Delegates exchanged views on conclusions to form a non-negotiated text reflecting areas of convergence and divergence.
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER: On a gap in resources, the US proposed language that existing resources are insufficient to achieve SFM. The G-77/CHINA preferred retaining Forest Principles language. The US deleted a reference to resource gaps and added text on greater financial investments and improving absorptive capacities.
On new and additional resources and international public finance, JAPAN proposed replacing references to new and additional with adequate resources. CHINA and BRAZIL disagreed. The EU added external support through ODA and provision of new and additional resources, and with the US, replaced promote with ensure predictability and continuity of financial resources. The US preferred the replacement of new and additional with the language proposed by the EU or JAPAN.
On financing for SFM, ZIMBABWE noted that not all countries have the capacity to generate revenue from the forest sector. The US deleted the reference to SFM at the global level and inserted an exception for countries with low forest cover, but the EU objected.
On uneven distribution of private investment, the US stipulated that investment in sustainably managed forests may be encouraged by voluntary codes of conduct and deleted codes for SFM. The PHILIPPINES objected.
On ODA for forest-related activities, IRAN added a reference to ODAs importance in countries with low forest cover. MALAYSIA added that financial commitments should be aimed at, where appropriate, protection of representative forest ecosystems.
On technological innovations, the US stated that dissemination is critical. On North- South cooperation, the G-77/CHINA recommended replacing considerable potential with a need for strengthening. NORWAY emphasized indigenous and traditional technologies. The G-77/CHINA called for use of Agenda 21 language on technology transfer and the US emphasized as mutually agreed.
On developed country responsibilities, ZIMBABWE and the EU reformulated language to conservation of biological diversity and sustainable use of biological resources. The US deleted equitable sharing of technologies and financial resources. On prioritization, many countries noted that priority in technology transfer and capacity- building had already been established. The EU added restoration of natural forest ecosystems.
TRADE AND ENVIRONMENT: On forest products and services, MALAYSIA proposed adding voluntary codes of conduct for SFM and noted nomenclature group agreement on forest products and other forest goods and services. Discussion on the relationship between trade and SFM and on a forest products trade agreement was deferred. On trade in non-wood products and services, SWITZERLAND deleted language on the WTO and removed bracketed text on the need for trade measures to achieve environmental objectives in special circumstances. On market access, the US deleted language on trade-related measures consistency with the Forest Principles and multilateral trade laws and added trade measures may provide an effective and appropriate means of addressing environmental concerns, including long-term SFM objectives. The EU added provided they are consistent with international rules and obligations to the US proposal, but the US objected. The PHILIPPINES proposed alternative language from the CSD on trade measures. The EU deleted the language on trade-related measures. Delegates agreed that full-cost internalization may contribute to SFM.
[Return to start of article]