The Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF) - in the Swedish Context
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
R A P P O R T 3 2 0 0 1 The proposals for action submitted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF) and the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF) - in the Swedish context Kajsa Nilsson Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences © The National Board of Forestry januari 2001 Facts Kajsa Nilsson Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Paper brilliant copy Reproduction JV, Jönköping Number of copies 350 ex ISSN 1100-0295 PRODUCT NUMBER 1630 The National Board of Forestry S – 551 83 Jönköping Telephone + 46 36 - 15 55 92 The proposals for action submitted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF) and the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF) - in the Swedish context Kajsa Nilsson Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences A study initiated by the National Board of Forestry and elaborated with participation of Ministry of Industry, Employment and Communications, Ministry of the Environment, Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, Swedish Forest Industries Federation, Federation of Swedish Farmers and Forest Owners and Swedish Society for Nature Conservation. Table of contents Summary__________________________________________________________________ 1 1. Introduction _____________________________________________________________ 3 1.1 The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED)__________ 3 1.2 The Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF) ____________________________________ 3 1.3 The Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF) ___________________________________ 4 1.4 The United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF) ____________________________________ 6 1.5 Purpose of the study___________________________________________________________ 6 2. Material and method ______________________________________________________ 6 2.1 Personal communication _______________________________________________________ 6 2.2 Written sources_______________________________________________________________ 7 2.3 Structuring and analysing the proposals for action_________________________________ 7 3. Results__________________________________________________________________ 9 3.1 General______________________________________________________________________ 9 3.1.1 Structure of the IPF and IFF proposals for action _____________________________________ 9 3.1.2 Review of the IPF and IFF proposals for action in general _____________________________ 13 3.1.3 The Swedish situation in general ________________________________________________ 14 3.2 Environmental issues (Subject field 1)___________________________________________ 16 3.2.1 Review of the IPF and IFF proposals for action _____________________________________ 16 3.2.2 The Swedish situation related to environmental issues ________________________________ 19 3.3 Assistance to developing countries and countries with economies in transition (Subject field 2)_________________________________________________________________________ 23 3.3.1 Review of the IPF and IFF proposals for action _____________________________________ 23 3.3.2 The Swedish situation________________________________________________________ 24 3.4 Legislation, policies, strategies and voluntary codes of conduct (Subject field 3) _______ 26 3.4.1 Review of the IPF and IFF proposals for action _____________________________________ 26 3.4.2 The Swedish situation________________________________________________________ 28 3.5 Forest management (Subject field 4) ____________________________________________ 31 3.5.1 Review of the IPF and IFF proposals for action _____________________________________ 31 3.5.2 The Swedish situation________________________________________________________ 33 3.6 Specific groups of peoples (Subject field 5)_______________________________________ 35 3.6.1 Review of the IPF and IFF proposals for action _____________________________________ 35 3.6.2 The Swedish situation________________________________________________________ 37 3.7 Trade (Subject field 6) ________________________________________________________ 38 3.7.1 Review of the IPF and IFF proposals for action _____________________________________ 38 3.7.2 The Swedish situation________________________________________________________ 39 3.8 International cooperation (Subject field 7) _______________________________________ 40 3.8.1 Review of the IPF and IFF proposals for action _____________________________________ 40 3.8.2 The Swedish situation________________________________________________________ 42 3.9 Information, reporting, education, training, capacity building, research and analyses (Subject field 8) _________________________________________________________________ 43 3.9.1 Review of the IPF and IFF proposals for action _____________________________________ 43 3.9.2 The Swedish situation________________________________________________________ 45 4. Discussion______________________________________________________________ 48 4.1 The methodology used ________________________________________________________ 48 4.2 Contents of the IPF/IFF Proposals of Action _____________________________________ 48 4.3 The Swedish situation in relation to the Proposals for Action _______________________ 49 5. References______________________________________________________________ 51 5.1 Literature___________________________________________________________________ 51 5.2 Internet ____________________________________________________________________ 52 Rapport 3/2001 Summary At the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, in 1992, forest-related issues were discussed and negotiated. The results of these discussions were, for example, the so-called Forest Principles and Chapter 11 of Agenda 21. The UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) set up the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF) for the continuation of the international forest policy dialogue. The IPF reached consensus on around 130 proposals for action during its mandate from 1995-97. The successor of the IPF, the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF), was established in 1997, and had reached consensus on a further 120 proposals for action when the IFF process was ended in 2000. The proposals for action arising from the IPF and IFF processes are non-legally binding, but since they have been negotiated and agreed upon between nations, they are morally binding, or a so- called soft-law. The countries participating in these processes are under political obligation to implement the proposals for action. The purpose of this study is to structure and analyse the IPF/IFF proposals for action from a Swedish point of view, and to compare the Swedish situation and way of working with the actions proposed by the IPF and IFF. To obtain structure, and to facilitate understanding of the proposals, from a Swedish point of view, the IPF/IFF proposals for action have been classified in two different ways. The proposals for action were, in the first step, classified in four different categories. Category A contains proposals for action that directly concern Swedish forests and forestry, and should be implemented within the country. Half of the proposals for action have been classified as Category A. Category B proposals are those requiring international commitment by Sweden. These proposals for action will be implemented outside of Sweden. Of the proposals for action, 39% have been classified as Category B. Category C contains proposals directed at other groupings than countries, and proposals not applicable in Sweden. These proposals for action require no direct initiative by Sweden. This category represents almost one-fifth of the proposals for action. Category D consists of the proposals for action where consensus could not be reached, but still have been included in the reports of the IPF and IFF. Of the proposals for action, around 6% are Category D proposals. The study has then been concentrated on the proposals for action in Categories A and B, since they are the most relevant for Sweden. The Category A and B proposals for action have been condensed into a more easily comprehensible form, and, in the next step, classified in eight subject fields. The IPF and IFF proposals for action cover a wide range of issues, related to forests and forestry. Deforestation and forest degradation, assistance to developing countries and countries with economies in transition, traditional forest-related knowledge, policy-formulation, participation of all interested parties, and inventories of forest resources are some of the key issues in the proposals for 1 Rapport 3/2001 action. Other essential fields identified by the IPF and IFF are capacity building, international cooperation and coordination, environmentally sound technologies, criteria and indicators, environmentally fragile or critical areas, forest conservation, communities, trade in forest products and services from sustainably managed forests, information, and research. There are some features of the Swedish situation and way of working that are of particular importance in relation to the proposals for action. This is for example the forest policy with its equally prioritised goals for production and the environment, the process of consultation and consensus in policy formulation, implementation of forest policy through information and training, and a long tradition of forest inventories. Conclusions drawn from this study are that the Swedish situation and way of working correspond largely to the requirements of the proposals for action, although the measures