WORLD OF FORESTRY

Fourth session of IFF agrees on international arrangement on forests

The fourth session of the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF-4) was held from 31 January to 11 February 2000 at United Nations headquarters in New York. This final session of IFF had two main objectives: to finalize remaining unresolved issues concerning programme elements discussed by the first three sessions, and to decide on a text for Category III, "International arrangements and mechanisms to promote the management, conservation and sustainable development of all types of forests". The delegates were highly committed to concluding all the issues at hand and to producing a final report, with no unresolved points, for submission to the eighth session of the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD-8) in April 2000. To this end they worked long hours and kept up steadfast attendance to maintain the quorum.

IFF-4 was co-chaired by Ambassador Bagher Asadi of the Islamic Republic of Iran and Ambassador Ilkka Ristimaki of Finland. Opening speeches were given by David Harcharik, Deputy Director-General of FAO and Chair of the Inter-Agency Task Force on Forests (ITFF); Klaus Töpfer, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP); Louise Fréchette, UN Deputy Secretary-General; Eimi Watanabe, Assistant Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP); and Juan Mayr, Colombian Minister of Environment and CSD-8 Chair. Harcharik summed up important concerns of all present when he pointed out the need for clear objectives, the importance of moving from talk to action, and the need for partnerships to avoid duplication and develop synergy.

Regarding the programme elements (see Box), the delegates arrived at conclusions and proposals for action regarding all the remaining issues, which will be presented to CSD-8. The greatest attention, however, was focused on Category III, regarding international arrangements. Issues that emerged prominently in the debate were whether an international arrangement on forests should include a legally binding instrument; the financing of sustainable forest management; and transfer of environmentally sound technology. Although agreement was not reached easily, the meeting - at 6 a.m. on Saturday, 12 February - finally adopted a text which will be submitted for adoption by CSD, entitled "International Arrangement on Forests".

The agreed text outlines the objectives, purpose, functions, structure, working modalities and coordination and implementation mechanisms of a proposed international arrangement whose objective would be "to promote the management, conservation and sustainable development of all types of forests and to strengthen long-term political commitment to this end".

The purpose of this arrangement would be "to promote the implementation of internationally agreed actions on forests, at the national, regional and global levels, to provide a coherent, transparent and participatory global framework for policy implementation, coordination and development, and to carry out principal functions, based on the Rio Declaration, the Forest Principles, Chapter 11 of Agenda 21 and the outcomes of the IPF/IFF process, in a manner consistent with and complementary to existing international legally binding instruments relevant to forests".

To this end, it was proposed to create a new intergovernmental body, which may be called the United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF). This high-level body would be established by the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and the General Assembly. It would be open to all States and to relevant United Nations and other international and regional organizations, institutions and instruments and major groups as identified in Agenda 21. It would initially meet annually, for a period of up to two weeks (subject to review), and would include a two- to three-day high-level ministerial segment, as well as a meeting between ministers and heads of member organizations.

UNFF would work on the basis of a multiyear programme of work, drawing on elements reflected in the Rio Declaration, the Forest Principles, Chapter 11 of Agenda 21 and the proposals for action of the Ad hoc Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF) and IFF.

It was agreed that within five years, UNFF should consider recommending the parameters of a mandate for developing a legal framework on all types of forests; and that the body should take steps to devise approaches towards appropriate financial and technology transfer support to enable the implementation of sustainable forest management, as recommended under the IPF and IFF processes.

The funding for the arrangement should be mobilized from the regular budget of the United Nations within existing resources, resources of organizations participating in the partnership and extrabudgetary resources provided by interested donors. It was agreed that the international arrangement on forests should be dynamic and should adapt to evolving conditions. Accordingly, the effectiveness of the arrangement would be reviewed in five years.

Although the urban cityscape of New York which formed the backdrop for the IFF meeting may have seemed remote indeed from forests and trees, the outcome of the meeting - the likely creation of the high-level UNFF - could have profound implications for forest management, and by implication for all who depend on forests.

International cooperation on certification and labelling

A Meeting on International Cooperation on Certification of Sustainable Forest Management and Labelling of Forest Products, organized by the Government of Australia, was held in New York from 22 to 24 November 1999. It was attended by officials from 17 countries (Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, Finland, Germany, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the Russian Federation, Sweden, the United Kingdom, the United States and Uruguay) as well as representatives of the European Commission, FAO, the Ad hoc Open-ended Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF) secretariat and the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO).

The meeting sought to explore opportunities for government cooperation and to draw on the experiences of the participating countries and international secretariats, examining in particular:

• recent developments in certification and labelling;
  
• the current and potential role of governments in certification and labelling schemes;
  
• the desirability of international action towards developing an international mechanism for a cooperative approach on certification and labelling schemes;
  
• the requirements for such a framework.
  

After opening remarks by Wilson Tuckey, Australian Minister for Forestry and Conservation, delegates from Canada, Finland, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States gave presentations addressing the degree of certification achieved in their countries, the course of action followed, the role of government and the extent to which IPF/IFF concepts for certification had been accommodated. The following are some of the key issues that were highlighted:

• the range of performance- and systems-based approaches being pursued nationally, regionally and internationally;
  
• the need to avoid consumer confusion on labels;
  
• the use of criteria and indicators in certification and labelling schemes;
  
• the challenges of comparability and equivalence;
  
• the varying role of governments in developing standards and schemes for certification and labelling;
  
• the capacity required to undertake certification and labelling schemes;
  
• the need for a stepwise or graduated approach to certification and labelling so as not to create disincentives to sustainable forest management in timber-producing developing countries;
  
• concern about the potential for monopoly and market distortion.
  

The meeting recognized the benefits of certification and labelling as a potentially useful tool for promoting sustainable forest management and for verifying forest management practices. However, many participants expressed concerns about the complexity of certification schemes, the potential costs and inefficiencies resulting from the proliferation of schemes, the obstacles to developing countries' access to major consumer markets, the potential for consumer confusion and the potential for discrimination. The meeting noted that about half of the world's wood production is used for fuelwood and is likely to remain outside certification systems.

Differing levels of government involvement in certification and labelling were recognized at both the national and international levels, reflecting the diversity of national circumstances. An important reason for government involvement is to ensure that certification systems are developed and implemented in a transparent, fair, equitable and non-discriminatory way, as well as being consistent with national laws and policies and international trade rules.

The meeting highlighted the importance of considering certification of sustainable forest management separately from the labelling and marketing of forest products from certified forests, a distinction made by some national schemes. However, some participants noted that multiple schemes can be inefficient and costly, particularly for developing countries. Problems concerning market access, consumer prejudice and competition with substitute products were also raised. The meeting also noted the differences in perspectives of timber producing and consuming developing countries. Many consumer developing countries are concerned about the potential for prices to increase as a result of certification and labelling.

The meeting identified several certification and labelling issues of international importance that remain unresolved, including:

• development of a set of critical elements for assessment of certification and labelling schemes;
  
• how certification can be further supported as an incentive for sustainable forest management and facilitating trade;
  
• how certification can be applied to broader forestry activities, for instance certification of carbon sinks for climate change mitigation;
  
• how to avoid duplication from concurrent international activities.
  

Follow-up to the above issues should involve consultation and exchange of information with the full range of stakeholders in order to minimize duplication of effort, achieve collective support and assist in further clarifying the potential areas for government contribution.