NEWS                                                OUTREACH 1997
                           The Voice of the NGO Community at CSD*
                                     Countdown to Earth Summit II
LETTER

Vol. 1  No. 7
Thursday, 27 February 1997                   CSDI SPECIAL EDITION

                      WINDING DOWN WEEK ONE

AT A GLANCE

COMMENTARY: Trees are for hugging

MEETING CALENDAR

NEWS FROM THE CONFERENCE ROOM

FEATURES: On Forests

RIO GRINDS

UPDATE: Strong and Tolba

-=-=-=-=-

COMMENTARY:

TREES ARE FOR HUGGING

Trees and forests epitomize the idea of renewable resources. They
are everlasting until they are cut or uprooted. Trees can be used
for almost any product - ranging from clothing material to
chemicals, from houses to energy. The forests play a pivotal role
in maintaining the stability of global climate. The forest
reserves are of global importance.

At the beginning of the 90s, forests and wooded land covered
almost 40 percent of the Earth's landed area. This area had
declined by almost 2 percent during the 80s as a result of man's
need for products coming from trees.

The total world roundwood production is now about 3.5 billion
cubic metres annually.  The South is supplying the world market
with roughly 60 percent of the total quantity.  More than half of
the total is used for energy purposes.

The figure 3.5 billion cubic metres is probably meaningless to
most of us simply because of its size.  A way to conceptualize
this figure, is to consider that every minute, an area the size
of 50 football fields filled with fully-grown trees are cut down
to reach this annual total.  No wonder many fear for the forests
of the world.

In mythology, trees are often associated with life itself.  We
often hold and nurture  sentimental feelings about trees.  The
felling of a tree often provokes sad as well as angry feelings. 
This, combined with inaccurate information about trees and
forests, has often led us to believe the wrong stories and  draw
the wrong conclusions about trees and woods.

In an industrial world dedicated to fighting smoking, and
preserving  the image of unspoiled nature pristine lakes, the
expression "the green lungs of the earth" conjures up pictures of
harmony and well being.  And we have been led to believe that
cutting the rainforests would diminish the oxygen in the
atmosphere.  The poor farmer in the South, cutting a few bushes
to kindle a small fire so she can cook dinner for her family, has
morally been charged with carrying the burden of guilt for
depleting the oxygen layer, diminishing the rainforests and
advancing the deserts.

Do various groups in the north have a vested interest in keeping
some of these stories alive?

True, 60 percent of all the trees cut down, come from the South. 
But almost 80 percent of all tree products are consumed in the
North.  True, the major source of energy for the poor farmer in
the South is fuelwood, and more than half of the world's tree
production goes to energy use.  But of all the energy produced on
earth by man, only 14 percent is fuelled by tree production - and
the poor African farmer consumes less than 1 percent of this.

And as for the oxygen argument - this has never been
scientifically accurate. The oxygen level in the atmosphere is
constant and does not change. And besides, have your lungs ever
produced oxygen?

Should the forests of the world be a universal reserve presided
over by an international body?  In that case, shouldn't the
world's oil reserves also be?

The forests of the world are of global importance for many
reasons: their bio-diversity, their role as genetic reserves, as
a carbon sink, as climate stabilizers, as a renewable resource
base.  We have come a long way since Rio in understanding the
complexities of the forests and in working towards an agreement
for sustaining them.

Let the work for the forests move forward in a sensible way. 
There are still pitfalls to be avoided, as one brave NGO
highlighted when he described the illicit trade in trees during
the IPF negotiations.  We publish in today's "OUTREACH" an NGO
insight into the difficulties in negotiating a sound and lasting
convention on forests.  We also shed light on the IPF
negotiations.

As we approach the last day of the first week of the
Intersessional, hopes are still high for reaching a document
reflecting a mutual understanding between government delegations
and NGOs.

But experience shows us that anything can happen in the closing
days of a UN conference.  Let's look forward to a relaxing
weekend and an exciting next week.

-=-=-=-=-

STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING CALENDAR

For more information on other side events and meetings, consult
the newsletter "ISWG-CSD Today" which can be obtained every
morning in Conf. Room C and in the main meeting room.  Or contact
the CSD Secretariat - tel: 963-8811 / fax: 963-1267.

DAILY MEETINGS:
9:15 a.m.                          Conf. Room C
CSD NGO Steering Committee

2:00 p.m.                          Lunch Room
MEDIA CAUCUS

FRIDAY, 28 FEBRUARY:
12:00-1:00 p.m.                    Conf. Room C
Sustainable Communities Caucus

1:15-2:45 p.m.                     TBA
Briefing by GEF Secretariat on how NGOs can work with GEF

3:00-4:00 p.m.                     Conf. Room C
ENERGY CAUCUS

4:30 p.m.                          Conf. Room C
Briefing by NGOs participating in the Commission on Social
Development

-=-=-=-=-

NEWS FROM THE CONFERENCE ROOM

INTERVENTIONS BY NGOs
ON THURSDAY, 27 FEBRUARY

TRANSPORT

UNED-UK

Statement on behalf of the CSD/NGO Transportation Caucus and the
CSD/NGO Steering Committee (abbreviated).

The planet is heading for a motorization and mobility crisis. The
planet, and our cities, towns and villages are threatened by
current patterns of mobility and, in particular, the increasing
dependency on the private automobile in all parts of the world.
This phenomenon has been characterized as 'Mad Car Disease'.

I would urge that due consideration is given to not only the
issues of atmospheric emissions, but also to the many other
effects of car dependency which include urban congestion,
physical dangers and health hazards, encroachment on agricultural
land and biodiversity habitats, noise and visual intrusion of
traffic and roads.

Earlier this week we heard about the growth of Local Agenda 21
and other local initiatives.  In cities transport is emerging as
a key priority for both residents, who want cleaner and safer
cities, and for business, which places a high priority on modern
and efficient public transport networks for the efficient
movement of goods and people.  We commend Local Agenda 21 and
related initiatives.

In moving forward on sustainable transport, we call upon
delegates to advise their Heads of Government to adopt a
Political Statement that includes at least the following 4 key
points:

1. adopt TRANSPORT as a priority area for the CSD work programme
over the next five years, to begin at the earliest opportunity;

This should examine practical ways of reducing the growth in
traffic demand and transferring existing journeys to mass transit
where appropriate, and supporting non-motorized travel.

2. Call for appropriate land use planning polices which reduce
car dependency in our towns, cities and villages.

The scattering of jobs, homes, shopping, leisure and other
activities has created an urban structure which is uneconomical
and inefficient and inequitable against those without access to
cars.

3. Give support to car free areas in cities and give priority to
public transport and non-motorized travel.

Transport policy should be about meeting people's mobility needs
in a sustainable and equitable manner rather than merely moving
vehicles.

4. Implementation of the polluter pays principle:

This is not a call for taxation. That is something quite
separate. Rather, it is a call for fair and efficient pricing. At
present neither congestion costs nor wider health or
environmental 'externalities' are charged to the car user.
Abundant roads and parking spaces are provided free of charge to
the automobile user - often on very valuable central urban land;
furthermore, the costs of road transport are far from transparent
but are hidden within the costs of policing, emergency services
and traffic-related medical costs, all paid out of general public
funds.

Therefore car users neither pay - nor are aware - of the costs of
their journeys, whilst public transport is seen as a subsidized
form of travel - the exact opposite of what is normally the case.

In this regard we were encouraged by the statement made by the
United States' Ambassador Richardson on Monday (24/2/97) where he
said, "there is an urgent need to ensure that costs are
internalized so that the market can provide both the signals and
the incentives in favor of sustainability in all countries". 
This should apply to transport as much as any other sector.

This review of Agenda 21 provides a unique opportunity to build
on the successes of Rio and the good practice emerging at the
local level.  Governments need to go further and they need to go
faster. The solutions exist and civil society is demanding we do.

-=-=-=-=-

HEALTH

INDIGENOUS CAUCUS

On behalf of the Indigenous Caucus, I would like to make some
brief comments with regard to Health issues.

Indigenous peoples in both the North and in the South continue to
suffer from serious health problems. The fundamental underlying
cause behind this, is the dispossession of our lands and
territories and the disruptions of and to our cultures.

The identification of indigenous peoples as one of the major
vulnerable groups requiring protective measures in the chapter on
health in Agenda 21 has been a step in the right direction.
However, our special circumstances are in many instances not
given their due focus and attention.

We therefore call upon the CSD to focus more attention on these
special circumstances in both the rural areas and in urban
settlements, both in the North and the South, and ensure further
that the environmental and developmental dimensions of these
problems are effectively addressed in a conducted manner by all
relevant UN agencies.

Raja Devasish Roy, Bangladesh Indigenous and Hill Peoples'
Association for Advancement

-=-=-=-=-

DID YOU KNOW...

On Wednesday, 5 March, UNA-NY has organized a meeting with H.E.
Mr. Razali Ismail, President of the General Assembly, at the UN
Church Centre from 6:00-7:30 p.m.

The Sixth International Conference of The World Information
Transfer will be held at United Nations Headquarters on 17 -18
April 1997.  Running parallel to CSD V, this conference, which is
being co-sponsored by the Government of Chile, will focus on
"Environmental Degradation: Its Effect on Children's Heath." 
Further information can be obtained by contacting the following:

tel: (212) 686-1996 / fax: (212) 686-2172
email: wit@igc.apc.org

-=-=-=-=-


                        "OUTREACH 1997"*
     ... speaking for the NGO Steering Committee for the CSD

The NGO Steering Committee for the CSD was established at the
Commission for Sustainable Development in 1994 to facilitate the
involvement of NGOs and other major groups, where appropriate, at
the CSD.  Membership of the Steering Committee is determined in
annual elections held at the CSD, and includes Major Groups,
grassroots organizations, regional, national and global NGOs and
networks.  Our work includes facilitating NGO Working Groups,
providing support for participation of southern and eastern NGO
representatives, and organizing facilities which strengthen the
voices of NGOs in the sustainable development debate.  The
Steering Committee is facilitating activities around the CSD
Intersessional, the CSD V and Earth Summit II.

-=-=-=-=-

FEATURES..

FORESTS PRINCIPAL?

        Outcome of the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests

The fourth and final session of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Forests (IPF) concluded its two year process of dialogue on
forest issues, Friday, February 21 1997 in New York.  The Panel
was designed to discuss and develop specific language and
Proposals for Action on eleven broad thematic areas, or programme
elements, to be negotiated and approved by the panel in its
fourth meeting.  Numerous Proposals for Action were developed but
the follow-up process for their implementation remains unclear. 
Debate at this final session was largely dominated by the
question of whether or not there was a need for a legally-binding
forest convention covering all types of forests.  The pro-
convention advocates were led by the European Union and Canada,
supported by the recent addition of Malaysia and Indonesia. 
Opposition was led by the United States bolstered most strongly
by India and Brazil.  As the debate proceeded at IPF VU, the
uncertainty of what a convention would and would not contain, and
the failure to reach consensus on several other matters, led the
vast majority of other countries to state that it was premature
to advance the idea of a convention.

The NGO Community, by and large, also rejected the idea of a
forest convention at this time, expressing their view in plenary
and, perhaps most dramatically, in the form of several
declarations: the African Forest Action Network Declaration, a
European NGO Declaration, and the International Citizen
Declaration Against a Global Forest Convention.  The latter was
signed by seventy-eight environmental organizations from around
the world and presented at a press conference on the day prior to
IPF IV.

The convention fight dominated IPF IV and detracted critical
attention away from important questions regarding the
implementation of the negotiated Proposals for Action developed
over the past two years through the IPF process.  This
disappointed the majority of governments and the NGO community
which had begun a dialogue over those two years advancing
important issues and furthering an understanding of forest issues
that was unprecedented in any intergovernmental forum to date.

In the end, the Panel, unable to reach consensus, was forced to
forward three main options to the CSD regarding the post IPF
follow-up.  One, a continuation of the policy dialogue; a second
to continue dialogue but with a mandate to reach consensus and
then proceed to negotiations on a convention; and third, an
immediate call for negotiations without parallel dialogue.

          Why NGOs do not want a Forest Convention now

At first blush, the idea of a forest convention that could
theoretically coordinate policy on forests in a comprehensive,
holistic and integrated way is appealing.  Unfortunately for the
majority of NGOs following forest issues for the past several
years, addressing the complex problems leading to forest decline
worldwide is not that simple.  NGOs believe that convention
advocates are putting the cart before the horse, motivated by the
promise of free trade and political reward.  A thorough review of
existing instruments and agreements has yet to be undertaken to
identify gaps and overlaps in the existing forest regime that
would determine whether or not there is a clear need for a new
instrument.  Until such a review is undertaken, NGOs remain
skeptical that a convention can solve problems which are yet to
be defined.

The proponents of a forest convention state that current measures
on forests are scattered and that a new convention would
consolidate actions on forests.  Many forest-related problems
currently are already covered by existing conventions (e.g. the
Conventions on Biodiversity, Climate, and Desertification). 
These agreements are still quite young and have yet to fully
mature, particularly those issues with relevance to forests which
have been largely sidelined pending the outcome of the IPF. 
Proponents claim that a new convention on forests would also be a
magnet attracting financial and technical resources to the forest
sector.  However, if there is sufficient political will to
achieve sustainable forest management, it should not matter
whether the arrangement is legally-binding or voluntary, global
or regional.  Furthermore, the reality is that "new and
additional" financial resources are very limited, and therefore
existing resources need to be spent on fulfilling past
commitments before embarking on new ones.

NGOs signing onto anti-convention declarations feel that if
negotiations were initiated now, consensus would result in the
weakest, lowest common denominator commitments, thus formalizing
unacceptably weak forest management standards.  The result would
provide an international seal of approval for unsustainable
forest practices, cripple several existing and stronger forest
initiatives, and would render obsolete national and regional
standards currently in various forms of development.

NGOs also believe that negotiations will be dominated and driven
by powerful timber and commercial trade interests, and fail to
address the predatory and unethical behavior of an increasing
number of transnational timber corporations.  The predominance of
trade-related concerns over environmental ones in the
contemporary intergovernmental forest dialogue is demonstrated by
the failure of the IPF to examine something as fundamental as the
concept of protected areas when it established its mandate two
years ago.  If the IPF is indicative of the current state of the
intergovernmental understanding of forests, then the forest
negotiations will ignore or avoid some of the world's most
critical and controversial forest problems, many of which lie
outside the traditional forest sector.  Negotiations also risk
undermining the important non-governmental initiatives (e.g. the
independent certification of forest management and forest
products_ and could undermine the ability of indigenous peoples
and rural communities to determine the fate of their own forests.

Perhaps the most important of all, negotiations will stall or
block immediate action on a wide range of critical forest
problems being discussed in other policy arenas during the years
of lengthy convention debate, negotiation and ratification.  The
IPF process did reach consensus on many important issues and
advanced the political understanding of forest problems on the
intergovernmental policy level.  Accordingly, NGOs advocate a
continuation and enhancement of the intergovernmental policy
dialogue under the CSD furthering the process of agreement on
implementation that can be taken at national levels and on the
ground.  It is essential that this continuing policy dialogue
must be action oriented and that it work toward effective
implementation of the Forest Principles, the forest-relevant
chapters of Agenda 21 and the IPF Proposals for Action.  The
primary rationale for the continuation of the policy dialogue
must be to focus on problem solving initiatives, based on clearly
defined targets and timetables, while continuing to work toward
consensus on issues where agreement has not yet been reached.

Both articles submitted by:

Claudia D'Andrea, Sustainable Development Institute &
Scott Paul, Global Forest Policy Project

-=-=-=-=-

RIO GRINDS
overheard at the coffee bar

"One of the more interesting ideas the NGOs have put forward has
get to gain support on the floor of the debate at the CSD I. That
of having a Ben & Jerry's ice cream parlor next to the Vienna
Cafe! Government delegates it seems, are worried it might effect
their diet.

The CSD I and IPF before it has produced tons of paper, it has
been noticed by some that the NGOs opposition to a convention on
forests is based on the worry that several forests in Malaysia
might be needed to produce the paper for an INC process.

Czar Strong met with NGOs on Thursday worried about his
reputation as an inclusive open participatory, focussed
individual. An offer to train his small NGO "The Earth Council",
so they could participate in the main NGO deliberations, was
welcomed.

Momentum grows for Mostafa Tolba to head the CSD 5 meeting.
Though some concern exists within the EU that we may be just
replaying old records.

If the macro North-South issue is reflected in the micro North-
South Korea relationship, then the future looks gloomy.

Reform Czar Strong did not raise his voice during his meeting
with the NGOs."

-=-=-=-=-

UPDATE...

NGOs Meet Strong & Tolba

Mostafa Tolba

Mostafa Tolba of Egypt, who has emerged as one of the strongest
candidates to chair the upcoming session of the CSD, met with
NGOs Thursday afternoon and zeroed in on what he views as the
overriding obstacle to the successful implementation of Agenda
21: the lack of specific targets for the work of the CSD.

As a target for countries with high energy consumption, Mr. Tolba
suggested a ceiling of about 8,000 kilowatts per person per year. 
He explained that this target was not unrealistic even for a
country like Canada that now consumes approximately 12,000
kilowatts, given that the Nordic countries have an average
consumption of only 6-7,000 kilowatts per person per year.

Tolba challenged the NGO suggestion on abolishing the High Level
Advisory Board saying he felt it could be a mechanism which
afforded a frank and open exchange of views outside the
parameters of official negotiations.  Tolba also felt that the
target for ODA of 0.7% was unrealistic, citing that when
governments committed to increase development assistance in 1992,
it was at a level of 0.34% while today, it has dropped to 0.27%. 
He suggested that rather than pushing for 0.7%, NGOs should first
focus on getting levels of ODA back to 1992 levels by 2002.

Maurice Strong

Maurice Strong, dubbed the "Reform Czar" in the earlier issues of
"OUTREACH", came back to his roots when he met with NGOs Thursday
evening.  He stressed that he was not the reform leader. 
Furthermore, as his job is only to advise Secretary-General Kofi
Annan on these matters, he did not at this time, want to share
his view with the NGOs before he had the chance to share them
with his boss.  He expressed, however, that he would very much
like to pick up ideas from the NGO community which he would take
into consideration in his work.

On questions regarding UNEP, Mr. Strong stressed that the world
needs a strong environmental voice.  However, the weaknesses of
UNEP did need to be addressed.  Abolishing UNEP was not the
solution.

He declined to comment on the Earth Council's participation
process for Rio+5, and referred that question to Maximo Kalaw.

Mr. Strong shared the view that the CSD-process had been
successful, especially mentioning the Local Agenda 21
initiatives. But he added that it obviously could be improved!

-=-=-=-=-

The opinions, commentaries and articles printed in OUTREACH are
the sole opinion of the individual authors or organizations,
unless otherwise expressed.

They are not the official opinions of the NGO/CSD Steering
Committee or of WFUNA.

-=-=-=-=-

The Steering Committee has a web page.
http://www.igc.apc.org/habitat/csd-97
There is also a general list server for those interested it is
csdgen@undp.org  To be added to he list, just send a message to
 with the one line message:
subscribe csdgen

The complete NGO statement referred to under "UPDATE" will be
posted on the web site in a couple of days.

-=-=-=-=-

OUTREACH '97
CSD NGO Steering Committee

World Federation of United Nations Associations (WFUNA)

Editors
Jan-Gustav Strandenaes
Sharon McHale
David Fingrut

OUTREACH 1997
Please send material /enquiries to
Jan-Gustav Strandenaes
Fax (+1 212) 963-0447
Tel (+1 212) 963-5610
E-mail: wfuna@undp.org