ENB:13:09
[Next] .
[Previous] .
[Contents]
NATIONAL FOREST AND LAND-USE PLANS
The FAO introduced the report on progress in national forest and land-use plans (E/CN.17/IPF/1996/8). The Chair suggested that delegates indicate issues to be highlighted for the substantive discussion at IPF-3. The EU noted the various intersessional initiatives undertaken by EU members. He recognized the need for full integration of environmental issues to ensure multiple benefits, further development of approaches to participatory planning and the development of international guidelines for NFPs. CANADA noted several issues for further consideration: linking NFPs and the implementation of the Forest Principles; improving accountability through monitoring and reporting; obtaining long-term commitments to facilitate planning in the forest sector; considering the role of decentralized planning; involving major groups in planning processes; and integrating the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity into forest sector plans.
NORWAY said the report should be more balanced on forest ownership and related plans. Implementation of UNCED requires the development of democratic strategies for NFPs and a wide spectrum of policy means. INDONESIA said ownership varies widely and proposed measures must be in accord with national legislation. TANZANIA noted actions taken following UNCED, but also noted constraints such as lack of national capacity and financial means and sectoral coordination. He described the implementation of the NFP and noted policy revisions based on agreements such as CBD.
MALAYSIA said the IPF should focus on interactions between forestry and other land- use sectors and between national and state plans. The process should be country-driven. Constraints and donor coordination have technical as well as financial components. The US said open, participatory practices are necessary at all levels. National forest sector plans are only one tool alongside other effective approaches. He called for coordinating donor-supported planning efforts. ZIMBABWE called for details on achieving country- driven planning frameworks and asked how sectoral investment would promote multisectoral planning.
IUCN and the ASIA FOREST NETWORK called for: planning that recognizes the role of indigenous people; identifying priority areas for community involvement; and management systems responsive to local economic and environmental needs. GERMANY noted its plans to host an experts consultation on national forest and land- use plans. The meeting will concentrate on national plans, instruments and institutional mechanisms to coordinate political, socioeconomic, and environmental interventions. SWEDEN said all countries need reliable forest inventories and national analysis units. The IPF-3 discussion should explore capacity building. He noted an October workshop planned with Uganda on consensus building. UGANDA said the meanings of participation and of local communities need to be discussed. Successful experiences in one country might not translate to other communities and societies. Legal, political and field elements of sectoral integration should be described in practical steps.
The UK stated that sector planning should facilitate national discussion and underlined the importance of facilitating this among interest groups. He called for information on: tackling problems in national forest planning; participatory planning; and integrating multiple planning frameworks. NEW ZEALAND described his nation’s Resource Management Act as an incentive-based approach that is output- rather than input- oriented. He noted the need to consider land-use planning and to adopt plans and policies at the highest national level. DENMARK stressed that national forest programmes should include concrete targets and timetables, and be action-oriented and participatory. He requested specific guidelines on this for discussion at IPF-3.
The PHILIPPINES emphasized that forestry planning requires participation. She echoed Finland’s call for local experts. She stated that recognition of indigenous peoples’ property rights in the National Forestry Action Plan will create a need to resolve conflicting land claims. The INTERNATIONAL INDIAN TREATY COUNCIL stressed conflict resolution as well, stating that land is synonymous with indigenous cultures, and that honoring land treaties must be included in panel discussions. KENYA highlighted coordination and leadership in forest planning, suggesting that the FAO could provide leadership for better coordination of proliferating plans. He noted the excessive reliance on foreign consultants.