Working Group I began with further discussion of programme element I.1 on national forest and land use plans (E/CN.17/IPF/ 1996/14). BRAZIL noted the relationship of C&I and NFP to other programme elements such as resource and technology transfer. With COSTA RICA, COLOMBIA and MOROCCO, he called for flexibility in the concept of NFPs. With SWITZERLAND, he opposed prescription of activities. He emphasized the market and commercial context, and, with SWITZERLAND, MOROCCO and ITALY, a continuing forum for forest dialogue. COSTA RICA noted historical deforestation in developed countries, and said public fora on implementation must evolve out of the NFP process.
SWITZERLAND emphasized essential proposals for action and coordination at the national and international levels. COLOMBIA highlighted private sector financing responsibilities, and, with MOROCCO, called for water and soil conservation references. MOROCCO highlighted forest threats from other sectors and inappropriate exploitation, alternative national sources of financing, terms of trade and land tenure security, and, with PORTUGAL, attention to increasing civil societys role. ITALY emphasized coordination between all UN bodies. DENMARK questioned the US call for a holistic ecosystem approach while opposing the concept of NFPs.
Co-Chair Holdgate introduced programme element I.3 on traditional forest related knowledge (E/CN.17/IPF/1996/16). Beatrice Torres, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, reported on traditional forest-related knowledge (TFRK) under the CBD. She urged wider application of TFRK and equitable sharing of benefits. COICA said TFRK should be the exclusive property of those who develop it. States should regulate the use and dissemination of TFRK with indigenous peoples involvement. COLOMBIA said any forest strategy should be based on TRFK with full prior knowledge and consent; rights should be determined at the state and international levels. The EU said benefits of TFRK should be shared equitably and indigenous peoples should be consulted in the development of land use plans and SFM programs. UNESCO said the cultural dimension of natural resource management must be properly addressed. The UKRAINE said experiences of local communities should be taken into account, particularly communities inhabiting protected lands. NORWAY supported a comprehensive approach to IPR for TFRK.
JAPAN, supported by AUSTRALIA, CANADA and COSTA RICA, highlighted the CBDs major responsibility on this issue. GERMANY sought delineation of traditional, local and contemporary knowledge. The NETHERLANDS said indigenous peoples should be involved in any change to information-sharing schemes. The INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE OF THE INDIGENOUS-TRIBAL PEOPLES called for the recognition of indigenous peoples rights to their knowledge, territories and sustainable self-development. She recommended that TFRK be protected by national legislation. DENMARK highlighted the need for social equity in participation in the development of forest and land use plans. GABON urged a study on equitable sharing of profits derived from TFRK.
MALAYSIA said rights from TFRK should be determined within the context of national laws and jurisdictions. BRAZIL sought a sui generis type of protection for TFRK, the compilation of existing legal instruments and country-specific inventories. WWF said any action to protect TFRK should be based on indigenous peoples fundamental rights to land, resources and cultural property. PAPUA NEW GUINEA said rights to TFRK should be addressed on a piecemeal basis. Incentives should be established for contributions. AUSTRALIA noted that agreements on indigenous knowledge are possible without government intervention. CANADA called for collaboration with the CBD on biodiversity prospecting. The US questioned any attempt by IPF to facilitate contracts between governments and TFRK owners and attempts to establish international IPR for TFRK, and also noted it was premature to incorporate conclusions of COP-3 of CBD.
The G-77/CHINA called attention to trade issues related to TFRK and forest management practices. IUCN, supported by the PHILIPPINES and ZIMBABWE, noted that TFRK does not recognize all values of community forest systems. The PHILIPPINES called for local empowerment, participatory approaches and strengthening of local institutions and noted an upcoming UNEP/GEF conference on indigenous knowledge. The AD HOC NGO FOREST WORKING GROUP called for an IPF recommendation for international legislation on IPR and negotiation capacity building of forest dwellers. Jean Clement (FAO) then introduced the Secretary-Generals report on programme element III.1 (a) on scientific research, forest assessment and development of criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management (E/CN.17/IPF/1996/20). He highlighted the need for national assessment capacity and new resources for the FAOs Forest Resource Assessment 2000 (FRA2000).
The EU, supported by the US, requested information on the time frame and resource planning for the FRA2000, called for utilization of existing data, supported user provision of resources for data collection and capacity building. The US called on the FAO to consider ways to improve FRAs beyond 2000, redirect existing resources toward it and collaborate with UNEP. Collaboration with other forestry and educational organizations was later echoed by UNESCO. She warned against confusing a core data proposal with efforts for global harmonization of C&I for management. AUSTRALIA said national forest inventories are an essential tool for planning and decision-making. Clarification is needed regarding how inventories will match up against C&I. SWEDEN sought strengthening of national capacities and institutions for gathering data. He suggested rolling regional assessments. JAPAN stressed the need to standardize key definitions and classifications in FRAs. AUSTRIA recommended comprehensive FRAs, incorporating social and cultural aspects. C&I should be used to prioritize data gathering.
[Return to start of article]