Co-chair Holdgate invited continued dialog on programme element I.5, the needs and requirements of LFCs.
UGANDA said it should be listed as an LFC. He recommended a less restricted definition of protected areas that would address biodiversity factors in multiple use areas and a prioritization of proposed activities. UKRAINE stressed the need to adopt a holistic approach and to value non-market forest resources. Public participation is important in establishing national programs and precise methodologies should be developed to promote it. INDIA proposed that LFCs determine their own minimum forest cover and that the IPF set general guidelines. He stressed the need to reduce waste of forest goods and services.
SOUTH AFRICA said it should be listed as an LFC. Industrial plantations provide economic and social benefits, however, developers should meet costs. Stronger consideration of the use and non-use values of forests is needed. WWF on behalf of several NGOs emphasized biodiversity values and an integrated and precautionary approach. LFCs should be redefined on the basis of production and use of goods and services.
The Co-chair summarized the Panels discussion of program element I.5 as follows: the criteria for LFCs may need to be redefined in terms of countries causes of deforestation and their uses and needs; the role of forest services should be better characterized and considered, particularly economic aspects; countries should attempt to determine the minimum forest cover they can afford; the Panel should prioritize proposed actions; and an intersectoral approach is needed.