THE WORLD SUMMIT: WHAT
DOES IT MEANS FOR FORESTRY? |
Report on a meeting held by
the Commonwealth Forestry Association (UK Branch) and the Institute of
Chartered Foresters (South Scotland Region) held on Friday 1 November, 2002
at Pentlands Science Park, Edinburgh, UK.
SUMMING UP by
Duncan Poore
The
contributions to this seminar have provided a rich feast of material from
which to draw. It is impossible to cover the whole ground; this is a
personal selection.
What
did the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development mean for
forestry? In a narrow sense, probably not very much, since forestry was not
a key area for discussion. But, in a wider sense, there will be
implications arising from the developing international understanding of
sustainable development, as well as from specific partnership actions. Some
of these implications may turn out to be important.
One
problem for Johannesburg was the high expectations that people have of world
summits, and subsequent frustration that these expectations have not been
met. There is always a need to balance perfectionism and pragmatism; to
recognise the ideal, but respect the art of the possible.
Another broad issue was the breadth of the agenda. Was it too broad or too
narrow? For example, since poverty was such a central issue, should
population growth not have been included? Nor was there any discussion of
international conflict. On the other hand, some very important general
questions remain after Johannesburg: questions about what kinds of
development are in fact sustainable; and about whether rich countries will
ever make real sacrifices to help poorer ones.
Nevertheless, there have been enormous changes in the international
perception of the importance of sustainable development since the Stockholm
Conference in 1972 and in the part that forests might play in it.
Forestry itself was barely mentioned at Stockholm. Twenty years later, at
Rio, it was a contentious and highly political area for debate, leading to
the Statement of Forestry Principles, Agenda 21 and the three Conventions –
on Biological Diversity, Climate Change and Combating Desertification.
Since then action has been in two fields: through the international process
itself; and through the regular work of international organisations such as
FAO and ITTO, continuing multilateral and bilateral programmes of
assistance, regional initiatives and the actions of NGOs and the timber
trade.
The
international process, started in Rio, led through the IPF and IFF, with
some 200 recommendations for action, to the UN Forum on Forests. This has
mainly been a focus for discussion and debate with, apparently, little
action; but its importance should not be underestimated. The international
discussions tend to be repetitive, they involve much argument over the
language of agreed texts; they can lead to unwieldy lists of
recommendations. But they are absolutely vital as a means of changing
attitudes and developing international consensus. As an example, illegal
logging is now recognised as an issue and some steps are being taken to
counter it: a few years ago it was set aside as being too contentious to
discuss.
At the
same time, there has been much progress on the ground, which has been
conditioned and influenced by the international process; the two are
complementary. For example, a recent ITTO review has shown just how far
countries have gone in changing their attitudes towards forest management
and introducing more effective policies and legislation. The quality of
management has changed in many countries and certification, unheard of 15
years ago, is now here to stay.
The
Johannesburg summit was significant in: renewing the Rio commitments to
sustainable forest management; viewing forestry from fresh perspectives such
as the alleviation of poverty; drawing special attention to law enforcement;
and establishing new ways of working through innovative forms of
partnership. There has been an immense change in perception in the last 30
years – no time in the life of a tree.
A
flexible approach is also needed. Today's social priorities are unlikely to
be the social priorities of subsequent generations. This may be
particularly true in developing countries where successful poverty
alleviation programmes may have a major impact on what people demand of
their forests. Flexibility is also needed to take advantage of
opportunities for pragmatic action as they arise.
The UK
has a tremendous contribution to make by demonstrating, in a practical way,
its commitment to sustainable forest management in relation to its own
forest resources and the forest products it imports. The UK has also been
influential in international meetings, its representatives making a valuable
contribution to debate and injecting an important element of realism into
discussions.
There
has always been a tendency for forestry to be isolated. The forestry
profession needs to be more adaptable, readier to respond to new agendas and
more adept at presenting the political case for forests. It needs to place
forests and wood centre stage in the pursuit of a development that is
genuinely sustainable.
|
