TL: ON THE INTERRELATIONSHIP OF BIODIVERSITY, FORESTS, AGRICULTURE AND LAND USE Prepared for the third session of the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD 3) SO: GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL, (GP) DT: 1994 BIODIVERSTIY, - A CROSS-SECTORAL CONCERN Biological diversity is not in itself a sectoral issue, but rather a cross-sectoral concern. This means that the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity can only be achieved if this aim is fully integrated in the management of primary sectors such as forestry, agriculture and fisheries. In fact, those engaged in these sectors, including indigenous peoples and local communities applying traditional and sustainable patterns of resource utilization, must be seen as front-line guardians of biodiversity. Thus, if the Convention on Biological Diversity is to fulfil its purpose as the principal instrument in the protection ofbiodiversity, it is essential that this Convention takes the lead in defining in operational terms what constitutes bothconservation and sustainable use of ecosystems and theirbiodiversity in the above mentioned sectors. The CSD sessions both in 1995 and 1996 will be important fora in which to outline the contributions that the Convention can make to the sustainable management of primary sectors. In this context, it is not sufficient to look at chapter 15 of Agenda 21 on biological diversity. All of the chapters reviewed at the CSD in 1995 impinge directly on the conservation and sustainable use of terrestrial biodiversity. This is the case both for forests and agriculture and related concerns of land use and desertification. As noted by Minister T”pfer during CSD 2, all of the cluster topics reviewed by CSD 3 basically constitute aspects of one single cluster, i.e. terrestrial ecology. It is also relevant to consider how the implementation of other chapters of Agenda 21 relate to the overall goal of conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity such as those dealing with indigenous peoples, financial resources and mechanisms, as well as those under the section of Social and Economic dimensions. Finally, it may be worth noting already now that the 1996 session of the CSD will deal with another area where the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity is also under threat, namely marine ecosystems and resources. What follows are some initial thoughts on possible strategies and processes that should be considered by the African regional meeting in Nairobi and subsequently by the COP 1 in response to the need to ensure the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in the further implementation of the chapters of Agenda 21 considered by the CSD in 1995 and 1996. If the CBD does not manage to play a key role in defining what constitutes "sustainable use of biodiversity" in the primary sectors mentioned above, there is a real danger that theConvention will be severely reduced in terms of political weight and importance. Protection of biodiversity cannot be achieved through protected areas alone. FORESTS AND BIODIVERSITY In a note (UNEP/CBD/COP/1/12) on the preparation of biodiversity input into the CSD 3, the Interim Secretariat notes that: "Forest management is an issue only partially resolved by UNCED. Since then encouraging developments have occurred. This session of the Commission may be seen as an opportunity to advance the global consensus reflected in the Statement of Forest Principles towards a legally-binding international agreement on forest management. The Commission should consider a process to this end. In this regard the Conference of the Parties should reaffirm the intrinsic relationship between the conservation of biological diversity and sustainable forest management, and should inform the Commission that it would consider the appropriateness of such a process being undertaken within the framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity. (Advance unofficial draft, September 1994, para. 21.) In this context, one possible contribution that should be considered is a forest protocol under the Biodiversity Convention. This option is explored in a separate paper by Greenpeace entitled "Addressing the Loss of Forest Biodiversity: The Need for a Forest Protocol under the Convention on Biological Diversity". As shown in this paper, a forest protocol could, as suggested by the interim Secretariat, be developed from language incorporated in the Biodiversity Convention and the Forest Principles adopted by UNCED. The intermeshing of these two instruments would indeed represent a significant step forward in addressing the continued loss of forests and forest biodiversity worldwide. The African meeting should urge the COP to seriously andthoroughly consider the merits of a forest protocol under the Convention on Biological Diversity under items 8 and 9 of the draft agenda of the COP 1. AGRICULTURE AND BIODIVERSITY The Biodiversity Convention also has significant contributions to make to the cluster issue of sustainable agriculture and rural development relating to such issues as biosafety, intellectual property rights, and land tenure and distribution. BIOSAFETY Biotechnology is widely seen as holding the key to increased agricultural production and food security. This hope diverts attention from more difficult issues of consumption patterns and distribution of land, and it tends to make the considerable environmental dangers associated with biotechnology a secondary concern. Greenpeace can well understand the dreams of quick-fix solutions to the problem of food security, but we find it wholly irresponsible and completely contrary to the precautionary principle that biotechnology is presently being allowed to develop without adequate control of what may potentially be devastating impacts on nature. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) may pose a severe threat to ecosystems and the diversity of naturally occurring species. GMOs may change, multiply and spread in nature, and they cannot be removed from the environment once they are released. The development of herbicide resistant agricultural species is often seen as one of the great promises of biotechnology without consideration of the increased use of toxic chemicals in food production that it invites. In keeping with the recommendations of the clear majority of countries present at the second meeting of the Intergovernmental Committee on the Convention on Biological Diversity (ICCBD 2) in June/July 1994 in Nairobi, urgent consideration must be given to developing a protocol under the Convention on Biological Diversity on Biosafety. It has been suggested by some countries that a set of voluntary guidelines might be negotiated as a quick, intermediary measure. This does not make sense politically. Since such guidelines would be seen to have strong precedent-setting effects for the content of a later biosafety protocol, guidelines are likely to take just as long to negotiate as a protocol. The African meeting should urge the COP 1 to put biosafety on its agenda, as requested by a clear majority of countries at the ICCBD 2, and to initiate negotiations on a biosafety protocol without further delay. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS The use of genetic material for agriculture and the enforcement of intellectual property regimes relating to this genetic material requires careful consideration, particularly with regard to the impact that these regimes may have on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. The African meeting should urge the COP, in accordance with art. 16.5 of the Convention on Biological Diversity, to call for studies to be conducted on the possible impact of IPRs on the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity as well as the fair and equitable sharing of resources called for in the Biodiversity Convention. The COP should inform the CSD of the work in progress on this issue. LAND USE A skewed distribution and access to land exacerbates human pressures on the forests in many countries and contributes significantly to the continued loss of biodiversity through the conversion of natural ecosystems to agriculture production. The questions of land use and tenure patterns are raised both in chapter 11 on combatting deforestation and in chapter 14 on sustainable agriculture and rural development. Conversion to agriculture comes in many forms and its impact on biodiversity varies. The Biodiversity Convention has the potential to provide mechanisms for incentive measures, research and training, public education, transfer of information and transfer of technology to help alleviate the pressure of agricultural conversion on biodiversity. The African regional meeting should urge the COP to direct the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice to study and report on this issue as a matter of urgency. The COP should inform the CSD of the work of the SUBSTTA. MARINE BIODIVERSITY Far less publicized than the loss of terrestrial biodiversity are the intensity and pervasiveness of human activities that threaten biodiversity in marine environments. One of the key threats comes from commercial fisheries and the wasteful and destructive fishing practices and technologies that have created overfishing on a global scale. The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that virtually every major commercially fished marine species worldwide is either fully to over-exploited or depleted. FAO figures show that the global marine catch has increased more than four times in the past 40 years, but now appears to be declining. The over-intensive use of modern technology and search for short-term benefits, coupled with continuous government support for uneconomic and ecologically unsustainable production, has had devastating impacts on fish stocks and many other marine wildlife populations. Some marine fish species have been driven to commercial extinction and sometimes close to biological extinction by commercial harvesting; destroying marine ecosystems, such as coral reefs, mangroves and seagrass beds in the process. More than 90 percent of the total annual global harvest of marine organisms is taken within 200 nautical miles of a coastline. It is in these areas of abundant biological diversity that commercial fisheries exploitation poses the greatest threat to the abundance, distribution, genetic diversity, and potentially the evolution of fish species and other commercially targeted marine organisms. Other, dependent species including higher order predator species such as seabirds, marine mammals, sharks are similarly threatened. In addition to the impacts of capture fisheries in the wild, the dramatic expansion of aquaculture, or fish farming, is creating profound change in coastal habitats, especially in tropical and subtropical coastal areas worldwide. Mangrove forests and seagrass beds that are vital spawning and rearing habitats for fish and other marine wildlife populations are being destroyed. One of the major reasons people cut down mangrove forests --half of which have already been destroyed worldwide -- is to make artificial shrimp ponds. Ultimately, it is the cumulative effect of a wide variety of human-related threats operating simultaneously that are gradually undermining the integrity of marine eco-systems. For example, coral reefs in the Caribbean are slowly being smothered by algal growths as a result of increased nutrient pollution fromagriculture at the same time as algal-grazing fish are being reduced due to overfishing. Sedimentation associated with deforestation, oil spills, and chemical contaminants are further reducing corals' ability to survive. The UNEP Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Pollution (GESAMP) reported in 1990 that most of the world's coastal areas are polluted and/or damaged to greater or lesser degrees by a wide range of threatening human activities. Due to marine system complexity, difficulties in research and monitoring, lack of historic baseline data, and tremendous natural variability, changes in marine systems cannot be quantified to the extent that has been possible with terrestrial and freshwater systems. This may account for the comparatively littledocumentation of biodiversity loss in marine systems. With the review of chapter 17 of Agenda 21 by the CSD in 1996 as well as the recent entry into force of the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention, there is a need for the COP of the CBD to build up knowledge and expertise in the field of marinebiodiversity. The African meeting should urge the COP to direct the SUBSTTA to study and report on this issue in time for the COP to formulate an input to the 1996 session of the CSD. FINANCIAL RESOURCES AND MECHANISMS The provision of adequate financial resources is essential to the achievement of conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. Funds from all international financial institutions that may impact on the achievement of this aim should be administered according to the principles and provisions of the Biodiversity Convention. The COP should seek the support of the CSD in this matter. The African meeting should urge the COP, as recommended by the ICCBD 2, to initiate a survey of the extent to which the current policies, programmes and projects of international financial institutions are consistent with the aims and objectives of the Biodiversity Convention. CONCLUSION The Convention on Biological Diversity must play a significant role in addressing the cluster issues for the next meeting of the Commission on Sustainable Development. New initiatives such as forest and biosafety protocols should be given prominence to show that the Convention is an effective institution for addressing these issues in an effective way. Incorporating action under the Convention on Biological Diversity ensures that global action on these issues is carried out without undue delay. (Cover letter ends) ADDRESSING THE LOSS OF FOREST BIODIVERSITY: THE NEED FOR A FOREST PROTOCOL UNDER THE CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY 1. INTRODUCTION: This discussion paper looks at the relationship between forests and biodiversity. It discusses the relative importance of various forest types to biodiversity and investigates the loss of forests and biodiversity. It refers to specific countries as examples of certain conditions. The intention is not to single countries out, but to highlight the fact that forest and biodiversity loss is an international dilemma that requires international cooperation to resolve. The discussion proposes the development of a Forest Protocol under the Convention on Biological Diversity as a responsible means of addressing the concern. 2. FORESTS AND BIODIVERSITY: Forests play an important role in providing habitat for a large percentage of the world's biological diversity. Tropical, temperate, boreal and mangrove forests are critical communities for biological diversity. Apart from providing a service as habitat for species, forests also help conserve soil, purify waterways, protect watersheds, ameliorate the climate, produce oxygen, protect fish nursery grounds, reduce salinisation and absorb carbon dioxide. The ecological services they provide, assist the conservation of biological diversity well beyond their boundaries. At least fifty percent of the world's terrestrial species are found in the tropical forests (Myers, 1988). Evenso, recent studies suggest that there is a considerable diversity of soil and humus living species in temperate forests (Dudley, 1992). Studies in dryland areas (which include scrubland) of South America have found that these communities contain the highest endemic mammalian diversity of any habitat type in the region (WRI et al, 1994). Temperate forests in New Zealand, Chile, Argentina, South Africa, the Mahgrab of North Africa and temperate India are vitally important storehouses of endemic species (Dudley, p21). Mangrove forests supply important habitats for over 2,000 species of fish, invertebrates and plants (Lean et al, 1990). It is evident that all forest types play an important role in the maintenance of biological diversity. 3. BIODIVERSITY LOSS IN FORESTS: In a number of countries throughout the world, forests and their respective species are being lost at an alarming rate. For example, the rapid degradation, fragmentation and loss of primary tropical forests since 1950 has resulted in an extinction average of around 1500 species per year (Myers, p30). While tropical forests are fast disappearing, some temperate forests are also being destroyed at a rapid rate. The rate of forest loss in British Columbia, for example, has been estimated to match if not exceed forest loss in the tropics (Dudley, p41). In many parts of the world, temperate forests have already been decimated. At the time of European settlement, the United States had an estimated 385 million ha of forest. By 1920 less than a third remained (Brown, 1988). Most of Europe's temperate forests are small in size and provide little opportunities for biodiversity conservation. Millions of hectares of mangroves forests have been cut down for timber, fuelwood, woodchips and to make way for shrimp farms and urban developments (Lean et al, p165). 4. FOREST AND BIODIVERSITY LOSS: The global degradation, fragmentation and loss of forests and subsequent loss of biodiversity can be attributed to a number of causes. These causes differ both regionally and within different forest types. Causal relationships are often hard to differentiate and in many cases are symptomatic of other significant issues association with global economics. While the issues are complex, it is possible to identify some general trends and underlying causes (see Annex 1 for a more detailed description of underlying causes). 5. TEMPERATE AND BOREAL FOREST LOSS: A) CLEARING FOR AGRICULTURE: Probably the most substantial cause of temperate forest loss has been through the clearing of land for intensive agriculture (Brown, p87). Since the advent of intensive agriculture, Europe has witnessed a massive conversion of native forests. In Western Europe today, less than one percent of old growth forests still remain (Dudley, p9). In some parts of the world, in Australia for example, land clearing for agriculture still takes a substantial toll on native temperate forests. B) LOGGING FOR TIMBER: Industrial logging has taken and continues to take a considerable toll on temperate forests. North Africa and the Middle East lost a large percent of their forests, thousands of years ago. China, Latin America and Mexico have lost substantial areas of temperate forests. In recent times there has been a net increase of temperate forests in Europe, though old growth forests, the primary source of biodiversity, are still declining. Some areas, like the lowland conifer and broadleaf forests of Scandinavia, upland forests of UK and Ireland and the mature forests of Eastern Europe are still being logged at an unsustainable rate (Dudley, p74). Elsewhere, temperate and boreal forests continue to be logged at an unsustainable rate. In the Siberian forests of Russia, the Pacific Northwest of the United States, the Canadian west coast, the Himalayan region of Nepal, India and Bhutan, lowland terrain of India and Nepal, Tibet, the beech forest of Chile and Argentina and the eucalypt forests of Australia are all being logged at an unsustainable rate (Dudley, p74). Some are being clearfelled. C) CUTTING FOR FUELWOOD: Some of the early forest loss in Europe has been attributed to the burning of wood for fuel. Today, fuelwood is used by over 2 billion people for cooking and heating (Dudley, p13). In many countries, particularly in Africa, wood not only dominates household energy use, it provides more than 70 percent of energy used for all purposes. Demands on fuelwood supplies are significant and at current usage rates, unsustainable. D) CUTTING FOR PULP AND PAPER: Currently some 35% of commercial wood harvest is used for pulp. Most pulp is from temperate forests (Dudley, p133). Much of the resulting paper and board is used for only once. Natural and old growth forests are being felled to produce paper in many countries, including the United States, Canada, Chile, Argentina, Scandinavia, Australia and Russia. Apart from the direct effects on biodiversity from felling forests for pulp, the polluted waste from paper and pulp mills adversely affects biodiversity in marine and freshwater ecosystems. E) DAMAGE FROM AIR POLLUTION: Significant areas of temperate forests in Western and Eastern Europe, Russia, China and North America are showing signs of defoliation and damage due to air pollution. Acid rain, caused by the burning of sulphurous coal appears to be one of the major sources of air pollution affecting forests. This is a highly contentious issue as the source of the pollution is often transboundary (Dudley, p135). Studies have found that ozone pollution primarily sourced from motor vehicle exhausts appears to be another air borne pollutant. Climate change through the production of Greenhouse gases appears to be an emerging threat to forests. Temperature and precipitation variations may create substantial changes to the composition and biodiversity of existing forests. Of considerable concern are the rare forest ecosystems that tend to tolerate a narrow range of environmental conditions (Dudley, p190). The increased incidence of wildfire, due to climatic change is a significant cause for concern. Scientists have noticed a significant increased in the frequency of boreal forest fires, in the last decade (Stocks, 1991). 6. TROPICAL FOREST LOSS: A) SHORT FALLOW SHIFTING AGRICULTURE: Short fallow shifting agriculture accounts for more tropical forest loss than any other cause (Myers, in Colchester, 1993). The type of shifting agriculture is primarily due to displaced or relocated peasants and is different to the traditional form practised by indigenous people. It is often called short fallow agriculture as it is based on a rotation system that does not allow sufficient time for soil nutrients to be restored after the forest has been felled and the ground planted out with crops. Logging for timber acts as an accelerant for shifting agriculturalists. Studies have found that deforestation rates are eight times greater in logged over tropical forests than in undisturbed forests (Johnson & Cabarle, p16). B) PERMANENT CLEARING FOR AGRICULTURE: Planned forest clearing for agriculture and plantations is significant in many parts of the tropical world. Planned resettlements have occurred in Indonesia, Paraguay, Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, Columbia and Brazil (Colchester, p5). Large areas of tropical forest have been cleared for specific cash crops. These include: bananas, pineapples, oranges, sugarcane, cloves, tobacco, cassava, palm oil and rubber to name a few. In Amazonian Brazil, road building has been initiated to promote colonization. Cattle ranching has closely followed the road building program and is a major cause of forest loss in Brazil (Hecht, 1993). C) LOGGING FOR TIMBER: Unsustainable timber logging is a significant cause of loss and damage to forests in the tropics. One of the major uses of tropical timber is for plywood. Veneer wood trees are on average around 200 to 300 years old (Westoby, 1989). The rate of logging of these primary forest trees is far from sustainable. 7. MANGROVE FOREST LOSS: Millions of hectares of mangroves have been cut down for timber, fuelwood and wood chips. They have been increasingly destroyed to create fish and shrimp farms and are being destroyed to expand urban areas and agricultural land. They are also being poisoned by pesticides and smothered by sediment from coastal and upland development (Lean et al, p165). 8. DIRECTIONS FOR CHANGE: In an attempt to address the issue of forest loss (but not necessarily biodiversity loss) some nations appear to be advocating the development of a forest convention. However, there are compelling arguments to suggest that the development of a Forest Protocol under the Convention on Biological Diversity would be a particularly strategic, timely and commonsense approach to take. The most relevant reasons to support the development of a Forest Protocol include: A) SCOPE: The Biodiversity Convention has considerable breadth of scope. It embraces a whole host of issues that extend well beyond the timber market elements being proposed within a forest convention. The Convention on Biological Diversity has a comprehensive approach to in-situ conservation and sustainable use. It has the prescriptive language to recognise and value, the diverse elements of ecosystems. Furthermore, it recognises the important contribution that indigenous people and local communities play in biodiversity management. A Forest Protocol would be able to draw from this breadth of scope and would be able to prescribe actions to address the underlying causes of forest and biodiversity loss. It would be able to prescribe management regimes that would allow ecologically sustainable forest use. The broad scope of the Convention on Biological Diversity allows for easy cross matching with the non-binding forest principles developed at UNCED (see Annex 2). Current advocates for a forest convention appear to be well positioned in the forestry sector. Their view may well work to shape a forestry convention which would likely suffer the same narrowness of approach being taken in the ITTO and TFAP. Even if this convention covered all forests it is likely it would have a strong emphasis on industrial timber production. All the other important values of forests may well be sublimated. B) TIME: The dramatic rate of global forest and biodiversity loss dictates that international cooperative action must be taken as a matter of urgency. As language has already been negotiated under the Biodiversity Convention it would take far less time to develop and negotiate a Forest Protocol than it would take to develop a whole new forest convention. This process should not preclude the development of regional arrangements. Some critics have argued that there is a deliberate intent from some quarters, to delay the development of an international agreement on forests, so as to minimise international scrutiny. It has also been alleged that the FAO is a strong advocate of a forest convention because they recognise that a convention would take years to negotiate and come into force. This would allow the FAO to carry on business as usual for many years to come (Lyke and Fletcher, p19). C) FINANCIAL SUPPORT: The Biodiversity Convention has identified the Global Environment Facility as one source of funding, others sources under the Convention are still being investigated. A Forest Protocol under this Convention would be eligible for funding support. A forest convention on the hand would have to seek new sources of funding. This could be quite difficult in a climate of what appears to be 'donor fatigue'. D) INTEGRATION: The Biodiversity Convention is very strong in elaborating the nexus between conservation and sustainable use. Integrating these principles would be an essential element with a forest and biodiversity agreement. The fact that forests and biodiversity are integrated within one agreement would help alleviate conflicts between conservationists and their concern for species protection and representatives from the resource sectors, who are seeking adequate return for their natural products. Furthermore, an umbrella Forest Protocol would better recognise the utilitarian value of forests and biodiversity, such as water catchment protection and soil conservation. 9. CONCERNS ABOUT AN INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT: From an ecological and social perspective the global loss of forests and biodiversity is a grave concern for all humanity. How to address this global concern is a matter of considerable conjecture. Some have expressed concern about an international agreement on forests. These concerns include: A) SOVEREIGNTY: Some developing countries, notably Malaysia and India have expressed concern about language that implied a 'global interest' in forests. This was done during the development of the non-binding statement of principles on forest at UNCED (Johnson & Cabarle, p32). These countries have claimed that it is their sovereign right to determine how they should manage their forests. B) LOSS OF INCOME: Concerns have also been expressed that an international agreement may prescribe drastic reductions in timber harvests to meet sustainability criteria. This may lead to considerable loss of foreign exchange without compensation. C) TOO TOP HEAVY: Some Southern NGO's have suggested to the author that lasting action to save forests can only come from the grassroots level and not from an international agreement. 10. ADDRESSING THE CONCERNS: These three concerns have considerable validity. However, it must be remembered that the political landscape associated with global resource management is complex. Not one element of our society can rightfully claim absolute ownership. In the context of sovereignty, it would be unrealistic to suggest that Indians and Bangladeshis living in flood prone lowland areas would not be concerned about deforestation in Nepal or Bhutan. Indian or Iranian fisherfolk are no doubt concerned about the overcutting of mangrove forests in Pakistan. The rights of sovereignty and the right to exploit one's own natural resources, needs to be taken within the context of the concerns of other nations. But this must not be done within a context of imposition. It is hypocritical for countries, who have already liquidated their own forests, to now start imposing sanctions on countries who are exploiting their forests. As an international community concerned about forest loss, we should establish incentives and compensation mechanisms for those countries who forgo income from not liquidating their forests. Again there is considerable validity in the concerns of Southern NGO's. Grassroots forest movements throughout the world have made substantial and dramatic progress in reafforestation programs. India, for example, plants four times the area that it deforests annually (WRI et al, p134). These programs should be encouraged at every opportunity, however, these tree plantings cannot replace species that have been lost through the felling of natural forests. While it is important to replant, it is critical that we stop forest loss at the outset. The rights of a nation to determine its own future and development path compared with universal environmental concerns is a constant dilemma for all nations. But, it is a basic fact that countries can now, no longer cut themselves off from the global economy. National governments rarely have the individual capacity or will to stand up against the pressures of large international corporations and international financial institutions. International agreements are agreements for cooperation. It is the very nature of the global economy that makes it essential that nations cooperate to help sustainably manage the world's remaining forests and biodiversity. To do this, there is an urgent need to develop a cooperative Forest Protocol to ensure the conservation and sustainable use of the world's forests and biodiversity. 11. UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES FOR A FOREST PROTOCOL: Many commentators and organisations have prescribed strategies and processes to address the loss of forests and biodiversity. By comparing some of these works, it is possible to establish a common set of principles that would underlie a Forest Protocol. These principles have been derived primarily from a comparison of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Non-legally Binding Authoritative Statement of Principles for a Global Consensus on the Management, Conservation and Sustainable Development of all types of Forests (see Annex 2 for a more detailed comparison). Possible principles may include: a) Nations have right to use their own resources, but should be consistent with the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and should not harm other states. b) Costs of conserving and sustainably managing forest biodiversity should be shared by nations c) Local participation in the conservation and sustainable use of forest biodiversity should be promoted. This should include recognising the important role of women in this process; d) National strategies to strengthen management of forest biodiversity should be developed. These should include a national system of protect areas for forest biodiversity; e) International institutions should be encouraged to ensure that their policies are consistent with this protocol. This should include the establishment of debt relief strategies; Development policies and strategies should be consistent the conservation and sustainable use of forest biodiversity g) The importance of forests in protecting important processes and the non-economic values of forest should be h) The rights of indigenous people should be recognised; i) The importance of plantations to alleviate pressure on natural forests should be recognised, but also the inherent ecological problems associated with plantations should also be recognised; j) The need to reduce unsustainable consumption of forest biodiversity and the need for recycling strategies should recognised; k) Integrated poverty alleviation programs, particularly in areas adjacent to forests as a means of reducing impacts by landless poor should be developed; l) Forest ecosystem rehabilitation and reafforestation should be established; m) Areas adjacent to forests should be developed in a fashion sympathetic to the need to conserve and sustainably use forest biodiversity; n) Environmental impact assessment procedures should be to ensure forest biodiversity protection from adverse developments; o) Land tenure reforms should be initiated to remove incentives that facilitate forest degradation and to allow recognition and respect for indigenous and local communities; p) Technology and information transfer should be facilitated to ensure the conservation and sustainable use of forest biodiversity; q) Scientific research into forest biodiversity should be strengthened; r) Trade in forest biodiversity, including timber and wood products, should be based on a system of verification and labelling to ensure that the products are produced in a manner consistent with the conservation and sustainable use of forest biodiversity. s) Trade measures that encourage overconsumption and overproduction of forest biodiversity should be eliminated t) International fiscal policies associated with natural resource management should be consistent with the conservation and sustainable use of forest biodiversity; u) Measures to eliminate pollution that affects forest biodiversity should be developed 12. CONCLUSION: By providing this framework of principles for a Forest Protocol, it should not be interpreted that the author is pre- empting the important negotiating process between nations. It is simply a guide to assist governments consider the merits of initiating a negotiating process for a Forest Protocol. The development of such a Forest Protocol should be a substantial consideration in the deliberations of the Commission for Sustainable Development in 1995. REFERENCES: Brown, L.R. et al. State of the World: 1988, Worldwatch Institute, WW Norton & Co. NY Burley, F W, 1988, The Tropical Forestry Action Plan, recent progress and new initiatives, in: Biodiversity, ed E O Wilson, Nat. Acad. Press, Wash. Colchester, M. 1993(a), Colonizing the rainforests: the agents and the causes of deforestation, in: The Struggle for Land and the Fate of the Forests, ed: M Colchester and Larry Lohmann, WRM, Penang Colchester, M. 1933(b), The international response: policies of the international agencies, in: The Struggle for Land and the Fate of the Forests, ed: M Colchester and Larry Lohmann, WRM, Penang Courrier, K (ed) 1992, Global Biodiversity Strategy: Guidelines for Action to Save, Study and Use Earth's Biotic Wealth Sustainably and Equitably, WRI, IUCN, UNEP Dudley,N. 1992, Forests in trouble: A Review of the Status of Temperate Forests Worldwide, WWF UK Hecht, S. 1993, Land speculation and pasture-led deforestation in Brazil, in: The Struggle for Land and the Fate of the Forests, ed: M Colchester and Larry Lohmann, WRM, Penang Johnson, N. & B. Cabarle, 1993, Surviving the Cut: Natural Forest Management in the Humid Tropics, WRI Lean, G., D. Hinrichsen, A. Markham, 1990, Atlas of the Environment, WWF, Prentice Hall Press, NY Lyke, J. & S R Fletcher, 1992, Deforestation: An Overview of Global Programs and Agreements, Congressional Research Service Monbiot, G. 1993, Brazil: Land ownership and the flight to Amazonia, in: The Struggle for Land and the Fate of the Forests, ed: M Colchester and Larry Lohmann, WRM, Penang Myers, N. 1988, Tropical Forests and their species: going, going ..? in: Biodiversity, ed: EO Wilson, Natl. Acad. Press, Wash. Repetto, R. 1988, The Forest for the Trees? Government Policies and the Misuse of Forest Resources, WRI Stocks, B. J. The extent and impact of forest fires in northern circumpolar countries, in : Global Biomass Burning: Atmospheric, Climatic and Biospheric Implications, ed., J. S. Levine. MIT Press, Mass. Westoby, J. 1989, The Purpose of Forests, Basil Blackwell Ltd, Oxford WRI, UNEP, UNDP, 1994, World Resources-1994-5, Oxford Uni. Press NY ANNEX 1 - UNDERLYING CAUSES OF FOREST LOSS: While the direct cause of forest and biodiversity loss can be reasonably easily pinpointed, it is often not easy to recognise the underlying factors that act as a catalyst for the more direct agents for forest and biodiversity loss. The following is a brief presentation of some of these underlying factors. It is by no means conclusive. 1. TEMPERATE FOREST AND BOREAL FOREST LOSS: A) CLEARING FOR AGRICULTURE For forests to be cleared for agriculture, there must be an inherent incentive to value the cleared in favour of the services the forest provides in its own right. In Australia, for example tax incentives are given to farmers to 'improve land' by clearing. This is not a uniform policy as one state has banned the clearance of native vegetation. During the last two decades, temperate forests in the United States have declined as widening grain export markets have encouraged forest conversion to agriculture (Brown, p87). B) LOGGING FOR TIMBER In historical times forests in Europe were cut for building materials and military equipment, especially warships. Today, temperate forests are primarily being overcut by large multi- national timber companies. Market pressures appear to be the major driving force behind this industrial forest mining. This is due to a high demand, arising from an over-consumption of forest products. Other factors include a belief that native forest mining is necessary until plantations come on stream; that there is a need for additional land for plantations, that corporations are myopic, that there are political pressures to maintain jobs and that there is a desire to exploit cheap forest resources as quickly as possible before their real value is appreciated (Dudley, p65). Governments appear to be incapable of monitoring and regulating the operations of multi-national corporations. In a number of instances that actually subsidize logging operations. The United States government, for example, sells timber at prices below, its own growing, road building, harvesting and selling expenses at a cost to taxpayers of about $100 million per year (Repetto, 1988). C) CUTTING FOR FUELWOOD Major forest losses in Europe were attributed to fuelwood burning at the start of the Industrial Revolution (Dudley, p22). In effect, forest burning provided the foundation plank for Europe's industrial development. Europe has effectively mortgaged its forests in exchange for industrial development. In the developing world, population increases, particularly in urban areas is placing an unsustainable pressure on fuelwood resources. The natural growth rate of forests cannot match the demand in high population density areas (Brown, p86). Due to the high cost, alternative sources of energy production sources are often not available to populations within developing countries. D) CUTTING FOR PULP AND PAPER There are strong short term economic reasons why forests are being liquidated for pulpwood. While the pulpwood industry is more capital intensive, it does provide the highest gross forest product per unit of raw material (Westoby, p35). The age and size of trees is not so critical, so forests can be worked over rapidly and intensively. Market pressure due to over-consumption is providing a substantial incentive to overcut forests for the pulp industry. The average person in North America, for instance, consumes over 300 kg of paper per year. It has been estimated that the amount of paper thrown away every year in the United Kingdom is equivalent to 130 million trees (Dudley, p22). E) DAMAGE FROM AIR POLLUTION Excessive use of fossil fuels and poor energy and transport planning appear to be the major underlying causes of both air borne pollution and the greenhouse effect. 2. TROPICAL FOREST LOSS A) SHIFTING AGRICULTURE: The reasons for short fallow agriculture are complex and are often related to poor development planning. Resource pressure from rural expanding populations is creating a need for ever more forests to be worked over (WRI et al, p133). These pressures do not allow sufficient time for the forests to recuperate. While it may be easy to blame the poor for so-called population problems, there is an underlying fact that rural populations have been displaced from productive land to allow the production of cash crops for export. It has been suggested that World Bank agricultural development policies have encouraged land reforms resulting in rising land prices, land speculation, land ownership concentration and the subsequent displacement of peasants. These displaced peasants are forced into felling forests for short fallow agriculture (Colchester, 1993(b)). The problem is exacerbated by the fact that in a number of tropical regions large transborder migrations are taking place. Displaced peasants are crossing borders in Central Africa, Latin America and South-east Asia (Colchester(b), p8). B) PERMANENT CLEARING FOR AGRICULTURE: Inappropriate development strategies appear to underpin the problems of tropical forest clearance for agriculture. Many tropical countries have experienced colonial interventions into their agrarian economies. In many instances, these interventions were deliberately established to provide cheap agricultural products for Europe. Inappropriate agricultural systems based on the European model of broad land clearance were passed on tropical countries. Since the 1950's, the FAO and the World Bank appear to have taken over the role of promoting market oriented agriculture (Colchester(b), p12). These agrarian reforms have virtually ignored traditional land use and land ownership patterns. This has created large populations of landless peasants, who without their traditional customary laws are being continually displaced into forest areas. According to the FAO, mini-land holders and the landless are projected to rise from 167 million in 1980 to 220 million by the year 2000 (Colchester(b), p11). In Brazil land ownership is heavily skewed in favour of a few. Fifty-three percent of landowners, classed as small farmers, own just 2.7% of the countryside, while 0.8% land owners possess 43% of the land. Multinational companies own 36 million ha of Brazil (Monbiot, 1993). Further, forest clearance is encourage through a variety of tax breaks and fiscal incentive schemes (Hecht, p167). C) LOGGING FOR TIMBER: In a similar fashion to the liquidation of temperate forests centuries ago, tropical forest countries are now cashing in on their natural forests in the pursuit of so-called development. Governments impelled to raise foreign exchange to meet debt repayments are turning to their forests as a low outlay source of income. Substantial markets in the North and wasteful consumption patterns ensure that there is a ready market for tropical timber. This is matched, if not exceeded by a substantial domestic market for tropical timber. In fact, the volume of tropical timber exported, represents only five percent of all trees removed from tropical forests (Lyke & Fletcher, p13). In most, if not all, tropical timber countries, governments do not have the resources or skilled staff to actively monitor and regulate the trade. Even where forest agencies monitor concessions, the profits from timber exploitation are so high, corruption becomes an inherent element of the industry (Johnson & Cabarle, p18). Governments also fail to capture much of the considerable stumpage value of mature tropical hardwoods (Johnson & Cabarle, p17). As a result forest are undervalued and poorly managed. Timber concessions are granted for short periods of time (5-25 years). With tropical hardwoods taking at least 60 years to be replaced, there is little incentive for companies to replant or manage their concessions on a sustainable basis (Johnson & Cabarle, p18). The non-timber value of tropical forests and the rights of indigenous people are easily overlooked in this forest mining boom era. International institutions like the World Bank, the International Tropical Timbers Organisation, the Tropical Forestry Action Programme and the FAO all appear to be incapable of addressing the tropical timber liquidation sale (Lyke & Fletcher, p13). The TFAP and the World Bank have had policy reforms but the logging continues. Each of these institution have their inherent problems: * The World Bank has been criticised because it is only concerned with large scale projects and incapable of focusing on the needs of local communities. It also funds development projects which often result in the displacement of poor rural communities. Some end up cutting down new forest areas. * The ITTO has been criticised because it places a strong emphasis on expanding the volume and value of trade and has shown little evidence of improving forest management practices (Lyke & Fletcher, p16). Some argue that it is being too closely influenced by Japan, a major consumer of tropical timber (Lyke & Fletcher, p22). * TFAP has been criticised because it is too focused on the forest sector; it places undue emphasis on financing classical forestry projects eg logging, road building, has minimal contact with local people and NGO's, fails to address underlying problems of poverty and is donor driven (Lyke & Fletcher, p10). * The FAO is embroiled in a rivalries amongst the ITTO and the TFAP (Lyke & Fletcher, p27). As the principal United Nations body on the forest industry the FAO has failed to stem the tide of massive forest losses worldwide. 3. MANGROVE FOREST LOSS: Fisheries development projects supported by international financial institutions, including the Asian Development Bank, are encouraging the conversion of mangroves into fish farms. ANNEX 2 - COMPARISON OF THE FOREST PRINCIPLES WITH THE CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY: SETTING THE PRINCIPLES FOR A FOREST PROTOCOL As the Forest Principles are the most recent internationally agreed set of guidelines for forest management, they provide the framework and guiding principles for the Forest Protocol. These have been matched against principles prescribed by various commentators and the Convention on Biological Diversity. There have been a number of criticisms of the Forest Principles. Some have argued that the Forest Principles is a step back from measures already taken in international fora (Lyke & Fletcher, p36) For this reason, some principles have been modified. The discussion is formatted in the following fashion: * Forest Principle (FP): Summary of article * Commentary (Com): * Summary of relevant section in Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) CROSS REFERENCED PRINCIPLES FP: I (a) Right to exploit Com: While this is a recognised right, the Global Biodiversity Strategy suggests a caveat to ensure that measures are consistent with the principles of the agreement (Courrier, 1992). CBD: Art 3: Sovereign right to exploit FP: 1 (b) Incremental costs shared Com: Incremental costs are particularly hard to define. For developing countries, full cost assistance may need to be considered. Other sources of revenue within countries may need to be considered CBD: Art 20 (2): Agreed incremental costs FP: 2 (a) Right to develop forest, including conversion Com: Elaboration of 1(a) CBD: Art 3: Sovereign right to exploit FP: 2(b) Forests sustainably managed, protect against pollution etc. Com: Important principle, which may need to be spilt between and objective and an operative component. CBD: Art 8(g): control risks of living modified organisms, 8(h): Prevent alien species; 8(l) regulate adverse effects FP: 2(c) Information on forests Com: Information that includes traditional values of forests and biodiversity important. CBD: 13 (a): Promote understanding FP: 2(d) Promote local participation Com: A critical element for sustainable management. Should include reference to local decision making. CBD: Art 8 (j): Promote wider application of indigenous and local knowledge FP: 3(a) National policies to strengthen management Com: Strengthening institutions within countries important and should not be hindered by structural adjustment programs of international financial institutions CBD: 6(a): Develop national strategies: 10(a): Integrate conservation and sustainable use into national decision making FP: 3(b) International institutional arrangements Com: This is problematic as existing institutions are not working very successfully. Reforms are needed. CBD: Art 22 (1): Conventions should not damage biological diversity FP: 3(c) Environmental protection and development integrated Com: It is critical that development strategies are integrated with environmental protection so that they do not run counter to each other. CBD: Art 6(b): Integrate into cross sectoral plans FP: 4. Vital role of forests in ecological processes Com: An important principle that should be included in Objectives. CBD: Preamble FP: 5 (a) Rights of Indigenous people Com: The language of the Forest Principles is a little circumspect in relation to indigenous peoples rights CBD: 8(j): Respect knowledge of indigenous people; Protect customary use of biological resources FP: 5(b) Participation of women Com: Women's movements around the world have shown that the participation of women is a fundamental necessity CBD: Women are not specifically recognised in the CBD, but should be part of Art 8. FP: 6(a) Plantations for fuelwood Com: Fuelwood plantations are necessary to take the pressure off natural forests, but there are inherent problems with developing plantation monocultures. CBD: Art 9 (a): Ex situ conservation of components of biological diversity. FP: 6(b) Consumption, recycling and disposal of forest products Com: A critical initiative to reduce unbridled consumption of forest products. An important obligation for major consuming nations and populations. CBD: 8(i): Compatibility between present uses and conservation. FP: 6(c) Assessment of economic and non economic values of forest goods and services Com: The non economic values are constantly overlooked or underestimated. Necessary for full valuing of forests. CBD: 14(1)(a) Environmental impact assessment FP: 6(d): Planted forests and permanent agricultural crops important to offset pressures Com: This is a complex issue as some agricultural development programs are actually displacing people further into new forest areas. Offsetting pressures, however is a useful goal. CBD: 8(e) Promote sustainable development adjacent to protected areas FP: 6(e) Natural forests source of goods and services Com: This is a follow on from FP 4 and should be incorporated in the Objectives CBD: Preamble FP: 7(a): Promote international climate for sustainable use of forests and eradication of poverty Com: How this important principle translates into specifics is a challenge. CBD: 20(4) Priority of eradication of poverty. FP: 7(b) Financial resources to developing countries with significant forest areas Com: This is a significant objective if developing countries are to be compensated for reducing production rates to meet sustainability levels. In addition, improved revenue mechanisms within countries, should be initiated, so that nations are not beholden to donor countries. CBD: 20(2) New and additional financial resources; 20(6) Special consideration to developing countries dependent on biodiversity. FP: 8(a) Greening of the world Com: An important goal, but should not used as a foil to ignore continued forest biodiversity loss. CBD: 8(f) Rehabilitate and restore degraded ecosystems FP: 8(b) Maintain and increase forest cover Com: Elaboration of 8(a) CBD: 8(f) FP: 8(c) National policies supported by international financial cooperation Com: Cooperation should be provided, particularly in the area of capacity building. CBD: 18 (1) Promote international and technical cooperation FP: 8(d) Forest management in accordance with national development strategies Com: To some extent this should be worded the other way around, so that development strategies are not incompatible with the sustainable management of forest biodiversity CBD: 6(b) Incorporate into cross sectoral plans FP: 8(e) Integrated with management of adjacent areas Com: Important objective CBD: 8(e) Adjacent areas FP: 8(f) Protection of unique examples of forests Com: Critical element in national planning CBD: 8(a) System of protected areas; 8(k) Legislate for threatened species FP: 8(g) Access to genetic resources due regard to sovereign rights Com: Access should also recognise the rights of indigenous and local communities and should only be provided upon prior informed consent CBD: 15(1) Sovereign rights of nations; 15(2) Conditions to facilitate access; 15(4) Mutually agreed terms 15(5) Scientific research with full participation of contracting party 15(6) Sharing benefits. FP: 8(h) Environmental impact assessments on forests Com: Crucial that EIA's allow involvement and access to courts for local communities. CBD: 14(1)(a) Impact assessments FP: 9(a) Improved market access for developing countries Com: This improved market access should be predicated on all countries producing forest products to be bound by sustainability criteria CBD: 16 (1) Transfer of technology 18(5) Joint ventures for the development of technologies FP: 9(b) Lack of options for urban and rural poor Com: Often the poor are blamed for poor develop planning. A start would be recognise the tenurial land rights of the rural poor CBD: 20(4) Concerns about poverty FP: 9(c) Influences outside forest sector Com: Inappropriate development and market pressures and overconsumption of forest products are significant external influences CBD: 6(b) Cross sectoral planning FP: 10: New and additional financial resources Com: Funding for existing international forest management projects is a pittance. New funding is desperately required CBD: 20(2) New and additional resources FP: 11: Transfer of environmentally sound technologies Com: Mechanisms should be developed to encourage appropriate transfer between developing countries and from developing to developed countries CBD: 16(1) Technology transfer FP: 12: (a) Scientific research strengthened Com: Obligations for research should be encouraged for all government. Special considerations should be given to developing countries CBD: 7(a) Identify components; 7(b) monitor components, 18(1) Promote scientific and technical cooperation FP: 12(b) National and international institutions strengthened Com: Institution strengthening is vital and should not be compromised by financial structural adjustment programs CBD: 6 (b) Integrate into cross sectoral plans 18(2) Strengthen national capacities FP: 12(c) International exchange of information Com: This should particularly emphasis exchange of information on legal measures to recognise traditional tenurial rights over forest biodiversity CBD: 17(1) Exchange of information FP: 12(d) Indigenous and local knowledge recognised and benefits shared Com: Not only should knowledge be recognised, traditional land ownership should also be recognised CBD: 8(j) Indigenous people's knowledge: 17(2) Information exchange on indigenous knowledge FP: 13(a) Trade non discriminatory Com: All forest biodiversity product trade should be subject to a labelling and certification scheme based on sustainability criteria. Individual products should not be singled out. CBD: 11: Economically and socially sound incentives FP: 13(b) Removal of tariff barriers Com: Appropriate so long as it does not interfere with certification scheme CBD: 11.Incentive measures FP: 13(c) Environmental cost and benefits incorporated into market mechanisms Com: Principle aim of certification scheme CBD: 11 FP: 13(d) Integrated with economic, trade and other Com: As per 13(a) CBD: 11 FP: 13 (e) Fiscal policies not degrade forests Com: Measures should be adopted to cross reference fiscal measures with environmental aims. Consumption patterns must be an integral part of this assessment CBD: 6(b) Cross sectoral plans FP: 14 Unilateral measures avoided Com: As per 13(b) CBD: 11 FP: 15: Pollutants controlled Com: This requires substantial elaboration and development so that strict binding obligations can be placed on polluting industries CBD: 8(l) Regulate adverse effects ANNEX 3 - SOME STATISTICS ON FOREST AND BIODIVERSITY DECLINE TEMPERATE FORESTS: * Between 1977 and 1987, 1.6 million ha of forest was lost in the United States alone (Courrier, p7). * A 1991 ECE/EC survey estimated that 22.25 of European trees showed moderate to severe defoliation due to air pollution (WRI et al, p135). * In 1980 some 1.2 billion people in developing countries were meeting their fuelwood needs only by cutting wood faster than it was being replaced (Brown, p87). TROPICAL FORESTS: * Between 1980 and 1990 tropical forest areas have been shrinking on an average of 15.4 million hectares per year (WRI et al, p130). * Six countries - Brazil, Indonesia, Zaire, Mexico, Bolivia and Venezuela- accounted for about half of the deforestation in tropical regions. * The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation estimates that 70% of the forest being cleared in Africa is due to shifting agriculture. In Asia this figure is around 50% and in Latin America, 35% (Brown, p86). * The UN FAO estimate that 83 million ha of new agricultural land will need to be brought into production by the year 2000 to meet the needs of developing countries. Most of this new land will come from cleared tropical forests (Colchester, p4). * In Indonesia, transmigration has directed caused an average annual loss of 200,000 ha of forest per year since 1974 (Colchester, p6). * Forest logging is most intense in Asia with a harvest volume of 33 cu m per ha. Loggers in southeast Asia's dipterocarp forests may remove up to 40 percent of the standing timber volume (Johnson & Cabarle, 1993). * The high extraction rate in Asia has resulted in considerable damage to the forests. Logging destroys between 30 and 60 percent of unwanted trees (Brown, p86). * In Africa the cutting rate is around 14 cu m per ha and in Latin America around 8 cu m per ha (WRI et al, p134). * The area of plantations has increased in from 18 million ha in 1980 to 40 million ha in 1990 (WRI et al, p131). * Three fourths of all plantations are in Asia (WRI et al, p131). BIODIVERSITY: * About 12 percent of mammal species and 11 percent of bird species were classified as threatened in 1990 (WRI et al, p148). * Between 1 and 11 percent of the world's species per decade will be committed to extinction between 1975 and 2015 (some estimates refer to shorter periods) (WRI et al, p148). * Habitat loss is considered the biggest current threat to biodiversity (WRI et al, p149). * There are between 20 and 40 animal species for every one plant species, dependent on those plants for their survival (Myers, 1989, p154). * Estimates suggest that 5 to 10 percent of tropical forest species may face extinction within the next 30 years (Courrier, p7). Other estimates are considerably higher. * Worldwide, over 700 extinctions of vertebrates, invertebrates and vascular plants have been recorded since 1600 (Courrier, p8). * Worldwide, some 492 genetically distinct populations of tree species are endangered (Courrier, p9).