|
|
Global Forest Coalition
| Issue
Nš 12: May 2004 Contents:
About Forest Cover Welcome to the twelfth issue of Forest Cover, the newsletter of the Global Forest Coalition (GFC). The GFC was established by a group of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and Indigenous Peoples Organizations (IPOs) to facilitate the informed participation of NGOs and IPOs in intergovernmental meetings related to forests. Forest Cover is published four times a year. It features reports on important intergovernmental meetings by different NGOs and IPOs and a calendar of future meetings. The views expressed in this newsletter do not necessarily reflect the views of the Global Forest Coalition, its founding members or the editors. For free subscriptions, please contact Simone Lovera at: lovera@foei.org Ex Silvis: Old Plague,
Old Cure It’s all about trade. Don’t tell me it isn’t. Otherwise, how can you explain what happened last February at the seventh Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in Kuala Lumpur? Countries were so careful not to endanger their negotiating position in the World Trade Organization that they wound up wrecking any proposal that made sense from the CBD point of view. Sure, they could have said that they were “only looking out for their country’s interests” and protecting it against unfair competition. But whose interests are “the country's” interests, exactly? According to Indigenous Peoples’ and peasants’ organizations, not theirs. Governments may use knowledge and possessions vital for Indigenous and peasant subsistence as bargaining chips, but Indigenous and peasant peoples themselves get paid only with oblivion and marginalization. Legalizing the exploitation of the knowledge and the land, water and living things enshrined in Indigenous cultures, as called for in current plans, would be like legalizing piracy — in this case, biopiracy. Thus states go on and on undermining peoples’ rights instead of devolving them. They repeat the pattern of colonial land grabs, and of post-colonial timber concessions that assume that nobody is using the forests. They perpetuate the idea that only the state has the right to decide the destiny of the territories under its jurisdiction. It is the same old injustice. The CBD still has the potential to become an instrument of justice. It refers to peoples’ rights and embeds in its objectives the concept of fairness. But if what we’ve seen in Kuala Lumpur is the new “order” for the management of the natural wealth of the world, we’re all in trouble, and Indigenous Peoples in particular. The situation is only worse in a forum such the United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF), which does not have the relatively sound framework of the CBD. Here attention is focused nearly exclusively on timber supply and demand. From such a forum we can only expect more trouble. At least the CBD had the opportunity to consult with Indigenous Peoples’ Organizations and commissioned all kinds of studies and surveys before finally deciding to ignore the facts it had collected. The UNFF, however fervently one hopes it will act responsibly, does not even have the CBD’s level of training, mandate or interest in doing the right thing. As Indigenous Peoples have told us, both these forums are veering onto the same old course. We should not accept any new rounds of old injustice. To this ancient plague must be applied the old cure: resistance and rebellion. Indigenous
Peoples and Traditional Forest-Related Knowledge at UNFF4 On paper, the UN Forum on Forests (UNFF) is an arena in which Indigenous Peoples’ issues are taken very seriously. The Forum has a mandate to seek action on no fewer than 78 Proposals for Action directly or indirectly relating to Indigenous Peoples which it inherited from its predecessors, the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests and the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests. Some 21 of those proposals deal specifically with Traditional Forest-Related Knowledge (TFRK). The problem is that most of the proposals have yet to be implemented at the national level. As a result, indigenous and forest-dependent groups will be piling on the pressure at the Fourth Session of the UNFF to be held in May in Geneva, Switzerland, where “TFRK” and “the social and cultural aspects of forests” are two key agenda items. Two Indigenous Peoples’ side-events
at the meeting, on May 4 and 6, will point out how little TFRK has so
far been recognized and integrated into forest policy at national, regional,
and international levels following various UNFF Proposals for Action
and Article 8j of the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD). At centre
stage will be preliminary findings from some of the three regional and
nine national case studies on the issue commissioned by the International
Alliance of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples of Tropical Forests. The case studies also suggest that neither indigenous and local groups nor their traditional knowledge are playing much of a part in official management. For example, India’s Joint Forest Management program, which is supposed to help delegate management responsibilities to local communities, has not been accompanied by the changes in the legal framework needed to make the devolution a reality, and forests continue to be administered by the state. India does seem to have taken a practical step in the right direction by establishing a National Biodiversity Strategy (NBSAP) setting participatory and decentralized planning as a principal objective. But insofar as the Indian government chooses not to recognize “Indigenous Peoples” as an identifiable category, the specific needs, rights, and knowledge of indigenous groups remain in contention. Kenya, meanwhile, has only recently demonstrated an interest in engaging with indigenous and local peoples in developing National Forest Programmes through its Partnership Development for Sustainable Forest Management. Otherwise, the country has largely failed to provide for TFRK and indigenous participation in the formulation of forestry policy. Traditional knowledge has remained internal to Indigenous Peoples’ own forest practices without being mobilized by the government as a tool for the development of more dynamic and inclusive forestry policies. In short, local groups appear to remain isolated from decision-making and their TFRK unused in official forest planning, even where policy dictates otherwise. The situation is made worse by the fact that indigenous and local communities are often unaware both of the commitments international fora have made to their rights and of their governments’ failure to act on them. The case studies to be presented in May are one part of a larger project facilitated by the International Alliance of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples of Tropical Forests in collaboration with the Forest Peoples Programme and the Global Forest Coalition to coordinate indigenous inputs into UNFF and CBD processes. The project, aimed at creating better mutual understanding among NGOs, IPOs and governments and better implementation of UNFF and CBD proposals, will culminate in a large multi-sector meeting to be held in Costa Rica in December. Bridging Scales and
Epistemologies in Ecosystem Assessment The Millennium Assessment is a panel which was formed by a coalition of intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations to provide ecosystem assessments for, amongst others, the Convention on Biodiversity, the Convention to Combat Desertification and the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. Like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Millenium Assessment consists of experts in a range of fields. Unlike the IPCC, however, it sets out to ensure that the voices of all major actors are heard and acknowledged. Not only does it track global trends and look at ecosystems of different sizes and locations. It also uses different knowledge systems to assess them, allowing local and Indigenous Peoples to explain ecosystems using their own words and categories. The Millenium Assessment thus offers Indigenous Peoples the promise of participating in international forums in a new sense – not just as “observers” to a decision-making system that many never felt truly a part of, and not just as part of a so-called “empowerment” process that member nations undertake merely as a way of honouring their obligations to international agreements. By providing a forum where Indigenous Peoples’ own concepts can be shared, it also promises to give Western knowledge systems a chance to integrate the knowledge systems closest to the heart of the forest. But will the Millenium Assessment fulfill these promises? Will its report to the conventions really include alternative forms of knowledge? The panel’s meeting on 17-20 March in Alexandria, Egypt suggested that both opportunities and pitfalls lie ahead. On the positive side, the door has finally been wedged open and our knowledge is being listened to. True, it is not open as widely as it is for Western science, but it is open. In fact, some of the assessments being done by the panel are designed by and for Indigenous Peoples. It is now up to Indigenous Peoples to continue to hold the door open with our presence. In the same way that we occupy the roads to our sacred forests with our bodies, we must occupy the doorway to participation with our minds. At the same time, there are likely to be limits to how successful the panel’s final report can be. One question is whether Indigenous Peoples’ efforts to present their own knowledge will have access to the same financial and physical resources that others enjoy. Inequitable access will inevitably lead to inequitable outcomes, regardless of the intent. Another problem is resistance from parts of the Western scientific community. While some of the conference’s participants who adhered to a Western science perspective were willing to raise the question of what science is in an extremely exciting way, others may find it harder to overcome old prejudices. For more information, please visit: http://www.millenniumassessment.org Branching Out: The Importance
of Community Rights Editor’s note: This is the first instalment of a column by members and friends of the Global Caucus on Community-Based Forest Management (“the Caucus”) – a network of diverse peoples and organizations committed to ensuring forest conservation and the livelihoods of forest-dependent peoples. The column, Branching Out, is intended to give a more bottom-up view of the issues negotiated in international forums on forests. The Caucus, coordinated by Lisa Ambus, first emerged in Bali during the lead-up to the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002. Working together under a common banner, this group of NGOs, community-based organizations, Indigenous Peoples, academics and others persuaded government delegates to agree to “recognize and support indigenous and community based forest management systems to ensure their full and effective participation in sustainable forest management.” The common vision was for local communities and Indigenous Peoples to assert their rights and assume their responsibilities to manage, control, and use their forests in ways that are socially just, ecologically sound, and economically viable. In forums like the UN Forum on Forests, the Caucus’s role is to help create political space at the local, national and global level. Here, in the first Branching Out, Bhim Prasad Shrestha, Chairperson of the Federation of Community Forest Users in Nepal (FECOFUN), discusses the importance of community rights. Updates on the Caucus are currently available at http://www.forestsandcommunities.org . Join our online discussion group at mailto: globalcbfm@yahoogroups.com Approximately 80 per cent of Nepal’s
population is dependent on forests and forest goods for farming and
day-to-day household needs. Unfortunately, the country is facing a high
rate of deforestation, marked by a decrease of forest cover from 65
per cent to 35 per cent in only 30 years. Forest user groups in Nepal are characterized by a relatively high level of participation by women’s and disadvantaged groups. They are committed to forest protection and management, although on many occasions they have to manage severely degraded forest patches. The groups regularly hold community meetings to make decisions about their forests. Their initiatives have resulted in visible improvements in the well-being of rural households and communities through increased opportunities for off-farm employment and income generation. The community funds generated through forest-based income have been used to make easy loans to the communities, which in turn have underwritten other income-generating initiatives. Improvements in local peoples’ livelihoods have provided additional incentives for the communities to conserve and sustainably use their forests, ensuring biodiversity conservation. In a poor country like Nepal, these community funds have been vital in the development of a range of local initiatives and facilities, such as drinking water facilities; constructing trails, school buildings and health posts; installing small-scale hydro-electricity; and setting up other needed community infrastructure. Apart from improving the state of the rural economy, Nepal’s community forestry program has successfully increased social harmony among users belonging to different religions, castes, and ethnic groups. Because democratic principles have been followed in most community forestry activities, women and disadvantaged groups have an increased say in planning, implementation and decision making. For more information: http://www.fecofun.org Excerpts from the Closing Statement of the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity to CBD COP7 In the name of the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity, we want the reiterate our will to continue working together with Parties to achieve the objectives of the Convention. Considering that most of the world’s biological diversity is in our lands and waters, the need for a just implementation of this Convention is urgent, and requires greater participation of the actors directly involved in the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. As rights holders, we hope we will continue building just frameworks for collaboration and working together. The work of the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity within the CBD process has a clear spirit of cooperation. However, to make this collaboration effective the full recognition of our rights as Indigenous Peoples is essential. We believe that recognition is an essential prerequisite to working together, reducing biodiversity loss and fostering sustainable development to achieve the millennium development goals. States, in the responsible exercise of their national sovereignty, must fully recognize and respect the inherent right of Indigenous peoples. Recognition and respect for our rights must be included in all the programs of work of the Convention. We followed with great concern the attempt by New Zealand to delete text that specifically recognizes the land and water rights of Indigenous Peoples – particularly in light of the obligations of the Treaty of Waitangi. This attempt was not acceptable in a United Nations forum that should protect the human and political rights of Indigenous Peoples. On the other hand we want to express our gratitude to the Parties who have shown respect for their obligations and commitments to Indigenous Peoples. Indigenous Peoples remain deeply concerned about the proposed international regime on access and benefit sharing. Indigenous peoples are rights holders with inherent, proprietary, and inalienable rights to our Indigenous knowledge and biological resources. Genetic resources and traditional knowledge are inextricably linked. We have consistently stated that – and we are not participating in these discussions to facilitate access to our traditional knowledge nor the genetic resources in our territories. Rather, we participate to ensure our rights are recognized and respected by the Parties in the development of the proposed regime. Further, the international regime must be considered consistent with international human rights laws and standards. We reaffirm that current intellectual property rights regimes are inadequate and inappropriate to protect our collective knowledge and resources because such regimes are monopolistic and favour the privatization of our biocultural resources by transnational companies and only protect indivual intellectual property rights. During the last few years we have witnessed the expropriation of our collective resources, and the loss of locally sustainable opportunities due to the increase of biopiracy. Our demand that our rights over our knowledge, practices and resources be upheld is based on our desire to use this knowledge in favour of autonomous development of our communities. Therefore, indigenous customary law must be the fundamental element of any sui generis regime for the protection of traditional knowledge. We request that the parties ensure the continuation of the Ad Hoc Open-ended Working Group on Article 8(j) and related provisions. The continuity of this working group is fundamental not only to guarantee the full and effective participation of indigenous peoples in the work of this convention, but also to resolve the issues that directly affect our peoples, such as the CBD Guidelines on Biodiversity and Tourism Development, amongst others. In relation to the guidelines, we especially request that these be reviewed by the Working Group on Article 8(j) in its next meeting, taking into account the recommendations of the International Indigenous Leadership Gathering on Sustainable Tourism, which will be held in September 2005 in British Columbia, Canada. Indigenous peoples territories have been traditionally managed according to the principles of conservation and the sustainable use of biodiversity. The establishment of regional, sub-regional and national protected areas systems and ecological networks should not result in forced resettlement, extinguishment or breach of our rights to our territories. Protected areas must be established in accordance with the principle of free prior informed consent. We would also like to note that marine and coastal protected areas have damaged the lives and territories of indigenous peoples. Most coastal areas are, or have been in the past, managed under indigenous peoples’ traditional marine tenure regimes, with management systems based on indigenous peoples’ knowledge and authorities. All of the CBD work programmes must guarantee the full and effective participation of indigenous peoples, especially indigenous women, with due attention to the recognition, protection and strengthening of our rights and customary use relating to resource management in dry and arid lands, marine and coastal waters, inland waters, forests, mountains and islands. To conclude, we reaffirm our fundamental rights of self-determination and will carry out our peoples’ historical mandate to care for, conserve and preserve our Mother Earth. Parties must uphold our land rights and the right to control access to, and use of, our resources and knowledge. All of us, Parties, Indigenous Peoples and future generations will only survive if we are able to halt the excessive exploitation of the world's biodiversity resources. The
Robbery Continues Fearing further thefts of the natural and cultural heritage of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, Friends of the Earth International and other NGOs last February publicly opposed the attempt of delegates at the Seventh Conference of the Parties of the Convention on Biodiversity (COP7) in Kuala Lumpur to negotiate an international regime on access to these genetic resources while sweeping aside questions about intellectual property rights. In the end, the conference launched negotiations on a future regime on access to genetic resources which is likely to strengthen rather than weaken the intellectual property rights of corporations over plants, animals and genes. At the same time, negotiations about the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities made little progress. A group of countries that harbour the greatest biodiversity, the so-called group of mega-diverse countries, has argued that the international regime would be an instrument in the struggle against biopiracy. However, countries were unwilling to question the patenting of life forms and other mechanisms of appropriation and privatization of living things. Thus, the regime is likely to weaken the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities and to legitimize the theft of their resources. The robbery continues. Protecting
Areas against Mining Protected areas are a key tool for global biodiversity conservation. So it was no surprise they were an important agenda item at the Seventh Conference of the Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD COP7) held in February in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. But the comprehensive draft programme of work the CBD delegates set out will be unlikely to ensure biodiversity conservation unless the current wave of privatization and commercialization of protected areas can be checked. As things stand now in many countries, the main species being protected and managed in protected areas are large-scale miners and loggers. Justifying themselves by referring to a doctrine of “economic activities in productive zones”, proponents of protected-area mining at the CBD negotiations ignored the fact that surface mining destroys forest and other biodiversity and, excavating topsoil, leaves in its wake a barren land susceptible to desertification. Mining in protected areas can only worsen the already alarming rate of global biodiversity loss, with negative consequences for ecosystem functionalities, fresh water systems and livelihoods of millions of forest-dependent peoples and other communities. To strengthen their commitment to protect and manage protected areas sustainably, parties to the CBD should develop a clear-cut policy that prohibits mining and other large-scale industrial activities in protected areas. Biodiversity Delegates
Say No to Standards for Climate Projects At the February meeting of the parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), NGOs and Indigenous Peoples Organizations weren’t sure at first what some governments were going to say about a report called “Interlinkages between Biological Diversity and Climate Change”. The report had aroused the opposition of US, Canadian, Japanese and New Zealand delegates at last November’s meeting of the CBD’s Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice. But in February the critical governments waved through the report happily and sent it on to their counterparts at the Framework Convention on Climate Change. Why the change in attitude? Probably because the text had been stripped in the meantime of any suggestion that climate change “mitigation” projects – such as huge monocultures of genetically modified trees or people-displacing, nature-ravaging hydroelectric dams – need minimum environmental and social standards to ensure they don’t adversely affect biodiversity. By sponsoring such projects, Northern governments get permission to continue emitting greenhouse gases at close to current levels. The last thing they need is environmental and social standards getting in the way. At the latest climate negotiations, last December, they had already helped eliminate any chance of reasonable standards for such projects in the South. So perhaps it should have been no surprise that the CBD report, after being suitably doctored, also met with their approval. For more information, please visit: http://www.biodiv.org Environmental
Groups Protest UN Decision on GM Trees Three Finnish environmental groups are protesting against the decision made at the UN climate negotiations to approve genetically modified trees as a way to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The Union of Ecoforestry, the People´s Biosafety Association, and Friends of the Earth Finland are demanding that the UN Forum on Forests adopts a declaration rejecting genetically modified trees. They are inviting signatures on an open petition they have issued on the internet at http://elonmerkki.net/dyn/appeal/. The petition will be presented to the UN Forum on Forests at its fourth session in Geneva in May at a side event on 11 May 2004. “The idea of fighting global warming with genetically modified trees, approved by the parties to the climate convention in Milan last December, is wrong,” said Leo Stranius, Chair of Friends of the Earth Finland and Hannu Hyvönen, Coordinator of the Union of Ecoforestry in a joint statement. “We do not need plantations of genetically modified tree-clones on our planet. Plans like this are in direct contradiction to the terms of the Rio Convention on Biodiversity. We hope that as the UN Forest Forum assembles in Geneva next May, it will recognize this discrepancy and ban the introduction of genetically modified trees.” People´s Forest Forum - An Initiative for Grassroot Monitoring In the UNFF meeting all countries should present their country reports for the basis of UN Forum on Forests. Stranius and Hyvönen protest their own country, Finland, which will present the UN Forest Forum with a summary report that “manages to ignore all the major problems of our forestry. Reporting like this is not a useful starting point for improving our understanding of the global state of the forests,” they said. “There is a pressing need for a comprehensive approach to the planet´s forests. We don’t need any kind of tree plantations on the Earth. We need alternative solutions for sustainable future of forests and people." Accordingly, the three Finnish groups have launched an alternative “People’s Forest Forum” on the internet for “open discussion and reporting on forests” at http://elonmerkki.net/forestforum . For more information: Leo Stranius leo.stranius@pp.htv.fi , or Hannu Hyvönen at ekometsa@sci.fi Reports on Other Forest-related Meetings: Watery Governance at UNEP Forests must be protected as part of an ecosystem-based,
integrated approach to water resource management, according to 90 government
ministers attending the Global Ministerial Environment Forum and 8th
special session of the Governing Council of the UN Environment Program
(UNEP), which took place 29-31 March on Jeju Island, South Korea. The
ministers’ conclusion was reached during a discussion on the environmental
dimensions of reaching the Millennium Development Goal of halving, by
2015, the proportion of people who do not have access to safe drinking
water and basic sanitation. Countering the US line, several countries and NGOs say UNEP should be transformed into a specialized agency to ensure broader participation and increased obligatory financial contributions from governments. That, they say, would make it more effective in tackling the continuing global ecological crisis. For more information, please visit: http://www.unep.org Calendar of Forest-Related Meetings More information on these and other intergovernmental meetings can be found at: http://www.iisd.ca/linkages • The Fourth Session of the UN Forum on Forests will take place from 3 - 14 May 2004 in Geneva, Switzerland. Themes to be discussed include traditional forest-related knowledge and the social and cultural aspects of forests. See also Ex Silvis and Indigenous Peoples and Traditional Forest-Related Knowledge at UNFF4 by Annabel Pinker. For more information, please visit: http://www.un.org/esa/forests.htm • The third session of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues will be held from 10 - 21 May in New York, USA. The main theme of the meeting will be gender and Indigenous issues. For more information, please visit: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/pfii • The Twentieth Session of the Subsidiary Bodies to the Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol will take place from 14 - 25 June 2004 in Bonn, Germany. See also Biodiversity Delegates Say No to Standards for Climate Projects by Miguel Lovera. For more information, please visit: http://www.unfccc.int • The Thirty-Sixth Session of the International Tropical Timber Council will be held from 20 - 23 July in Interlaken, Switzerland. It will be followed by the United Nations Conference for the Negotiation of a Successor Agreement to the International Tropical Timber Agreement, which will take place from 26 - 30 July in Geneva. For more information, please visit: http://www.itto.or.jp • The UN Forum on Forests’ Ad Hoc Expert Group on Consideration with a View of Recommending the Parameters of a Mandate for Developing a Legal Framework on All Types of Forests will meet from 6 - 10 September in New York, USA. For more information, please visit: http://www.un.org/esa/forests.htm
|
 |
|||
|
|||
|
Go
to home page - Recommend
this page
World Rainforest
Movement
Maldonado 1858 - 11200 Montevideo - Uruguay
tel: 598 2 413 2989 / fax: 598 2 418 0762
wrm@wrm.org.uy
