|
Seeing the Wood
and The Trees
Ashok Khosla
There
is not one country today that still denies the central role
forests play in sustainable development. Yet, each has a
different set of reasons for protecting forests, whether its
own or someone else’s. For some nations, global forests
provide an active sink for carbon, hopefully mitigating the
climate changes expected from rising concentrations of
greenhouse gases, and as storehouses for biodiversity. For
others, forests are the primary national resource available
to drive the engine of socio-economic “development”.
The differences in perception of the basic
role of forests in sustainable development underlie what has
quite possibly become the Great Debate of the final decade
of the twentieth century. The Earth Summit was both the
result and the progenitor of the vast divide that exists on
this issue today, not only among nations, but also within
them-particularly between the different sectors: government
agencies, foresters, private corporations and NGOs.
The statement (with the cumbersome title) of
principles on forestry adopted at Rio was a solid beginning
to bring together constituencies with very different views
on this subject. But it was just that: a statement of
principles, and a beginning. It now has to be translated
into action, keeping intact its primary thrusts: national
priorities and jurisdiction, multiple uses for now and the
future, and the primacy of people’s rights and involvement
in the planning and use of forests.
In its work, the Brundtland Commission not
only highlighted the value of public participation, but also
explored mechanisms - such as public hearings, expert
panels, individual submissions - that could facilitate the
process. Indeed, the concept of a commission is
particularly suited to the issues of forests. Further
progress in our understanding and policy making in this
field will need focused thinking to covert the Rio
principles into action programmes, and to ensure the maximum
possible participation of people in working these out.
The Earth Summit process also demonstrated
the possibility and value of independent initiative. There
will always be the knee-jerk reaction of people who find it
difficult to deal with any concept other than their own.
The technical name for this common disease is the NMH
syndrome, “not made here”. Its symptoms are a deep and
continuing state of concern for the national interest.
Whoever is the true guardian of the national
interest, all of us now have to recognise that there are
many legitimate view points on the goals to be achieved.
And many different strategies to get there. And... very few
prime movers to take the trouble and responsibility for the
journey.
The Organising Committee for the Commission
on Forests and Sustainable Development is one such prime
mover, independent and self-established. It brings no
preconceived notions to its task other than that forests are
important, that forest countries have the primary right and
task to design global policies on them, and that an
independent world commission is a good way to provide this
opportunity.
With forests, even more than for other things, it is
important to be able to work on the details without losing
sight of the bigger picture.
q
Back to Contents |