- United Nations Forum on Forests: Highlights from the sidelines

From May 3 to 14, 2004, governments from around the world met in the hallowed halls of the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland for the fourth session of the United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF4). Eleven members of the Global Caucus on Community Based Forest Management attended the first week of UNFF4, with the aim of learning about the UNFF process, and where possible, to advocate for community based forest management. It is fair to say that the Caucus’ expectations for UNFF4 were low in terms of what we anticipated governments would achieve through their deliberations. However, the Caucus had high expectations of what civil society could and should achieve at UNFF4, and through other avenues – in the sidelines and in the margins, perhaps entirely outside of the UN system. Highlights of UNFF4 therefore come from side events, side meetings, and informal discussions in the corridors.

Day 1 of UNFF4 opened in plenary with governments lauding their progress and success implementing the Proposals for Action agreed upon at the Intergovernmental Panel and Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IPF/IFF). With over 270 Proposals for Action to implement (and on a voluntary basis), the Caucus presented a statement to the plenary, urging governments to implement our top five IPF/IFF Proposals for Action relevant to community based forest management (The complete list of IPF/IFF Proposals for Action can be found online at http://www.un.org/esa/forests/pdf/ipf-iff-proposalsforaction.pdf , and the Caucus Statement at http://www.forestsandcommunities.org/PDF/Caucus%20CBFM%20Statement%20UNFF4.pdf ). Three members of the Caucus were also invited to make presentations during a side event organized by the Indigenous Peoples Alliance. In the corridors of the UN, members of the Caucus had opportunities to network and collaborate with other civil society groups, similarly relegated to the sidelines at the UNFF. Caucus members also met representatives from their home delegations.

UNFF4 featured a (supposedly) new and improved attempt at a ‘multi stakeholder dialogue’ (MSD). The MSD was intended to give each major group 3-minutes of airtime, followed by a moderated discussion. Working with the NGO and Indigenous Peoples major groups, the Caucus put together statements for the major thematic issues including Social and Cultural Aspects of Forests, Traditional Forest Related Knowledge and Capacity Building and Partnerships. However, any improvement in the MSD seems very small in terms of actual participation: What good is a multi-stakeholder dialogue unless the comments of indigenous peoples, community representatives, and other members of civil society are actually incorporated within the resolutions of UNFF? As Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB) reports: “The fact that the resolution on social and cultural aspects of forests included merely a weak reference to indigenous peoples only served to reinforce the perception that UNFF does not reflect the concerns of civil society” (Vol. 13(116), 10). In many respects, the MSD is the smoke and mirrors clouding the reality of ‘participation’ at UNFF – it enables the illusion of participation while the real negotiations go on as usual by government elites articulating traditional forestry and forest-trade arguments. UNFF 5 (10-21 May 2005) will review its effectiveness for making demonstrable difference in sustainable forest management on the ground. It is telling that this review will completely exclude input from members of civil society. We can only hope to comment from the sidelines after the entire review is done!

Doubt and skepticism about the utility of the UNFF therefore linger and loom. After many days of discussions, resolutions could not be adopted. Disagreements occurred on several fronts, over references to indigenous and local communities rights in particular. As reported in ENB: “The EU, opposed by Canada, reiterated the importance of reference to the rights of the indigenous and local communities, with the US adding ‘interests’” (Vol. 13(116), 105). This lack of support for indigenous rights OVER THEIR OWN KNOWLEDGE is disheartening. So were suggestions by the United States to facilitate increased “access” to Traditional Forest Related Knowledge (TFRK), when "access" by US corporations has largely meant biopiracy!

A resolution was reached on the social and cultural aspects of forests, highlighting the role of forests in poverty eradication, and the need for effective participation of all relevant stakeholders. But as noted above, indigenous peoples and NGOs at UNFF expressed concern that the sole reference to indigenous peoples, “was lacking in substance” (ENB Vol. 13(116), 10). And as usual, the oh-so general resolution says everything and nothing all at once, encouraging “countries to explore options for decentralization of decision making on SFM” and at the same time encouraging “countries to promote the role of the private sector” (Vol. 13(116), 6). Hey, here’s an idea: let’s decentralize forests to private corporations! Oops, that’s already a reality… Resolutions on Monitoring Assessment and reporting and Criteria and Indicators emphasized everything under the sun, but most importantly - that all reporting would be voluntary! Further details on the resolutions can be found in the ENB summary ( http://www.iisd.ca/forestry/unff/unff4/ ) and on the UNFF web page ( http://www.un.org/esa/forests/index.html ).

While there were positive outcomes from Caucus participation at UNFF such as collaboration with the Indigenous Peoples Alliance, networking, and a crash-course on international relations - the official program was ultimately disappointing. As ENB reports: “One point of clear consensus in Geneva was that UNFF has failed to deliver on its stated aims, and that continuing the arrangement in its current form is neither politically viable nor desirable” (Vol. 13(116), 11). As UNFF approaches its 5-year review, it will need to figure out “how to jumpstart the political will of governments” to actually “induce action on the ground” (11). But as many Caucus members know, relying on the government is not always one’s best strategy – results will come from civil society, in particularly, when local communities and Indigenous Peoples assert their rights and assume their responsibilities to manage, use and control their forests.

By: Lisa Ambus and Jessica Dempsey, Global Caucus on Community Based Forest Management

The Global Caucus on Community Based Forest Management first emerged in Bali during the lead-up to the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002. The common vision in the Caucus is 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. Updates on the Caucus are currently available at http://www.forestsandcommunities.org Join our online discussion group by sending a note to: globalcbfm@yahoogroups.com . Note: Views expressed above are those of the authors and not necessarily shared with all members of the Global Caucus on CBFM.

---

top

- Community View from UNFF: Interview with Freddy Molina, ACICAFOC

Freddy Molina is a board member of the Asociacion Coordinadora Indigena y Campesina de Agroforesteria Comunitaria Centroamericana (ACICAFOC). In English, this translates into the Coordinating Indigenous and Peasant Farmers Association on Community Agro-Forestry in Central America. ACICAFOC is a non-profit, social community-based organization from Central America, which brings together associations, cooperative societies, federations and grass roots organizations lead by small and medium agro forestry producers, indigenous peoples and farmer peasants. These groups work for the access, use and management of the natural resources, seeking food security and economic sustainability for their communities in harmony with the environment. ACICAFOC is also a founding member of the Global Caucus on Community Based Forest Management. Mr. Molina was recently at the United Nations Forum on Forests and answered some questions about his community, forests, and the UNFF.

1.Where do you live?

I live in one of the neighbouring communities of the Maya Biosphere Reserve in the District of Petén, Guatemala, C.A. This reserve is two million one hundred thousand hectares in size, and is made up of national parks, biological corridors, community concessions and industrial concessions.

2. Tell us about the community and forests where you live

My community bears the name of a tree, "El Caoba" (the mahogany tree -- Swietenia macrophylla) and nine (9) communities belong to my organization. We came together around our community forest concession, as its natural guardians, across 100 km. With regard to our forests, we used to consider them our enemy. We would deforest our lands to plant corn and beans and create pastureland for cattle. Now the forests are our allies, since the Government of Guatemala has given us a community forest concession, which provides us with a livelihood, education and health through sustainable management.

3. What does ACICAFOC do, and what is your role in the organization?

ACICACOF is a community-based process that belongs to us. It has supported us a great deal in developing local capacity, it has helped us see things differently, and has given us a new outlook through experience-sharing and by clearing the way for us at all levels where we now participate actively -- not like before, when others spoke for us to achieve projects that would supposedly benefit our communities. I am the President of this distinctly community-based Central American organization.

4. What are the main problems faced by your community and your forests?

We have begun generating jobs, improving the quality of life, training, decreasing poverty, changing attitudes, fostering respect for the forest and teamwork. But so far we have not managed to involve all of our neighbours because these are new processes. Those who have not yet benefited from these processes continue to destroy the forest, which is why we are creating comprehensive programs linked to the forest, such as non-timber resources, eco-tourism, environmental services for organic production, etc.

5. What is your national government’s approach to the rights of indigenous peoples and communities, and to forest management?

Thanks to international conventions, external pressure, the involvement of our indigenous people in the government and the peace agreements, a lot of ground has been gained. There is still a long way to go, even though indigenous peoples are receiving some recognition and racism has decreased in recent times. In relation to forests, the issue of community forest concessions in Guatemala is an outcome of the peace agreements (nearly half a million hectares in community hands).

6. Is this your first time at the UNFF? What do you think of this process? What do you think you have gotten out of this process, or what do you expect to get out of it? Are you happy you participated, and do you feel that it was a good investment of your time?

This is my second time. This process is good and can be even better. I had the opportunity to give a presentation on our experience. I think that my experience has strengthened those of us who have always believed that the best way to save our forests is to involve communities in sustainable management. I also showed that the Guatemalan experience must be taken into account.

7. What did you think of your government’s behaviour at UNFF 4? Particularly in relation to the rights of indigenous peoples and communities? And what did you think of the way the other Central American countries acted?

I returned to my country very happy, there was a good representative of the Government. We managed to coordinate our position with regard to the rights of indigenous peoples and communities. I think it is important to have a good team with a Central American influence.

8. If you had to send a message to the UNFF regarding a recommendation for “action”, what would it be? What could the UNFF do for the communities that depend on the forests of Guatemala?

I would recommend worldwide community dialog, and joining forces to achieve international support that is direct, not through middlemen. We should also always make sure that new alliances, communities and other groups have strategic plans aimed at true community empowerment; we must put a stop to making money off of the poverty and ignorance of our peoples.

For more information on ACICAFOC, see http://www.acicafoc.net/

Interviewed by Jessica Dempsey

---

top

- Genetically modified trees cause memory loss

Maybe it's something in the water in Geneva that causes temporary memory loss. Or maybe it's the coffee. Whatever, the participants at the fourth meeting of the United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF-4) held in Geneva in May seemed to be suffering from a form of collective amnesia.

Five months ago, the ninth Conference of the Parties (COP-9) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) reached a decision that will promote industrial forestry projects and genetically modified (GM) tree plantations. COP-9 decided to allow the North to establish plantations, including GM tree plantations, in the South under the Kyoto Protocol's "Clean Development Mechanism". The plantations are supposed to absorb carbon dioxide and store carbon.

This decision has major implications for forests and people around the world. It effectively provides a subsidy to corporations and Northern governments encouraging them to take over huge tracts of land in the South and plant them with GM trees.

But delegates at the two week-long UNFF-4 were strangely reluctant to discuss the implications of this decision.

On the third day of the meeting, Henning Wuester of the UNFCCC talked for eleven minutes about COP-9. Wuester's presentation was fascinating, if you are fascinated by superficial references to modalities, procedures, reporting of emissions and that sort of thing. Unfortunately, Wuester forgot to mention that COP-9 decided to include GM tree plantations in the Clean Development Mechanism. That the delegates to UNFF-4 might want to discuss some of the implications of this decision must have simply slipped his mind.

Not everyone at UNFF-4 forgot about GM trees. Some of us turned up specifically to talk about them. I had the pleasure of chairing a side event organised by Hannu Hyvönen of the Finnish Union of Ecoforestry. Hannu presented a petition to a representative of the UNFF Secretariat demanding that the UN bans GM trees. The petition was signed by more than 140 organisations and over 1,500 people.

Anne Petermann of the US-based Global Justice Ecology Project and Mikko Vartiainen from the People's Biosafety Organisation in Finland joined Hannu on the panel. In his presentation, Hannu described how GM trees are the most recent and perhaps the most dangerous development of a model of industrial forestry that has had devastating impacts on the world's forests. Anne described the risks associated with GM trees. If GM trees crossed with forest trees we would have "native forests that kill insects, ruin soil ecology, have no food for wildlife, distribute toxic pollen, exhaust the soil and deplete the ground water", she said. Mikko explained how the introduction of GM trees contravenes the precautionary principle and is illegal under international law.

In the discussion following the presentations none of the 30 participants at the side event, including 12 government delegates, put forward any arguments in favour of continuing research into GM trees or establishing field trials of GM trees.

Macarthy Afolabi Oyebo from the Department of Forestry in Nigeria explained that the legislation that his government has put in place "makes it almost impossible to bring GMOs into the country".

Another case of memory loss, I'm afraid. Oyebo must have forgotten that a three day meeting on "Facilitating Biotechnology in West Africa" took place in Nigeria the previous week. At the opening ceremony the Nigerian government signed an agreement with the US government aimed at promoting biotechnology and GM products in Nigeria.

The Times of Nigeria reported the agreement under the headline "Nigeria poised for biotech take-off". The Times reported that Rick Roberts from the US Embassy "charged Nigeria to embrace biotechnology".

Back at the UNFF-4 side event, Safiya Samman from the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service commented that in the US, "We do have a regulatory body and assessments are carried out of any GM plants."

The USDA is responsible for regulating biotechnology, through its Animal Plant Health Inspection Agency. However, as Anne Petermann pointed out, the regulatory system in the US leaves much to be desired.

US-based ArborGen is the world's biggest forestry biotechnology company. The company currently has 51 field trials of GM poplar, eucalyptus, pine, sweetgum and cottonwood trees in the US. ArborGen's scientists have genetically manipulated the trees to have less lignin, to grow faster, to be sterile or to be resistant to herbicide.

ArborGen was formed in 1999 by three huge timber companies (Fletcher Challenge Forests, International Paper and Westvaco) and a New Zealand-based biotechnology research company (Genesis Research and Development). In 2000, Rubicon took over Fletcher Challenge Forests' involvement in the company.

ArborGen, according to a 1999 press release, aims "to position itself to market new advances in forestry biotechnology to the world's tree growers in the shortest possible time".

If ever there was a company that needed to be carefully regulated, ArborGen is it. Yet the USDA has only turned down one of ArborGen's applications for GM tree field trials and that was on a technicality. ArborGen has not submitted an environmental impact assessment for any of its GM tree field trials.

Of course USDA's Safiya Samman knew this. Sadly, in common with most of the delegates at UNFF-4 she was suffering from GM tree-induced amnesia and she just forgot to mention it.

By: Chris Lang, e-mail: http://chrislang.org