PRESS CONFERENCE ON PROGRESS TOWARDS CONVENTION ON FORESTS
Press Briefing
PRESS CONFERENCE ON PROGRESS TOWARDS CONVENTION ON FORESTS
19970411
FOR INFORMATION OF UNITED NATIONS SECRETARIAT ONLY
At a press conference held yesterday at Headquarters, Anne McLellan, Minister for Natural Resources of Canada, said she had come to the United Nations to deliver on behalf of the Canadian Government the message that "the world's forests need immediate attention". Also present at the press conference was Magaretha de Boer, Minister for Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment of the Netherlands. Ms. McLellan said that in the five years since the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) had reported that the world continued to lose forests, indicating that international efforts had not been sufficient.
To achieve sustainable forest management worldwide, she said, there was a need for "effective, immediate and continued" action. Governments must start, immediately, to implement what had been agreed up to now, and the Commission on Sustainable Development should establish a body to monitor progress. It must also recommend the launching of a forest convention, which would confer legally binding commitment to action. Owing to the focused work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests, the forest community had a set of recommended action directed at governments and other stakeholders.
Ms. McLellan pointed out that Canada already had many initiatives under way that were consistent with those contained in the Panel's proposals. But the challenge extended beyond the borders of individual countries, she noted. "We need a real agenda for common, international action on forests and a forum within which to mobilize that action."
She stressed that it was Canada's desire for action that had led her to call for a binding agreement on sustainable forest management issues, with one international forum that brought together all stakeholders to define objectives and take action. The best way to achieve that was through a forest convention, which would maintain -- if not enhance -- the current momentum. Realizing that it would take time to negotiate that convention, she pointed out that it was critical that all countries made it a top priority to implement the Panel's recommendations. To help ensure that urgent forest issues were addressed immediately, Canada supported creating an urgent mechanism reporting to the Commission to review progress on the recommendations while the convention was being developed. The time for action, she stressed, was now.
In her comments to correspondents, Ms. de Boer, on behalf of the European Union, expressed her pleasure at being able to work in cooperation
with Canada. The European Union thought that sustainable forest management was very necessary and was one of the key topics of Agenda 21. Substantial progress in the field could be considered as one of the major achievements of the UNCED process and follow-up, and the Forest Panel had been a success. Worldwide, she continued, consensus had been reached on more than 130 proposals for action for implementing sustainable forest management.
That was one of the European Union's "overarching" priorities, she noted, although the Union believed "we have to do more, of course, and we can do more". One of the main items in the discussions in the Commission would be the institutional follow-up to the Panel. The fifth session of the Commission had to come with a recommendation to the special session of the General Assembly, she said, pointing out that it was a challenge to reach consensus on moving forward. In the view of the European Union, a comprehensive and holistic approach to sustainable management of all forests was needed.
Ms. de Boer said that there was a need to set a time-frame. The European Union believed that a convention was needed not later than the year 2000. If a consensus could be reached on the elements she had outlined, it should be easy to find consensus on the way in which to organize the process leading to a convention.
A correspondent asked the ministers what answer they could offer members of the international community who felt that the idea of a global forest convention was unnecessary, and how they would go about changing that opinion. Ms. McLellan said it was interesting that over the past few years, as more countries came to understand more of the challenges surrounding sustainable forestry, more of them became convinced of the necessity to do more. They found they needed a new mechanism by which to enhance, coordinate, and, in some cases, maintain what was being done domestically. She pointed out that one of the big problems of the forestry agenda was that it was fragmented, and there was not one place where nations could come together to face the challenges of sustainable forestry. While there were still some who remained unconvinced of the necessity for a forestry convention at this time, they were fewer than they were two years ago, and most of the world's forestry nations were now showing support for such a convention.
In her contribution to the same question, Ms. de Boer said she fully shared the views of her Canadian colleague, adding that when the issue had been discussed with such countries as Malaysia, China, Brazil, Colombia, and Finland, all of them with large forests, they felt that there was need to talk about the utility of a convention. Finland, she pointed out, was strongly in favour, but the others had told her that they were not really against a convention, but were just not convinced that it was necessary. She reiterated that it was wise to continue discussing it, and to take a thorough look at the advantages of having such a convention, which would facilitate forest policies and management.
Press Conference on Forests - 3 - 11 April 1997
A correspondent wanted to know what the "specific content" of the convention would be, noting that the United States was strongly against it, as was Japan. How did the ministers view those attitudes?
On the "content" of the convention, Ms. McLellan replied that that was not determined, adding that what was required was to begin the negotiations towards it. She drew attention to the Panel and the 130 recommendations made there. That would provide some basis, some beginning, of what one would expect to see in such a negotiating process. She offered as an example of what might be in the convention the concept of "criteria and indicators", which some people were already working on domestically and in various international groups. Canada was involved in the Montreal process which involved 20 nations working towards criteria and indicators as it related to temperate forests. The criteria were a means by which to assess whether or not countries were achieving sustainable forest management. Also important, she went on, were forms of accountability and a degree of transparency so that all those involved in global forestry would have an understanding of what their commitments were, what the expectations of others were, and how each would be held accountable in terms of the commitments they had undertaken. It was impossible to tell at this time what the convention would contain; the negotiations would not be easy, but they would be meaningful, involving detailed discussions that would take time.
Adding to that, Ms. de Boer said that a lot of progress had been made since Rio. The Panel had done a lot of good work, and people should now go on talking and negotiating with each other. By the year 2000, she was hopeful that there would be a convention.
On the attitude of the United States and Japan, Ms. McLellan stated that it was not for her to comment on the position of the United States, which had made its position known, just as the European Union and Canada had done. She said they would continue to talk to their colleagues in the United States, pointing out that, in recent times, tremendous progress had been made in terms of major forestry nations understanding the benefits and importance of a convention. In terms of the United States, Canada would try to do a better job of helping them understand the purposes and benefits of a convention, and also, that everybody understood the "urgency of the situation". She drew attention to the recent FAO report on the ongoing "loss of forests" around the globe. "If one is not alarmed by that", she stressed, "it seems to me to be irresponsible, and it is no longer possible for us as a global community to ignore that information, and we must move forward together."
To a question that some non-governmental organizations had said that their fears about the proposed convention was that there would be "weak standards" in place, Ms. de Boer said she was "a bit surprised" at the change of attitude of the non-governmental organizations after UNCED. It was necessary to talk to them about their worries because "we need NGOs, and NGOs need us". Their fears of weak standards was one that had to be dealt with,
Press Conference on Forests - 4 - 11 April 1997
she continued, pointing out that at this time there were no standards at all in some countries. You could not start with the assumption that nothing should be done, simply because there might be a problem. There was a need to talk to them in an effort to clear up misunderstandings.
In her contribution, Ms. McLellan said that one of the concerns that had been expressed by Canadian non-governmental organizations was that if there were a forestry convention, it would detract from the Biological Diversity Convention. As a nation, Canada saw the forestry convention as fully complementing the Biological Diversity Convention. She reiterated that they would be working with non-governmental organizations to reassure them that none of the conventions would undermine the other. She stressed that in Canada nothing was being done in the area of forestry, in terms of decision- making, without including the non-governmental organizations as part of the multi-stakeholder table. That did not mean agreement on every issue, she noted, but did mean that all the key interests were represented. No success could be achieved by excluding segments of society.
* *** *