needto differentiate between quantifying values and setting prices.

AUSTRALIA supported economic rent for wood products tocover management costs, national resource accounting plans anduser fees as a means of supporting conservation. NEW ZEALANDcalled for ways to internalize externalities related to non-timbervalues in order to determine appropriate economic rents. TheREPUBLIC OF KOREA called for practical means to incorporatenatural resource accounting into SFM. UNESCO sought pilotprojects to test valuation methodologies and economic rent fornon-timber values. The EU and the UK noted that application ofappropriate valuation methodologies will justify forest managementeconomically. KENYA, the REPUBLIC OF KOREA and NEWZEALAND called for capacity building for valuation programmes.CANADA, UGANDA and INDIA emphasized participation by allinterested parties in identifying values and developingmethodologies.

Delegates addressed the draft negotiating text on forestvaluation on 17 September. The EU stressed the need to address thevalues of forest owners. She noted that while a variety of valuationmethodologies have been developed, governments should beencouraged to develop methodologies addressing their own legaland political circumstances. The US said the report exceeds themandate of the CSD and urged further discussion within thecontext of the Climate Change and Biodiversity Conventions. Headded that references to the religious values of forests should beomitted.

The G-77/CHINA called for methodologies to assess thecultural, social and economic values of forest degradation and formatrices matching available forest valuation methodologies withrequired data sets for all forest goods and services. NORWAYcalled for analysis of costs associated with changes in forestquality.


PROGRAMME ELEMENT III.2: CRITERIA ANDINDICATORS

Working Group I held initial discussions on programme elementIII.2 on 11 and 12 September. David Harcharik (FAO) introducedthe Secretary-General’s report on criteria and indicators(E/CN.17/IPF/1996/21). He encouraged wider country participationin the development of criteria and indicators (C&I), harmonizationof terminology and identification of a core set of commonindicators at the international level. FINLAND said C&I should beincorporated into NFPs and contribute to policy formulation.JAPAN called for multiple stakeholder participation.

On harmonization of C&I, AUSTRALIA, supported byNORWAY and INDONESIA, sought harmonization of terms,definitions, methodologies and measurement standards used indeveloping national C&I. GERMANY stressed harmonizationbetween C&I and other concepts such as codes of practice orperformance standards. SWITZERLAND and MALAYSIA alsosought consensus on key concepts and mutual recognition of


initiatives such as FAO’s FRA 2000. DENMARK supportedinclusion of C&I in NFPs and, with TURKEY, supported a core setof global criteria. NEW ZEALAND emphasized the need tomaintain momentum on C&I and sought consensus on terms. Hestressed that C&I together define SFM and selectively removingelements lessens their effectiveness. AUSTRIA stressed theindivisibility of SFM and C&I and recalled IPF-2’s unanimoussupport for expanding C&I. UGANDA emphasized the importanceof harmonization and convergence of C&I developed nationally.

CIFOR noted that only a small set of C&I are universallyapplicable. The EU and POLAND supported C&I at the nationallevel. The US supported efforts toward national C&I and expressedreservations about global C&I. ITALY, supported by GERMANYand CUBA, called for flexibility in the formulation of C&I forSFM. The UK, supported by POLAND, called for flexibility inapplication to account for diverging needs. The UK also said C&Ishould be implemented without waiting for further refinement.INDIA said C&I should be more specific for application at thenational and forest management unit levels. PAPUA NEWGUINEA said sufficient guidelines exist for governments todevelop and apply their own C&I. The G-77/CHINA saidspecificity should not be traded for universality, and called fordiffusion of information on C&I. The GLOBAL FOREST POLICYPROJECT distinguished national level C&I from certification ofindividual forest management units and said harmonization of C&Iis premature. CANADA said identification of a comprehensive setof C&I at the global level would be premature and highlighted theimportance, measurability and comparability of cultural and socialC&I. The RUSSIAN FEDERATION noted difficulties associatedwith harmonizing criteria.

BRAZIL said the report fails to emphasize the internationalcooperation needed to allow all developing countries to participatein C&I initiatives. TURKEY noted difficulties in theimplementation of C&I and called for cooperation on technologytransfer. CHINA, supported by MEXICO, called for assistance todeveloping countries for development and implementation of C&I.MEXICO called for prioritization of proposed actions.

A draft negotiating text was discussed on 17 and 18 September.The EU highlighted: the importance of C&I implementation at alllevels; descriptive criteria; land use plans; mutual recognition,consistency and convergence of C&I; and, with the US, forestowner and land tenure issues. JAPAN requested recognition oflevels equivalent to management-level units and, with the US,voiced concerns over what criteria should help to assess. The USexpressed concern over language on: benefit apportionment; forestmanagement unit C&I; and C&I as a basis for trade restrictions.FINLAND, supported by the EU, suggested language from itsrecent C&I seminar on,inter alia: actions for poverty alleviation;institutional strengthening; human resources development andpublic participation; consensus on terms; and research on C&I formeasuring biodiversity, non-wood forest products, non-marketbenefits and human and cross-sectoral impacts on forests.Environmental NGOs stressed language on sub-national level C&Ifor large countries and Convention on Biological Diversityassistance on C&I for forest quality and biodiversity. CANADAsaid the work of the Convention on Biological Diversity shouldcomplement existing C&I frameworks. The G-77/CHINA calledfor: criteria that reflect components of SFM; a global set of C&I;and contributions from donor countries and multilateralorganizations for the development and implementation of C&I.GABON, citing the Rio Declaration and Forest Principles, statedthe need for the international community to mobilize the financialresources and technology required for C&I formulation and SFM indeveloping countries.


PROGRAMME ELEMENT IV: TRADE ANDENVIRONMENT

Working Group II considered programme element IV, trade andenvironment relating to forest goods and services, on 11September. J.E.K. Aggrey-Orleans (ITTO) introduced theSecretary-General’s report (E/CN.17/IPF/1996/22), whichdelegates considered along with a summary document(E/CN.17/IPF/1996/CRP.2) containing only the conclusions andproposals for action. The report addresses market access and tradebarriers to forest products; relative competitiveness of forestproducts; promotion of less used species; certification andlabelling; full cost internalization of environmental impacts; andmarket transparency. The report proposes that the IPF call onrelevant international organizations to: support developing countryefforts to increase productivity and efficiency of downstreamprocessing activities; conduct analyses of the costs and benefits aswell as the potential substitution effects resulting from a transitionto SFM; form a working group on procedures for countrycertification schemes; undertake efforts to promote harmonizationand mutual recognition of standards among certification schemes;and create a global database to improve market transparency.

Delegates discussed the report on 11 September. From thesediscussions the Secretariat produced a draft negotiating text thatdelegates considered on 16 September. The Secretariat thenproduced a revised draft negotiating text that was discussed on thefinal day. During the course of these rounds of discussions,delegates submitted a wide range of comments.

On general conclusions on trade and environment, the EUemphasized that trade-related mechanisms must be compatible withWorld Trade Organization (WTO) rules. The G-77/CHINA notedthe need to consider both market and non-market values offorest-related goods and services and recommended greateremphasis on the mutually supportive roles of trade andenvironment. He proposed deleting text suggesting that traderestrictions may be necessary to achieve environmental objectivesin special circumstances. The US, the EU and CANADA objectedto the possible need to explore an agreement on trade in forestproducts, while the G-77/CHINA, BRAZIL, COLOMBIA andenvironmental NGOs supported the idea. ZIMBABWErecommended further studies on non-wood forest products and ondomestic trade in forest products. UGANDA stated that the reportoveremphasizes international trade at the expense of domestic andregional trade.

On market access, COLOMBIA said the reduction of non-tariffand tariff barriers should take place in the context of instrumentsthat seek to control multinationals. IRAN said measures that affecttrade in forest goods should not decrease the purchasing power ofdeveloping countries. To a proposal requesting the WTO to furtherreduce tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade in forest products,NORWAY added a reference to the WTO Committee on Trade andEnvironment’s work to ensure mutually supportive roles of tradeand environment. UGANDA expressed concern that unilateraltariffs were not considered. Environmental NGOs called for“adjustment” of tariff and non-tariff barriers to ensure consistencywith efforts to promote SFM. They proposed language on thepossibility that non-tariff barriers may promote SFM and on theexceptions to WTO rules contained in the Uruguay Roundagreements. The G-77/CHINA recommended new proposals for:assessment of the effectiveness and trade impacts of subsidies;removal of all unilateral bans and boycotts; and exploration of thepossible need for an agreement on trade in forest products and forvoluntary codes of conduct. Timber industry NGOs suggestedincluding the potential negative effects of trade restrictions in forestproducts.


On relative competitiveness of forest products, GREENPEACEINTERNATIONAL said the IPF should not cast substitution offorest products (with non-wood forest products or with forestproducts produced with more efficient technology) in a negativelight, as it can serve to reduce pressures on the world’s forests. TheUS and environmental NGOs called for further studies on how bestto use markets and economic instruments to promote SFM.Regarding efforts to promote downstream processing industries andexports of processed products, industry NGOs emphasized thatthese efforts should not take the form of tariff and non-tariffbarriers, and environmental NGOs stressed that they be consistentwith wider environmental and social considerations. TheG-77/CHINA suggested a new proposal regarding mechanisms forcommunity-based processing and marketing of wood andnon-timber forest products.

On promotion of less used species, AUSTRALIA said ITTOshould continue its work in this regard, provided it is within thecontext of SFM principles. The US, supported by environmentalNGOs, proposed a reference to community-level efforts intechnology development. Environmental NGOs proposedpromotion of non-timber forest products.

On certification, the EU proposed adding “and labelling” to thetitle of the section and language noting that voluntary certificationand labelling are not considered to be non-tariff barriers.CAMEROON said schemes must be developed according tospecific national conditions. PERU said certification should includeits own system of C&I to assess SFM. SWITZERLANDemphasized the need to distinguish governmental measures fromvoluntary private sector measures. The NETHERLANDS stressedthe need to focus on all forests rather than strictly tropical forests.AUSTRALIA stated that certification at the regional and provinciallevels should also be explored. FRANCE noted that market demandfor certified products and its consequences for SFM have yet to beproved.

The US said certification is not a “magic bullet” that will bringabout SFM, but is one useful tool that can complement otherbeneficial policy instruments. A proliferation of schemes will likelyhelp rather than hamper certification, and competition amongschemes is a positive development. The EU said proliferation ofdifferent schemes with different criteria could damage thecredibility and effectiveness of certification and labelling. TheG-77/CHINA supported a proposal calling on trade agencies topromote international harmonization and mutual recognition ofstandards among schemes. CANADA contested the conclusion thatthere is a proliferation of schemes but noted their small number andlimited experience in certification. He said the proposal to promoteinternational harmonization is premature at this stage, and severalother delegations echoed this sentiment.

The GLOBAL FOREST POLICY PROJECT said that becausecertification schemes are private and voluntary, governmentsshould play no significant role in enforcing harmonization amongthem. The RUSSIAN FEDERATION highlighted the importantroles of governments in providing information, support andmonitoring of certification. The G-77/CHINA emphasized the roleof governments in ensuring transparency, full participation,nondiscrimination and open access of schemes. He also highlightedthat certification should observe sovereignty.

The US stressed the need to involve exporters in thedevelopment of schemes. GERMANY called upon relevantagencies to promote information exchange. The EU addedreferences to the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade,including application of credibility, non-deceptiveness,cost-effectiveness and encouragement of mutual recognition andequivalence to certification schemes. AUSTRALIA proposed new

language regarding performance standards and environmentalmanagement systems as important components of SFM.

The GLOBAL FOREST POLICY PROJECT said that countrycertification is extremely controversial and could trigger aconsumer backlash and renew country bans and boycotts of forestproducts. Environmental NGOs, supported by AUSTRALIA,recommended deleting the reference to feasibility of countrycertification. Regarding an initial proposal for the formation of aworking group to consider the formulation of procedures forcountry certification schemes, UGANDA, MALAYSIA, NEWZEALAND, PAPUA NEW GUINEA and INDONESIA supportedit, while the US, FRANCE, CANADA, the EU, NORWAY andenvironmental NGOs argued that it is premature to do so at thisstage. The G-77/CHINA proposed language noting that the Paneldid not endorse the concept of country certification.

On full cost internalization, NORWAY noted that the treatmentof this issue overemphasizes the increased costs incurred in thetransition to SFM. He added language stating that without full costinternalization, socioeconomic and environmental costs may not bereflected in the market. CANADA said studies must addresssubsidies and the distribution of impacts. Industry NGOs noted thatonly limited consensus exists on definitions, measurements andtechniques to introduce environmental costs into pricingmechanisms. Environmental NGOs added language noting thatreallocation of costs and benefits is likely to result, and a referenceto environmental and social implications.

On market transparency, CANADA stated that more work isneeded on information gaps on trade barriers before work begins ona new global database. The ENVIRONMENTALINVESTIGATION AGENCY called for the formation of aninter-agency task force to assess the extent of illegal logging,timber smuggling and transfer pricing, especially with respect tothe activities of transnational corporations. The EU andenvironmental NGOs called for an independent global assessmentof the illegal forest products trade. Discussions on this programmeelement will continue at IPF-4.

PROGRAMME ELEMENT V.1: INTERNATIONALORGANIZATIONS AND MULTILATERALINSTITUTIONS AND INSTRUMENTS

Programme element V.1 was considered by a joint WorkingGroup session on 13 September. Based on these discussions, theSecretariat produced a draft negotiating text, which was consideredby the Plenary on 19 September. A revised text, based oncomments from these two sessions, was distributed but notdiscussed on the final day of IPF-4.

Jag Maini (IPF Secretariat) introduced the Secretary-General’sreport (E/CN.17/IPF/1996/23). The report includes: an examinationof the anticipated functions and activities required frominternational organizations and institutions and instruments tosupport internationally-agreed future priorities; the establishment ofa structured body to coordinate intergovernmental agencies; NGOand government activities; the value of NGO contributions; theneed to evaluate the operational capacity of existing instruments;and the need to develop a high-level forum for continued dialogue.The report proposes several options for action, including: ahigh-level forum for international policy; strategic data collection;regional and global projects; additional funding for research anddevelopment; and improved mechanisms for coordination.

Most delegations noted the need for better coordination. TheG-77/CHINA, supported by the PHILIPPINES, BRAZIL, PERUand MALAYSIA, said more work is needed to develop a clearview of the work being undertaken by international and regionalinstitutions. Gaps and overlaps should be identified andcoordination among agencies enhanced. The EU, supported by the


UK, noted that the issue will lay the groundwork for theinternational community’s support of all other IPF issues. Hesought to accelerate the implementation of UNCED decisions,enhance government and private sector financing and strengtheninter-agency coordination. A number of delegations, including theRUSSIAN FEDERATION, NORWAY and the US, supportedincreasing the efficiency and coordination of existing institutionsrather than establishing new ones.

Delegates offered differing levels of support for a continuedhigh-level forum to address forest-related issues. INDONESIA andMALAYSIA supported its establishment, while CANADA calledfor a new legally-binding instrument rather than just a continuationof the IPF. PAPUA NEW GUINEA, supported by SOUTHAFRICA and PERU, favored an informal forum for discussion, andrecommended maintaining the IPF as an open-endedintergovernmental umbrella. SWITZERLAND called for a reporton options, and the US and JAPAN said the proposal for ahigh-level forum for forest policy debate requires furtherelaboration. INDIA rejected any global policy for forests and calledfor a study of the effects on forests from farming marginal land.Environmental NGOs voiced several concerns, including: increasedclarity regarding the roles and activities of existing institutions andinstruments; the merit of a potential forest protocol under theConvention on Biological Diversity; increased attention byinternational organizations to land tenure issues and agrarianreform; and establishment of a mechanism to monitor therelationship between deforestation patterns and national social andpolitical changes.

On 19 September, the Plenary considered a draft negotiatingtext. The EU called for improved efforts to integrate and clarify themandate and task of UN agencies and to strengthen theircoordination. He proposed replacing a reference to national forestdevelopment with NFPs. The G-77/CHINA proposed languageinviting governments to contribute to this process in order toimprove the work of forest-related institutions. He proposedreplacing several references to “SFM” in the text with“management, conservation and sustainable development offorests” from the Forest Principles. On proposals for action, hedeleted references to “regional” and “global” data collection andprojects and to specific agencies for research and development. TheUS proposed noting that there is significant potential for bettercoordination and collaboration, rather than further enhancement, ofexisting international structures. He called for improvedparticipation of major groups in forest fora to promote SFM, andsuggested focusing, rather than strengthening, relevant internationalorganizations.

CANADA proposed replacing “sub-regional” with“sub-national” action toward SFM and deleting a reference tobuilding consensus on standards. He called for the establishment ofa high-level forum for international policy debate on forests. Hesupported the proposal for further study of the institutions andinstruments relevant to forests and highlighted the need to identifythe institutional capacity to implement the UNCED agreements.SWITZERLAND agreed that further study of forest-relatedinstitutions and instruments is very important and called for anindependent review of the forthcoming proposals of theInter-Agency Task Force on Forests. JAPAN suggested thatcountries, rather than international organizations, facilitateinternational consultations on SFM, and proposed that theseconsultations develop, rather than implement, principles andcontent of NFPs. He recommended deleting a proposal to assignforest programmes increased priority in bilateral ODA.

A revised negotiating text was distributed, but not discussed onthe final day of the IPF-4. It notes that the elements for furthernegotiation under this programme element are preliminary innature. The Panel felt that further information and study would be

needed in order to achieve a more accurate diagnosis and toformulate proposals for action. The text also notes that a number ofdelegations stated that final conclusions and proposals for actionwould need to take into account conclusions and proposals underprogramme element V.2, which will be the subject of substantivediscussions at IPF-4.

PROGRAMME ELEMENT V.2: CONTRIBUTION TOCONSENSUS BUILDING TOWARDS THE FURTHERIMPLEMENTATION OF THE FOREST PRINCIPLES

Programme element V.2 was considered by a joint WorkingGroup session on 13 September and by the plenary on 19September. Jag Maini (IPF Secretariat) introduced theSecretary-General’s report (E/CN.17/IPF/1996/24). The reportdescribes the relevance of existing legal instruments and attemptsto define gaps and overlaps with respect to forest-related issues inthese instruments.

A number of delegations, including the G-77/CHINA,MALAYSIA, COLOMBIA and the PHILIPPINES, supported thedevelopment of an international forum for policy coordination anddialogue on all types of forests and continuation of theInter-Agency Task Force on Forests. Several delegations supportedthe commencement of negotiations on a convention or otherlegally-binding instrument on forests, including the EU, ITALY,FRANCE, POLAND, CANADA and INDIA. The CANADIANPULP AND PAPER ASSOCIATION also advocated aninternational convention on forests. Other delegations did not favora convention at the present time or noted that additional factorsmust be considered. The US said the report introduces a new wayof classifying the Forest Principles and the work of the IPF. Hequestioned the report’s gap analysis and called for an extended IPFor similar forum to continue the international dialogue on forests.BRAZIL said a case has not been made for a new convention andsuggested better use of existing instruments. NEW ZEALANDstated that the time is not yet ripe for a forest convention and moreprogress should first be achieved through existing mechanisms.SWITZERLAND said that concentrating all efforts on negotiatinga convention might result in a loss of momentum, soconsensus-building on forest issues should continuesimultaneously. The PHILIPPINES highlighted the energy functionof forests and proposed an analysis of the linkages to related workwithin the Climate Change Convention. Financial implications of aconvention would need to be studied.

Many delegations, such as AUSTRALIA, the EU and FRANCE,supported the development of an inter-agency task force and anintergovernmental mechanism to maintain momentum. MEXICOsupported the continuation of a high-level policy dialogue onforests. NORWAY noted that there is a wide range of views onhow to attain SFM, and cautioned against allowing the format tohinder progress. COLOMBIA said the report should highlight theestablishment of protected areas and the just and equitabledistribution of benefits. She called for strengthening existinginstruments and leaving the door open for a political dialogue onforests. PERU recommended a short-term commitment tocontinuing high-level intergovernmental dialogue on forests tomeet twice a year, and called any proposal for a conventionpremature and inopportune. Environmental NGOs recommendedusing regional agreements as a model and developing an analysis ofexisting initiatives. They warned against jeopardizing theimplementation of existing instruments by focusing on a new oneand called for implementation of current agreements with localparticipation.

On 19 September, the plenary considered a draft negotiating texton programme element V.2. The G-77/CHINA, supported byMALAYSIA, argued for a holistic and comprehensive treatment of


existing legal mechanisms and their relation to conservation,management and sustainable development of forests. Supported bythe PHILIPPINES and MALAYSIA, the G-77/CHINA called forclear identification of existing gaps, such as on trade andenvironment and on financing of technology.

The US noted there is no consensus on gaps and overlaps nor onwhat existing organizations can accomplish. Supported by NEWZEALAND, he called for an extension of the IPF with a morefocused mandate. He called for a report from the Secretariat forIPF-4. Such a document would examine continuation of the IPF’sad hocinter-agency mechanism as well as alternative mechanismsfor continuing the forest dialogue using existing structures such asFAO andad hoctemporary organizations. The report should alsoconsider duration of meetings and of the Panel. The EUemphasized that the Panel should send a clear message to theSpecial Session of the UN General Assembly in 1997 to engage ahigh-level commitment and guidance on worldwide forestmanagement and its successful implementation.

SWITZERLAND supported a report for IPF-4 and called fornegotiations on a framework convention that would: provide aholistic programme for SFM; facilitate coordination andimplementation of existing programmes and instruments; and fosternegotiation of regional instruments. JAPAN said all proposals foraction made at IPF-3 should be considered simply as conclusions,leaving deliberations of actions for IPF-4. He supported the needfor continued international consultation on forest issues, but calledfor language stressing the general need for a holistic andcomprehensive approach rather than a specific continuation andenhancement of the current exercise. The PHILIPPINESrecommended stronger language on the need for a high-levelintergovernmental mechanism and sought one holistic instrumenton forests rather than a separate convention on trade in forestproducts.

MALAYSIA called for recognition that existing instrumentscollectively impose significant responsibilities and commitmentson tropical producers but not on temperate and boreal producers.He said that proposed protocols to existing conventions would giveunbalanced treatment to forest issues rather than the requiredholistic approach, noting gaps in the handling of certain issues suchas financing, technology and resource transfer and capacitybuilding under existing instruments. With MEXICO, he called for aset time frame for actions to ensure definite progress. MEXICOsupported calls for preparation of a document for IPF-4 and said itshould address the existing gap on economic issues such as thecomprehensive need for technology and resource transfer andinternational policies that have an impact on SFM. ARGENTINAurged that options remain open and called for a study devising acomprehensive programme on SFM at the international level.INDIA sought the establishment of a mechanism similar to the IPF,with some refinement, and suggested that a new legal instrumentmay not be necessary. BRAZIL noted the Panel has the option tomaintain the status quo, modify it or adopt new instruments and/orarrangements. He highlighted the need to take the onus offgovernments and increase private sector involvement.

A revised negotiating text incorporates the preliminaryproposals and will serve as basis for discussion at IPF-4. The textcontains the specific proposals for action that emerged duringIPF-3. At the intergovernmental level, proposals include ahigh-level forum for policy coordination or continuation of IPF,and at the inter-agency level, a continuation of the informalInter-Agency Task Force on Forests or a merging of the functionsof existing institutions into a new institution. Proposals for legalmechanisms include: improved coordination; establishment of aforum of existing institutions to review the need for a newinstrument; and initiation of negotiations on a convention. Theproposals on a convention contain many courses of action, such as

a convention on the Forest Principles and forest-related provisionsof Agenda 21, a convention covering all aspects of forestry neededfor SFM and a convention on forest product trade covering all typesof forests.

CLOSING PLENARYThe Plenary convened in the afternoon on 20 September to

adopt the report of the Panel on its third session(E/CN.17/IPF/1996/L.3). In addition, the Co-Chairs presenteddelegates with an informal paper containing a draft introduction tothe report. The paper notes that the objective of IPF-3 was toproduce a document containing elements for use at IPF-4, andstates that all elements are open for further discussion andnegotiation with a view to achieving general agreement on allconclusions and proposals for action. The paper empowers theSecretariat to prepare a document for IPF-4 that will integrateadditional proposals and inputs from intersessional activities. TheCo-Chairs also proposed that the Panel welcome contributions fromthe Convention on Biological Diversity and that the IPF Secretariatprovide the information on progress made by the Panel toConvention’s Conference of the Parties so as to continue thedialogue between the Panel and the Convention. The US suggestedamending the final portion of the proposal to “continue anexchange of information between the Parties.”

The paper notes that the Panel expressed concern that mostreports were not translated in all official UN languages by thecommencement of the session and that some were never availablein all languages. SWITZERLAND, supported by the US, proposeda request to the Secretary-General to make available the necessaryresources to reproduce the documents in all languages in due time.

In his closing remarks, Co-Chair Holdgate noted that the Panelhas a diversity of views on the table for consideration between nowand IPF-4, and suggested the Panel was right not to hurry theprocess. IPF-4 will produce a valuable statement to the worldcommunity and the IPF has already contributed to the advancementof an understanding on forests matters.

Co-Chair Rodriquez noted there was considerable disagreementthat must be dealt with in the future. He said it was clear thatgovernments want specific results, and delegates will have to beimaginative to devise viable methods to achieve the IPF’s goals.The meeting adjourned at 4:30 pm.

A BRIEF ANALYSIS OF IPF-3Many arrived at IPF-3 anticipating that the Panel would reach

the negotiating stage on at least some of the less divisiveprogramme elements. Their hopes were extinguished when thesession concluded with the adoption of a report that simply notesdelegations’ stated views on the issues. The reasons behind thePanel’s apparent lack of action are diverse: the vastness of theagenda, which comprised twelve separate programme elements; thetime needed to consolidate regional groups’ positions; delaysstemming from the unavailability of documents in languages otherthan English; and the amount of time the Panel devoted tomodifying its programme of work for the session, rather thandiscussing programme elements. IPF-3 left the distinct impressionthat delegates had much to say and barely enough time in which tosay it, let alone negotiate.

Nonetheless, the most positive product of IPF-3 was a thoroughairing of views, providing an opportunity for the presentation ofmany innovative ideas and creative suggestions from delegates,intergovernmental agencies and NGOs who participated. Delegateswere quick to note that the IPF and related intersessional initiativeshave sparked a renewed interest in forests at the national level andhelped increase the momentum of the international dialogue onforests.


NATIONAL FOREST PROGRAMMES (NFPs): NFPs, anew idea for many delegations, proved problematic for countriesthat fear impingement on private property rights. Difficulties overnational control of forests were witnessed in the process offormulating a “Consumer Statement” on achieving sustainableforest management (SFM) by the year 2000 during theInternational Tropical Timber Agreement (ITTA) 1994negotiations. There the phrase “national” forests was insertedspecifically to limit the commitment made to encompass onlyforests under direct national government control, which for somecountries comprises only a small percentage of total forest cover.Private ownership of forest land is also problematic for publicparticipation: one country called for language specifying thatincreasing public participation in decision-making for SFM onlyapplies to public forests.

It is ironic that some countries calling for recognition of acountry’s “unique circumstances” push developing countries,through their aid programmes, toward more private land ownershipand less state control. This may ultimately undermine the ability ofcountries that now have the “unique circumstance” of nationalcontrol over forests to be able to formulate NFPs and maintain aholistic approach into the future.

VALUATION: Valuation of forest benefits appears to be asensitive issue both for countries with strong interests in protectingprivate property rights and those with interests in ensuring fullcapture of the economic benefits of their forests. This wasexemplified by the fact that several delegations expressed concernregarding the Secretary-General’s report, many claiming somenon-timber related elements of this issue are outside the mandate ofthe CSD and more appropriate for consideration by the Conventionon Biological Diversity or the Framework Convention on ClimateChange.

Countries interested in protecting property rights could wellview valuation as an economic impediment to conducting “businessas usual.” Countries rich in forest resources, however, may fearbeing exploited by other countries. A common sentiment on theissue did emerge during the discussions. Virtually all countrieswere in agreement that additional methodologies should bedeveloped and tested.

TRADE AND ENVIRONMENT: Trade and environmentrelating to forest products, and certification in particular, continuesto generate interesting debate. Many developing country producersremain concerned that certification will be used as a trade barrier,and disagreement remains as to whether harmonization or countrycertification should be promoted at this stage. However, delegatesfrom all camps seem more open to exploring transparent,participatory and non-discriminatory certification as a tool to maketrade and environment mutually supportive. The IPF has broughttogether the often divergent interests of developing and developedcountries and industry and environmental NGOs to conductsubstantive discussions on certification. Where other fora underwhich this issue has been discussed have been less transparent andparticipatory, this open and iterated dialogue has been unfolding atthe same time that certification has been maturing as a practicabletool in the marketplace. These two developments have contributedto forging consensus on the usefulness of certification as a tool topromote SFM.

FOREST CONVENTION: Discussions on a possibleconvention or other legally-binding instrument finally emergedfrom backstage onto the UN floor at IPF-3, but met with mixedreviews. UNCED produced the Forest Principles but nolegally-binding agreement. Some observers applauded the severaldelegations that favored a forest convention. Other delegationsoffered more cautious support, but welcomed the opportunity tocontinue discussions on the topic. Two major timber-producing

countries, however, were solidly against any form oflegally-binding agreement at the present time.

Some observers questioned whether IPF-3 discussions on apossible forest convention would stall the Panel’s momentum onother issues. One observer noted that the number of delegationsfavoring a code of conduct for private companies provided a goodindication of future support. Others cautioned that a conventionmay be a placebo rather than a panacea for the problems facingforests. They expressed concern that the motivation for manydelegations springs from fear of lost markets rather than lostforests. While lack of support from all timber producers effectivelyeliminates the possibility of immediate initiation of a convention,many observers will be watching closely as the issue moves tocenter stage at IPF-4.

NGO PARTICIPATION: NGOs today have achieved anunprecedented level of participation in UN fora. Many observerspoint to the CSD’s vanguard role in expanding the range of actorsparticipating in the international policy-making process and this hasunquestionably carried over into the IPF. The participation ofNGOs in the IPF has continued to push the limits of official UNrules on participation. During IPF-3 NGOs were permitted not onlyto make interventions on the floor during official negotiations, butalso to make direct comments on the texts and on other delegations’proposals. NGO comments were even incorporated into the reviseddraft negotiating texts alongside government proposals to whichmany delegations objected. As the IPF moves closer to negotiatingtext, it is possible that NGOs may not have the high degree oflatitude that they have been given thus far. While the IPF’sexpansion of UN rules on NGO participation is welcomed by manyas much-needed and long overdue, some feel that NGOs should notengage in such negotiations because they do not represent a knownconstituency and, therefore, their accountability may be in question.

While the degree to which NGOs will be able to participate inIPF-4 remains to be seen, their participation in this forum hasprovided invaluable contributions to a broad consensus-buildingprocess on forest issues and has blazed the trail for NGOs to makesimilar inroads in other policy-making fora.

TOWARD IPF-4: Considering the state of affairs after IPF-3, itbecomes clear that both the Bureau and the delegates have theirwork cut out for them during the intersessional period, if IPF-4 is tobe a success. Several issues will require attention, not the least ofwhich is the present state of the document emanating from IPF-3.Heavily bracketed and annotated text will remain alive until IPF-4to allow the Secretariat to distill the broad range of views andincorporate the findings of intersessional activities. The resultingdocument to be used for negotiation should be produced by theSecretariat in a timely fashion, to allow sufficient time fortranslation. The report’s timely translation could effect not only thespeed with which delegates are able to digest and discuss thedocument, but also attitudes toward the process in general. Someobservers wonder, in light of the onerous work load and thetruncated time available, whether the IPF will be able to produceany substantive recommendations for the CSD.

THINGS TO LOOK FORFOURTH SESSION OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL

PANEL ON FORESTS: The fourth session of theIntergovernmental Panel on Forests is scheduled from 11-14February 1997 in New York. The meeting may be extended until21 February, if resources are available. For information contact:Elizabeth Barsk-Rundquist, tel: +1-212-963-3263; fax: +1-212-963-1795; e-mail: [email protected]. For information on theIPF, try the UN Department for Policy Coordination andSustainable Development (DPCSD) Home Page athttp://www.un.org/DPCSD.


WORLD COMMISSION ON FORESTS ANDSUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (WCFSD): The independentWCFSD will convene hearings to provide and opportunity forstakeholders to present their differing perceptions on the role offorests and to work toward consensus on integrate developmentaland conservation objectives. The second regional public hearingwill hosted by the International Institute for SustainableDevelopment (IISD) in Winnipeg, Canada, from 30 September-2October 1996. For more information contact: WCFSD Secretariat,Geneva Executive Center, C.P. 51, 1219 Châtelaine, Geneva,Switzerland, tel: +41 22 979 9165/69; fax: +41 22 979 9060;e-mail: [email protected]; Internet: http://iisd1.iisd.ca/wcfsd .

WORLD CONSERVATION CONGRESS: The meeting ofIUCN members, partners, and other conservationists, will takeplace at the Palais de Congress, Montreal, Canada from 12-24October 1996. The three-and-a-half day workshop programme aimsto find new and innovative ways to tackle the challenges that facethe Earth, to harmonize views and action plans and to formulatetangible ways to move ahead and make a difference. ContactRicardo Bayon, Special Assistant to the Director General, 28 Ruede Mauverney, 1196, Gland, Switzerland, tel: +41 22 999-0001,fax: +41 22 999-0002; e-mail: [email protected]. Also tryhttp://w3.iprolink.ch/iucnlib or http://www.IUCN.org.

EXPERT MEETING ON SUSTAINABLE FORESTRYAND LAND USE: THE PROCESS OF CONSENSUSBUILDING: Sweden and Uganda will host this seminar from14-18 October 1996 in Stockholm, Sweden as a follow-up to theGerman seminar. The workshop will consist of presentation anddiscussion of country case studies, discussion of some identifiedkey issues and plenary sessions. For more information contact:David Harcharik, Assistant Director-General, FAO, Via delleTerme di Carcalla, 00100 Rome, Italy, tel: +39 6/5225-3550; fax:+39 6/5225-5137; e-mail: [email protected].

THIRD CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES TO THECONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY: COP-3 isscheduled for 4-15 November 1996 in Buenos Aires with aMinisterial Segment from 13-14 November 1996. For moreinformation contact: CBD Secretariat, World Trade Centre, 413 St.Jacques Street, Office 630, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H2Y 1N9,tel: +1 (514) 288 22 20; fax: +1 (514) 288 65 88; e-mail:[email protected].

FIFTH GLOBAL BIODIVERSITY FORUM: GBF-5 isscheduled for the weekend before COP-3, from 2-3 November1996 in Buenos Aires, Argentina. For information on submittingabstracts or attending the forum contact: Jeffrey McNeely, ChiefScientist, IUCN-The World Conservation Union, 28 RueMauverney, CH-1196 Gland, Switzerland, tel: +41 22 999-0001;fax: +41 22 999-0025; e-mail: [email protected].

INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP ON INTEGRATEDAPPLICATION OF SUSTAINABLE FORESTMANAGEMENT PRACTICES: Canada, Japan, Mexico,Malaysia, FAO and ITTO will jointly host this workshop from22-25 November 1996 in Kochi, Japan. The workshop will discusspractical applications of policy dialogue conducted within IPF,with particular emphasis on SFM practices at the field level, andwill consist of presentations in plenary by experts, discussions insub-groups and plenary discussion on the range of possiblepractical applications. For information contact: Takeshi Goto,Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, 1-2-1Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-Ku Tokyo 100, Japan, tel: +81-3-3502-8111 (6212) or +81-3-3591-8449; fax: +81-3-3593-9565; or DavidDrake, Natural Resources Canada, 351 St. Joseph Blvd., Hull,Quebec, K1A 1G5, Canada, tel: +1-819- 997-1107, ext. 1947; fax:+1-819-994-3461; e-mail: [email protected].

INTERNATIONAL MEETING ON INDIGENOUSCOMMUNITIES AND FOREST DWELLERCOMMUNITIES AND SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OFFORESTS:This initiative, led by Consejo Indigena de la CueneaAmazonica (COICA) and sponsored by Denmark and Colombia,will be held in Leticia, Colombia from 9-13 December 1996. Theworkshop will address concerns raised under IPF programmeelement I.3, traditional forest-related knowledge. For informationcontact: Antonio Villa, General Forest Director, Ministry of theEnvironment of Colombia, tel: +(571) 284-7026; fax: +(571) 2839141; or Bjoern Blau, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Denmark, tel:+(33) 92 16 89; fax: +(33) 92 16 89.

COMMISSION ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT:The Intersessional meeting for the CSD, which will addresspreparations for the Special Session of the UN General Assembly,is scheduled 24 February-7 March 1997. The fifth session ofCSD-5 is scheduled for 7-25 April 1997. The Special Session of theUN General Assembly is scheduled for 9-13 June 1997. Forinformation on the CSD contact: Andrey Vasilyev, UN Divisionfor Sustainable Development, tel: +1-212-963-5949; fax: +1-212-963-4260; e-mail: [email protected]. Also try the UN Departmentfor Policy Coordination and Sustainable Development (DPCSD)Home Page at http://www.un.org/DPCSD .

ELEVENTH WORLD FORESTRY CONGRESS: TheCongress, with the theme “Forestry for Sustainable Development:Towards the 21st Century,” is scheduled for 13-22 October 1997 inAntalya, Turkey. The Congress will consider: position papersprepared by specialists; special papers that correspond to each oneof the topics of the Congress and voluntary papers. For moreinformation contact: Luis Santiago Botero, FAO, ForestryDepartment, Via delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy, tel:+39 6/5225 5088; fax: +39 6/5225 5137; e-mail:[email protected]. Also try the Conference Home Page athttp://www.fao.org/waicent/faoinfo/forestry/wforcong/.


Documents

A SUMMARY REPORT OF THE THIRD SESSION OF THE CSD ...endorsed the recommendation of the third session of the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) to establish an open-endedad