Dear Margaret S. Puckette, > Thanks to those who shared the position statements from the environmental > groups clarifying their reasons for opposing the Global Forest Convention. > It was very clear. > > But to understand the issues more clearly, it would also be helpful to hear > about those who are supporting and sponsoring this Convention. > * What is their position? > * Who are they and what are their concerns? > * How will the convention address these concerns? <snip> > > I know Dr. O'Brien; she lives in the area and attends many public hearings > on issues from forest management to air and water pollution. She asks many > questions of officials and others who hold these hearings like: what was > your methodology? Which statistical analysis did you use? What historical > data do you have? Did you check for evidence of _____? (usually something > that might have been a factor but was not included in the study) > > These questions drive the discussion deeper and draw out much more > information that is useful for public deliberations. People in the > audience are very grateful because they haven't the expertise to know > exactly what to ask yet they are very concerned about the subject of the > hearing. <snip> > To address some of the concerns expressed by members of this list, I believe > it is possible to discuss this political subject, to each comfortably stand > in our own positions, and to treat this as a debate. But what I need is an > honest picture of positions on both "sides" because both sides have > intrinsic value. Thank you Margaret for your more polished and wholesome approach. Your comments reminded me of a discussion I had yesterday with a zoologist from Oxford on another mailing list. The discussion focused on the management and integration of information in conservation. As for the Global Forest Convention, what is needed is the integration and sharing of resources and information. What is happening is a confrontational approach which is of no help, to say the least. Would it be possible for environmental organisations, say, Greenpeace, to offer their expertise to Third World countries in South America, Asia, and Africa? The corporate world is talking about TQM (Total Quality Management). There is no reason why this cannot apply towards forest management. NGOs cannot hope to bring about changes without technical cooperation. And policy makers cannot hope to avoid criticisms by ignoring NGOs per se. They must meet half-way. This brings home another point - COMMITMENT. Rio is a sad reminder that while the industrialised countries preach about tying trade with human rights/environment. They are short on commitment. To complicate matters further, most NGOs originate from these same countries. We have a forestry policy here in Malaysia. But if NGOs are of the opinion that our forest could be managed better. We are prepared to discuss and share information further. NGOs are free to sponsor researchers, especially forest engineers and biologists to provide technical cooperation in Malaysia. I am sure even ITTO would be most happy with such assistance. Technological transfer in forest management would be more appreciated than just mere talk. To apply TQM in forest managment, NGOs and policy makers must cooperate and work together as a team. Maybe we need a paradigm shift in understanding forest management, just maybe. God bless. Nelson Wong MTC
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0