 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| A Tale of Two Cities: The Relationship Between the CBD and the UNFF |
| | From 4 to 15 March 2002, the second session of the UN Forum on Forests (UNFF) will take place. One month later, COP6 of the CBD will take place. The main themes and intended focus of the UNFF and CBD are virtually identical. What should the relationship between them be? This article argues for the CBD to be recognised as the main legally binding instrument for forests, and for UNFF to focus on reviewing and monitoring implementation of the CBD and other international forest policy.
The main themes on the agenda of both the UNFF and the CBD are combating deforestation, the conservation and sustainable management of forests, and the restoration of forests. The debates and work programmes of both are intended to focus on the effective implementation of existing instruments and policy recommendations, including the Proposals for Action of the UNFF's predecessors, the Intergovernmental Panel and Forum on Forests (IPF and IFF), and the CBD. Both will report to the World Summit on Sustainable Development which will take place in August and September 2002.
An Old Problem
The lack of interagency co-ordination within the UN system is an old problem. Numerous UN bodies have duplicating mandates, often leading to embarrassing cases of competition. Coherent sustainable development policies and programmes are frustrated by this failure to co-ordinate and co-operate. Moreover, scarce financial and technological resources are wasted by this duplication of efforts.
Why are UN bodies with duplicating mandates established? A new institution may be established as a diplomatic response to the malfunctioning of an existing institution, resulting in two bodies with the same mandate. Another important reason is competition at the national level between different governmental departments and the sectors they represent. Forests are a classic case of that situation. Forest conservation is undeniably part of the mandate of the CBD, with forests representing more than 60% of the earth's biodiversity. However, at the national level, this would imply that the government departments responsible for biodiversity conservation would be the main responsible agencies for forest conservation and management. This runs counter to the interests of the forestry sector, which, in most countries, has established its own governmental forestry departments, often as part of another ministry. Such countries typically push for a separate convention on forests.
The Political Compromise
The IPF was established in 1995 as a political compromise between pro-convention and anti-convention countries. Both it and its successor body, the IFF, spent a disproportionate amount of time discussing the pros and cons of a new convention. By January 2000, they had also produced more than 250 proposals for action and other non-legally binding policy recommendations. The IFF's successor, the UNFF, was another late-night political compromise. Its main problem is that it was set up to promote the implementation of the existing proposals for action, but it lacks any structure to do so. It is left entirely up to countries themselves to determine which proposals for action are to be implemented in their country and which not. This pick-and-choose approach has seriously undermined political commitment to their implementation. There is no obligation for countries to report to the UNFF, which has led to a pathetically low number of 11 voluntary reports for UNFF2. There is no review mechanism to judge the fairness of these reports.
Co-operation?
It is obvious that some constructive form of co-operation should be established between the UNFF and the CBD, which currently duplicate the function of forum for debate on forest policy implementation. However, the UNFF could fulfil a positive role by promoting effective implementation of international forest policy and law, including the CBD. The CBD itself has until now failed to set up an effective body to review compliance with the convention. Meanwhile, this is precisely the main mandate of the UNFF: to promote the implementation of international forest policy. The UNFF is still considering establishing a concrete structure and mechanism to fulfil this task. NGOs/IPOs have brought forward various constructive proposals in this respect, including the establishment of a review mechanism in the form of a committee that would review national reports and identify obstacles to implementation to be addressed through international co-operation and donor support. The first meeting of the UNFF initially rejected this proposal, but there is still hope it might be taken up again by an intersessional meeting on monitoring and assessment to be organised after UNFF2.
Conclusions
Considering the need to ensure coherence and avoid duplication between the mandate and activities of the CBD and the UNFF:
the CBD should be recognised as the main legally binding instrument on forests;
the UNFF should establish a review mechanism to monitor, review and promote the coherent implementation of all international forest policy and law at the national level;
the UNFF should follow the policy guidance of the CBD and ensure the integration of this policy guidance in the national-level activities of all partners of the CPF;
national forest programmes should be integrated into national biodiversity strategies and action plans.
|
| | Contact
Simone Lovera, Friends of the Earth International |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
