In the plenary discussion of these actions, one participant emphasized the need for strengthening research in all areas, particularly in trade in NTFPs as potential sources of income for local communities.

The subgroup on regulation called for action to:

The regulation subgroup also formulated actions on mandatory regulation, including using a legally-binding instrument to establish an international framework with specific C&I for SFM and establishing an independent monitoring body to enforce mandatory regulations. However, the working group was reluctant to make recommendations on legally-binding instruments, arguing that there are existing conventions with specific standards and what is needed is their increased enforcement. The group also highlighted the difficulty with global C&I, which would have to be very general and thus weak. Another expressed concern about the cost of certification for small producers and the potential for discrimination and decreased competitiveness. The working group agreed not to present these recommendations for global C&I regulation to the plenary.

Following the presentation of these proposed actions in plenary, one delegate advocated calling for an additional action by the WTO, to promote fair stumpage pricing.

The subgroup on international trade regimes outlined actions and actors to change the fundamental philosophy and framework of international trade agreements so they promote environmental objectives, increase the enforceability of human rights and environmental agreements and balance vested interests with those of other parts of civil society. The trade regime subgroup recommended that:

Following the presentation of these recommendations in plenary, one delegate asked why the proposal to interpret Article XX of GATT to allow banning export of unsustainably harvested forest products did not also include banning other products. He also inquired who would be the judge of whether management is unsustainable.

STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION AND LAND TENURE: WG-2, chaired by Hernan Verscheure (Chile), addressed stakeholder participation and land tenure and initiated discussion on Tuesday on relevant underlying causes and the overall scope of the group’s theme. Significant discussion centered around the concept of “stakeholder,” noting the centrality of indigenous peoples and local communities in this process and cautioning against mixing indigenous and local interests with those of other stakeholders such as industry, governments, NGOs, research and technical bodies. Many supported the need to clearly identify all relevant stakeholders, who differ across countries, along with their vested interests, rights and legitimacy. Participants recommended consideration of: gender concerns; indigenous cosmologies and spiritual values; recognition of rights to territory, which is more encompassing than land tenure; and the interaction of indigenous peoples with other industrial sectors. One participant proposed the notion of inequality as the central “meta-underlying cause,” since it encapsulates marginalized peoples, inequities within and between groups at all geographic levels, and latent power structures embedded in government decision-making, privatization processes and activities of transnational corporations.

WG-2 then divided into four subgroups. The subgroup on indigenous and local communities discussed the lack of recognition of their individual and collective rights for access, use and management of natural resources, lands and territories. They developed specific objectives, including: recognizing these and other land tenure rights, along with traditional knowledge and spirituality in national and international legislation; supporting forest conservation and indigenous livelihoods through sustainable management proposals; ensuring equitable distribution of social, economic and cultural benefits along with environmental costs; requiring prior informed consent for projects in indigenous lands and territories; and ensuring management and administrative mechanisms for protection of local knowledge, rights and equitable distribution of benefits.

Objectives identified by the subgroup on participation included: recognizing the legitimacy of alternative development models and the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities to oppose development projects affecting them; providing necessary resources to facilitate effective participation of indigenous peoples and local communities; and creating the legal and cultural conditions for effective participation of women.

A subgroup on governance and corporate accountability was formed to address the: increasing power of government bodies and corporations in land tenure regimes; lack of transparency and accountability in decision-making; lack of long-term land-use policies; and corruption, militarism and dictatorship. Objectives were categorized according to government and corporate/trade concerns. Those for government included: transparent, accountable and participatory decision-making in land planning, use and tenure; devolution of decision-making processes to the local level; cessation of unregulated conversion of forest lands; government compliance with international obligations and commitments; and recognition of former ownership/land tenure arrangements of indigenous peoples and local communities. Regarding trade and corporations, the subgroup developed objectives on: corporate accountability to local publics; establishment of viable alternatives to industrial models; elimination of financing from international banks to corporations that destroy natural forests; and representation of communities and NGOs in international trade negotiations.

The subgroup on implementation and management proposed clarification of ambiguous concepts and rights related to indigenous peoples and local communities in international and national legal instruments. Other objectives that were articulated included: increased accessibility, accountability and transparency of governments, industry and aid agencies in forest-related activities; opportunities for indigenous and local communities to influence decision-makers; and appropriate government funding and capacity-building, including community capacity-building for monitoring and enforcing forest-related legislation and regulations.

During the plenary presentation of the subgroups’ findings, one participant supported further discussion of trends and means to return lands to their “original tenurial systems.”

On Wednesday morning, WG-2 broke into three subgroups (combining the two subgroups on indigenous and local communities’ rights and participation) to identify actions and actors to realize the previously developed objectives. One participant pointed to the IPF action proposal requiring development of national forest programmes (NFPs), which could serve as a vehicle for recommendations on stakeholder participation, institutional mechanisms and other national level requirements.

The subgroup on indigenous peoples and local communities’ rights and participation developed a list of concrete actions based on their objectives with some specification of relevant actors. On individual and collective rights of indigenous and local communities, proposed actions and actors outlined were to:

On forest conservation and the social existence of indigenous peoples, the subgroup recommended that actions include:

Regarding indigenous peoples and local communities’ rights and participation in environmental legislation, the subgroup called for, inter alia:

On the role of women, the subgroup proposed, inter alia:

When the subgroups presented these proposals to WG-2, several participants stressed the need to protect traditional knowledge from bio-piracy and suggested further involvement in the upcoming review of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs). During the afternoon plenary, one delegate advocated including considerations of gender equality in legislation regarding land tenure.

The subgroup on governance and corporate accountability stressed the need for increased attention to developing NFPs under the IPF proposals for action. Recommended actions and actors on governance included:

Regarding corporate accountability, the subgroup proposed actions and actors to, inter alia:

One WG-2 participant stressed consideration of export credit agencies. After debate over voluntary versus mandatory codes of conduct, participants agreed to remove reference to such codes. In WG-2 and plenary discussion, several delegates noted the failure to adequately address corruption and militarism, which are central underlying causes and relate to land tenure, corporate power and non-recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities. In this regard, participants supported effective enforcement of legal measures, transparency and accountability in decision-making and elimination of militarism.

Regarding the ambiguity and weakness of legislation on indigenous peoples and local communities, the subgroup on implementation and management suggested:

On increasing government and industry accessibility, transparency and accountability, the subgroup recommended actions:

Finally, on capacity-building for monitoring and enforcement, the subgroup called for:

In WG-2’s review of the subgroups’ work, participants also emphasized the distinction between indigenous peoples and “stakeholders” and the relationship between their proposed recommendations and the process of globalization.

INVESTMENT POLICIES, AID AND FINANCIAL FLOWS: Chaired by Rob Thorman (Australia), WG-3 considered investment policies, aid and financial flows. On Tuesday, they divided into four subgroups to elaborate objectives regarding the issues to be addressed under this theme.

The first subgroup discussed appropriate development models, development strategies and SAPs. The subgroup proposed consideration of long-term sustainability and more appropriate development models and strategies, given social and environmental costs and benefits. With regard to SAPs, the subgroup developed the following objectives: incorporation of social and environmental accountability; mitigation of negative impacts of SAPs; deeper review and analysis of SAP impacts; broader discussion of policies and proposed changes; and transparency in SAP decision-making.

The second subgroup discussed debt servicing and debt creation, perverse incentives and private capital flows. Objectives on debt servicing and debt creation suggested that: capacity related to natural resource management not be adversely affected by debt servicing; lending institutions and countries restructure and, where appropriate, write off debts; and countries that implement environmentally and socially sustainable forest management practices be rewarded by measures to reduce debt servicing. Alternatively, such financial resources could be earmarked for SFM, based on countries’ ability to service debts and conditionalities that aim to achieve SFM. On shifting perverse incentives, the subgroup highlighted the elimination of subsidies for forest commodities and evaluation of non-forest sector policies’ impact on SFM. On private capital flows, they suggested the following objectives: private sector internalization of externalities; imposition of sanctions against companies not conforming to requirements for SFM; definition of private capital flows that do not produce certifiable forest products as "dumping;" provision of favorable conditions or preferential treatment by lending institutions to investments that support SFM; evaluation of the impact of non- forest sector private capital investment on SFM; and inclusion of conditionalities to minimize such impacts.

The third subgroup formulated objectives on corruption, governance and institutional instruments, including: reinforcement of forest sector governance, institutions and instruments through improved representation, transparency and accountability to various stakeholders; establishment of principles and protocols; and creation of verification systems and codes of conduct.

The fourth subgroup outlined objectives with respect to community issues and the non-recognition of land rights, including: a shared vision of the spiritual values of forests; integration of these values into human behavior; and implementation of policies to facilitate attitudinal changes in society.

WG-3 met in four subgroups again on Wednesday to identify actions and actors in the context of the objectives developed during the previous day and reported their results to the working group as a whole.

The first subgroup identified the following actions and actors regarding alternative development models and SAPs:

On private capital flows and debt issues, the second subgroup identified, inter alia, the following actions and actors:

The third subgroup proposed, inter alia, the following actions and actors to address corruption and good governance:

The fourth subgroup identified, inter alia, the following actions and actors to address community issues and non- recognition of land rights:

After discussing the various recommended actions and actors elaborated by the four subgroups, WG-3 and identified further actions to be to the workshop plenary.

Regarding SAPs, WG-3 proposed that:

WG-3 participants also recommended the following additional actions and actors to:

VALUATION: WG-4, chaired by Jutta Kill (Germany), considered valuation of forest goods and services. On Tuesday morning, WG-4 divided into three subgroups to define objectives regarding economic, philosophical, political and legal as pacts of forest valuation.

The subgroup on economic values specified objectives for: ensuring that natural forests are valued as fully functional ecosystems; acknowledging the ecosystem values and restoration potential of all forests; maintaining the ecological integrity of all remaining primary forests; developing an equitable valuation system for non-timber goods and services that allows for comparability of economic, social and ecological values; and making sure that FAO changes its definitions of forest, deforestation, afforestation and degradation of forests to include more than just tree cover statistics. One participant recommended a world-wide fund to pay people for protecting rather than logging forests.

The subgroup on philosophical issues of forest valuation identified the following objectives: stopping the destruction of spiritual and cultural values, especially “cosmovisions” of indigenous peoples and local communities; recovering and transmitting ancestral knowledge, especially the spirituality and cosmovisions of indigenous peoples and their knowledge of NTFPs; broadening understanding of spiritual values and integrating material and spiritual conceptions of forests; ensuring that benefits derived from full valuation of NTFPs are retained by local people; developing laws to grant collective and community property rights; halting the appropriation of TFRK; validating TFRK; collectively studying orally transmitted knowledge systems and assuring that this compiled knowledge is returned to forest communities; and promoting the indigenous concept of knowing as “using” rather than “owning” knowledge. During WG-4’s discussion of these objectives, one participant commented that concepts of rights over knowledge, particularly the notion of knowledge as property, differ greatly between cultures. He recommended further discussion on these notions. Another participant noted that many of these values are already officially recognized by countries that have ratified the CBD.

The subgroup on legal and political aspects of valuation identified the following objectives: consideration of forests as ecosystems offering different goods and providing spiritual, environmental, social, cultural and economic services in international and national legislation; generation of proper instruments to reflect all values of forests in decision-making processes; development of educational programmes and capacity- building initiatives to increase knowledge and encourage attitude changes regarding forest values; and assurance that international cooperation policies recognize the necessity of working to conserve and sustainably use forests.

Following the plenary presentation of the subgroups’ conclusions on Tuesday, one participant noted that mention of monetary economic valuation was missing and urged the group to ensure that these views would be addressed by the IFF. Another delegate recommended addressing economic valuation frameworks such as “greening of national accounts.”

On Wednesday morning WG-4's three subgroups specified actions and actors for each objective and reported back to the working group in the afternoon.

Regarding the objective for an ecosystem approach and valuation of all forest goods and services in international and national legislation, the subgroup on legal and political aspects of valuation called for action to, inter alia:

On improving international cooperation policies, the subgroup proposed:

On developing educational instruments for changing attitudes regarding the entire range of forest values, the subgroup proposed that:

On methods to reflect all forest values in decision-making processes and to promote capacity-building, the subgroup proposed:

The subgroup on economic aspects called for actions and actors to:

On valuation of non-timber goods and services, the subgroup called for actions and actors to:

WG-4 also made two proposals calling for:

Regarding traditional knowledge and spiritual values, the subgroup on philosophical issues called for:

On local communities’ rights and capture of NTFP benefits, the subgroup proposed that:

On Wednesday afternoon, WG-4 consolidated the actions into the following eight proposals, each presented to the plenary:

WG-4 on forest valuation also presented to the plenary a disputed proposal to encourage public and private donors and IGOs to develop a range of incentives and innovative mechanisms to aid governments in enforcing and promoting forest-related programmes. During the plenary discussion of WG-4's results, one participant noted the need for research on how to ensure that benefits, especially commercial ones are retained by local communities. Another commented on WG-4’s lack of reference to land tenure aspects pertinent to forest valuation.

In the remaining plenary discussion on Wednesday, delegates also made a number of general observations on all four working groups’ recommendations. One participant stressed the need to attach specific timetables to the actions proposed. Another proposed that the workshop make a strong declaration that forests are in crisis in order to focus public attention and catalyze governmental action. One speaker advocated communicating the necessity for immediate action by specific actors, such as calling on UN agencies to stop buying wood and paper products originating from destructive practices and demanding an immediate response from the UN on this proposal.

Another delegate noted that many of the recommendations target governments and international institutions, but few are directed at industry and logging companies, and she suggested distributing and presenting workshop proposals to these private sector actors.

Workshop Co-Chair Simone Lovera then informed participants that a drafting group would meet all day on Thursday to compile the report of the workshop, which would be based on the recommendations formulated by each of the working groups. She stated that the drafting group would be composed of the Organizing Committee and a number of other participants, and invited volunteers to assist. She announced that the report would be available Thursday night and that delegates would have ample opportunity to comment on the report during the plenary session on Friday.

CLOSING PLENARY

In the closing plenary, Co-Chair Lovera presented the Report of the Global Workshop, explaining that it was a compilation of the issues raised in the various working groups over the preceding days and that no substantive changes had been made. She noted that the drafting group had added an appendix to the report which highlighted particular recommendations that were “ostensibly different” from the IPF proposals for action. She stated that the recommendations would be forwarded for consideration at IFF-3. She emphasized the need for implementation of the workshop recommendations and invited delegates’ comments on the report.

Several delegates commended the report for its diversity of ideas and issues. One participant proposed that a summary of the report be produced to give it focus and better engage the attention of its targeted actors. He stated that since the report represented all viewpoints, summarizing it to provide focus would not be against the spirit of the process. Many participants supported this proposal. One speaker recommended that such a summary: highlight crucial action proposals; reference links between underlying causes and actions to address them; eliminate duplication; and move general narrative statements from current proposals to a new section. Another recommended putting such general statements in a chapeau, prioritizing issues identified in all working groups, and leaving the present report as a background paper. He also expressed concern about possible inconsistencies between proposals. It was also recommended that strategic proposals be included in UNEP’s report to the UN Secretary-General as task manager on underlying causes for deforestation.

Delegates highlighted elements that they noted were missing in the report. One participant noted the absence of calls for: recovery and demarcation of indigenous territories; NTFP certification; consideration of non-compliance with forest- related obligations by IFIs when granting loans; research on commercial values of NTFPs; halting of concessions within protected areas; and legislation to promote compliance with biodiversity-related obligations. Speakers noted inadequate references to forest-related agricultural issues and to biodiversity, particularly the CBD work programme on forest biodiversity. One delegate noted that trade in illegally produced forest products, including mahogany, had received much attention under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, and asked workshop participants to support this by forwarding this message to IFF-3. Another commented that many of the actions proposed were re-statements of underlying causes and called for a review of the workshop report to arrive at actions to address the underlying causes.

Regarding follow-up, one speaker called for funding of national workshops to educate the actors identified in the proposed actions. Another participant called for a detailed study of internationally financed development projects that may contribute to deforestation, such as hydropower and highway projects. Another participant highlighted country-specific actions that can be undertaken immediately, without waiting for an IFF mandate.

A suggestion that the workshop’s output include a “Declaration of Forest Crisis,” presenting figures for the rate and extent of deforestation and stressing the urgency of action, received support. Another commentator recommended citing sources for figures given. One delegate stressed that it should also highlight the workshop's contribution to new understandings of underlying causes.

One participant read a joint letter of protest to the Kenyan government regarding the assault on Wangari Maathai during her attempts to reforest an area of the Karura forest preserve, and requested delegates to endorse the letter.

Following these comments, delegates heard reflections on the report from a representative of the World Bank and of a community-based organization

Odin Knudsen, on behalf of Ian Johnson, World Bank Vice- President, commented on the relation of the workshop’s results to World Bank activities. He noted how the Bank’s focus on poverty alleviation and sustainable development relates to deforestation and forest peoples, stressing partnerships among and comparative advantages between banks, governments, NGOs and the private sector. Knudsen noted that the Bank’s funding of SAPs has generally focused on the short-term. He stressed a longer-term perspective, improved coordination with the IMF and studies on SAPs’ environmental effects. He said the Bank needs to continue improving participation and transparency, especially through inclusion of indigenous peoples and local communities. The Bank is also beginning to recognize the link between sustainable development and human rights. He affirmed the need for proper forest valuation and highlighted ongoing Bank research in this regard. He outlined the Bank’s Forest Policy Implementation Review and Strategy, which will continue with regional consultations in developing the Bank’s global forest strategy.

In response, several participants welcomed the Bank’s progressiveness and stressed further work on ecosystem valuation and the effects of conservation policies on the distribution of benefits. One delegate called on the Bank to “look again, look harder and look wider� in its regional consultations, because wherever the Bank is present there is poverty and economic imbalance leading to destruction of indigenous values, heritage and forests.

Mia Siscawati (Indonesian Institute for Forest and Environment) provided some reflections on the workshop outcomes in the context of Asian forest experiences and recent forest- related disasters from fires, floods, landslides and other natural disasters. She highlighted actions to, inter alia: change unsustainable patterns of consumption and production, and the philosophy of international trade agreements regarding human rights and environmental issues; address counterproductive investment, aid policies and financial flows; recognize and protect individual and collective rights, knowledge and spirituality, as well as land tenures of indigenous peoples, local communities and women; ratify and promote ILO 169 and CEDAW; address corruption, militarism, dictatorship and lack of transparency, accountability and the increasing power of government bodies and corporations; and amend FAO�s forest- related definitions to include the ecosystem approach and forest quality. She expressed regret about the private sector�s lack of representation at the workshop and asked participants to ensure follow-up of the recommendations.

A panel discussion ensued on how best to ensure implementation of the report�s recommendations, with representatives from government, local communities and regional focal points addressing the plenary.

Jean Pierre LeDanff (CBD Secretariat) stated that the workshop report has important recommendations that will be considered by the CBD Conference of Parties when it addresses forest biodiversity at its sixth meeting (COP-6) in 2002. He noted other more immediate avenues to advance the report�s recommendations, including the CBD subsidiary body�s meeting in June 2000, the progress report to be prepared in advance of COP- 6, and the open-ended CBD working group on indigenous knowledge.

Amrit Joshi (FAO) emphasized the responsibility of the various international organizations to undertake the actions recommended by the workshop. He said the main problem is how to mitigate the underlying causes, and a clear answer is to involve communities in resource management. He emphasized the particular need for action at the national level. He described FAO�s community forestry programme, stressing the need to enable forest users to manage the forests and reap their benefits, and highlighted the case of community forestry in Nepal as a successful example.

Marcus Colchester (Forest Peoples Programme) expressed hope that the workshop had created a shift in thinking on forests, away from an exclusive focus on tropical forests toward a more comprehensive definition of how all orests should be valued, and toward recognition of the need for participation and ownership of forests by indigenous peoples and local communities. He also underscored the need for a shift in international legal regimes to give equal weight to environmental and human rights issues. He noted that more remains to be done, such as moving the debate beyond the forest sector to address agriculture and other sectors impacting forests. He called on governments to ensure the use of the workshop report at IFF-3.

Lourdes Barrag�n (Ministry of Environment of Ecuador) emphasized the need to approach forest problems in a holistic and multidisciplinary manner. Praising the workshop for formulating sound recommendations that can and must be implemented, she called on participants to enable implementation by: disseminating the results to government agencies and the mass media; establishing strategies with comprehensive vision; lobbying political parties at the national level; and ensuring monitoring and follow-up after the workshop.

Alberto Chinchilla (Coordinadora Indigena-Campesina de Agroforesteria Communitaria - CICAFOC) emphasized the need for conservation and development policies at all levels that take indigenous peoples and local communities into consideration, and for open political spaces with active participation of local communities. He noted CICAFOC�s efforts in Central America to implement many of the actions recommended at this workshop, including training, education and information exchange programmes among local communities.

Finally, Elisabeth Odio, Vice President and Minister of Environment of Costa Rica, delivered the closing statement of the Global Workshop. She expressed her deep appreciation of the work done by participants in coming together to sincerely attempt to understand the deeper issues involved in deforestation and to forge effective, long-term solutions to the global problem of deforestation. She cited the recent devastation caused by Hurricane Mitch in Central America, underscoring the urgency of not neglecting the environment for short-sighted gains. She pointed out that as no single stakeholder is responsible for the state of the environment today. All stakeholders must come together to find a solution. In this regard the workshop was a valuable intellectual exercise to seek consensual solutions to the underlying causes of deforestation and forest degradation; and she assured participants that their recommendations would receive the full consideration and support of the Costa Rican government.

Sustainable Developments is a publication of the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) (info@iisd.ca), publishers of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin �. This issue is written and edited by Stas Burgiel (sb4997a@american.edu), Deborah Davenport (ddavenp@emory.edu), Kira Schmidt (kiras@iisd.org) and Rajyashri Waghray (rsw24@columbia.edu) and edited by Nabiha Megateli (nmegateli@igc.apc.org). The Managing Editor of Sustainable Developments is Langston James "Kimo" Goree VI (kimo@iisd.org) with assistance from Laura Ivers (laurai@iisd.org). Funding for coverage of this meeting has been provided the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The authors can be contacted at their electronic mail addresses and at tel: +1- 212-644-0204 and by fax: +1-212-644-0206. IISD can be contacted at 161 Portage Avenue East, 6th Floor, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 0Y4, Canada; tel: +1-204-958-7700; fax: +1-204-958-7710. The opinions expressed in the Sustainable Developments are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of IISD and other funders. Excerpts from Sustainable Developments may be used in other publications with appropriate academic citation. Electronic versions of Sustainable Developments are sent to e- mail distribution lists (ASCII and PDF format) and can be found on the Linkages WWW-server at (http://www.iisd.ca/linkages/). For further information on Sustainable Developments, including requests to provide reporting services, contact the Managing Editor at (kimo@iisd.org).