Opinion: political asylum for forests
During the Tenth World Forestry Congress in Paris (1991), Mr J. Clement reported on the progress of the Tropical Forests Action Programme (TFAP) and reviewed the difficulties it was facing five years after its initiation. My curiosity was particularly whetted during his concluding remarks when he questioned the ability of the TFAP to reverse the deforestation trend and wondered whether more incisive and stronger action were needed, and when he stated that the underlying principle governing the programme was the respect for national sovereignty and the self-attribution of responsibility within each country with access to international aid.
The TFAP is cited not as a specific example but as one of the many major forest approaches which consistently fail to consider the existential dimension of the forest itself.
The principle Mr Clement cited is undoubtedly defensible and is clearly to the advantage of us all - but not to the forest which is still prey to the most horrendous mutilations and violations without anyone taking up its defence.
It is simply not enough to talk about defending the forest with all sorts of legislation or with technology to combat fire, disease, pests and poor management. This is an approach which focuses solely on the production of viable commercial species and suitable fibres for high-quality paper, and on developing the recreational area we need for our well-being and that of our children. Nor is it enough to think of forest protection only in terms of our expectations, our demands, our leisure and our economies, it is time we started to talk about the forest in its own right.
We need to talk about a symbiotic relationship with the forest, and to defend it beyond our unilateral interests. The forest is and always will be that great physical and living entity, that link in the supreme chain of life in which humans, oceans, rivers and lakes, air and airborne creatures are but links, each as vulnerable as the next.
Let us take humanity, which we worry about so much in our self-centered way. Humankind has cloaked itself in the protection of rules, regulations and codes against all forms of abuse- a panoply of provisions requiring insurers, solicitors, lawyers, magistrates, the media, the police, the militia and the military.
Over the course of time, humanity has decided to internationalize some of its people-oriented legislation. A number of the approaches implemented would have been inconceivable a century ago: the International Court of Justice and the ad hoc trials and tribunals established in response to serious international problems and situations which threaten human rights and dignity. Without these instruments, many war criminals and legal offenders would continue to perpetrate offenses against their peers. Legislation has also been introduced In aid of those whose basic rights to liberty and, therefore, life, have been or could be seriously flouted. Such legislation governs the right to political asylum for those requesting it and enables the beneficiaries eventually to regain their dignity.
Let us push this line of reasoning a little further and consider the forest. Let us look at what is happening in our vast forests which, like the air and the water, are part of our common heritage. Is there still room to consider this misunderstood resource in its own right?
No sensible person could fail to welcome the Paris Declaration, issued by the 2 500 participants on behalf of the world's population. The solemn appeal is as much a cry of alarm as a manifestation of hope: we know what humankind is capable of. The Paris Declaration leaves no stone unturned and includes:
· considerations regarding the forest situation and the concern to contain poverty;· reminders that policy-makers have made commitments and should show their good faith by introducing the necessary financial, scientific and cooperation mechanisms; affirmations, particularly with regard to sustainable development and the protection of biodiversity;
· recommendations, particularly regarding the involvement of people In they integrated development and management of trees and forests within an overall framework of national sovereignty.
The Paris Declaration supports the "non-legally binding authoritative statement of principles for a global consensus on the management, conservation and sustainable development of all types of forests". This declaration of faith, in the same way as that governing the underlying principles of the TFAP, should be upheld and defended to counter all the forms of interference to which some countries are exposed. Should it, however, be defended solely on the basis of safeguarding our economies and those functions of the forest that concern us?
What we gain from this statement of faith could easily be lost if we fail to establish from the outset a bona fide boundary between the services we can expect from the forest and the reciprocal services it is our duty to return.
If this is the case, the forest will once again find itself at the mercy of humanity's sovereignty and proprietary jurisdiction. What the Paris Declaration gained in consensus on the welfare of the forest for humankind's benefit could well be lost if we do not concede the forest its say and its right to exist and if we continue to define sovereign and jurisdictional rights on the basis of declarations of principle driven by political situations and market crises.
There is no doubt that many men and women are seeking to harmonize actions that enhance forest conservation. We need only cite the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), the TFAP, the Ministerial Conference for the Protection of Forests in Europe and the various national forestry legislation and policies. At the same time, researchers are working without respite on means of conserving natural habitats such as the forest; on ensuring the conservation of species, including forest species; on understanding the very nature of wood as a substance.
An ombudsman is one instrument we could give the planet to ensure the genuine application of a "non-legally binding authoritative statement of principles for a global consensus on the management, conservation and sustainable development of all types of forests".
The ombudsman would speak for the sovereign rights of the forest and ensure its protection as well as the respect of its dignity. He could even request political asylum for a forest until such time as its dignity and the recognition of its right to exist were regained.
Far from being a forest watchdog, this ombudsman would embody the collective wisdom that we have lost; a wisdom in which the scientist, the technologist, the lawyer, the financier and the humble individual, indiscriminately, all have their say. Through his ethical stance, this ombudsman would embody some of the forest's eternal qualities.
The forest also needs a charter, a declaration of rights along the lines of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. To paraphrase F. Guizot in the Encyclopedia Universalis, to teach someone something which you think they should be aware of, you need to speak very clearly and deliberately. Therefore, the forest charter would need to be simple and straightforward, within the reach of the ordinary citizen and about ordinary trees; it would need to express fundamental intentions and a commitment to neighbourliness and liberty. Such a charter ought to be taught in our institutions and dwell in our forests so as to form a generation of Homo sapiens capable of assuring a sustainable natural contract with Lignus sylvestris. For national forestry legislation to be fair, it would need to be based on the underlying principles of the forest charter, to the resultant satisfaction of everyone. The forest ombudsman would guarantee respect for this charter, a charter which could have been proclaimed in Paris...but it is never too late.
The thoughts expressed here are not those of an ecologist as understood in the media, but rather of a person who dreams, like the contemporary philosopher Michel Serre, of changing the existing social contract and moving toward a natural contract that would undoubtedly secure a better future for our planet.
B. Benabdallah
Bouffeldjua Benabdallah is a member of the Universal Movement for Scientific Responsability, Quebec.
North American Forestry Commission
The 16th Session of the North American Forestry Commission was held from 10 to 14 February 1991 in Cancún, Mexico. The session was attended by 28 participants from the Commission's three member countries (Canada, Mexico, the United States).
At the opening ceremony the participants were welcomed by Dr Manuel Mondragón & Kalb, Undersecretary of Forestry for Mexico, Dr Miguel Borgue Martin, Governor of the State of Quintana Roo; and Mr Santiago Funes Gonzalez, the FAO Representative in Mexico.
The meeting was well organized and efficiently run and resulted in valuable exchanges of information on the state of forestry in the member countries.
Concrete decisions were taken on matters concerning the commission and recommendations formulated for its member countries, working groups and FAO.
State of in the member countries In Mexico, a new and very motivated group of professionals had been incorporated into the Subsecretaria Forestal. The government is placing emphasis on improving knowledge of forest resources (through inventories), forest fire control, land-use planning and forest management. Special attention had been given to preparation of the national forestry action plan under the Tropical Forests Action Programme (TFAP), and the Mexican authorities expected to finalize the planning exercise curing 1992.
Reports on the state of forestry in the United States and Canada evidenced that these countries are developing a new focus for forestry. Canada is making an important effort to move from sustained yield to sustainable development and ecosystem management and to translate principles into day-to-day forest resource management and use. Internally, forestry is one of the key issues being discussed in the context of the current constitutional debate. Canada has also become Increasingly involved in international forestry issues such as deforestation, the maintenance of biodiversity and climate change.
In the United States, popular concern about forestry and environmental stability is being answered through a new management focus called "new perspectives".. The philosophy behind the focus is an attempt to achieve practical, well-balanced sustainable forest management on a large scale. The Commission was also informed about the United States Program for Forest and Rangelands Resources, formulated in 1990.
Commission recommendations and conclusion
The Commission recommended:
· that the Committee of Alternates (the group that coordinates work between the Commission's sessions) review new issues and opportunities of continent-wide significance and recommend appropriate responses by me member countries;· that FAO review its activities in the region from the point of view of the rapid transfer and application of knowledge and technologies to address forestry issues;
· that the Committee of Alternates review the current activities of the study groups (particularly/he groups on forest tree improvement, forest insects and diseases, the multilingual vocabulary, forest engineering and light-frame structures) in terms of their relevance to the priority problems and opportunities of the member countries;
· that the political, economic and other key topics related to the transition of current practices toward sustainable development receive special attention from the FAO Forestry Department in the future (in this context the Commission noted with concern that me reduction in FAO's budges would negatively affect the ability of the forestry Department to face the growing demands imposed on it by global environmental matters related to forests, the political changes in eastern Europe and, in general, the need for greater technical assistance to support developing countries); that FAO take explicit and demonstrably effective measures to increase the international profile of the Forestry Department - it stated that, without such measures, the department risked losing its global leadership role because of insufficient support. The Commission further recommended mat its concerns in this regard be followed up through its country representatives to the FAO Council...;
· that the North American Forestry Commission should be represented at the next session of the European Forestry Commission, with a view to encouraging greater cooperation between the two bodies.
Copies of the report of the 1 6th Session of the North American Forestry Commission (in English and Spanish) and the technical reports prepared for the session may be obtained by writing to the Meetings Officer, Forestry Department, FAO, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy.
