Biological diversity means the variety of life on Earth. This diversity is an essential condition for the survival of mankind and all living creatures that surround it. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) defines biodiversity as the variability among living organisms from all sources including, among others, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are a part. This includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems.

Forests are ecosystems. Hence, the Biodiversity Convention is fully applicable to forests. The CBD is not about the conservation of biodiversity within forests, or the conservation of high conservation value forests only, it is about the conservation, sustainable use and equitable sharing of the benefits of ALL forests

The purpose of this dossier is to provide a relatively comprehensive overview of all the CBD articles and decisions of the Conference of the Parties (COP) that are relevant for forests. A number of COP decisions are specifically dedicated to forests, but there are many other decisions, on traditional knowledge, incentives, education, the ecosystem approach and even agro-biodiversity, that are highly relevant for forests too. The easiest way to highlight the importance of these decisions for forests is undoubtedly to simply replace the term "ecosystem" or "biodiversity" with "forest ecosystem" or "forest biodiversity". For that reason, I have taken the liberty of adding (forest) in the description of a number of these decisions, even though the text of the decisions themselves does not highlight any specific component of biodiversity.

Regrettably, the ambitious objective of the CBD to conserve all forest ecosystems in the world is partly undone by the large number of so-called "exemptory clauses" in the text of the Convention itself. An exemptory clause means that a country need implement an obligation in a convention only "when possible and appropriate", "when needed" or "subject to national legislation". These exemptory clauses can be found throughout the convention, making it a very "soft" instrument. Some legal experts have even stated that the CBD should be seen as a framework convention, and that its ambitious but very vaguely formulated clauses can only be turned into action if they are elaborated in the form of protocols. However, from a legal point of view, to what extent an exemptory clause can be invoked by governments is subject to the meaning of the Article and the overall spirit of the Convention. It will be difficult for most OECD countries, for example, to argue that forest conservation and sustainable use is not possible or appropriate in their countries.

The objectives of the CBD are to conserve (forest) biodiversity, to sustainably use (forest) biodiversity, and to equitably share the benefits of (forest) genetic resources. People have often pointed at this triple objective to defend the social nature of the instrument. However it would, unfortunately, be an exaggeration to call the CBD a socially oriented convention. The CBD itself includes only scarce references to the rights and needs of local communities, Indigenous Peoples and other stakeholders. The negotiators of the convention probably felt they had enough of a hard time trying to defend the rights and interests of millions of small and large animals and plants, and they did not feel obliged to include clear references to the rights of people too. After the CBD was signed, in 1992, social awareness among CBD negotiators steadily increased, and it is now admitted that the full involvement of local communities in conservation efforts is a pre-condition for successful forest and other biodiversity management. Negotiators have also become more aware of the value of traditional knowledge and traditional ecosystem management as practiced by Indigenous Peoples. But they still tend to treat Indigenous Peoples and local communities as mere instruments. For too many conservationists, participation is still a tool for effective forest conservation rather than a right of these Peoples and communities themselves.

These unofficial characteristics are reflected in the way forests are dealt with under the CBD. The negotiators were not eager to take up the issue as they were aware of the political loopholes, but once action was needed, from COP2 onwards, they agreed upon some heroic recommendations. Yet the emphasis remained on scientific research and analysis.

It is also significant that COPs that were attended by a large number of forest-oriented NGOs and IPOs, as a result produced far more socially aware recommendations than COPs few NGOs and IPOs were able to attend. For these and other reasons, it is of utmost importance that NGOs and IPOs become more involved in the forest-related discussions of this important legally binding instrument.