Economic and Social Council

 Distr. GENERAL
10 January 1997
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH

COMMISSION ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Panel on
  Forests
Fourth session
10-21 February 1997


           Programme element V.2:  Contribution to consensus-building
           towards the further implementation of the Forest Principles

          Options for follow-up to the work of the Intergovernmental
             Panel on Forests in relation to Programme Element V.2

                        Report of the Secretary-General


                                   CONTENTS

                                                              Paragraphs Page

 I.   INTRODUCTION ..........................................    1 - 7     2

II.   OPTIONS FOR ACTION ....................................    8 - 35    4

      A. Intergovernmental level ...........................     8 - 20    4  

      B. Inter-agency level ................................    21 - 25    7

      C. Legal mechanisms ..................................    26 - 35    7


                               I.  INTRODUCTION


1.   The Commission on Sustainable Development, at its third session,
defined the terms of reference of programme element V.2 of the
intergovernmental Panel on Forests as follows:  "In the light of
issues (programme elements) I-V.1, based on consensus-building in a
step-by-step process, consider and advise on the need, or otherwise,
for other instruments or arrangements in further implementation of the
Forest Principles, including appropriate legal arrangements and
mechanisms covering all types of forests."

2.   At its third session (Geneva, 9-20 September 1996) the Panel held
an initial discussion only of programme element V.2, which, in
accordance with its programme of work, was to be subject to
substantive discussion during its fourth session.  The following
preliminary proposals were made by individual delegations and groups
in connection with programme element V.2: 

     (a) At the intergovernmental level:

     (i) Establish a high-level forum for policy coordination and
         dialogue on all types of forests;

    (ii) Continue the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests;

   (iii) Continue the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests until the
         year 2000 but with a more focused mandate;

    (iv) Establish a mechanism similar to the Intergovernmental Panel
         on Forests with a redefined mandate;

     (v) Strengthen the Committee on Forestry of the Food and
         Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO);

     (b) At the inter-agency level:

     (i) Continue the informal high-level Inter-agency Task Force on
         Forests;

    (ii) Transform the secretariat of the Intergovernmental Panel on
         Forests into a more formal arrangement;

   (iii) Merge the forest functions of existing institutions, such as
         FAO, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the
         United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), into a new
         institution;

     (c) Legal mechanisms:

     (i) Improve the coordination and implementation of existing legal
         instruments;

    (ii) Establish a forum of existing institutions that will keep
         under review the necessity for a legal mechanism, while
         dealing with the main forest issues in a holistic and
         integrated manner;

   (iii) Initiate negotiations for a convention based on 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) and other forest-related provisions of Agenda 21;

    (iv) Initiate negotiations for a convention covering all questions
         necessary to ensure the sustainable management of all types
         of forests;

     (v) Initiate negotiations for a framework convention to provide a
         holistic approach to the sustainable management of forests,
         facilitate the coordination and implementation of existing
         programmes and instruments, and foster the negotiation of
         regional instruments;

    (vi) Initiate negotiations for a convention to provide a holistic
         approach to the sustainable management of forests, and
         facilitate the coordination and implementation of existing
         programmes and instruments;

   (vii) Initiate the consideration of possible elements of such a
         convention;

  (viii) Initiate negotiations for a convention on forest product
         trade, covering all types of forests;

    (ix) Combine options (c) (iii)-(vi) above;

     (x) Establish a forum that will keep under review the necessity
         for a legal mechanism, while dealing with the main forest
         issues in a holistic and integrated manner;

    (xi) Establish a technical group of legal experts to formulate
         proposals for a legal mechanism in an agreed time-frame and
         on the basis of a step-by-step approach for the forum
         suggested above;

   (xii) Explore the feasibility of voluntary codes of conduct for
         forest owners and investors.

3.   The Panel felt that a number of the above-mentioned proposals were
interrelated.  However, none of those preliminary proposals were
discussed during its third session, and the Panel decided to consider
them along with any other proposals during the substantive discussion
of programme element V.2 scheduled to take place during its fourth
session.  The Panel also requested the informal high-level Inter-
agency Task Force on Forests to prepare for its consideration
proposals for possible inter-agency and secretariat arrangements to
support the work of an intergovernmental policy forum, and requested
the Secretariat to provide information on the possible organizational
modalities of the functioning of such a forum, including financial
implications.

4.   In addition, the Panel felt that in the context of its
consideration of programme element V.1, further information and study
of the international organizations, multilateral institutions and
legal instruments relevant to forests, their mandates, and their
progress in and capacity for implementing the forest-related outcomes
of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development
(UNCED) would be needed in order to achieve a more accurate diagnosis
and to formulate proposals for action.  A number of delegations felt
that since many of the issues were closely interrelated, any
conclusions and proposals for action formulated under programme
element V.1 would need to take into account the conclusions and
proposals for action formulated under programme element V.2 at the
fourth session of the Panel.  Accordingly, the Panel requested the
Task Force to prepare relevant proposals.

5.   Detailed information on current and planned forest-related
activities of international organizations, including activities that
are related to specific recommendations being discussed by the Panel,
together with some proposals on ways and means of enhancing
coordination, avoiding duplication and filling gaps, are before the
Panel in the report of the Secretary-General on programme element V.1
(E/CN.17/IPF/4).

6.   The purpose of the present report is to further elaborate the
various institutional options proposed at the third session of the
Panel with a view to facilitating further discussion and presenting
for the consideration of the Panel proposals on possible inter-agency
and secretariat arrangements to follow up its work, including possible
organizational modalities for further international dialogue and
decision-making on forests.

7.   Since many of the issues and options for action relevant to
programme element V.2 fall under the direct competence of member
States and intergovernmental bodies, the role of the secretariats of
the organizations of the United Nations system is largely limited to
facilitating relevant discussions.  Accordingly, the Task Force has
attempted to describe options rather than suggest a single course of
action.


                            II.  OPTIONS FOR ACTION

                          A.  Intergovernmental level

8.   Analysis of proposals made by various delegations during Panel
meetings suggests broad if not universal agreement on the need for a
high-level intergovernmental forum for policy coordination and
dialogue on all types of forests.

9.   Furthermore, the discussion during the third session of the Panel
suggested that as a follow-up to the Panel the following functions,
which might need to be carried out at the intergovernmental level,
could be assigned to such a policy forum:

     (a) Provide high-level policy guidance and promote consistency
and coherence in the approaches and activities of countries and
international institutions aimed at the implementation of the Forest
Principles, the forest-related provisions of Agenda 21, the outcome of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests, and other intergovernmental
decisions and initiatives on forests;

     (b) Identify international priorities on forest-related issues,
including both funding priorities and forest research and assessment
priorities;

     (c) Facilitate further international dialogue and consensus-
building on forest-related issues, and identify emerging issues that
require international attention;

     (d) Exchange and analyse information and experiences on matters
related to the sustainable management of all types of forests;

     (e) Promote dialogue and partnership on forests with major
groups, particularly non-governmental organizations and the private
sector.

10.  The Task Force agrees that in addition to the functions described
above, it will be essential for such a policy forum to promote an
enabling environment for assisting countries, particularly developing
countries, in implementing their national forest plans or similar
programmes.

11.  The Task Force feels that it will be important for the Panel at
its fourth session to define the functions of such a policy forum, at
least in broad terms, before deciding on the modalities of its
operation and its place in the system of United Nations institutions.

12.  The Task Force feels that the various specific options suggested
by Governments during the third session of the Panel could be
clustered under two alternate approaches, as set out below.

Establishing a policy forum under the auspices of the Commission on
Sustainable Development

13.  This could be done by either:

     (a) Establishing a subsidiary organ of the Commission to deal
with forest issues (i.e., an arrangement similar to that of the Panel,
or establishing a subcommission), which would meet inter-sessionally
and report to the plenary of the Commission and/or its high-level
segment;

     (b) Integrating the policy discussion on forests in the agenda of
Commission sessions and/or of its high-level segments, without
establishing a subsidiary organ of the Commission to deal specifically
with forest issues.  Consequently, the Commission itself would act as
a policy forum on forests in relation to sustainable development.

14.  The Task Force feels that although the option outlined in
paragraph 13 (b) above might be more cost-effective in terms of
meetings servicing, 1/ it would cause forest issues to lose the
visibility on the international sustainable development agenda that is
currently being achieved through the Panel process.

Establishing a policy forum under the auspices of an institution other
than the Commission, i.e., strengthening the FAO Committee on Forestry

15.  This could be done by:

     (a) The Panel recommending that the FAO Council revise the
mandate of the Committee on Forestry to accommodate the
intergovernmental functions to be agreed by the Panel (see para. 8
above), and perhaps, that it consider the frequency of Committee on
Forestry meetings in the light of such additional functions;

or

     (b) Organizing meetings at the ministerial level, in conjunction
with future meetings of the FAO Committee on Forestry, to provide
relevant policy guidance. 2/ 

                                    *  *  *

16.  The Task Force feels that in formulating its recommendation on the
possible format and placement of a policy forum, the Panel should also
discuss whether the forum should be an ad hoc time-bound arrangement
or a more permanent one.

17.  As to substantive secretariat support for a policy forum, the
Panel feels that that decision should take into account both
(a) specific functions to be carried out at the intergovernmental
level that would need to be supported, and (b) the logistical
modalities of the functioning of a policy forum.

18.  The Task Force agrees that the secretariat support structure
established for the Panel, i.e., an ad hoc secretariat largely staffed
through inter-agency secondments, has in general provided a good
framework for its work, both in terms of mobilizing support for and
coordinating inputs to the Panel process from international
institutions and other partners, including non-governmental
organizations, and in terms of supporting a policy debate in the
Panel.  It has also ensured collective ownership of the Panel process.

19.  However, the secretariat support structure of the Panel depends on
extrabudgetary resources, which makes it somewhat unsustainable as a
longer-term solution. 3/  The Task Force feels that if the Panel agrees
on the need for special secretariat arrangements to provide
substantive support to a future policy forum, it should:

     (a) Appeal to the relevant budgetary or governing bodies of the
United Nations and other organizations to include appropriate
provisions in their budgets;

and/or

     (b) Secure further extrabudgetary funding, perhaps by
recommending the establishment of a trust fund from which, inter alia,
international organizations might be compensated for their
contributions, including the secondment of their staff.

20.  As to the location of such a seconded secretariat, it could be
established either at New York or at Rome.


                            B.  Inter-agency level

21.  During the third session of the Panel, a number of delegations
called for the continuation of the inter-agency arrangements that had
been established to support the Panel in order to provide support for
the functioning of the proposed policy forum, as well as for other
work to follow up the outcome of the Panel.

22.  The Task Force was established specifically in support of the
Panel process, and has acted as an informal, flexible mechanism for
the coordination, cooperation and mobilization of support, with,
inter alia, an outreach beyond the United Nations system.  In the view
of all participating agencies, the Task Force has worked well to date
in providing the Panel with the research and analysis needed for its
debates and consensus-building through its lead-agency approach. 
However, for most agencies, in addition to seconding staff, their work
in support of the Panel has involved undertaking unprogrammed work on
an ad hoc basis.  In other cases, the establishment of new functions
or seeking outside support to produce the necessary analysis has been
required.

23.  The Task Force, at its meeting in Rome on 17 and 18 October 1996,
which was organized as part of preparations for the fourth session of
the Panel, had a preliminary discussion on the desirability of its
continuation after the conclusion of the Panel.  Members of the Task
Force feel that any final decisions on the continuation of its
functioning and modalities for its operation can be taken only after
the Panel's final outcome is known, since that outcome will have a
bearing on both the arrangements for future inter-agency collaboration
and coordination in the implementation of forest-related decisions, as
well as on future policy discussion that might need to be supported by
international institutions.

24.  However, in a preliminary way, members of the Task Force generally
felt that, regardless of the final decision on a future policy forum,
the Task Force should continue its functioning after the Panel
finalizes its work since further inter-agency work would need to be
undertaken in order to ensure effective and coordinated follow-up in
terms of implementation of the Panel outcome.

25.  Furthermore, based on the effectiveness of its experience to date,
the Task Force members feel that if the Task Force is to continue it
would be important to maintain the informal nature of this
arrangement, and that in the future it could meet on an ad hoc basis,
and perhaps mainly on the margins of other meetings.  It is also
suggested that depending on its future work programme, the Task Force
may need to involve representatives of other institutions.


                             C.  Legal mechanisms

26.  The ITFF Task Force wishes to emphasize that decisions on this
particular matter are the exclusive competence of Governments and
intergovernmental bodies.  The role of the United Nations Secretariat
and/or secretariats of international organizations is to provide a
forum for intergovernmental consensus-building, and - as required - to
provide technical and substantive secretariat support to relevant
negotiations.

27.  Within the United Nations system, some arrangements already exist
for coordination of work between the secretariats of various
conventions and legal instruments.  For example, periodic meetings of
representatives of relevant secretariats are held under the auspices
of UNEP, as the coordinator of work carried out under international
legal arrangements in the field of the environment (see
para. 38.22 (h) of Agenda 21).

28.  As to the options proposed during the third session of the Panel,
the Task Force feels that they could be broadly clustered under three
alternative courses of action, as set out below.

Improving the coordination of existing international legal instruments
that deal with specific issues on the forest agenda, and - if needed -
supplementing those instruments with additional arrangements (either
self-standing or as protocols to existing conventions/agreements) with
a view to covering gaps (see preliminary proposals in
para. 2 (c) (viii) and (xii) above)

29.  In practice, this option would imply the formulation of specific
recommendations by the Panel (or successor arrangements) to the
conferences of the parties to existing legal instruments on the
desirable course of action and/or recommendations to appropriate
policy-making bodies in the United Nations system for launching
negotiations on additional sectoral instruments.

30.  In the view of the Task Force, the main challenge here would be to
ensure policy coordination between the various conferences of the
parties and other treaty bodies, and coherence in their approaches. 
That might prove to be a very difficult task, particularly since no
international forum, including the General Assembly, has direct
authority over such bodies.  Such a situation might lead to the need
for an "umbrella" legally binding instrument, whose conference of the
parties would have at least equal authority within the system of
international treaty bodies.  That would ensure that parties to such
an umbrella instrument would be legally obliged to take consistent
positions and actions in the conferences of the parties to different
instruments that are otherwise not formally related.

Initiating negotiations on a global legally binding instrument on the
management, conservation and sustainable development of all types of
forests (see preliminary proposals in para. 2 (c) (iii), (iv), (v),
(vi) and (ix) above)

31.  In practice, this option would imply that the Panel recommend,
through the Commission on Sustainable Development, that the General
Assembly (at either its special session to be held in 1997 or its
fifty-second session) establish an intergovernmental negotiating
committee entrusted with the task of agreeing, over a given time-
frame, on the text of such a new legal instrument.

32.  The Task Force feels that the variety of views among the countries
who generally support such an approach are largely related to the
possible title of such an instrument, its format (i.e., whether it
should be a framework instrument that could subsequently be
supplemented with protocols dealing with more specific issues, or
should be a more comprehensive one from the outset, and whether such a
global instrument should include or be supplemented with regional
instruments.  Such details, in principle, could be clarified and
agreed upon in the course of the work of an intergovernmental
negotiating committee. 4/ 

Deferring any specific decision to a later date, and meanwhile keeping
the matter under intergovernmental review (see preliminary proposals
in para. 2 (c) (ii), (vii), (x) and (xi) above)

33.  In practice, this option would imply that the Panel agree on the
possibility of an eventual new legal instrument (or instruments) on
forests but recommend that any specific action be postponed until
broader consensus is reached on the overall objectives, scope, format
and basic elements of such a legal instrument (or instruments).

34.  As to an intergovernmental forum to keep the matter under review,
the Task Force feels that such a function could be entrusted to a
policy forum, as discussed in section II A above (see especially
para. 9 (a) and (c)).

35.  The Task Force also notes the proposal, made by some delegations
at the third session of the Panel, to establish a technical group of
experts to formulate proposals for a legal instrument in an agreed
time-frame and on the basis of a step-by-step approach (see
para. 2 (c) (xi) above).  The Task Force feels that such a group of
experts could, in principle, become a useful tool for supporting
future policy debate on this issue with technical expertise.  However,
its establishment is likely to have additional financial implications
in terms of meetings servicing and the travel expenses of experts.


                                     Notes

     1/ Both the agenda and programme of work of the functional
commissions of the Economic and Social Council and their
recommendations on the establishment of inter-sessional subsidiary
bodies require the formal approval of the Council.  Setting up an
inter-sessional subsidiary body would also probably require the
approval of the General Assembly (through the Advisory Committee on
Administrative and Budgetary Questions and the Fifth Committee) since
it might have financial implications for the United Nations regular
budget.  Unless decided otherwise, the membership of the subsidiary
body is the same as that of the parent body, i.e., in the case of a
subsidiary body of the Commission on Sustainable Development, 53
countries elected from among the Member States of the United Nations
and members of the organizations of the United Nations system.  In
accordance with standard United Nations regulations, travel of one
representative of a member country is covered from the regular budget. 
However, no daily subsistence allowance is paid unless the body
consists of experts acting in their personal capacity.  Approximate
direct cost implications of establishing a subsidiary of the
Commission could be about $150,000 per meeting.  Additional funds
might also be needed if such a subsidiary body meets when no regular
conference services are available.  In that case, potential
implications for conference services could be about $50,000 per week
(two meetings per working day).  In that context, one should note that
in addition to regular budget costs for conference servicing of Panel
sessions, an additional $110,000 of extrabudgetary funds were provided
by donor countries to support the participation of the least developed
countries that are not members of the Commission, as well as an
additional $130,000 for the extension of and simultaneous meetings
during the third session of the Panel.  The estimates outlined above
are related only to holding meetings and exclude costs related to the
functioning of the secretariat, inter-agency support and other
preparations for substantive discussions, such as consultancies and
expert group meetings (see also footnote 3).

     2/ The estimated cost would be US $180,000 for five days of
meetings in Rome, including preparation/sending of documentation and
interpretation in the six official United Nations languages.

     3/ In establishing the Panel, the Commission on Sustainable
Development decided that its operation, as well as the functioning of
its secretariat, would be based mainly on contributions from agencies
and extrabudgetary resources to be provided by countries and
organizations.  The Commission also encouraged countries and
organizations to organize inter-sessional meetings and activities in
support of its work programme.  The experience in providing support to
the Panel shows that the following direct costs were involved in
funding the functioning of the secretariat and the Task Force: 
$1,300,000 were provided by countries and organizations as voluntary
extrabudgetary contributions, including the hiring of the Coordinator
and his secondment from ITTO; $800,000 were provided/mobilized by
United Nations agencies in connection with the secondment of their
staff.  In addition, agencies had to redirect or overstretch their
staff resources or hire consultants to prepare analytical reports for
the Panel.  Furthermore, approximately $7,000,000 (not channelled
through the United Nations) was mobilized by countries and
organizations to organize inter-sessional meetings and other
activities in relation to preparation of reports, studies and other
inputs to the Panel process.

     4/ For example, the format of the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change was not predetermined by the General
Assembly in 1990 when the Assembly launched the negotiations on that
Convention, and it evolved considerably in the course of deliberations
in the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee.  A similar situation
occurred in the course of the work of the Intergovernmental
Negotiating Committee for the Elaboration of a Convention to Combat
Desertification in those Countries experiencing Drought and/or
Desertification, particularly in Africa.


                                     -----

Date last posted: 7 December 1999 12:45:30
Comments and suggestions: DESA/DSD