Nadi, Fiji, 16-17 April 2004
IMPLEMENTING PROPOSALS FOR ACTION OF THE IPF/IFF
1. The international forest community, through ten years of dialogue, has made important gains towards sustainable forest management. These gains are built on the outcomes and follow-up of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), the Forest Principles2, Agenda 21, and the Conventions covering biological diversity, climate change and desertification. As a result of such efforts, the forest community now has a better understanding of what constitutes sustainable forest management.
2. The international forest dialogue is taking place in the United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF), which is composed of all Member States of the United Nations and meets in annual sessions to promote action and long term-commitment toward sustainable forest management, including the implementation of nearly 300 proposals for action of the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF) and the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF). The Collaborative Partnership on Forests (CPF) and its fourteen members3 are playing a key role in supporting UNFF, especially by assisting countries to achieve sustainable forest management and by enhancing cooperation and coordination on forests at global, regional and national levels.
3. Despite positive developments, deforestation and forest degradation are continuing, mostly in tropical developing countries. One reason is that environmental, economic, social and cultural dimensions of forests are too often dealt with in an uncoordinated fashion and are not adequately considered in national forest programmes (nfps) which are comprehensive frameworks to achieve sustainable forest management.
4. Nfps are country processes for participatory policy formulation, strategic planning, inter-sectoral dialogue and capacity building. According to a FAO survey in 1998/99, more than 130 countries reported having nfps in various stages of implementation. Support to these country initiatives, taking into account the elements that IPF/IFF/UNFF identified, can contribute significantly to the sustainable management of forest worldwide.
5. During UNCED, an intensive debate took place on whether or not to launch negotiations for an international legally binding instrument for forests. Although consensus was not reached, some countries have changed their views over time. The discussion on future arrangements is intensifying once again and will be addressed at the fifth session of UNFF in 2005.
6. Regardless of the difficult debate on forests at UNCED, countries agreed to a set of Forest Principles as a common basis for commitment and action towards sustainable forest management at national, regional and international levels. In 1995, governments established the IPF, followed two years later by the IFF, to continue the policy dialogue from UNCED and to promote and facilitate the implementation of the Forest Principles; review progress towards sustainable forest management; and seek consensus on future international arrangements through dialogue among governments.
7. During IPF and IFF, governments agreed to nearly 300 proposals for action to achieve sustainable forest management. In addition to the question of a legally binding instrument, thorny issues relative to finance, transfer of technology, and trade remained unresolved. The importance of these issues and the desire to keep forests on the global policy agenda resulted in the establishment of UNFF, initially for a five-year period, from 2000 to 2005. With its overall goal to facilitate the achievement of sustainable forest management worldwide, UNFF it is expected to:
• facilitate and promote the implementation of IPF/IFF proposals for action;
• provide a forum for continued policy development and dialogue;
• enhance cooperation and programme coordination on forest-related issues;
• foster international and cross-sectoral cooperation;
• monitor and assess progress;
• strengthen long-term political commitment.
8. Furthermore, UNFF will try to resolve the issue of the legally binding instrument, and will seek concrete approaches for funding and technology transfer in support of sustainable forest management.4
9. Governments in the IPF agreed to use the term “national forest programme” to express a wide range of approaches to sustainable forest management at national and sub-national levels. Hence, it is a framework for country-led processes to formulate, implement and coordinate related policies, strategies, plans and actions in a participatory manner. As such, nfps should constitute an integral part of National Strategies for Sustainable Development (NSSD), Poverty Reduction Strategies (PRS) and plans of other sectors with regard to economic, land-use and environmental aspects, especially agriculture and biodiversity.
10. National forest programmes should cover not only national but also local activities, and therefore support decentralization and devolution efforts. By the same token, nfps should be used to integrate actions that governments have agreed to at global and regional levels. Because nfps are designed to address cross-sectoral issues and impacts, they are well placed to have the forest sector contribute to sustainable development efforts more generally.
11. Nfps should also integrate efforts to improve governance and forest law enforcement systems, including actions agreed within several recent international initiatives to combat illegal logging and trade in forest products such as the East Asian, the European, and the African Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade processes.
12. If properly developed and implemented, nfps can contribute simultaneously to sustainable forest management and to poverty alleviation. However, often the nfp has remained just a plan on paper, rapidly put together to meet a commitment made at an international forum. In other cases, a country might establish an nfp team but not provide it with sufficient funds or assign it meaningful functions. Critics have started to distinguish between substantive long-term nfps that strive for policy change and weak nfps that are short on action.
13. A survey that FAO conducted in 1998/99 showed that 44 percent of non-OECD countries were implementing nfps, while 31 percent were planning them and a number were stalled. Reasons included lack of institutional, human and financial capacity, lack of adequate policies, poor institutional co-ordination and insufficient public participation. About half of the countries surveyed in the Asia-Pacific region encountered difficulties as early as in the development phase and proceeded no further. Thus, the call for assistance is justified and needs to be prioritized.
14. Since the late 1990s, support for nfps in developing countries has increased, with the most recent coming from the National Forest Programme Facility, hosted by FAO. The Facility is a partnership of countries5, bilateral agencies, international organizations, non-governmental organizations and the private sector. It provides direct assistance to countries to develop and implement nfps based on two objectives. The first one is to support nfps in specific countries through a partnership agreement with the Facility, stimulating the engagement of civil society in forestry, and ensuring the active participation of a broad range of stakeholders in the process. The second objective is directed towards developing an information platform to compile and exchange information related to forest policy processes, with particular emphasis on poverty alleviation, governance issues and the implementation of international agreements related to forests.
15. FAO has long been providing advisory services and technical assistance to member countries interested in developing nfps as participatory processes for policy formulation, strategic planning, inter-sectoral dialogue and institutional capacity building. Thus, the assistance that the Facility also provides to countries is complementary.
16. The World Bank’s Forest Strategy and Policy place significant emphasis on supporting creative nfps. It assists countries through a multi-donor partnership called PROFOR whose work is built on three pillars: harnessing the potential of forests to reduce poverty; integrating forests in sustainable economic development; and protecting global forest values. Through improved knowledge and comprehensive approaches to forest management, PROFOR seeks to encourage a more socially and environmentally sustainable sector supported by sound policies and institutions.
17. Various bilateral donors and organizations are also supporting the formulation and implementation of nfps. For example, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry of Australia developed, in collaboration with PROFOR, a tool to assist national identification of priorities for action and assessments of progress towards sustainable forest management. Similarly, the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) (German Agency for Technical Cooperation) is helping to convert international forest policy into sustainable forest management at the national level through advisory services and programmes.
18. IPF/IFF proposals for action provide important guidance to nfps and to those seeking to achieve sustainable forest management. They cover issues such as deforestation and forest degradation; health and productivity of forests; conservation and protection of fragile ecosystems; and the rehabilitation and maintenance of forest cover. Other areas include public participation; criteria and indicators; concepts, terms and definitions; and traditional forest-related knowledge. Cross-cutting issues such as international cooperation and capacity building are also addressed, focusing on financial resources, international trade, and transfer of environmentally sound technologies.
19. Most proposals are addressed to governments but guidance is also given to international organizations, the private sector and non-governmental organizations with regard to national forest policies and programmes.
20. Early in the process, it was recognized that countries not actively participating in negotiations and receiving little information about the IPF/IFF proposals felt a lack of ownership in the results. A further constraint is that some proposals are difficult to understand. As a result, many countries, some in partnership with international organizations, developed tools to assist with implementation efforts6. They have synthesized the proposals and suggested ways to assess and to prioritize them in the context of specific national circumstances. Other sources of advice and guidance include members of CPF and of the National Forest Programme Facility who have gained considerable experience in this area. Annex 1 provides a list of potentially useful reference material.
21. With the introduction of the concept of sustainable forest management, countries have been implementing policies and programmes similar to those contained in the IPF/IFF proposals for action. The question is really one of the extent and effectiveness of implementation. If countries were to use the IPF/IFF proposals for action as a framework to assess their forest management policies and programmes, this assessment could be conducted in the following manner:
(a) inventory and review country policies, laws, institutions and programmes relevant to the proposals;
(b) determine the relevance of the proposals to country circumstances, weighted against the adequacy of current programmes and other important factors;
(c) establish priorities for country action, recognizing that special initiatives to improve national institutions will be costly; and
(d) determine country action, including through national forest programme.
22. Some countries are using this type of assessment as an opportunity to report progress to UNFF. In some cases, reports describe the evolution of forest programmes and plans, although often stop short of assessing their effectiveness and do not make a clear connection to the country’s nfp. Since an assessment of the adequacy of programmes is somewhat subjective, stakeholder involvement is an important part of the work that, in turn, builds political support for suggested action. A few countries have used a third party to assess the implementation of IPF/IFF proposals for action to make the exercise more credible.
23. In conclusion, the implementation of IPF/IFF proposals for action should improve a country’s strategy for a comprehensive and cross-sectoral approach to achieving sustainable forest management. Nfps provide an important framework to reach this goal by contributing to: (i) develop consensus at the national level; and (ii) bring international concerns into the national debate on forests. Nfps should also be used to improve donor coordination and to attract development assistance to the sector to complement domestic financing.
24. Several recent international meetings have recommended making use of systematic monitoring mechanisms such as criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management when developing and implementing national forest programmes. Integrating criteria and indicators into nfps can facilitate progress towards sustainable forest management and can provide the means to monitor the efficiency and effectiveness of these programmes and related projects.
25. Established in 1949, the Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission is the largest forestry forum in the region. Heads of forestry meet every two years to discuss issues of interest to the region; exchange information, experiences and technologies; provide advice to FAO and governments on priorities and programmes; and help develop regional inputs to the global forest dialogue, among other tasks. Thus, it is an important mechanism in the region to disseminate information, increase understanding of the challenges, strengthen regional participation in international processes, and facilitate the follow-up to UNCED agreements and decisions. Indeed, since UNCED was held more than ten years ago, follow-up to forestry outcomes has been an item on the agenda of the Commission at every session.
26. Workshop participants may wish to discuss the following points with a view to recommending how countries and the Commission can facilitate country implementation of sustainable forest management – including the proposals for action – through nfps:
• Why are nfps stalled in many countries and how can they be revived?
• How can partners and sponsorship be increased?
• How are donors supporting nfps in the region?
• Steps and means within national forest programme processes to assess IPF/IFF proposals for action and their relevance to the unique situation in each country. How to:
- identify priorities
- stimulate and assess stakeholder participation
- incorporate cross-sectoral issues
- strengthen the link between forestry and poverty alleviation
- secure funding mechanisms to support nfp implementation
- monitor progress and evaluate impacts.
27. On the matter of improving participation in the international dialogue on forests, the following questions may help focus discussions:
• What do countries in the Asia-Pacific region want to accomplish through the international forest policy dialogue, i.e., what are their objectives?
• What role does the Asia Pacific region want to play at international discussions? How can it best make its contributions to these discussions?
• Given resource constraints, what strategies are needed for the region to reap the most benefits from its participation in the forest dialogue? Are regional and sub-regional gatherings preferable to global meetings? How do countries see the comparative advantage of each?
• What measures can be taken to ensure that the most suitable candidates are selected to represent their country at meetings?
• How can sharing of information and follow up be made after meetings?
Full set of IPF proposals for action (http://www.un.org/esa/forests/documents-ipf.html)
Full set of IFF proposals for action (http://www.un.org/esa/forests/documents-iff.html)
I. Country-led initiatives and other international expert meetings
1. Implementation Guide--to the Implementation of the IPF Proposals for Action (1999)
A six-country initiative in support of IFF (Finland, Germany, Honduras, Indonesia, Uganda, United Kingdom).
http://www5.gtz.de/twrp/Documents/Practitioners_Guide/practitioners_guide_1999e.pdf
Purpose: Simplify the IPF proposals for action (PfA) by reorganizing, summarizing and turning them into action statements. The guide is recognized by many countries as a useful aid to understanding the PfA. The initiative recognized that the PfAs, as written, presented a number of problems. They:
• lacked a practical structure that reflected the political, administrative and societal arrangements in most countries;
• displayed considerable differences in nature and content: including basic principles, general guidelines and a few operational recommendations;
• are organized by thematic elements and sub-elements which in turn contain numerous inter-linkages and even overlaps; and
• did not clearly indicate the level at which action should be taken (national/international).
2. Lessons Learned in Monitoring, Assessment and Reporting on Implementation of IPF/IFF proposals for action (2003)
Intersessional expert meeting in support of UNFF (led by Brazil, China, Italy, Japan, Turkey, South Africa, Sweden, United Kingdom and United States of America and supported by the FAO, UNFF Secretariat and ITTO).
http://www.un.org/esa/forests/pdf/cli/03172003_mar_viterbo.pdf
Purpose: Sharing of country lessons learned in monitoring and assessing their progress in implementing IPF/IFF proposals for action. A number of recommendations were made for use by countries in the implementation of the PfA. The meeting discussed, for example:
• What are the approaches to monitoring and implementation of the PfAs and which ones are most helpful?
• The best options for public, private, NGO, bilateral, regional and multilateral collaboration to build country capability and capacity to monitor and assess and report.
II. International partnerships that facilitate implementation
1. Collaborative Partnership on Forests (CPF) www.fao.org/forestry/cpf
CPF is an interagency partnership to support the work of the UNFF and its member countries and to enhance cooperation and coordination on forest issues, for the promotion of sustainable forest management. It has 14 member organizations, representing all the major international forest-related organizations, institutions and secretariats. Two CPF joint initiatives are of specific interest in helping implementation:
(i) CPF Sourcebook on Funding for SFM --- to make information on types, levels and sources of foreign and domestic financing more accessible through an on-line searchable database. It currently includes 360 potential sources of funds and information on development of project proposals. www.fao.org/forestry/cpf-sourcebook
Available also in CD-ROM, request [email protected]
(ii) CPF’s work on streamlining forest-related country reporting to international processes -A portal to provide easy access to country information submitted by countries to major international forest-related processes. The portal assists countries to compile and use existing information submitted to various international bodies such as FAO, UNFF, CBD, UNFCCC, UNCCD etc. www.fao/org/forestry/cpf-mar
2. National Forest Programme Facility, hosted by FAO www.fao.org/forestry/nfp
The Facility is a partnership of countries, bilateral agencies and international organizations, including FAO, CIFOR and World Bank. The Facility promotes the increased involvement of civil society in the national forest policy dialogue by providing grants to forest stakeholders and offering access to information and training on key topics. The Facility currently supports 36 country partners around the world (seven in Asia and the Pacific) in their efforts to develop and implement national forest programmes.
3. Program on Forests (PROFOR), hosted by the World Bank http://www.profor.info
PROFOR is a multi-donor partnership formed to pursue a shared goal of enhancing forests' contribution to poverty reduction, sustainable development and protection of environmental services. PROFOR has been working in Viet Nam in Asia and the Pacific promoting the nfps.
III. Country experiences
1. Implementing the Proposals for Action of the IPF and IFF
A tool to assist national assessment of progress and priorities for action toward sustainable forest management, developed in support of UNFF (2003). Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry of Australia and the Program on Forests (PROFOR) at the World Bank. http://www.profor.info/pdf/IPF_IFFtext.pdf
Purpose: Provide a tool to:
• assist country-level assessment of progress and actions priorities towards SFM by presenting a consolidated and simplified summary of the IPF/IFF PfA;
• assist countries in their work on the Convention on Biological Diversity by referencing the CBD’s programme of work on forest biological diversity;
• coordinate national actions.
The summary is organized according to the sixteen programme elements of the Plan of Action of the UNFF in order to facilitate reporting to the UNFF.
2. Reports by countries of the Asia-Pacific region to UNFF on implementation of the IPF/IFF proposals for action
UNFF-2
• Cambodia http://www.un.org/esa/forests/pdf/national_reports/unff2/report_2002_cambodia.pdf
• Japan http://www.un.org/esa/forests/pdf/national_reports/unff2/report_2002_cambodia.pdf
• New Zealand http://www.un.org/esa/forests/pdf/national_reports/unff2/report_2002_cambodia.pdf
UNFF-3
• Cambodia http://www.un.org/esa/forests/pdf/national_reports/unff3/cambodia.pdf
• China http://www.un.org/esa/forests/pdf/national_reports/unff3/china.pdf
• India http://www.un.org/esa/forests/pdf/national_reports/unff3/india.pdf
• Japan http://www.un.org/esa/forests/pdf/national_reports/unff3/japan.pdf
• Republic of Korea http://www.un.org/esa/forests/pdf/national_reports/unff3/south_korea.pdf
• Malaysia http://www.un.org/esa/forests/pdf/national_reports/unff3/malaysia.pdf
• Nepal http://www.un.org/esa/forests/pdf/national_reports/unff3/nepal.pdf
• New Zealand http://www.un.org/esa/forests/pdf/national_reports/unff3/nepal.pdf
• Pakistan http://www.un.org/esa/forests/pdf/national_reports/unff3/pakistan.pdf
• Philippines http://www.un.org/esa/forests/pdf/national_reports/unff3/nepal.pdf
• USA http://www.un.org/esa/forests/pdf/national_reports/unff3/usa.pdf
UNFF-4 (as of March 2004)
• Indonesia http://www.un.org/esa/forests/pdf/national_reports/unff4/indonesia.pdf
• New Zealand http://www.un.org/esa/forests/pdf/national_reports/unff4/new_zealand.pdf
• USA http://www.un.org/esa/forests/pdf/national_reports/unff4/united_states.pdf
IV. Regional processes
1. Linkages between Montreal Process Criteria and Indicators and the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action (2002)
The work of the USDA Forest Service and the Pinchot Institute of Conservation http://www.fs.fed.us/global/aboutus/policy/tt/reports/Crosswalk2.pdf
Purpose: Help countries make the link between criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management (C&I) and the PfA. Many countries are working to improve the the information they provide to policy makers and the public. They are identifying C&I to improve the elements they measure and present in assessments of their country’s forests and their management. The study uses the Montreal Process C&I and presents a “crosswalk”, a comparison between the PfA and C&I. The study shows that much of the work to implement C&I is relevant to many of the PfA.
2. The MCPFE and the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action. 2001.
Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe
http://www.mcpfe.org/secure/k-tools/phplib/MedienDatenbankView.inc.php?id=278
Purpose: Provide an assessment of the relation between the work of the pan-European political process on forests, entitled MCPFE, and the IPF/IFF PfAs. The assessment served a two-fold purpose: (i) tool for action at the national level in implementing the IPF/IFF PfAs; and (ii) facilitate the global dialogue on forests by pointing out those areas that have been successfully addresses at the regional level in Europe.
2 Non-legally Binding Authoritative Statement of Principles for a Global Consensus on the Management, Conservation and Sustainable Development of All Types of Forests
3 CPF members are: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR); Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO); International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO); International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO); Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD); Secretariat of the Global Environment Facility (GEF); Secretariat of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD); Secretariat of the United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF); Secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC); United Nations Development Programme (UNDP); United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP); World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF); World Bank; World Conservation Union (IUCN).
4 ECOSOC resolution E/2000/35 contained in E/2000/INF/2/Add.3
5 In the Asia-Pacific region, current partner countries are China, Indonesia, Mongolia, Pakistan, the Philippines, Thailand and Vanuatu.
6 For example, (i) the Australia/PROFOR Summary of the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action (2003). Implementing IPF/IFF Proposals for Action: a tool to assist national-level assessment of progress and priorities for action toward sustainable forest management, developed in support of the UNFF (2003) http://www.profor.info/pdf/IPF_IFFtext.pdf
(ii) Practitioner’s Guide to the Implementation of the IPF Proposals for Action (1999), developed by the the six-country initiative in support of IFF (Finland, Germany, Honduras, Indonesia, Uganda and the United Kingdom). http://www5.gtz.de/twrp/Documents/Practitioners_Guide/practitioners_guide_1999e.pdf