One of the main sticking points causing the climate talks at The Hague to founder last November was forestry. The issue was to what extent industrialized countries could get out of their obligations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by using trees and land to soak up and store carbon from the atmosphere. Should such activities replace greenhouse gas emission reductions or should they merely supplement them?

One of the arenas where the battle was fought was the discussion over how to define forests. Most governments wanted to use the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) definition, which gives countries huge leeway in deciding how much of their land counts as "carbon-absorbing". On afforestation, reforestation and deforestation most Parties seemed comfortable with the IPCC definition, though the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) had concerns about perverse incentives created by the definition of deforestation that may allow a Party to clear a natural forest and then replant it and not get a debit from the emissions caused by the clearing.

The bloc of Southern countries gathered under the heading "G-77/China" argued that "carbon sink" activities should not be used as a justification for postponing other action on global warming. They also emphasized that countries should not be not be allowed to award themselves "windfall" credits for carbon naturally stored or accumulating in their forests and other carbon stocks.

The EU sought to include an additional principle about conserving and sustainably managing biological diversity -- a move which would have considerably weakened earlier draft agreements which cited the need to be compatible with the Convention on Biological Diversity.

In a desperate attempt to bring governments to agreement on the night before The Hague meeting was officially to close, Jan Pronk, the President of the talks, proposed that "additional activities" like cropland management and forest management be made eligible for carbon credits --a possiblity which had been opened up by article 3.4 of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.

Rough calculations by some NGOs in The Hague suggest that if the US receive substantial carbon credits with these additional activities. This would mean that they could account for a significant proportion of their commitment in the first commitment period under sinks. What they are basically wanting is a very broad definition of forest management so that any human-based activity could be included under this definition. In effect they could fly over all their forests and drop a few grains of fertilizer and call this forest management. They could simply buy a fire fighting aeroplane, calculate its range and say that all forests within that range are "managed". Subsequently any growth in the trees in these forests could be measured and the sequestered carbon accounted in their favour.

The EU and the G-77/China remained opposed. It became apparent, however, that some EU governments wanted to discuss how "additional activities" might be accounted for, and I suspect the EU may well not maintain its previous opposition to the inclusion of additional activities in what is called the "first commitment period" of the Kyoto Protocol.

Governments are split over whether or not indusrialized countries should be allowed to claim credit for "carbon sink" projects they finance or undertake in the South using the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) posited by Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol.

The EU, China and AOSIS are opposed to the idea of allowing "sink" activites in the CDM, as are some African countries. But most of Latin America has joined the Umbrella Group in supporting sinks in the CDM. (A Colombian proposal for an accounting system that would grant temporary credits for "sinks" activities has softened Brazil's and Peru’s original opposition.)

Jan Pronk, in his last-ditch effort to achieve agreement in The Hague, published a Note on the night before the talks were to end, which proposes that:

Pronk’s Note again seems to follow the language of the Umbrella Group. Pronk's proposal to include only afforestation and reforestation, not forest conservation, under the CDM -- an idea he appears to have picked up from Brazil -- creates dilemmas for some governments. Meanwhile, an earlier suggestion that "sinks" activities must be made compatible with other environmental conventions, as well as conventions relating to the rights of Indigenous Peoples, has disappeared from the most recent text of the negotiations' Co-Chairs.

Last-minute efforts to save The Hague negotiations, including the Note by President Pronk, did very little to resolve the land and forest issues at the heart of the disagreements. The simplicity of Pronk's language, in fact, probably helped inflame the issues further. It is now difficult to see how these issues will be resolved in a way that will suit all parties to the negotiations. When the talks resume, probably in July in Bonn, governments may need to limit their expectations of what they can get out of sinks activities.

What should be the agenda for the United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF), a new organization which, on 12 February, officially replaces the eight-year-old, inertia-ridden Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF)?

That was the question at a meeting convened in Bonn on 27 November - 1 December 2000 by an eight-country initiative headquartered in Germany. The meeting was organized as a prelude to the UNFF’s first session on 11-22 June 2001, at which the body's multi-year programme of work will be officially laid down. The UN itself has already set out the outlines of the agenda of the new organization, which is to be a subsidiary body to the UN’s Economic and Social Council. According to a UN resolution, the UNFF is to join other organisations of the UN system and other international and regional organisations in:

Most non-government organizations (NGOs) at the Bonn meeting, fearful that the UNFF would follow the pattern of its predecessor, said that the UNFF should make bottom-up action on old proposals its main priority, backed by strong monitoring and reporting from governments, forest-related agencies and independent groups.

But many government participants saw continued policy dialogue as the main function of UNFF. They stressed that the UNFF should help harmonise criteria and indicators of forest change, as well as definitions for sustainable forest management. Japan and Germany said that FAO-supported national forest programs should play a central role.

NGOs’ emphasis on responsible monitoring, moreover, while gaining support from more progressive government representatives like those of the UK and Australia, was objected to by other governments. Some participants also rejected NGO proposals for setting up a monitoring sub-committee to receive and review implementation reports, though no other innovative suggestions were put forward.

Brazil and African countries were keen that the UNFF channel new funds through an International Forest Fund. Southern participants also urged the UNFF to address trade issues. Russia and Canada, meanwhile, pointed out that the UN resolution which brought the UNFF into being calls for studies on a "legal framework" for a Forest Convention and proposed that such a convention be on the agenda for ministerial-level meetings of the UNFF. But most participants remained opposed to a Forest Convention.

NGOs and indigenous people’s organizations were not overjoyed at the Bonn meeting’s outcome, but welcomed its attempt to ensure that many government, international agency, private sector, NGO and IPO points of view were represented. They also applauded the way that the draft discussion document which issued from the meeting captured the variety of concerns expressed.

It is unclear whether or how this document will influence the first UNFF session. But NGOs are already warning that the UNFF shows signs of merely following in the footsteps of the IFF, with its focus on dialogue and definitions rather than action.

Forest biodiversity will be the main theme for discussion and negotiations at the next meeting of the 179 Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in April 2002. The sixth Conference of the Parties (COP 6) will decide on a forest work programme for 2002 - 2010.The current work programme on forests, adopted at the 4th Conference of the Parties (COP 4), focuses mainly on research and has made little contribution to long-term conservation and sustainable use of forest biodiversity.

But expectations are considerably higher for COP 6, where participants will "consider expanding the work programme from research to practical action". If it gets the support of NGOs and Indigenous Peoples, this move could mark a turnaround for the so far spineless international forest regime.

In order to help prepare for a science-based programme of work in 2002, the 5th Conference of the Parties (COP 5) established in May 2000 an Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Forest Biodiversity. This group was set up at the urging of NGOs attending the meeting over the objections of Canada, Japan and others. Its job is to provide peer reviewed scientific and technical advice to the SBSTTA (Subsidiary Body of Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice), which in turn will recommend to the COP elements for a programme on forest biodiversity.

The technical experts group - the first of its kind in CBD history -- met for the first time from 27 November to 1 December 2000 in Montreal. Its next meeting will be from 23 to 26 April 2001 in Edinburgh .In line with the rules of procedure of the SBSTTA (Decision I/1 and IV/16), the group is supposed to consist of 15 experts nominated by governments, and should be regionally and gender balanced. Its mandate, as decided by COP 5 (Annex of Decision V/4), is:

The first meeting of the group was chaired by Ian Thompson, the expert from the host country, Canada. Other experts came from the UK, Mexico, Cuba, Japan, the EU, Poland , Estonia, Malaysia and Cameroon. Experts from India, Russia, China, Mozambique, Mali and Brazil as well as two indigenous experts were invited but did not attend. Reportedly, Canada, who hosted the meeting, provided funding only three weeks beforehand, which made it difficult for some participants to sort out their visa arrangements in time. Attending as observers were CIFOR, the UNFF Secretariat, FAO, GEF, Greenpeace and IUCN. Participants had been selected by the Secretariat in consultation with the Bureau of the SBSTTA.

At its meeting, the group discussed a background paper by the CBD Secretariat and decided to produce two documents for consideration at the 7th meeting of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA 7) (12 - 16 November 2001):

After discussing the two documents, SBSTTA 7 will recommend an outling work programme to COP 6 of the CBD. The stronger the recommendations of SBSTTA 7, the stronger the work programme adopted at COP 6 in April 2002 is likely to be.

A strong work programme could help turn the CBD into something which the UNFF and its predecessor, the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests, have so far failed to become during the ten years of their existence: an effective means for forest conservation and sustainable use.An added advantage of the CBD is that it provides not only provisions to protect and encourage traditional lifestyles but also a dynamic process for participation of indigenous peoples in the Working Group on Article 8 (j) and related Articles, together with a comprehensive work programme.

THINGS TO LOOK FOR: The revised CBD background paper will be posted on the Web in February 2001, and the second paper on the options for conservation and sustainable use most likely in June or July 2001.

It is important that NGOs and Indigenous Peoples provide as much scientific and technological input as possible during the review process for the two draft papers - not only to criticize them, but also to provide examples of people's conservation and sustainable use efforts. We have to make sure that the expert group forwards options that have the support of NGOs and Indigenous Peoples. As soon as the draft paper is on the Web, I will circulate the information widely.