ENB:13:03 [Next] . [Previous] . [Contents]

AGENDA ITEM 3 - PROGRAMME OF WORK

Joke Waller-Hunter, Director of the Division for Sustainable Development of the Department for Policy Coordination and Sustainable Development (DPCSD), introduced the report on the proposed programme of work, contained in document E/CN.17/IPF/1995/2. She stated that the report summarizes the work to be accomplished during the three sessions of the IPF and also attempts to identify appropriate work for the intersessional periods, such as expert meetings. She noted that some member States and agencies have agreed to sponsor intersessional meetings, but said that sponsorship for others is needed. She thanked Switzerland, the US and the ITTO for their generous contributions and expressed hope that others would follow suit.

The eleven programme items to be considered by the Panel, as outlined in E/CN.17/IPF/1995/2, are:

I.1 — national forest and land-use plans;

I.2 — underlying causes of deforestation;

I.3 — protection and use of traditional forest-related knowledge;

I.4 — monitor actions in Africa and assess the impact of airborne pollutants on forests in central and Eastern Europe;

I.5 — study the needs of countries with low forest cover;

II — coordination of bilateral and multilateral assistance;

III.1 — assessment of valuing the multiple benefits of forests;

III.2 — criteria and indicators;

IV — trade in forest products;

V.1 — an overview of existing institutions and instruments, identifying overlaps and gaps; and

V.2 — options for future action.

Co-Chair Krishnan then opened the floor for general comments. The PHILIPPINES, on behalf of the G-77 and China, said that it was premature to talk about a final document for 1997 and the IPF should not discuss this issue until the elements to be approved by the CSD have been made clear. She said that financial and technical assistance and technology transfer were priorities for the G-77. It will be difficult for developing countries to attend the proposed expert meetings. Revisions to the language adopted by the CSD were made to the 11 elements to be considered by the Panel. The holistic approach could be lost by dividing the elements into two sessions, and that the distribution of work needed more discussion.

SPAIN, on behalf of the European Union, said that sustainable development is an environmental and economic necessity. He said the IPF must look to the activities that must be carried out between sessions and that the proposed programme of work is an excellent basis for further discussions on the distribution of work. The EU will make proposals to ensure an in-depth discussion of all topics in order to lay a strong foundation.

The US said agreement was needed on an organizational framework, concrete tasks to be completed and the lead organizations to undertake each task. He said that discussions should move forward on all fronts and added that the sequential approach could hamper progress because the issues are too interlocked. He supported the proposal for working groups and noted that the differences between the proposed synthesis papers for each area are unclear. He added that the Secretariat should not take on analytical exercises but should assign them to agencies.

NORWAY stated that given the broad and ambitious mandate provided by the CSD and the short time period in which to accomplish it, there was no need to reinvent the wheel as far as determining the work programme is concerned. He advocated that the Panel follow a holistic approach and suggested that papers on all 11 issues be prepared prior to the next session. Financial resources and technology transfer should be discussed in later sessions and that intersessional working groups be established at this meeting. Norway announced a contribution of US$60,000 to support the Secretariat and assist representatives from developing countries to attend.

AUSTRALIA re-emphasized the US position that it was important to "move ahead on all fronts," and stated that the Panel should reach agreement this week on its programme of work. Reaching agreement now will allow the relevant agencies to prepare documents in a timely fashion. The underlying causes of deforestation should be addressed at the second session since it may expose other important issues for later discussion. The issue of traditional knowledge should be considered at the third meeting since the Panel will have to draw heavily on the work that will have been completed by the Biodiversity Convention COP. He suggested that the Panel lengthen its sessions from one to two weeks. Australia agreed to host an intersessional meeting on certification and labeling and to contribute A$60,000 to support the Secretariat and to assist representatives from developing countries to attend future meetings.

CHINA reiterated the need for transparency and equal participation at both formal sessions and intersessional meetings. He stated that the issues concerning financial commitments and technology transfer were very important for developing countries and stressed that new financial commitments were needed. He also agreed that the Secretariat should utilize work completed by all agencies related to forests.

MALAYSIA stated that the proposed program of work for the IPF is best contained in the decision adopted by CSD in April 1995, and since it represents a compromised consensus it should be preserved and not be reopened. He noted the inherent risk in elaborating on areas and gave examples of sections of the report that were materially different from what was agreed upon by the CSD. He also acknowledged the need to recognize the limitations of developing countries in drafting the work programme.

The REPUBLIC OF KOREA expressed concerns similar to Malaysia and the US, noting that the Panel should not reopen decisions taken by the CSD. He noted that expert meetings would be useful, but that clarification was needed on their modalities.

CANADA said the Panel should aim to set specified tasks under the 11 issue areas, set specific time frames and assign tasks to specific agencies. The Panel must move forward on all issues and trying to invoke closure on some items is not practical or reasonable. He supported working groups and said that country-led studies are critical to success.

BRAZIL supported the G-77 and China and stated that the clustering of issues approved by the CSD was carefully negotiated and the IPF should not change it. He said that paragraph 13, referring to preparatory work and background studies on programme elements, exceeds the scope set by the CSD on issues such as certification and labeling. He added that all elements of the terms of reference must be balanced and he asked why some topics warranted expert meetings while others did not.

SWITZERLAND stated that there should be flexibility in the division of work between the second and third sessions, working groups could expedite the process, the third session may need to be extended and NGO participation adds an important perspective.

NEW ZEALAND made five general recommendations: 1) the need to draw on the expertise of other international bodies so as not to duplicate work done elsewhere; 2) the need for transparency during expert intersessional meetings; 3) issues should be given different focus at different sessions; 4) the Panel should consider lengthening the sessions; and 5) participation by NGOs and the business community should be encouraged.

INDONESIA supported statements made by the G-77 and China and suggested that each activity cluster be assigned to a working group. He also stated that any initiatives of intergovernmental organizations or agencies be undertaken under the aegis of the IPF.

JAPAN stated there was insufficient time to ingest a wide range of data on forest issues. He re-emphasized the need to utilize parallel work completed by related intergovernmental organizations. He agreed with the G-77 that a holistic approach should be undertaken and that issues should not be considered separately. Policy recommendations must address regional diversity. He suggested creating two working groups.

COLOMBIA stated it would be better to treat all issues simultaneously, not sequentially, as proposed by the Secretariat. He also noted the need to better define the working relationship between the experts and the IPF. He added that the mandate, as it appeared in the Secretariat's document, extends the original mandate handed down by CSD.

MEXICO agreed that the 11 issues should be considered simultaneously and that the Panel should break into two working groups to be headed by the two Co-Chairs. He also emphasized the need for transparency in all working groups.

FRIENDS OF THE EARTH presented the Charter of Rio Branco, a regional agreement approved by 27 Brazilian organizations aimed at attaining significant improvement in the regional forestry development. He stressed that this initiative represented the results of grassroots consultations and processes involving environmental organizations and timber companies.

[Return to start of article]