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. 