Summary report, 29–31 October 2014

The Workshop on the International Arrangement on Forests (IAF) beyond 2015, a Country-Led Initiative (CLI) in support of the UN Forum on Forests (UNFF), was held in Beijing, China from 29-31 October 2014. The objective of this Workshop was to examine and consider options for a renewed IAF based on strengths and weaknesses of the current IAF, as reported at the first meeting of the UNFF Ad Hoc Expert Group (AHEG) as well as the report of an independent assessment.

In attendance were over 100 officials and experts from 46 countries and 15 international organizations, that convened in plenary and parallel breakout group sessions to discuss strengthening the IAF beyond 2015 to ensure the implementation of forest-related commitments. Participants discussed the following six topics on the IAF: strengthening regional and subregional involvement in the IAF; strengthening the role and functioning of the Collaborative Partnership on Forests (CPF); strengthening the involvement of Major Groups in the IAF; low-cost, high-value, achievable actions relevant to a two- to three-year time horizon; up-scaling the Facilitative Process; and possible elements of a strategic plan for the IAF.

A Co-Chairs’ Summary Report of the Workshop was compiled and reviewed by participants, and will be forwarded to the second AHEG on the IAF, taking place in January 2015 in New York.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE IAF

In October 2000, the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), in resolution E/2000/35, established the IAF, including establishing the UNFF as a subsidiary body, with the main objective of promoting the management, conservation and sustainable development of all types of forests.

The UNFF’s principal functions are to: facilitate implementation of forest-related agreements and foster a common understanding on sustainable forest management (SFM); provide for continued policy development and dialogue among governments, international organizations and Major Groups, as well as to address forest issues and emerging areas of concern in a holistic, comprehensive and integrated manner; enhance cooperation and policy and programme coordination on forest-related issues; foster international cooperation and monitor, assess and report on progress; and strengthen political commitment to the management, conservation and sustainable development of all types of forests. Country- and Organization-Led Initiatives have also contributed to the UNFF’s work.

ORGANIZATIONAL SESSION OF THE UNFF: The UNFF organizational session took place from 12-16 February 2001, at UN Headquarters in New York. Delegates agreed that the UNFF Secretariat would be located in New York, and made progress towards the establishment of the CPF, a partnership of 14 major forest-related international organizations, institutions and convention secretariats.

UNFF1: The first session of UNFF took place from 11-23 June 2001 in New York. Delegates discussed and adopted decisions on the UNFF Multi-year Programme of Work (MYPOW), a Plan of Action for the implementation of Proposals for Action, and UNFF’s work with the CPF. Delegates also recommended establishing three AHEGs to provide technical advice to the UNFF on: approaches and mechanisms for monitoring, assessment and reporting (MAR); finance and transfer of environmentally sound technologies (ESTs); and parameters of a mandate for developing a legal framework on all types of forests.

UNFF2: The second session of UNFF took place from 4-15 March 2002 in New York. Delegates adopted a Ministerial Declaration and Message to the World Summit on Sustainable Development and decisions on: combating deforestation and forest degradation; forest conservation and protection of unique types of forests and fragile ecosystems; rehabilitation and conservation strategies for low forest cover countries; the promotion of natural and planted forests; specific criteria for the review of the effectiveness of the IAF; and proposed revisions to the medium-term plan for 2002-2005.

UNFF3: UNFF3 met in Geneva, Switzerland, from 26 May–6 June 2003, and adopted six resolutions on: enhanced cooperation, and policy and programme coordination; forest health and productivity; economic aspects of forests; maintaining forest cover to meet present and future needs; the UNFF Trust Fund; and strengthening the Secretariat. Terms of reference were adopted for the voluntary reporting format and the three AHEGs were established to consider: MAR; finance and transfer of ESTs; and parameters of a mandate for developing a legal framework on all types of forests.

UNFF4: UNFF4 convened in Geneva from 3-14 May 2004 and adopted five resolutions on: forest-related scientific knowledge; social and cultural aspects of forests; MAR and criteria and indicators; review of the effectiveness of the IAF; and finance and transfer of ESTs. UNFF4 attempted, without success, to reach agreement on resolutions on forest-related traditional knowledge, enhanced cooperation, and policy and programme coordination.

UNFF CLI REGARDING A FUTURE INTERNATIONAL ARRANGEMENT ON FORESTS: This UNFF CLI took place from 25-28 January 2005, Zapopan-Guadalajara, Mexico. The CLI elaborated on the critical elements that countries would like to see included in a future IAF, and provided an informal contribution to provide a basis for the decision concerning the future of the IAF that would be taken at UNFF5. During the meeting, participants considered five specific aspects of a future IAF: objectives and functions; modalities; options for financing; identification of the international and domestic roles and contributions of the potential components of the IAF; and the challenge ahead.

UNFF5: UNFF5 took place from 16-27 May 2005, in New York. Participants were unable to reach agreement on strengthening the IAF and did not produce a ministerial statement or a negotiated outcome. They did agree, ad referendum, to four global goals on: significantly increasing the area of protected forests and sustainably managed forests worldwide; reversing the decline in official development assistance (ODA) for SFM; reversing the loss of forest cover; and enhancing forest-based economic, social and environmental benefits. They also agreed in principle to negotiate, at some future date, the terms of reference for a voluntary code or international understanding on forests, as well as means of implementation (MoI).

UNFF6: UNFF6 took place from 13-24 February 2006 in New York. Delegates generated a negotiating text containing new language on the function of the IAF, a commitment to convene UNFF biennially after 2007, and a request that UNFF7 adopt a non-legally binding instrument on all types of forests (NLBI or forest instrument). UNFF6 also set four Global Objectives on Forests (GOFs) for the IAF to: reverse the loss of forest cover worldwide through SFM, including through protection, restoration, afforestation and reforestation; enhance forest-based economic, social and environmental benefits, and the contribution of forests to the achievement of internationally agreed development goals; increase significantly the area of protected forests worldwide and other areas of sustainably managed forests; and reverse the decline in ODA for SFM, and mobilize significantly increased new and additional financial resources from all sources for the implementation of SFM.

UNFF7: UNFF7 was held from 16-27 April 2007 in New York. After two weeks of negotiations, culminating in an all-night session, delegates adopted the NLBI and a MYPOW for the period 2007-2015. Delegates also participated in two Multi-Stakeholder Dialogues, a panel discussion with member organizations of the CPF, and the launch of preparations for the International Year of Forests 2011. Delegates agreed that a “voluntary global financial mechanism/portfolio approach/forest financing framework for all types of forests” would be developed and considered, with a view to its adoption at UNFF8.

UNFF8: UNFF8 was held from 20 April–1 May 2009 in New York. Delegates discussed: forests in a changing environment, including forests and climate change, reversing the loss of forest cover and degradation, and forests and biodiversity conservation; and MoI for SFM. After an all-night session on the last night, delegates adopted a resolution on forests in a changing environment, enhanced cooperation and cross-sectoral policy and programme coordination, and regional and subregional inputs. Delegates did not agree on a decision on financing for SFM, and decided to forward bracketed negotiating text to the Forum’s next session.

SPECIAL SESSION OF UNFF9: The special session of UNFF9 was held on 30 October 2009 in New York. The Forum decided to establish an open-ended intergovernmental AHEG to formulate proposals on strategies to mobilize resources to support the implementation of SFM, the achievement of the four GOFs and the implementation of the NLBI. The Forum also established a Facilitative Process to, inter alia: assist developing countries to mobilize funding, through helping them to identify obstacles and opportunities for accessing required financing.

UNFF9: UNFF9 took place from 24 January–4 February 2011 in New York and launched the International Year of Forests 2011. The Forum adopted by acclamation a resolution on forests for people, livelihoods and poverty eradication, which addressed inter alia: procedures for assessment of progress; increased regional and subregional cooperation; enhanced cooperation, including with Major Groups; and MoI for SFM, particularly the AHEG process.

UNFF10: UNFF10 took place from 8-19 April 2013 in Istanbul, Turkey. Two weeks of negotiations culminated in an all-night session where it was decided that a review of effectiveness of the IAF would take place in 2015, based on the consideration of a full range of options including a legally binding agreement or strengthening or continuing the current arrangement. The decision also states that the review will be comprised of: submissions from countries, the CPF, CPF members and other relevant organizations and stakeholders; an independent assessment of the IAF; and an open-ended intergovernmental AHEG on the IAF.

AHEG1: The first AHEG on the IAF met from 24-28 February 2014 in Nairobi, Kenya. The Co-Chairs’ Summary Report of the meeting, inter alia, assesses the achievements, strengths and weaknesses of the current IAF, including assessments of the UNFF, the NLBI, the CPF, regional processes and organizations, and Major Groups. The report identifies options for action or improvement under a future IAF, including the option of developing a strategic plan to guide the work of the IAF beyond 2015. 

REPORT OF THE MEETING

OPENING OF THE MEETING

On Wednesday morning, Liu Dongsheng, Vice Minister of the State Forestry Administration (SFA), China, opened the meeting, thanking sponsoring countries and organizations for their support.

Zhao Shucong, Minister of the SFA, China, noted that discussions on the International Arrangement on Forests (IAF) needed to avoid re-opening settled issues and engage with forward-looking discussions on global sustainable development and green growth. He said regional approaches needed to be closely involved in global governance, but the right to determine forest approaches according to national circumstances needs to be respected. He outlined China’s efforts to manage forests sustainably and identified that improving forest governance systems, including the interaction between national and international approaches, was the main challenge for the post-2015 IAF.

Noel Nelson Messone, Chairman of the Bureau of 11th Session of the UN Forum on Forests (UNFF11) and Minister for Forests, Environment and Protection of Natural Resources, Gabon, noted that the mention of forests in the draft Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) six and 15 should serve as input to the decisions of UNFF11 and the future IAF. He said that the deadline for member states to provide their input to UNFF11 had been extended to 5 December 2014.

Clemens Neumann, Director General for Bio-based Economy, Sustainable Agriculture and Forestry of the Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Germany, stated that the international community has attempted to reduce the fragmentation of forest policies for many years, yet many of the same questions about the IAF remain on the table. He noted that little progress has been achieved in implementing the IAF, and that the international community needed to ask itself what needs to happen in the future.

Dongsheng then introduced the meeting’s Co-Chairs: Wu Zhimin (China) and Peter Besseau (Canada).

PLENARY PRESENTATIONS

On Wednesday morning, Co-Chair Besseau outlined that participants would hear presentations on evaluating the IAF, future options of the IAF, a strategic plan for the IAF, and regional processes and partnerships. He further outlined that participants would later be divided into breakout groups to delve into these and other issues, adding that the Workshop would be conducted under Chatham House rules.

EVALUATING THE IAF AND FUTURE OPTIONS: On Wednesday, Raymond Landveld, Counsellor of Permanent Missions of Suriname to the UN, presented on the IAF achievements, strengths, and weaknesses, as highlighted in the report of the first meeting of the Open-Ended Intergovernmental Ad Hoc Expert Group (AHEG1). He noted that UNFF can coordinate with the global sustainable development agenda’s target setting, including through the Global Objectives on Forests (GOFs) of the Non-Legally Binding Instrument on All Types of Forests (NLBI), but needs to focus more on implementation than on negotiating text. He noted that the CPF usefully collected information to assist UNFF deliberations but lacked an effective, integrated program. He further noted a lack of synergy between regional processes’ implementation and UNFF’s promotion of the GOFs. He added that the UNFF Multi-stakeholder Dialogue lacked funding to support effective participation by Major Groups.

Charles Barber, World Resources Institute, shared that the report of AHEG1 identified areas for action and improvement, including: clarifying the roles and mandate of UNFF and the effectiveness of the CPF; generating financial and technical resources; means of implementation; raising the profile and awareness of forests across regions and adopting cross-sectoral approaches; linking further actions to the Rio Conventions; and strengthening the input of Major Groups and collaboration between them and states.

Summarizing the independent assessment (IA) of the IAF, Jürgen Blaser, international consultant, explained that the report analyzes whether the IAF: remained relevant and appropriate; secured tangible achievements; and was efficient and effective in its mandate since 2000. He identified areas for improvement, including: strengthening long-term political agreement; promoting implementation of internationally agreed actions; and policy implementation, coordination and development. He stated that the main challenges were strengthening the science-policy interface and implementation, and monitoring and reporting, as this triggers engagement. Regarding a future IAF, Blaser explained the need for more affirmative and deliberative language, and to shift the emphasis from preparing resolutions to facilitating substantive dialogue, cooperation, and implementation. He outlined proposals for a future IAF, inter alia: an enhanced version of the current IAF that includes a Special Envoy on Forests; the creation of, “UN Forest,” a science-policy interface mechanism providing technical support for policy development and SFM implementation; the option of legally binding commitments to sustainable forest management (SFM); and regional treaties that would be brought together in a more voluntary forum.

In the ensuing discussion, Co-Chair Zhimin urged delegates to focus comments on future options for an IAF, without being specific about whether a legally binding or non-legally binding instrument would be involved. Participants expressed appreciation for the AHEG1 and IA reports as good departure points for deliberations at the Country-Led Initiative (CLI).

One participant said some ideas presented in the IA would not bring anything new to the IAF, cautioning against putting new labels on existing bodies. Another participant called for this meeting to provide some key messages and guidelines for efforts leading up to UNFF11, emphasizing that a pragmatic approach should be taken. One participant urged that the discussion about high priority actions aim for tangible results on the ground.

Several participants noted the need for forest policy to be integrated with other agendas, including energy, agriculture and mining, with one participant encouraging participants to think “outside the forests.” One participant suggested looking at the whole value chain, including sustainable production and consumption. Others noted the need to strengthen implementation through interactions between policy bodies and Major Groups, including the private sector.

Urging an “invasion” of the SDG agenda, one participant called for showing how forests can contribute to specific SDG targets, and another stressed that SFM should be the framework under which forests are addressed in the post-2015 development agenda. Several participants noted the need to make forests an integral part of all development discussions, with some supporting the adoption of a strategic approach as well as tactical actions that would develop a positive narrative on the role of forests in the international development dialogue. One participant suggested raising forests’ profile and levels of political commitment through a special UN General Assembly session on forest issues.

A few participants noted the importance of working constructively with powerful legal instruments such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), noting the need for a few concrete ideas to help get political recognition for the IAF and SFM. One participant noted that 2015 would be a difficult year to negotiate a strengthened IAF, given the focus on a new climate change agreement.

On Wednesday afternoon, participants discussed UN-Water as a potential model for an interagency coordination mechanism within the future IAF. Participants were informed that UN-Water coordinates implementation of the crosscutting issue of water throughout the UN system and enhances coherence of the UN system at the country level. Noting that it is highly organized and well funded, it was stated that UN-Water was largely responsible for the inclusion of an SDG on water. Participants were informed about the small size of its secretariat and its process of establishment, as well as its envisaged role in implementation of the SDGs. A participant noted that formalization of UN-Water was an incentive for countries to fund it. The participant further stressed that the proposal for a body similar to UN-Water was not meant to replace the UNFF as a political body, rather it would help to provide a common vision across the UN and provide useful documents for negotiations. Participants called for the consideration of costs, in time and resources, associated with all proposals.

A participant stressed that, rather than expanding the IAF, discussions should also consider streamlining it to ensure more effective and efficient delivery, with another calling for the identification of some “clear wins” for the UNFF in the medium term. Stating that the current IAF covers three functional elements, namely policy-making, implementation and implementation assistance, one participant noted the need for the form of various IAF elements to follow their function.

The discussion continued later in the day, with Jürgen Blaser responding to a number of participants’ queries on the IA. It was clarified that the IA did not intend to complicate the organizational picture but to strengthen and streamline links between existing bodies. It was noted that a “UN-Forests” would be a more formal, better-funded version of the CPF, but would be expected to be implementation-oriented and would work at the science-policy interface. It was noted that the UNFF already regularly tasks the CPF with a range of requests related to science, policy and implementation, as it needs technical support for their policy work.

Participants asked further questions on relationships between the IA’s proposed options, complementary pathways and the proposed role for a special envoy. It was clarified that the report looked at several options that were ‘outside the box’ including a possible parallel path towards a legally binding arrangement, emulating other UN processes, and establishing regional-level forest organizations, reflecting the importance and cohesion of regional groupings in forest discussions to date. It was explained that the role of a special envoy was envisaged as involving a senior political figure, such as a former prime minister or president of a large forest stakeholder country, who could raise forests’ profile considerably in the development agenda.

STRATEGIC PLAN FOR THE IAF: On Wednesday afternoon, in introducing the Discussion Paper on Possible Elements of a “Strategic Plan” (SP) for a future IAF, Stephanie Caswell, independent consultant, defined an SP as a “management tool that helps guide or direct an organization in fulfilling its mission and mandate over a specific time horizon.” Explaining that the exercise to develop an SP is hypothetical, as the future of the UNFF is uncertain, she said that the SP should include an implementation framework and a 4-year plan, focused on well-defined priorities, to operationalize the program of work, and that the GOFs should form the main part of the document. 

Participants then discussed, inter alia: the time required to negotiate an SP, and the added value of doing so; the opportunity to link an SP with the SDGs, particularly in relation to poverty and sustainable development; and including easily measurable targets in an SP, while recognizing that resources would be required to measure these targets.

One expert called for reaching agreement on funding for implementation before settling on IAF support for specific SDG goals, some of which are highly aspirational. Another stressed that the UNFF would need to separately consider elements of proposed goals and targets, before they could be part of any SP.

One participant considered there might be value in formally considering an SP in advance of the UNFF11, particularly drawing out linkages between IAF organizational elements. Another noted the potential for an SP to inform policy development around potentially legally binding approaches.

REGIONAL PROCESSES AND PARTNERSHIPS: On Thursday morning, participants heard presentations on three regional processes and partnerships.

Presenting on the Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organization (ACTO) but speaking on behalf of Brazil, Natalia Shimada, Ministry of Foreign Relations, explained that ACTO has contributed to SFM via regulatory initiatives, regional coordination and projects, information sharing and involvement with UNFF. She stated that these encompass topics on the environment, national economies and living standards. Noting that ACTO has many initiatives and activities contributing to SFM, she identified several challenges, including its consensus-based decision-making structure, and that ACTO only represents eight of more than 30 countries in the Latin America and the Caribbean Region. She suggested ACTO could serve as a support organization for regional meetings.

Rowena Watson, US State Department, gave a presentation on the Congo Basin Forest Partnership (CBFP). She noted that the US launched the CBFP in 2002 as a voluntary multi-stakeholder initiative, and is currently facilitating it, to help address threats from over exploitation and unsustainable illegal logging. She outlined that CBFP’s broad membership, including governments, international organizations and Major Groups had increased certified forest concessions and protected area networks and had yielded better tools and strategies for land-use planning. She highlighted that priorities included: promoting African leadership; addressing critical and emerging threats to biodiversity and forests; addressing climate change impacts; and strengthening governance. She called for strengthened regional and subregional involvement in the future IAF including by using the common membership between regional and global forums to advance SDG forest-related targets.

Ingwald Gschwandtl, Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management, Austria, presented on the negotiation of a legally binding agreement (LBA) on forests in Europe. He noted that, in wanting to consolidate the Forest Europe process and strengthen its impact, members of Forest Europe decided to undertake a two-track approach: negotiating an LBA, while also continuing the voluntary process based on a new vision, goals, and targets. He described the process and structure of the LBA negotiations over a two-year mandate, including meetings of an Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee, establishment of a joint secretariat, and a Bureau with balanced regional representation. He stated that negotiations on substance were based on the Forest Europe criteria for SFM, ensuring a multi-functional approach. He noted that 95 percent of the negotiating text has been agreed ad referendum, with sticking points remaining on organizational aspects, such as: how to bring the LBA under the UN umbrella; the specific roles of the institutions involved; the institutional set up of the secretariat; and issues concerning the balance of power in compliance and decision-making processes.

TOPIC DISCUSSIONS

On Thursday and Friday, participants discussed six topics in breakout groups and plenary sessions: strengthening regional and sub-regional involvement in the IAF; strengthening the role and functioning of the CPF; strengthening involvement of Major Groups in the IAF; low-cost, high-value actions over a two- to three-year time horizon; up-scaling the Facilitative Process; and elements of an SP for the IAF. The two breakout groups were co-facilitated by Sibylle Vermont (Switzerland) and Elise Haber (South Africa).

STRENGTHENING REGIONAL AND SUB-REGIONAL INVOLVEMENT: Both breakout groups discussed this topic on Thursday morning.

Several participants described various regional processes, either forest-related or encompassing other issues, which their countries were involved in. One participant noted that using UN classifications for regional groupings was not workable, as broader mandates meant an insufficient focus on forest issues. While one participant noted that stakeholder participation was higher at the regional level, others pointed to the need to increase their involvement. One expert called for a UN umbrella at the global level that could link to regions that may wish to develop legal instruments.

Several participants emphasized the need for more funding and capacity building at the regional level, with one noting that governments’ overarching concern would be the cost of meeting future commitments, whether legally binding or not. Multiple participants noted that monitoring and tracking system activities would be useful and more feasible at the regional level, and a few mentioned the challenge of involving ministers of multiple sectors outside forestry in regional forest discussions.

On regional and subregional meetings feeding into the Forum’s deliberations, one participant suggested holding  back-to-back meetings with the meetings of the regional forestry commissions of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), noting that this would lower costs, and another mentioned integrating UNFF topics into the regional commissions. One expert noted that the time between UNFF global meetings could be increased to provide more room for regional and country-level meetings.

Several participants noted communication challenges between UNFF and regional bodies, prompting calls for improved UNFF website links and holding UNFF and regional organization meeting back-to-back. One participant noted that there were crosscutting thematic issues which linked countries from different regions, such as small island developing states.

Participants also discussed, inter alia: that current regional processes do not include all member countries of the UNFF; whether the existing six FAO regional and subregional bodies are suitable or if a new UNFF body based on the five UN regions would be more appropriate; and the value of subregional and regional processes as platforms for collaboration and sharing experiences in implementation.

 On what the Forum can do to encourage, facilitate and/or assist interested regions and subregions in developing regional or subregional LBAs on forests, one participant said it would be helpful, although not necessary, to have an LBA at the global level, as it would create a framework for regional LBAs. Some participants shared concerns about the Forum’s ability to facilitate regional and subregional LBAs. One participant said the “fear factor” regarding costs should be discussed more deeply than was possible at a workshop.

Reporting back to plenary on Friday on the groups’ deliberations, Co-Facilitators Vermont and Haber highlighted that regional processes should be more comprehensively involved in the IAF, given their pragmatic focus on implementation and experience in regional legally binding commitments, but that countries should select which processes best represent them. They also noted the breakout groups’ recommendations on: having regional meetings back-to-back with UNFF meetings to promote better information exchange; linking to regional processes’ websites from the UNFF website; coordinating more closely among water, forest and agriculture ministries at the regional level; and acquiring more funding for regional initiatives.

STRENGTHENING THE CPF’S ROLE AND FUNCTIONING: This topic was discussed in a breakout group on Thursday afternoon.

Many experts supported strengthening the CPF but there were different views on whether further analysis was needed to inform its future shape. Others stressed the importance of pinpointing what functions a “CPF+” would be asked to do, including in relation to enhancing implementation and coordination, as well as policy coherence.  Several participants indicated that the IA’s concept of establishing a mechanism to provide a science-policy interface and support SFM implementation would not be easily workable. Others supported the adoption of UN-Water as a model, provided adequate funding was made available, which they suggested could support flexible responsiveness to tasking across policy development, science, and implementation. Participants also noted that a two-year rotating chair would help to maintain energy and focus.

Participants noted that the CPF itself had not been able to provide views on its own potential reform for this Workshop but that it would do so for AHEG2 in January 2015. One participant requested that the CPF be asked to address specifically the appropriateness of the UN-Water model.

Participants discussed the role of the CPF with regards to implementation, with some stating that it is meant to support country implementation of UNFF decisions, and another stating that it is the implementation branch within the IAF. Participants further discussed, inter alia: the CPF’s coordinating role and the need for it to have a work plan to implement global policy decisions; a mechanism for the CPF to report to the Forum; and the financial and human resource constraints of the CPF members. 

Reporting back to plenary on Friday on the group’s deliberations, Co-Facilitator Vermont highlighted that: the CPF needed to be strengthened, with more members including regional organizations, to take on a bigger policy coordination and implementation support role; there was value in creating a more formal body, similar to UN-Water; rotating chairs every two years would support ongoing commitment; and the CPF should have its own trust fund, which would make it more accountable.  

STRENGTHENING MAJOR GROUPS’ INVOLVEMENT: This topic was discussed in a breakout group on Thursday afternoon.

One participant noted that UN rules limited the involvement of Major Groups and other stakeholders in political discussions of the UNFF, discouraging them from participating. A couple of participants said that unless the Forum was willing to change its structure as a body of the Economic and Social Council of the UN (ECOSOC), and thus change its participation rules, there was little point in trying to increase Major Group engagement, instead advocating for focusing on the Forum’s function as an intergovernmental platform. Another participant stated that without Major Group involvement, the UNFF would become even less relevant.

Several participants noted that Major Groups’ interests were not being covered by UNFF, such as that industry had little incentive to engage with the Forum and that NGOs were more interested in implementation on the ground, in which the UNFF has been less engaged. One participant highlighted that some Major Groups were more important than others in different regions, noting by way of example that in Africa environmental NGOs working with local communities played a larger role than the less well developed forest industry.

One participant urged the group to consider all nine of the Major Groups rather than focusing on industry and NGOs, and another noted that the major group categories were limiting, advocating for creative solutions to circumvent existing structures.

Many agreed with a suggestion to conduct a survey of how Major Groups are involved in other UN bodies and the Rio conventions.

Reporting back to plenary on the group’s deliberations, Co-Facilitator Haber stated that Major Groups play a bigger role at the regional and subregional level than within the UNFF, as ECOSOC rules make it difficult for them to participate. She added that the UNFF Secretariat should look at how Major Groups are accommodated within other multilateral environmental agreements.

LOW-COST, HIGH-VALUE ACTIONS OVER A TWO- TO THREE-YEAR TIMEFRAME: This topic was discussed in a breakout group on Thursday afternoon. Participants scoped a range of global, regional, and national level ideas.

Several participants noted forest representatives needed to prioritize contributing to finalization of SDG goals, targets, and indicators. One participant stated that a proliferation of commendable unilateral and bilateral actions on forest law enforcement, governance and related trade (FLEGT) had led to a degree of divergence of initiatives and suggested that approaches be aligned where possible. Another participant noted the value in standardizing differing government procurement protocols.

Several participants supported actions on communication, including: sending clear, key messages from UNFF11; producing a high-level, clearly messaged document showcasing what the UNFF can do; engaging schools through targeted educational materials; and using the International Day of Forests to familiarize people with UNFF activities through communication materials in a range of languages. Several participants recommended tree planting and monitoring programs.

One participant noted that monitoring and reporting was a high-value action but that his country’s national program was very expensive to implement. He urged further alignment of reporting requirements, including with the CBD and Montreal Process reporting.

Other participants’ suggestions included: voluntary environmental performance reviews; integrating national efforts into the UNFF process; bringing attention to the NLBI, as it is not well known; and compiling spatial data on logging and mining that would become open-source.

Reporting back to plenary on the group’s deliberations, Co-Facilitator Vermont highlighted: harmonizing monitoring and reporting; strengthening the links between SDGs and forests; communication activities, including by a subset of members rather than always on behalf of the whole membership; strengthening FLEGT; and harmonization of public procurement policies.

UP-SCALING THE FACILITATIVE PROCESS (FP): This topic was discussed in a breakout group on Thursday afternoon.

Several participants noted that some countries continue to have trouble accessing funding for SFM through the FP. One delegate stated that the aim of the FP needed to be changed, as many countries needed help in writing basic documents to access money and not just help with identifying obstacles to and opportunities for accessing money, as is currently outlined in the FP.

One participant suggested creating regional trust funds and associated regional FPs as a shorter-term solution, while others recalled that a global forest fund had not been ruled out for the longer-term international forest governance architecture.. One expert noted that it was possible to implement important activities in the absence of trust funds, stressing the need to catalyze immediate actions with resources at hand, in order to attract more funds in the future.

One participant urged looking at other processes for funding possibilities, particularly the Green Climate Fund under the UNFCCC, with another reminding participants of the “basket approach” for accessing funding from multiple sources. Another participant mentioned the need to look to the private sector and corporate social responsibility (CSR), under a landscape approach, with another cautioning that CSR tends to decrease in economic recessions.

One participant suggested transferring the FP to another organization with more experience, such as the Global Environment Facility (GEF). Another highlighted the need for an implementation support mechanism, and pointed to competition among implementation agencies. Participants also discussed the importance of North-South, South-South, and South-North-South collaboration.

Reporting back to plenary on the group’s deliberations, Co-Facilitator Haber highlighted that: there was a need to simplify access to existing financial mechanisms given that the UNFF lacks its own mechanism; and, as forests often fall within a non-environmental ministry, accessing GEF funds can be complex, making alignment of priorities important.

POSSIBLE ELEMENTS OF A STRATEGIC PLAN (SP) FOR THE IAF: This topic was discussed in plenary on Friday.

Participants agreed on the need to develop an SP, regardless of having a legally binding or non-legally binding agreement. One participant suggested that the SP be seen in the context of adjusting the NLBI, since if a parallel LBA process were also pursued, a different SP would be needed.

While some stated that discussion of an SP was premature, given the difficulties in proposing a plan without knowing what will be decided at UNFF11, others said time should not be wasted, with some noting that several of the changes envisaged in the IA would take time to implement. One participant noted that future UNFF decisions will affect the direction of a strategy and consequently the SP, and that this should be kept in mind when considering the duration of the SP. Another highlighted that the SP should be adjustable, to be able to include IAF issues that may be raised in the future. One participant suggested looking to the minimum elements that can be agreed upon for the UNFF and the IAF as a way forward until UNFF11.

Others argued that AHEG2 could still make progress towards a draft strategic plan given that overarching post-2015 objectives would largely reflect the GOFs in the existing NLBI. One participant urged a parallel track to develop a strategic framework in advance of AHEG2 and UNFF11, and another suggested the Workshop could also convey to AHEG2 its agreement on the two additional global objectives proposed in the discussion paper on the SP elements. One participant saw actions for the next two to three years as contributing to a transition period leading to a plan with a 2030 time horizon, while another saw immediate actions as part of an ongoing priority setting process.

Participants noted the utility of an SP for communicating objectives and driving action. One participant urged a high-level, brief strategic statement looking towards 2030, with more detailed planning to be conducted on shorter timeframes. He noted such a strategic statement could perhaps be adopted by the UN Secretary General to drive an initiative similar to Sustainable Energy for All.

Several participants noted the importance of highlighting that SFM has a cross-cutting impact on many SDGs, with several agreeing to form an informal drafting group to go through the exercise of examining all potentially relevant SDGs and associated targets with a view to identifying links to forest issues, prior to AHEG2. Another supported a 2030 planning horizon, as this would link the SP to the SDG timeline. One participant highlighted that linking the GOFs to the SDGs was useful for beginning the SP discussion. Another suggested that the UNFF consider being more active in advocating for more comprehensive referencing to forests in the SDGs.

One participant stressed that the SP should include clear objectives and targets that are measurable, and, most importantly, achievable and implementable. One participant said attention should be paid to setting SP targets that take the SDGs into consideration. Another proposed a goal-based approach with elaborated targets inspired by the SDGs, in that they would have international and national dimensions and be based on the three pillars of sustainable development, with accompanying means of implementation.

One participant queried what the link was between the SP and the FP, and how the FP would help countries meet the SDG targets.

The Co-Chairs summarized the discussion, highlighting a few points including that: ideally, the SP would begin from 2016, with the duration of the SP still needing further discussion; there is consensus on key features of the SP, some of which are not dependent on either an NLBI or LBA and could be discussed prior to UNFF11; and the SP, compared to a multi-year programme of work, which is a “static menu of objectives,” should instead be a flexible plan of action, noting that this is a fundamental shift in thinking.

Participants were reminded that while an SP fosters implementation, it is not an end in itself, but rather a tool, and that linking objectives to SDGs, in order to mainstream forests into the post-2015 agenda, does not require a strategic document.

CO-CHAIRS’ SUMMARY REPORT

On Friday afternoon, the Co-Chairs’ Summary Report was made available for review by participants. The Report summarizes the discussions held at the Workshop on the six topics and highlights a number of issues about which participants had expressed interest in having more information.

Co-Chair Besseau clarified that the Report was meant to be inclusive but not fully comprehensive. Going through the Report page by page, the Co-Chairs opened the floor for editorial and substantive comments. Participants made several suggestions on clarifying language, correcting factual errors, and re-ordering of points, as well as some additions. One participant noted that the Report needed to give more prominence to the point that forests should have high relevance to the post-2015 development agenda. Another requested more information on how non-UN based regional organizations can contribute to the IAF. One participant requested a paragraph explaining what was meant by low-cost, high-value actions. There was some debate on how to more accurately and positively phrase a point on the degree of involvement of Major Groups in UNFF deliberations. There was also some debate about the title of the final section, with one participant noting that requests for more information should not be the “key messages” coming from the Workshop, while others stressed the importance of the listed points. One participant stated that the document as a whole was missing a key message: that no one at the Workshop favored an “option zero” of keeping the status quo, and all supported the need to strengthen the future IAF.

Co-Chair Besseau noted that a revised draft would be posted online for comment, prior to forwarding the Summary Report to the AHEG for its consideration.

CLOSING OF THE WORKSHOP

On Friday afternoon, Switzerland announced that it would, jointly with Indonesia, South Africa, Mexico and the Ukraine, host a CLI in support of UNFF11, on 3-6 February 2015, on the topic of forest governance in changing landscapes. She noted that the CLI would look to identify recommendations for the way forward on meaningful inclusion of governance issues in a post-2015 IAF.

Noel Nelson Messone, Minister for Forests, Environment and Protection of Natural Resources, Gabon, delivered a closing address. He said that the CLI’s work, as encapsulated in the Co-Chairs’ Summary Report, would: inform AHEG2 and subsequently UNFF11’s deliberations on post-2015 sustainable forest management architecture; and help ensure that the final SDGs reflect the importance of forests and that forest issues are taken into account during important discussions in 2015 on a new climate agreement.

Co-Chair Besseau thanked the Minister and formally closed the Workshop at 5:07 p.m.

UPCOMING MEETINGS

Fiftieth Session of the Inernational Tropical Timber Council (ITTC): The annual meeting of the ITTC will consider progress in the implementation of International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO) projects and activities in support of the sustainable management of tropical forests and the promotion of trade in sustainably produced tropical timber.  dates: 3-8 November 2014   location: Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan   contact: ITTO Secretariat   e-mail: itto@itto.int   www: http://www.itto.int/workshop_detail/id=3838  http://www.itto.int/council_committees/  

FOREST EUROPE Round Tables and Expert Level Meetings: FOREST EUROPE will host three consecutive meetings. On 3 November 2014, a round table will be held to explore proposals to consolidate pan-European policies and tools in Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) will be explored. On 4-5 November, a round table will discuss possible topics for the 7th FOREST EUROPE Ministerial Conference, to be held in Madrid, Spain, in October 2015. On 6-7 November, an expert level meeting will be held for the preparations of the Extraordinary Ministerial Conference. The Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) for a Legally Binding Agreement on Forests in Europe shall present its work to a FOREST EUROPE Extraordinary Ministerial Conference (EMC) for its consideration and possible adoption. date: 3-7 November 2014   location: Cuenca, Castilla-La Mancha, Spain   phone: +34-914458410   fax: +34-913226170   e-mail: liaison.unit.madrid@foresteurope.org   www: http://www.foresteurope.org/events/round-table-updating-sustainable-forest-management-tools  

2014 IUCN World Parks Congress: The 2014 International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) World Parks Congress will serve as a vital link to achieving IUCN’s overall vision of a “just world that values and conserves nature” and deliver the IUCN Programme 2013-2106. dates: 12-19 November 2014   location: Sydney, New South Wales, Australia  contact: Trevor Sandwith   e- mail:  trevor.sandwith@iucn.org   www:http://www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/gpap_home/?11730/IUCN-World-Parks-Congress-2014-build-up-underway 

72nd Session of the Committee on Forests and the Forest Industry (COFFI): The UN Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) COFFI will consider the ‘Rovaniemi Action Plan for the Forest Sector in a Green Economy,’ which consists of five pillars: sustainable production and consumption of forest products, a low carbon forest sector, decent green jobs in the forest sector, long term provision of forest ecosystem services, and policy development and monitoring of the forest sector in relation to a green economy. The workshop will also address forest resources assessment and reporting issues and develop guidance on implementation of the UNECE/ Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO) Integrated Programme of Work.  dates: 18-21 November 2014   location: Kazan, Tatarstan, Russian Federation  contact: Paola Deda   e-mail: Paola.deda@unece.org   www: http://www.unece.org/forests/kazan2014.html  

UNFCCC COP20: The 20th session of the Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is expected to take place in December 2014 in Peru. Venezuela has offered to host a pre-COP ministerial meeting.  dates: 1-12 December 2014   location: Lima, Peru   contact: UNFCCC Secretariat   phone: +49-228 815-1000   fax: +49-228-815-1999   e-mail: secretariat@unfccc.int   www: http://www.unfccc.int  

Global Landscapes Forum (GLF): The second GLF will be convened at the margins of the 20th session of the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC by the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and the Government of Peru. The Forum will focus on integrating the landscape approach into the post-2015 climate and development agendas. Themes will include food, water and energy; climate change; the green economy; and sustainable development. The programme will include a wide variety of sessions covering topics such as REDD+, climate-smart agriculture, fiscal and trade policy instruments, land restoration and forest economics. The event will also feature a debate on the future of food security in a changing climate.  dates: 6-7 December 2014   venue: The Westin Hotel and Convention Center  location: Lima, Peru   www: http://www.landscapes.org/glf-2014/about/?utm_source=July+2014&utm_campaign=NEWS+UPDATE+English&utm_medium=email  

Second meeting of the Open-ended Intergovernmental Ad Hoc Expert Group on the International Arrangement on Forests: The Ad Hoc Expert Group to the UN Forum on Forests (UNFF) will hold its second meeting (AHEG2) in order to review the International Arrangement on Forests (IAF). Expected outputs from AHEG2 include recommendations on an IAF beyond 2015 based on inputs from stakeholders and an independent review of the IAF multi-year programme of work. In order to facilitate its work, AHEG2 will consider input on the future of IAF provided by member States and other stakeholders, as long as such inputs are received before 5 December 2014. dates: 12-16 January 2015   venue: UN Headquarters   location: New York City, US   phone: +1-212-963-3401   e-mail: unff@un.org   www:http://www.un.org/esa/forests/adhoc.html  

INTERLAKEN+10, Governing forest landscapes: Lessons learnt from ten years of experience and the way forward post-2015: Building on ten years of regional workshops on forest governance, this event will be the last meeting before UNFF11, where the IAF will be reviewed. dates:  3-6 February 2015  location: Interlaken, Switzerland  contact: Claudia Greco  email:  claudia.greco@helvetas.org  www:  http://unff-interlaken10.org/

The Economics of Climate Change Mitigation Options in the Forestry Sector: The Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO) is convening an online conference to discuss the costs and benefits of various options for climate change mitigation in the forestry sector including REDD+, green building, and the promotion of bioenergy. The conference will be organized under two themes: climate change mitigation through forest management interventions, and climate change mitigation through improved wood utilization. The online discussion will take place from 6-27 February 2015.  dates: 6-27 February 2015   location: virtual   contact: Illias Animon   e-mail: illias.animon@fao.org   www: http://www.fao.org/forestry/cc-mitigation-economics/en/  

UN Forum on Forests Eleventh Session (UNFF11): The eleventh session of the UN Forum on Forests (UNFF11) will consider the future of the international arrangement on forests, based on challenges and its effectiveness. The meeting will also review progress in the implementation of the global objectives on forests and the non-legally binding instrument on all types of forests. Thematic issues under consideration will include SFM and forest law enforcement as well as cooperation and coordination.  dates: 4-15 May 2015   location: New York City, US   contact: UNFF Secretariat   phone: +1-212-963-3401   e-mail: unff@un.org www: http://www.un.org/esa/forests/session.html

The IAF Beyond 2015 Workshop Bulletin is a publication of the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) <info@iisd.ca>, publishers of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin © <enb@iisd.org>. This issue was written and edited by Jennifer Covert, Reem Hajjar, Ph.D., and Richard de Ferranti. The Digital Editor is Sean Wu. The Editor is Brett Wertz <brett@iisd.org>. The Director of IISD Reporting Services is Langston James “Kimo” Goree VI <kimo@iisd.org>. Funding for IISD RS coverage of this workshop has been provided by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Finland. IISD can be contacted at 161 Portage Avenue East, 6th Floor, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 0Y4, Canada; tel: +1-204-958-7700; fax: +1-204-958-7710. The opinions expressed in the Bulletin are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of IISD. Excerpts from the Bulletin may be used in other publications with appropriate academic citation. Electronic versions of the Bulletin are sent to e-mail distribution lists (in HTML and PDF format) and can be found on the Linkages WWW-server at <http://enb.iisd.org/>. For information on the Bulletin, including requests to provide reporting services, contact the Director of IISD Reporting Services at <kimo@iisd.org>, +1-646-536-7556 or 300 East 56th St., 11D, New York, New York 10022, USA.