Linkages home page
Forest Day Bulletin
PDF format
Download PDF version
Volume 148 Number 2 - Monday, 8 December 2008
The second Forest Day event was held at the University of Adam Mickiewicz, in Poznań, Poland, on Saturday, 6 December 2008. It took place in parallel with the fourteenth session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 14) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the fourth Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (COP/MOP 4), held in Poland from 1–12 December 2008. It was convened in order to facilitate discussions on the potential to incorporate forests into climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies at both the global and national level.

Forest Day 2 was co-hosted by the Centre for International Forest Research (CIFOR), the Government of Poland and the Collaborative Partnership on Forests (CPF), a partnership of 14 forest-related international organizations, formed in 2000 to enhance cooperation on forest issues. CPF members include: the UN Forum on Forests, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN, the International Tropical Timber Organization, the UN Development Programme, the Global Environment Facility, the UN Convention to Combat Desertification, the UN Environmental Programme, the Convention on Biological Diversity, the World Conservation Union, the International Union of Forest Research Organizations, the World Bank, and the World Agroforestry Center.

Following on the positive response to the first Forest Day held on 8 December 2007 in Bali, Indonesia during UNFCCC COP 13, Forest Day 2 brought together nearly 900 participants from a diverse range of forest stakeholders, academics and decision makers from around the world, to discuss key issues that link forests with climate change. Cross-cutting themes that were considered included: adaptation of forests to climate change; addressing forest degradation through sustainable forest management; capacity building for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD); and options for integrating REDD into the global climate regime.

Participants also attended a poster exhibition and around forty side events with themes including: REDD for rural development; indigenous and local community perspectives on forests and climate change; the business case for REDD mechanisms for biodiversity conservation and human well-being; REDD and peatland conservation and restoration; and improving global forest monitoring using accurate satellite imagery. For more information on the side events, see:

A drafting committee representing members of the CPF produced a summary of key messages that emerged in the course of the day, to be forwarded to the UNFCCC Secretariat. Key messages included: that climate change adaptation and mitigation are linked, particularly in the context of forests; that it is important to involve women, the poor, and indigenous peoples in the design and operation of forest-related climate change policies; and that forests provide significant co-benefits beyond carbon storage. Differing views were expressed on whether and how these benefits should be monetized and included in a potential regime for REDD.

On Sunday, many participants participated in a field trip organized by the Polish State Forests National Forest Holding to observe a local sustainable forest management project.


In its Fourth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) calculates that about 20% of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions during the 1990s resulted from land use change, primarily deforestation, with the remaining 80% resulting from fossil fuel burning. At the same time, 25% of total emissions are estimated to have been absorbed by terrestrial ecosystems through replacement vegetation growth on cleared land, land management practices and the fertilizing effects of elevated carbon dioxide and nitrogen deposition. Forests therefore are an integral part of the global carbon cycle.

Depending on the age of the forest, the management regime, and other biotic and abiotic disturbances (insects, pests, forest fires), forests can act as reservoirs, sinks (removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere) or as sources of greenhouse gases. Forests also provide a number of vital services, notably as repositories of biodiversity and regulators of the hydrological cycle. Reducing deforestation and land degradation and improving forest cover are notable for being both mitigation and adaptation strategies.

However, including emissions reduced from forest-related activities in a carbon accounting system is also notoriously complex, given the non-permanent nature of carbon uptake by trees, and the potential for “leakage” as deforestation moves elsewhere. There are also critical environmental and social considerations that have to be taken into account, such as biodiversity and the existence of forest-dependent indigenous people and local communities.

Forests are addressed under the UNFCCC as both sinks and sources of emissions. In defining the basic principles of the Convention, Article 3 states that policies and measures to combat climate change should “be comprehensive, cover all relevant sources, sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases … and comprise all economic sectors.” Accordingly, Article 4.1 calls on all UNFCCC parties to develop and update inventories of greenhouse gas emissions and removals; develop programmes and make efforts to address emissions by sources and removals by sinks; promote technologies that lead to lower greenhouse gas emissions in the forestry sector; promote sustainable management of sinks and reservoirs; and prepare to adapt to the impacts of climate change and develop appropriate plans for areas that might be affected by flooding, drought, or desertification.

While under the UNFCCC all countries are expected to count their emissions and removals from land use change and forestry in their national inventories, under the Kyoto Protocol industrialized countries with emission reduction commitments (known as Annex I countries) may count towards their reduction target the emissions and removals of greenhouse gases deriving from certain direct human-induced land-use change and forestry activities. These provisions are covered in Protocol Article 3.3, 3.4, and 3.7, and cover: removals from afforestation (defined as planting of new forests on lands that have not been forested for a period of at least 50 years); reforestation (limited in the first commitment period to those lands that did not contain forest on 31 December 1989); emissions from deforestation; as well as possible emissions and removals from forest management, cropland management, grazing land management, and re-vegetation.

In addition, project-based activities under the two flexible mechanisms created by the Kyoto Protocol – Joint Implementation and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) – may also result in removals by sinks that can count towards an industrialized country’s reduction commitments. Joint Implementation refers to projects undertaken jointly by two Annex I countries. All projects undertaken in developing countries fall under the CDM. The purpose of the CDM is twofold: to help Annex I countries attain their Protocol commitments, and to assist developing countries in achieving sustainable development. Project activities under the CDM have special provisions to ensure that emissions are real and additional –that is, that any reductions resulting from the project would not have taken place in a business-as-usual scenario.

Only afforestation and reforestation projects are allowed in the Protocol’s first commitment period under the CDM, and project activities have to address a number of issues such as non-permanence, uncertainty, the risk of leakage and others. Moreover, there is a ceiling determining the maximum number of credits that an Annex I party can gain in this way. As with all other CDM activities, projects can be either large or small-scale, the latter being limited to afforestation or reforestation project activities that are expected to result in net removals of less than 8 kilotonnes of carbon dioxide per year. These project activities should directly benefit low-income communities and individuals.

REDUCING EMISSIONS FROM DEFORESTATION: At COP 11 in Montreal in 2005, forests were again taken up under the Convention under a new agenda item on “Reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries: approaches to stimulate action,” as proposed by Papua New Guinea, Costa Rica and eight other countries. The discussions focused on existing and potential policy approaches, as well as positive incentives and the technical and methodological requirements related to their implementation. Two workshops were held on this issue: one at the end of August 2006 in Rome, Italy, and the other one in early March 2007 in Cairns, Australia. Discussions continued at COP 13, where parties adopted the Bali Action Plan, that addresses enhanced national/international action on mitigation of climate change, including, inter alia, the “consideration of policy approaches and positive incentives on issues relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries; and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries.”

Since COP 13, the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA), based on decision 2/CP.13, has undertaken a programme of work on methodological issues related to a range of policy approaches and positive incentives that aim to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries. SBSTA 28, held in June 2008, identified the main methodological issues in its report for COP 14 (FCCC/SBSTA/2008/6). A UNFCCC workshop on methodological issues relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries was held in Tokyo, Japan in June 2008, generating general agreement that discussions on policy approaches and positive incentives could be initiated with the current knowledge (FCCC/SBSTA/2008/11). In Poznań, the SBSTA has continued its consideration of this issue, seeking to identify areas of agreement and possible needs for future expert input.

FOREST DAY 1: The first Forest Day was convened on 8 December 2007 in Bali, Indonesia during UNFCCC COP 13, to reinforce the momentum and inform the discussions related to forests under negotiation at COP 13. It brought together over 800 participants and considered cross-cutting themes including: methodological challenges in estimating forest carbon; markets and governance; equity versus efficiency; and adaptation. Participants took part in 25 side events exploring linkages between forests and climate change.


Frances Seymour, CIFOR, welcomed participants and said that the introduction of the Forest Day concept has been met with an overwhelmingly positive response. She noted the sense of urgency accompanying this year’s event due to the need to establish how forests will be included in the climate change agenda. She called for an ecosystem-based approach, and said that issues such as permanence, leakage, and finance remain to be considered. Identifying significant overlap between forests and the adaptation and mitigation agendas, she acknowledged that linking forests with the climate change agenda involves risks and uncertainty, but said that the risk of inaction is even greater.

Maciej Nowicki, Minister of Environment, Poland, said that forests have a major role to play in climate protection and lamented that 13 million hectares are deforested every year. He stressed that although they play a role in mitigation, forests are also vulnerable to climate change and that adaptation strategies will need to be developed. He noted that maintaining forest cover carries with it additional benefits for biodiversity and local communities, and called for the development of a strong political message on the inclusion of forests in the climate agenda.

Jan Heino, Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO), on behalf of the CPF, spoke on the need for a clear, coordinated message from the forest community to the climate change community, noting that not all climate change negotiators understand the significant role of sustainable forest management (SFM) in achieving climate change mitigation and a robust framework for adaptation. He emphasized that SFM includes not just traditional management but also biodiversity, livelihoods, and the full range of other forest goods and services, and stressed looking beyond carbon to forests’ multiple roles. He noted the CPF’s new Strategic Framework for Forests and Climate Change and the Assessment Report of the new Adaptation Panel led by the International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO), which assesses the state of knowledge on forests and climate change, and advocated drawing upon both of these initiatives in the development of a post-2012 climate agreement.

Sunita Narain, Centre for Science and Environment, India, underscored three forest imperatives: the imperative for forests to play a role in climate change adaptation and mitigation; the livelihood imperative of providing for subsistence of the poor who are forest custodians; and the economic growth imperative of economic returns to compensate for the opportunity costs of protecting forests instead of destroying them for more lucrative activities, such as mining. She urged the forest community to take ownership of forests and avoid the mistakes made in developing the CDM that caused it to produce ‘counterfeit carbon currency’ to substitute for reducing emissions in developed countries. She noted the opportunity costs of setting forests aside if communities see no benefit from their protection and emphasized that forest emission reductions must be additional to, not a substitute for, deep cuts in developed country emissions.

Martin Parry, Grantham Institute and Center for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London, said that only with forests involved can timely action be taken on the scale needed to address climate change. He highlighted risks to both people and species, noting that the poor, including indigenous peoples, are the most at-risk. Stressing that sustainable forestry must be part of a global plan, he noted that action is urgently needed and warned that every ten-year delay in reaching global peak emissions will lead to another half degree of warming.

Pavan Sukhdev, author of the European Commission report “The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity,” said that REDD could provide a major part of the solution to the problems of climate change and biodiversity loss. Noting that 50-85% of the economic value of forests come from co-benefits, he stressed that REDD should not prevent other contracts from being written in the future for other services of the same forests. He added that these co-benefits make voluntary REDD investments among the best corporate social responsibility investments. He highlighted the efficiency of the private sector, and noted its potential to contribute to work on framework and system design, project design, implementation, evaluation, and monitoring. Noting that funds have some benefits, he sated that REDD should eventually be linked to a global credit market, but added that incentives for early action are important.


Following the opening plenary, participants took part in four sub-plenary sessions to discuss the following cross-cutting themes: adaptation of forests to climate change; addressing forest degradation through sustainable forest management; capacity building for reducing emissions from REDD; and options for integrating REDD into the global climate regime.

ADAPTATION OF FORESTS TO CLIMATE CHANGE – BRIDGING THE GAP BETWEEN KNOWLEDGE AND ACTION: This session was facilitated by Markku Kanninen, CIFOR. Bruno Locatelli, CIFOR, said that adaptation must be included in forest management strategies and noted the impacts of climate change on forests, including increased incidence of fire. He said that a high level of uncertainty exists regarding forests’ adaptive capacities and the migration capacities of forest-dependant species. He also suggested that forests must be included in adaptation strategies, including their provision of ecosystem services such as water regulation and erosion control, and their ability to reduce communities’ vulnerability to climate change. He highlighted that economic valuation can demonstrate the importance of maintaining these services.

Gerhard Dieterle, World Bank, said that although discussions have thus far focused on REDD, the mandate for the inclusion of forests within the climate change agenda extends far beyond reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. Noting that the current emphasis on forests and mitigation needs to be balanced with consideration of the role they can play in adaptation and within the broader development agenda, he highlighted that both adaptation and mitigation are supported and linked by forest restoration. He urged participants to consider forests as part of larger landscapes and watersheds, and not to forget about forests outside the scope of REDD. He stressed that areas suffering from poor governance and lack of clear tenure will not be able to benefit from REDD, and noted the need for financing related to: assessing adaptation needs and vulnerabilities; building adaptation capacity; and developing strategic approaches to “climate proof” forests.

Balgis Osman-Elasha, IUFRO, presented on a recently released IUFRO report on policies and instruments for the adaptation of forests and the forest sector to climate change. She highlighted risks posed to forest ecosystems and the services they provide, and underscored the vulnerability of natural and human systems. She said that traditional knowledge should be drawn upon for adaptation strategies and called on participants to raise the profile of forests by educating negotiators on the role that they can play.

Dennis Garrity, World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF), said that if the world’s agricultural systems fail to adapt to climate change, yields will decline, leading to more forests being cut down in order to grow enough food. He encouraged going beyond REDD to consider a landscape-level approach that integrates agriculture and forestry systems and noted that synergies can be achieved, such as drought stress reduction through inter-cropping between trees that improve soil hydrology. He lamented that peatlands, the “greatest reservoirs of carbon on the planet,” are being turned into oil palm plantations, releasing immense amounts of carbon in the process.

Participants discussed: ecosystem services; increasing forest resilience and productivity through SFM; adaptation strategies; boreal forests; the role of community-based forest management in adaptation; site-specific nature of adaptation needs; building local institutional capacity: the social justice dimension of climate change and adaptation; the need to go beyond an academic approach; the sharing of ecosystem benefits; food security; and integrated approaches towards agriculture and forests.

‘THE SECOND D’ – SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT ADDRESSING FOREST DEGRADATION: Jürgen Blaser, Intercooperation facilitated this session and noted that the term “forest” also includes heavily degraded forest areas, recalling that “deforestation” only refers to the loss of the last 10% of forest cover, according to the FAO. He noted that the carbon sequestration capacity of degraded forests may be as little as one-fourth that of primary forests and that degradation is not tackled by the current climate change regime. He advocated SFM to maintain the value of production forests and restoration for restoring full forest functions. He also highlighted that more than 45% of the total global forest area is degraded.

 Margaret Skutsch, University of Twente, the Netherlands, spoke on community forest-restoration management projects in Asia, where communities take responsibility for SFM and get certain rights in return. She said most forests allocated to communities are already heavily degraded, and that their management also restores them. She noted that emissions from degradation are vastly underestimated because they are not measurable by remote sensing nor recorded in IPCC statistics. She called for methods to measure gains from restoration and for separate elements on reducing degradation and forest restoration in any carbon crediting system. She also highlighted local communities’ capacity for monitoring and inventory.

Yasumasa Hirata, Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute, Japan, presented on monitoring forest degradation through remote sensing, noting difficulties in remote sensing of degradation because satellites can only observe large open areas and incremental changes. He called for development of techniques to expand monitoring to cover degradation and its associated greenhouse gas emissions, saying other problems include difficulties in data acquisition, particularly historical data; the lack of consistency in data; and the high cost of high-resolution data. He called for identifying the causes of forest degradation and capacity building in monitoring at all levels.

Carlos Duarte Rocia, Governor of the State of Acre, Brazil, presented on a policy to valorize forests in Acre. He noted that 80% of deforestation in Acre comes from small-scale farming by victims of policies promoting road building and Amazonian resettlement and that the Acre policy aims to: restore degraded areas; reforest areas for permanent preservation; and develop and implement sustainable agricultural and agroforestry systems. He reported on a programme to plant forests in degraded reserves for the production of wood, fuel, latex, Brazil nuts and fruit; and another programme that has achieved Forest Stewardship Council certification for 400 family-based productive forests.

Stewart Maginnis, the World Conservation Union (IUCN), on behalf of Dominic Blay, Forest Research Institute of Ghana, reported that in Ghana forest degradation exists even inside forest reserves, due to mismanagement, unsustainable levels of logging and forest fires. He noted the need to halt degradation but also to restore forests for their significant economic benefits, including access to food and other non-timber forest products. He called for including restoration in the future REDD arrangement, saying restoration needs benefit-sharing arrangements and that a REDD forest restoration model should: establish a forest baseline; count gains from restoration; and count the benefits from avoided degradation as well as forest restoration.

Participants discussed a number of issues, including:

  • a new Japanese initiative to develop synergies between the climate and biodiversity regimes through disseminating examples of traditional knowledge;
  • ownership of carbon in countries where minerals are owned by government and forests by the community;
  • the ability of SFM and forest landscape restoration to ensure permanence and address leakage;
  • that SFM is defined in different ways and that it can be associated with degradation;
  • making community usufruct rights explicitly a part of SFM in the Copenhagen agreement;
  • whether plantations are counted as degraded forests;
  • whether forest rehabilitation is able to restore forests’ full functionality;
  • addressing degradation and deforestation through a global carbon market; and
  • reducing investment risks in forests.

GETTING READY FOR REDD – CAPACITY BUILDING FOR REDD STRATEGY PLANNING AND MONITORING IN THREE COUNTRIES: This session was facilitated by Kenneth Andrasko, World Bank, and included presentations by: Peter Holmgren, UN Programme on Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (UN-REDD) and FAO; Jean Roger Rakotoarijaona, National Environment Office, Madagascar; Lilian Portillo, National Director of Climate Change Program, Paraguay; and Eduardo Reyes, Panamanian Environmental Authority (ANAM). The presentations illustrated how major international initiatives in REDD such as the World Bank’s Forest Carbon Partnership Fund and UN-REDD are beginning to actively coordinate their programmes and activities in individual countries to build capacity for REDD implementation.

Participants recommended that training and guidance are needed in the next six to twelve months for countries that wish to undertake actions to prepare for REDD. Several participants commented that stakeholder engagement in the development of national REDD strategies has improved. However, it was noted that further engagement with indigenous peoples and other marginalized groups is needed.

Participants discussed the measurement of forest carbon, and several examples of pilot projects on methodologies that are underway. Many identified that there is a need for efficient, common and comparable monitoring and reporting systems and for systems for setting reference scenarios. It was noted that there is a need to achieve consensus on how the existing IPCC Good Practice Guidance and the 2006 National Accounting Guidelines can be made operational for REDD and on how to transfer these approaches to communities and countries. Participants called for further research to develop methods in the areas of carbon accounting, project management, benefit distribution, cost sharing, and stakeholder engagement.

GLOBAL REDD ARCHITECTURE – OPTIONS FOR INTEGRATING REDD INTO THE GLOBAL CLIMATE REGIME: Arild Angelsen, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, facilitated the session, which he said would address the “three I’s” of REDD: incentives, information, and institutional design.

James Griffiths, World Business Council for Sustainable Development, stated that forests should play a substantial role in mitigation and adaptation. Stating that the REDD architecture should encompass more than simply avoiding deforestation, he urged a comprehensive approach and suggested including: incentives for aforestation and reforestation, wood-based bioenergy, avoided emissions, and incentives for recycling and reuse. Noting that negotiators are in a hurry to find a deal, he warned that rushing could lead to perverse outcomes and supported a phased, coordinated approach with safeguard mechanisms.

Virgilio Viana, Amazonas Sustainable Foundation, discussed institutional design and questions of scale. He noted a case of South-South collaboration in institutional design and pointed out the utility of independent auditing in improving fund efficiency. On scale, he highlighted the compatibility of national and sub-national approaches, provided that double-counting is avoided. He stressed that project-level certification is possible and noted its benefits in terms of community-level governance, enhancement of indigenous peoples’ rights, and benefit sharing.

Ruben Lubowski, Environmental Defense Fund, US, underscored that REDD addresses a major emission source at low cost. He said that protecting forests has an option value, due to the irreversibility of deforestation, and that this option is particularly valuable in the context of scientific uncertainty. Noting that linking to a global carbon market could mobilize the necessary funds, he stated that concerns about flooding the market with REDD credits are less problematic with a large, global market.

Doug Boucher, Union of Concerned Scientists, said it would take nearly US$20 billion per year to halve deforestation by 2020, but noted that this was cheaper than most other mitigation actions. He also urged a more nuanced discussion on finance, pointing to markets, voluntary approaches, and market-linked approaches without offsets.

Bob O’Sullivan, Climate Focus, noted differences in national capacity to produce reference scenarios and suggested that strictly-national approaches would exclude certain countries. He said that subnational and national approaches could co-exist, and pointed to Joint Implementation as an example of this.

Michael Dutschke, Biocarbon Consult, discussed permanence and liability. He underlined temporary crediting and methods for equilibrating fossil fuel and land use mitigation. He also: stated that a large risk pool among different regions and projects helps mitigate risks; pointed to a role for insurance markets; and proposed the concept of “supranational bubble-type burden-sharing” on forests between Annex I and non-Annex I nations.

In the ensuing discussion, participants raised concerns about biodiversity, participation of women and indigenous peoples, and coherence between international institutions. Responding to a question on REDD and development, Viana said that REDD provides the best chance to address poverty in the developing world.

One participant noted that people benefiting from poor forest governance are likely to lose from REDD systems, and that these people often have powerful political connections. Another expressed skepticism that developed countries would contribute to voluntary funds, due to balance-of-trade concerns. In closing, multiple panelists noted the need for long-term commitments by UNFCCC parties to ensure demand for REDD projects.


Frances Seymour, CIFOR, presented a summary of the key messages that emerged in the course of the day, drafted by a committee representing members of the CPF, to be forwarded to the UNFCCC Secretariat. She said that the summary includes points of consensus as well as points of disagreement. Stating that neither mitigation nor adaptation goals can be met without the inclusion of forests, she highlighted the importance of, inter alia:

  • considering services provided by forests beyond carbon sequestration, including biodiversity and livelihoods;
  • managing risk and learning from previous attempts to involve forests in climate policy; and
  • adequate participation of civil society.

She noted messages that received a high level of consensus, including that:

  • adaptation strategies focused on SFM are likely to perform well in a range of future climate scenarios;
  • major international initiatives on REDD must coordinate activities, and
  • REDD is not sufficient by itself to deal with emissions related to land-use.

Finally, she noted that a wide range of views still exist concerning, inter alia: the trade-off between narrowing scope to facilitate agreement and broadening scope to capture more benefits; and risks associated with introducing REDD credits into the global carbon market. The summary is available at

Yvo de Boer, UNFCCC, responded to the summary of the meeting. He noted that the consultation phase on REDD has resulted in nearly 700 pages of input, but that this phase is coming to an end. He encouraged making linkages and identifying possible co-benefits that can be achieved with other agreements. He acknowledged that indigenous people needed to be further consulted, and encouraged greater coordination between World Bank and UN-REDD initiatives. Regarding the scope of REDD, he encouraged a conservative approach to begin with in order to establish credibility. While acknowledging the importance of safeguards, he cautioned that these can become overly restrictive and scare away financing, as with afforestation and reforestation under the CDM.

Don Koo Lee, IUFRO, underscored the need for scientific expertise in addressing forests and climate change and announced the development of a new IUFRO-led CPF partnership to expand knowledge on forest adaptation through the assessment of the impact of climate change on forests, and detection of vulnerabilities, thus providing a basis for political decision-making.

Dennis Garrity, ICRAF, noted that food production is behind most forest conversion, so failure to adapt agriculture to climate change will lead to more forest loss. He stressed joint consideration of forests and agriculture within a landscape approach to adaptation, and emphasized the importance of sourcing wood from managed systems and plantations rather than natural forests, noting that substantial investment is required to transition from one to the other.

Warren Evans, World Bank, cautioned against focusing too much on research, and stressed the need to act, to learn in the process of implementation, and to learn from demonstration projects. Jan McAlpine, UN Forum on Forests (UNFF), noted that the international forest architecture is broader than REDD and climate change, and warned that it cannot deliver on all aspects of the forest agenda. She stressed the importance of protection, sustainable use, livelihoods and biodiversity, and welcomed the collaboration between international organizations addressing forest issues.

Frances Seymour thanked the participants and planners and expressed anticipation of another successful Forest Day in Copenhagen.


NINTEENTH SESSION OF THE FAO COMMITTEE ON FORESTRY (COFO): The 19th biennial session of COFO will convene at FAO headquarters in Rome, Italy, from 16–20 March 2009. COFO-19 will bring together heads of forest services and other senior government officials to identify emerging policy and technical issues and advise FAO and others on appropriate action. For more information, contact: Douglas Kneeland, FAO Forestry Department; tel: +39-06-5705-3925; fax: +39-06-5705-5137; e-mail:; internet:

AWG-LCA 5 and AWG-KP 7: The fifth meeting of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action and the seventh session of the AWG on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Protocol are scheduled to take place from 30 March-9 April 2009 in Bonn, Germany. The latter is expected to continue working on LULUCF methodologies. For more information, contact: UNFCCC Secretariat; tel: +49-228-815-1000; fax: +49-228-815-1999; e-mail:; internet:

EIGHTH SESSION OF THE UN FORUM ON FORESTS: UNFF-8 will be held from 20 April – 1 May 2009, at UN headquarters in New York, USA. Agenda items to be covered include: a decision on voluntary global financial mechanisms; a portfolio approach for financing SFM; and a forest financing framework. For more information, contact UNFF Secretariat: tel: +1-212-963-3160; fax: +1-917-367-3186; e-mail:; internet:

30TH SESSIONS OF THE UNFCCC SUBSIDIARY BODIES: The 30th sessions of the Subsidiary Bodies of the UNFCCC – the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) and SBSTA – are scheduled to take place from 1-12 June 2009, in Bonn, Germany. Further discussion on REDD in the SBSTA and on LULUCF in the AWG-KP is expected. For more information contact: UNFCCC Secretariat; tel: +49-228-815-1000; fax: +49-228-815-1999; e-mail:; internet:

SECOND WORLD CONGRESS ON AGROFORESTRY: This meeting will be held in Nairobi, Kenya, from 23–29 August 2009. The overall Congress theme is “Agroforestry - The Future of Global Land Use.” Plenary, symposia, concurrent and poster sessions will be organized around different topics, based on the following: markets as opportunities and drivers of agroforestry land use; tree-based rehabilitation of degraded lands and watersheds; climate change adaptation and mitigation; and policy options and institutional innovations for agroforestry land use. For more information, contact: Dennis Garrity, World Agroforestry Centre; tel: +254-20-722-4000; fax: +254-20-722-4001; e-mail:; internet:

XIII WORLD FORESTRY CONGRESS: This conference will be held from 18–25 October 2009, in Buenos Aires, Argentina, to hear presentations on a wide range of issues related to forests, biodiversity and development. For more information, contact: Secretary-General Leopoldo Montes; e-mail:; internet:

ITTC-45: The forty-fifth meeting of the International Tropical Timber Council and associated sessions is scheduled to take place in Yokohama, Japan, from 9–14 November 2009. The Council will further consider, inter alia, REDD and linkages with the UNFCCC. For more information, contact: International Tropical Timber Organization; tel: +81-45-223-1110; fax: +81-45-223-1111; e-mail:; internet:

FIFTEENTH CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES TO THE UNFCCC AND FIFTH MEETING OF THE PARTIES TO THE KYOTO PROTOCOL: UNFCCC COP 15, Kyoto Protocol COP/MOP 5 and related meetings, are scheduled to take place from 30 November – 11 December 2009 in Copenhagen, Denmark. Under the “roadmap” agreed at the UN Climate Change Conference in Bali in December 2007, COP 15 and COP/MOP 5 are expected to finalize an agreement on a framework for combating climate change post-2012 (when the Kyoto Protocol’s first commitment period ends). For more information contact: UNFCCC Secretariat; tel: +49-228-815-1000; fax: +49-228-815-1999; e-mail:; internet:

Center for International Forestry Research
Conference of the Parties
Collaborative Partnership on Forests
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
World Agroforestry Center
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
International Union of Forest Research Organizations
Reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation
Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice
Sustainable Forest Management
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
UN Forum on Forests
UN Programme on Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation

The Forest Day Bulletin is a publication of the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) <>, publishers of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin © <>. This issue was written and edited by Douglas Bushey, Deborah Davenport, Ph.D., and Peter Wood. The Digital Editor is Dan Birchall. The Editor is Soledad Aguilar <>. The Director of IISD Reporting Services is Langston James “Kimo” Goree VI <>. Funding for coverage of this meeting has been provided by the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). IISD can be contacted at 161 Portage Avenue East, 6th Floor, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 0Y4, Canada; tel: +1-204-958-7700; fax: +1-204-958-7710. The opinions expressed in the Bulletin are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of IISD. Excerpts from the Bulletin may be used in other publications with appropriate academic citation. Electronic versions of the Bulletin are sent to e-mail distribution lists (in HTML and PDF formats) and can be found on the Linkages WWW-server at <>. For information on the Bulletin, including requests to provide reporting services, contact the Director of IISD Reporting Services at <>, +1-646-536-7556 or 300 East 56th St., 11A, New York, New York 10022, United States of America.
| Back to IISD RS “Linkages” home | Visit IISDnet | Send e-mail to IISD RS |
© 2008, IISD. All rights reserved.