ENB @ UNFF (UN Headquarters, New York, June 11-22 2001)

United Nations Forum on Forests
First Substantive Meeting
UN Headquarters, New York, USA 11-22 June 2001

>>Version française: BNT<<

Archive:
(English)

| Mon 11 | Tue 12 | Wed 13 | Thu 14 | Fri 15 |
| Mon 18 | Tue 19 | Wed 20 | Thu 21 | Fri 22 |

Archive:
(Français)

| Lun 11 | Mar 12 | Mer 13 | Jeu 14 | Ven 15 |
| Lun 18 | Mar 19 | Mer 20 | Jeu 21 | Ven 22 |

Update for Monday, 18 June

On the sixth day of UNFF-1, delegates met in an afternoon Plenary to hear general remarks on progress made and work remaining at UNFF-1. Following Plenary, delegates met into two working groups to negotiate the draft decisions on the MYPOW and the PoA.

PLENARY

The US underscored the need to clarify the relationship between the MYPOW, the PoA and the CPF and to decide whether actions would be set out in the MYPOW or the PoA. Expressing concern that the draft PoA seems to be a draft plan for a PoA, she commented that it does not make clear who would take or facilitate what action and what the purpose of the action would be.

NEW ZEALAND suggested that targets and timetables be agreed at UNFF-2 and that all other aspects be agreed by the end of UNFF-1.

JAPAN emphasized the need for further work on the PoA, noting that the draft PoA seems to be a guidance paper for countries to develop PoAs. He said that negotiations this week must focus on developing the international aspects of the PoA.

IUCN/WWF urged the establishment of targets and timetables. She proposed that, to build the UNFF's credibility early on, issues that are most ripe for implementation, have the best chances of success in the coming year, and have examples of best practices be discussed at UNFF-2.

The GLOBAL FOREST POLICY PROJECT suggested crafting an agenda or schedule for each UNFF session. He recommended identifying the means of implementing the proposals for action, the impediments to implementation, and concrete strategies to address these issues, then creating a map identifying the desired products of each session.

UNFF Coordinator Jag Maini (Left) urged delegates to focus on what the provisional agendas for the subsequent sessions ought to be. He reminded them that there are five different target audiences of the proposals for action: countries, the ITFF (now the CPF), the private sector, other international organizations and NGOs.

MYPOW WORKING GROUP :

PREAMBLE:

Delegates began negotiations on the compilation text prepared by the Bureau. Chair Øistad (Norway) proposed adding a general reference to ECOSOC resolution 2000/35 in the paragraph outlining the main objective of the UNFF, and deleting two paragraphs which reference text from the ECOSOC resolution on the Forest Principles and the IPF/IFF proposals for action and on finance and technology transfer.

The US and JAPAN (Right) called for a simple preamble without specifics.

Sweden on behalf of the EU and the US proposed deleting a paragraph on the UNFF focusing on enhancing efforts to implement the IPF/IFF proposals for action and giving due reference to cross-cutting issues of finance, trade, technology transfer and capacity building.

The G-77/CHINA opposed its deletion. NIGERIA emphasized that the UNFF must address these issues, as they are critical in enabling implementation in developing countries.

PoA WORKING GROUP:

Chair Slamet Hidayat (Indonesia) introduced draft text prepared by the Bureau, and said the CPF would be invited to elaborate a more detailed PoA, to be adopted at UNFF-2.

The EU, the G-77/CHINA, the US and AUSTRALIA expressed dissatisfaction with key paragraphs. The Iran on behalf of the G-77/CHINA (Right) said the draft does not reflect a number of its proposals.

The US stressed the need for specific proposals and emphasized that the PoA is the UNFF's organizational strategy to facilitate action by countries and should not allow for changes in the UNFF's mandate.

The EU proposed deleting a paragraph on financial resources and the role of international support, and replacing it with text emphasizing the primary importance of domestic resources.

BRAZIL expressed dismay at the EU proposal, noting that it defies Agenda 21.

The RUSSIAN FEDERATION highlighted economic difficulties experienced by certain countries, and proposed adding preambular paragraphs on the importance of international cooperation.