Linkages home
Mobile access to this event's ENB reports and more!
Earth Negotiations Bulletin
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
A Reporting Service for Environment and Development Negotiations
Download PDF version
French version
Spanish version
Back to IISD coverage
Volume 13 Number 187 - Monday, 22 April 2013
SUMMARY OF THE TENTH SESSION OF THE UNITED NATIONS FORUM ON FORESTS
8-19 APRIL 2013

The tenth session of the UN Forum on Forests (UNFF10) was held from 8-19 April 2013, in Istanbul, Turkey, focusing on the theme “Forests and Economic Development.” Nearly 1300 participants took part in UNFF10, which addressed a range of issues including: forests and economic development; means of implementation (MoI) for sustainable forest management (SFM); and emerging issues, including the outcomes of the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD or Rio+20), the post-2015 development agenda and the future of the international arrangement on forests (IAF).

Delegates, including Ministers and Heads of Delegation, took part in a Ministerial Segment from 8-9 April. The Ministerial Segment included a high-level opening session, featuring Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, statements by Ministers and Heads of Delegation, roundtables on forests and economic development, and on Rio+20 outcomes, the post-2015 development agenda and the future of the IAF, and a high-level interactive dialogue with the heads of the Collaborative Partnership on Forests (CPF) member organizations.

A Multi-Stakeholder Dialogue took place on 10 April, providing an opportunity for member states to receive input from representatives from the Major Groups, including: Women; Farmers and Small Forest Landowners; Forest Workers and Trade Unions; Scientific and Technological Communities; Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs); Children and Youth; Indigenous Peoples; and Industry. On 11 April, the remaining agenda items were opened in plenary.

Work on the UNFF10 outcome took place under two Working Groups (WGs), which convened from 12-19 April. Working Group I (WGI) addressed agenda items on: the assessment of progress made in the implementation of the non-legally binding instrument on all types of forests (NLBI or forest instrument), and towards the achievement of the four Global Objectives on Forests (GOFs); regional and subregional inputs; forests and economic development; and enhanced cooperation and policy and programme coordination, including the provision of further guidance to the CPF. Working Group II (WGII) addressed the agenda items on MoI for SFM, emerging issues and the Forum Trust Fund.

On Friday, 19 April, contact groups under both WGs met throughout the day to address outstanding issues, including how to reference MoI in the WGI draft resolution and whether to reference the “UN development agenda beyond 2015” or “post-2015 development agenda” in the WGII draft resolution. Following a meeting between delegates and the UNFF Bureau that was convened to help resolve these issues, plenary reconvened early on Saturday morning to hear reports on the WGs’ outcomes. The “Resolution on Agenda Items 3, 4, 5 and 8” and the “Resolution on Emerging Issues, MoI and the Forum Trust Fund” were adopted by acclamation on Saturday, 20 April. Delegates welcomed the adoption, after many years of deliberation, of a substantive outcome on MoI and a clear roadmap outlining steps towards a review of the IAF.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE UNFF

The UNFF was established in 2000, following a five-year period of forest policy dialogue within the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF) and the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF). In October 2000, the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), in resolution E/2000/35, established the UNFF as a subsidiary body, with the main objective of promoting the management, conservation and sustainable development of all types of forests.

The UNFF’s principal functions are to: facilitate implementation of forest-related agreements and foster a common understanding on sustainable forest management (SFM); provide for continued policy development and dialogue among governments, international organizations and Major Groups, as well as to address forest issues and emerging areas of concern in a holistic, comprehensive and integrated manner; enhance cooperation, and policy and programme coordination on forest-related issues; foster international cooperation and monitor, assess and report on progress; and strengthen political commitment to the management, conservation and sustainable development of all types of forests.

The IPF/IFF processes produced more than 270 proposals for action towards SFM, which formed the basis for the UNFF Multi-Year Programme of Work (MYPOW), for 2000-2005, and Plan of Action to implement the proposals for action. Country- and Organization-Led Initiatives have also contributed to the UNFF’s work.

ORGANIZATIONAL SESSION: The UNFF organizational session took place from 12-16 February 2001, at UN Headquarters in New York. Delegates agreed that the UNFF Secretariat would be located in New York, and made progress towards the establishment of the CPF, a partnership of 14 major forest-related international organizations, institutions and convention secretariats.

UNFF1: The first session of UNFF took place from 11-23 June 2001 in New York. Delegates discussed and adopted decisions on the UNFF MYPOW, a Plan of Action for the implementation of the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action, and UNFF’s work with the CPF. Delegates also recommended establishing three ad hoc expert groups (AHEGs) to provide technical advice to UNFF on: approaches and mechanisms for monitoring, assessment and reporting (MAR); finance and transfer of environmentally sound technologies (ESTs); and parameters of a mandate for developing a legal framework on all types of forests.

UNFF2: The second session of UNFF took place from 4-15 March 2002 in New York. Delegates adopted a Ministerial Declaration and Message to the World Summit on Sustainable Development and decisions on: combating deforestation and forest degradation; forest conservation and protection of unique types of forests and fragile ecosystems; rehabilitation and conservation strategies for low forest cover countries; the promotion of natural and planted forests; specific criteria for the review of the effectiveness of the IAF; and proposed revisions to the medium-term plan for 2002-2005.

UNFF3: UNFF3 met in Geneva, Switzerland, from 26 May - 6 June 2003, and adopted six resolutions on: enhanced cooperation, and policy and programme coordination; forest health and productivity; economic aspects of forests; maintaining forest cover to meet present and future needs; the UNFF Trust Fund; and strengthening the Secretariat. Terms of reference were adopted for the voluntary reporting format and three ad hoc expert groups were established to consider: MAR; finance and transfer of ESTs; and parameters of a mandate for developing a legal framework on all types of forests.

UNFF4: UNFF4 convened in Geneva from 3-14 May 2004 and adopted five resolutions on: forest-related scientific knowledge; social and cultural aspects of forests; MAR and criteria and indicators; review of the effectiveness of the IAF; and finance and transfer of ESTs. UNFF4 attempted, without success, to reach agreement on resolutions on forest-related traditional knowledge, enhanced cooperation, and policy and programme coordination.

UNFF5: UNFF5 took place from 16-27 May 2005, in New York. Participants were unable to reach agreement on strengthening the IAF and did not produce a Ministerial statement or a negotiated outcome. They did agree, ad referendum, to four global goals on: significantly increasing the area of protected forests and sustainably managed forests worldwide; reversing the decline in official development assistance (ODA) for SFM; reversing the loss of forest cover; and enhancing forest-based economic, social and environmental benefits. They also agreed in principle to negotiate, at some future date, the terms of reference for a voluntary code or international understanding on forests, as well as MoI.

UNFF6: UNFF6 took place from 13-24 February 2006 in New York. Delegates generated a negotiating text containing new language on the function of the IAF, a commitment to convene UNFF biennially after 2007, and a request that UNFF7 adopt a non-legally binding instrument on all types of forests (NLBI or forest instrument). UNFF6 also set four Global Objectives on Forests (GOFs) for the IAF to: reverse the loss of forest cover worldwide through SFM, including through protection, restoration, afforestation and reforestation; enhance forest-based economic, social and environmental benefits, and the contribution of forests to the achievement of internationally agreed development goals; increase significantly the area of protected forests worldwide and other areas of sustainably managed forests; and reverse the decline in ODA for SFM, and mobilize significantly increased new and additional financial resources from all sources for the implementation of SFM.

UNFF7: UNFF7 was held from 16-27 April 2007 in New York. After two weeks of negotiations, culminating in an all-night session, delegates adopted the forest instrument and a MYPOW for the period 2007-2015. Delegates also participated in two Multi-Stakeholder Dialogues, a panel discussion with member organizations of the CPF, and the launch of preparations for the International Year of Forests 2011. Delegates agreed that a “voluntary global financial mechanism/portfolio approach/forest financing framework for all types of forests” would be developed and considered, with a view to its adoption at UNFF8.

UNFF8: UNFF8 was held from 20 April - 1 May 2009 in New York. Delegates discussed: forests in a changing environment, including forests and climate change, reversing the loss of forest cover and degradation, and forests and biodiversity conservation; and MoI for SFM. After an all-night session on the last night, delegates adopted a resolution on forests in a changing environment, enhanced cooperation and cross-sectoral policy and programme coordination, and regional and subregional inputs. Delegates did not agree on a decision on financing for SFM, and decided to forward bracketed negotiating text to the Forum’s next session.

SPECIAL SESSION OF UNFF9: The special session of UNFF9 was held on 30 October 2009 in New York. The Forum decided to establish an open-ended intergovernmental AHEG to formulate proposals on strategies to mobilize resources to support the implementation of SFM, the achievement of the four GOFs and the implementation of the forest instrument. The Forum also established a Facilitative Process to, inter alia: assist developing countries to mobilize, through helping them to identify obstacles and opportunities for accessing required financing.

UNFF9: UNFF9 took place from 24 January - 4 February 2011 in New York and launched the International Year of Forests 2011. The Forum adopted by acclamation a resolution on forests for people, livelihoods and poverty eradication, which addressed inter alia: procedures for assessment of progress; increased regional and subregional cooperation; enhanced cooperation, including with Major Groups; and MoI for SFM, particularly the AHEG process.

UNFF10 REPORT

Wu Hongbo, Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs, opened UNFF10 on Monday, 8 April, and highlighted UNFF’s contribution to ensuring robust institutional and policy frameworks for SFM. Delegates adopted the agenda (E/CN.18/2013/1/Rev.1) and recalled Bureau members elected at the first session of UNFF10: Srećko Juričić (Croatia); Mario Ruales Carranza (Ecuador); Shuli Davidovich (Israel); Saiful Azam Martinus Abdullah (Malaysia); and Anna Masinja (Zambia). They elected, by acclamation, Carranza as UNFF10 Chair and Co-Chair of the Ministerial Segment and Abdullah as Rapporteur, and accepted the nomination of Veysel Eroğlu, Minister of Forestry and Water Affairs, Turkey, as Co-Chair of the Ministerial Segment. Delegates agreed that Davidovich and Masinja would co-chair WGI and Juričić and Abdullah would co-chair WGII.

MINISTERIAL SEGMENT

On Monday, 8 April, UNFF10 Chair and UNFF10 Ministerial Segment Co-Chair Carranza opened the Ministerial Segment, thanking the Government of Turkey for hosting UNFF10. He underscored that the economic contribution of forests to local, national and global economies are underappreciated. He highlighted the intersessional work undertaken by the Ad Hoc Expert Group (AHEG) on forest financing, saying that UNFF10 presents an opportunity to make concrete progress in this area.

UNFF10 Ministerial Segment Co-Chair Eroğlu stressed the need to alleviate global poverty and underlined the role of forests in achieving this goal. He urged participants to focus on the relationship between forests and economic development, not just within the framework of the environment, but also in sustainable development.

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Prime Minister, Turkey, underlined the role of forests in preventing erosion, protecting potable water, preserving ecosystems and alleviating poverty, and urged that SFM be included in the post-2015 development agenda.

President of the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), Néstor Osorio, Permanent Representative of Colombia to the UN, highlighted the UNFF’s role in integrating the three pillars of sustainable development and lauded it for ensuring that forests remain prominent within the global development agenda.

UN Under-Secretary-General Wu stated that SFM must have robust institutional and policy frameworks, including adequate and sustainable financing, for it to be successful. He opined that UNFF10 would make an important contribution towards ensuring this.

UNFF Director Jan McAlpine discussed how UNFF10 would be organized, aimed at supporting consideration of priority issues such as the connection of forests to social, economic and environmental issues, and the convergence of UNFF10 outcomes with the post-2015 development agenda and Rio+20 outcomes. She said that UNFF10 is poised to produce decisions on the connection between forests and economic development and on the need for forest financing to accomplish the objectives of the Forest Principles and the forest instrument.

Eduardo Rojas-Briales, FAO, underscored the opportune timing of UNFF10 to relate to the outcomes of Rio+20, the post-2015 development agenda, and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) process. He said the landscape approach of the CPF sets a mechanism for a cross-sectoral review and builds awareness of the socio-economic contributions of forests to human development.

The Ministerial Segment continued through 9 April, including roundtables on Forests and Economic Development, and the Rio+20 Outcome, Post-2015 Development Agenda and IAF, as well as a High-Level Interactive Dialogue with the Heads of the Member Organizations of the CPF. A summary of Ministerial and Head of Delegation statements is available online at: http://www.iisd.ca/vol13/enb13178e.html and http://www.iisd.ca/vol13/enb13179e.html

FORESTS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ROUNDTABLE: On Tuesday, 9 April, this roundtable took place, co-chaired by Alhaji Inusah Fuseini, Minister of Lands and Natural Resources, Ghana, and Arvids Ozols, Deputy State Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Latvia. It included a presentation by Uma Lele, former World Bank Senior Advisor, addressing means to regain forest cover.

During discussions, delegates addressed issues including: the under-recognition of forests’ contribution to natural capital due to the lack of appreciation of the non-cash value of forests; national forest policies and statistics; national tree planting campaigns; means of cooperation to achieve SFM; and private sector investment.

A summary of the discussion is available online at: http://www.iisd.ca/vol13/enb13179e.html

RIO+20 OUTCOME, POST-2015 DEVELOPMENT AGENDA AND IAF: On Tuesday, 9 April, this roundtable was held, co-chaired by Jean-Pierre Thébault, Ambassador for the Environment, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, France, and Luiz Alberto Figueiredo Machado, Under-Secretary-General for Environment, Science and Technology, Ministry of External Relations, Brazil. It included a presentation by Under-Secretary-General Wu, urging policymakers to provide guidance on integrating SFM into broader socio-economic policies and the post-2015 development agenda discussions.

During discussions, delegates addressed, inter alia: forests in the post-2015 development agenda; forests in a green economy; payment for ecosystem services (PES); a sustainable development goal (SDG) on forests or natural resources; and a global legally binding instrument on forests.

A summary of the discussion is available online at: http://www.iisd.ca/vol13/enb13179e.html

HIGH-LEVEL INTERACTIVE DIALOGUE WITH THE HEADS OF THE MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS OF THE CPF: On Tuesday, 9 April, UNFF Director McAlpine facilitated the high-level panel. Discussions during the panel addressed: the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF)/FAO publication “Advancing Agroforestry on the Policy Agenda”; the aim of the sixth replenishment cycle of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) to address the drivers of deforestation; work by the International Union of Forest Research Organizations to bring together natural and social sciences; cross-sectoral cooperation to demonstrate forests’ capacity to contribute to challenges such as climate change; business cases on the value of forests to encourage investment by other sectors; mobilization of investment across sectors; integration of ecosystem and forest considerations with other sectoral considerations; and the use of the concept of “landscape days” rather than “forest days” to break down institutional silos.

A summary of the discussion is available online at: http://www.iisd.ca/vol13/enb13179e.html

MULTI-STAKEHOLDER DIALOGUE

On Wednesday, 10 April, UNFF Director McAlpine convened the Multi-Stakeholder Dialogue, introducing the “Note by the Secretariat on Multi-Stakeholder Dialogue” (E/CN.18/2013/7) and thanking the Major Groups for the “Forests and Economic Development Discussion Paper” (E/CN.18/2013/7/Add.1), which delivers conclusions and recommendations for discussion at UNFF10.

Peter deMarsh, Canadian Federation of Woodlot Owners, for Farmers and Small Forest Landowners, drew the connection between ensuring livelihoods, increasing forest cover and protecting forests to respecting: the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities; scientific and traditional knowledge, education and capacity building; and access and benefit-sharing.

Hubertus Samangun, Regional Coordinator for the International Alliance of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples of the Tropical Forests, for Indigenous Peoples, called for simplifying access to available funds, such as through the GEF Small Grants Programme. Paul Opanga, Building and Wood Workers’ International, for Forest Workers and Trade Unions, urged member states to ensure living wages for workers, pointing out that “forests that pay are forests that stay,” and urged that forest jobs be both green and decent.

Sim Heok-Choh, Asia Pacific Association of Forestry Research Institutions, for Scientific and Technological Communities, advocated strengthening forestry research, education and training, and enabling environments for private sector investment in science and technology.

Lambert Okrah, Major Groups Partnership on Forests, for NGOs, noted that discussions among participants at a Major Groups-led initiative in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in early 2013 included debate on governance systems and community-based enterprises.

Ghanshyam Pandey, Chair, Federation of Community Forests Users, Nepal, and Global Alliance of Community Forestry, for Farmers and Small Forest Landowners, called for secure land tenure rights for indigenous peoples, farmers and small forest landowners.

Jukka Halonen, Finnish Forests Industries Federation, for Industry, urged the full participation of all Major Groups in international fora. Cécile Ndjebet, African Women’s Network for Community Management of Forests, for Women, called for: including women in forest-based economic development; reforming land tenure systems to ensure women’s land rights; funding women-based forest enterprises; and capacity building to ensure adequate representation of women in decision-making instruments.

Tolulope Daramola, International Forestry Students’ Association (IFSA), for Children and Youth, outlined recommendations of the May 2012 IFSA Conference on “Forests in a green economy: contribution and the youth position,” including employing a youth officer in the UNFF Secretariat.

Andrei Laletin, Friends of the Siberian Forests, for NGOs, remarking on the growing trend of mono-species large-scale plantation afforestation programmes, emphasized that these forests cannot provide ecosystem services lost by destruction of natural forests, and underlined the need for benefit-sharing from genetic resources with forest people.

During discussions, delegates debated, inter alia: the importance of empowering stakeholders; national experiences involving stakeholders in forest management; capacity building for stakeholders; the role of civil society in implementing SFM; and job creation in the forest sector.

A summary of the discussion is available online at: http://www.iisd.ca/vol13/enb13180e.html

COUNTRY STATEMENTS: On Wednesday, 10 April, country statements were heard in plenary. On enhancing cooperation and coordination, Bolivia lamented that the UNFF is not playing a large role in forest policy coordination in the international sphere. The US urged “the UNFF to maintain a facilitative role within the CPF,” rather than assume the function of system-wide coordination within the UN.

Brazil highlighted the UNFF Major Groups Initiative meeting held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, from 18-22 March 2013, which acknowledged the importance of the participation of civil society in the UNFF. Ethiopia reported the activities of the International Network for Bamboo and Rattan, and the Network’s request to join the CPF.

New Zealand, for the Montreal Process, discussed its increased collaboration with the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO), FOREST EUROPE and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO), as well as efforts to develop a forest indicators partnership. Ireland, for the European Union (EU) and Croatia, reported on cooperation through the EU’s Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) Action Plan to exclude illegal timber from the EU market.

Malaysia cautioned against fragmentation and dilution of resources and capacity within the CPF. Outlining the Tehran Process, Iran noted that the process provides a framework to facilitate the support of the CPF for low forest cover countries (LFCCs).

India urged greater cooperation at regional, subregional and national levels to facilitate, inter alia, technology transfer and capacity building. The Democratic Republic of the Congo outlined national activities undertaken in partnership with donors to support SFM implementation.

On forests and economic development, China proposed that the CPF: formulate an implementation plan to support the UNFF’s work and strengthen collaboration; organize evaluations and review collaborative efforts; and support the relevant consultations and post-2015 decision-making. Argentina called for more information on the role of forests in the green economy, in the context of SFM.

Eduardo Rojas-Briales, FAO, and CPF Chair, responding to interventions, noted that CPF priorities are determined and mandated by the UNFF and its member states, cautioning that a balance needs to be achieved regarding CPF activities in order to adequately address all three pillars of sustainable development.

ASSESSMENT OF PROGRESS MADE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FOREST INSTRUMENT AND TOWARDS THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THE FOUR GOFS

On Monday, 8 April, UNFF Director Jan McAlpine summarized the “Report of the Secretary-General on Assessment of Progress Made on the Implementation of the NLBI and Towards Achievement of the Four GOFs” (E/CN.18/2013/2). She noted that the forest instrument’s provisions are being increasingly incorporated into national policies and programmes, and highlighted a growing recognition of the socio-economic benefits of forests and evidence of the contribution of SFM to achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

On Friday, 12 April, this issue was introduced in WGI by Co-Chair Masinja. During general statements, the EU, reporting on negotiations for a legally binding agreement on forests in Europe, called for strengthening LFCCs’ and small island developing states’ (SIDS) capacity to implement the forest instrument. Malaysia noted that the adoption of the forest instrument has reinforced national efforts in SFM.

Delegates debated on whether to include in the forthcoming draft text, inter alia: the need for strengthening capacity of LFCCs in implementing the forest instrument; donor support for implementation and progress reporting; and the Rio Principles, particularly common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR).

On reporting on progress, Indonesia, for the Group of 77 and China (G-77/China), underscored that inadequate funds hinder reporting and Mexico called for continued technical support and harmonization of country reporting methodologies. Switzerland opposed convening a technical expert group to address reporting methodology. Brazil called for early completion of the reporting methodology, with Colombia proposing a deadline of December 2013. The US, with New Zealand, supported streamlining and integrating forest instrument reporting with other reporting processes.

On Tuesday, 16 April, during the first reading of the text, the EU suggested acknowledging progress made on implementing and reporting on the forest instrument and achieving the four GOFs. The G-77/China called for capacity building, technology transfer and financial resources to enhance reporting on implementation of the forest instrument.

On donor support for implementation and reporting efforts, the EU and Switzerland remarked on ongoing discussions on MoI for SFM in WGII. Switzerland, supported by the EU and the US, called for deleting the text on opportunities for the UNFF Secretariat to incorporate the forest instrument in the work programmes of the CPF organizations.

During the second reading of the draft resolution on Wednesday, 17 April, the G-77/China called for including the Rio Principles, specifically CBDR, in preambular text recalling the Forest Principles. Switzerland, with the EU and the US, opposed singling out principles, and WGI agreed to use “non-legally binding instrument on all types of forests” in place of the “forest instrument” throughout the text.

Delegates debated the best placement of text to acknowledge progress made on implementing the NLBI, with the EU proposing to move the text to an operational paragraph. The US preferred the original text contained in the zero draft, and the G-77/China requested amendments emphasizing challenges in making progress.

Final Outcome: On early Saturday morning, 20 April, delegates adopted the “Resolution on Agenda Items 3, 4, 5 and 8” (summarized beginning on page 9), including a section on the assessment of progress made on the implementation of the NLBI and in achieving the four GOFs. The resolution includes language on, inter alia: including success stories in member states’ reporting to UNFF11; strengthening collaboration by CPF member organizations and member states on NLBI implementation pilot projects; and streamlining guidelines and formats for national reporting to UNFF11.

REGIONAL AND SUBREGIONAL INPUTS

On Wednesday, 10 April, UNFF Director McAlpine presented the “Report of the Secretary-General on Regional and Subregional Inputs” (E/CN.18/2013/3), calling for attention to the work of capturing data on forests, and effectively contributing this data to national accounting.

WGI Co-Chair Masinja opened the discussion on regional and subregional inputs in WGI on Friday, 12 April. Delegates agreed on the need to capture data on forests and welcomed efforts by regional and subregional processes to provide input to the Forum. They also deliberated on the associated roles and responsibilities of the UNFF Secretariat, member states and CPF member organizations, and how to enhance regional cooperation.

On the role of the Forum Secretariat, delegates discussed the need for the UNFF to collaborate with UN conventions. While Indonesia, for the G-77/China, spoke in favor of such collaboration, New Zealand, Switzerland, the EU and Japan said this was a task for member states. The EU and Switzerland opposed including in the draft text other activities, such as hosting regional workshops and building partnerships with financial institutions, explaining this scope of work would be too broad for the UNFF Secretariat.

The G-77/China proposed that the Secretariat and CPF member organizations support member states in developing non-market-based approaches and respect the rights of Mother Earth, while the EU focused on the contribution of SFM criteria and indicators and ways to address information and data gaps. The EU proposed encouraging CPF member organizations to assist countries in valuing forest goods and services, including non-wood forest products (NWFPs), in order to support further harmonization.

A contact group met on Thursday, 18 April, to address language that hindered progress in whether member states should be “urged,” “invited,” or “encouraged” to enhance cooperation.

Based on the observation by the EU that collaboration with UN bodies and CPF member organizations on addressing information and data gaps was being addressed by WGII, the Co-Chairs agreed to coordinate with WGII and use text agreed by WGII on this issue.

Final Outcome: On Saturday, 20 April, in plenary, delegates adopted the “Resolution on Agenda Items 3, 4, 5 and 8” (summarized beginning on page 9), including a section on regional and subregional inputs. The resolution calls for, among others, strengthening collaboration on SFM and enhancing the role of forests and SFM in sustainable development.

FORESTS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

On Monday, 8 April, UNFF Director McAlpine presented the “Report of the Secretary-General on Forests and Economic Development” (E/CN.18/2013/4) and the “Report of the Secretary-General on Conclusions and Recommendations for Addressing Key Challenges of Forests and Economic Development” (E/CN.18/2013/5), outlining issues relating to the cash and non-cash contributions of forests to economic development, and the relationship between forests and other sectors.

On Wednesday, 10 April, representatives from Japan, Germany, the Netherlands and Ukraine presented country-led initiatives (CLIs) that were reported to the UNFF Secretariat (E/CN.18/2013/14, 15, 16 and 17), highlighting international and regional meetings held in 2011 and 2012.

On Friday, 12 April, WGI Co-Chair Davidovich opened WGI discussions on this item. Delegates discussed: forest products and services; national forest programmes and other sectoral policies; reduction of the risks and impacts of disasters; and the benefits of forests and trees to urban communities.

On Monday, 15 April, WGI Co-Chair Masinja introduced a draft resolution on forests and economic development. On improving data collection and reporting, Bolivia stressed that valuation of forest benefits includes contributions to food and water and involves different approaches and tools, in accordance with national legislation. The EU suggested recognizing the cash and non-cash contributions of forests.

The G-77/China suggested enhancing the role and participation of indigenous peoples and local communities in strengthening enabling environments to attract private sector investment. The EU called for promoting public and private investment, in particular for smallholders, and for integrating urban forests into urban planning. Switzerland suggested financial mechanisms to reduce the risks and impacts of natural disasters and climate change.

WGI incorporated the EU proposal, supported by Switzerland, to highlight gender equality in promoting economic opportunities and strengthening governance and institutional frameworks. Kenya, for the G-77/China, called for, inter alia, reviewing forest-related legislation. On strategies by member states to reduce the risk and impacts of natural disasters and extreme climatic events, the G-77/China, opposed by the EU, underscored technical and financial cooperation mechanisms. Delegates agreed to liaise with WGII on language regarding mobilizing and implementing resources for forests and economic development.

A contact group also addressed several contentious issues including: inclusion of market and non-market values in contributions of forests to national and local economies; use of forest “products” versus “goods” in evaluation approaches; use of the landscape approach to SFM; promotion of economic opportunities and gender equality and the referencing of “indigenous peoples and local communities” versus “indigenous and local communities” in text on establishing and strengthening legal frameworks to realize forests’ potential.

Co-Chair Masinja presented suggested preambular text taken from the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, which set forth principles including on CBDR (principle 7). The US and Japan noted that this language was agreed in a different context, and would require further consideration. This issue and other outstanding issues including the resolution of text referencing MoI and SFM emerging issues under WGII, were later resolved during a Bureau meeting, which reconciled the texts of the two WGs.

Final Outcomes: Early on Saturday, 20 April, delegates adopted the “Resolution on Agenda Items 3, 4, 5 and 8” (summarized beginning on page 9), including a section on forests and economic development. The resolution addresses, inter alia: the contributions of forests to national and local economies and sustainable development; valuation of forest values; SFM in national development strategies; means of addressing deforestation and forest degradation; the role of forest ecosystem services in economic development; stakeholder participation; public and private investment in SFM; legal governance and institutional frameworks; and urban forests and trees.

EMERGING ISSUES

On Monday, 8 April, UNFF Director McAlpine introduced the “Report of the Secretary-General on the IAF, the post-2015 United Nations Development Agenda and the outcomes of the Rio+20 Conference: interconnections and implications” (E/CN.18/2013/6), noting three emerging issues: the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and the post-2015 development agenda; the outcomes of the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD or Rio+20); and the future of the IAF. She said the review of the IAF, scheduled for 2015, will, inter alia, assess the UNFF and its functions, as well as the ongoing role of the CPF. She stated that the report urged UNFF10 to discuss preparations for the review, including a possible roadmap, intersessional work and financial implications. McAlpine further noted the UNFF should discuss different possibilities for the future IAF, including a legally binding agreement, a framework agreement or continuation of the forest instrument.

On Thursday, 11 April, UNFF10 Chair Carranza opened this agenda item in plenary. Many countries supported ensuring that the post-2015 development agenda addresses forests and SFM. The EU said the UNFF should encourage member states to include the sustainable management of natural resources, including forests, as an important principle under the post-2015 development agenda. Indonesia proposed having a cross-cutting SDG that includes poverty eradication, sustainable growth and equity, and forests.

Most countries supported the establishment of an AHEG to review various aspects, components and options for the future IAF, as recommended in the Report of the Secretary-General on Emerging Issues. Fiji, for the G-77/China, noted that although stakeholders should be invited to provide input, decision-making should only be done by member states. Brazil further noted that the CPF’s role is to support member states. Switzerland urged that the review be an independent process with a clearly defined methodology.

The Philippines and Turkey supported establishing a legally binding instrument on forests that encompasses all pillars of sustainable development.

On natural capital accounting, the EU requested the UNFF Secretariat to provide further information on natural capital accounting initiatives by the World Bank and the UN Statistical Commission. Burundi and Switzerland supported natural capital accounting, while Bolivia rejected it based on decisions from Rio+20.

The G-77/China called for UNFF11 to be organized and hosted at a UN facility. Sudan, supported by Ghana, Niger, Turkey and others, proposed holding UNFF11 in Africa, specifically at UN Environment Programme (UNEP) Headquarters in Nairobi, Kenya.

In closing, UNFF Director McAlpine highlighted funding issues that could affect the ability to convene an AHEG. The Secretariat clarified that if the agreed intersessional work is not a “one off,” a programme budget will have to be drafted and approved by the General Assembly (UNGA).

Delegates took up this issue in discussions under WGII. Informal consultations were held on arrangements for the 2015 review of the IAF, co-facilitated by Alan Reid (New Zealand) and Elise Haber (South Africa).

The Co-Chairs introduced the zero draft of the text on all WGII issues on Monday, 15 April, followed by several iterations of the text.

Regardingthe Rio+20 outcome and post-2015 development agenda, the G-77/China called for a specific SDG on forests that should be based on the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (JPOI) and Agenda 21. He opposed including the concept of natural capital accounting. The EU noted that this concept is reflected in the Rio+20 outcome document, although not explicitly.

Japan and the EU cautioned against prejudging the outcome of the post-2015 development agenda process. The EU and New Zealand supported sending a message on the importance of forests for sustainable development in the post-2015 development agenda.

On the role of forests in achieving sustainable development, the US proposed text ensuring that UNFF10 conveys to ongoing processes that “failures to better conserve and sustainably manage forests may put at risk the achievement of other internationally agreed development goals.”

The EU proposed text recognizing the need for broader measures of progress to complement gross domestic product in order to better inform policy decisions and noting that MDG indicator 7-1 (the proportion of land area covered by forests) has continued to evolve negatively at the global level. Morocco suggested noting the work on forest financing undertaken by the UN Secretary-General’s High-Level Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing.

On the review of the effectiveness of the IAF, most delegates supported establishing an AHEG, with some, such as the EU, proposing one AHEG meeting before UNFF11 and others, such as the G-77/China, favoring two meetings. Brazil and Jamaica supported holding UNFF11, as well as two AHEG meetings, in New York.

Regarding the scope of the IAF review, the US suggested reviewing four elements: legal matters such as the forest instrument, options for a legally binding instrument and UNFF resolutions; organizational matters such as the UNFF and its meetings; the UNFF Secretariat, the CPF and their operation; and the Facilitative Process.

Cuba noted that the outcome should, inter alia, address financing for SFM, particularly for developing countries. Bolivia said the agenda and scope of the AHEG should include a call for views and submissions from member states. Malaysia said CPF members should participate in the AHEG.

The G-77/China, opposed by the EU, supported making the AHEG open-ended and intergovernmental, with the EU noting that the mandate of the AHEG will determine its form.

On the submission of views on options for the future IAF, the G-77/China suggested that the Secretariat prepare a full evaluation of the current IAF, including the gaps, and the EU proposed requesting views on the IAF’s effectiveness and efficiency.

During informal discussions, on the form of the text on the IAF review and AHEG process, delegates highlighted that the resolution should include in the main body, clearly-defined paragraphs on the IAF review process and the AHEG process mandating the review and the AHEG, and an annex containing further detail and general timelines.

Final Outcome: Early Saturday morning, 20 April, in plenary, delegates adopted the “Resolution on Emerging Issues, MoI and the Forum Trust Fund” (summarized beginning on page 12), including a section on emerging issues, deciding that the effectiveness of the IAF will be reviewed in 2015, and establishing an open-ended intergovernmental AHEG to review the IAF’s performance and effectiveness. The resolution includes an annex containing the components and activities of the review.

ENHANCED COOPERATION AND POLICY AND PROGRAMME COORDINATION, INCLUDING THE PROVISION OF FURTHER GUIDANCE TO THE CPF

On Wednesday, 10 April, UNFF Director McAlpine presented the “Report of the Secretary-General on Enhanced Cooperation and Policy and Programme Coordination” (E/CN.18/2013/8), outlining UNFF cooperation with, inter alia: the CPF in follow-up to Rio+20; and indigenous peoples and forests in the post-2015 development agenda. She also presented the “Note by the Secretariat on the International Year of Forests, 2011 Activities: Trends and Lessons Learned” (E/CN.18/2013/9), highlighting that the theme “Forests for People” underscores the cross-sectoral linkages of forests. Rojas-Briales presented the “Report by the Secretariat on the CPF Framework 2011 and 2012” (E/CN.18/2013/10), outlining CPF achievements, including a single coordinated input on forests to Rio+20.

On Friday, 12 April, WGI began consideration of enhanced cooperation, with clear messages emerging on acknowledging the dependence of local communities in developing countries on forest resources and recognizing the benefits of forests to sustainable development.

On Monday, 15 April, they began consideration of the zero draft of the text. Delegates agreed to include the proposal by Indonesia, for the G-77/China, encouraging sharing experiences, lessons learned and best practices regarding SFM. They also agreed to recognize: the challenges to SFM posed by urbanization; and the role of SFM in enhancing resilience to disaster risk and impacts of climate change.

There were areas in the WGI draft that required coordination with WGII, such as on promoting the inclusion of the role of forests in the UN development agenda. Other areas of contention included designating responsibility among donor countries, CPF organizations and the UNFF Secretariat. Delegates supported Switzerland’s proposal to invite the CPF, rather than the UNFF Secretariat as originally drafted, to foster synergy among the forest-related activities and programmes of its member organizations, including on the multiple social, economic, environmental and cultural benefits and value of forests. They also agreed to invite the CPF member organizations, rather than member states, to streamline reporting. Delegates also discussed the merits of establishing a network for sharing knowledge, as proposed by the G-77/China, but did not agree on terms.

Delegates debated whether to support the proposal by the US to call on member states to develop communication tools on forests’ importance to urban communities, agreeing to text requesting the UNFF Secretariat to do so in collaboration with CPF member organizations, to carry out this task.

WGI debated whether to call specifically on developed countries, as proposed by the G-77/China, in text on organizing and facilitating the International Day of Forests. They agreed to leave this to all member states, as proposed by the US. The EU proposed noting UNGA Resolution 67/200, thereby eliminating the need to define the UNFF Secretariat’s role in facilitating the celebration.

Final Outcomes: Early on Saturday, 20 April, in plenary, delegates adopted the “Resolution on Agenda Items 3, 4, 5 and 8” (summarized beginning on page 9), including a section on enhanced cooperation. The resolution calls for increasing information sharing, streamlining reporting guidelines, fostering synergies among CPF member organizations’ forest-related activities and engaging all Major Groups. The resolution also calls on member states to, inter alia, facilitate and organize activities to celebrate the International Day of Forests on 21 March or at the time most appropriate to each member state.

MEANS OF IMPLEMENTATION FOR SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT

On Monday, 8 April, UNFF Director McAlpine introduced the “Report of the Secretary-General on MoI for SFM” and the “Report of the Second Meeting of Open-Ended Intergovernmental AHEG” (E/CN.18/2013/11 and 12), noting that MoI include forest financing and technology exchange. In the presentation to plenary, McAlpine said the report recognizes that establishing a fund will require longer-term efforts to consider modalities, but immediate decisions should ensure monetary support for those countries that urgently need it.

Over the course of the two weeks, delegates debated the issues of establishing a global forest fund and a stand-alone window for forest financing at the GEF. Other topics addressed included promoting private sector investment, strengthening the transfer of environmentally sound technologies (ESTs), creating enabling conditions for investments and ensuring efficient use of financing for SFM.

On Friday, 12 April, WGII Co-Chair Juričić opened the discussion on MoI. Co-Chairs of the second meeting of the AHEG on forest financing ,Jan Heino (Finland) and Paulino Franco de Carvalho Neto (Brazil), highlighted the main issues emerging from the intersessional meetings and outlined recommendations, including: the importance of fostering cross-sectoral collaboration; ensuring continued national efforts in forest financing; encouraging private sector investment; and strengthening national data collection on forest financing.

On financing for SFM, Cuba highlighted that current financial mechanisms present difficulties regarding accessing finance. Morocco noted the need for a package of funding mechanisms, including through South-South, regional and inter-regional collaboration. Switzerland underlined the role of regional forestry organizations in forest financing, saying these organizations should work with the UNFF to address funding gaps. Turkey highlighted the role of carbon markets in providing financial opportunities for SFM. The EU, supported by the US, Japan and Switzerland, proposed text noting a significant increase in official development assistance (ODA) for SFM. Ghana, for the G-77/China, objected, saying the increase is due to an increase in climate finance.

On approaches to forest financing, the G-77/China proposed referencing the CBDR principle. The EU proposed including text on harnessing the potential of the private sector to finance SFM and highlighted the importance of a wide variety of funding sources, including market-based approaches, effective use of trade and investment opportunities, and domestic financing.

On technology transfer, capacity building and strengthening data, Switzerland, with the US, called on member states to provide data on financing and developing national strategies for SFM. Senegal called for strengthening data collection mechanisms. The EU recommended that the UNFF Secretariat initiate discussions with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development on this. On the transfer of ESTs, the US and the EU called for language on strengthening the transfer of ESTs “on mutually agreed terms and conditions.”

On establishing a global forest fund, Ghana, for the African Group, the G-77/China, Bolivia, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Gabon, Guatemala, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Turkey supported establishing such a fund. Canada, the EU, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland and the US opposed this. The African Group further called for regional funds, such as an African forest fund, with simplified access modalities.

Switzerland expressed a willingness to consider a global forest fund, but only within the framework of a legally binding instrument containing commitments. The EU, with New Zealand, noted that discussions thus far have not supported the need for a global forest fund. Japan said a new fund would entail administrative and operational costs, citing alternatives such as improving access to existing financial mechanisms.

During informal consultations, delegates recognized that their current positions were at opposite extremes, with some delegations for and others against establishing a global forest fund. Some suggested establishing a fund immediately, with the modalities to be finalized at a later date, while others favored waiting for the results of the 2015 review of the IAF before considering its establishment. The informal group agreed to refer this issue back to the Co-Chairs.

The Co-Chairs proposed compromise text on considering a voluntary global forest fund as part of the 2015 review of the IAF, as a way to enhance financing for SFM. Cuba urged that the modalities for such a fund be considered by the AHEG. Following protracted discussion, participants agreed on compromise text to consider, as an integral element of the 2015 review of the IAF, a full range of financing options and strategies, including establishing a voluntary global forest fund.

On establishing a stand-alone window at the GEF for forest financing, China, with the African Group, suggested using a combination of mechanisms, including a dedicated GEF focal area for SFM. The G-77/China favored “calling upon the GEF to establish a dedicated new focal area for SFM” in its sixth replenishment cycle. Switzerland, opposed by Saudi Arabia, underlined that establishing such a window should only take place once a legally binding instrument has been established.

In the informal discussions, there was broad agreement on increasing the GEF’s role in SFM financing, with many delegates advocating that the GEF establish a new focal area for forests and increase the allocation of funds for SFM in future replenishments. Some delegates noted that as the GEF is not a financial mechanism of the UNFF, the Forum should not “call upon” the GEF to undertake tasks. Delegates agreed on text that invites the GEF to consider ways to strengthen support for SFM.

Final Outcome: On early Saturday, 20 April, in plenary, delegates adopted the Resolution on Emerging Issues, MoI and the Forum Trust Fund (summarized on page 12), including a section on MoI. The resolution addresses, inter alia: the evolution of forest financing architecture; actions to be taken by member states and at the national, regional and international levels; resources available in the existing GEF-5 SFM/REDD+ (reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries, plus the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks) Incentive Mechanism; data collection on forest financial flows and private sector investment flows for SFM; and consideration of the establishment of a voluntary global forest fund as part of the full range of financing options and strategies to be considered in the overall IAF review.

FORUM TRUST FUND

On Tuesday, 16 April, UNFF10 Chair Carranza introduced this agenda item. UNFF Director McAlpine presented an overview of the “Note by the Secretariat on the UN Trust Funds to Support the UNFF” (E/CN.18/2013/13). She listed the voluntary contributions received from member states to the Trust Fund in the biennium 2011-2012, outlining how the funds were spent. UNFF Director McAlpine described the Secretariat’s staffing situation as “precarious” due to budget shortfalls and called for enhanced contributions from member states.

Ivan Koulov, the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), outlined, inter alia, the costs of holding meetings in New York, Nairobi and Vienna, including UN staff travel, conference services and supporting the attendance of developing country experts. He concluded that meeting costs will likely be US$100,000 cheaper in New York than in Vienna and US$150,000 cheaper than in Nairobi.

Stadler Trengove, UN Office of Legal Affairs, explained the concept of an open-ended AHEG, saying membership would be open to all states and Major Groups. He also noted that it is up to the UNFF to decide on the AHEG’s modalities and mandates. Regarding options for independent expert reviews of UN entities, he presented possible options, including: the Joint Inspection Unit; the Board of Auditors; and the Independent Audit Advisory Committee.

In the subsequent discussions, delegates commented on issues, including: the cost of meeting in New York versus Nairobi; the need to formally reflect funds spent by countries on CLIs; the need to indicate clear priorities for the Secretariat’s work over the next biennium; the meaning of “intergovernmental” in the context of an AHEG; the legal implications of commissioning an independent review of the IAF; and the call for additional contributions to the Trust Fund, and the need to balance available financial resources with expectations of work.

Final Outcomes: On early Saturday, 20 April, in plenary, delegates adopted the Resolution on Emerging Issues, MoI and the Forum Trust Fund (summarized on page 12), including a section on the Forum Trust Fund. The resolution calls upon donors, in a position to do so, to contribute to the Fund in order to support participation of developing countries in the AHEG and enable the UNFF Secretariat to carry out its intersessional mandate.

RESOLUTION ON ASSESSMENT OF PROGRESS MADE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NLBI AND TOWARDS ACHIEVEMENT OF THE FOUR GOFS, REGIONAL AND SUBREGIONAL INPUTS, FORESTS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, AND ENHANCED COOPERATION

On Monday morning, 15 April, in WGI, delegates were presented the zero draft of the “Draft Resolution by the Vice-Chairs of WGI on Agenda Items 3, 4, 5 and 8.” In-depth debate undertaken by WGI during the first week on specific topics later included in the draft resolution is summarized above by agenda item. The zero draft was prepared on the basis of interventions made by delegates during these debates during the first week of UNFF10. On Monday and Tuesday, WGI proposed amendments to the zero draft during the first reading of the text. The second reading of the revised draft text took place on Wednesday and Thursday, and the third reading commenced on Thursday.

Outstanding issues were referred to a contact group, which considered unresolved text on Thursday and Friday. WGI reconvened briefly at 6:00 pm on Friday to report on agreed text from the contact group and then adjourned pending agreed text from WGII on MoI and emerging issues, and continued informal discussions on unresolved issues. Late on Friday evening, a Bureau meeting was convened to resolve differences in the text between WGI and WGII, in particular to remove references to MoI in the operational section of the WGI text and ensure consistency in referencing items addressed in the preambular paragraphs of the WGII text.

On the preambular paragraphs, discussions focused on: whether to reference CBDR when recalling the Forest Principles; how to address MoI for the implementation of the NLBI, with delegates agreeing to emphasize the need to mobilize enhanced resources from all sources; and how to refer to the post-2015 development agenda, resolved by calling it the “UN development agenda beyond 2015/post-2015 development agenda” throughout the text.

On forests and economic development, debate focused on, inter alia: how to account for national circumstances (resolved by including “in accordance with national legislation and policies” in several places in the text); whether to refer to market- or non-market-based approaches or both, which parties agreed to do; whether to include language on landscape level approaches, which they did clarifying it applies in countries that recognize them; whether to use the term “forest goods” or “forest products,” which was clarified to “forest goods, products and services”; whether to highlight indigenous peoples as part of relevant stakeholders, which was agreed; and whether to establish and/or strengthen legal frameworks, with agreement to “establish or strengthen.”

On regional and subregional inputs, debate centered on, inter alia: roles and responsibilities of the Forum Secretariat; accounting for different visions, approaches and models to achieve sustainable development, in particular how to reference the green economy and the rights of nature; and accounting for a wide range of forest values, including natural capital accounting.

On progress in implementing the NLBI and achieving its GOFs, discussions addressed streamlining guidelines and formats for voluntary national reporting.

On enhanced cooperation, debates focused on, inter alia:streamlining and harmonizing guidelines for national forest-related reporting to CPF member organizations, in order to reduce reporting burdens; the role of the Forum Secretariat; and whether to specifically reference indigenous peoples in text on effectively engaging all Major Groups.

On the International Day of Forests, delegates addressed whether the UNFF Secretariat was responsible for organizing the Day, and whether to include language acknowledging that some countries have already specified days other than 21 March for forest celebrations. 

Final Outcome: Early Saturday morning, 20 April, UNFF Vice-Chair and WGI Co-Chair Masinja presented WGI “Draft Resolution on Agenda Items 3, 4, 5, and 8” to plenary. UNFF10 Chair Carranza noted the document had no programme budget implications. The resolution was adopted by acclamation.

The Resolution on Agenda Items 3, 4, 5 and 8 states that UNFF, inter alia:

•  recalls the Forest Principles, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, which set forth principles including principle 7 on CBDR, Chapter 11 of Agenda 21, the Johannesburg Declaration and JPOI, the NLBI and the Rio+20 outcome;

•  recalls the UNFF9 Ministerial Declaration;

•  recalls UNGA Resolution 61/93 proclaiming 2011 as the International Year of Forests and UNGA Resolution 67/200 proclaiming 21 March of each year the International Day of Forests;

•  welcomes progress by member states in implementing the NLBI, while emphasizing that gaps remain with respect to MoI for many countries, especially LFCCs, least developed countries, SIDS and African countries;

•  welcomes the efforts of the UNFF Secretariat and the collaborative activities of the CPF in support of the Forum and towards implementing the NLBI, as well as inputs and contributions of regional and subregional organizations and processes and Major Groups;

•  recalls the MYPOW and the theme of UNFF10, “Forests and Economic Development,” as well as intersessional CLIs, Region-Led Initiatives and Organization-Led Initiatives;

•  recognizes the positive contribution of SFM to achieving sustainable development;

•  highlights the social, economic and environmental benefits of forests to people;

•  emphasizes that forests, trees outside forests and SFM provide direct and indirect social, economic, environmental and cultural benefits at all levels;

•  recognizes the importance of strengthening the role of SFM in enhancing resilience to disaster risk and impacts, and to the adverse impacts of climate change, in particular in developing countries, such as SIDS and LFCCs;

•  emphasizes the significance of the discussions on the outcome of Rio+20, on the UN development agenda beyond 2015/ post-2015 development agenda and on the review of the effectiveness of the IAF; and

•  recognizes the challenges posed to sustainable management of forests and trees outside forests by an increasing urban population.

On forests and economic development, the UNFF invites member states to, inter alia:

•  recognize the contributions of forest goods, products and services to national and local economies, as well as the social, cultural and environmental impacts of forests to rural and urban communities, and to integrate such values in national accounting systems;

•  improve the collection, analysis, reporting and dissemination of information and data;

•  integrate SFM into national development strategies, and utilize the NLBI as a platform to develop and strengthen linkages with other related sectors;

•  take action to address the underlying causes of deforestation and forest degradation by supporting economic development strategies that avoid forest degradation and loss, and minimize negative impacts on forests;

•  create, strengthen and implement holistic, balanced, comprehensive and coherent policies and strategies that focus on enhancing and promoting the environmental, social, cultural and economic aspects of SFM as a cross-sectoral approach at the local, national and subregional levels, and at a landscape level in countries that recognize it;

•  recognize the role that forest ecosystem services play in economic development and strengthen enabling environments, in accordance with national priorities and legislation, to attract increased long-term public and private sector investment in SFM;

•  enhance the role and full participation of all relevant stakeholders in the forest sector, including indigenous peoples and local communities, on SFM;

•  establish and/or strengthen legal frameworks, as well as the governance and institutional frameworks and policies needed to realize the full potential of forests’ contributions to economic development;

•  review and, as needed, improve forest-related legislation, strengthen forest law enforcement and promote good governance at all levels to, inter alia,support SFM and create enabling environments for forest investment;

•  promote public and private investments in SFM, according to national legislation;

•  recognize the importance of urban forests and trees and the need to integrate them into urban planning; and

•  develop integrated, comprehensive, balanced and coherent policies to reduce the risks and impacts of natural disasters, as well as the adverse effects and impacts of climate change, and to promote resilience of forest ecosystems.

On regional and subregional inputs, the UNFF, inter alia:

•  welcomes efforts by regional and subregional processes to provide inputs to the UNFF and to strengthen collaboration with CPF member organizations to advance SFM;

•  requests the UNFF Secretariat and invites other members of the CPF, in conjunction with regional and subregional processes, to continue to collaborate on issues related to SFM, and to promote North-South, South-South and triangular cooperation;

•  invites member states, CPF member organizations and other organizations to enhance the role of forests and SFM in sustainable development, taking into account different visions, approaches, models and tools to achieve sustainable development, including a green economy, and considering that some countries recognize the rights of nature;

•  encourages member states and invites CPF member organizations, the scientific community, civil society organizations and the private sector to enhance cooperation, to scale up national and local research, and develop and consolidate databases and knowledge management networks;

•  invites CPF member organizations to assist countries in assessing the non-market value of forest products, goods and services, including NWFPs and to share lessons learned;

•  encourages the UNFF Secretariat and CPF member organizations to assist member states, upon request, in the development of holistic and integrated non-market-based approaches to SFM;

•  invites CPF member organizations to continue ongoing international initiatives on recognition and valuation of the wide range of forest values; and

•  requests the UNFF to collaborate with UN bodies and CPF member organizations, regional and other relevant organizations and processes, including international financial institutions, on ways to address information and data gaps on values and contributions of forest products, goods and services.

On progress on implementing the NLBI and achieving its GOFs, the UNFF, inter alia:

•  encourages member states to highlight success stories and best practices to address all aspects of the four GOFs, in their reporting to UNFF11;

•  invites CPF member organizations, in particular the FAO, to strengthen collaboration with member states on pilot projects for implementing the NLBI; and

•  requests the UNFF Secretariat to further streamline the guidelines and format for voluntary national reporting to UNFF11.

On enhanced cooperation, the UNFF, inter alia:

•  encourages member states, CPF member organizations, regional and subregional organizations, and relevant stakeholders to share experiences, lessons learned and best practices regarding SFM;

•  encourages regional and subregional organizations and processes and Major Groups to continue to provide coordinated inputs to the UNFF;

•  invites the CPF to continue and expand efforts to streamline and harmonize guidelines for national forest-related reporting to CPF member organizations, in order to reduce reporting burdens and promote consistency in reporting; and

•  requests the UNFF Secretariat to continue to strengthen its activities to effectively engage all Major Groups, noting the importance of forests to indigenous peoples and local communities.

On the International Day of Forests, the UNFF, inter alia:

•  notes with satisfaction the adoption of UNGA Resolution 67/200 concerning the establishment of the International Day of Forests, and invites member states, the UNFF Secretariat, CPF member organizations, regional and subregional organizations, and Major Groups to organize activities to celebrate this day; and

•  encourages member states to organize activities each year to celebrate the International Day of Forests on 21 March or at a time most appropriate to each state.

RESOLUTION ON EMERGING ISSUES, MOI AND THE FORUM TRUST FUND

On Monday morning, 15 April, in WGII, delegates were presented the zero draft of the “Co-Chairs Text on Emerging Issues and MoI for SFM.” The zero draft was prepared on the basis of interventions made by delegates during the first week of UNFF10. The debate in WGII during the first week on the individual topics later combined into the draft resolution is summarized above by agenda item.

On Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, delegates undertook the first reading of the zero draft. An informal group was established on Tuesday, 16 April, to address emerging issues, specifically the 2015 review of the IAF. On Wednesday, 17 April, an informal group was established to address MoI. The second reading of the revised draft text commenced on Wednesday afternoon, with work by the informal groups continuing. The emerging issues informal group concluded their work on Thursday, 18 April, and the MoI informal group concluded late Friday, 19 April. A Bureau meeting convened late Friday to resolve the final outstanding issues and reconcile the language in the WGI and WGII texts. The Resolution on Emerging Issues, MoI and the Forum Trust Fund was adopted by the UNFF10 plenary early on Saturday morning, 20 April.

On the preambular paragraphs, debate focused, inter alia, on whether to reference the principle of CBDR and the importance of aid effectiveness and how to reference the post-2015 development agenda, with delegates agreeing to call it the UN development agenda beyond 2015/post-2015 development agenda throughout the text.

On the Rio+20 outcome and the UN development agenda beyond 2015/post-2015 development agenda, delegates debated how to reference these issues with some cautioning against prejudging the outcomes of these processes.

On the review of the effectiveness of the IAF, debate in the informal group focused on which elements should be included in the review, such as MoI for the NLBI and the UNFF in the context of a post-2015 UN development framework. Discussions also addressed the possible components of the review, whether to establish an open-ended intergovernmental AHEG on the IAF review, the number of AHEG meetings and its modalities, and how to finance its work.

On the Forum Trust Fund, debate revolved around, inter alia, whether to reference the UNFF carrying out “intersessional activities within its mandate” or only those “activities requested by UNFF10.” Debate also addressed whether to spell out exactly how money should be spent or to call for it being spent in the “most efficient and cost-effective manner”; the latter was eventually agreed.

On MoI, controversial issues included: whether to establish a focal area on forests under the GEF, with delegates agreeing to invite the GEF to consider the options of establishing a new focal area on forests, and continuing and seeking to improve existing forest finance modalities; and whether to establish a global forest fund, with delegates agreeing, in the context of the IAF review, to consider a full range of financing options and strategies, including the establishment of a voluntary global forest fund.

Other areas of debate included whether to include references to: the green economy in the context of CLIs; the review and improvement of forest-related legislation to create enabling environments for forest investment; enhanced resources to address thematic, geographic and data gaps in forest financing; market- and non-market-based approaches to SFM and “living in harmony with nature”; and private sector finance.

Final Outcome: Early on Saturday morning, 20 April, WGII Co-Chair Juričić introduced the “Draft Resolution on Emerging Issues, MoI and the UNFF Trust Fund.” UNFF10 Chair Carranza noted that the resolution had no programme budget implications. The US, as facilitator of the contact group on MoI under WGII, highlighted that a preambular paragraph referencing CBDR was missing from the text, saying agreement on certain paragraphs by the G-77/China had been contingent on that addition. WGII Co-Chair Abdullah noted this change and the resolution was adopted by acclamation, as orally revised.

In the Resolution on Emerging Issues, MoI and UNFF Trust Fund, the UNFF, inter alia:

•  recalls the ECOSOC Resolution E/2006/49, and its paragraph 32, in which the ECOSOC decided that the effectiveness of the IAF will be reviewed in 2015;

•  recalls further the MYPOW, in which UNFF11 is mandated to discuss the overall theme of “Forests: Progress, Challenges and the Way Forward for the International Arrangement” as well as its three themes, and recognizes the need to make necessary preparation to enable an informed decision on the IAF at UNFF11;

•  recalls further the provisions of the UNFF9 Special Session Resolution, which mandated UNFF10 to make a decision on financing SFM, as well as the UNFF9 Ministerial Declaration, in which Ministers committed to take a meaningful decision on financing at UNFF10;

•  emphasizes the importance of aid effectiveness;

•  emphasizes the significance of the discussions on the Rio+20 outcomes, on the UN development agenda beyond 2015/ post-2015 development agenda and on the review of the effectiveness of the IAF; and

•  stresses that despite concerted efforts, forests continue to be lost and degraded at an alarming rate, threatening the achievement of sustainable development.

On the Rio+20 outcome, and the UN development agenda beyond 2015/post-2015 development agenda, the UNFF, inter alia:

•  reiterates the vital role and significant contribution of all types of forests and trees outside forests for achieving sustainable development;

•  recognizes the importance of achieving the four GOFs, and that failure to better conserve and sustainably manage all types of forests may put the achievement of other internationally agreed development goals at risk;

•  requests the UNFF Secretariat and invites CPF member organizations to promote the message of the importance of forests in the implementation of the Rio+20 outcomes and the UN development agenda beyond 2015/post-2015 development agenda; and

•  encourages member states to fully integrate forests into the discussions on the Rio+20 outcomes and the UN development agenda beyond 2015/post-2015 development agenda.

On the review of the effectiveness of the IAF, the UNFF decides that this will happen in 2015 and that on this basis a full range of options will be considered, including a legally binding agreement or strengthening or continuing the current arrangement. The text sets out the elements to be included in the review and decides that the review shall have the following components: submissions by countries, the CPF, CPF members and other relevant organizations and stakeholders; an independent assessment of the IAF; and an open-ended intergovernmental AHEG on the IAF review in 2015.

The UNFF further:

•  establishes the AHEG to conduct no more than two meetings before UNFF11, which will review the IAF’s performance and effectiveness;

•  expresses appreciation for contributions towards the work of the UNFF and strongly urges voluntary contributions to support the IAF review process; and

•  invites countries, organizations and Major Groups that organize CLIs, region-led initiatives and organization-led initiatives to provide information to the UNFF Secretariat on their contributions.

On the Forum Trust Fund, the UNFF calls on donors and other countries in a position to do so to provide financial support to the Forum Trust Fund, in order to support developing countries’ participation in the AHEG and to enable the UNFF Secretariat to carry out its intersessional activities within its mandate.

On MoI, the UNFF, inter alia:

•  takes note of the report of the Advisory Group on Finance of the CPF acknowledging significant progress towards achieving the four GOFs, limitations in data collection, and thematic and geographical gaps in respect of financial flows for SFM and the amount of finance distributed;

•  recognizes the evolution of forest financing and that a number of new financing instruments and mechanisms have emerged to address thematic elements of SFM; and

•  reiterates that there is no single solution to address all forest financing needs and a combination of actions is required at all levels, by all stakeholders and from all sources.

The UNFF also invites member states, the donor community and other relevant stakeholders to:

•  review, and as needed, improve forest-related legislation, strengthen forest law enforcement and promote good governance at all levels to support SFM, in order to create an enabling environment for forest investment, combat and eradicate illegal practices, and promote secure land tenure, in accordance with national legislation, policies and priorities;

•  provide enhanced resources to address thematic, geographic and data gaps in forest financing, and increase forest financing for the implementation of the NLBI; and

•  consider using a variety of approaches, including market-based approaches, to develop and promote production and consumption of forest products from SFM and strengthen international cooperation.

It invites member states to:

•  integrate SFM into national development plans and strategies, sectoral policies, programmes and investments, decision-making processes, taking into account the NLBI;

•  incorporate a combination of financing approaches in national forest programmes or their equivalent;

•  strengthen efforts to identify the monetary and non-monetary values of forest goods and services, including reflecting values in national budgets and accounts, consistent with national policies, priorities and legislation;

•  promote the development of market- and non-market-based approaches to address SFM in a holistic, comprehensive and integrated manner to guide humanity towards living in harmony with nature;

•  mobilize financing for forests and trees outside forests from all sources; and

•  harness the potential of the private sector to finance SFM.

The UNFF further:

•  calls upon relevant regional and subregional organizations, processes and networks to develop or support SFM financing, technology transfer and capacity-building initiatives, and invites donors, multilateral and regional financial institutions and other stakeholders to support these efforts;

•  invites countries and relevant CPF member organizations to continue facilitating regional and other processes, especially in LFCCs, SIDS, least developed countries and Africa, in support of the implementation of the NLBI and the overall theme of UNFF11;

•  invites international financial institutions with forest financing programmes to further consider ways to simplify and streamline procedures, consistent with their mandates, in order to improve access to, and efficiency in, the use of their funding;

•  welcomes the development of the SFM Strategy for GEF-6 and, in that context, invites the GEF to consider ways to strengthen its support for SFM through, inter alia, enhancing mobilization of financial resources for the GEF SFM strategy in GEF-6 and subsequent replenishment periods, and considering the options of establishing a new focal area on forests and improving existing forest financing modalities, taking into account the ongoing evaluation of the GEF-5 SFM/REDD+ Incentive Mechanism;

•  invites the GEF to improve and simplify access to funding for SFM, continue and strengthen the dissemination of information on SFM financing, and provide information to UNFF sessions on the mobilization of financial resources and funds dedicated to SFM;

•  encourages member states to take full advantage of the considerable resources still available in the existing GEF-5 SFM/REDD+ Incentive Mechanism, and for GEF to simplify access within this current cycle;

•  invites multilateral financial institutions to give special consideration to developing countries in accessing funds;

•  invites donors to continue to provide resources to the Facilitative Process to enable it to carry out all of its functions;

•  invites relevant CPF member organizations to consider strengthening their efforts to collect and facilitate access to data on forest financial flows;

•  invites relevant CPF member organizations, in cooperation with the private sector, to gather and make available to the UNFF, information about the scale of private sector investment flows for SFM;

•  welcomes the work of the FAO on collecting data about national public funding for SFM;

•  invites forest-related conventions and mechanisms, as well as the multilateral and regional financial institutions, donors and member states in a position to do so, to increase financing for SFM; and

•  decides to consider a full range of financing options and strategies, including the establishment of a voluntary global forest fund, in order to mobilize resources from all sources in support of SFM.

CLOSING PLENARY

Early Saturday morning, 20 April, delegates convened for the closing plenary of UNFF10. Following adoption of the “Resolution on Agenda Items 3, 4, 5 and 8,” and the “Resolution on Emerging Issues, MoI, and the Forum Trust Fund,” the plenary adopted, by acclamation, a decision expressing gratitude to the Government of Turkey for hosting UNFF10. The plenary also adopted, by acclamation, a decision to hold UNFF11 in 2015 and invite ECOSOC to determine the date and venue. Delegates then adopted the provisional agenda of UNFF11 (E/CN.18/2013/L1). UNFF10 Rapporteur Abdullah presented the Report of UNFF10 (E/CN.18/2013/L2), which delegates adopted.

In closing statements, the EU lauded the outcomes of UNFF10, including the resolution on the importance of forests for economic development, and the agreement on MoI for SFM. He urged improving interaction with Major Groups.

Fiji, for the G-77/China, called for integrating the contribution, and importance, of forests for sustainable development into the UN development agenda beyond 2015. The US underscored that the decision on MoI is an integral component of the future IAF.

Mahir Küçük, Deputy Undersecretary of the Ministry of Forest and Water Affairs, Turkey, lauded UNFF10 for highlighting the role of forests in sustainable development and poverty eradication. He noted that the outcomes of the session should have a significant impact in ensuring sustainable forest financing.

UNFF Director McAlpine stressed that the high-level participation at the beginning of UNFF10 underscores the growing importance of forests. She applauded delegates for working to reach an agreement on the roadmap for the 2015 IAF review and MoI for SFM.

UNFF10 Chair Carranza noted that the outcomes of UNFF10 will enhance SFM implementation at all levels. With all of the other delegations, Carranza thanked UNFF Director McAlpine for her leadership at UNFF10, the last session before her retirement.

UNFF10 was gaveled to a close at 2:46 am.

UNFF11 REPORT

Following the closing of UNFF10 on Saturday, 20 April, Chair Carranza opened the eleventh session of the UNFF for the election of officers. Delegates nominated to the UNFF11 Bureau: Macharia Kamau (Kenya) for the African Group; Srećko Juričić (Croatia) for the Eastern European Group; and Heikki Granholm (Finland) for the Western Europe and Others Group. Chair Carranza urged the Asian Group and the Latin American and Caribbean Group to quickly nominate Bureau members. The first meeting of UNFF11 was suspended at 2:51 am.

A BRIEF ANALYSIS OF UNFF10

As delegates and participants arrived in Istanbul, activity in the city’s famous back alleys and courtyards of the old bazaars and spice markets provided an apt preview of negotiations at the tenth session of the UN Forum on Forests (UNFF10). Much like the buyers and sellers in the markets, delegates moved from their starting positions, albeit reluctantly, bargaining towards convergence in an effort to reach a mutually acceptable agreement. And at the end of the day, despite the offers of tea, coffee and interesting vistas, the deal was primarily contingent on money.

UNFF10, convening under the theme “Forests and Economic Development,” came at a crucial point for the international arrangement on forests (IAF). Not only are the ongoing discussions on the post-2015 development agenda motivating the UNFF to advance the prominence of forests on the development agenda, but UNFF10 was also tasked with deciding on the means of implementation (MoI) for sustainable forest management (SFM) and ensuring adequate preparation for the 2015 review of the IAF.

This brief analysis assesses progress made by UNFF10 in achieving these objectives and examines how outcomes on these issues were reached in the context of the broader evolution of the UNFF and its instruments and the impending 2015 benchmark.

THE HARD BARGAIN

Developing countries have repeatedly called for establishing a global forest fund that will provide dedicated funding for SFM, emphasizing that current levels of funding are either insufficient or plagued by cumbersome access procedures. This sentiment was echoed by the 2012 Study on Forest Financing, undertaken by the Collaborative Partnership on Forests (CPF), which estimated global funding needed for SFM to be between US$70 and US$160 billion annually. However, the study also supports the view, repeatedly expressed by donor countries, that no single instrument can effectively address the financing needs of SFM.

With the upcoming 2015 review of the IAF, establishing a global forest fund at UNFF10 was deemed by many to be premature, given that the outcomes of the review process will determine the future of the UNFF. Indeed, some donor countries expressed a willingness to discuss a global forest fund only in the context of negotiating a legally binding agreement on forests, a decision on which will be made following the 2015 review of the IAF. The notion of linking forest financing to the outcome of the 2015 IAF review was echoed by donor countries when developing country delegates proposed establishing a dedicated window on financing for SFM at the sixth, and future, replenishment cycles of the GEF. The final decision to consider establishing a voluntary global forest fund as an integral part of the overall review of the IAF underscores this.

Long debates over increasing the GEF support for SFM took place over the course of the final week. Some encouraged caution when deciding on language calling for the GEF to strengthen its support for SFM, even while supporting the view that increased SFM financing through the GEF should be considered. They pointed out that given that the GEF is not a financial mechanism of the UNFF and the UNFF therefore cannot direct its activities, such strong language could have the opposite effect, politically, of making the GEF less inclined to consider the request. Others noted that, in fact, not all of the funding currently available for SFM financing under the GEF has been disbursed. This led to a debate over why more financial support for SFM was being called for if currently available funding had not been utilized.

UNFF10 was reminded early on that the discussion on MoI for SFM is not solely about money but also encompasses technology transfer and capacity building. Discussion on these aspects seemed to be lacking, which some lamented, pointing out that increasing countries’ capacity to access and use existing finance in an efficient manner would help allay funding concerns. Some seasoned delegates stressed that if current funding is not used efficiently, with planning and monitoring and evaluation mechanisms in place, donors would be reluctant to increase funding in the future.

Indeed, many delegates stressed that ensuring good national governance and management of donor funding should be a prerequisite for enhanced funding. Others countered that, given that a relatively small proportion of SFM funding goes to those most in need (low-income countries receive approximately 17% of forestry-related official development assistance, according to the 2012 Study on Forest Financing), a “package deal,” comprising capacity building, technology transfer, a global forest fund, and streamlined and simplified access to forest financing, could address these gaps.

WAY STATION ALONG THE SILK ROAD

The UNFF’s Multi-Year Programme of Work (MYPOW) for 2007-2015 tasks the Forum with reviewing the effectiveness of the IAF, including the UNFF and the CPF, and deciding on its future in 2015. Thus, it was crucial for delegates at UNFF10 to decide on a roadmap so that an informed decision on the future of the IAF can be made at UNFF11 in 2015.

The timing of this review coincides with discussions on the post-2015 development agenda. The roadmap, therefore, needs to ensure that forests remain prominent in the global development agenda. While there is an increasing recognition of forests’ importance, there is an obvious need for political leaders to be provided with the business case for forests, as there is already concern among some that forests are slipping off the agenda. As a result, a number of seasoned delegates thought that transformation and reorganization of the UNFF is needed in order for it to continue contributing to forest policy and governance in a meaningful way. A well thought-out review that aids in identifying a future framework that systematically documents the nature and extent of human dependence on forests could address this concern. Two options for consideration under the review include either establishing a legally binding treaty on forests or ensuring that the UNFF has a coordination role within the IAF, with legally binding agreements at, for instance, the regional level.

These alternatives have been debated for many years now. Although some did raise this issue in discussions, others reminded delegates at UNFF10 not to pre-empt the outcomes of the review process, but instead, to reach agreement on a roadmap for the decision on the future of the IAF.

Leaving Istanbul with a solid roadmap in place provides the foundation for a transparent, credible approach to assessing the current IAF, which, as some delegates pointed out, means the basis for a sound decision at UNFF11. Despite contention on the finer details of the review modalities, parties converged early on the necessity of a solid roadmap in order to ensure the best possible outcomes on the future of forests.

A TURKISH TEA FOR THE ROADMAP HOME

The UNFF, and more generally, the IAF, are sitting at a critical juncture. They are faced with a period of intense scrutiny and uncertain future while the 2015 review of the IAF gets underway. In ensuring an independent, credible review with input from stakeholders through the adoption of a roadmap for the IAF Review, UNFF10 did its best, according to many delegates, to ensure that a sound, well-informed decision on the UNFF’s future is made in 2015.

And while UNFF10 deserves the laudatory statements made by delegates on the adoption of a resolution on MoI for SFM —an agreement that has been routinely deferred—the UNFF10 outcomes recognize that at this juncture, establishing a funding mechanism specifically for forests is impractical, given the uncertainty about the outcomes of the IAF review. Although, as delegates noted, the UNFF10 outcomes advance forest finance beyond the status quo, UNFF10 leaves major questions on the possibility of a global forest fund intertwined with the future of the IAF and UNFF to be decided at UNFF11.

At the end of two weeks, after wending their way through the crowded market places, making bargains along the way, tired delegates reached the shores of the Bosphorus Strait, ready to board the ship to UNFF11. They hold in their hands a clear map of the complicated road ahead on the way to this destination and an understanding of the harder bargains that must be struck once they arrive.

UPCOMING MEETINGS

International Conference on Forests for Food Security and Nutrition: The FAO, with the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), ICRAF and Bioversity International, present this conference to increase understanding of the crucial role that forests, trees on farms and agroforestry systems can play in improving the food security and nutrition of rural people, especially in developing countries. The conference will propose ways to integrate this knowledge in policy decisions at the national and international levels.  dates: 13-15 May 2013 location: FAO headquarters, Rome, Italy  contact: FAO  fax: +39 0657055514 email: forests-foodsecurity@fao.org  www: http://www.fao.org/forestry/food-security/en/

Global Timber Forum: The FAO Forestry Department, with the European Timber Trade Federation and The Forest Trust will convene the first Global Timber Forum to provide a platform to share experiences on the changing timber trade conditions from around the world, to initiate collaborative actions for fostering responsible trade in a timely manner.  dates: 22-23 May 2013  location: FAO headquarters, Rome, Italy  contact: Jukka Tissari  email: jukka.tissari@fao.org www: http://www.fao.org/forestry/trade/82078/en/

INC-Forests 4: The fourth and final session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for a Legally Binding Agreement on Forests in Europe (INC-Forests 4) is slated to complete negotiations for a legally binding agreement on forests.  dates: 10-14 June 2013  location: Warsaw, Poland  contact: INC-Forests Secretariat  email: INC-Forests@foresteurope.org www: http://www.forestnegotiations.org

Special Session of the UNECE Timber Committee: The UN Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Timber Committee, along with the European Forestry Commission (EFC), is  convening a special session to consider: the draft Action Plan for the Forest Sector in a Green Economy; the draft Joint Programme of Work 2014-17 for the Timber Committee and the EFC; the results of the UNECE review and its implications on the work programme of the UNECE-FAO Forestry and Timber Section; and the outcome of the 35th Session of the Joint Working Party on Forest Statistics, Economics and Management.  dates: 17-18 June 2013  location: Geneva, Switzerland  contact: Paola Deda  phone: +41-22-917 1379  fax: +41-22-917 0041 email: Paola.deda@unece.org www: http://www.unece.org/forests/extraordinarytc-efcmeeting.html

Global Symposium: REDD+ in Green Economy: Organized jointly by FAO, UNDP and UNEP, the Global Symposium aims to take stock of lessons learned with a view to providing key decision makers with a stronger rationale for linking REDD+ planning and investment with green economy efforts. The symposium will focus on the role of comprehensive land-use planning for capturing environmental, economic and social benefits from REDD+ investments.  dates: 19-21 June 2013   location: Indonesia  contact: John Prydz  email: John.Prydz@unep.org  www: http://un-redd.org/REDD_in_Green_Economy_Global_Symposium/tabid/105931/Default.aspx  

Forests Africa: Opportunities for a Green Economy Conference: UNEP and CIFOR will host this conference aimed at establishing the important role of forest resources for national well-being and economic progress in Sub-Saharan Africa and showcasing related policy solutions. Key forest stakeholders will be invited to share knowledge and experience on how improved policies and fiscal incentives attract increased investment and stimulate green growth, and how landscape-level planning can be improved to achieve win-win scenarios across different land use demands. A TED event will be organized on the second evening to reach out to the global community.  dates: 17-19 September 2013  location: Nairobi, Kenya  contact: John Prydz  email: John.Prydz@unep.org  www: http://un-redd.org/Opportunities_for_a_GreenEconomy_Conference/tabid/106056/Default.aspx

ITTC-49: The 49th Session of the International Tropical Timber Council (ITTC) and the Associated Sessions of the four Committees (Finance and Administration, Economic Information and Market Intelligence, Forest Industry, and Reforestation and Forest Management) are scheduled to take place in Libreville, Gabon.  dates: 25-30 November 2013  location: Libreville, Gabon  contact: ITTO Secretariat  phone: +81-45-223-1110  fax: +81-45-223-1111  email: itto@itto.or.jp  www: http://www.itto.int

World Congress on Agroforestry: Organized under the theme “Trees for Life – Accelerating the Impacts of Agroforestry,” this Congress is intended to raise awareness of, and share knowledge and information on, agroforestry and associated research. The Congress is also intended to increase support for agroforestry on all fronts, including through collaboration with the private sector. It is organized by ICRAF, in collaboration with the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), the Indian Society of Agroforestry and Global Initiatives.  dates: 10-14 February 2014  location: Delhi, India  contact: Patrick Schulze  phone: +65 6411 6610  email: patrick.schulze@globalinitiatives.com or info@wca2014.org  www: http://www.wca2014.org/index.html

UNFF11: Organized around the overarching theme of “Forests: progress, challenges and the way forward for the international arrangement,” the meeting is expected to address, in particular the outcomes of the review of the IAF.  dates: 2015  location: TBD  contact: UNFF Secretariat  phone: +1-212-936-3401  fax: +1-917-367-3186  www: http://www.un.org/esa/forests/

GLOSSARY
AHEG
CBDR
CLIs
CPF
ECOSOC
ESTs
GEF
GOFs
IAF
LFCC
MDGs
MoI
MYPOW
NLBI     
NWFPs
ODA
REDD+

SDGs
SFM
UNCSD
UNFF
Ad Hoc Expert Group
Common but differentiated responsibilities
Country-led initiatives
Collaborative Partnership on Forests
UN Economic and Social Council
Environmentally sound technologies
Global Environment Facility
Global Objectives on Forests
International arrangement on forests
Low forest cover countries
Millennium Development Goals
Means of implementation
Multi-Year Programme of Work
Non-legally binding instrument on all types of forests (or forest instrument)
Non-wood forest products
Official development assistance
Reduced emissions from avoided deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries, and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests, and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries
Sustainable development goals
Sustainable forest management
UN Conference on Sustainable Development (or Rio+20)
UN Forum on Forests
^ up to top
Back to IISD coverage
This issue of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin © <enb@iisd.org> is written and edited by Tomilola Akanle Eni-ibukun, Ph.D., Tasha Goldberg, Kate Louw, Dorothy Wanja Nyingi, Ph.D., and Anna Schulz. The Digital Editor is Francis Dejon. The Editors are Deborah Davenport, Ph.D., and Pamela S. Chasek, Ph.D. <pam@iisd.org>. The Director of IISD Reporting Services is Langston James “Kimo” Goree VI <kimo@iisd.org>. The Sustaining Donors of the Bulletin are the European Commission (DG-ENV), the Government of Canada (through CIDA), the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU), and the Government of Australia. General Support for the Bulletin during 2013 is provided by the Ministry of Environment of Sweden, the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, SWAN International, the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN), the Finnish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, the Japanese Ministry of Environment (through the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies - IGES), and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Specific funding for coverage of this meeting has been provided by the Government of Turkey. Funding for translation of the Bulletin into French has been provided by the Government of France, the Belgium Walloon Region, Québec, and the International Organization of the Francophone (OIF and IEPF). Funding for translation of the Bulletin into Turkish has been provided by the Government of Turkey. The opinions expressed in the Bulletin are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of IISD or other donors. Excerpts from the Bulletin may be used in non-commercial publications with appropriate academic citation. For information on the Bulletin, including requests to provide reporting services, contact the Director of IISD Reporting Services at <kimo@iisd.org>, +1-646-536-7556 or 300 East 56th St., 11D, New York, NY 10022 USA.
| Back to IISD RS "Linkages" | Visit IISDnet | Send e-mail to IISD RS |
© 201
3, IISD. All rights reserved.