ENB:13:03
[Next] .
[Previous] .
[Contents]
ITEM III.2 — CRITERIA AND INDICATORS FOR SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT
The US said the Panel should focus on advancing implementation of national level indicators and welcomed the offer by Finland to hold a meeting on this issue. He said a common definition for key terms is important, and added that the paper proposed by the Secretariat, concerning the outcome of various initiatives, is necessary. AUSTRALIA stated that it was "megadiverse" and was currently undertaking assessments and added that the level of activity in this area creates "a moving target." He supported the Secretariat proposal to consider this item at the third meeting and welcomed Finland's proposed seminar.
MALAYSIA said this is the one area where tangible progress can be achieved. Some of the crucial aspects include eliminating the practice of "double standards" and leveling the playing field. Tropical countries have been driven to accept tropical forest indicators that were developed by countries with temperate forests. The "convergence of international initiatives" is only to ensure that criteria and indicator initiatives are placed on common ground. GERMANY offered to produce a background paper on work that has already been completed by the various international organizations, agencies and conventions. The proposed paper would be for further examination of the issues only and not an attempt at harmonization.
The REPUBLIC OF KOREA stated that it is important to first identify problems of real application, taking into consideration the diversity of different regions in terms of geographic, biological, economic, cultural and social factors before compatibility is attempted. She suggested that the Panel draw from the Helsinki, Montreal, ITTO and Amazonian processes. SWEDEN supported the development and implementation of national criteria and indicators, noting that they serve as tools for efficient national forest management and could be used to measure the progress of countries against one another. Criteria and indicators should be an important basis for policy decisions and that quality indicators are as important as quantity indicators. The more precise and specific the criteria and indicators are, the more effective they will be.
CANADA stated that criteria and indicators must reflect the entire range of forest values. He reiterated the need for national and international criteria and indicators as expressed in Agenda 21 and the Forest Principles. Canada also offered to share its national experience in drafting its criteria and indicators and noted the need to proceed to implementation.
The UNITED KINGDOM agreed that it is important for countries already involved in the drafting and implementation of criteria and indicators to share their experiences and suggested that areas where problems exist should be identified and highlighted. Countries not yet involved should be encouraged to participate. Great care would be needed if harmonization was attempted, noting that many delegates have not expressed a desire for harmonization.
UGANDA said the discussion of criteria and indicators should begin by comparing the methodologies of countries that have already drafted or implemented them. He expressed a preference for compatibility and/or harmonization of methodologies, factoring in the need for site specificity. He also addressed the need to involve countries that are not yet participating.
JAPAN stressed the need to test and implement those criteria and indicators already developed and follow through with an assessment. It would be best to develop criteria and indicators at regional, subregional or local levels. He expressed Japan's desire to organize and host an international seminar devoted to the discussion of criteria and indicator implementation, taking into consideration the work already completed by other relevant bodies.
NEW ZEALAND restated the importance of countries sharing their experiences related to the implementation of criteria and indicators. She suggested that the upcoming FAO conference may be a good place to begin a dialogue on this issue. SWITZERLAND stated the need for transparent sharing of information without trying to converge all initiatives. He suggested that UN agencies such as UNEP and FAO contribute to the process.
FRANCE stated that it is important to publish a status report on criteria and indicators as expeditiously as possible. It is not realistic to try and develop a global system given the diversity of factors.
The PHILIPPINES, on behalf of the G-77 and China, stressed that any workshops or expert meetings must conform with the mandate of the CSD and should not be on unapproved topics.
GABON re-emphasized the need to address national and regional diversity when considering criteria and indicators. The Panel should examine the methodologies of implementing criteria and indicators in different biological and geographic contexts.
MEXICO agreed that testing and implementing existing criteria and indicators is essential and that all intersessional expert meetings and seminars comply with the CSD. He added that progress is especially needed in tropical and semi-arid regions.
FINLAND made a brief announcement regarding its proposed intersessional seminar on the development of criteria and indicators. The main topics intended for discussion are the sharing of experiences, examining the progress made in different regions, and facilitating the engagement of regions and countries not yet involved. The seminar will be fully open and transparent. All interested countries are invited to participate, as are all IGOs and NGOs. He expressed the desire to form a small contact group to begin work soon. A draft agenda concerning the seminar will be introduced at the second session.
INDONESIA stated that the Panel should stress the implementation of criteria and indicators rather than drafting, as there are too many concepts that require testing.
PORTUGAL indicated a desire to assist Finland with its proposed international seminar on criteria and indicators. He stated that the development of international criteria and indicators will be difficult to accomplish given the wide array of biological, social, economic and geological conditions. Criteria and indicators should not be used as a means of judging national forest policies.
CO-CHAIR'S SUMMARY: In the discussion on Item III, several delegations said that the assessment of forests should be done on a global level and not be confined to any narrow geographic region. Both qualitative and quantitative aspects must be taken into account. Seminars during the intersessional period must be considered a part of the work of the Panel, not independent activities in themselves. Concern was expressed that the experts' meetings be open to all, participation of developing countries must be facilitated, and subject matters should not be restricted to a particular issue, but consider related issues.
With regard to criteria and indicators, the Co-Chair noted that Finland will convene a small group meeting consisting of representatives from developing and developed countries, the Secretariat and IGOs to prepare a draft paper regarding topics to be discussed at its seminar on criteria and indicators and will be presented at the second session of the IPF. Delegates agreed that indicators cannot consist of a single applicable set, but must be specific to each region, subregion and possibly the micro-level. Many delegates said that any attempt to prepare a set that applies globally would not be a rewarding exercise. The various ongoing initiatives have developed criteria and indicators and many developing countries stressed the applicability of these indicators in the field. Delegates also stressed that hard scientific data is needed for indicators and suggested that in addition to obtaining qualitative data, the quantitative aspect must be examined.