North America Workshop
Winnipeg, Manitoba
October 1-2, 1998

Executive Summary
Prepared by Juliette Moussa and HansVerolme
Biodiverisity Action Network (BIONET)

Case Studies on Underlying Causes of Deforestation and Forest Degradation (Day 1)

• Deforestation and Social Conflict in the Chimalapas Rainforest (Mexico) David Barkin, Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana/Unidad Xochimilco and Miguel Angel Garcia, Maderas del Pueblo del Sureste
• Deforestation in Alaska's Coastal Rainforest: Causes and Solutions (United States) Rick Steiner, University of Alaska
• Deforestation in the Meseta Purepecha, Michoacan (Mexico) Cecilia Zaragosa Hernandez, UNORCA (presented by Eusebio Hernandez Rojas)
• Underlying causes of Deforestation and Forest Degradation in the Southeastern United States (United States) Doug Sloane, The Southeast Forest Project
• Boreal Forest Management in Northern Quebec: Ecological and Cultural Issues (Canada) Canada - Alan Penn, Grand Council of the Crees

Lunch-time Short Presentations (Day 1)

• Underlying Causes of Deforestation and Forest Degradation the Boreal Forest Natural Region of Alberta, Canada Richard Thomas - Independent

• Biodiversity Conservation in Canada's Model Forest Network Mike Waldram - Manitoba Model Forest

Parallel Sessions of Poster Presentations (Day 2)

• Deforestation and Forest Degradation in British Columbia - Canada: Potential Solutions Paul Mitchell-Banks - Central Coast Consulting

• Community Involvement in Natural Resource Management in Toplitepec, Guerrero - Mexico Rogelio Alquisiras Burgos - UNORCA

• Global Forest Watch - Canada Gaile Whelan-Enns - Consultant

• Communities and Forest Management in Canada and the United States Claudia D'Andrea - Working Group on Community Involvement in Forest Management

• Incorporating Biodiveristy Conservation in Forest Operations Caroline Caza Leon - Wildlife Habitat Canada

• Underlying Causes of the Increased Hardwood Utilization in the Boreal Forest of the Three Western Provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba Don Sullivan - Taiga Rescue Network North America

Additional submissions received

• The Underlying Causes of Deforestation: A Case Study in Northern Idaho, USA (working draft) William J. Snape III and Katherine M. Carlton - Defenders of Wildlife

• Forest Restoration and Conservation: Challenges and Opportunities based on a Systematic Study of the Demand for Forest Products Jaime Navia - Grupo Interdisciplinario de Tecnología Rural Apropriada

• Searching for the Underlying Causes of Deforestation (working draft) Doug MacCleery - United States Forest Service

• Forests Forever: Response to Chip Mill Issues in the South Ross E. (Pete) Thompson - Pulp & Paperworker's' Resource Council (PPRC)

INTRODUCTION

The North American Workshop to Address the Underlying Causes of Deforestation and Forest Degradation was co-hosted by Biodiversity Action Network (BIONET, USA) and Taiga Rescue Network North America (Canada).

The group included 22 representatives of NGOs, Community-based Organizations and Indigenous Peoples; 3 Academics; 1 Scientist; 6 Government and Intergovernmental Organizations representatives; 6 representatives of Labor and Industry; and some others.

Hans Verolme and Juliette Moussa (BIONET) gave short opening remarks regarding the background for this initiative and how BIONET came to be the focal point for the North American component of this initiative to contribute to the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests(IFF)' work program. With underlying causes on the agenda for substantive discussion at the third session of the IFF in May 1999, this workshop was scheduled to take advantage of the opportunity to bring concrete recommendations to address underlying causes to the intergovernmental table, through a multi-stakeholder process inspired by on-the-ground case studies.

On the first day, after the presentation of the case studies and shorter, lunch-time, presentations, participants split into three working groups. Each group identified the major underlying causes of deforestation and forest degradation in one of the three countries in North America, and ranked them in importance. The groups were intentionally heterogeneous in order to facilitate the exchange of perspectives from participants coming from different countries.

This executive summary version of the workshop results has been compiled for quick and easy dissemination to participants and other interested individuals. A full report will be available in early 1999. In the meantime, for the full text of the case studies and for more on the initiative, please visit BIONET's website at http://www.igc.org/bionet.

MAJOR UNDERLYING CAUSES BY COUNTRY

• Mexico Working Group
  The group identified the lack of empowerment of affected communities in general and indigenous women in particular; the effects of drug trafficking and forest fires; corruption, impunity and the inadequate enforcement of existing laws; and the dominance of industry interests in the way that forests are managed as significant issues. All of these seemed to be encompassed in the fundamental flaws in the current economic development model that embodies large scale, investment intensive infrastructure. These flaws are manifested in the way that forest ecosystems are valued, and lead to high demand and unsustainable consumption levels of timber products.
  Population growth was seen by some to be an underlying cause in Mexico, but consensus was not reached on this item.

• Canada Working Group
  Discussion focused on the differences between the ways in which forests are valued and treated according to particular interests - e.g. for timber output versus conservation. Issues of land tenure, taxes/tariffs, consumption (mostly by the U.S.), cultural differences, institutional capacity, and public participation were addressed. The group ended up identifying the following major underlying causes in Canada:
  • lack of recognition of multiple values;
  • institutional fragmentation; and
  • an economy largely based on the extraction and use of natural resources

• United States Working Group
  The group identified issues from "human nature" to differing definitions of "forestation", addressing free markets, the desire for individual security, and the relationship between these economic forces and individual action as leading to deforestation and forest degradation in the United States. An important point was made about the political and legal differences that exist between public and private lands. The major underlying causes identified were:
  • inadequate institutional capability to provide echnical and financial support and assistance to small private forest landowners;
  • lack of investment in monitoring and research;
  • patchwork systems of laws and responsibilities;
  • undervaluation of forests and the goods and services they provide;
  • lack of recognition of the economic diversity of forests;
  • perverse incentives;
  • pressures exerted by trade and globalization; and
  • certain aspects of human behavior, such as the competitive nature of humans, and greed

THEMATIC AREAS DISCUSSION AND PROPOSED SOLUTIONS

On the second day, based on plenary presentation of the results of the previous day's working groups, the group again split into three, this time based on broad thematic areas. The purpose was to concentrate discussion on a few underlying causes in order to arrive at specific, action-oriented solutions to address those underlying causes. The different underlying causes clustered into three categories, and formed the basis for the discussions in the working groups on the second day. These were:

1- "The Economic Development Model" - which included issues of consumption and demand, values, incentives, perspectives, trade and competition;

2- "The Nature of Human Relationships and Social Organization". This group discussed issues of law, policy, ethics, corruption, autonomy, and communication between stakeholders; and

3- "Science and Information" - which addressed the lack of adequate information to combat deforestation and forest degradation and the failure to apply existing knowledge. It should be noted that some felt that adequate information exists and that only its application was lacking.

Working group 1: "The Economic Development Model"

An important observation made by this group was that there are significant sub-regional differences - between Mexico, the United States, and Canada - which necessitate setting different objectives for the different countries. For the United States and Canada, a moratorium on old-growth cutting was strongly supported by some participants as a way to halt unsustainable consumption, but consensus was never reached as to whether this was a realistic, or even desirable, objective.
Similarities were noted between situation of native peoples in Mexico and Canada, especially with regards to their control over natural resources. Specific recommendations proposed for the three stated goals of reducing consumption; increasing autonomy and local control over natural resources; and establishing the appropriate legal framework to regulate large investment; were as follows:

Reduction of consumption

• Aim for reduction of consumption at the global level - as opposed to focusing on "developed" countries alone;
• Increase education and awareness about the impacts of current levels of consumption and demand, e.g. by creating a model curriculum to be integrated into school programs;
• Implement a world-wide aggressive recycling program;
• Establish government policies consistent with consumption reduction, using financial incentives for conservation. For example, taxing undesirable forms of consumption, and providing tax credits for the reduction of current levels of consumption; and
• Promote forest management plans with community involvement, such as by establishing a pilot project demonstrating how a community can live sustainably (although it should be noted that there are significant legal international trade barriers that would need to be overcome in order for this to be demonstrated).

Increase autonomy of affected people

• Create standards that measure well-being, beyond GDP
• Create standards that judge whether we've reduced options for future generations
• Increase technology transfer for waste disposal and recycling

Create a legal framework to regulate the environmental effects of big investments and multilateral institutions

• Oppose the Multilateral Agreement on Investments;
• Increase local control over multinational investment, e.g. by establishing local control and veto power over development activities;
• Strengthen environmental standards in multilateral agreements;
• Engage in debt for nature swaps for forests;
• Make more use of national environmental trust funds

Working Group 2: "The Nature of Human Relationships and Social Organization"

The group identified the issue of communication among stakeholders as the one item that drew together the diverse topics of land tenure, democracy, the role of government, and corruption. The following specific actions were proposed, but the group emphasized that these could only be carried out assuming three significant conditions were met: proper funding made available, lack of corruption, and free and full access to all available information pertinent to forest management and decision-making:

Review local and or national legislation and implementation relating to forestry

• Taking a holistic approach to address issues of human equity, forest protection, including wildlife protection, and management; and
• Specifically making sure to recognize the role of First Nations / Indigenous governments.

Publicly review public forest management plans

• Addressing, for example: environmental impacts, fiscal issues, and non-timber values.

Enforce and implement mechanisms for existing regulations

• Governments are recommended to ratify and comply with relevant local, state, national, and international laws, regulations, and treaties.

Working Group 3: "Science and Information"

Discussions in this group revolved around information concerns, the whole forest ecosystem, and multiple values. The group recommended the following specific actions:

Practice integrated and balanced use of science and traditional knowledge

• In all forest activities use the best available, of reasonably attainable, information, including science, traditional ecological knowledge, spiritual values, etc. to identify uses, trends, values;
• Take measures to build capacity to generate and/or gather the information needed; and
• Apply the Precautionary Principle.

Ask/frame questions in a way that is conducive to finding complete and useful answers

• Ensure that local, traditional, and indigenous communities and forest practitioners are integrally involved in developing issues and questions to be addressed;
• Through open participatory process at the initial stages of projects, select carefully who collects information, including cultural information; and
• Ensure peer and public review of scientific information, highlighting disagreement in scientific information, conclusions, and interpretation.

Ensure access to information

• Review differences between Mexico, Canada, and the United States, with regards to right to information;
• Identify points in the UN Convention on Access to Information that need to be implemented;
• Ensure public review and access to information prior to final decisions; disseminate information widely to e.g. libraries, churches, internet, etc.; and
• Ensure decision-makers have complete access to information that is both relevant and formulated in a way that they can understand.

FINAL REMARKS

The diversity of situations illustrated by the case studies and the other presentations were matched only by the contributions made by the participants through their statements and interventions. The myriad perspectives, factors, and pressures underlying deforestation and forest degradation in North America became clear. As complex and sensitive as the issues were, this multi-dimensional group reached consensus on several proposals of concrete solutions to address those underlying causes. Although disagreements occurred, the participants were respectful of each others' views, and focussed on making use of the opportunity to provide input to the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF). The workshop did illustrate two things:

• Despite the ecological, economic, and societal variances within the region, certain commonalities exist: For example, the lack of recognition of the multiple values of forest ecosystems (e.g. their biodiversity, recreation, spiritual, aesthetic, and other non-timber values) was found to be at the heart of deforestation and forest degradation in all three countries. Similarly, common approaches toward counteracting the different underlying causes focused on the importance of building awareness of the links between individual human behavior and its long-term and sometimes irreversible effects on our forests; and the insistence on the need for equal participation by all stakeholders in decision-making processes.
• Despite the heterogeneity of the stakeholders involved, and the diversity of the case studies, a common understanding was reached. This type of multi-stakeholder, bottom-up, dialogue is thus not only a plausible, but a desirable alternative to the more traditional policy fora in which major international policy decisions are usually made. This unique combination of a diverse group of stakeholders and the presentation of real on-the-ground experiences has limitless potential to inspire the inter-governmental policy-making process and take it into the next century.

NEXT STEPS

The global workshop will take place in Costa Rica (January 18-22, 1999), and will be an open, participatory process that will bring people together from all the regions and all levels of decision-making. Participants will build on the results of all of the regional workshops and the Indigenous Peoples workshop and propose solutions to the third session of the IFF (May 1999 in Geneva), where the issue of underlying causes will be discussed in detail.

It remains to be seen how the results of the North American workshop will compare to those of the other regional / Indigenous Peoples workshops. At the global workshop, common threads and differences will become apparent and help in the formulation of solid recommendations that can be taken to the international level.

Despite the fact that this initiative originated as a contribution to the IFF's work program, the organizers of the North American process intend to promote and build upon the conclusions reached at both the regional and the international levels. We encourage their use as tools for work not only in the international policy-making arena, but also in local, national, and regional efforts to curb deforestation and forest degradation.

back to UC Process