Lessons from Forestry for International Environmental Law

• Published date: 01 July 2012
• Author: Catherine P. MacKenzie
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9388.2012.00751.x
• Date: 01 July 2012

Lessons from Forestry for

International Environmental Law

Catherine P. MacKenzie

This article reflects on the progress of international

forest law since 1992 and makes suggestions for

related areas of international environmental law,

based on insights gained from the international forest

regime. To do this, it explores principles of forest law

that have emerged since 1992 and analyzes the rela-

tionship between national and international law in the

context of the forest sector. It then discusses compli-

ance with international forest agreements, concludes

that agreements that include incentives for all parties

to comply are more likely to be successful than those

that do not, and draws from this lessons for law-

makers engaged in the development of related areas of

international environmental law, such as interna-

tional law on biodiversity and habitat protection. In

particular, it emphasizes the importance of strength-

ening the rule of law, improving the implementation of

existing agreements and including in new agreements

incentives designed to ensure compliance by all

parties.

INTRODUCTION

After fifteen years of largely circuitous United Nations

forest negotiations, the United Nations Forum on

Forests (UNFF) concluded a non-legally binding forest

instrument at its seventh session in April 2007.1It is

premature to comment on the effectiveness of the

instrument, but UNFF’s corresponding postponement

of (binding) forest treaty negotiations until 2015 gives

parties time to reflect on the limited development of

international forest law in the period since 1992 and on

the questions of legitimacy this raises for international

environmental law.2

The development of international forest law proved to

be one of the most controversial issues at the 1992

United Nations Conference on Environment and Devel-

opment (UNCED). Records of the UNCED debates (at

which the non-legally binding – and thus toothless –

Forest Principles3were agreed) confirm that forest

issues were poorly defined, the parties polarized, and

the way forward uncertain and deeply problematic.

While some countries assumed that the creation of a

forest treaty would lead to sustainable forest manage-

ment (SFM) on a global scale, opposition to the pro-

posed treaty was strong.4This, for forests, was the

most important legacy of UNCED, as it established the

context for the years of international forest negotiations

which followed.

In 1995, the Commission on Sustainable Development

(CSD) established the Intergovernmental Panel on

Forests (IPF) in order to provide a forum in which the

intergovernmental dialogue on forests could be contin-

ued.5The IPF met four times between 1995 and 1997

and reported to the fifth session of the CSD in 1997,

recommending that dialogue on forests be continued.6

In 1997, the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF)

was established to continue that intergovernmental

dialogue.7The IFF met four times between 1997 and

2000 and produced a set of Proposals for Action,8com-

prising more than 270 proposals on a wide range of

forest-related issues. This was a compromise solution

which reflected both the increasingly circular interna-

tional debate on forests and the IFF’s propensity to

facilitate proposals for action, not action itself. The IFF

1Non-legally Binding Instrument on All Types of Forests, (UNGA

Resolution A/RES/62/98, 17 December 2007) (‘Non-legally Binding

Instrument on All Types of Forests’).

2This article considers international law on forests up to, and includ-

ing, 2007. It does not consider developments concerning Reducing

Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD), which

took place mainly from 2007 onwards.

3Non-legally Binding Authoritative Statement of Principles for a

Global Consensus on the Management, Conservation and Sustain-

able Development of all Types of Forests (A/CONF.151/26, 14

August 1992) (‘Forest Principles’).

4For an overview of the UNCED forest negotiations see, e.g.,

J.P. Lanly, ‘Forestry Issues at the United Nations Conference on

Environment and Development’, 43:171 Unasylva (1992), 61;

G. Palmer, ‘The Earth Summit: What Went Wrong at Rio?’, 70:4

Washington University Law Quarterly (1992), 1005.

5United Nations, Commission on Sustainable Development, Report

on the Third Session (11–28 April 1995) (E/1995/32; E/CN.17/1995/

36, 1995), paragraph 204.

6Report of the Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Panel on Forests on its

Fourth Session (E/CN.17/1997/12, 20 March 1997).

7Establishment of an Ad Hoc Open-ended Intergovernmental Forum

on Forests of the Commission on Sustainable Development

(ECOSOC Resolution 1997/65, 25 July 1997).

8Report of the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests on its Fourth

Session (New York, 31 January–11 February 2000) (E/CN.17/2000/

14, 20 March 2000).

bs_bs_banner

Review of European Community & International Environmental Law

RECIEL 21 (2) 2012. ISSN 0962 8797

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

114