|
|
Global Forest Coalition
| Issue
Nº 15: March 2005 Contents:
About Forest Cover Welcome to the fifteenth 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: Lethally-Blinding Interference on Forests I couldn't believe what was happening. The US government was praising an EU initiative slashing the foreign debt of Southern countries in recognition of the fact that both the US and the EU were responsible for lending the money to corrupt puppet governments during their crusade to defeat communism. They also agreed to immediately curtail their consumption of timber and pulp by 73%... reasonable but still unbelievable! The Brazilian government, on behalf of the G-77 and China, was proposing that all corporate logging and agricultural clearance be curtailed on their territories and those of Indigenous Peoples. An OECD representative demanded that the North eliminate dumping and agricultural subsidies just before the secretariat of the negotiations announced the launch of a globally and multi-sectorally agreed forest definition, on basis of sound social and environmental criteria and knowledge, that excludes large-scale industrial tree plantations. I was so ecstatic that I had to run behind the exhibition stand of the “Green Helmets” – the UN's anti-logging enforcers – to scream a cheer to the elderly President Lula and President Hillary Clinton – the true power brokers in this deal. But I tripped over the mannequin wearing the Green Helmet, which fell right on my face. Suddenly, I woke up whining in pain. It was just a dream . . . And what a dream it was. The reality of all current UN negotiations on forests feels more like a waking nightmare, a huge farce to be sold to the public as a panacea to halt deforestation and forest degradation on the basis of intelligence as misleading and dodgy as that used to excuse the invasion of Iraq. As in the past, backers of the proposed new UN forest convention claim that, as if by magic, it would provide the millions needed to bring about sustainable forest management – and imply that, somehow, everybody has already agreed what sustainable forest management means. And as in the past, there are no precise signs of where this funding will come from – if not dwindling overseas development aid budgets intended for other things. Of course, there's always some talk about more protected areas and a few more projects designed to elicit the participation of Indigenous Peoples. Unfortunately, this participation seems to consist of jobs as porters and scouts and sources of knowledge for corporations to claim a patent on. So maybe I should go back to sleep. But I have to give the proponents of the forest convention some credit for their intentions, at least. Many of them do seem genuinely ready to try to negotiate a halt to deforestation and forest degradation. There are genuine proposals for recognition of Indigenous People's territories and their intellectual property and customary rights. But in that case, why are governments and companies also still pushing for time-wasting negotiations on a forest convention? What is it to be: Dr Jekyll or Mr Hyde? Let's avoid the nightmare of galloping extinctions, natural catastrophes, climate change, drought and ruined soils. What's needed to stop deforestation and forest degradation is to end the schizophrenic view we have of forests as either valueless soil cover or timber mines. There is no need for a new legally binding instrument on forests, since what it takes to start protecting them is to respect basic human rights.
Our Knowledge is Our Survival Accusing United Nations bodies of “treating traditional knowledge in a fragmented manner, without recognition of its holistic nature and its indissoluble unity with our collective rights as peoples”, representatives of Indigenous Peoples meeting last December in Costa Rica issued a ringing demand for self-determination, collective territorial rights, free and prior informed consent to any decision affecting their lands, and recognition of their ownership of a knowledge that they said they would not allow to be commodified, extracted, or traded. They said that while Indigenous Peoples “provide concrete solutions to many of the issues facing humanity today”, including forest management, many were facing dispossession, deterioration of their lands, and harassment and imprisonment. The Indigenous delegates were speaking at a meeting convened by the International Alliance of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples of the Tropical Forests, Ngobegue Association and the government of Costa Rica to review the work of the United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF), other international initiatives bearing on traditional forest-related knowledge, and national-level implementation. The meeting was divided into a full Expert Meeting and a two-day Indigenous Preparatory Meeting, from which emerged the Corobici Declaration , a consensus document named for an Indigenous leader of the Huetar people in Costa Rica (see below). Delegates also had detailed recommendations for the UNFF, the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Food and Agriculture Organization, and the World Intellectual Property Organization, as well as national governments, funding organizations and Indigenous Peoples' organizations. They called for:
Delegates noted that with the emergence of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, there is now a mechanism – with a proper budget – for coordinating and liaising among the various UN bodies working on Traditional Forest-Related Knowledge and protection of Indigenous knowledge systems. Corobici Declaration Preamble We the Indigenous Peoples gathered here in San Jose, Costa Rica, reaffirm the principles contained in the Kari Oca Declaration, the Leticia Declaration, the Kimberley Declaration and Indigenous Peoples Plan of Implementation for Sustainable Development and the Wendake Plan of Action. Through a range of actions such as community defense of forests, national consultations, documentation of case studies, and the application of indigenous knowledge, indigenous peoples are contributing to sustainable forest management and protection. Indigenous peoples provide concrete solutions to many of the issues facing humanity today and by strengthening indigenous peoples' roles through effective participation in areas such as forest management and sustainable development, indigenous peoples can contribute significantly to a sustainable future for all of humanity. We are shocked at the accelerated deterioration of our lands, territories, forests, water and subsoil and at the continuing violation of our rights. Free access to and use of our lands, forests and waters is forbidden to us. The titling of our lands is postponed in order to favor third parties. Protected areas, oil, timber, fishing concessions and forest plantations are created that overlap with our lands, resulting in the eviction of and restrictions for our peoples. Leaders and communities defending their forests are imprisoned and arbitrarily harassed. Our fight for our rights is criminalized and our territories are militarized. The increasing number of these cases and the lack of legal redress is alarming, as the leaders and experts attending the meeting have pointed out. We express our deep concern about the attitude of the United Nations bodies in treating traditional knowledge in a fragmented manner, without recognition of its holistic nature and its indissoluble unity with our collective rights as peoples. We are concerned that national and international processes related to free trade agreements between states foster the usurpation and degradation of our forests, lands and territories, as well as biopiracy and uncontrolled access to genetic resources in our forests, lands and territories. The greatest obstacles for the implementation of international standards and mechanisms related to the human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples are the lack of political will of nation states, unfair and discriminatory laws, and the lack of sufficient funds and resources to allow the autonomous development and full participation of indigenous peoples in all processes. Traditional Forest Related Knowledge (TFRK) of indigenous peoples is intrinsically interlinked with our life. It cannot be separated from our interrelationship to our territories. We emphasize the unique spiritual values, world views and cosmologies of indigenous peoples, all of which are interconnected to the sacred web of life and enrich the cultural diversity of all humanity. There is no knowledge without peoples or territories. Traditional Forest Related Knowledge of indigenous peoples is not a commodity. It cannot be extracted, documented and traded. It is linked to our intergenerational cultural development, survival, beliefs, spirituality and medicinal systems. It is inseparable from our lands and territories. Its use is confined to persons with the appropriate authority to use it in accordance with our customary laws. Our traditional knowledge is much more than simply the knowledge of certain plants or animals. It is intimately linked to the spiritual world, to ecosystems, and to the biological diversity within our lands and territories and it transcends national boundaries. Fragmented misappropriation of this knowledge constitutes a deep violation of the integrity of our lives, territories and autonomous development. In view of the above, we once more demand the recognition of the following principles in all forest policies and issues related to TFRK: General Principles:
For further information in Spanish, English and French, please see: www.international-alliance.org/tfrk_expert_meeting.htm .
Climate COP-10: Celebrations while Business as Usual Continues Last December saw the beautiful city of Buenos Aires host the 10 th Conference of the Parties (COP-10) of the UN climate convention. Environmental NGOs around the world celebrated as preparations were made for the Kyoto Protocol finally to come into force. But what really was achieved? Are the commitments made under the Protocol the right way to counter rampant climate change or is the treaty just an exercise in feelgood politics as the world burns under global warming? Unfortunate timing saw the COP clashing with a traditional knowledge meeting in Costa Rica. Moreover, lack of communication between the secretariat and Indigenous participants saw Indigenous Peoples effectively locked out of the COP until the end of the first week. True, we were allowed to register, but because the Secretariat had not received an email confirming that we were acting on behalf of Indigenous peoples worldwide, it refused to allow us to address the plenary until the end of the first week. By taking this action, the Secretariat was in effect deciding to take it upon itself to decide on “Indigenousness”. Only after the meeting was over did it occur to me that, yet again, colonial countries have found a way of marginalizing Indigenous participation. Other major memories of the meeting include my outrage at Saudi Arabia trying to obtain compensation funds for not drilling oil under the guise of adaptation money, my dismay at Italy's announcement they would withdraw from the Protocol after the second commitment period and my depression over the fight among environmental NGOs over the October 2004 Durban Declaration, whose growing list of signatories questions the effectiveness and justice of Kyoto's entire market framework [see www.sinkswatch.org]. I can remember thinking to myself that while we were marginalized and self-isolating because of disagreements, bad timing, poor communication and outsize egos, business as usual was continuing in the corridors and back rooms of the conference center. There were major issues being decided, issues that will impact on the lives of our children and that will see the creation of environmental refugees and climate martyrs, and we sat around merely trying to get permission to participate or sniping at each other over the Durban Declaration. Quite frankly, folks, it wasn't good enough. Yes, the Protocol gives us a mechanism for discussion, but the governments' own scientists are now saying that unless we reduce emissions by 20 per cent in the next 15 years, it may well be too late. It is time we buried the egos, demanded better communication and participation, achieved better representation and action from our governments, and started getting serious about saving the planet. If we can't do that, then we need to move aside and let in new blood who may well have the resolve and skill that we lacked at COP 10. For more information: http://unfccc.int Mexico Initiative Shows UNFF How to Cooperate with Civil Society Guadalajara, Mexico was the scene for a useful and productive meeting held January 25-28 on the future of the international arrangement on forests (IAF). The so-called “country-led initiative” – organized by Mexico and the US and attended by more than 160 representatives of governments, intergovernmental organizations and so-called major groups – including NGOs, IPOs and business groups, was designed to come up with ideas to help the UN Forum on Forests decide the future of the IAF at its fifth meeting in New York from May 16 - 27 (UNFF-5). Participants discussed the IAF's possible objectives, functions, components, ways of working, financing options and international and national roles. Major groups' representatives had the same right to speak as representatives from governments or intergovernmental organizations, making for a livelier and more cooperative spirit among the different sectors than that seen in official UNFF meetings. Every major group now plans to prepare reports for UNFF-5, and a Stakeholder Forum will be organized on May 12-13, just before the event, to express the views of civil society. In the short closing plenary, participants said that a final report to be presented at UNFF-5 would not try to express any consensus, but would instead include the whole range of opinions expressed in Guadalajara. More information: http://www.un.org/esa/forests
Branching Out: Forests to the People: The Message from the World Social Forum 25 th January 2005—about two hundred thousand people pour into the streets of the Brazilian city of Porto Allegre. Coming from places far and near, they sing, beat drums, dance, chant slogans and march, a spontaneous symphony, with the sky an inspiring, panoramic collage of flags and banners. The fifth World Social Forum begins by reiterating that there is still hope, and the world ends not with hegemony of the rich and powerful, with military aggression and exploitation and inequality masquerading as free trade. Instead, the Forum proclaims that the world the corporations and rich countries reject as merely a utopia is more real than its globally hawked counterpart, and as peoples' struggles across the world become stronger, each day that reality becomes more manifest. Okay, but where do forests fit into this evidently social—and perhaps more political than social—discourse? How do ‘environmental' concerns relate to the conflicts inherent in that discourse? Do these marches and political struggles tell us how the remaining rainforests can be protected, and global warming halted? Or, how do we save biodiversity, and ensure sustainability, while at the same time safeguarding the interests of the indigenous and other ecosystem peoples dependent on forests and other natural resources? After five days of discussion and debate about forests, land, water, mining, fishery, indigenous rights, gender and environmental and climate justice among activists, academics, community groups and NGOs, from Southern as well as Northern countries, it began to seem that one grand narrative (if wholesale plunder of resources, peoples and communities can be called grand) is unfolding throughout the globe. This narrative demolishes countries' boundaries and devours community spaces, social, ecological and cultural, redefining the imperatives for all our struggles. This is the story of capital—in the era of globalisation and liberal world trade. At a workshop organised by Friends of the Earth International (FOEI)—Nature for Sale—the panelists from Paraguay, Nigeria, England, Uruguay, Colombia and elsewhere talked about seemingly different things: forests and protected areas, plantations, carbon Sinks, militarization and so on. Yet on another level they were talking about the same thing—nature for sale, a nightmarish scenario of transnational corporations swooping down on the forests in hordes, chanting mantras of sustainability, environment and “participation”. They sketched a vision of fenced-off private national parks earning huge tourism revenues, and plantations stretching for hundreds of miles all around, just plantations and no life, monocultures of eucalyptus or pines sucking carbon from the air, carbon generated mostly by the northern countries. People's access to forests and forest resources controlled and curtailed, services intrinsic in nature are turned into tradable products. Not only the tangible—the wood, water and land, are being commodified, but also the intangible and abstract—for instance, the carbon a tree might absorb, and the aesthetic pleasures a forest might give. Global capital adopts ‘nature' and ‘community' as new market slogans and the market subverts, hijacks and internalizes the familiar concepts that activists have grown comfortable with. Words such as environment, conservation and sustainability, become suddenly alien and aggressive. Another workshop, co-organised by FoEI, and World Rainforest Movement (WRM), focused on forests and plantations as “an essential social issue”. Community activists from Latin American and Asian countries told what seemed to be the same story: corporations and International Financial Institutions and the state attacking land, forests and cultures defended by the communities. The discussions sent a clear message that forest struggles, like all struggles for people's rights over resources today, cannot afford insularity. Movements cannot survive unless they come together: agricultural workers, landless peasants, indigenous communities, fishworkers, artisans. And it is already happening: indigenous groups and landless peasants have been working together in Brazil, Colombia, Paraguay, Costa Rica and Ecuador. And in India, there is a conscious attempt to link the forest struggles more closely with the working class struggles. The WRM workshop “Another forestry profession is possible”—together with the Forest Strategy meeting co-organized by WRM, FoEI, National Forum of Forest People and Forest Workers (India) and Delhi Forum—addressed the long-term goals of forest struggles. The first meeting stressed that the entire concept of forestry was historically an offshoot of industrial and commercial imperatives, which in today's circumstances needs to be re-oriented in favour of effective community control over forest resources. Only then, participants said, can the forests and their bio-diversity be saved. The Forest Strategy Meeting—attended by representatives of several forest movements, community groups and NGOs from 13 countries—built upon this premise. It re-formulated the Mumbai Forest Initiative Statement of Principles, an outcome of a similar strategy meeting during 2004 World Social Forum in Mumbai. Indigenous and other forest-dependant peoples, according to the newly-revised Statement, should be the ones to decide how to govern their forests, and with guarantees from the governments. Forest-dependant peoples do not want the corporations, IFIs and the State inside their forests, telling them to move out of their homes, or bringing false messages of conservation. Participants at the meeting said that they planned to use the Statement not only with forest movements but also fraternal groups, and to link different forest struggles with each other globally, and with other anti-liberalization, anti-privatization and ant-globalisation struggles. De-fragment, step out, build bridges—and invert the narrative of the global marketplace: to me and many of my colleagues this was the essential Porto Allegre, WSF, January 2005. Of Gurts and Guts Forests may not have been explicitly on the agenda at the latest meeting of technical advisers to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in February in Bangkok, Thailand. But what went on there may have a big impact on them all the same. Three items stand out on the agenda of the Tenth Session of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA-10) to the CBD, held from 7-11 February: climate, biodiversity loss and genetic engineering. Climate Change First, a new Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group (AHTEG) on Biodiversity and Climate Change assigned itself the job of finding out how well ecosystems are likely to bear up both under climate change and the measures undertaken to adapt to it. The group plans to build on the work of a prior AHTEG, which investigated how the UN climate convention's mitigation plans, especially those that use land and forests to soak up carbon dioxide, might affect biodiversity. Finland offered to finance the work of the AHTEG and numerous other countries expressed their support for it. Australia and New Zealand – on behalf of the USA and others – countered that there was no point, since the Convention on Climate Change hasn't done anything on adaptation yet and should itself deal with the issue. Luckily, they were ignored by the rest. Loss of Biodiversity SBSTTA-10 also continued trying to figure out how to assess progress toward the vague CBD target of a “significant reduction” in the current rate of loss of biological diversity by 2010 – a target endorsed by the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg. Although delegates' discussions on this issue were full of fuzzy argumentation, they did surprise the audience pleasantly when they concluded that the “ecological footprints” of different countries on biodiversity should be measured as a means of better addressing the causes of biodiversity depletion. We'll have to wait and see what happens with this one! Lots of GURTS…. The SBSTTA almost slipped up, however, when it came to the issue of genetic engineering and genetic use restriction technologies (GURTS). GURTS render sterile the seeds produced by transgenic plants. According to the biotech industry, this is in order to prevent “inconveniences” that might be caused by the unwanted spread of transgenic trees and other species into the wild. Industry's real motivation for introducing GURTS, however, is to force farmers to buy their proprietary germplasm every growing season instead of saving seed from the previous crop. A previous AHTEG on Genetic Use Restriction Technologies had concluded, quite reasonably, that GURTS should stay in the lab, at least for the time being. In Bangkok, however, Canada – on behalf of the USA, and with help of Argentina and Australia – vehemently opposed this finding and tried to undermine the report's value, alleging formal irregularities in the way the group conducted its work. They utterly challenged the patience of the other delegations and almost succeeded in pushing through a recommendation that field trials of plant varieties loaded with GURTS be conducted and that efforts to strengthen the capacity of countries to use this so-called “terminator technology” be carried out. The recommendation's text couldn't have been better suited to the US-based biotech industry's needs, and its hand was clearly visible in the text. Luckily, however, Peru, Norway, Cuba, Liberia and the European Community opposed the recommendation and reason prevailed: GURTS will stay in the lab. … But Lack of Political GUTS As SBSTTA is the main scientific advisory body for the Conference of the Parties of the CBD, I always find myself hoping that it will make sound recommendations, based on scientific arguments, on substantive issues. In Bangkok, I wanted to hear a clear warning to all governments about the serious risks we face due to climate change. I wanted to see a united front of concerned scientists against the threats posed by industry's “terminator technology”. I wanted to see concrete targets, like 50 per cent less deforestation by 2010. Regrettably, however, all these things require political guts, and one may as well expect pears from an elm tree as guts from the scientists attending SBSTTA. I fear the prospects are for more reports, more fuzzy criticism and more compromising positions. For more information: http://www.biodiv.org
Indigenous Participation in Access and Benefit Sharing Blocked The latest meeting on how the benefits of biodiversity are to be shared under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was a lesson in how attempts to make international negotiations more democratic can be undermined by a few countries. At the Third Meeting of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Working Group on Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) held 14-18 February in Bangkok, Thailand, Indigenous participants protested that their “core proposals” were being ignored. Indigenous delegates, speaking through the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity (IIFB), were concerned that the international regime proposed so far for access and benefit sharing would lead to “gross violations” of “inherent, proprietary and inalienable” Indigenous rights to lands, biological resources, and traditional knowledge. Calling for “much more discussion . . . with the full participation of Indigenous Peoples,” they affirmed their “right to say no to access to our lands, territories, knowledge, and resources.” They were not at the meeting, they said, “to facilitate access to our traditional knowledge nor the genetic resources in our territories”. The IIFB went on to complain that, “without any discussion on the floor proposing to delete reference to human rights”, the text for the new regime “emerged without any firm commitment by Parties to meet human rights obligations.” This flew in the face of the requirement that any proposed international regime “achieve consistency between human rights law and ABS laws.” The IIFB also expressed doubt that the Certificate of Origin proposed by the CBD to identify the origin of genetic material in patent applications “would be able to respect the customary laws and practices of Indigenous Peoples”. The IIFB proposed bringing Indigenous participation in the Working Group up to the level already achieved in another CBD Working Group, the Working Group on Article 8(j) (on traditional knowledge), instead of being restricted to one collective intervention per agenda item. It suggested:
This proposal was read in both Sub-Working Groups on the second day of the meeting, and Parties were intensively lobbied for their support. On the final day in Plenary, no country opposed the proposal – but a number of key Northern countries requested further time to consider the implications. Canada sank to an all-time low in diplomacy by pretending it was hearing the proposal for the very first time and even complained that it was difficult to track the intent of the proposal because of the speed at which it was being read out. Although Switzerland helpfully reminded delegates that the proposal had already been discussed thoroughly, the result of Canada's actions, together with the fact that Australia's and New Zealand's support was only lukewarm and ambiguous, was that no decision to increase indigenous participation was reached at this meeting. In its closing statement to the Plenary, the IIFB said it was “seriously disturbed” that the Parties were unable to abide by the requirement to support the “full and effective participation of Indigenous Peoples” but said that it would “look to the future and encourage Parties to proceed in good faith on our proposal.” Indigenous Peoples were not the only ones whose views on ABS were squelched in February. Klaus Toepfer, Executive Director of the UN Environment Program (UNEP), was forced by the US one week after the meeting to dissociate himself from his statement to the opening plenary that “conservation of biological diversity as called for by the CBD is not possible under a global regime of private monopoly rights”. Toepfer had also explained that the World Trade Organization's Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights agreement (TRIPs) contradicted the CBD. While applauded by NGOs and many Southern country delegates, Toepfer's statement swiftly came under attack from Northern countries. For more information: http://www.biodiv.org
Environmental considerations should be integrated into any effort to achieve the Millenium Development Goals (MDGs), the 8 goals that were agreed at the UN Millenium Summit in 2000. This was the key message from over 60 environment ministers who gathered from 21-25 February in Nairobi for the 23rd session of the Governing Council of the UN Environment Program (UNEP)/Global Ministerial Environment Forum. Some of the other outcomes of the ministerial gathering were less inspiring. The business part of the meeting was dominated by all too familiar fights over money, budgets, and financial resources, and whether UNEP should receive mandatory, differentiated financial contributions from all countries. But the meeting did adopt the Bali Strategic Plan on capacity-building and technology transfer, which gives UNEP a very clear mandate to help countries equip themselves to deal with environmental challenges like deforestation and other forms of biodiversity loss. Unfortunately, as the Earth Negotiations Bulletin noted, the plan is seen as “a skeleton in need of fat and muscle”. Without funding and clear guidance, UNEPs capacity-building efforts will have little effectiveness or political impact. UNEP and Forests The lack of flesh on the Bali plan is also worrying for those concerned with forests. UNEP still has very few resources dedicated to this ecosystem, which is home to more than 60 per cent of the earth's known terrestrial biodiversity. It can thus no longer take the lead in forest-related discussions, even though it is supposedly the world's leading official environmental body. The result has been an intergovernmental forest policy that focuses unduly on timber and conventional industrial forestry. Also worrying is the fact that the first report on whether progress is being made in reaching the target “to reverse forest loss”, which is one of the four concrete targets under the Millenium Development Goal to ensure environmental sustainability by 2015, merely counts trees instead of probing more serious forest data. Bizarrely, the progress report claims that the target has been “met” in East Asia, although it is known that countries like China have compensated their dramatic loss of real forests mainly with massive monoculture tree plantations, including plantations of genetically modified trees. This lapse stood out in sharp contrast to the statement of Klaus Toepfer, Executive Director of UNEP, who pointed out at a press conference prior to the ministerial meeting that forests must be distinguished from monoculture tree plantations, particularly in light of their different impacts on watersheds. Forests, Plantations and Poverty Throughout the ministerial consultations, Ministers pointed to the crucial role of ecosystems in poverty alleviation. Bakary Kante, a UNEP director, described how, during his youth in Senegal, his own family lived quite well on a daily income of around US$12, due to the fact that most of the things the family needed were found in the nearby forests and other ecosystems. Kante's point should have reminded the ministers that losing forests and blocking poor women and men's access to forests means impoverishment. Replacing biologically diverse forests by genetically modified tree plantations means an equally great impoverishment. If the Millenium Development Goals are to be taken seriously, it is of crucial importance that progress toward (or away from) Target 14 is monitored with real data about real forests.
International Tropical Timber Disagreement Continues The United Nations has so far failed to make any real progress in negotiating a replacement for the International Tropical Timber Agreement (ITTA), due to expire in December 2006. Delegates to the second part of the United Nations Conference for the Negotiation of a Successor Agreement to the ITTA, held from 14–18 February in Geneva, Switzerland, could not agree whether the scope of the agreement should be broadened to include environmental services, or even tropical forests in general. They also disagreed on funding arrangements, voting rights, and the obligation of countries to submit statistics and other information on tropical timber. The negotiations on the 11-year-old agreement will be continued in June. For more information: http://www.unctad.org
More information on these and other intergovernmental meetings can be found at: http://www.iisd.ca/linkages.
This publication was made possible through a financial contribution
from Netherlands Development Assistance. |
 |
|||
|
|||
|
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
