Earth Negotiations Bulletin
|
|
Earth Negotiations Bulletin |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | |
| A Reporting Service for Environment and Development Negotiations |
[ PDF
Format ] [ Text Format] [IFF-4
Coverage]
Vol. 13 No. 65 IFF-4 HIGHLIGHTS On the ninth day of IFF-4, Working Group 1 convened in the
afternoon to finalize text. The contact group on finance convened
briefly and the contact group on international mechanisms and
arrangements (Category III) met throughout the day and late into the
evening. WORKING GROUP 1 MONITORING PROGRESS IN IMPLEMENTATION: On an action proposal
encouraging countries to prepare national information on the
management, conservation, and sustainable development of forests,
delegates agreed to lift brackets from text on availability of
financial resources and the text was adopted. PROMOTING AND FACILITATING IMPLEMENTATION: On an action
proposal addressing provision by the international donor community
of resources to mobilize finance, technical assistance and ESTs,
delegates agreed to replace "new and additional resources"
with "increased financial resources." The US suggested
reference to the international donor community including
international organizations and international financial
institutions. The text was adopted with the US proposal. UNDERLYING CAUSES OF DEFORESTATION: Regarding a conclusion
identifying underlying causes of deforestation, the EU, supported by
CANADA and the G77/CHINA, proposed deleting the reference to
"corruption." AUSTRALIA proposed replacing "issues of
governance" with "lack of good governance." The text
with both proposals was adopted. CONTACT GROUPS FINANCE: To a conclusion regarding special consideration for
developing countries, specifying least developed countries and LFCCs,
a regional group suggested new text, but consensus was not reached
on this and a related action proposal. Delegates agreed to a
conclusion which proposes an international financial mechanism, but
recognizes that reservations were also voiced. Chair Oistad (Norway) suggested deleting an action proposal on
the need for a study integrating issues such as international trade
and valuation of forest goods and services, since deliberations are
underway in other groups. Many delegations opposed, stating that
text in other groups remains unresolved. Discussion on an action
proposal on making full use of existing mechanisms was postponed
pending progress in the Category III contact group. On two related
paragraphs regarding innovative use of and increased revenues from
forest products and services, delegates could not agree on whether
these should include "forest-related biological resources"
(language agreed to in TFRK), or "those related to biological
diversity." Discussion will continue informally. INTERNATIONAL ARRANGEMENTS AND MECHANISMS: The group had
before it a Chair’s revised text based on the previous day’s
discussion. Noting the lack of progress regarding a LBI, one
regional group invited LBI proponents to make concrete proposals on
finance, EST transfer and trade, stating such proposals would allow
them to further consider the issue of a LBI and allow progress. LBI
proponents responded that agreement on a future convention would
allow for negotiations on finance, EST transfer and trade. One
delegate suggested that a LBI would allow for establishing a new
voluntary fund, and another said a proposed UN Forum on Forests (UNFF)
alone would not guarantee new funds. One developed country informed
others of her country’s President's proposal for a financial
package of US$150 million for tropical forest protection as evidence
that a LBI is not the only avenue for making funds available. Several LBI proponents reiterated that there is no consensus on
only continuing the forest dialogue on a permanent basis. Another
country responded that consensus is evident in the absence of
explicit objections to an action-oriented dialogue under a UN body.
Developing countries cautioned against an "all or nothing"
approach. Some countries called for bracketing any reference to the
proposed UNFF. Regarding the objective, reference to establishing a
legal framework remains bracketed. Under the function on monitoring
progress, developing countries supported a reference to
"voluntary" reporting by countries. One developed country
opposed reference to "voluntary," stating it would
prejudice the outcome of a LBI. "Voluntary" remains
bracketed. Regarding enhanced cooperation among international and regional
organizations, institutions and conventions on forest related
issues, delegates debated whether to include reference to
coordination among secretariats. This issue remains unresolved. Regarding the proposed function of strengthening political
commitment, two countries proposed to insert "and legal."
Others objected and the phrase remains bracketed. On the proposed UNFF, many countries said its role is not clear.
One country suggested it could "give guidance to ITFF and
monitor progress." While one regional group suggested referring
to "the objectives and functions identified above,"
another suggested omitting any specific functions within the
paragraph. No decision was made. In light of uncertainty about the
purpose of the body, delegates agreed on "an intergovernmental
body" without qualifications. Regarding a reference to
"major groups" as beneficiaries of the proposed UNFF,
Chair Insanally clarified that the phrase "major groups as
defined in Agenda 21" will be standardized throughout the text. On the proposed UN Partnership on Forests, one developed country
underscored avoiding wording that would prejudge the proposed
partnership. He preferred stating such a partnership
"could" instead of "should" build on an informal
group "such as" the ITFF. He said reference to the FAO
would be inappropriate, while others requested retaining reference
to it. Some countries supported replacing text stating the ITFF will
submit coordinated inputs and progress reports to the UNFF with
"such a partnership would submit coordinated inputs and
progress reports to the UNFF, operate in a transparent and open
manner, and take periodic reviews." There was general support to replace text stating that the
proposed partnership "would translate guidance from the
recommendations of the UNFF into coordinated action" with
"would receive guidance from the UNFF and facilitate
coordinated action." On working modalities, one developed country bracketed reference
to the UNFF’s working modalities. Regarding timing of meetings,
one developed country preferred holding meetings every two years,
and suggested language reflecting that this would allow time for
expert meetings, country-sponsored initiatives and other
intersessional activities. Developing countries underscored annual
meetings. This issue remains unresolved. Regarding considering mechanisms for finance and technology
transfer, a regional group suggested replacing
"mechanisms" with "strategies." Developing
countries opposed this change, with some proposing "considering
mechanisms and strategies." Some developed countries suggested
"mechanisms and/or strategies," but developing countries
opposed. No consensus was reached. Delegates debated, but did not decide on whether the proposed
secretariat should be "compact," "high-level" or
"comprised of highly qualified professionals." On financial support, one regional group and another developed
country said both administrative and operational activities should
be funded, inter alia, by the UN budget. One developed country
stated it supports only voluntary contributions to the secretariat.
A developing country had difficulties with "reallocation of
resources" as it may entail diverting funds from other
programmes. This remains unresolved. Regarding a proposed review of the arrangement, one country
proposed inserting "including giving consideration to
commencing an INC for a LBI." Several countries opposed the
proposal, saying that it would compromise the preference of the
"majority of the countries" for a LBI. One country said
that it would not accept a "mere" institutionalization of
the IFF, while another said this would be a reasonable compromise.
One country offered, and others opposed, lifting brackets from
references to a UNFF in return for lifting brackets from references
to a LBI. Developing countries proposed adding language on
developing a stronger arrangement for providing new and additional
resources for forest funding, as well as for technology transfer and
trade, taking into account existing instruments, processes and
regional agreements. A developed country suggested replacing the
proposal on giving consideration to the commencement of an INC with
"reviewing the need for a LBI" and suggested a review
period of 10 years. Another developed country lamented that
discussion on a LBI is becoming "taboo." Chair Insanally
said he would convene small group consultations and that the contact
group would reconvene later in the evening. After informal consultations, the contact group reconvened at
10:50 pm. Chair Insanally described the consultations had been
"promising," but said no agreement had been reached. He
said he would come forward with new text at the morning session. NGO Statements: One NGO called for: unfiltered input to
policy dialogue from indigenous peoples; a permanent forum under
ECOSOC; action and resources upfront to fully implement IPF/IFF
proposals for action at the community level; and focus on
implementing existing commitments. She underscored a LBI could
undermine the CBD. Another NGO stressed participation of all major
groups in any future arrangement and supported an arrangement under
ECOSOC. She urged the proposed UNFF be exclusively mandated to
promote implementation of existing agreements and commitments, and
opposed a LBI. IN THE CORRIDORS Tensions within the Category III discussions appear to be
straining the good will and diplomacy of the meeting. A delegate
expressed concern about the "vehemence" of another's
intervention. Some suggest that this tension will remain, while some
countries continue their winner-take-all attitude and others take a
minimalist approach. THINGS TO LOOK FOR TODAY PLENARY: WORKING GROUPS: The Working Groups will meet to finalize
their work following the contact group on Category III. Locations to
be announced. CONTACT GROUPS: The contact group on Category III will
reconvene at 10:00 am in Conference Room 2 to consider the revised
Chair’s proposal. The ENB summary of IFF-4 will be available on Monday, 14
February, on the IISD website: www.iisd.ca/forestry/iff4. This issue of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin ©
<enb@iisd.org> is written and edited by Ian Fry <ifry@mpx.com.au>,
Laura Ivers <laurai@iisd.org>, Wendy Jackson <wendyj@chickmail.com>,
Violette Lacloche <violette@iisd.org>, and Leila Mead <leila@interport.net>.
The Editor is Pamela Chasek, Ph.D. <pam@iisd.org> and the Managing
Editor is Langston James "Kimo" Goree <kimo@iisd.org>. Digital
editing by Andrei Henry <andrei@iisd.org>. The Sustaining Donors of the Bulletin
are The Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Government of Canada
(through CIDA), the United States (through USAID), the Swiss Agency for
Environment, Forests and Landscape, the United Kingdom Department for
International Development (DFID) and the European Commission (DG-XI.) General
Support for the Bulletin during 2000 is provided by the the German
Federal Ministry of Environment (BMU) and the German Federal Ministry of
Development Cooperation (BMZ), the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the
Ministry of Environment of Austria, the Ministries of Foreign Affairs and
Environment of Norway, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of
Environment of Finland, the Government of Sweden, the Government of Australia,
the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the Global Environment
Facility (GEF) and BP Amoco. The Bulletin can be contacted by e-mail at
<enb@iisd.org> and at tel: +1-212-644-0204; fax: +1-212-644-0206. IISD
can be contacted by e-mail at <info@iisd.ca> and at 161 Portage Avenue
East, 6th Floor, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 0Y4, Canada. The opinions expressed in
the Earth Negotiations Bulletin are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the views of IISD and other funders. Excerpts from the Earth
Negotiations Bulletin may be used in non-commercial publications only and
only with appropriate academic citation. For permission to use this material
in commercial publications, contact the Managing Editor. Electronic versions
of the Bulletin are sent to e-mail distribution lists and can be found
on the Linkages WWW server at http://www.iisd.ca/linkages/. The satellite
image was taken above New York �2000 The Living Earth, Inc. http://livingearth.com.
For information on the Earth Negotiations Bulletin, send e-mail to <enb@iisd.org>. This page was uploaded on 2/10/00
Published by
the International
Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD)
Friday, 11 February 2000
THURSDAY, 10 FEBRUARY 2000