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 Wednesday, 20 June

Delegates met in parallel working groups throughout the day and into the evening to negotiate draft decisions on the Multi-year programme of work (MYPOW), the Plan of action (PoA) and the Collaborative Partnership on Forests (CPF). A contact group met in the evening to discuss expert groups. Left photo: The dias of the

WORKING GROUP 1

MYPOW: High-level Segments: Delegates agreed to text deciding that, to demonstrate political leadership and commitment and to provide guidance, ministerial segments will be held at UNFF-2 and UNFF-5.

CANADA noted that adoption of the PoA at UNFF-1 remains pending, and that, in any case, the PoA may need refining at UNFF-2.

NEW ZEALAND (Right) supported, and the G-77/CHINA and CANADA opposed, US-proposed text deciding that the first ministerial segment would provide an opportunity to make a high-level commitment to country goals and strategies for implementing the proposals for action.

Ad Hoc Expert Groups: On financial implications of expert groups, Chair Øistad said that once groups are decided, the Budget Division would determine the financial implications. (R-L): Chair Øistad with Jag Maini, UNFF Coordinator

Finance and Transfer of ESTs: The US preferred "technology transfer" and opposed a G-77/CHINA proposal to add trade to this group.

The EU proposed establishing this group at UNFF-2, with submission of a report on technology transfer at UNFF-3, and on finance at UNFF-4. The G-77/CHINA stressed concluding work by UNFF-2 to guide implementation of the PoA.

Monitoring, Assessment and Reporting (MAR): The EU, NEW ZEALAND, CANADA, the US and SWITZERLAND (Right) proposed establishing this group at UNFF-1 and reporting at UNFF-2. The G-77/CHINA proposed reporting at UNFF-4.

Legal Framework: The EU proposed establishing this group at UNFF-3 and reporting at UNFF-4 or UNFF-5. CANADA, POLAND, HUNGARY, JAPAN, the RUSSIAN FEDERATION and SWITZERLAND supported reporting at UNFF-4. The US, the G-77/CHINA, BRAZIL and NEW ZEALAND supported establishment at UNFF-4 and reporting at UNFF-5. The issue of expert groups was referred to a contact group. Right photo: Iran (Center) speaking on behalf of the G77/China

Multi-stakeholder Dialogues: AUSTRALIA (Left) and the EU suggested "involvement" and AUSTRALIA proposed language noting the value of input from major groups associated with forest management at national, regional and global levels. Delegates agreed to text noting the value of multi-stakeholder dialogues in furthering the UNFF's purpose and objectives at national, regional and global levels, in particular the implementation of SFM.

The US (Left), supported by the G-77/CHINA and NEW ZEALAND, proposed text inviting participation of the CPF and other relevant international, intergovernmental and regional processes and organizations, institutions and instruments at each UNFF session

WORKING GROUP 2:

COLLABORATIVE PARTNERSHIP ON FORESTS (CPF): The EU, with CANADA and the US, proposed preambular text inviting the UNFCCC Secretariat to join the CPF.

The G-77/CHINA, with the RUSSIAN FEDERATION (Left), CANADA and the EU, proposed text stressing that the UNFF will guide the CPF.

PLAN OF ACTION (PoA):

The G-77/CHINA (Right) stressed the need for flexibility and emphasis on the PoA content. As proposed by AUSTRALIA, the delegates decided to develop two separate documents: a framework for a PoA, and an actual PoA.

CONTACT GROUP:

Delegates briefly discussed the expert group on a legal framework, but reached no agreement on when to establish it or when the final report should be submitted to the UNFF. Some felt that establishing it at UNFF-4 would not allow adequate time for discussion, while others felt that an overall review of the UNFF's success is necessary before its establishment.