ENB:13:03
[Next] .
[Previous] .
[Contents]
AGENDA ITEM 6 - ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE PANEL ON ITS FIRST SESSION
The Co-Chair then invited comments on Agenda Item 6, adoption of the report of the Panel at its first session, noting that the report had been divided into two sections; the first addresses procedural matters in document E/CN.17/IPF/1995/L.2, and the second reflects the Panel's discussion in document E/CN.17/IPF/1995/L.2/Add.1. Document E/CN.17/IPF/1995/L.2 was reviewed by the Panel and accepted as amended. The Panel considered Document E/CN.17/IPF/1995/L.2/Add.1, and paragraphs 1-8 were reviewed and adopted with minor editorial changes.
Paragraph 9 notes that certain issues should be dealt with in depth at particular future sessions and contains a table specifying the schedule. CANADA stressed the need for better consistency between the report and the CSD mandate. He stated that the report should be able to stand alone and suggested key words be included in the table describing the proposed distribution of programme elements. SPAIN, on behalf of the EU, suggested that "other planned activities" be added to the chapeau, stating the reference to "intergovernmental processes" was too restrictive. He also stated that Item II, on financial assistance and technology transfer, should undergo substantive discussion at the third session.
The US stated that undue emphasis was being placed on Item II and thought that other elements merit higher priority. He proposed that "some further discussion" be undertaken at the third session for Items II as well as III, which deals with scientific research and the development of criteria and indicators.
In reference to Item V.1 in paragraph 9, concerning the preparation of a report on international organizations and multilateral institutions and instruments, SWITZERLAND stated that a joint report from the Swiss-Peruvian working group will be given at the second session. She also stressed the flexibility of the working group and indicated that three representatives from each regional group could be included instead of two.
The PHILIPPINES opposed the EU proposal and stated that while the proposed intersessional activities may contribute to the Panel's work, they should not be recognized as part of the work programme as mandated by the CSD. She also opposed the US proposal that Item II on financial assistance and technology transfer be restricted to "further discussion" at the third session, given the cross-cutting nature of the issues. She proposed that Item II undergo "substantive discussion" at the third session.
The US disagreed with the G-77, noting that several issues are cross-cutting, but expressed willingness to accept the proposed language. The PHILIPPINES stated that the planned activities may not be considered an official part of the work of the Panel. The activities must be addressed, but she disagreed with the EU formulation. It was agreed the chapeau to paragraph 9 would not use either formulation and note instead that certain issues should be dealt with in depth at particular future sessions.
Paragraph 10 notes the establishment of a collaborative inter-agency mechanism comprising the organizations most directly concerned with forest issues and paragraph 11 requests the Secretary-General, through inter-agency arrangements, to prepare in-depth progress reports making use of the body of knowledge already existing in the international community. Many delegates made comments referring to both paragraphs together.
The PHILIPPINES, on behalf of the G-77 and China, requested a definition of "inter-agency" mechanism. The Secretariat referred to paragraph 30 of document E/CN.17/IPF/1995/2, noting that the Inter-Agency Commission on Sustainable Development (IACSD) expressed strong support for the work of the Panel, and added that contact organizations and an inter-agency task force had been formed.
The US, supported by NEW ZEALAND, expressed uncertainty on this issue and added that it is the role of the Panel to appoint agencies. He suggested that paragraph 10, as proposed, should be deleted and replaced by paragraph 19, which notes and encourages support from international organizations. SPAIN, on behalf of the EU, proposed including a direct reference to the international agencies mentioned in paragraph 30.
Regarding paragraph 11, the PHILIPPINES said the reference to the results of ongoing and envisaged meetings and activities should be deleted. SPAIN said that the reference is to meetings and activities and not initiatives by specific countries, but accepted the amendment. Debate on this issue required formation of a contact group, which was initiated by the US. The US later stated that progress had been made on paragraphs 10 and 11, concerning inter-agency cooperation and contributions. He said that amendments proposed by a contact group had broad approval.
SPAIN supported the contact group's suggestions, but said it was improper to delete the portion of paragraph 11 dealing with consideration of results of ongoing and envisaged meetings and activities because it may be necessary to refer to the results of future meetings. The Panel agreed that both paragraphs will specifically refer to the international organizations that will comprise the mechanism and provide resources and technical expertise, including the FAO, UNEP, UNDP, the World Bank, ITTO and the Secretariat of the Biodiversity Convention. The reference to results of ongoing and envisaged meetings was deleted. Paragraphs 10 and 11 were adopted as amended.
Paragraph 12 notes that the Panel stressed the need to confine its deliberations within its terms of reference, as determined by the CSD. BRAZIL stated that "stressed" should be replaced with "reiterated." The PHILIPPINES, on behalf of the G-77 and China, agreed, noting that "stressed" implied approval by the Panel and added that the terms of reference were not subject to approval. The paragraph was accepted, as amended.
Paragraph 13 refers to the "various and ongoing planned activities organized by Governments and organizations to assist the work of the Panel," and notes that while these activities can provide valuable input, the Panel will make all decisions on policy recommendations to be presented to the CSD. Paragraph 14 states that the Panel stressed that all countries and organizations planning or proposing meetings and expert consultations should ensure the that they are transparent, participatory and representative in nature.
SPAIN, on behalf of the EU, stressed the need to see references made in this text to the various planned activities and added that paragraph 13, as drafted, is acceptable. He reiterated concern with paragraph 9. The PHILIPPINES said that paragraph 13 should state the Panel "took note of," rather than "welcomed" the various ongoing and planned activities organized, that the activities should be added as an annex to the report, and that a reference should be added, which notes that although the results of these activities could provide a valuable expert input, the decision to be presented for consideration will rest with the Panel itself. On paragraph 14, she inserted a reference that the meetings be "open-ended."
On paragraph 14, SPAIN replied that "takes note of" is tantamount to discouraging contributions, but agreed with portions of the G-77 proposal. In paragraph 13, AUSTRALIA stated the need for any such activities to be in conformance with the mandate of the CSD and not in excess of it. He also noted that bodies formed under any of the planned activities should be flexible, particularly with regard to their working relationship with the Panel.
The PHILIPPINES stressed the necessity for organizers of all additional activities to consult with the Panel and cautioned against organizers considering only those topics that they felt warranted discussion. The US proposed that organizers consult with the Panel Co-Chairs, Secretariat and Bureau when planning intersessional activities. The Philippines accepted the US proposal and paragraph 13 was amended to reflect this change.
CHINA agreed that the Panel should acknowledge, but not give too much reverence, to the additional activities proposed because they were not provided for in the CSD mandate. He suggested that the Panel "welcomed" such activities and "took note" of the specific initiatives appearing in Annex A, which was accepted. IRAN suggested the Panel devote more time addressing issues concerning developing countries with low forest cover as many are rich in biodiversity and could be considered Natural Heritage sites. He eluded that an expert meeting on this issue may be warranted. Both paragraphs were adopted as amended.
Paragraph 15 states that the Panel reconfirmed the need for broad and active involvement and contributions of the private sector, major groups and NGOs in the preparatory work for, and deliberations at, future sessions. The paragraph was accepted with amendments, including a clarification that "major groups" includes the privates sector and NGOs.
Paragraph 16 contains the preparatory work on the programme elements within the five categories in its programme of work.
Item I.1 refers to the preparation of a report on all types of forests. The PHILIPPINES recommended that the proposed report not address the actions required under conventions. In addition, she proposed that the second paragraph, which acknowledges Germany's proposal to convene a workshop on the promotion of national forest and land-use programmes be deleted, as well as all subsequent paragraphs announcing similar planned activities, and that all proposals should be placed in an annex.
SPAIN supported the Philippines' proposal, but stated that a deletion of all references to proposed experts' meetings would risk losing some dimensions of the debate on specific issues. The US suggested that the Panel's preparatory work should also focus on improved coordination and implementation of forest management programmes at the national level as well as bilateral and multilateral forest-related planning activities. The IUCN proposed that the report on cross-sectoral linkages incorporate a reference to participatory forest management approaches at the national and field levels. Item I.1 was accepted with the amendments proposed by the Philippines, Spain, the US and the IUCN.
Item I.2 refers to consideration of an array of contributing factors, many of which are cross-sectoral. The PHILIPPINES proposed placing a reference to an initiative by Norway into an annex, and suggested a reference to the difficulties in implementing sustainable forest management. NORWAY said the intersessional meeting is referenced in two places in the document, and stated a preference for retaining it in this paragraph. Item I.2 was accepted, with the meeting reference moved to an annex.
Item I.3 states that preparations should take full benefit of the Conference of the Parties of the Biodiversity Convention. The PHILIPPINES said the paragraph should include a reference to "include specific suggestions" and should also refer to the terms of reference regarding "ways and means for the effective use of traditional forest-related knowledge." CANADA said the paragraph was incomplete and the US said the language taken from the terms of reference must be the exact language. She wished to import the whole language on this issue agreed upon at the CSD meeting and added if the Secretariat was given discretion on the final text, that she retained the right to inspect any changes in language. The paragraph was accepted, as amended.
Item I.4 refers to a report on afforestation and reforestation and mentions the Convention to Combat Desertification. SPAIN proposed adding a new paragraph, in brackets, referring to the proposal by Portugal to sponsor an expert meeting on afforestation, reforestation and restoration of forest systems.
The PHILIPPINES said preparation would include a report that includes the restoration of forests, and a cross-reference to the terms of reference mentioning "countries with fragile ecosystems" as well as those affected by desertification and drought. The amendments proposed by Spain and the Philippines were accepted.
Item I.5 refers to a report on specific needs of countries with low forest cover. The PHILIPPINES suggested adding a provision for livestock grazing. The US proposed that language from the CSD mandate relating to the contents of the summary report on this issue be incorporated into the text. He also suggested that the last sentence, concerning reforestation, be reinserted into Item I.4, which deals entirely with reforestation and afforestation. UGANDA supported the US position with the stipulation that the reference to "unique types of forest" be changed to "all types of forests." Item I.5 was accepted as amended.
Item II refers to international cooperation in financial assistance and technology transfer. The US said this element was no more important than the others, and sought to reverse the order of references to mobilization and enhancing efficiency. The PHILIPPINES proposed a revision of the paragraph, which states that preparations on these issues would influence all other programme elements and includes language from the terms of reference. Delegates disagreed on language that stated the deliberations would have to span three substantive sessions, and the reference was deleted. It was agreed that references to mobilization of financial resources and improving efficiency would remain in the order presented. DENMARK, supported by Spain, announced that it would co-sponsor a workshop with UNDP and the World Bank on additional financial resources. He suggested that the workshop be held during the summer of 1996, between the second and third sessions of the Panel and welcomed comments on his proposal. Item II was accepted as amended.
Item III. 1 refers to a report reviewing approaches toward qualitative and quantitative assessment of all types of forests and a report presenting the status of current approaches for valuing the multiple benefits of forests. The PHILIPPINES proposed that III.1 be revised to call for preparation of a report on ways to promote the further development of methodologies for properly valuing the multiple benefits derived from forests in the form of goods and services and, subsequently, to consider their inclusion in the systems of national accounts, drawing upon work that has been already undertaken by the UN and other relevant organizations. The US suggested acknowledging the contribution of the FAO forest assessment and highlighting the need for standardized data on tropical and non-tropical forests. The item was accepted, with these amendments.
Item III.2 refers to a review of experience of the different national initiatives underway on criteria and indicators, and an examination of the progress in implementing these initiatives in the field. The PHILIPPINES proposed that this item require a report which includes: a review of national experiences in the development and implementation of criteria and indicators; exploration of ways and means of facilitating the engagement of regions and countries not yet involved in developing criteria and indicators; and an examination of the need to promote comparability between criteria and indicators for all types of forests and the appropriateness of convergence among international initiatives and their applicability in this regard. She also stated that work under this topic should take into account specific regional and subregional conditions of forest and the diversity of economic, social and cultural environments.
JAPAN stated that the last sentence should be amended to reflect that its proposed seminar will be on the demonstration of sustainable forest management with the use of criteria and indicators. FINLAND remarked that its proposed seminar on criteria and indicators will be held from 19-23 August 1996. The US proposed an amendment relating to the consideration of criteria and indicators at the national level and stated that a comparison of criteria and indicators for all types of forests was not approved at the CSD meeting and will come before the Panel at a later date. CANADA, supported by MALAYSIA, cautioned the Panel about deleting valuable statements that were made and expressed concern that the report will merely be a reiteration of the final outcome of the CSD meeting in April. The item was accepted as amended.
Item IV refers to trade and environment issues and calls for reports on prevailing market mechanisms, product certification and labeling, and sustainable forest management. The PHILIPPINES proposed a new paragraph that adds the term "integrated" to the manner of the Panel's approach and specifies that trade and environment are "mutually" supportive. The reports would be prepared in order to identify opportunities and recommend measures for improving market access for forest products on a non-discriminatory basis and consider factors that may distort trade in forest products and affect their value, including pricing, import/export controls, subsidies and the need to remove bans and boycotts inconsistent with the rules of the multilateral trading system. The reports would include an assessment on the development of methodologies to advance the full valuation, including replacement and environmental costs, of forest goods and services with a view to promoting full-cost internalization. Reports must also take into consideration the interest of all the particularities of different countries and ensure full transparency and participation regarding certification and labeling.
MALAYSIA proposed a reference to include wood substitutes in the assessments, which was accepted. THE COMITE NACIONAL PRO DEFENSA DE LA FAUNA Y FLORA, supported by the GLOBAL FOREST POLICY PROJECT, reminded the Panel of the suggestion made to establish a voluntary code of conduct for the forest industry. He encouraged its inclusion in Item IV. The US, supported by SPAIN and CANADA, suggested that the report proposed under Item IV draw on the work of the ITTO and UNCTAD, in particular. SPAIN stated that Item IV should include a reference to the promotion of sustainable development, as mandated by the CSD, and stressed that assessment reports should review bodies of knowledge from all relevant sectors, particularly in relation to the issue of certification. The PHILIPPINES stated that the delegates were not in a position to prescribe agencies for consultation on specific issues because the CSD has already made these determinations and they should not be altered. The Co-Chair reminded the Philippines that the Panel's role is to build on the CSD's mandate in a consultative capacity.
JAPAN emphasized the need for the Panel to draw upon the work of all relevant bodies in producing its reports. He stated that acknowledging potential contributors at his time would provide a basis for their cooperation. The PHILIPPINES objected to the reference to the promotion of sustainable development. This position was accepted. INDIA said that the issue of internalization of the environmental costs of wood substitutes such as plastics and aluminum should be addressed.
Item V refers to international organizations and multilateral institutions and instruments, including appropriate legal mechanisms. Item V.1 calls for the preparation of a report presenting an overview and succinct description of existing institutions and instruments and Item V.2 states that the deliberation of this item on options for future action will be based on a step-by-step consensus building process and will be a major item for consideration at the fourth session of the Panel.
The PHILIPPINES stated that the Panel's report analyzing the work of international institutions should not seek to identify the comparative advantages of various instruments, those in need of enhancement or areas of gaps and overlaps as called for in the report. CANADA stated that the report's objectives referred to by the Philippines would greatly benefit the Panel's work and were within the CSD mandate. The Co-Chair noted that Item V will be an item for substantive discussion at the Panel's fourth session. Item V was adopted as amended.
Paragraph 17 states that the Panel agreed on the need to divide the agenda items between two in-session working groups, each chaired by one of the Co-Chairs. The US suggested the paragraph reflect that specific arrangements will be determined by the Panel at its second session. The PHILIPPINES, supported by CANADA and INDIA, acknowledged the Panel's general agreement to divide the work between two in-session working groups at the two substantive sessions and noted that the division of work would best be determined now. SPAIN stated that the Co-Chairs were in the best position to propose the specific arrangements for the division of work. CHINA recommended that the text of paragraph 17 be amended to reflect that no more than two in-session working groups be established. Paragraph 17 was adopted with this amendment.
Paragraph 18 deals with the duration and venue of future sessions, and the Co-Chair recognized that consensus had not been reached on this issue. He recommended the paragraph be amended to reflect that the second session will be held in Geneva for up to two weeks between 11-22 March 1996, and indicated that no decision had been reached on the dates of the third session.
JAPAN said it was agreed that the Co-Chairs were to make this determination in consultation with the Secretariat and report back to the Panel. The Co-Chair replied that a decision on this issue should not be delayed and that the two Co-Chairs would report back to the Panel promptly after this session. SPAIN, supported by the PHILIPPINES, suggested that it would also be beneficial to set tentative dates for the third session as well. The Co-Chair stated that the third session would most likely be held in September 1996, but did not offer a venue. SPAIN and the PHILIPPINES pressed for a venue and CHINA suggested that the third session be held in New York because it would be easier for developing nations to attend given that their missions are based there. SPAIN indicated that a meeting in New York at this time would conflict with the upcoming General Assembly meeting and that Geneva would be appropriate because developing countries also have missions there. Consensus was not achieved on the duration and venue for the third session, and paragraph 18 was amended to reflect that the third session of the IPF would be held in Europe in early September 1996, for a duration of up to two weeks.
Paragraph 19 notes that the Panel welcomed the active response of a number of organizations of the United Nations system and ITTO in supporting the needs of the Panel and the establishment of its Secretariat. The paragraph was adopted.
The report of the meeting, as amended, was formally adopted at 1:15 am.