PRESS CONFERENCE BY NGOS PARTICIPATING IN INTERGOVERNMENTAL FORUM ON FORESTS

Press Briefing

PRESS CONFERENCE BY NGOS PARTICIPATING IN INTERGOVERNMENTAL FORUM ON FORESTS

"The world's forests are in crisis" with only 20 per cent of the world's original forest cover remaining, Greenpeace International representative Paul Hohnen said this morning at a Headquarters press conference, on behalf of a coalition of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) attending the International Forum on Forests. Simon Lovera, of Friends of the Earth International, and Lambert Okrah, of the Institute of Cultural Affairs of Ghana, also participated in the press conference.

Speaking to correspondents on the last day of the Forum, Mr. Hohnen said tropical forests were being lost at a rate of one acre per second. Since the Forum began two weeks ago, over 1 million acres of tropical forests had been lost. Approximately, 1 million square kilometres of forest had disappeared since governments committed themselves to the 1992 Rio Declaration, the Forest Principles and the Convention on Biodiversity.

The forests industry was in chaos either from approved legal logging or the clear-cutting that still went on in many countries, he continued. Illegal logging played a major role in devastating the last stands of the world's forests. Governments were aware of what was taking place and, for the last eight years, had been involved in a series of international discussions on forest issues. Two separate processes had been developing since the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, where governments had taken forward further discussions: the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests, a two-year proceeding with intense discussions which had produced over 130 recommendations to protect forests; and the current process, the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests, of which the current meeting was the last session. The Forum was required to report to the April meeting of the Commission on Sustainable Development with recommendations on how to protect the world’s forests.

Mr. Okrah, of the Institute of Cultural Affairs of Ghana, expressed concern about the lack of media coverage on the issue of forest protection. During the last session of the Forum in 1997, he had spoken on behalf of 80 NGOs in support of a legally binding instrument to manage all types of forests sustainably. At the end of the session, no convention was in place. Two-and-a- half years later, delegates were still battling to put in place a mechanism for a legally binding instrument

“If we know what is to be done and are convinced that we want to do it, do we need a law to be able to do it?” he asked. To what extent had the agreements and arrangements which had been put into place since the Rio Summit been fulfilled? He was against a new convention. Among other things, there had always been complaints about the lack of money to implement the instruments already in place. One could imagine how much it would take for the global entity to begin another negotiation or how long it would take. Moreover, there was concern that embarking on an agenda for a new convention would detract attention from implementing instruments already in place. Would it not be better to go ahead with what had already been agreed upon? he asked. What magic would the proposed convention bring? He expressed concern that the sessions did not reflect the interests of the developing countries, which were not always able to make it to New York or Geneva. He had noted that developing countries often experienced difficulties in attending the sessions. In one meeting, only five of the 83 African countries sent delegates. Among the NGOs, there was complete unanimity as to the way forward -– immediate implementation of what had been agreed to, and coordination and review of those policies.

Mr. Hohnen said the key dilemma of the Intergovernmental Forum was whether governments would continue down a "business as usual" forest intensive road, or take a new political departure for action to implement agreements that had already been negotiated. He said an example that business as usual was continuing was the incident this morning, when Greenpeace tried to circulate a document drawing attention to the problems of having a convention which, as it was framed by Canada, would be nothing more than conventional forestry. The document, which pictured a devastated forest and was entitled "Canadian Convention -- Conventional Forestry", was removed by Security.

Ms. Lovera, of Friends of the Earth International, said her organization called the Forum "the United Nations talk shop". United Nations policy debate could lead to action if there were enough stakeholders, particularly people from the capitals of countries where the forests were, like Africa and South Africa. In general, however, there had been no noteworthy progress made, particularly on substantive issues, such as finance, technology transfer and trade. In fact, there was an apparent backlash. Poor people in developing countries were being blamed for deforestation, while the wasteful consumption of paper and other forest products in the industrialized countries was completely ignored. For example, the average American family received 530 pieces of junk mail per year.

The battle over a convention had been going on since 1992, she said. There were two camps, pro-convention and anti-convention. At the moment, the pro-convention group was putting everything in brackets in the final text to force the idea of a convention, thus, holding up the entire debate. That had to stop. There should be no more talk about having a convention. She supported the other option being considered, establishment of a permanent United Nations forum on forests, an international mechanism to promote action on the agreements already achieved. There were in existence 135 proposals for action.

"In this Forum", she said, "the wolves are herding the sheep". A forum that was dominated by forestry departments was dominated by economic interest. They were determining the debate. She urged that indigenous people, who were working in promising projects all over the world, be allowed to relate their experiences at the United Nations and get the support they needed.

Mr. Hohnen said Greenpeace shared the concerns of other NGOs on the need for more action. There were more that 40 international bodies and agencies and 20 instruments that touched on issues surrounding the forests. He called for greater coordination and accountability. He urged that the convention option be dropped and supported the convening in the United Nations of a new high-level ministerial forests forum, together with annual meetings of officials to maintain focus and momentum, with full participation of all stakeholders at all levels of the process. Such a body would signal that "business as usual" was over.

A correspondent asked if convening a high-level United Nations body was a realistic option. He responded that there was one option that enjoyed a wide measure of support -- to create such a United Nations body. Another proposal, led primarily by Canada, stated that, in addition to that body, there should be a new intergovernmental negotiating committee to establish a convention on forests. He opposed the establishment of a new intergovernmental committee on forests, which would be a "talk and log" scenario, diverting attention from the real issues. It would gut those legal instruments already in existence, because resources and activities would be put into the new arrangement whose outcome could be guaranteed.

Asked if any government supported the alternative proposal, Ms. Lovera said yes, it was in the draft text now and had general support, but a two-track option would seriously hurt the Forum. All of the stakeholders must be on board. Indigenous people had not been allowed to take the floor during the Forum to talk about their own knowledge. Some had walked out, objecting to having their positions explained by outsiders.

Which countries supported the proposal? the correspondent asked. Mr. Hohnen replied that New Zealand had said that, during the process, the proponents of a convention had had enough time to demonstrate the need for a legally binding instrument. There had not been any such evidence. There was support for a high-level ministerial conference. However, the last text which had a specific reference to the conference was being held hostage by Canadian insistence on a convention.

Mr. Okrah observed that the United Nations system did not acknowledge indigenous people, unless they came under the auspices of an organization of indigenous people. That limited their participation. He added that governments were not amenable to giving property rights to indigenous knowledge, as they did to other inventions.

On Wednesday, Mr. Hohnen added, there had been a powerful intervention from the Amazon States that they were not convinced of the need for a legally binding convention. They stressed the time it would take to get a convention that would, in fact, just reiterate the contents of the instruments that were already established.

A correspondent asked for clarification as to why the panel was against the establishment of a new convention. Ms. Lovera explained that there were already a number of legally binding commitments to protect forests. In many countries, a battle raged between the forestry departments and departments for the environment. In Canada, for example, the Federal Government had little to say about Canadian forests. It was all decided by State governments, which had a poor record of implementing legally binding instruments.

In reply to a question, Mr. Hohnen said he was not looking for specific regulations at this stage. More importantly, he wanted a place where people could come and share views about how to effectively use and save the forests. He called attention to the international furniture company IKEA, which had made a public commitment to use only sustainable sources of timber.

Mr. Okrah said that what was needed was sacrifice and money. No developed country was willing to put money into sustainable forest management. The Forum might arrive at an agreement that would then be put on the shelf, because there was no money to implement it. On the other hand, if there was money, what was the guarantee that the money would be put to the cause for which it was allocated?

Another correspondent asked why the existing agreements were not working. Why were the legally binding instruments not being honoured? Mr. Okrah said the issue was simply one of politics. There was not enough money being put into implementing what had been agreed to. There was a lack of political commitment.

In reply to another question, Ms. Lovera said that, on the last day of the Forum, negotiations were still going on in informal sessions. A late session was expected, particularly if Canada continued to hijack the meeting.

* *** *