ENB:13:25
[Next] .
[Previous] .
[Contents]
PROGRAMME ELEMENT I.1: NATIONAL FOREST AND LAND USE PLANS
Working Group I took up initial consideration of programme element I.1 on 9 and 10 September. Jean Clement (FAO) introduced the Secretary-General’s report on progress through national forest and land use plans (E/CN.17/IPF/1996/14). The report, based on the outcomes of workshops held in South Africa and Germany, covers definitions of terms, future challenges and proposals for IPF action. It notes progress made, but identifies a series of obstacles to overcome, at both the global and national levels, in the areas of: policy and institutional reforms; investment programming and funding; capacity building; and international cooperation. The report urges the adoption of a universal concept of national forest programmes (NFPs), while recognizing the need to respect national sovereignty, particularly with regard to implementation. NFPs should consider the needs of all stakeholders and employ international cooperation.
During the initial debate, GERMANY presented options for action produced by a German expert consultation on implementing the Forest Principles, including a code of conduct. SWEDEN highlighted an upcoming Sweden/Uganda initiative on sustainable forestry and land use. The EU supported the basic principle of NFPs in the report and emphasized public and private investments and capacity-building as an objective. NORWAY, BRAZIL, SWITZERLAND, MOROCCO and ITALY supported some form of a continuing international forum for forest dialogue. SENEGAL, supported by the PHILIPPINES and MALAYSIA, expressed concern regarding this proposal. FINLAND emphasized integration of forest planning into wider land use planning and incorporation of criteria and indicators (C&I) into NFPs. NEW ZEALAND, supported by the PHILIPPINES, CHINA, the REPUBLIC OF KOREA, COSTA RICA, COLOMBIA and MOROCCO, stressed flexibility in addressing countries’ different conditions. The US also supported this, noting countries’ varying land ownership patterns and mechanisms for public participation. MALI stated that NFPs should reflect established policies. The NETHERLANDS supported the universal development of NFPs. JAPAN suggested a pilot phase. NORWAY sought universal terminology. PAPUA NEW GUINEA supported forest planning for all countries and international cooperation for capacity building. INDIGENOUS PEOPLES’ ORGANIZATIONS noted that land use is closely linked to social and cultural issues. CANADA said NFPs are the best way to achieve sustainable forest management (SFM) and should incorporate national-level C&I, views of all stakeholders and biodiversity concerns. BRAZIL noted the relationship between C&I, NFPs and resource and technology transfer. COSTA RICA noted historical deforestation in developed countries.
A draft negotiating text was discussed on 16 September. The G-77/CHINA, supported by UGANDA, proposed new language urging donor countries to provide new and additional resources for development and implementation of NFPs. With INDIA and the IUCN, he proposed replacing a reference to SFM with “conservation, management, and sustainable development of all types of forests” from the Rio Statement of Forest Principles. The EU sought a continuing forum for international consultation rather than a consultative body, and, supported by INDIA and the IUCN, encouraged governments to form Forest Partnership Agreements (FPAs). The US urged substituting “SFM” for “NFPs.” INDIA and the IUCN emphasized incorporation of a broad spectrum of forest-dependent communities into NFPs. UKRAINE asked for language on capacity building for developing countries and countries with economies in transition. CANADA proposed language stressing linkages to the Convention on Biological Diversity’s work on biodiversity and forests.
A revised version of the draft negotiating text, with annotations based on earlier textual comments, was discussed on 20 September. Countries only addressed paragraphs relating to proposals for action. The G-77/CHINA called for definitions of terminology used in the text and questioned FINLAND’s proposal calling for land use plans as a means to promote “land use husbandry.” The US agreed with a proposal urging countries to “monitor” NFPs and added “or other forest policy frameworks.” He opposed internationally acceptable definitions that apply to all forests, but supported definitions for key terms and concepts for C&I. He emphasized that participation of interested parties and major groups in forest use planning and decision-making only applies to public forests, and stressed the need for recipient countries to make a clear commitment to SFM. He generally supported INDIA’s proposed language stressing community forestry as well as language on “further exploration of voluntary partnerships” rather than specific FPAs. While the EU supported CANADA’s inclusion of language welcoming the input of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, the US and the G- 77/CHINA opposed it.
Discussions on this programme element will continue at IPF-4.