Working Group I considered draft text on programme element I.3 on traditional forest- related knowledge (TFRK). The G-77/CHINA said indigenous peoples intellectual property rights and rights to patents should be addressed. The US noted that the CBD should complement rather than direct the IPFs work on TFRK. The introduction of new technologies and economic opportunities can accelerate forest loss and undermine forest communities and TFRK. The EU recognized the importance of TFRK in the development of NFPs. She said forest owners should also contribute to the attainment of SFM.
Environmental NGOs promoted the sharing of TFRK among indigenous peoples, concerned groups and institutions, and urged governments to collaborate with these groups in compiling TFRK at national and local levels. NORWAY said existing instruments should be developed and implemented to be mutually supportive while avoiding duplication of work. CANADA encouraged support for capacity building of indigenous peoples and local communities and their participation as full partners in SFM. JAPAN invited governments to identify practical knowledge, innovations and practices relevant to the conservation and management of forest biodiversity. A NAPGUANA representative noted that indigenous peoples could contribute more effectively if reports were available in languages other than English. TFRK should be seen as an integral part of indigenous peoples lives and not just a marketable commodity.
The CHAIR introduced draft negotiating text on programme element III.I.(a) (assessment). The EU highlighted: international forest assessments and criteria and indicators (C&I); regular data updates; accessibility of assessment programs; comparability of data collection; and, liaisons with the CBD to ensure that gaps in knowledge are addressed quickly. The US distinguished the FAOs Global Forest Resource Assessment 2000 (FRA 2000) from forest resources assessments in general, and implementation plans from strategic plans. He deleted Forest Principles language on sustainable use, conservation and equitable sharing of benefits and on the urgent need for additional resources. In a paragraph on contributions of forests, NEW ZEALAND called for reference to economies rather than GNP and to deforestation and forest degradation.
Environmental NGOs objected to the documents emphasis on timber-oriented values and called for: consultations with all stakeholders to identify all benefits; use of an ecosystem approach; and broader participation in FRA 2000. JAPAN called for language on improving the quality of forest assessments and, supported by the G-77/CHINA, for standardization of definitions and categories of forests. CANADA requested FAO to include a broad range of values, including non-timber values, in FRA 2000. The G- 77/CHINA called for: use of national forest assessments, where appropriate, in the development of NFPs and FRA 2000 assessment of non-wood forest products.
On programme element III.1(b) (valuation of forest benefits), the EU noted the need to address the values of forest owners. She said that while a variety of valuation methodologies have been developed, governments should encourage development of additional methodologies addressing their own legal and political circumstances. The US said the report exceeds the mandate of the CSD. Further discussion on the issue is needed within the context of the CBD and FCCC. References to religious values of forests should be omitted. The G-77/CHINA said methodologies to assess the social, cultural and economic impacts of forest degradation are needed. He called for matrices matching available forest valuation methodologies with required data sets for all forest goods and services. NORWAY requested that the costs associated with changes in forest quality be analyzed. CANADA noted input from the COP of CBD concerning valuation methodologies and welcomed additional input from the CBD, particularly technical advice on collaboration.
On programme element III.2 (C&I), the EU highlighted: the importance of C&I implementation at all levels; descriptive criteria; land use plans; mutual recognition, consistency and convergence of C&I; and, with the US, forest owner and land tenure issues. JAPAN requested recognition of levels equivalent to management-level units and, with the US, voiced concerns over what criteria should help to assess. The US highlighted variations in links between national and forest management unit level C&I and concerns over: benefit apportionment; forest management unit C&I; and, C&I as a basis for trade restrictions. FINLAND, with the EU, suggested language from its recent C&I seminar on, inter alia, actions for poverty alleviation, institution strengthening, human resources development and public participation; consensus on terms; and research on C&I for measuring biodiversity, non-wood forest products, non- market benefits and human and cross-sectoral impacts on forests. Environmental NGOs stressed language on sub-national level C&I for large countries and CBD assistance on C&I for forest quality and biodiversity. CANADA said CBD work should complement existing C&I frameworks.
[Return to start of article]