by
Thang Hooi Chiew+
1.1 The relationship between economic development and environmental degradation was first placed on the international agenda in 1972 with the convening of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, held in Stockholm, Sweden. Little was done in the intervening years to integrate environment imperatives into national economic planning and decision-making.
1.2 By 1983, awareness about worldwide environmental stress has mounted resulting in the Brundtland Commission’s report to conclude in 1987 that sustainable development should be looked upon as an alternative approach to economic growth. The report also noted that environmental concerns are pervasive within and between countries, and are of a local, national and global nature, and that a broad-based and integrated environment strategy linked with sound economic and social policies for sustainable development is necessary to address them.
1.3 However, the world’s environment is still degraded by industrial and other forms of pollution, including unsafe disposal of toxic and hazardous wastes, and unsustainable practices in agriculture, fishery and forestry. The excessive consumption, especially of fossil fuels, has resulted in the emission of substantive amount of greenhouse gases which has become a daily affair.
1.4 In response to these environment and development concerns, the United Nations adopted Resolution 44/228 which called for the convening of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) which was held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, from 3 to 14 June 1992. Since then, global concern on the future of forest resources has grown in earnest. In this regard, global deforestation and forest degradation, the need for sustainable forest management and related issues such as the loss of biological diversity, mitigation of climate change and environmental degradation have been seen as a widespread problem requiring national, regional and international remedial actions.
1.5 As a follow-up to the UNCED, the United Nations, through the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD), established the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF) in 1995 to elaborate on the implementation of the UNCED decisions on forests, including considering underlying causes of deforestation and forest degradation, ways and means for the effective protection and use of traditional forest-related knowledge, the need for financial resources and the transfer of environmentally sound technology, promotion of scientific research on forest functions and the full valuation of forest goods and services, the implementation of criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management, and trade of forest products and the environment. The IPF also examined the role of international institutions and legal instruments in addressing forest and forest-related matters, including the identification of gaps and duplications, and areas requiring enhancement, as well as appropriate legal mechanisms covering all types of forests. The IPF reported its work to the Fifth Session of the CSD in 1997 where 150 Proposals for Action were recommended for countries, international organizations and institutions, and civil society to undertake in the enhancement of sustainable forest management, conservation and development of forest resources at the global, regional and particularly at national levels.
1.6 The work of the IPF was adopted at the 19th Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly held in New York, USA, from 23 to 27 June 1997 which also established the successor to the IPF, the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF), under the aegis of the CSD. The IFF, established in 1997, further elaborated on the underlying causes of deforestation, traditional forest-related knowledge, protected areas and research priorities, valuation of forest goods and services, trade of forest products, transfer of technology and the need for financial resources. It also addressed forest-related work of international and regional organizations and identify the elements of and work towards consensus for international arrangements and mechanisms, for example a legally-binding instrument on all types of forests, as well as to promote, facilitate and monitor the implementation of the IPF Proposals for Action.
1.7 In February 2000, the IFF concluded its deliberations and issued its final report containing, among others, 120 Proposals for Action. The IFF also recommended that the CSD should endorse the establishment of an International Arrangement on Forests by the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). The IFF further recommended that this Arrangement should include the establishment of the United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF), as well as a Collaborative Partnership on Forests (CPF) of the relevant organizations, institutions and instruments.
1.8 On 18 October 2000, ECOSOC adopted resolution E/2000/35 establishing the International Arrangement on Forests, including the UNFF as a subsidiary body of ECOSOC. The UNFF would facilitate and monitor the implementation of the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action; enhance co-operation among governments, international and regional organizations and instruments, including North-South and public-private partnerships at the national, regional and global levels; as well as to foster a common understanding on sustainable forest management and to address forest issues and emerging areas of priority in a holistic, comprehensive and integrated manner. In this regard, the UNFF would focus, among others, on the implementation of the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action and, within five years, based on the review of their implementation deliberate on the parameters of a mandate for a legal framework on all types of forests, including financial provisions to implement any future agreed framework.
2.1 The 270 IPF/IFF Proposals for Action represent a significant progress and consensus on a wide range of forest and forest-related issues and mark an important step towards the enhancement of sustainable forests management worldwide, built upon the UNCED decisions of 1992, and in particular the “Non-legally Binding Authoritative Statement of Principles for a Global Consensus on the Management, Conservation and Sustainable Development of All Types of Forests” (Forests Principles) and Chapter 11 – Combating Deforestation of Agenda 21. These Proposals for Action are the result of intergovernmental negotiations under the IPF/IFF process and therefore represent negotiated text agreed upon by the international community, albeit that they are of a non-legally binding nature. However, it had been agreed by the participants of the IPF/IFF process that they are under political obligations to give effect to them at national level, according to the specific situation of each country.
2.2 It is envisaged that the implementation of the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action should be part of the respective national processes aimed at sustainable forest management, and hence, it should not be regarded as an additional, parallel exercise. This is in consonance with the IPF/IFF process, which defined the term “implementation” to encompass the following :
(i) an assessment of the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action against existing national forest-related frameworks in terms of relevance and value according to national priorities;
(ii) the integration and internalization of the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action into existing national processes; and
(iii) the identification and assessment of country-specific action.
2.3 In this regard, a systematic assessment of the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action would enable countries to set targets or indicators for monitoring and assessing the achievement of the relevant Proposals and to identify constraints and impediments in their implementation. It will also assist in developing policies and strategies for sustainable forest management, in focusing research efforts where knowledge is still lacking and deficient, and in identifying specific areas that need improvement to achieve the objectives of the Proposals for Action, as well as for those areas which are in special need of international assistance and co-operation.
2.4 To-date, experience in assessing and implementing the IPF/IFF Proposals of Action in many countries has indicated positive and promising results, especially in policy and strategies development, and in broadening the participation of key stakeholders. The most significant impacts that have been observed are as follows :
(i) increased multi-stakeholders’ dialogues, especially at national level, and increased transparency;
(ii) amendment and increased enforcement of forestry policies, laws and legislation;
(iii) harmonization of forest and forest-related planning and policies in the quest to achieve sustainable forest management; and
(iv) enhanced co-ordination between and among governmental institutions, the private sector and other stakeholders.
2.5 As the implementation of the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action is meant to promote and serve as a process to improve countries’ strategies to adopt a holistic, multi-disciplinary and cross-sectoral approach to address sustainable forest management, these Proposals constitute a very complex and structural set of recommendations.
2.6 In this context, although the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action suggested measures to be taken at the international, regional and particularly at the national levels, it is not evident by which ways and means countries should use to give effect to the Proposals for Action and to turn them into country-specific action, as well as their effectiveness in planning and implementation. In addition, difficulties were also encountered in the categorization and clustering of the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action as :
(i) the Proposals for Action are clustered around thematic “elements” and “sub-elements” and as such there is frequent repetition of issues and actions under various headings;
(ii) the Proposals for Action show great differences in nature, for example basic principles, general guidelines, and operational recommendations;
(iii) the text of the IPF/IFF Reports is quite often elaborate, but does not always clearly identify issues in question and that the level of intervention is also not always clearly spelt out;
(iv) the addressees are not sufficiently identified, particularly for national level implementation;
(v) the chosen categorization of the Proposals for Action does not clarify all the necessary inter-linkages between the Proposals, and therefore largely lacks an appropriate practical structure reflecting the political, administrative and societal arrangements at national level; and
(vi) many of the Proposals for Action do not suggest regulatory measures, or any practical action to be taken at the national level so as to ensure compliance with the objective of a given Proposal.
2.7 However, it is pertinent for countries to undertake a systematic assessment of the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action that are relevant to them in the context of their national forest policy frameworks and translate them into country-specific action. In undertaking such an assessment particular attention should be given to :
(i) adequate time and resources be allocated, given the participatory manner of the assessment process and the need for adequate communication and information;
(ii) assessment of the Proposals for Action in the national context be conducted as part of a broader process of policy development/reform at the national level, and be used to check on the need for revising existing policies and implementation strategies;
(iii) relevance of the Proposals for Action be assessed against existing national frameworks, policies, priorities and programmes in the forest and forest-related sectors with special emphasis on national priorities and taking cognizance of those issues which are regulated through international instruments, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Convention to Combat Desertification (CCD);
(iv) assessment of the relevance of an individual Proposal for Action should cover the current state and the quality of implementation of the measures already taken in terms of their effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability, and the process of integration, internalization and adaptation of the Proposals for Action leading to country-specific action to be taken within the context of national forest policy framework;
(v) participation and awareness building are vital for the assessment, integration and internalization of the Proposals for Action in the national frameworks and in ensuring that all relevant stakeholders understand their contents, significance and implications;
(vi) a working group at the national level be established to guide the assessment and implementation process, including linking national work with international initiatives ; and
(vii) clustering the Proposals for Action around the issues of national importance so as to focus the national assessment on the underlying issues which would facilitate the assessment of the efficiency and effectiveness of implementation.
2.8 Furthermore, as countries are required to report to the UNFF on the progress in the implementation of the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action and progress towards sustainable management of all types of forests, as mandated in its Multi-year Programme of Work adopted at its First Session, held from 11 to 22 June 2001 in New York, USA, it would be useful for countries to cluster and categorize the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action into the 16 elements as proposed in its Plan of Action which was also adopted at its First Session, which are as follows:
(i) formulation and implementation of national forest programmes;
(ii) promoting public participation;
(iii) combating deforestation and forest degradation;
(iv) traditional forest-related knowledge (TFRK);
(v) forest related scientific knowledge;
(vi) forest health and productivity;
(vii) criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management;
(viii) economic, social and cultural aspects of forests;
(ix) forest conservation and protection of unique types of forests and fragile ecosystems;
(x) monitoring, assessment and reporting, and concepts, terminology and definitions;
(xi) rehabilitation and conservation strategies for countries with low forest cover;
(xii) rehabilitation and reforestation of degraded lands, and the promotion of natural and planted forests;
(xiii) maintaining forest cover to meet present and future needs;
(xiv) financial resources;
(xv) international trade and sustainable forest management; and
(xvi) international co-operation in capacity building and access to, and transfer of environmentally sound technologies to support sustainable forest management.
2.9 In this context, in clustering and categorization of the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action into the 16 elements, it is important for countries to ensure that the grouping of the Proposals for Action should :
(i) capture the important aspects or intent of each Proposal for Action;
(ii) group similar or related IPF and IFF Proposals for Action into one summarized Proposal for Action;
(iii) separate large complex Proposals for Action into meaningful components;
(iv) avoid duplication of any Proposals for Action unless the action is directed to different parties; and
(v) group all related summarized Proposals for Action under the most relevant element.
2.10 In addition, in assessing the progress in the implementation of the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action, it would be pertinent for countries to also prioritize their importance and status of implementation based on their current status and the capacity for implementing them, especially during the current 5-year mandate of the UNFF, for example as in Table 1 which was used by the Working Committee in Malaysia to assess the implementation of the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action in April 2001.
TABLE 1 : ASSESSMENT RANKING
Priority of Importance in Country - Specific Context |
Status of Implementation |
1- Activity less than 25% completed | |
2- Activity 25% - <50% completed | |
3- Activity > 50% - <75% completed | |
4- Activity > 75% completed | |
5- Activity 100% completed | |
CI- Activity requiring continuous implementation |
2.11 A major tool for the implementation of the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action at the national level is through national forest programmes (nfps) as identified in the IPF process and enshrined in paragraph 2(a) of the ECOSOC Resolution E/2000/35 which specifically calls on countries to “facilitate and promote the implementation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests/ Intergovernmental Forum on Forests proposals of action as well as other actions which may be agreed upon, including through national forest programmes and other integrated programmes relevant to forests;...”
2.12 In this regard, a general definition of nfp was given in the IPF Final Report. It explained that the term “national forest programme“ is a generic term for a wide range of approaches to sustainable forest management within different countries, and to be applied at national and sub-national levels. It emphasized that nfps should embrace a broad intersectoral approach at all stages, including the formulation of policies, strategies and plans of action, as well as their implementation, monitoring and evaluation. Furthermore, nfps should be implemented in the context of each country’s socio-economic, cultural, political and environmental situation, and should be integrated into wider programmes for sustainable land use, in accordance with Chapters 10 to 15 of Agenda 21; including the activities of other sectors, such as industrial development, agriculture and energy.
2.13 The specific elements that need to be considered during the development and implementation of nfps as envisaged by the IPF should include the following :
(i) appropriate participatory mechanisms to involve all interested parties;
(ii) decentralization and empowerment of regional and local government structures that are consistent with the constitutional and legal frameworks of each country;
(iii) recognition and respect for customary and traditional rights of, inter alia, indigenous people, local communities, forest dwellers and forest owners;
(iv) secure land tenure arrangements; and
(v) establishment of effective co-ordination mechanisms and conflict-resolution schemes.
2.14 However, regardless of the approach adopted by individual countries, nfps should recognize the following key elements :
(i) national sovereignty and country leadership;
(ii) consistency with national policies and international commitments;
(iii) integration with the country’s sustainable development strategies;
(iv) partnership and participation;
(v) holistic and intersectoral approaches to forest development and conservation; and
(vi) long term and iterative process of planning, implementation and monitoring.
2.15 In this context, the nfp is a technical process as it identifies the goals, policies, strategies and mechanisms for implementation which are based on accurate information. It is also a political process as choices between the available options are the outcomes of debates, negotiations and compromises of relevant stakeholders. Hence, the implementation of nfp is not only a process of the governments and related institutions and agencies, but of all actors having an interest in forests. In this regard, developing countries could benefit from the Food Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)’s National Forest Programme Facility in implementing their nfps through building of partnerships and consensus both within and outside the forestry sector, and on how to address issues relevant to forest at the national level in the overall context of sustainable development, as well as in disseminating and sharing of results and lessons learned from the different nfp processes.
3.1 At the Third Session of the UNFF, held from 29 May to 6 June 2003 in Geneva, Switzerland, only a total of 37 countries and the European Community submitted national reports on the implementation of the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action related to the thematic issues and Forum elements that were addressed at the Session. In this regard, a number of specific areas have impeded the effective implementation of the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action, including the lack of financial resources and technical and institutional capacity, especially in developing countries, as well as a lack or even the absence of national legislation and institutions that are adequately equipped to implement existing conventions and other instruments. Hence, setting high expectation would be premature as the potential for achievement will depend on how much support countries and other international actors give to national processes in implementing the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action.
3.2 As a first step, countries, especially developing countries, should undertake a systematic assessment of the resources, including both financial and technological, that are needed to address implementation impediments, and for agencies in the developed countries responsible for international aid to earmark special funds to address the specific implementation impediments.
3.3 There is a need for more effective use of currently available funds and the use of existing funding mechanisms, including donor co-ordination at the country level. Countries should also endeavour to create an environment that encourages private capital flow, including tax policies, investment policies, and market-based instruments that mobilize private sector investment for sustainable forest management through the implementation of the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action. In addition, perhaps, a cost-benefit analysis of applying the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action and other international agreements, such as the CBD in implementing its Expanded Programme of Work on Forest Biological Diversity, be conducted in order to enhance resource mobilization as working collectively on specific issues will result in better use of resources and lead to greater degrees of capacity building.
3.4 A clearing house mechanism for technology transfer be created, perhaps under the UNFF through the CPF, to enable technological transfer support to developing countries in implementing the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action, as well as establishing “Smart Partnerships” between developed and developing countries to undertake joint implementation of projects or collaborating in the implementation of nfps that address the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action. Besides, “Type II” partnerships that were launched during the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), held from 26 August to 4 September 2002, in Johannesburg, South Africa, such as the Asia Forest Partnership, could also enhance the effective implementation of the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action at country level.
3.5 Institutional capacity building, including human, financial and technical, have often fallen on governments and, where there is little external support or little external recognition of the value in implementing the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action in the overall context of sustainable forest management, countries are faced with an overwhelming task to implement the Proposals. Hence, it is important that this burden be shared across more actors than those of government alone, but a prerequisite for this to happen is to broaden stakeholder involvement in the assessment and implementation of the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action.
3.6 Learning by engaging in the assessment and implementation of the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action would strengthen capacity and provide countries with the opportunity to share experiences and lessons learned with other countries which are also involved in the process. Furthermore, there is often a communication gap between the people tasked in implementing the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action and those who negotiated the Proposals.
3.7 Notwithstanding this, the implementation of the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action has to be reflected in national development action plans, poverty reduction strategies and nfps in order to attract international co-operation for capacity building, and that resources allocated for their implementation would more likely to be increased if their benefits are reflected in actions on the ground and become apparent to decision makers.
4.1 The UNFF is the intergovernmental body responsible for monitoring, assessment and reporting on the implementation of the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action, based on voluntary reports submitted by countries, regions, organizations and processes. This is one of its primary functions as mandated in its Multi-year Programme of Work adopted at its First Session held in New York, USA, from 11 to 22 June 2001.
4.2 In this regard, the UNFF had organized a meeting of an Ad hoc Expert Group on Approaches and Mechanisms for Monitoring, Assessment and Reporting in Geneva, Switzerland from 8 to 12 December 2003. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Ad hoc Expert Group recommended that the Fourth Session of the UNFF to be held in Geneva, Switzerland from 3 to 14 May 2004 could :
(i) agree to continue monitoring and assessing progress in the implementation of the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action according to established practices until the Fifth Session of the UNFF in year 2005;
(ii) call for each country, as part of its national forest programme process, to continue to prioritize its implementation of action so as to accelerate progress towards sustainable forest management, taking into account the IPF/IPP Proposals for Action; and
(iii) invite FAO Regional Forestry Commissions and FAO and other CPF members that have regional offices to facilitate the assessment of the implementation of the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action and the flow of information between the UNFF and countries, as well as to discuss common problems and share experiences and expertise regarding capacity building for monitoring, assessment and reporting on the implementation of the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action.
4.3 It should also be noted that the UNFF, as part of the review of the effectiveness of the International Arrangement on Forests, would undertake a comprehensive assessment of the implementation of all the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action at its Fifth Session to be held in 2005, among others, against the following criteria as adopted at its Second Session held in New York, USA from 4 to 15 March 2002 :
(i) extent to which countries have made progress in assessing the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action in order to determine their relevance in their national context;
(ii) extent to which countries, CPF members and other actors have made progress in implementing relevant IPF/IFF Proposals for Action;
(iii) extent to which countries have developed and started to implement national forest programmes or equivalent processes;
(iv) extent to which participation of stakeholders in these programmes and processes has been enhanced;
(v) extent to which partnerships relevant to the implementation of the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action have been advanced;
(vi) extent to which countries, regions, organizations and processes respond to the call from UNFF and CPF members for voluntary reports, with a focus on the implementation of the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action;
(vii) extent to which CPF members have worked to strengthen countries’ abilities to monitor, assess and report progress in the implementation of IPF/IFF Proposals for Action;
(viii) extent to which the international community, including bilateral and multilateral donors and organizations, CPF members, and international and regional processes, have facilitated the implementation of IPF/IFF Proposals for Action in developing countries and countries with economies in transition, inter alia, through the provision of financial, technical and scientific resources and capacity building;
(ix) extent to which the International Arrangement on Forests has facilitated and promoted countries’ implementation of the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action, focusing on the means of implementation (finance, transfer of environmentally sound technologies and capacity building) as well as the relevant common items;
(x) extent to which the International Arrangement on Forests has promoted efforts by the international community to facilitate the implementation of the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action through, in particular, North-South co-operation and public-private partnerships, as well as through South-South and North-North co-operation; and
(xi) extent to which high level engagement further promotes political commitment to the implementation of the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action by countries.
4.4 As such, the Ad hoc Expert Group, taking note of the gaps and the low response in country reporting on the implementation of the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action to the UNFF, and the need for a comprehensive view of country implementation of the Proposals at the Fifth Session of the UNFF, had recommended that the UNFF Secretariat could develop a simple questionnaire, which include both “tick boxes” for quantitative information and space for descriptive information related to the implementation of the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action as in the proposed optional draft outline in Annex 1. The Ad hoc Expert Group had also invited CPF members and major groups to provide comprehensive reporting related to the implementation of the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action in order to contribute to its overall assessment at the Fifth Session of the UNFF.
5.1 As the implementation of the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action focuses on country-level action to be undertaken by national and sub-national governments with relevant stakeholders from the private sector and civil society in close co-operation with international forest-related organizations, instruments and institutions, it is pertinent for countries to :
(i) clarify the meaning of the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action, reduce their complexity, and cluster like Proposals into a form that can be easily understood by government and non-government stakeholders at national and sub-national levels;
(ii) undertake an initial assessment of the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action in order to determine which Proposals are relevant to a country and which of these should be addressed as priorities through nfps or similar country policy frameworks and approaches;
(iii) develop and strengthen innovative and cost-effective ways to engage government and non-government stakeholders in collaborative efforts and partnerships to assist in the implementation of the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action, and provide feedback on actions taken, as well as promote political support for actions;
(iv) further develop existing processes, such as nfps, criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management or other policy and planning frameworks, to monitor, assess and report on the implementation of the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action in a transparent, participatory and co-ordinated way;
(v) source domestic and external resources, including through new and additional resources to strengthen capacity to monitor, assess and report on the implementation of the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action;
(vi) use regional and sub-regional organizations, processes and networks, such as the FAO Regional Forestry Commissions, to discuss common problems and share experiences and lessons learned in the implementation of the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action, including monitoring, assessment and reporting on the progress of their implementation, especially to the UNFF; and
(vii) submit reports in a timely manner consistent with the timetable established by the UNFF.
5.2 Notwithstanding this, the CPF members, other regional and international organizations and institutions, as well as processes should support countries, especially developing countries, through the provision of financial resources, technical support and the transfer of appropriate technology and know-how, to strengthen national capacity and capability for monitoring, assessment and reporting on the implementation of the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action.
6.1 It is evident that each country should design its own national approach to the assessment and subsequent integration of the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action into the national setting, as the political commitment and obligation of the countries participating in the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action process demands a national debate not only on the specifics of the individual Proposals for Action but also on ways to approach forest development in a more holistic and comprehensive manner as agreed at UNCED.
6.2 The implementation of the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action at country level, including an assessment of their progress at the national and sub-national levels, would offer a good opportunity to address issues of common concern of all stakeholders from the private sector, non-governmental organizations and governments.
6.3 However, as not all the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action are relevant to all countries, a useful first step by countries towards their implementation is to analyze which Proposals are relevant, which need further work and which are priorities in both the short and long term, and to identify needs. In this regard, initiatives such as “The Six Country Initiative – Practitioner’s Guide to the Implementation of the IPF Proposals for Action” developed under the auspices of the IFF and the “PROFOR/Australian Initiative – Implementing the Proposals for Action of the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests and the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests: A tool to assist national-level assessment of progress and priorities for action towards sustainable forest management, developed in support of the United Nations Forum on Forests” would be useful guides to initiate this work.
6.4 Implementation of the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action should serve as a process to assist countries to adopt policies and strategies for a holistic and cross-sectoral approach to the management, conservation and sustainable development of forest resources, and as a means to progress towards the attainment of sustainable forest management.
6.5 In addition, the implementation of the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action and the use of criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management would have adequately addressed the activities of the CBD’s Expanded Programme of Work on Forest Biological Diversity, as well as its Ecosystem Approach to managing natural ecosystems, such as forests.
Purpose: Give UNFF-5 a part of the basis needed for decision on future proposals for action (PfA) (e.g. no future PfA, keep the existing PfA, abandon the existing and adopting new PfA).
One simple questionnaire to all countries in UNFF and another to international organizations, conventions and processes concerned. Descriptive written or oral reports on specified issues of selected countries in all of the five regions.
The countries/international bodies are requested to fill in (tick) the questionnaire showed below.
UNFF Elements /Thematic clusters/PfAs |
Relevant to the country/int. body |
Action(s) since 19xx | ||||||
|
Yes |
No |
No action taken. Reasons? |
Action(s) taken. Progress? | |||||
Not needed |
Not a priority |
Other reasons |
None / little |
Some / Moderate |
Significant | |||
(Preprinted) |
||||||||
A detailed instruction must accompany the questionnaires. For example, what is meant by “Not needed” and “Not a priority”?
The questionnaires should not take long to fill in. A target for the overall response rate of the country questionnaire could be minimum 70 % not being less than 60 % in any of the regions. In order to achieve this target the secretariat must make great and repeated efforts using different means. The target for the international body questionnaire must be 100 %.
1. Report of the Ad hoc Intergovernmental Panel on Forests on its Fourth Session, New York, 11–21 February 1997. E/CN.17/1997/12 dated 20 March 1997.
2. Practitioner’s Guide to the Implementation of the IPF Proposals for Action prepared by the Six-Country Initiative in Support of the UN Ad hoc Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF). Second Revised Edition, May 1999.
3. Report of the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests on its Fourth Session, New York, 31 January–11 February 2000. E/CN 17/2000/14 dated 20 March 2000.
4. International Expert Consultation of the Eight-Country Initiative: Shaping the Programme of Work for the United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF) – Synthesis Report of Responses to the Questionnaire. November 2000.
5. Malaysian Assessment on the Implementation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests/ Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IPF/IFF) Proposals for Action, Draft 3, April 2001.
6. Development of a Plan of Action for the Implementation of Intergovernmental Panel on Forests/Intergovernmental Forum on Forests proposals for action, which will address financial provisions. United Nations Forum on Forests, First Session, New York, 11–22 June 2001.
7. Multi-year Programme of Work. United Nations Forum on Forests, First Session, New York, 11–22 June 2001.
8. Country-led initiative in support of the United Nations Forum on Forests: “International Expert Meeting on Monitoring, Assessment and Reporting on the Progress Toward Sustainable Forests Management” – Proceedings of the Meeting. Yokohama, Japan, 5 – 8 November 2001.
9. UNFF country-led initiative: “Lessons Learned in Monitoring, Assessment and Reporting on Implementation of IPF/IFF Proposals for Action”. The Viterbo Report, Italy, 17–20 March 2003.
10. Implementing the Proposals for Action of the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests and the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests – A tool to assist national-level assessment of progress and priorities for action towards sustainable forests management, developed in support of the United Nations Forum on Forests. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Australia (AFFA) and the Program on Forests (PROFOR) at the World Bank, May 2003.
11. Approaches and mechanisms for monitoring, assessment and reporting. Note by the Secretariat, E/CN.18/AC.1/2003/2, dated 28 October 2003.
12. Ad hoc Expert Group on Approaches and Mechanisms for Monitoring, Assessment and Reporting-Report of the Meeting, Geneva, Switzerland, 8 – 12 December 2003.
+ Deputy Director-General of Forestry (Forest Planning & Development), Forestry Department Headquarters, Peninsular Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur