Delegates undertook the first round of discussion on programme element I.3, traditional forest-related knowledge (TFRK) on 10 September. Co-Chair Sir Martin Holdgate introduced the Secretary-Generals report on the issue (E/CN.17/IPF/1996/16). The report contains a general overview of the nature of traditional knowledge, its relationship to property rights and the distinctions that need to be drawn regarding its integration into SFM.
In the discussion that followed, the Convention on Biological Diversity Secretariat urged wider application of TFRK and, with the EU and GABON, equitable sharing of benefits. JAPAN, supported by AUSTRALIA, CANADA and the G-77/CHINA, emphasized the Convention on Biological Diversitys major responsibility on the issue. The EU, COLOMBIA, UKRAINE, the NETHERLANDS, the PHILIPPINES and UNESCO said indigenous peoples should be consulted in the development of land use plans and SFM programmes. DENMARK called for social equity in participation regarding the development of forest and land use plans.
COICA and the INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE OF INDIGENOUS TRIBAL PEOPLES sought recognition of indigenous peoples rights to their intellectual property and territories and, with MALAYSIA, urged that TFRK be protected by national legislation. COLOMBIA said intellectual property rights (IPR) should be determined at the State and international levels. Environmental NGOs called for international legislation on IPR. PAPUA NEW GUINEA said that TFRK should be addressed on a piecemeal basis and called for the establishment of incentives for contributions. BRAZIL and NORWAY sought a sui generis type of protection for TFRK. The US supported partnership agreements, but questioned IPF attempts to facilitate contracts between governments and TFRK owners. GERMANY sought delineation of traditional, local and contemporary knowledge.
Delegates considered revised text on TFRK on 17 September. The US said the Convention on Biological Diversity should complement rather than direct the IPFs work on TFRK. He added that the introduction of new technologies and economic opportunities could accelerate forest loss and undermine forest communities and TRFK. CANADA encouraged support for capacity building of indigenous people and local communities, and their participation as full partners in SFM. JAPAN urged governments to identify knowledge, innovations and practices relevant to the practical application of SFM.
The G-77/CHINA called for heightened protection of indigenous peoples IPR and rights to patents. The EU sought recognition of the knowledge and rights of forest owners. NORWAY said instruments regarding TFRK should be developed and implemented to be mutually supportive while avoiding duplication of work. A NAPGUANA representative noted that indigenous peoples could contribute more effectively if the reports were available in languages other than English. He urged that TFRK be viewed as an integral part of indigenous peoples lives and not just as a marketable commodity. Environmental NGOs called on governments to collaborate with indigenous peoples, concerned groups and institutions in the compilation of TFRK at national and local levels. The INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE OF INDIGENOUS TRIBAL PEOPLES reported on an upcoming intersessional meeting on TFRK sponsored by Denmark and Colombia to be held in Colombia, from 9-13 December 1996.
Delegates briefly revisited TFRK during the final session of Working Group I on September 20. The US supported a sui generis regime for the protection and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of TFRK. The G-77/CHINA supported participatory approaches and management of TFRK but called for inclusion of language emanating from the Rio Declaration and Forest Principles rather than that proposed by the EU referring to community forest management, land-use resource management, research training and extension, the formulation of criteria and indicators and conflict resolution. The EU supported JAPANs proposal inviting governments to work toward identifying knowledge, innovations and practices that are relevant to the practical attainment of SFM. Discussions on this programme element will continue at IPF-4.
[Return to start of article]