The Chair introduced a draft text for negotiation on programme element II, international cooperation on financial assistance and technology transfer. The report specifies proposals for action on public finance, private sector investment, technology transfer, coordination and information systems. The PHILIPPINES, on behalf of the G- 77/CHINA, said the report overemphasizes private sector financing and domestic funding. She suggested adjusting the report to better reflect international cooperation aspects and said the proposals for action should be more action-oriented. The EU called for a glossary of definitions and for complete references from the Forest Principles. He said international cooperation must complement domestic finance efforts. The US proposed condensing the document to three sections and using the term sustainable forest management (SFM) throughout. She said conclusions on codes of conduct are premature. JAPAN characterized the list of actions as duplicative and overlapping.
MEXICO called for references acknowledging the importance of national forest programmes (NFPs). With COLOMBIA, she suggested more extensive references to the work of multilateral organizations. SWITZERLAND underscored the need for priority setting in the report and for a balanced treatment of multilateral cooperation and financial assistance. The GLOBAL FOREST POLICY PROJECT proposed amendments to the reports private sector investment provisions that, inter alia, define a role for codes of conduct and invite developing countries to encourage only those investments that promote SFM. The RUSSIAN FEDERATION proposed using the FAO as a depository for information on SFM technologies. CANADA called for a holistic examination of the issue and said he will propose references to the CBD and other conventions to ensure a wider context.
CAMEROON said the report should emphasize that NFPs are the only framework under which forest planning should take place. The section on public finance should consider the special conditions of countries undergoing structural adjustment. AUSTRALIA, supported by UGANDA, noted that the document does not embody the concepts of shared responsibility and a shared vision of SFM emphasized during last weeks discussions.
UKRAINE asserted that technology transfer does not guarantee the solution of problems in the forestry sector. She called for inclusion of educational technologies and training in forest-related sectors as priorities in technology transfer and capacity building. BRAZIL noted that the proposals for action on technology transfer do not contain all of the recommendations highlighted during Plenary. UGANDA said that actions on public finance are required by both donor and recipient countries. Proposals for action should not be limited to technology transfer but should also encourage technology development and exchange.
[Return to start of article]