Documentos

Global Peoples´ Forum - Outcomes of the Commission of Forests (Rio+10)

August 29, 2002
Johannesburg, South Africa

The Commission on Forests was facilitated by the Community-Based Forestry Caucus. The Caucus came together during PrepComm IV in Bali and its membership has by now increased to over 100 people from more than 20 countries representing over 70 organizations. The Commission session employed a discussion technique called the “fishbowl” to ensure the full participation of all attendants. About 120 people participated and engaged in lively discussion around the themes “Who should manage the world’s forests?” and “What should be done to implement the WSSD Plan of Action?” A brief summary of the main issues discussed follows below.

There is growing evidence that community-based forestry and indigenous forest management are effective strategies for contributing to livelihoods and sustainable forest management around the world. In most cases communities and indigenous peoples have the largest stake in the forest, are aware of the multiple values of forests and are well capable of managing forests.

The key priority issue is that the rights of communities who depend upon on forests for their livelihoods (estimated around 1 billion) should be recognized through national legislation. This includes the rights to access, tenure, decision-making and benefits from forest resources.

To ensure communities have these rights, government agencies need to recognize the changes in their role in forest management. This includes a redefinition of the distribution of responsibilities among forestry, wildlife and environmental agencies. The empowerment of communities implies the relinquishing of control by government agencies. At the same time decentralization of responsibilities needs to be accompanied by devolution of decision-making power. Governments should usually not be involved in direct forest management.

Some of these concerns are recognized in article 43h of the Draft Plan of Action and this was recognized as a positive first step. However, there was concern that there are no specific measures to implement 43h.

Moreover, it was felt that a number of key issues were not addressed within article 43. These included the absence of analysis of the underlying of causes of deforestation; and lack of attention to the role of other forms of land use in forest destruction (such as mining, oil extraction and road construction). There was also concern that no clear distinctions were made between plantations and natural forest areas. Finally, there is a disproportionate focus on trees at the cost of ignoring the range of goods, services and benefits that forest ecosystems provide.

In general, these flaws were seen by the group to be the result of limited civil society participation in the development of the Draft Plan of Action.

Given the short time frame for discussions, no concrete recommendations or action plans were made. However, the main conclusions of the commission were the following:

1. Forest health is dependent upon proper management. This will only come about if communities and indigenous peoples have access and control over the forest resource they depend upon.
2. Capacity building is needed to ensure government agencies the skills and ability to effectively meet their changing roles.
3. Due to a lack of public participation in drafting the Plan of Action, a number of key issues were insufficiently addressed by the Plan of Action.

Commission Chairs & Rapporteurs: Karen Edwards, RECOFTC: 0832963156, Thomas Brendler, NNFP: 0828581874