ENB:13:03
[Next] .
[Previous] .
[Contents]
ITEM I — IMPLEMENTATION OF UNCED DECISIONS RELATED TO FORESTS
UGANDA supported a more action-oriented approach and said that monitoring does not do justice to the issue of forestation and reforestation. He said the Secretariat should produce a synthesis report, rather than the proposed analytical report, for the second session. He added that working in groups could have a duplicative effect and compromise the work of the Panel. Regarding the proposed expert meeting on criteria and indicators, having international criteria as a benchmark for sustainable forest management is "unrealistic" and "overly ambitious."
The PHILIPPINES, on behalf of the G-77 and China, said that although there is a need to distribute the items between the two sessions, the programme of work does not have to be completed at this session. She said that the five paragraphs under Item I should be considered during a single session. She added that five days may be insufficient for consideration and expressed concern over labeling schemes.
The US suggested that clusters be considered individually, but that clusters and their related tasks should be prioritized.
BRAZIL reaffirmed the importance of engaging in regional consultations and suggested that criteria and indicators be developed on a regional basis, in line with the recommendations in the recent FAO report. The formation of collective criteria and indicators would be the next logical step. He also stressed the need to develop evaluation methodologies and ways to ensure full cost internalization. He cautioned the Secretariat from taking a selective view of what was embodied in the CSD decisions, noting that all the things called for in Item IV were not addressed paragraph 13(i) in E/CN.17/IPF/1995/2.
The REPUBLIC OF KOREA stressed the need to better understand the role of voluntary certification and how it helps trade. He thought it important, however, to review scientific data before considering trade and labeling matters.
SPAIN, on behalf of the EU, expressed support for an integrated debate, expert meetings and transparency. He stated that the Panel must find an approach that will integrate the intersessional activities because it will be impossible to discuss all issues at each sessions. The IPF should request reports from international institutions, identify the organizations responsible and specify the terms of reference and time allotted. He proposed that the second session focus on discussion of Items I.2, I.3, I.4, I.5, Item II and Item III.1. At the third session, emphasis should be on Item I.1, Item III.2, Item IV, Item V.1, and Item V.2. He added that no element should be considered closed at the third session.
AUSTRALIA stated that discussion of Item I.2, the underlying causes of deforestation, was an important issue that will be helpful in identifying further work and that the Panel should consider during the second session. She recommended that a synthesis report be prepared during the coming intersessional period. She also suggested that the Panel draw on the work of the Biodiversity Convention, particularly with regard to traditional knowledge, and noted that the Biodiversity Convention Secretariat has been designated as the lead agency to assist the Panel with its work.
GERMANY offered to host two workshops — one concerning implementation of the Forest Principles and the promotion of national land-use programmes to be held in June 1996, and another to be announced at a future date.
SWEDEN supported the use of two working groups during the two substantive sessions and recommended that the work of the Biodiversity Convention be followed as a model. He proposed that one working group consider policy issues and the other consider trade and institutional issues. With regard to Item I.1, implementation of the Forest Principles and promotion of progress through national land use plans, he suggested that the FAO and the Biodiversity Convention provide background material prior to the Panel's second session. He stated that Issue I.2, the underlying causes of deforestation, should be considered during the first substantive session along with energy efficiency issues and debt. He noted that the Convention to Combat Desertification may also provide useful information. The role of women in forest management should also be addressed.
FINLAND said that work should be clearly prioritized. Regarding the proposed intergovernmental meeting in Finland, he emphasized that the seminar should be open-ended and inclusive, and the scope could be as follows: exchange and share knowledge, examine progress on indicators and facilitate participation. He emphasized the need for financial commitments and reiterated Finland's commitment to supply resources.
The US stated that an overview report by the UNDP on Item I.1 would be helpful. On Item I.2, concerning deforestation, he suggested preparing a synthesis paper drawing on existing work. The paper could be provided by the FAO and the World Commission on Forests and Sustainable Development could supply valuable input. On Item I.3, the SBSTTA of the Convention on Biological Diversity recently concluded its first meeting, and the Panel should consider an input to this process. On Item I.4, the Panel should be informed on the work of the desertification process, and on Item I.5, he suggested a list of forest areas for conservation and sustainable management, which could be completed by the IUCN.
AUSTRALIA stated that in Item I.1 national forest plans cannot proceed in isolation from other socio-economic considerations, and that integrated land management is a key feature.
SWEDEN stated that the US suggestion for UNDP input was inappropriate because it is not an IGO, and suggested UNESCO. He added, regarding the proposed UNDP input, that the UNDP has no programme in Sweden and other developed countries.
The Co-Chair stated that apportionment of tasks to meet the needs of the Panel was placed on the Secretariat by the CSD and there is an interagency task force to do this. The US disagreed that the Secretariat should identify lead organizations, and said that the prerogative belongs to the Panel. The PHILIPPINES stated the Panel was free to make suggestions at this point.
NORWAY suggested with regard to Item I.1 that the Panel receive input from the Biodiversity Convention Conference of the Parties and added that Item I.2 should be discussed in depth at the next meeting. The sectoral impacts from agriculture and trade need to be clarified. He supported the idea of working groups.
BRAZIL proposed that the Secretariat of the Biodiversity Convention contribute an analytical paper on Item I.3, protection and use of traditional forest knowledge. He also expressed the need to access the knowledge of indigenous peoples.
URUGUAY reiterated that agencies entrusted with the preparation of materials look to the Panel for direction.
The SECRETARIAT OF THE BIODIVERSITY CONVENTION stated that the Biodiversity Convention's contribution to the Panel will be brought up at the next Conference of the Parties in November in Jakarta, and expects that a statement indicating the Conference's level of input will be adopted. She stated that the Convention would be most helpful by providing information on science and technology transfer, indigenous peoples and the sharing of traditional knowledge. She added that because the Convention will not complete its work on traditional knowledge before the second meeting of the Panel, that this issue be deferred until the Panel's third session.
FINLAND stated that all European States have committed themselves to producing forest plans and suggested that a report be produced describing their implementation. He also recommended that the Panel follow the general guidelines set out in the Biodiversity Convention regarding this issue.
The PHILIPPINES, on behalf of the G-77 and China, requested that her views concerning expert meetings be included in the Co-Chair's summary and reiterated the need for any such meetings to be fully open and transparent and the developing countries' potential difficulties in participating be addressed.
SWEDEN suggested that the FAO participate in the proposed experts meetings and that regional conclusions were essential.
GERMANY stressed that its proposed initiative relates only to national level programmes and suggested that a comprehensive study of national forest programmes be undertaken.
COLOMBIA stated the need to establish the Panel's priorities prior to determining the expert meetings that will be held. The Panel should first clearly define its needs and not merely meet the desires of sponsoring countries. This would help to eliminate the potential for important topics not being sponsored. He noted that if such meetings are not fully open-ended, any conclusions reached at them will not be well received. He also proposed holding expert meetings on financing and technology transfer.
FINLAND supported the German initiative to host a working group on the implementation of national land-use programmes and encouraged wide participation with the working group and other proposed intersessional activities.
CO-CHAIR'S SUMMARY: The Co-Chair then summarized the discussion on Item I. On Item I.1, concerning national forests and land-use plans, an assessment of progress and gaps by the FAO from national reports was suggested, as well as a workshop following consultations on national level implementation of the Forest Principles. He said that work on this Item needs to be considered at the third meeting, but a progress report is due for the second. On Item I.2, underlying causes of deforestation, there was a general view that a report should be issued at the next meeting, but in light of the number of contributing cross-sectoral factors, they will need judicious consideration. The FAO should address this for substantive debate at next session. On Item I.3, protection and use of traditional forest-related knowledge, the initial Secretariat proposal fell short, and wider attention to some points was necessary. The close relationship between Item I.3 and the Biodiversity Convention should be established. He added that progress may be made by second session, but the third session is the time for discussion. On Item I.4, actions in Africa and central and eastern Europe, a synthesis report is needed. The Panel should also utilize the work of the Convention to Combat Desertification. This item should be discussed at second session as a substantive item. On Item I.5, countries with low forest cover, there is a need for a study of areas with low forest cover, protected areas and dryland regions, and how far the coverage was being expanded. The FAO may be able to do this study. There may be discussion on this item at the second and third sessions.