To members of the Forest List, Here's an article from Dr. Patrick Moore, formerly from Greenpeace, which I believe would be of interest to some of you. > I attended the first week of the above meeting where 160 countries are > trying to decide whether or not to recommend negotiations towards an > international agreement on forest and forestry. Needless to say this > is a complex field and the byzantine nature of the UN plus endless > politics makes it difficult to figure out. > One of the more bizarre occurances is the reversal of the > environmental movement, who en masse announced they were now against > an international convention, for among other supposed reasons, because > the "timing" is wrong. > Here are two dispatches we filed from the meeting last week whicdh > might give you a flavour for the discourse. > > Feb. 14, 1997 > Now IS the Time! > > "In 1990, 57 non-governmental organizations from around the world > supported > development of a new legally-binding forests convention; seven years > later, > the need for urgent agreement on this issue has never been greater." > Environmental Investigation Agency Ltd. > We in the Forest Alliance of British Columbia could not agree more > with > this clear and direct statement. Whether one's main concern is > environment, > economy or community there can be no doubt that forests and forestry > are > key global issues that urgently need more focused attention. > Every nation on earth has forests that must be conserved, used, and > protected. Trees are central to human survival on a daily basis, with > fully > 50% of annual wood consumption used for cooking and heating, 80% of > that in > developing countries. > There is no question that forestry is the most sustainable of all > primary > industries and that wood is the most renewable building material used > in > human civilization. Yet we are witnessing the loss of millions of > hectares > of forest annually, mainly in the tropics. Combined with a growing > population this trend threatens biodiversity, the forest industry, and > communities that depend on the forest for fuel, food, water and > timber. > > It is time to recognize that the underlying causes of deforestation > are not > to be found in polemical discussions. Deforestation is caused > primarily by > clearing forests for agriculture and human settlement, at least 90% > according to the FAO. Some of this clearing is by large food companies > but > much of it is by ordinary people trying to make a living for their > families. > It has been clearly demonstrated that existing agreements and > institutions > are not sufficient to reverse deforestation or to accelerate > re-afforestation. These goals cannot be achieved unless there is an > initiative at the highest level that places forests at the top of the > global agenda. This initiative must involve citizens from local to > international levels, from government and non-government > organizations, and > from both large and small industries. This is not the time to delay; > this > is the time to move forward boldly and to get on with the urgent task > of > negotiating an agreement on forests. > > Feb. 15, 1997 > Legally-binding or Not? > > Much of the debate at the IPF centres around whether or not countries > should enter into formal negotiation, potentially leading to the > creation > of a legally binding Convention on Forests. Some countries have > expressed > support while others have expressed opposition to this kind of > agreement. > Many countries are trying to find words describing a middle ground > that > will keep the momentum of IPF alive. > A bystander might be confused by the fact that the world's two largest > trading partners and staunch political allies, Canada and the United > States, have staked out opposing positions on the need for a legal > instrument on forests. Adding to this confusion is the sudden > about-face of > most environmental NGOs who now state that they are against a forests > convention even though they were among its earliest and strongest > supporters. > How can we view this situation so as at least to get a clearer picture > of > the choices? Certainly there is the ever-present issue of national > sovereignty versus the common good. But this has not stopped the > international community from negotiating scores of other treaties and > conventions > When we examine the other international agreements involving > environment > and development we find that they generally deal with > > matters where there is a clear right of common property. The Law of > the > Sea, the Convention on Trade in Endangered Species, the International > Whaling Convention, the Convention on Biodiversity, and the Climate > Change > Convention are all cases in point. > In all these agreements there is a consensus that despite national > sovereignty, there are matters of a global nature that require > international laws in order to protect the global commons. In other > words, > there are common rights in global property that must be defended. > The proposal of a legally binding Convention on Forests is different > from > other international agreements in one important respect. Such a > convention > could influence the management of a country's most precious resource - > its > land. While other agreements might influence land use decisions > indirectly, > a Convention on Forests could have a direct impact. For some countries > this > might be seen as an unacceptable intrusion into their sovereignty. > Are the rights of citizens regarding forest management, protection and > stewardship at a global level now threatened? Is deforestation > sufficiently > serious to warrant a concerted international effort to combat and > reverse > the trend? Can this be accomplished in the absence of international > agreements that have the force of law? > It seems clear that there are some global rights regarding the > management > and protection of forests. Most people would agree that in some cases > these > rights are not currently being upheld. > Simply entering into negotiations towards a convention in no way binds > countries to adopt one. Even when a convention is first adopted it > does not > necessarily contain legally binding provisions that compromise > national > sovereignty. > For example, the Climate Change Convention has some reporting > requirements > but does not as yet have legally-binding targets for greenhouse gas > emissions. One would hope such targets will be adopted in future. In > the > same way, a Convention on Forests would provide the legal framework > that > would allow signatory parties eventually to enter into legally binding > agreements. > Even in the absence of major legal provisions a formal convention > would > place forests and forestry higher on the international agenda, equal > in > stature to the other international conventions on biodiversity, > climate > change, etc. > Canada has taken the position, and the Forest Alliance of BC has > supported > it, that it is indeed in the common interest of all countries to adopt > a > legally binding agreement regarding forests. > > I hope this is of interest > Cheers > > Patrick Moore, GREENSPIRIT > 4068 West 32nd Avenue > Vancouver BC, CANADA V6S 1Z6 > (604) 221-1990 phone/fax > e-mail pmoore@rogers.wave.ca > May the Forest be With You > Try http://www.forest.org God bless. Nelson Wong MTC
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0