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

>>Version française: BNT<<

Archive:
(English)

Archive:
(Français)


Update for Friday, 15 June 


On the fifth day of UNFF-1, delegates met in a working group to negotiate the draft decision on the MYPOW

MYPOW WORKING GROUP:


COSTA RICA (Right)  offered to host UNFF-2 from 4-15 March 2002, commenting that this meeting could provide a major political contribution to the World Summit on Sustainable Development.






 



Delegates next began negations on the MYPOW draft decision section by section. Righ photo: Kanut Øistad, Chair of MYPOW Working Group


PREAMBLE:


The G-77/CHINA proposed adding a paragraph recognizing the importance of provision of financial resources, technology transfer and capacity building, as well as international trade of timber and non-timber products to developing countries, for realization of the MYPOW’s objective. Right photo: Iran speaking on behalf of the G77/CHINA.




The US, with SWITZERLAND, opposed selectively excerpting text from the ECOSOC resolution. SWITZERLAND called for a shorter preamble with a general reference to the ECOSOC resolution and the objective and purpose of the UNFF.


THEMATIC FOCUS AND CATEGORIES:


The G-77/CHINA proposed replacing thematic focuses with references to the 16 programme elements, as listed in an alternative schedule drafted by the G-77/CHINA. He further suggested that cross-cutting issues be added to the schedule of each session and, supported by the EU and the US, proposed deleting a paragraph dividing categories into programme elements.

The EU, the US, SWITZERLAND, CANADA and NEW ZEALAND supported the thematic focuses proposed in the Bureau’s draft. However, the EU opposed reference to LFCCs. He asked for clarification of "institutional aspects of forests," and suggested adding "cultural." In a remark echoed later by the US, he noted disparities between the text and the attached table with the proposed schedule.





The US suggested replacing "focuses" with "clusters" and changing the section title to "Implementation of IPF/IFF proposals for action." She proposed inserting a paragraph stressing the importance of facilitating "country implementation."

SCOPE OF THE MYPOW:



CANADA recommended noting that the PoA would be adopted at UNFF-2. The US urged deletion of the entire section, saying it causes confusion between the MYPOW and the PoA. The G-77/CHINA, supported by NIGERIA, INDONESIA, BRAZIL, MALAYSIA, GHANA, CHINA, COLOMBIA and SOUTH AFRICA, underscored the need to retain the paragraphs on monitoring and assessing progress and on the PoA.

  
CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES:



Regarding a paragraph identifying international trade and SFM, financial cooperation, capacity building and technology transfer as cross-cutting issues to be discussed at each session, the G-77/CHINA reiterated its support for discussing trade. The EU, SWITZERLAND, JAPAN and the REPUBLIC OF KOREA opposed.












NORWAY proposed that major groups' participation be discussed and ensured at each session.
MONITORING, ASSESSMENT AND REPORTING:
Regarding information on the state of forests, the G-77/CHINA: supported reference to the latest global reports on forests; proposed deleting reference to effective decision-making; and proposed adding language on making information accessible on financial resources, ESTs and capacity building.





NEW ZEALAND added language calling on the CPF to promote and support the use of criteria and indicators as a basis for country reporting. Left photo: ENB writer Leila Mead with a delegate from New Zealand.

HIGH-LEVEL SEGMENT: 

The G-77/CHINA requested reference to the dates of the first ministerial meeting in Costa Rica, and formally adopting the PoA during UNFF-2 as a contribution to the World Summit on Sustainable Development. AUSTRALIA asked that a CSD representative report on, inter alia, the relevance of the UNFF to provide input to the Preparatory Committee for the Summit.
AD HOC EXPERT GROUPS: 


The G-77/CHINA proposed language to reflect the intergovernmental character of expert groups. The US proposed replacing text on groups on monitoring and on the mandate of a legal framework, with "an option of up to two additional ad hoc expert groups in the biennium 2002-2003" and additional groups for the following biennium, to be decided at UNFF-2. NEW ZEALAND (Right) opposed limiting the number of expert groups. 
MULTI-STAKEHOLDER DIALOGUES: 



The US proposed changing the title to "Multi-stakeholder dialogues and transparent participatory processes." The EU preferred "Participation of major groups," and proposed a paragraph recognizing the importance of participation by all major groups as defined in Agenda 21.  Left photo: ENB writer Rado Dimitrov with members of the US delegation.
.



The G-77/CHINA preferred dialogues associated with "the implementation of SFM." Regarding a paragraph deciding that multi-stakeholder dialogues be held at the beginning of each session on the session's thematic focus, the US suggested dialogues be held throughout each session.
DEVELOPING SYNERGIES AND COORDINATION: 

The US recommended changing the section title to "Enhancing cooperation and coordination." On a paragraph recalling ECOSOC resolution 2000/35, the G-77/CHINA, supported by the US, recommended using the resolution�s exact language, noting that the UNFF will seek ways and means of strengthening synergies and coordination in policy development and implementation of forest-related activities.
REVIEW:
The G-77/CHINA recommended deleting reference to criteria for success and proposed a list of criteria for reviewing the effectiveness of the UNFF, including effectiveness of, inter alia: implementation of IPF/IFF proposals for action, the MYPOW and the PoA; addressing cross-cutting issues; implementation of financial and technological transfer and capacity building in developing countries; and synergy between the UNFF and other international bodies. The US said it was premature to establish criteria, and proposed deleting related text. SWITZERLAND (Right) , echoed by CANADA, supported elaborating and agreeing on criteria early in the process, but said the specific criteria need to be discussed further.

Forest related links:

UN Economic and Social Affairs UNFF 2001 Page
UN Economic and Social Affairs Forests Page
Official Report on the Fourth Session of the IFF
Linkages Forests Page
ENB Report on the Workshop on Financing Sustainable Forest Management
ENB Report on the Fourth Session of the IFF
Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR)

 

� 2001, Earth Negotiations Bulletin. All rights reserved.

| Linkages home | E-Mail |