URGENT SIGN-ON LETTER TO THE UNITED NATIONS FORUM ON FORESTS (UNFF), DEADLINE FOR ENDORSEMENTS: MAY 3, 2003

NGO and IPO concerns regarding the United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF) and the Collaborative Partnership on Forests (CPF)

By means of this letter we, the undersigned NGOs, indigenous peoples’ organisations and individuals, write to advise you of our serious concern that the UNFF is failing to build on the principles and guarantees established more than 10 years ago at UNCED. At the same time, we are disappointed that the UNFF secretariat and Bureau have so far been slow to act on NGO concerns and recommendations regarding the UNFF and CPF.

In short, we wish to alert you to our genuine concern that the UNFF is failing to implement its mandate as set out in ECOSOC resolution E/2000/L.32*. In particular, we are concerned that the UNFF is not fulfilling its function as “...a coherent, transparent, and participatory global framework for policy implementation, co-ordination and development...based on the Rio Declaration (and)...chapter 11 of Agenda 21.” [1]We also feel the Forum has so far failed to “...build upon the transparent and participatory practices established by the CSD, the IPF and IFF.”[2] Specifically, we are concerned that:

§ Intersessional meetings have not been widely publicised. In several recent cases only a limited number of invitations have been issued to NGOs;[i]

§ The UNFF has failed to agree that major groups should be recognised as experts in the development of terms of reference for ad hoc expert groups – despite the fact that this precedent is already established under other forest-related bodies in the UN including the CBD and UNFCCC;[ii]

§ No dedicated funds have been made available to assist representatives of major groups to attend UNFF sessions, inter-sessionals and expert groups. A shortage of funds for disadvantaged groups such as NGOs and indigenous peoples has long been highlighted as a major obstacle to effective participation in international forest policy making;[iii]

§ Although the multiple benefits of MAR have (in principle) been recognised as critical for the effectiveness of the UNFF in fulfilling its tasks of promoting the implementation of intergovernmental agreements on forests, there has been little action and a distinct lack of any sense of urgency to deal with this vital issue on the part of the UNFF secretariat and the governmental members of the Forum; [iv]

§ Agreed standards on the participation rights of major groups have been disregarded and sometimes actively opposed by governmental members of the UNFF during its first two formal sessions in 2001 and 2002. In particular, language relating to major groups and participatory processes has been consistently deleted or diluted by delegates at both UNFF sessions and intersessional meetings.[v]

§ The multi-stakeholder dialogue (MSD) segment of the UNFF has failed to achieve its objectives and the MSD at UNFF2 was generally viewed as a failure;[vi]

§ Recent preparatory meetings for the next MSD at UNFF3 did not feature balanced participation by major groups as environmental and social justice NGOs and indigenous peoples’ organisations were absent from the discussions – largely because there was a lack of funds to assist them to travel to and attend the meeting;

§ Key NGO and indigenous recommendations on the CPF and CPF Network have been largely disregarded and CPF meetings remain closed to major group observers;[vii]

§ The CPF Network has so far not become active, despite being officially established over a year ago in March 2002;

We therefore call on you as Head of the UNFF to take immediate measures to promote the effective implementation of the Forum’s mandate in order to ensure at least some concrete and progressive outcomes prior to UNFF5. In this regard, we recommend that, as a minimum, every effort is made by the members of the UNFF secretariat and the Bureau to:

q Keep the focus of the dialogue at the UNFF on implementation of agreed intergovernmental commitments on forests;

q Recognise the status and important role of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues in relation to the deliberations of the UNFF and CPF;

q Give utmost priority to promoting the formulation and adoption of innovative, participatory, cross-sectoral and implementation-focused monitoring assessment and reporting procedures for the UNFF;

q Establish a fund to assist representatives of major groups, especially indigenous peoples’ organisations and NGOs, to attend UNFF sessions, inter-sessionals, preparatory meetings and expert group discussions;

q Ensure the participation of major group observers in CPF meetings and other regional forest-related meetings such as the FAO Regional Forestry Commissions where they concern the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action;

q Reform the entire format of the UNFF sessions to foster a more interactive dialogue on the challenges, successes and lessons learned regarding the implementation of the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action.

q Ensure the involvement of major groups in UNFF meetings, in intersessionals and in technical expert groups using practices already established under other forest-related processes within the UN family. The UNFF should explicitly recognise major groups as being able to provide ‘experts’ in technical expert group meetings.

We fear that if these points are not addressed soon, the UNFF will lose its credibility with civil society groups and indigenous peoples and subsequently with governments. We therefore look forward to learning how you plan to address the issues and concerns raised above.

Marcial Arias, International Alliance of Indigenous-Tribal Peoples of the Tropical Forests

[1] E/2000/L.32*, paragraph 1).

[2] (E/2000/L.32* paragraphs 4c and 4j).

[i] For example, while the recent country-led initiative on MAR held in Viterbo, Italy, was publicised through in the calendar on the UNFF web site, it was not disseminated widely to forest-related networks and was not announced in the UNFF Newsletter. As far as we are aware, only two representatives from NGOs were initially invited to the meeting. NGOs experts who had campaigned for years for a focused intersessional meeting on MAR relating to the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action had to approach the organisers and request formal invitations in order to take part. In the same way, the organisers of an earlier country-led initiative on MAR held in Japan in November 2001 only invited a few NGOs representatives.

[ii] For example, the CBD ad hoc expert group on Forest Biological Diversity (FBD), which worked during 2000 and early 2001 to produce a draft work programme on FBD, included one NGO expert and one indigenous peoples’ expert among its panel.

[iii] On calls by indigenous peoples for dedicated UN funds to support their participation in international forest policy making see, for example, the 1996 Leticia Declaration at http://iaip.gn.apc.org/let/report.htm The NGOs and indigenous peoples’ organisations that endorse this letter acknowledge that limited funding is sometimes made available by governments to assist participation. One example of this is the New Zealand government’s recent support for indigenous and NGO participation at the intersessional meeting on plantations held in Wellington in March 2003. However, the primary outstanding concern is that such financial support is piecemeal. In other words, funds in support of major group participation are not formalised in a systematic way through the UNFF. This lack of dedicated resources prevents many indigenous and NGO participants from travelling to and attending UNFF sessions as well as intersessional and preparatory meetings.

[iv] On major group recommendations on the essential need for the UNFF to take timely action to promote a new participatory approach to MAR, see:

- Joint IPO-NGO statement to IFF4, January 2000;

- Ooft, M (2000) Contribution to the Programme of Work for the UN Forum on Forests (UNFF) -based on the questionnaire on Concept and Basic Elements of the Multiyear Programme of Work of the UNFF COICA, November 2000;

- FERN, Forest Peoples Programme and Pro-Regenwald (2000) Response to the Eight-country Initiative Questionnaire on Concept and Basic Elements of the Multiyear Programme of Work of the UNFF, November 2000;

- FERN (2001) Prerequisites for creating an effective UNFF;

- Forest Peoples Programme (2001) Report on the Eight-country Initiative;

- Lovera S (2001) “Participating or enriching the discussion?” Forest Cover 1, January 2001;

- World Rain Forest Movement (2001) “To UNFF or not to UNFF?” WRM Bulletin 41, December 2000

- Global Forest Coalition (2001) Minimum Requirements to Ensure and Effective UNFF Position Paper signed by NGOs and IPOs at UNFF1, June 2001.

- Griffiths, T (2001) Consolidating the gains: indigenous peoples and international forest policy making at the United Nations FPP briefing paper, Moreton-in-Marsh

- NGO opening statement to multistakeholder dialogue, UNFF-2: Review of Progress in the Implementation of the IPF/IFF proposals for action, New York, March 2002.

On the essential role of MAR for the UNFF and the need for a new cross-sectoral and participatory approach, see also:

- Eight-country Initiative (2000) Shaping the Programme of Work for the UNFF International Expert Consultation, 27 November-1 December 2000, Report of the Expert Consultation at section 2.4.5

- International Expert Meeting on Monitoring, Assessment and Reporting on the Progress toward Sustainable Forest Management Country-led initiative in support of the UNFF, 5-8 November 2001, Yokohama, Japan – Proceedings of the Meeting at Working Group responses to question 1 (page 10) and question 2 (page 11)

- Lessons learned in Monitoring, Assessment and Reporting on Implementation of IPF/IFF Proposals for Action – the Viterbo Report UNFF Country-led Initiative, 17-20 March 2003, Viterbo, Italy at section A. para. 2, section D paras 4 and 11, section E, paras 3, 5. See especially Section E, para. 12.

[v] At UNFF1 and UNFF2 reference to major groups in decisions and observations of the UNFF was consistently deleted or re-worded as “stakeholders” e.g., during formulation of text for UNFF decisions in contact groups at UNFF1 and in discussions regarding the composition of experts groups during UNFF2. The precise instances where this has occurred have not been carefully documented due to other demands on major group participants at these sessions (in compiling position papers, non-papers, suggested text etc.). However, the disturbing tendency to reject use of the term “major groups” by a significant number of government delegations has been noted by several NGOs and IPOs who have attended UNFF meetings.

More recently, at the MAR country-led initiative held in March 2003, use of the official UN terminology “major groups” was time and again rejected by the governmental members of the drafting committee compiling formal recommendations for consideration by the UNFF. Note that the term does not occur in the final recommendations of the MAR meeting - section E in Lessons Learned in Monitoring, Assessment and Reporting on Implementation of IPF/IFF Proposals for Action, the Viterbo Report, 17-20 March 2003, Viterbo, Italy [though it does occur once in the conclusions and several times in informal annexes].

In one specific case in the drafting exercise, the NGO representative on the committee had strongly recommended that the word “participatory” be inserted prior to “...assessment” in the official text: “In order to facilitate progress on monitoring, assessment and reporting on implementation of the PfAs, the meeting recommended that....Countries undertake an initial PfA assessment process to determine which proposals are relevant to a country and which of these should be addressed as priorities through national forest programmes or similar country policy approaches.” at para. 2, section E in Lessons Learned in Monitoring, Assessment and Reporting on Implementation of IPF/IFF Proposals for Action, the Viterbo Report, 17-20 March 2003, Viterbo, Italy.

The rejection of this important suggested language creates a potential serious loophole as government staff may unilaterally decide that certain PfAs do not apply to their country or that certain PfAs are national priorities, without taking into account the analyses of forest-dependent communities and civil society organisations whose priorities may differ from those of forestry planners and officials.

[vi] “UNFF2 ends in failure – any hope left for UNFF3?” EU Forest Watch April 2002.

[vii] See NGO and IPO comments on CPF Network Concept Paper, New York, 7 March 2002 endorsed by the Forest Peoples Programme, Fern, Global Forest Coalition, Greenpeace International, International Alliance of Indigenous-Tribal Peoples of the Tropical Forests, ICTI-Tanimbar, Institute of Cultural Affairs-Ghana and the Friends of the Siberian Forests-Russia http://forestpeoples.gn.apc.org/Briefings/UNFF/unff2_ngo&ipo_comnts_cpf_concept_paper_mar02_eng.htm. These comments made on the second draft of the document were not even partially reflected in the final CPF Network Concept Paper (September 2002) – see http://www.un.org/esa/forests/pdf/CPF_Network_Concept_Sep_02_e.pdf

Pagina del web del ONU, Pueblos indígenas