Offer the main forestry countries very concrete solutions that would allow them to benefit from economic advantages while developing more forest-protective policies; strengthen scientific cooperation between the world's three tropical basins; mobilize innovative or bold means that must be articulated and implemented. The objectives of A Forest Summit de Libreville are known. Achieving them, however, requires ensuring that indigenous communities are not kept too far from the discussion table.
A forest is flora, fauna, soil, water, light and people. If the first five elements constitute resources, it is certainly not the same for the men who populate or live in the forest. Men and their communities – the natives, but not only – maintained relationships of exchange and symbiosis with those forests that made them highly dependent on them.
very common
The organizers of A Forest Summit de Libreville rightly proclaim – and it should in to thank – that “tropical forests provide an invaluable service to local people and to humanity, providing them with many resources, but also sequestering carbon and hosting biodiversity hotspots. »
It would therefore be sensible to have presented this simple reality: if forests are in a state of conservation that today allows us to think not about their restoration, but rather about their conservation as a common good, it is precisely because the inhabitants of these forests have not damaged them in the same way. way that urbanized communities managed to degrade their environment. It is interesting, from a methodological point of view, to note that the organizers of the Libreville summit distinguish the participation of indigenous communities from civil society, indicating that the latter cannot decide for the former, that they have their own interests that deserve to be taken into consideration.
preservation
For at least two reasons we should be encouraged to consider indigenous forest communities as priority beneficiaries of the conservation approach. Your way of life, better, your survival, depends on whatever it is. No one would think of embarking on a plan to redesign the urbanization of a large city like Libreville, Paris or Jakarta without collecting the point of view of the representatives or municipalities of these cities, and why not of the residents, through direct consultations.
In the same way, we cannot think about doing without the contribution of indigenous communities to thoughts and actions. Let us refrain from mentioning once again the lack of representation of possible representatives of these communities! This issue is now resolved and stabilized, at least in law, with quite interesting variations in national law.
The ways of life of indigenous communities can inspire conservation actions and policies. Congratulations on realizing that the second objective of this summit is “the consideration of traditional practices that allow the protection of endemic species”. traditional communities they are Taxpayers, that's for sure, but they could be even more so. They are recipients of public, scientific and medical policies that will be developed. It is a singularity that should encourage the stakeholders at this summit to give them an effective place around the discussion table.
Models to dig deeper
The framework exists and stakeholders, first and foremost States, should be encouraged to draw inspiration from it. Some initiatives appear as models to be more exploratory. This is particularly the case for Soil Degradation Neutrality which has already avoided the emission of 12 million tons of CO2 and financed, for example, the Komaza program in Kenya. This program allowed small producers to develop a sustainable microforestry activity, thus participating in the heritage of local fauna and flora and guaranteeing an income. From this perspective, its reach would be extended to indigenous communities.
In concrete terms, the stated ambition of the A Forest Summit de Libreville is the development of a platform of scientific and economic solutions to help reconcile forest protection and economic development in “large forest countries”. This new name will have to find a meaning that is in line with the jointly planned scientific cooperation. Do the large forest countries designate only the forest countries of the South? Those in the equatorial belt (Congo Ogoué Basin, Amazon and Mekong Basin)? How about, for example, the continental coastal forest of British Columbia (Canada) or the immense Taiga of the North Pole? Would certain spaces offer “very concrete solutions” and other users of these solutions? We want to believe this is about collaboration. The climate emergency will not justify the adoption of ready-made solutions, even concrete ones.
The omens seem good, but we do not forget: States have rights, nature has rights, but indigenous communities also have rights, especially with regard to their habitat and their way of life; rights that must be preserved in there duration…
