Forest issues were among the most contentious in Rio, with arguments polarised mainly along a North/South divide. During the Prepcoms, much of the North, notably Canada, Sweden, the United States, and the United Kingdom, had argued that forests, although situated in national territories, are of global importance, principally for their biodiversity and climate regulation functions. These countries argued that a degree of supra-national control of forests is desirable and therefore proposed a legally binding convention on forests.

The South, forcefully led by Malaysia and India with the support of the entire group of developing countries (G77), stressed the sovereign right of countries to use their forests for their development, through the actions of the various public, private and community groups in each nation. They argued that global notions of sustainability could not encompass these varied and legitimate needs, but that rather more effective national and local control of forests was needed.

The developing countries recognised that forests do provide global benefits. But they emphasised that, if there were to be a convention (an idea that most of them were set against), this would have sovereignty implications. Therefore, a compensation mechanism such as foreign aid would be essential to cover the revenue foregone by countries setting aside forest reserves to serve the global interest. When it was clear that no compensation mechanism would be forthcoming, all vestiges of support for a convention disappeared in the South. Many Southern diplomats charged that the North was seeking a forest convention as the cheapest way of cutting carbon emissions.

A problem that dogged the negotiations on forests was that work remained limited to the Prepcoms, with no parallel process available. Developing countries refused to set up additional meetings outside the framework of the Prepcoms, citing lack of resources. Besides, there seemed to be a general reluctance by all parties to use the Food and Agriculture Organisation, the UN agency responsible for forestry, as a facilitator.

By the time of Prepcom 4, governments realised that there was little scope, and no time, to negotiate any form of legally binding forest agreement. Besides, they were still divided over the need for one. Rather that wasting energy in a final clash over a possible convention, most sought a way to achieve a positive consensus on forests.

The result is the Forest Principles - the "Non-legally binding authoritative statement of principles for a global consensus on the management, conservation and sustainable development of all types of forests". These principles do, indeed, "reflect a first global consensus on forests". One of the most significant aspects of the Principles is that they recognise the usefulness of a universally agreed statement on forest management. No government walked out of the negotiations, although not all agreed with every paragraph. This might suggest both a recognition of the global importance of forests and a willingness to recognise demands that do not necessarily meet with national desires.

The Forest Principles is mainly a political document. It is in few senses an operational tool, and it should not be read as such. None the less, there are many levers within it for positive action.

In Rio, with only days left of the protracted UNCED process, the US made a public statement expressing support for a convention on forests and pledging financial backing. Coming, as it did, very late in a process in which the US had mostly played an unhelpful role, and with several key points left unclear (for example, whether the financial resources mentioned were truly "new and additional" or simply a reallocation within the existing US aid programme), it was seen as disingenuous and even cynical. It did not affect the course set for the Forest Principles.

The Principles cover all forest types and a wide range of associated environment and development issues. The "guiding objective of the Principles is to contribute to the management, conservation and sustainable development of forests, and to provide for their multiple and complementary functions and uses" (preamble). The importance of local forest peoples and of women is recognised, as is the need to support the economic interests of these groups in forest use.

The Principles note the need for valuing forests, setting associated standards, monitoring them, using environmental impact assessments (E1A) for forest developments, setting aside protected forests, developing plantations, strengthening national and international institutions, and also public participation. They meet generally accepted requirements, but they are not very specific as political statements, and they provide no institutional prescriptions. Thus, in an operational sense, they take us no further towards forest conservation and sustainable development.

The Principles should be read alongside chapter 11 of Agenda 21, "Combating Deforestation", and are consistent with the contents therein. _:

The Forest Principles are not legally binding. But it is significant that "in committing themselves to the prompt implementation of these Principles, countries also decide to keep them under assessment for their adequacy with regard to further international cooperation on forests" (preamble). This would also seem to keep the door open for a future legally binding instrument, thus indicating that a principal Northern interest has not been entirely quashed.

The document also clearly puts over the Southern view. It is riddled with references to the need for additional financing and statements emphasising the importance of sovereign use of forests (Principles 1,2,8 and 9). However, the conclusion may reasonably be drawn that by having both reached a "first global consensus on forests" and by evoking sovereignty, nations have accepted responsibility for forests.

The challenge now is to encourage countries to take up this responsibility, through the development of national responses to the Forest Principles. These responses should be harmonised internationally where appropriate, for instance, in respect of multilateral trade, biodiversity conservation and climate change - all global issues. Foreign aid has been the traditional mechanism for encouraging such responses, but a wider range of international agreements is also appropriate, especially in view of apparent restrictions on aid volume: trade, investment, technology cooperation, international monitoring of how the Principles are applied in practice, and (perhaps eventually and for certain issues only) international law.