ENB:13:13
[Next] .
[Previous] .
[Contents]
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
FUNDACION NATURA on behalf of an NGO working group highlighted: non-timber products and services; net investment calculations including a full evaluation of products and services; a code of conduct for all donors, including transparency and participation; assessing the value of plantations including such drawbacks as encouraging replacement of natural forests; involving civil society in decisions on private sector investment and repatriation of profits; replacing “forest yields” with sustainable management; and controlling illegal logging.
The EU, supported by the US, JAPAN, CANADA and NORWAY, noted that the CSD is focusing on finance and technology transfer, especially within the intersessional meetings, and cautioned the working group not to duplicate this effort through IPF. The EU also stated, with the support of UGANDA, ZIMBABWE and SWITZERLAND, that ODA will continue to play an important role in sustainable development, emphasizing as well the increasing role of domestic resources, including those generated from forest revenue and private sector investment, including trade, investment and technology. A better valuation of forest products and services is essential. He also stated that it is not clear that ODA for SFM is declining, as the proportion of funds set aside for SFM is often not specified in reporting.
JAPAN asked for clarification of “commitments” accepted at UNCED. The US supported by the PHILIPPINES stated it was useful to differentiate among different innovative mechanisms, proposing “the panel recognized the potential of joint ventures and debt-for- nature swaps. The panel felt that further analysis is required regarding carbon offsets, tradable permits, and debt-for-policy-reform swaps.” She requested language on “the potential to mobilize additional resources internally,” and replaced “policy recommendations” on technology transfer with “options for action.” UKRAINE added references supporting finance and technology transfer for countries with “transitional economies.” MEXICO added “recipient countries should have more weight in the receipt and assignment of funds,” as well as “private sector funding should not replace commitments to ODA.”
UGANDA highlighted domestic financial resources, stating that ODA is construed as a “birthright” in the Co-chair’s report, rather than a mutually-beneficial arrangement. Supported by ZIMBABWE, he added language that stated “domestic sources of finance need to be identified and exploited, and a more conducive environment for profitable forestry business be created in recipient countries in order to complement ODA and enhance sustainability in financing SFM.” ZIMBABWE highlighted coordination as one mechanism to improve the efficiency of all financial resources, and stressed the need to remove conditionalities on ODA. Supported by several delegations, he noted that the report should avoid using conclusive wording at this stage. FAO pointed out that it has no mandate to collect data on forestry investment, as requested in the text.
The G77/CHINA focused on the provision of new and additional financial resources and the transfer of technology on concessional and preferential terms, in accordance with the Forest Principles and Agenda 21. He stated that the focus of all programme elements should be on action, and should not prescribe national policies. He stated that full incremental costs require increased international cooperation, taking into account the common but differentiated responsibility of nations. He added several references to ODA, emphasizing the need for countries to raise their levels of ODA to meet UNCED commitments. He suggested a new paragraph stating that “the panel expressed concern that multilateral sources and financial institutions have traditionally imposed conditionalities on developing countries which have not been compatible with SFM.” He stated that: private sector funding must be sought within a code of conduct, and not at the expense of ODA; the available GEF resources are “totally inadequate” and only available to support the objectives of legally-binding conventions; financial resources are a prerequisite for technology transfer; and IPF-3 should quantify resources available for SFM, including an assessment of whether developed countries have met their ODA commitments.
GABON suggested drawing up C&I which would inform on trends in mobilization of resources to implement sustainable development. CANADA suggested developing national codes of conduct for the private sector, utilizing a multi-stakeholder approach and focused on transferring public sector technology. He noted undue emphasis on ODA support for capacity building, emphasizing instead domestic resources and innovative financial measures.
BRAZIL stated that some, rather than all cases of deforestation, such as losses of forest cover and forest decline could lead to disinvestment. Alternative uses of forests could be construed as investments. Regarding technology transfer, he added language referring to: triangular cooperation; technologies in both the public and private domains; and priority technologies including biotechnology, logging technologies and equipment, development of environmentally sound technologies and products for the control of plagues and disease.