| United Nations | E/CN.17/IPF/1996/15 |
Economic and Social Council
Distr. GENERAL
5 August 1996
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
COMMISSION ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Panel on Forests
Third session
9-20 September 1996
IMPLEMENTATION OF FOREST-RELATED DECISIONS OF THE UNITED NATIONS
CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT AT THE NATIONAL AND
INTERNATIONAL LEVELS, INCLUDING AN EXAMINATION OF SECTORAL AND
CROSS-SECTORAL LINKAGES
Programme element I.2: Underlying causes of deforestation
and forest degradation
Progress report of the Secretary-General
SUMMARY
As requested by the Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Panel on Forests at its
second session (see document E/CN.17/1996/24), the present progress report has
been prepared for the purpose of further guiding substantive discussion of
programme element I.2, entitled "Underlying causes of deforestation and forest
degradation", of the programme of work of the Panel.
Deforestation and forest degradation constitute a serious problem in many
countries. Evidence accumulated in the last decade has shown that it is
preferable to address the underlying causes of deforestation by utilizing a
focused approach that concentrates on reversing the damaging processes and
promoting the most beneficial ones. It is possible to decide what changes are
or are not harmful only against a background represented by a national policy
framework for sustainable development and a national forest policy that
jointly and consistently make the best possible judgement of optimum forest
cover (how much, where and of what kind) in order to meet most effectively
diverse needs for forest goods and services. Policies for forests (and trees
outside forests) need to be consistent with such a national policy framework
for sustainable development including overall economic, land-use, environment
and development policies. This report represents a further step towards
defining the usefulness of the diagnostic framework proposed in the report of
the Secretary-General (E/CN.17/IPF/1996/2) presented for the consideration of
the Panel at its second session. The present report recalls the discussions
at the second session of the Panel; reviews briefly some additional actions
taken since the second session of the Panel; focuses on how to use the
diagnostic framework to assist developing and developed countries to identify
the causes of deforestation and forest degradation; and concludes with a set
of conclusions and proposals for action for discussion by the Panel.
CONTENTS
Paragraphs Page
INTRODUCTION ........................................... 1 - 8 4
I. DISCUSSION AT THE SECOND SESSION OF THE PANEL .... 9 - 13 5
II. ADDRESSING UNDERLYING CAUSES ..................... 14 - 17 6
III. THE DIAGNOSTIC FRAMEWORK ........................ 18 - 37 7
A. The forest cover desired .................... 27 - 28 10
B. Use of the diagnostic framework ............. 29 - 37 10
IV. CONCLUSIONS AND PROPOSALS FOR ACTION ............ 38 - 45 13
A. Consumption and production patterns .......... 40 - 41 14
B. National policy framework .................... 42 14
C. Application of the diagnostic framework ...... 43 - 45 15
INTRODUCTION
1. The present progress report covers programme element I.2, entitled
"Underlying causes of deforestation and forest degradation", of the
programme of work of the Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Panel on Forests.
2. At its third session, the Commission on Sustainable Development
defined programme element I.2 as consisting in the need to "identify and
consider ways to address the underlying causes of deforestation, forest
degradation and the difficulties in implementing sustainable forest
management, with particular attention to cross-sectoral factors, including
the impact on and from forests, at the national and international levels,
such as consumption and production patterns, poverty, population growth,
pollution, terms of trade, discriminatory trade practices and unsustainable
policies related to sectors such as agriculture, energy and trade". 1/
3. The Panel, at its first session (see document E/CN.17/IPF/1995/3,
para. 18), emphasized that preparation for the discussion of the issue
would require the judicious consideration of an array of contributing
factors, many of them of a cross-sectoral nature, and recommended that a
report on the underlying causes and cross-sectoral influences on forest
degradation and deforestation and on the difficulties of implementing
sustainable forest management should be prepared, bringing together key
work in the area and identifying gaps.
4. At its second session, the Panel discussed the report of the
Secretary-General on this programme element (E/CN.17/IPF/1996/2), taking
into account the relevant paragraphs of the Non-legally Binding
Authoritative Statement of Principles for a Global Consensus on the
Management, Conservation and Sustainable Development of All Types of
Forests (Forest Principles) 2/ and chapter 11 of Agenda 21. 3/ The report
presented to the Panel at its second session proposed a new, focused
approach that concentrated on reversing the most damaging processes related
to deforestation and forest degradation and promoting those measures that
would be most beneficial. Furthermore, the report described the kind of
changes that were affecting the quantity and quality of all types of
forests; proposed ways to identify the causes of many detrimental changes;
analysed why it was so difficult to implement sustainable forest
management; and recommended ways to improve all these aspects. The report
also highlighted the need to concentrate on maintaining or developing
forests in appropriate places for the relevant reasons.
5. The Panel noted that the causes of deforestation and degradation were
complex and could be different in different countries and circumstances.
Some originated in different sectors of the national economy but others
might be transboundary or international in nature. The Panel also noted
the key role of this programme element in guiding, and serving as a basis
for, action in respect of each of the other programme elements of its
programme of work included in categories I through V.
6. This progress report, although it stands by itself, is based on the
aforementioned document presented to the Panel at its second session
(E/CN.17/IPF/1996/2) and should be regarded as its continuation but one
focusing particularly on the gaps and issues identified in discussion at
the second session of the Panel. In this context, this report is a step
forward in the definition of the diagnostic framework as a valuable
management tool for identifying and addressing the underlying causes of
deforestation and forest degradation. It should be noted that the report
takes into consideration paragraphs 7, 10 and 13 of the Statement on
Biological Diversity and Forests from the Convention on Biological
Diversity to the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (E/CN.17/IPF/1996/9,
annex), as contained in the annex to decision II/9, entitled "Forests and
biological diversity", adopted by the Second Meeting of the Conference of
the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Jakarta, Indonesia,
6-17 November 1995.
7. This progress report was prepared jointly by the United Nations
Development Programme (UNDP), and the secretariat of the Ad Hoc
Intergovernmental Panel on Forests, Division for Sustainable Development of
the Department for Policy Coordination and Sustainable Development of the
United Nations Secretariat. The report is based on a study prepared by the
Overseas Development Administration of the Government of the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
8. Section I of this report recalls the main elements discussed by the
Panel at its second session. Section II reviews briefly actions taken for
addressing the underlying causes of deforestation and forest degradation.
Section III elaborates further the concept of developing and using a
diagnostic framework as a tool to assist developing and developed countries
in identifying the causes of deforestation and forest degradation that are
most significant to them. Section IV offers a set of conclusions and
proposals for action for the consideration of the Panel.
I. DISCUSSION AT THE SECOND SESSION OF THE PANEL
9. The Panel at its second session emphasized that there were rational
justifications for many changes in forest structure and cover and that
deforestation need not necessarily be harmful if planned within the context
of national policies for sustainable land use. Indeed, it might often be
better to use the more neutral terms "replacement" and "modification"
instead of "deforestation" and "forest degradation", as suggested in the
report of the Secretary-General presented to the Panel at its second
session.
10. The Panel noted the range of diverse factors that affected
deforestation and forest degradation, and that these factors operated in
different ways, at different scales and times, and in different places. Of
particular concern to the Panel were social and economic issues including
poverty, land tenure and property rights, and patterns of consumption and
production. Land-use issues including unsustainable agricultural
practices, grazing pressure, forest fires and the role of plantations and
market-related factors were observed to operate in a number of ways and
included undervaluation of wood and non-wood forest products, land markets
and land speculation. Extrasectoral dimensions, including energy policies
affecting the use of wood-based fuels, policies in other sectors and their
impact on forest management, and conservation of biodiversity would be of
particular importance. International policies including debt and
structural adjustment, international trade and transboundary pollution were
also highlighted as being significant causes. Each of these factors would
be of a different importance and exert different kinds of influences in
countries at different times.
11. The Panel also noted that addressing underlying causes of
deforestation and forest degradation required accurate and timely
information on the full range of goods and services provided by forests to
society, as well as the economic contribution of forests in the widest
sense, and data on changes and modifications taking place in terms of both
quantity and quality of forest cover. Such information would need to be
supported, in some cases, by capacity-building and improved planning.
12. Participatory mechanisms and approaches were considered to be
especially important in order to facilitate the planning process and to
address underlying causes and to promote sustainable forest management.
Improved donor coordination and international collaboration in programmes
addressing deforestation and forest degradation were considered to be
necessary. Promotion of adequate legislation and other measures, such as
environmental impact assessments, might be required as a basis for action
against uncontrolled conversion of forest to other types of land use. All
these approaches should be employed to address and correct underlying
causes of deforestation and forest degradation.
13. The Panel also discussed the central role of understanding the
underlying causes of deforestation and forest degradation and regarded this
as the basis for action in respect of each of the other programme elements
of its programme of work. There are many cross-cutting issues that may be
brought together in the analysis of causes, and in formulating policies and
actions to combat unsustainable management and use of forests, and in
identifying and implementing policies to enhance forest cover. The Panel
also noted that there were a number of government-sponsored initiatives
under way in support of this programme element, and that relevant
activities might be undertaken under the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change, 4/ the Convention on Biological Diversity, 5/
and the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in those
Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, particularly
in Africa. 6/
II. ADDRESSING UNDERLYING CAUSES
14. Some related issues have been addressed through different initiatives
undertaken or completed since the second session of the Panel. These
include the Norwegian initiative study on long-term trends and prospects in
the supply and demand for wood products and possible implications for
sustainable forest management. This study found that the demand for wood
products, including fuelwood, would increase in future and that this was
related to projected increases in human population and wealth. At the same
time, it was expected that demands for other services of forests would also
increase. For example, the study predicted increasing demand for
recreation, wilderness and nature conservation, particularly in societies
where wealth was increasing. It also noted that formal sector arable land
requirements to the year 2016 might involve conversion of some 45 million
hectares (ha) of forest in developing countries. If subsistence farming
and livestock farming do not move to more intensive and productive forms,
it is expected that an additional 100-200 million ha of forests will be
converted or degraded. This has broad implications for the future
management of forests in terms of possibilities of raising productivity of
forests; integrated land-use planning; and management of forests for
multiple products and services.
15. Changing consumption and production patterns were addressed in a
recent report of the Secretary-General (E/CN.17/1996/5 and Add.1) to the
fourth session of the Commission on Sustainable Development which also
highlighted a predicted increase in demand for wood and other forest
products. A report prepared by the International Institute for Environment
and Development (IIED) on the paper cycle again predicted increased global
consumption of forest products, but emphasized the opportunities for
improved efficiency and environmental sustainability.
16. None of these studies, however, examined explicit links among
production, supply and consumption and deforestation or forest degradation
in specific countries, but each examined instead global aggregate trends
and predictions.
17. It should be noted that subjects related to (a) the forestry-specific
ramifications of present consumption and production patterns in different
parts of the world and (b) the international underlying causes of
deforestation and forest degradation are extremely complex and difficult to
deal with. However, both issues are specially relevant for this and other
programme elements of the Panel's programme of work, especially in
categories I, II and IV. The discussions of the Panel at its second
session highlighted the need to undertake analysis of both subjects. The
research studies necessary for such analysis are practically impossible to
undertake within the time-frame of the Panel. They should be based on the
careful consideration of data and figures whose compilation from many
different sources as well as in-depth strategic analysis would require a
longer period of time. It is considered, therefore, that the Panel may
wish to recommend that these kind of studies should be recognized as
priorities for future international action.
III. THE DIAGNOSTIC FRAMEWORK
18. The Panel at its second session recognized that changes in forest
structure and cover must be addressed first at the country level. It
called, therefore, for the development and use of a diagnostic framework to
assist developing and developed countries to identify the causes of
deforestation and forest degradation that were most significant to them.
Such a framework was illustrated in the report of the Secretary-General on
this topic presented to the Panel at its second session. If it was
developed, it would enable countries to:
(a) Assess the extent and quality of their present forest cover;
(b) Consider the extent and quality of forest cover desired;
(c) Decide, against this background, whether the changes taking place
were harmful or beneficial;
(d) Analyse the chain of causes (from direct to underlying) that were
leading to any harmful changes;
(e) Identify those causes that were most significant and would most
readily respond to treatment (some causes may offer little possibility of
manoeuvre such as transboundary pollution, for example);
(f) Decide on the most effective ways of achieving the desired
outcome;
(g) Determine priorities for action;
(h) Periodically assess the effectiveness of any action taken and the
progress towards the forest condition desired.
19. The incorporation of the diagnostic framework as a tool into a
country's sustainable development planning process could be used to develop
practical and flexible management tools for land-use planning related to
forests. It could be helpful in defining the elements of a national forest
policy, an essential prerequisite of sustainable forest management. The
diagnostic framework could therefore be used to help prepare a national
policy framework as well as forest action plans or programmes, or as part
of policy reforms or a revision of an existing plan or programme. It could
also be used in the development of other environmental and land-use plans,
for example, national biodiversity strategies and action plans or national
environmental and natural resource development programmes.
20. The preparation of such a diagnostic framework would enable each
country to undertake its own analysis of the conditions specific to it; it
would allow a wide range of national factors to be taken into account,
particularly the interaction of different sectoral policies, and a nation's
international obligations; and it would draw attention, where appropriate,
to those circumstances in which global or external influences were
important as driving forces of change.
21. One advantage of using this diagnostic framework (see table 1) lies in
the way the different steps in applying the diagnostic framework could link
closely with, or be the result of, other programme elements of the Panel's
programme of work, as for example:
(a) Step (a) and programme element III.1 (a) (Assessment of the
multiple benefits of all types of forests) and forest resource assessment;
(b) Step (b) and programme elements I.1 (Progress in national forest
and land-use plans) and thus national forest action plans and national
forest programmes; I.5 (Needs and requirements of countries with low forest
cover); and III.1 (b) (Methodologies for proper valuation of the multiple
benefits of forests);
(c) Steps (c) and (h) being based on the use of criteria and
indicators for sustainable forest management (programme element III.2);
(d) Steps (f) and (g) providing relevant material for programme
element II (International cooperation in financial assistance and
technology transfer for sustainable forest management).
22. It is also evident that the same process can be applied effectively to
the diagnosis of any other changes in the quantity and quality of forest
cover such as those addressed under Panel programme elements I.4 (Fragile
ecosystems affected by desertification, and the impact of airborne
pollution on forests) and I.5 (Needs and requirements of countries with low
forest cover). It can also be directly linked with any considerations
arising from various other international agreements.
Table 1. Links between the diagnostic framework and other
Panel programme elements
Step in the diagnostic framework Programme element
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Assessing quality and quantity of present III.1 (a)
forest cover
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Optimum forest cover I.1, I.5, III.1 (b)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) Assessing changes in forest cover III.2, III.1 (a)
(------------------------------------------------------------------------
d) Chain of causation
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) Identifying significant causes
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
(f) Policy option II
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
(g) Priorities for action II
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
(h) Monitoring progress III.2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. The use of the diagnostic framework should be neither time-consuming
nor expensive. For example, an initial analysis based on existing
information could probably be made through a consultation among
representatives of different interested groups meeting for less than a
week. Suggestions about the kinds of information required are made later
in this report. This analysis should lead directly to defining the chains
of causation, identifying the most significant causes and suggesting the
most effective action. However, in some instances, it is possible that
there may not be enough information to make a judgement. In such cases,
the collection of the relevant information must be the first step.
24. The use of the diagnostic framework should be both iterative and
progressive, for several reasons. First, the goal (the desired quantity
and quality of forest) is likely to change as overall national policies and
priorities evolve; second, as one limiting factor is removed, another will
assume greater significance; and third, the international context may
change and alter the setting in which national decisions should be made.
25. Two separate elements should be involved in the use of the diagnostic
framework:
(a) Defining the desired extent and quality of forest cover;
(b) Identifying harmful changes and diagnosing their causes.
26. These are analogous to deciding what the characteristics are of a
healthy body, detecting signs of disease and diagnosing their causes.
A. The forest cover desired
27. It is not essential that this assessment of optimum forest cover be
very detailed but it should give a broad estimate of the amounts, kinds and
locations of forest that the country considers necessary to meet its
requirements for various purposes, such as:
(a) Soil and water conservation;
(b) Conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity;
(c) Growing of timber and non-wood forest products;
(d) Providing of energy and fuel;
(e) Planned conversion to sustainable agriculture;
(f) Other social benefits, such as generating employment, recreation
and providing a source of livelihood;
(g) Carbon sequestration.
(The information should be sufficiently detailed to show whether trends in
the quantity and quality of forest are diverging significantly from the
desired condition. It is likely that the information available will become
more detailed at each successive iteration.)
28. These will be reached by examining the outputs from such measures as,
for example, national development strategies, natural resource plans,
national biodiversity strategies and action plans, national forest action
plans and programmes, mapping of erosion hazard, designation of forests for
catchment protection, predictions of timber supply and demand and survey of
land potential for agriculture.
B. Use of the diagnostic framework
29. The process of diagnosis is likely to differ in detail from country to
country, or even between different regions within a country, but a typical
example might include the following steps:
1. Diagnosis of chain of causation
(a) Identification of areas where the forest was changing in quantity
(decrease or increase) or quality (deterioration or improvement);
(b) Classification of these areas into types with similar
characteristics;
(c) For each type, determination of the direct cause or causes of the
change (for example, excessive or careless extraction of timber) and the
main agents and actors;
(d) Moving from the identified direct causes to those next up along
the chain of causation (for example, lack of regulation and control; nature
of concession policy; delays in establishing permanent forest estate).
Note that each direct cause may lead to more than one further up along the
chain of causation;
(e) Continuation of this process of analysis as far as possible.
30. Information for this analysis would be obtained from all available
sources: local and personal knowledge; official records; ground-truthing;
official statistics and reports, and so forth. The result would be a
branching "tree" of causes, each tier less direct than the preceding tier.
The significance of the change would be assessed against the desired
condition, using appropriate criteria and indicators. The various stages,
and possible sources of information, are set out in table 2.
Table 2. Using the diagnostic framework: information
and sources
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information need Source of information
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Identify symptons: area Forestry sector reviews and reports,
undergoing rapid, unplanned personal knowledge, direct observation
or irreversible change: ground-truthing, govrnment reports,
reports of international agencies such
Where as the Food and Agriculture
Scale Organization of the United Nations
Nature of change (FAO), remote sensing, action plans
for other international agreements,
for example, the Convention on
Biological Diversity
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Identify direct causes of Local records, ground-truthing, local
change: knowledge, direct observation,
government reports on forest and other
Agents and actors sectors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Identify indirect causes Policy analysis, tracking extrasectoral
underlying forces driving influences and policies, macroeconomic
direct causes and policies and pressures, international
inteactions between them: policies, personal knowledge, reports
uncovering the chain of of various government departments
explanation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Identification of limiting factors or priorities for action
31. At this stage, the nature of the analysis would change. An
attempt should now be made to identify those causes that are more
significant than others or likely to respond more readily to remedial
action. The criteria to be used might include:
(a) Time-scale (can policies be implemented immediately and are they
likely to yield results in the short term, or are they mid- or long-term in
perspective?);
(b) Sectoral responsibility (does responsibility for their
implementation lie within the forest sector, in other sectors of the
economy, or perhaps outside the jurisdiction of the country itself?);
(c) Scale (are the policy options effective at a local, regional or
national scale? Do they require some supranational or international
initiative?);
(d) Availability of information;
(e) Capacity to act.
3. Periodic assessment and iteration
32. The diagnostic process should be repeated at intervals. The time
lapse will be determined by local circumstances, and particularly by the
kind of action necessary and the likely response time. For example, if the
action required was local, such as providing local opportunities for
employment, it might be useful to repeat the diagnosis after one year; if
the necessary action required new legislation and training of staff, the
period would be longer. As a rough guide, it would probably be useful to
conduct a complete diagnosis every five years.
33. In summary, the diagnostic framework acts as a tool to:
(a) Identify the causes of, and possible solutions to, deforestation
and forest degradation;
(b) Prioritize options for action and points for effective
implementation;
(c) Periodically monitor progress towards forest plan objectives.
34. In order to be successful, the development of the diagnostic
framework would need to be supported by the collection of accurate and
updated information, capacity-building, donor coordination and
participatory approaches and mechanisms. Examples of policies that have
contributed to deforestation and forest degradation should be identified,
and inappropriate policy incentives within the forestry sector - and in
some countries inappropriate policies outside it - should be corrected.
Policies and actions that have had a beneficial effect on forest structure
and cover should also be identified, so that information on effective
measures to combat unsustainable practice can be gathered and disseminated.
35. The diagnostic framework proposed in this report, as a
sustainable forest management tool, is available for immediate test
application. The most convenient way to proceed would be to select a
series of case-studies in countries with widely differing forest and
development profiles. It would be most valuable and instructive if
examples were to include a range of countries characterized by one or more
of the following:
(a) High rate of deforestation or forest degradation;
(b) Increasing forest area;
(c) Desertification;
(d) Boreal, temperate or arid zone forests;
(e) High and low ratios of population to forest area;
(f) Both developed and developing economies.
36. In addition to their use in the countries concerned, these
studies should be drawn together in order to refine the diagnostic
framework and to determine whether any valid and useful wider
generalizations can be made from them concerning approaches to addressing
the issue.
37. In applying the diagnostic framework, very special attention
should be paid to its contribution to integrated approaches to land use and
development planning, and to harmonizing policies both inside and outside
the forestry sector, and to the scope and opportunities for international
action in addressing underlying causes of deforestation and forest
degradation.
IV. CONCLUSIONS AND PROPOSALS FOR ACTION
38. At its second session, the Panel recognized that deforestation
and forest degradation were complex issues, and that many of the factors
causing them interacted and were in some cases synergistic. Many lie
outside the forest sector, while others, such as unsustainable timber
extraction, are linked to the forest sector. Most of the factors are
social and economic in character. Inappropriate policy choices and
approaches in other sectors can influence deforestation and forest
degradation. The causes of deforestation and forest degradation are often
country-specific, and simplistic conclusions or overgeneralized solutions
or prescriptions for policy should be avoided. Each country, whether
developing or developed, will have a particular set of circumstances, in
terms both of the direct and underlying causes and of the scope for action
in addressing them. Poverty and consumption patterns as well as land
speculation, land tenure and land markets may also have a major influence
on deforestation.
39. Deforestation and forest degradation pose a serious problem in
many countries and the adoption of a more focused approach that
concentrates on reversing the most damaging processes and promoting the
most effectively beneficial ones is needed.
A. Consumption and production patterns
40. Long-term changes in consumption and production patterns in
different parts of the world are important. It is a priority to review
forestry-specific ramifications in the context of the work being done by
the Commission on Sustainable Development, the Norwegian initiative and
other relevant initiatives concerning long-term supply and demand of forest
products.
41. International underlying causes of deforestation and forest
degradation are also important factors to be taken into account and need to
be further analysed.
Proposal for action
* To urge countries and international organizations to prepare
in-depth strategic studies of forestry-specific ramifications of present
consumption and production patterns in developing and developed countries,
with special emphasis given to the positive and negative effects on the
sustainable management and use of forests. These studies should also
analyse international underlying causes, including transboundary economic
forces as well as transboundary pollution.
B. National policy framework
42. In order to identify and address the underlying causes of
deforestation and forest degradation and along the lines of the priorities
identified in programme element I.1, a coordinated and integrated approach
to land-use planning and national economic planning is needed that
recognizes and takes into account all the cross-sectoral issues contained
in the various Panel programme elements. These issues need to be addressed
as a whole in a national policy framework for sustainable development that
encompasses and harmonizes elements pertaining to sustainable development
and environment plans, social and economic development programmes, national
forest policy and plans and national biodiversity strategies and action
plans.
Proposals for action
* To urge donor countries and international organizations,
including regional development banks, to assist and finance research, case-
studies and capacity-building activities in developing countries to allow
an integrated approach towards:
(a) Formulation and application of a national forests policy, in the
context of an overall national policy framework for sustainable
development;
(b) Development of administrative structures and mechanisms to
improve policy formulation and coordination, as well as planning,
management and implementation of programmes;
(c) Application of environmental impact assessment as a planning tool
and as a basis for action against uncontrolled forest conversions to other
types of land use.
* To request donor countries and international organizations to
support and assist developing countries in conducting strategic analysis of
policies that have contributed to forest degradation and deforestation as
well as of those that have had a positive effect.
C. Application of the diagnostic framework
43. In parallel with the required policy reforms for achieving
sustainable forest management, the implementation of effective measures to
address underlying causes of deforestation and forest degradation should be
based on the results obtained from the application of a comprehensive
diagnostic framework. The comparability of results among countries is
desirable to identify common patterns and issues of common interest and to
promote regional and global cooperation on this subject.
44. In this context, the diagnostic framework would not only serve as
a useful tool both in developing and in developed countries in analysing
deforestation and forest degradation but also, in adapted forms, be
invaluable in setting the objectives of national forest policies; in
exploring the effects of policies of other sectors on deforestation and
forest degradation and the ways in which modification of such policies
might promote sustainable forest management; in using and refining criteria
and indicators and methods of valuation; in identifying priorities for
action and for official development assistance (ODA); in locating
deficiencies in capacity (for example, in management and supervision,
information, research or education); in relating to national action plans
for other international agreements and conventions; and generally as a
powerful management tool in furthering the implementation of sustainable
forest management.
45. The main function of the diagnostic framework should be
constructive, corrective and forward-looking. It would complement and
strengthen other existing forest planning exercises and should be used
also, together with criteria and indicators (see programme element III.2),
as a tool for the periodic assessment of progress (programme element III.1
(a)). Viewed in this way, it would be fully as useful in developed as in
developing countries, and in analysing positive changes in forest cover as
in diagnosing the causes of forest deterioration.
Proposal for action
* To encourage and assist countries in testing the diagnostic
framework in a number of case-studies in order to:
(a) Develop and test its usefulness as a positive management tool in
those countries for improved policy formulation and implementation;
(b) Refine the diagnostic framework itself.
Notes
1/ See Official Records of the Economic and Social Council, 1995,
Supplement No. 12 (E/1995/32), chap. I, sect. D, annex I, sect. III,
para. I.2.
2/ Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development, Rio de Janeiro, 3-14 June 1992, vol. I, Resolutions Adopted by
the Conference (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.93.I.8 and
corrigendum), resolution 1, annex III.
3/ Ibid., annex II.
4/ A/49/84/Add.2, annex, appendix II.
5/ See United Nations Environment Programme, Convention on
Biological Diversity (Environmental Law and Institutions Programme Activity
Centre), June 1992.
6/ A/AC.237/18 (Part II)/Add.1 and Corr.1, annex I.
-----
This document has been posted online by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA). Reproduction and dissemination of the document - in electronic and/or printed format - is encouraged, provided acknowledgement is made of the role of the United Nations in making it available.
Date last posted: 7 December 1999 12:45:30
Comments and suggestions: DESA/DSD