Lisa Ambus and Jessica Dempsey, Global Caucus on Community-Based Forest Management, Canada
As the first of a regular contribution to Taiga News from the Global Caucus on Community-Based Forest Management (CBFM), a movement of diverse organisations and individuals committed to ensuring forest conservation and the livelihoods of forest-dependent peoples, here is an update on the 4th United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF4) from a community forest perspective.
From 3 to 14 May 2004, governments from around the world met in Geneva, Switzerland, for the fourth session of UNFF. The meeting covered thematic issues including social and cultural aspects of forests and traditional forest-related knowledge (TFRK).
Eleven members of the Global Caucus on CBFM attended the first week of UNFF4, with the aim of learning about the UNFF process and, where possible, to advocate CBFM. It is fair to say that our 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, in the sidelines and in the margins, even perhaps entirely outside of the UN system.
The caucus presented a statement urging governments to implement our top five of the 270 Proposals for Action from previous UN meetings on forests, most relevant to CBFM, concerning participation, indigenous peoples’ rights, land tenure and TFRK.
In the corridors, members of the caucus had opportunities to network and collaborate with other civil society groups, including the International Alliance of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples of the Tropical Forests, and students from the Youth and Children major group, similarly relegated to the sidelines at the UNFF. In a few instances, caucus members met representatives from their country’s delegation. These happenstance meetings resulted in an impromptu consultation session with the USA delegation. In another instance, a caucus member extended an invitation to the entire Canadian delegation to visit his community, and learn first-hand about CBFM. We have yet to hear if the invitation was officially accepted.
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. Despite the best intentions of the UNFF Secretariat, preparations leading up to the MSD were fraught with confusion and frustration, with groups expressing concern about the level of representation, real participation and ability to facilitate constructive ‘dialogue’ in the MSD.
At UNFF4, some groups reported that this MSD marked a significant improvement from processes in UNFF2 and UNFF3. However, the improvement is very small in terms of actual participation, and we are moved to ask: What good is such dialogue unless the input of indigenous peoples, community representatives, and other members of civil society is incorporated within the actual resolutions of UNFF?
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. UNFF5 (10–21 May 2005) will review its effectiveness for making demonstrable differences in sustainable forest management on the ground. It is telling that this review will exclude input from members of civil society.
Doubt and scepticism about the utility of the UNFF therefore linger. After many days of discussions, important resolutions on TFRK were not adopted. Disagreements occurred on several fronts, over references to indigenous and local communities rights in particular. As reported in the Environmental Network Bulletin (ENB): ‘The EU, opposed by Canada, reiterated the importance of reference to the rights of the indigenous and local communities, with the USA adding “interests”’. As Canadians, this lack of support for indigenous rights over their own knowledge was particularly disheartening, as was a suggestion by the USA to facilitate increased ‘access’ to TFRK, when ‘access’ by USA 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 effective participation of all relevant stakeholders. But indigenous peoples and NGOs at UNFF expressed concern that references to indigenous peoples were lacking in substance. More details on the resolutions can be found on the UNFF web page (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 reported: ‘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’.
As UNFF approaches its 5-year review, it will need to figure out how to jumpstart the political will of governments to achieve action on the ground. But as many caucus members know, relying on the government is not always the best strategy: results will come from civil society, particularly when local communities and indigenous peoples assert their rights and assume their responsibilities to manage, use and control their forests. |
