 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| To Report or to Monitor? That is the Question |
| | How can we know if the CBD is effective? Only through a rigorous process of monitoring at the local level, coupled with a process of collation and analysis of local evidence at the global level. This can only be achieved with more participation in monitoring by all forest stakeholders and a more rigorous reporting and assessment process than the CBD reporting process currently involves.
Article 26 of the CBD requests that 'Each Contracting Party shall … present to the COP, reports on measures which it has taken for the implementation of the provisions of this Convention and their effectiveness in meeting the objectives of this Convention'.
To date, there have been two national reports. The first national report had no format, so governments submitted very different styles of reports, from 12-page hand-typed reports to 200-page glossy books. As a consequence, COP5 decided on a format for submitting the second national reports. This decision also recommended 'that Parties prepare their national reports through a consultative process involving all relevant stakehodlers, as appropriate, or by drawing upon information developed through other consultative processes'. Deadline for submission was 15 May 2001. By October about 55 national reports out of a possible 150 or so had been submitted. An analysis of these reports has been made. (UNEP/CBD/MSP/INF/419 Preliminary synthesis of second national reports.)
Parties were also invited to submit voluntarily special thematic reports on Forests, Alien Species, and Access and Benefit Sharing for COP6 to be held in April 2002.
At the time of writing all the boreal countries (except USA, which is not a signatory) have submitted their first national report, all except Russia and Estonia have submitted their second national report and all except Canada have submitted the volutary thematic reports on Forests and Alien Species. Interestingly only Russia and Estonia have so far submitted a report on Access and Benefit Sharing.
So far so good. The problem is that countries deliver reports and that's it. They are not properly analysed and assessed in depth and there is no mechanism to help those countries where implementation can be seen to be failing. Also, the Global Environmental Fund (GEF) finances the reporting in developing countries, including Russia, but there is a widespread belief that these reports are not used nationally for more than meeting the reporting requirement by the CBD.
The idea of stakeholder participation promoted by the CBD is surely intended to help ensure that reporting is used as a tool to create awareness, gather information, assess progress and to verify the result. In submitting their reports each country is invited to say whether stakeholders were involved. A look at how the boreal countries approached reporting and stakeholder participation is quite revealing (see boxes below).
In the light of the experience and problems encountered, COP6 will make another decision on how to strengthen implementation and national reporting. It is important that there is pressure for a mechanism that ensures the information provided in the national and thematic reports is useful and verifiable. The best ways of ensuring this are: firstly, to insist on broad stakeholder involvement not only in the country reporting process, but also in the monitoring which informs the reports; and secondly the setting up of an independent body or panel with country, expert, IPO and NGO representation which can take responsibility for collating and analysing the reports to produce a rigorous global assessment of progress in implementing the CBD.
Until the CBD, and indeed other international fora, adopt really useful and verifiable reporting processes, the NGOs and IPOs will need to undertake to monitor in depth the implementation of such international commitments, as was done for the IFF (Keeping the Promise? available at www.forestpolicy.org) and as is currently being done for the CBD (see box on page 11).
Stakeholder participation in the 2nd national reports
Canada consulted NGOs on the draft.
Estonia has not produced a report.
Finland had NGOs on the drafting committee.
Latvia makes no reference to NGOs being consulted.
Norway makes no reference to the involvement of NGOs.
Russia has yet to submit but at least one NGO has seen the draft and commented.
Sweden has consulted NGOs and names them.
The UK posted its draft on the internet, notified over 100 organisations including NGOs and invited them to comment.
Participation in the thematic reports on forests
Canada at the time of writing had not produced a thematic report on forests.
Estonia consulted an 'expert group' with no specific mention of NGOs.
Finland uses a non-standard format and does not provide details of who was involved in preparing the report.
Latvia has not produced a thematic report on forests.
Norway's forestry department prepared the draft report, which was reviewed by the Ministry of Environment. There is no mention of NGO involvement.
No Russian NGOs appear to have been consulted.
Sweden's draft report was presented to the Swedish Scientific Council on Biodiversity and has been considered by relevant ministries, agencies and NGOs before finally being approved by the Swedish government.
The UK's report was based on national initiatives involving a range of stakeholders, but 'stakeholders were not directly involved in the preparation of the report'.
|
| | Contact
Bill Ritchie, worldforests, Scotland |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
