ENB:13:25
[Next] .
[Previous] .
[Contents]
PROGRAMME ELEMENT V.1: INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND MULTILATERAL INSTITUTIONS AND INSTRUMENTS
Programme element V.1 was considered by a joint Working Group session on 13 September. Based on these discussions, the Secretariat produced a draft negotiating text, which was considered by the Plenary on 19 September. A revised text, based on comments from these two sessions, was distributed but not discussed on the final day of IPF-4.
Jag Maini (IPF Secretariat) introduced the Secretary-General’s report (E/CN.17/IPF/1996/23). The report includes: an examination of the anticipated functions and activities required from international organizations and institutions and instruments to support internationally-agreed future priorities; the establishment of a structured body to coordinate intergovernmental agencies; NGO and government activities; the value of NGO contributions; the need to evaluate the operational capacity of existing instruments; and the need to develop a high-level forum for continued dialogue. The report proposes several options for action, including: a high-level forum for international policy; strategic data collection; regional and global projects; additional funding for research and development; and improved mechanisms for coordination.
Most delegations noted the need for better coordination. The G-77/CHINA, supported by the PHILIPPINES, BRAZIL, PERU and MALAYSIA, said more work is needed to develop a clear view of the work being undertaken by international and regional institutions. Gaps and overlaps should be identified and coordination among agencies enhanced. The EU, supported by the UK, noted that the issue will lay the groundwork for the international community’s support of all other IPF issues. He sought to accelerate the implementation of UNCED decisions, enhance government and private sector financing and strengthen inter-agency coordination. A number of delegations, including the RUSSIAN FEDERATION, NORWAY and the US, supported increasing the efficiency and coordination of existing institutions rather than establishing new ones.
Delegates offered differing levels of support for a continued high-level forum to address forest-related issues. INDONESIA and MALAYSIA supported its establishment, while CANADA called for a new legally-binding instrument rather than just a continuation of the IPF. PAPUA NEW GUINEA, supported by SOUTH AFRICA and PERU, favored an informal forum for discussion, and recommended maintaining the IPF as an open-ended intergovernmental umbrella. SWITZERLAND called for a report on options, and the US and JAPAN said the proposal for a high-level forum for forest policy debate requires further elaboration. INDIA rejected any global policy for forests and called for a study of the effects on forests from farming marginal land. Environmental NGOs voiced several concerns, including: increased clarity regarding the roles and activities of existing institutions and instruments; the merit of a potential forest protocol under the Convention on Biological Diversity; increased attention by international organizations to land tenure issues and agrarian reform; and establishment of a mechanism to monitor the relationship between deforestation patterns and national social and political changes.
On 19 September, the Plenary considered a draft negotiating text. The EU called for improved efforts to integrate and clarify the mandate and task of UN agencies and to strengthen their coordination. He proposed replacing a reference to national forest development with NFPs. The G-77/CHINA proposed language inviting governments to contribute to this process in order to improve the work of forest-related institutions. He proposed replacing several references to “SFM” in the text with “management, conservation and sustainable development of forests” from the Forest Principles. On proposals for action, he deleted references to “regional” and “global” data collection and projects and to specific agencies for research and development. The US proposed noting that there is significant potential for better coordination and collaboration, rather than further enhancement, of existing international structures. He called for improved participation of major groups in forest fora to promote SFM, and suggested focusing, rather than strengthening, relevant international organizations.
CANADA proposed replacing “sub-regional” with “sub-national” action toward SFM and deleting a reference to building consensus on standards. He called for the establishment of a high-level forum for international policy debate on forests. He supported the proposal for further study of the institutions and instruments relevant to forests and highlighted the need to identify the institutional capacity to implement the UNCED agreements. SWITZERLAND agreed that further study of forest-related institutions and instruments is very important and called for an independent review of the forthcoming proposals of the Inter-Agency Task Force on Forests. JAPAN suggested that countries, rather than international organizations, facilitate international consultations on SFM, and proposed that these consultations develop, rather than implement, principles and content of NFPs. He recommended deleting a proposal to assign forest programmes increased priority in bilateral ODA.
A revised negotiating text was distributed, but not discussed on the final day of the IPF-4. It notes that the elements for further negotiation under this programme element are preliminary in nature. The Panel felt that further information and study would be needed in order to achieve a more accurate diagnosis and to formulate proposals for action. The text also notes that a number of delegations stated that final conclusions and proposals for action would need to take into account conclusions and proposals under programme element V.2, which will be the subject of substantive discussions at IPF-4.