HELSINKI, September 27, 1994
At the Strasbourg Conference six Resolutions were prepared. At the Conference, the European Community and 30 European countries signed at least four of the six resolutions. Later, the new Eastern European countries had the opportunity to sign them in Helsinki, so that the final number of Signatories is 39.
The role of the Helsinki Conference was twofold: firstly, it was the forum for the assessment of the implementation of the Strasbourg Resolutions and the elaboration of arrangements for their further follow-up. Secondly, it was an occasion to consider the implications of UNCED for European forests. Consequently, four new Resolutions and a General Declaration, all closely linked to the Strasbourg Resolutions, were prepared.
The second Ministerial Conference witnessed the commitment of the European forest ministers to continue their cooperation, under the dynamic process initiated in Strasbourg, in promoting the protection of forests in Europe. In Helsinki, the scope of cooperation was further extended to reflect the emerging needs and developments after Strasbourg, in particular the outcome of UNCED.
At the Conference, the European Community and 33 European countries signed all four Helsinki Resolutions, while France and Sweden signed Resolutions 1, 2 and 3.
The second Ministerial Conference was attended by some 200 participants and observers. The official participants were from 37 countries and the European Community; the observers were Canada, Japan and the United States of America, the Council of Europe, the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN / ECE), the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (UN / FAO), the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), FAO's African Forestry and Wildlife Commission (AFWC), FAO's Latin American and Caribbean Forestry Commission (LAFC), the International Union of Forestry Research Organizations (IUFRO), the World Conservation Union (IUCN), the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) and Greenpeace International. The co-chairmen were Mr. Arlindo Cunha, Minister of Agriculture of Portugal, and Mr. Martti Pura, Minister of Agriculture and Forestry of Finland.
This document describes the action needed in the follow-up of the two Ministerial Conferences and it will be updated regularly.
In addition to these three reasons, an even more obvious justification for the continuing process of the Strasbourg and Helsinki Conferences is the follow-up of the decisions taken by UNCED in the field of forest conservation and development. The General Declaration of the Helsinki Conference asserts very clearly the intention of most European States and the European Community to stimulate and promote the implementation of the UNCED decisions in the European context: the Rio Declaration, Agenda 21, (in particular chapter 11 on forests), the "Forest Principles", the forest elements of the Convention on Biodiversity and the Framework Convention on Climate Change. The Helsinki Resolutions constitute a joint response of the European countries to many of the forest decisions of UNCED. This translates, at the regional level, the repeated call made in the "Forest Principles" for increased cooperation and solidarity among countries.
The strong interest of the participating countries and intergovernmental organisations in this Ministerial forum originates from the concern to reach concrete achievements rapidly on a European level. The process has already proven to be able to contribute pragmatically to the protection of forests and to ensure the sustainable management of our forest ecosystems. In Europe, this instrument could be very effective if the following two conditions were met:
1. Collaboration and fruitful technical work is done with and within the existing international organisations, and
2. Appropriate policy analysis is carried out for common problems.
Commitment to each resolution, and the monitoring and evaluation at the next conference of the work accomplished at national and international levels, will assure that the work done this far will result in a concrete follow-up. Only through effective follow-up can the Ministerial Conferences maintain the interest of the participating countries and have real impact on their policies to promote sustainable forest management. In this spirit the participating countries have made every effort to fulfil the commitments made in Strasbourg.
The follow-up of the four Helsinki Resolutions, as well as of Strasbourg Resolution 6, should take into account the different nature of the Resolutions. The follow-up of the Resolutions adopted at the Helsinki Conference is guided by Finland and Portugal as stated in the Helsinki General Declaration.
At the second Ministerial Conference, decisions to ensure the international follow-up of the Strasbourg Resolutions were made in the light of the results gained during the implementation phase over the past two years. It would have been unfortunate if the new Resolutions adopted in Helsinki had eclipsed the implementation of the commitments made in Strasbourg. It was also seen as important that the Resolutions of the Ministerial Conferences be clearly set in the European context, that they not be a repetition of work done by international working groups, and that they have a fair chance to be implemented within three to five years.
In the General Declaration of the Helsinki Conference, the Signatory States and the European Community declared their intention to collaborate in the collection of data and the production of periodic progress reports on implementation. The General Declaration outlines a framework for data collection and reporting that includes
* promotion of cooperation with European countries with economies in transition,
* research on the impact of climate change on the forestry sector,
* stimulation and promotion, without delay, of the implementation of the UNCED outcome,
* activities leading towards a global convention on the management, conservation and sustainable development of all types of forests.
In the last paragraph of the General Declaration, it is stated that further Ministerial Conferences will be convened as and when these are considered necessary by a sufficient number of Signatory States in the light of the progress made towards the fulfilment of their commitments. It has also been stated in the General Declaration that the follow-up of the Resolutions adopted at the preceding Conference will be guided by the two participants which assumed the co-chairmanship of the conference. Follow-up will be included in the agenda of each Conference.
The Helsinki Conference decided that the chairmanship of the third Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests, which will be convened when a sufficient number of Signatory States consider it necessary, will be shared by Portugal and Austria. The venue will be Lisbon.
After Strasbourg, each Signatory State appointed a National Coordinator for each Resolution. Since then, these have been working under the guidance of the General Coordinating Committee (GCC), which consists of the two co-chairmen countries (Finland and Portugal), two cooperating countries (Poland, and France) and six International Coordinators. The implementation of the Strasbourg Resolutions has been documented in the comprehensive 'Report on the Follow-up of the Strasbourg Resolutions', which has been widely distributed. The document includes country-specific reports prepared by national coordinators as well as summary reports prepared by international coordinators, who have also made proposals for the further implementation of Strasbourg Resolutions.
Strasbourg Resolution S1 'European Network of Permanent Sample Plots for Monitoring of Forest Ecosystems' has been carried out in close cooperation with the UN / ECE International Co-operative Programme on Assessment and Monitoring of Air Pollution Effects on Forests and the Commission of the European Communities.
The identification of long-term trends in the condition and health of forests is of greatest importance as a basis for sustainable forest management. Therefore, forest health monitoring based on crown condition assessment is currently carried out in 34 countries throughout Europe. From a total of 174 million hectares (excluding the Russian Federation, the European part of which accounts for about 75 million hectares), the joint Level I network (network of sample plots where simple parameters of tree vitality and site conditions are assessed) covered about 127 million hectares in 1992. A total of about 3600 intensive monitoring plots have been established. Because an additional 900 plots are expected within the next five years, there is an urgent need for international harmonisation. Consequently, four expert panels have been set up to produce technical manuals in the following areas: soil / foliar sampling and analysis, deposition measurements and increment measurements. A harmonised soil survey will be completed within the European Community and by about ten other European countries by 1996.
The Helsinki Conference decided that the entire responsibility for the follow-up of this Resolution should be transferred to the International Co-operative Programme on the Assessment and Monitoring of Air Pollution Effects on Forests (ICP-Forests) of the UN / ECE, in collaboration with the Commission of the European Communities.
In the implementation of Strasbourg Resolution S2 'Conservation of Forest Genetic Resources' the FAO and the International Board of Plant Genetic Resources have been approached.
A preliminary survey of all the 31 Signatory States was conducted on the present status of the European forest genetic resources, the laws and rules dealing with their conservation and management, and on the existing programmes specifically aimed at the conservation of forest genetic resources.
The results showed that the genetic diversity of several forest tree species, or groups of species, were considered threatened, for example:
* Norway spruce threatened by acid rains in central Europe,
* Cork oak threatened by a "complex general dieback" in part of its natural range,
* Black poplar threatened because of modifications in its natural habitats and uncontrolled hybridisation with Euro-American hybrids,
* Noble hardwoods threatened by progressive changes in forest management practices.
To counteract these trends, and in accordance with the objectives of the Resolution, pilot gene conservation networks including all Signatory States were initiated on each of the above. For each network the following was established:
* an Advisory Group, with a chairman and six to ten expert members,
* the description of the objectives of the conservation network,
* the conservation methods proposed to be used, e.g., ex situ and / or in situ, and
* the working procedures.
The Helsinki Conference decided that regarding Strasbourg Resolution S2 a flexible working party formed of the FAO Forest Department and the International Board for Plant Genetic Resources (IBPGR) would offer a satisfactory solution for the further implementation of this Resolution.
The aim of Strasbourg Resolution S3 'Decentralised European Data Bank on Forest Fires' has been to study the feasibility of such a data bank.
Decentralised data banks on the causes of fires and on fire fighting activities can be used to increase efficiency and cooperation in the control of forest fires. The Resolution focuses on the creation of decentralised pan-European data banks and on their feasibility to support fire fighting activities.
Twenty-five of the Signatory States have now agreed on the contents of the data banks and 19 Signatory States have decided to adhere to the data bank network. Of these, 12 States presently collect the required data. The data banks contain a total of seven items on actions, location, extent of damage and cause of the fire. A total of 14 sub-items provide further details. These data banks will be shared by those Signatory States that now adhere to the data bank network.
The feasibility study, which is the main objective of the Resolution, was conducted as a pilot study, including computerised testing, in five Mediterranean EC-countries. The results clearly demonstrate the value of the decentralised data bank network.
The Helsinki Conference decided that concerning Strasbourg Resolution S3 the Portuguese Co-Chairmanship should continue to work with the technical support of the Commission of the European Communities, and with the cooperation of the joint Working Party of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) on Forest Economics and Statistics.
Strasbourg Resolution S4 'Adapting the Management of Mountain Forests to New Environmental Conditions' has aimed to improve our knowledge of mountain forests and their management practices.
Forest ecosystems in mountainous regions are particularly sensitive to changes in their environment, and their stability therefore requires management practices that are continuously developed according to such changes. Resolution S4 focuses on cooperation between countries in order to combine resources and improve management practices.
Considering the place and role of European mountain forests, we must take into account the ecological, economic, social and cultural context of each region. Three homogeneous sub- areas were formed: Alpine, Mediterranean, and Eastern and Baltic countries. The scheme was adopted in the 18th Session of the FAO European Forestry Commission's Working Party on Management of Mountain Watersheds.
To enhance cooperation, a network of the European sites of experimentation on the management of mountain forests and of the researchers working on the same subjects was established, in order to increase synergy between working teams.
The report presents some conclusions regarding the implementation of national measures and the economic and financial questions affecting the scientific and technical cooperation of the participating countries.
The Helsinki Conference decided that Strasbourg Resolution S4 should be implemented by the Working Party on the Management of Mountain Watersheds of the European Forestry Commission (EFC) of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization with the active participation of the Portuguese Co-Chairmanship.
Strasbourg Resolution S5 'Expansion of the EUROSILVA Network of Research on Tree Physiology' has had the objective to expand the existing French- German research network EUROSILVA. The main outcomes of the commitments taken in Resolution S5 can be summarised as follows:
1. The strengthening of EUROSILVA by France and Germany through the integration of the project into the EUREKA programme had a significant boosting effect in the annual budget. This allowed the implementation of various activities such as:
* common research programmes in the fields of tree nutrition, stress physiology, water relations and developmental biology,
* summer courses for advanced students,
* short- and long-term exchanges of scientists,
* workshops.
2. Participation in EUROSILVA of Swiss and Czech laboratories on an individual basis (outside of EUREKA) and participation of British, Dutch, Swedish, Polish and Finnish scientists in EUROSILVA activities such as exchange programmes, summer courses and workshops.
3. In some countries (Switzerland, Finland, Portugal, Austria and Sweden), active negotiations have taken place in order to expand EUROSILVA through EUREKA or through other national systems.
The Helsinki Conference decided that with respect to Strasbourg Resolution S5, only the Executive Bureau of EUROSILVA is in a position to successfully complete the task.
Strasbourg Resolution S6 'European Network for Research into Forest Ecosystems' has concentrated on the identification of areas of national expertise and priority research subjects for a working group.
Resolution S6 endeavours to identify and delineate a few priority subjects and, subsequently, focus research and resources on these subjects through networks of scientists and laboratories with the best expertise and facilities relevant to the subjects.
The follow-up work proceeded through meetings and questionnaires. The responses indicated considerable expertise related to biogeochemical cycling. Most expertise was empirical, but there was also clear expertise in modelling. The themes of many on-going projects were biogeochemical cycling and forest hydrology, and nearly half were part of existing international research programmes. A database of 142 persons from 21 countries has been set up. There is an undeniably widespread interest in Resolution S6. Channels of communication and a number of research programmes exist within the research areas of that Resolution.
The Helsinki Conference decided that the follow-up of Strasbourg Resolution S6 should continue as a part of the ordinary follow-up process of the Helsinki Resolutions.
Although the reported achievements varied between Resolutions, it was stated that the Strasbourg Resolutions had significantly enhanced cooperation within Europe and promoted specific activities of importance for the immediate (e.g., data banks on forest fires) and future (e.g., health monitoring and conservation of genetic resources) protection of the forests in Europe. The follow-up procedures that were now applied for the first time proved to have been functioning relatively well although further improvements were called for.
The Helsinki Resolutions deal with issues which require political attention and stimulation in Europe in view of the current global discussion on forests and the urgency attached to the promotion of the sustainable management of forests, of their biological diversity, and of a deeper understanding of the consequences for forests of climate change in international fora. The UNCED outcome, such as the Forest Principles, Agenda 21, the Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Convention on Biological Diversity, form the basis of these global forest discussions.
All the Resolutions contain a preamble providing background information and a justification, general guidelines providing a framework for the development of national guidelines, and an operative part focusing on specific future action.
The Signatory States and the European Community declared their wish to enhance international research and cooperation concerning silviculture, the use, protection, and sustainable management of forests, as well as to work towards a global forest convention. Moreover, the parties committed themselves to promote the implementation of the Resolutions and to create, without delay, national, regional and local operational plans for the sustainable management of forests which also safeguard the biodiversity of forests.
Helsinki Resolution H1 'General Guidelines for the Sustainable Management of Forests in Europe'. The Resolution defines sustainable management on a political level and requires that guidelines for this type of management be incorporated without delay into all national forest policies, thereby recognising that biodiversity, productivity and the multiple use of forests are essential elements of sustainable management.
The operative part of the Resolution includes increased reforestation and afforestation, development of measures that favour products from forests under sustainable management, and participation in activities towards a global forestry convention.
Forest management practices should aim at maintaining and improving the biodiversity and productivity of forest ecosystems. Efforts should be increased to keep emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases below the expected tolerance level of forest ecosystems. In the management and development of forests, chosen tree species should be well suited to local conditions. The signatories strive to promote recycling and the use of forest products instead of non-renewable natural resources.
Helsinki Resolution H2 'General Guidelines for the Conservation of the Biodiversity of European Forests'. The Convention on Biological Diversity signed at the UNCED in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 did not deal with any specific ecosystem. This Resolution has now adapted the Convention to the forest ecosystems in Europe and further states that the conservation and appropriate enhancement of biodiversity should be an essential operational element in sustainable forest management, and should therefore be addressed in national forestry policies, operational guidelines, legislation and administration.
In addition, coherent networks of primary and climax forests should be established and methods to evaluate the impact of forest management on biodiversity should be developed. Thus, the Resolution promotes a framework for decisive national activities aiming at richer forests with higher potential for adaptation to ever changing environments and demands.
Helsinki Resolution H3 'Forestry Cooperation with Countries with Economies in Transition'. Forest protection and management varies considerably within Europe. Therefore it was considered essential to enhance a uniform and simultaneous development of the forestry sector and, in particular, the protection and sustainable management of forests, in all parts of Europe, including the countries with economies in transition. This Resolution provides general guidelines for achieving better cooperation and emphasises the initiatives of countries with economies in transition.
Helsinki Resolution H4 'Strategies for a Process of Long-term Adaptation of Forests in Europe to Climate Change'. The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change outlines the activities necessary to mitigate climate change. In this Resolution the ministers reaffirm their commitment to mitigation and limitation of the greenhouse gases. It also recognises, however, that climate change might, in spite of mitigation activities, have such effects on forest ecosystems that adaptation is likely to occur. Therefore, the Resolution promotes coordinated research efforts in Europe on the potential effects of climate change on forests and their possible adaptation processes.
The signatories seek to enhance international and national forestry research, cooperation, and the monitoring methods in topics related to climate change. It must be stressed that the measures taken in the forest sector can alleviate the effects of climate change only if the health of forests is cared for, e.g., by reducing emissions. Furthermore, the use of wood is being promoted as a renewable source of energy instead of non-renewable alternatives.
Regular monitoring should be done through organised NETWORKING (*) in collaboration with the Liaison Unit of the co-chairman countries.
The basis for accurate, consistent and applicable information on the progress made is DATA COLLECTION AND REPORTING (**), which needs to be organised by using international and national coordinators under the guidance of the Liaison Unit of the co- chairman countries and with close collaboration of the intergovernmental bodies.
The third category is FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF THE CRITERIA AND GUIDELINES (***). This requires the involvement of scientific advisory meetings and consultations to define criteria and indicators for sustainable management and sustainable development, and to elaborate a more concrete agreement in the context of an intergovernmental process similar to the one which preceded the Helsinki Conference.
The Signatory States and the European Community commit themselves to preparing, without delay, specific national or regional guidelines and to incorporating them into their forestry plans and programmes for the implementation of the above Guidelines in a manner consistent with the Statement of Forest Principles, and will collaborate in the further development ( *** ) of these General Guidelines for the sustainable management of forests in Europe.
In concrete terms future action could include reports by all signatories on what national and regional guidelines have been prepared, and how they have been incorporated into forestry plans and programmes, and review at the international level (review meetings) of whether the national or regional guidelines are in fact consistent with the Forest Principles.
The "further development of the General Guidelines" would involve expert level meetings and an intergovernmental process similar to the one which preceded the Helsinki Conference, and it should primarily take place in the context of preparations for the third Ministerial Conference.
Para. 14. *
The Signatory States and the European Community will collaborate in efforts to increase re-reforestation, afforestation and forest conservation in Europe, in ways consistent with the above General Guidelines and the chapter in Agenda 21 on combating deforestation.
Apart from the necessary reporting, international collaboration could take many forms, from seminars and workshops to exchange of know-how. The latter could be done with the participation of the UN intergovernmental organisations and the EC, e.g., FAO has experience and knowledge to contribute in this aspect.
Para. 15. ***
The Signatory States and the European Community will collaborate in order to develop common measures consistent with these guidelines that would favour the production, use and marketing of products from forests under sustainable management.
This is extremely sensitive as this confronts many practical, legal and diplomatic problems, and strong public pressure. The results achieved in the Helsinki Conference must be seen as an intermediate step in the global discussion on this issue. This is a difficult question with many complex technical, legal and economic undercurrents, and will involve many international, governmental and non-governmental organisations (CSD, FAO, ECE, GATT, ITTO). It would be necessary to find out what governments' intentions are on this matter.
Para. 16. *
The Signatory States and the European Community will participate, under the aegis of the Commission on Sustainable Development, in international activities towards the preparation of a global convention on the management, conservation and sustainable development of all types of forests.
This is a statement of intent to participate in other international discussions, the outcomes of which would influence the follow-up of the Helsinki Conference.
The Signatory States and the European Community will recognise the conservation and appropriate enhancement of biodiversity as an essential element of sustainable forest management. This would mean ... the conservation of genetic resources of forest taxa ... and taking account of the protection of threatened forest species and ecosystems ... in the formulation of national forest policies.
This is a general statement of intent, without the need for a specific international follow- up, other than reporting.
Para. 6. ***
The Signatory States and the European Community will establish at national or regional levels a coherent ecological network of climax, primary and other special forests aimed at maintaining or re-establishing ecosystems that are representative or threatened.
This paragraph is very specific. Setting up such a network is a major enterprise, requiring significant scientific and intellectual input in order to design structures, agree on concepts and definitions, and then identify the elements of the network and agree on management regimes etc. The first step should be consultation to ascertain governments' intentions, and if agreed upon at the European level, to define criteria for a coherent ecological network and set up a special mechanism to establish the network.
Para. 7. **
The Signatory States and the European Community will establish educational and public awareness programmes on the conservation of biodiversity.
This Resolution requires a commitment to establish domestic programmes, so the appropriate follow-up would be reporting through national coordinators.
Para. 8. *
The Signatory States and the European Community will promote technical cooperation including exchange of experts, courses and seminars and transfer of technology.
It should be specified whether this cooperation should be on a bilateral basis, or through normal academic channels, or whether a coordinated programme should be developed. The ECE/FAO could provide an appropriate formal framework, the EC could provide assistance and the European Forest Institute could provide technical knowledge and experience in this field.
Para. 9 ***
The Signatory States and the European Community will develop a coherent and responsible approach to the conservation and appropriate enhancement of biodiversity in forests through the development of national or regional guidelines with the aim of obtaining sufficient knowledge of ecosystem functions and services ... and the status and requirements for management of the endangered, rare or representative biotic elements, and achieving adequate forecasting, monitoring and evaluating of consequences for biodiversity of different silvicultural techniques.
It is likely that most of the research would be done at the national level, but there will be a need for coordination of activities. This might be an area for national coordinators to follow up progress in their own field and report back to the Liaison Unit of the co-chairman countries. The further development of regional Guidelines would require formal discussions, under Helsinki auspices. Discussions on the guidelines should take into account the international and national implementation on the Convention on Biological Diversity.
Para 10. **
In order to attain aims 9.1, 9.2 and 9.3 the Signatory States and the European Community will implement surveys and research programmes which are specially adapted to their economic, social and environmental conditions and which are, where appropriate, coordinated and integrated with similar work resulting from the implementation of the relevant Resolutions of Strasbourg and Helsinki Conferences.
Reporting through national coordinators.
Para 11. **
The Signatory States and the European Community will continue to improve methods for assessing biodiversity in forests and for evaluating the impact on biodiversity of forest management methods.
A research recommendation to which the above remarks also apply. It would be desirable if the results of this research on assessing biodiversity were fed back into the FRA process. Reporting to the Liaison Unit of the co-chairman countries.
Where coordination of multilateral cooperation initiatives is necessary, this should be done by existing institutions.
UN/ECE and partly FAO appear to be the appropriate institutions for this task. The type of activities described below seem to fit in well with the existing programmes of work. The question would depend on agreement between the institutions.
Para. 9 *
The member countries of the ECE, FAO, UNEP, UNDP, World Bank and EBRD, as well as the European Community, and the international Non-Governmental Organisations should consider activities aiming at promoting progress in the topics mentioned in the General Guidelines.
This indicates a desire to work through the institutions named and that these institutions should coordinate their activities. This would imply the exchange of information and some coordination to identify real needs etc. This action could be initiated by the Helsinki mechanism, through the FAO/ECE.
Para. 10 *
The Signatory States and the European Community will promote the transfer of knowledge, bilateral and / or multilateral contacts, mutually beneficial joint research projects and the preparation of national forest programmes.
Networking through the FAO/ECE to the Liaison Unit of the co-chairman countries. The possibilities to benefit from EFICS should be studied.
Para. 11 **
The Signatory States and the European Community will promote professional contacts, the transfer and publication of information, documentation and professional literature, exchanges of experts and students, educational workshops, seminars, conferences, training courses and other forms of education, with the participation of groups of specialists from Countries with Economies in transition and from European countries with market economies.
Networking with reporting through national coordinators.
Para. 12 *
The Signatory States and the European Community agree to support existing efforts aimed at promoting the development of the national forestry databases of Countries with Economies in Transition and their linkage to existing European databases.
The FAO and FAO/ECE attach considerable importance to building up capacity in this field. The new databases should correspond, to the extent possible, with international concepts and definitions, and have linkage to the FAO/ECE database. The Working Party on Forest Economics and Statistics and the European Forest Institute would seem to be natural fora for this discussion. Networking through the FAO/ECE and European Forest Institute to the Liaison Unit of the co-chairman countries.
The Signatory States and the European Community will intensify research and international cooperation carried by existing organisations and working groups dealing with the research areas mentioned above.
Networking through existing organisations like IPCC to the Liaison Unit of the co-chairman countries. The research programme of the EC should be drawn upon.
Para. 9 **
The Signatory States and the European Community will review, develop and coordinate the present monitoring schemes to assess more effectively those large-scale patterns and dynamics of alterations that may be due to climate change in European forest ecosystems. These tasks should be carried out in coordination with existing European networks of permanent sample plots.
This complex scientific task requires considerable input and planning. It should be entrusted to a scientific coordinator, but also loosely overseen by intergovernmental bodies. For possible involvement, IPCC must be approached. Reporting through national and international coordinators.
Para. 10 **
The Signatory States and the European Community will promote the utilisation, with low emission technology, of wood as a renewable energy source, and, in so doing contribute to the sustainable development of forests by protecting the environment and mitigating the greenhouse effect.
Reporting through national and international coordinators.
In the framework of this cooperation, well-qualified teams will coordinate on themes defined in common, thus enabling the development of a real European competence, capable of elaborating concepts and works methods that will allow us to analyse problems concerning European forests, and to take into account ecosystems in all their diversity.
Reporting through national and international coordinators.
Principle 2 **
Each signatory country is invited to organise a mechanism for national cooperation, in the framework of its own appropriate structures, and then, to participate in the international activity of this network, together with the other countries.
Reporting through national and international coordinators.
Principle 3 *
The definition of a few priority research subjects particularly important for the protection of forests, and object of coordination within this network, is entrusted to a working group in which each signatory is represented, in liaison with the international organisations concerned, notably the International Union of Forestry Research Organizations.
Networking.
Principle 4 *
A chairman will be chosen by the participating countries to lead the entire network and represent it before other bodies. Appropriate procedures will be set up to ensure collaboration and coordination with those in charge of international calls for tender in the field of research on the functioning and malfunctioning of forestry ecosystems, especially those of the European Communities.
Networking
Principle 5
Each country will finance its own contribution to this network.
No need for a specific international follow-up.
1. Review of national practices on basis of the General Guidelines;
2. Further development of the General Guidelines on sustainable management and biodiversity;
3. Promotion of coordinated programmes on the national and regional levels;
4. Establishment of ecological networks of climax, primary and other special forests;
5. Promotion of research on consequences for biodiversity of different forestry practices;
6. Promotion of coordinated programmes of assistance to countries in transition;
7. Monitoring of the effects of climate change on forests.
The complex and demanding task of the co-chairman countries' specialists, as well as the other bodies involved in the implementation of the above enterprises, will focus on the
* collection and production of data on the implementation of the Helsinki Resolutions,
* production of the follow-up reports and preparation of material for expert level follow-up meetings,
* organisation of expert level follow-up meetings,
* provision of necessary follow-up material and expertise to governments and international organisations,
* stewardship and improvement of communication in the network of national and international coordinators, individuals and institutions.
The future action needed in the follow-up process should consist of networking, reporting and expert level follow-up meetings on the progress that has been made. The objective of this process should be to sharpen up tools for the Helsinki follow-up towards the UNCSD Forest Meeting in 1995.
As decided by the Helsinki Conference, the final responsibility for carrying out the guidance of the pan-European follow-up process should remain with the co-chairman countries. According to that, the Finnish and Portuguese Governments have agreed to carry on the responsibilities of the ad hoc Conference Secretariat for the time being. It must be noted that the Strasbourg follow-up had required significant commitment of resources and would not have been possible without the support of the co-chairman countries and the international coordinators of each Resolution. As decided by the Second Ministerial Conference, Austria has joined the team of coordinators, and Poland continues its participation as the International Coordinator of Strasbourg Resolution S6.
The new forms of work will be adopted from the standpoint that the best possible use is made of the existing international structures, notably the ECE / Timber Committee and FAO / European Forestry Commission. The work of other international organisations such as the Commission on Sustainable Development will be taken into account. The consideration of sustainable development should be integrated into existing activities and institutions. The approach should also be adopted to suit each Resolution. As in the case of the Strasbourg Conference, it was not considered appropriate to create new institutions under the aegis of the UN.
For the follow-up of the Strasbourg Resolutions special International Coordinators were appointed for each Resolution, representing the four GCC-countries Finland, France, Portugal and Poland. However, the follow-up of the Helsinki commitments is politically a much more ambitious process.
The General Coordinating Committee will be guiding the follow-up work. For Resolutions H1 and H2 the GCC shall act in close collaboration with the FAO / European Forestry Commission & ECE / Timber Committee, the Agriculture and Timber Division in Geneva, and Mr. F. Kremer for the European Commission / DGVI, Brussels. The ratification of the Convention on Biological Diversity and further preparation within the framework of UNCSD shall be considered.
The need to identify measurable criteria and indicators for the evaluation of how different countries have progressed in their efforts to follow the principles of sustainable forest management and conservation of biological diversity of European forests became the most essential issue in the follow-up of Resolutions H1 and H2. As there are many processes going on for determining criteria and indicators for sustainable management of forests, an interdisciplinary approach is essential to coordinate the work done and to avoid overlapping, and special emphasis has to be laid on close collaboration with existing international organisations.
The first concrete effort to identify these criteria and indicators for the purposes of the follow- up of Helsinki Resolutions was made in the Pan-European Round Table Meeting held in Brussels on March 3-4, 1994. The Round Table Meeting offered an informal forum for the Signatories to report on the national progress and to change ideas on this type of approach. The First Expert Level Follow-up Meeting was organised in Geneva on June 23-24, 1994. The meeting approved a list of pan-European criteria and most suitable quantitative indicators for sustainable forest managment.
Concerning Resolution H3 FAO/ECE Agriculture and Timber Division is acting as an international coordinator, and concerning Resolution H4 Prof. Markku Kanninen and Prof. Melvin Cannel are acting as international contact persons with close collaboration of the International Panel on Climate Change and the European Forest Institute, Joensuu, Finland.
The ECE and FAO have announced their readiness to contribute to the monitoring and exchange of information on the Helsinki follow-up as proposed by the co-chairman countries and considered necessary in the Joint Session of the FAO / European Forestry Commission and ECE / Timber Committee in Rome on October 11-15, 1993, as follows:
In the general coordination:
1. There should be close collaboration between the Liaison Unit and the FAO / ECE permanent Secretariat; the Liaison Unit could operate partly within the UN Framework,
2. There should be reporting by the Liaison Unit on the implementation of the Helsinki Resolutions at the regular sessions of the EFC and TC,
3. The international organisations or international working parties should be requested to submit a progress report on the implementation of the Strasbourg Resolutions at the main European technical meetings (EFC and TC),
4. The FAO / ECE Secretariat should attend the meetings of the General Coordinating Committee,
5. The FAO / ECE should be closely related to the work of the international coordinators for the implementation and follow-up of Helsinki Resolution 3 'Forestry Cooperation with Countries with Economies in Transition'; and in the implementation of the specific tasks:
* The follow-up of Strasbourg Resolution 1 'European Network of Permanent Sample Plots for Monitoring of Forest Ecosystems' will be carried out by the UN/ECE International Co-operative Programme on Assessment and Monitoring of Air Pollution Effects on Forests in close cooperation with the Commission of the European Communities,
* The follow-up of Strasbourg Resolution 2 'Conservation of Forest Genetic Resources' will be coordinated by the International Board of Plant Genetic Resources with technical and scientific advice provided by FAO,
* The follow-up of Strasbourg Resolution 3 'Decentralised European Data Bank on Forest Fires' will be coordinated by Portugal with support from the Commission of the European Communities and technical support by FAO/ECE for the publication and diffusion of the results, including technical support by the Silva Mediterranea,
* The follow-up of Strasbourg Resolution 4 'Adapting the Management of Mountain Forests to New Environmental conditions' will be coordinated by Portugal within the framework of FAO/ECE Working Party on the Management of Mountain Watersheds,
* The exchange of know-how to increase reforestation, afforestation and forest conservation in Europe is to be carried out by the FAO. Since this is an activity where the Joint FAO/ECE/ILO Committee on Forest Technology, Management and Training is the main active body, it should contribute to and facilitate the achievement of this objective (Helsinki Resolution 1, para 14),
* The FAO/ECE should be responsible for bringing back the biodiversity assessment into the FRA process when improving methods for assessing biodiversity in forests and when evaluating the impact on biodiversity of forest management methods (Helsinki Resolution 2, para 11).
It was envisaged in the Helsinki Conference that the international organisations or the international working parties whose assistance has been asked should be requested to give a report on the progress accomplished at the next Ministerial Conference, as well as at the main European technical meetings, such as the meetings of the FAO / European Forestry Commission. In the follow-up of the Resolutions this issue should be a regular item in the agenda of all major international and intergovernmental meetings on forestry and sustainable development.
The Chief Coordinators and the experts of Finland, Portugal, Austria and Poland periodically attend collaborative GCC-meetings. The task of this General Coordinating Committee is to combine practical questions regarding the follow-up and give advice on the organisation of activities according to the policies and budget plans approved at the Meetings of the Secretaries of State. The representatives of the Forestry Department of the FAO and the FAO / ECE Agriculture and Timber Division are invited as advisors of the GCC. Moreover, the International Coordinators (individuals or institutions) of each Resolution and the invited experts could participate in the meetings, when needed.
Representing the donor countries, the Meetings of the Secretaries of State of the Ministries of Agriculture and Forestry of Finland, Portugal and Austria consider the policies and budget and take up for consideration the objectives and the achievements of the follow-up as well as the realisation of international collaboration. The Secretaries of State meet when necessary, however at least once a year. Also the representative of the UN/ECE Agriculture and Forestry Division could attend the meetings of the Secretaries of State, when needed.
The co-chairman countries have taken action to reshape the structure and tasks of the Conference Secretariat in the form of a small Liaison Unit which is supported by a Scientific Advisory Group. In practical terms, this is realised on ad hoc basis not excluding the possibility that this Unit could operate partly within the UN framework, depending on the nature of the follow-up work and the applicability of the technical forms of cooperation.
The scope and the objectives of the Liaison Unit are the same as those adopted for the ad hoc Conference Secretariat. The Liaison Unit is located, as an interim solution, in Helsinki under the auspices of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Finland and supported by the specialists of Portugal, Austria and Poland.
The Liaison Unit is acting as a central node in collecting and in further producing follow-up information with the initial resources provided by the Finnish, Portuguese and Austrian Governments. A special emphasis will be placed on analysing the data collected through national coordinators and from the existing networks. Various types of expert level meetings, workshops and consultations will facilitate the follow-up of the implementation of the Helsinki Resolutions.
The Scientific Advisory Group has been formed from members of the General Coordinating Committee. This subgroup works as the core unit for developing, analysing and modifying the proposed criteria and indicators on the sustainable management of forests and the conservation of biodiversity. The SAG also provides scientific support in different phases of the reporting procedures.
A relational database, created by the Conference Secretariat, will be further elaborated and used by the Liaison Unit. The database consists of different tables which can be linked together. Some of the tables include:
* the names and addresses etc. of the delegates, international and national coordinators and other interested persons;
* the tasks of above mentioned persons;
* meetings related to the Ministerial Conference and the follow-up, including time and place, a short memorandum of, inter alia, the speeches made at each meeting;
* documents related to the Ministerial Conference;
* scientific activities and institutions.
The database is constantly updated and flexible enough to respond to users' demands for specific information.
The results of the various initiatives and processes on sustainable forest management will be analysed, further elaborated and taken advantage of through a review process, including consultations and Round Table Meetings, and taking into account the need for coordination of international activities with facilitation from the FAO/ECE, having as an objective the further development of the General Guidelines and indicators which will serve as tools for the Helsinki follow-up towards the CSD Meeting in 1995.
In the timetable of the Helsinki Process the following symbols are used:
R = Meeting is part of the regular follow- up activities
I = Activities related to the implementation of the Resolutions
C = Activities complementary to the follow-up and other initiatives
U = United Nations' activities related to the follow-up
1.R. Meeting of the Secretaries of State of the Ministries of Agriculture and Forestry
Portugal, Finland, Austria
January 11, 1994, Lisbon, Portugal
1. Discussed the proposal regarding the objectives and contents of the Helsinki follow-up work and decided on the action needed and the organisation and timetable of the Conference follow-up.
2. Approved the final accounts of the Conference and the payment shares of the co-chairman countries for the period ending 31.10.1993.
3. Decided on the budget for 1994 (1.11.1993-31.12.1994) and budget framework for the period 1994-1997.
2.C. Pan-European Round Table Meeting
March 3-4, 1994, Brussels, Belgium
Informal meeting for invited experts and Forest Policy office holders representing signatories and observers to the Helsinki Resolutions. The meeting was convened by the co-chairmen of the Helsinki Conference. The secretarial responsibilities by the Liaison Unit and European Commission / DG VI / Forestry.
1. Examined the criteria and indicators for sustainable management to be used in the follow- up of the Ministerial Conference and made a proposal concerning them.
2. Outlined a strategy for international discussion.
3. Outlined a common approach and objectives for future preparation on the subject area, e.g., the Geneva meeting in June 1994.
3.R. General Coordinating Committee of the Ministerial Conference
Finland, Portugal, Austria, Poland
April 11-12, 1994, Helsinki, Finland
1. Examined the results of the Round Table meeting and other meetings and finalised the criteria and indicators for sustainable management compiled at those meetings.
2. Prepared the Agenda for the Follow-up meeting in June.
3. Decided on the material to be prepared for the Follow-up meeting, e.g., a draft questionnaire, which will be sent to the contact persons of each participant State and organisation at least 1,5 months before the Follow-up meeting.
4. Decided on the observers to be invited.
4.R. Expert Level Follow-up Meeting of the Helsinki Conference
June 23-24, 1994, Geneva, Switzerland (GCC)
or the signatories and observers. The meeting was convened by the co-chairmen of the Conference.
1. Overviewed on the implementation and the follow-up work of the Helsinki and Strasbourg Resolutions.
2. Reached a common understanding on the European level of what is meant by the sustainable management / development of forests in the light of a systematic approach to defining criteria and indicators based on the Helsinki Resolutions.
3. Created and adopted a list of the European Criteria and Most Suitable Quantitative Indicators for Sustainable Forestry. Elaborated a list of other indicators and descreptive indicators.
4. Emerged transatlantic convergence and considerations of global implications in consolidating consensus on criteria.
5.C. International Workshop, Indo-British Initiative
July 25-27, 1994, New Delhi, India
1. Discussed formats for reporting to the UNCSD 1995 on forestry issues including indicators for assessing progress on implementing the Forest Principles and the forestry aspects of Agenda 21.
2. Examined how international cooperation might help overcome constraints to their implementation.
6.I. Seminar "di Punto" of the Scientific Advisory Group for the Helsinki Follow-up
August 29-30, 1994, Helsinki, Finland
1. Examined the format for reporting on the Helsinki Process
2. Discussed a set of questionnaires to be delivered to the signatories and observers attached with explanatory notes.
3. Defined and elaborated terms to be used in the follow-up of the Helsinki Resolutions. The clarification by the Seminar will serve as a reference for reporting of the implementation of the Helsinki Resolutions. The European Forest Institute (EFI) has prepared a draft list of Terms and Definitions, which will be included in the Explanatory Notes for filling in the Questionnaire.
7.C. Working Group on Boreal and Temperate Forests
September 7-10, 1994, Olympia, Washington, USA
1. Elaborated boreal and temperate criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management.
2. Discussions on possibilities of transatlantic convergence and considerations of global implications in consolidating consensus on common criteria and indicators for Sustainable Forest Management.
8.R. General Coordinating Committee of the Ministerial Conference
Finland, Portugal, Austria and Poland
September 15-16, 1994, Lisbon, Portugal
1. Assessed the results of the meetings in Geneva, New Delhi, Helsinki (SAG) and Olympia, with regard of the new aspects related to the continuation of the follow-up.
2. Adopted the draft Questionnaire. The Questionnaires will be delivered to the signatories and observers attached with explanatory notes on September 26, 1994 and are expected to be sent back to the Liaison Unit before the end of October, 1994.
3. Decided on the provisional programme of work and specified objectives for the follow-up work of the Helsinki Conference and made a proposal for the meeting of Secretaries of States on the arrangements for the Third Ministerial Conference.
4. Revised the Conference follow-up organisation.
5. Presented for inspection the accounts of the Liaison Unit and the payment shares of the co-chairman countries for the period ending 31.10.1994.
6. Decided on the budget proposal for 1995 (1.11.1994-31.12.1995) and the budget framework for the period 1996-1997.
9.U ECE Timber Committee, 52nd Session
October 10-14, 1994, Geneva, Switzerland
Objectives:
1. Reporting by the Liaison Unit on the implementation of the Helsinki Resolutions and presentation of the future action plan on the follow-up.
2. The Timber Committee and its working parties will be requested to submit a progress report on the implementation of the Strasbourg and Helsinki Resolutions.
10.C. Intergovernmental Working Group on Global Forests, Malaysian- Canadian Initiative
October 10-14, 1994, Ottawa, Canada
Objectives:
1.7 issues agreed upon in Kuala Lumpur
11.C. Pan-European Round Table Meeting
November 28-29, 1994, Brussels, Belgium
Informal meeting for invited experts and Forest Policy office holders representing signatories and observers to the Helsinki Resolutions. The meeting will be convened by the co- chairmen of the Helsinki Conference. The secretarial responsibilities by the Liaison Unit and European Commission / DG VI / Forestry.
Objectives:
1. Overview on the applicability of the agreed European criteria and most suitable quantitative indicators as well as the descriptive indicators for sustainable forest management which have been used in the reporting process based on the experiences of the national level implementation.
2. Outline a common approach and objectives for future preparation on the subject area, e.g., the Turkey meeting in January 1995, including further elaboration of Terms and Definitions.
12.R. Meeting of the Secretaries of State of the Ministries of Agriculture and Forestry
Portugal, Finland, Austria
December, 1994, Vienna, Austria (GCC)
Objectives:
1. Adoption of the outlines for the First Interim Follow-up Report.
2. Decide on the new arrangements for the continuation of the follow-up work according to the results of the meeting in Geneva and Brussels.
3. Confirm the final accounts and payment shares of the co-chairman countries for the period ending 31.10.1994.
4. Decide on the budget for 1995 (1.11.1994-31.12.1995) and budget framework for the period 1995-1997.
13.C. Meeting on Sustainable Management, organised by Keystone / CIFOR
December 10-16, 1994, Indonesia
Objectives:
1. A review process on the implementation of the follow-up to UNCED in the light of the progress made in defining and developing criteria for the Sustainable Management of Forests.
14.R The Second Expert Level Follow-up Meeting of the Helsinki Ministerial Conference
January 23-24, 1995, Antalia, Turkey. Excursion on January 21-22, 1995. (The meeting of the FAO European Forestry Commission will be held in the same place immediately following the Expert Level Follow-up Meeting of the Ministerial Conference.)
(GCC)
Objectives:
1. Reporting and discussion on the progress made with special emphasis on applicability of the agreed European criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management (national and international coordinators).
2. Elaboration of the draft pan-European follow-up report for the 1995 meeting of the CSD in April, 1995, based on reporting and collection of information through international and national coordinators.
3. Discussion and supplementation of the list of most suitable quantitative and descriptive indicators on sustainable forest management.
4. To decide on the Third European Ministerial Conference to be held in Lisbon.
15.U. Inter-Sessional Working Group of UNCSD for "Land, Desertification, Forests and Biodiversity"
February 27 - March 3, 1995, New York, USA
Objectives:
1. To assist UNCSD in the preparation of the examination of the sectoral issues to be reviewed by the UNCSD at its third session (Land, desertification, forests and biodiversity).
2. Take stock of and group together various government initiatives and intersessional activities on sectoral issues.
16.U. FAO, COFO High Level Global Meeting
March 13-17, 1995, Rome, Italy
Objectives:
1. Reporting by the Liaison Unit on the implementation of the Helsinki Resolutions and presentation of the future action plan on the follow-up.
17.U. Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD), forests
Follow-up to UNCED forest issues.
April 18 - 28, 1995, New York, USA
Objectives:
1. Presentation of the pan-European Follow-up Report on the progress made in the implementation of the Helsinki Resolutions.
2. Discussions on global forest issues and consideration of global implications on defining criteria and indicators for sustainable
forest management and conservation of biodiversity.
18.R. General Coordinating Committee of the Ministerial Conference
Finland, Portugal, Austria, Poland
June 1995, Poland
Objectives:
1. Examine the results of the CSD-Meeting,
2. Outline a new strategy for the follow-up to Helsinki.
19.C. Pan-European Round Table Meeting
November, 1995, Brussels
Informal meeting for invited experts and Forest Policy office holders representing signatories and observers to the Helsinki Resolutions. The secretarial responsibilities by the Liaison Unit, European Commission / DG VI / Forestry and FAO / European Forestry Commission.
Objectives:
1. Reviewing the CSD outcome and considerations of global implications.
2. Preparing for the Expert level Follow-up and Preparatory Meeting.
3. Considering the content and changes needed in the Second Interim Report.
20.R. Meeting of the Secretaries of State of the Ministries of Agriculture and Forestry
Portugal, Finland, Austria
December 1995, Helsinki, Finland
(GCC)
Objectives:
1. Decide on the new arrangements for the continuation of the follow-up work according to the results of the CSD and Pan-European Meetings.
2. Confirm the final accounts of the Conference and payment shares of the co-chairman countries for the period ending 31.10.1995.
3. Decide on the budget for 1996 (1.11.1995 - 31.12.1996) and budget framework for the period 1997-1998.