NGO and IPO statement on IFF Category III
Geneva, 11 May 1999

The following is a joint NGO and Indigenous Peoples' Organizations (IPOs) statement made at the third meeting of the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests which recently took place in Geneva (May 3-14, 1999). Category III of the IFF's work program is meant to address the future of international forest policy after the final meeting of the IFF in Jan/Feb 2000, specifically: "International Arrangements and Mechanisms to Promote the Management, Conservation and Sustainable Development of all Types of Forests". Discussions on this category have been quite heated with some countries pushing for a legally-binding Forest Convention and others strongly against.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. My name is Ricardo Carrere, and I am presenting this statement on behalf of 16 NGOs from 48 countries, and 2 Indigenous Peoples' Organizations, whose names are listed at the bottom of the written version of this statement, which is available at the back of this room.

In the seven years since the Rio Earth Summit, a great deal of dialogue on forests has taken place. At the same time, over 100 million hectares of the world's forests have been lost or degraded. While dialogue has some value, non-governmental and indigenous peoples' organizations are extremely disappointed and frustrated with the lack of impact on the ground from the IPF/IFF process. For whatever reasons, governments seem either unwilling or unable to take substantive action to solve the world's most pressing forest problems. Now we must all question where to go from here.

Certainly governments have made many forest-related commitments in the last decade (e.g., the legally-binding Conventions on Biological Diversity, Climate Change and Desertification, the UNCED Forest Principles, Agenda 21's Chapter 11, the ITTO's "Year 2000" target, etc.). Two years ago, the IPF Proposals for Action were added to these commitments. If these were all implemented and complied with, we believe that significant progress could be made. Unfortunately, little compliance or implementation has occurred.

Our organizations have a set of very clear expectations of what needs to be done to rescue the world's forests, indigenous peoples and other forest-dependent peoples from the many clearly identified threats they continue to face. We feel it is our responsibilty to judge whether effective progress is made between now and IFF 4 against these expectations.

Beginning immediately, each country should initiate a process at the national level, with the full participation of all major groups, to develop and implement a national strategy and plan for implementation of, and compliance with, all IPF proposals for action, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and other forest-related international agreements. This strategy must include:

1) a comparison of existing government programs, directly or indirectly related to forests, with the IPF proposals for action and other international commitments, to identify any gaps in effective implementation and compliance, and possible contradictions between these commitments and existing government programs;
2) a step-by-step timetable for implementation, review, and reporting;
3) identification and initiation of mechanisms by which all interested major groups, government agencies, and other parties will be involved in the implementation process, including in monitoring and reporting roles, and by which these parties will have access to all information they need to participate effectively. In addition a list of all parties currently involved in the process, and the nature of their involvement; and
4) a description of any new programs that have been, or need to be initiated to achieve the effective implementation of these proposals and agreements, and a clear plan and timetable for initiating such programs.

At IFF 4, we will ask each country to present a report on its progress.

Mr. Chairman, the IFF process has not led to action, it has been dominated by narrow economic interests, has used outdated procedures for major group participation, and has often ignored or duplicated the work of existing agreements and initiatives such as the CBD. This type of process must not be continued.

Before we can decide whether to support any future new mechanism or mechanisms, we would like to make our expectations very clear. At a minimum, such mechanisms must:

1 - Be truly innovative and significantly different than the IPF/IFF process;
2 - Focus on implementation of the IPF proposals for action at both national and international levels;
3 - Create an effective international monitoring and reporting mechanism for such implementation;
4 - Create enhanced means of participation for civil society and major groups in the intergovernmental process itself and in implementation processes at both national and international levels;
5 - Address the real underlying causes and non-forest-sector sources of forest mismanagement, degradation and loss; and
6 - Create a new form of synergy and cooperation among existing international forest-related agreements and institutions, clarifying their relationship with the WTO, ILO, and other non-forest-sector institutions and agreements, and including a revision of the existing ITFF structure and process to ensure transparency and strengthen participation by major groups.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, we would like to announce three specific contributions that our organizations will make to this process:

- First, we will initiate a monitoring and review of the implementation, by selected countries in different regions, of the IPF Proposals for Action, and we will report on our findings at IFF 4;

- Second, we will continue to explore the creation of new, independent, non-governmental initiatives outside the intergovernmental arena, in partnership with other major groups, the private sector, and supportive governments. Such initiatives could include new dispute-settlement and accountability mechanisms such as a "forest tribunal", additional market mechanisms like the Forest Stewardship Council, enhanced monitoring mechanisms like Global Forest Watch, etc.; and

- Third, based on the IPF implementation work of countries, and on the nature of proposals for a new intergovernmental process beyond the IFF, we will, at IFF 4, take a public position on whether the intergovernmental dialogue should continue beyond the year 2000.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to present our views and plan of action.

Signatories

International Alliance of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples of the Tropical Forests
Asociación Napguana - Panamá
Sobrevivencia / Friends of the Earth - Paraguay
Greenpeace - U.S.A.
Friends of Siberian Forests - Russia
Sierra Club - U.S.A. / Canada
National Wildlife Federation - U.S.A.
Institute of Cultural Affairs - Ghana
Environmental Investigation Agency - U.K.
Worldforests - Scotland
Friends of the Earth-US - U.S.A.
World Rainforest Movement - International
Netherlands Committee for IUCN - The Netherlands
Trees for Life - Scotland
Forests Monitor - U.K.
Biodiversity Action Network - U.S.A.
Red Latinoamericana de Bosques - Regional
WWF - International