EU Presidency Statement - UN Forum on Forests

Sumario: June 13, 2001: The First Session of the United Nations Forum on Forests. Agenda Item 3. Statement by Ambassador Karl-Erik Norrman, Head of Delegation of Sweden on behalf of the European Union (New York)

Mr Chairman, excellencies and honourable delegates,

I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union. The Central and Eastern European countries associated with the European Union; Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and the associated countries Cyprus, Malta and Turkey align themselves with this statement.

First of all I would like to thank the Secretariat and the Bureau for the efforts they have undertaken to provide us with the Secretary General's Report "Towards the development of the UNFF Plan of Action". In the report we are asked to address a number of issues regarding the Plan of Action; programmatic components, financial provisions, targets and timetables, monitoring, assessment and reporting and guidance on proposed implementation. In order to facilitate your task, Mr Chairman, I will try to address the issues in that order. But first I would like to give you some general views on the Plan of Action.

General

The EU considers that the Plan of Action should be seen as a process to support implementation of IPF/IFF Proposals for Action, which are to be carried out at the national, regional and global levels. It is urgent to define the Plan. The Plan of Action should build on the IFF Final Report, which outlines how implementation of the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action should be undertaken. Since the UNFF is a facilitating rather than an operational body, its Plan of Action will have to work through existing instruments by giving guidance for more effective and coherent support for the implementation at all levels of the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action.

A decision should be taken at UNFF1 on the Plan of Action, particularly on the overall framework, targets and timetable. We appreciate that the G77 also suggested an adoption of the Plan of Action at UNFF1 in their opening statement. This will facilitate all actors in identifying their own priorities and approaches to implement the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action in a holistic manner. This should enable countries to draw appropriate conclusions, and for the CPF members and regional processes such as the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe and other stakeholders to provide appropriate inputs. The EU recognises that the Plan of Action may need to be further developed in the light of experience gained during the coming years.

Programmatic components

The EU agrees with the statement by the Secretary General's report in the summary para 3 that, at national level, countries will need to identify and set their own priorities, through national forest programmes (nfps)* . The UNFF Plan of Action should facilitate such national programmes, as well as assist in the identification of priority actions at the regional and global levels.

Many of the Proposals for Action are directed to countries, and relevant decisions on implementation will have to be taken at national level through systematic assessments in the context of countries own national processes.

For a holistic and bottom up approach each implementing level need to look at the IPF/IFF proposals for Action and set its own priorities. In order to make the IPF/IFF proposals for action easier to apply work on clustering of the proposals is useful. A number of valuable clustering exercises have already been undertaken. The EU recalls that the IFF Final Report recommends the use of the Practitioners Guide of the Six-Country Initiative in this respect. The sixteen elements in Box 1 of the Secretary General's paper, which also originated from the IPF/IFF process could also serve for this purpose. However, we find the concept of Programmatic Components for the Plan of Action unhelpful as we are not developing a new programme based on new global priorities.

Approaches for addressing financial provisions

Concerning approaches for addressing financial provisions, I would first of all like to state that the EU remains fully committed to development cooperation, including to reaching the ODA target of 0,7 % of GNP by all donor countries as soon as possible. As the group of donors providing the largest volume of grant funds for forests, the EU is already playing an important role internationally in the implementation of the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action. We will continue to assist developing countries to develop and implement national forest programmes. We will do so where countries request such assistance in their bilateral negotiations with donors within existing development programmes.

The SG Report stresses the importance of taking economic, social and environmental aspects into account in Sustainable Forest Management. In order to achieve this, nfps and their Financing Strategies will have to be incorporated into national sustainable development strategies, taking into account the overriding development objective of poverty eradication. Through this process, national priorities for development assistance can be set. Specific demands for external support could be requested from bilateral donars or responded to by international organisations and instruments, such as the proposed nfp Facility, PROFOR, the Global Environment Facility within existing focal areas and others. The development of individual financing strategies will also provide a framework to facilitate and target private sector involvement in SFM.

As recognised in para 25 of the SG report, the UNFF is a facilitating rather than an operational body. Therefore, it cannot be an international programme with its own financial resources. The Plan of Action should thus address financial provisions for the implementation of the IPF and IFF Proposals for Action by providing coherent guidance. Countries can then refer to this in developing their financing strategies and mobilising domestic and international resources to implement country-specific priority action.

There is a need for improved knowledge about financing SFM. To this end the UNFF should establish an ad hoc working group which would draw on the work carried out by the workshops on Financing SFM which were held in Pretoria, Croydon and Oslo during IPF/IFF.

Approaches for defining targets and timetables

Many of the targets set for the Plan of Action could be process-oriented to reflect progress in implementation e.g. by countries and organisations:

assessing the IPF/IFF proposals for action,
developing nfps through participatory processes,
supporting nfps
reviewing institutional arrangements and legislation to promote sustainable forest management.

In addition, following the approach for priority setting outlined earlier, the targets and timetables for implementation of the individual Proposals for Action will have to be agreed at national level or by each CPF member.

Approaches to monitoring, assessment and reporting on progress in implementation

Reporting on the implementation of IPF/IFF proposals for action and hence evaluation of the Plan of Action should be based on targets set by individual actors at each level (national governments, regional organisations, CPF members) themselves and such reports should be complimented by the process targets proposed above. The time frame of five years can be very short to achieve quantitative targets in forestry and definitions for realistic and achievable targets are needed.

Reporting on implementation of IPF/IFF proposals for action should be useful and relevant, particularly to those providing information. Voluntary country and regional progress reports in the UNFF should reflect the views of different stakeholders, give examples of how to address problems and include targets and timetables. It will be of core importance to the success of the Plan of Action that reporting on the implementation of the Proposals for Action feeds into the Plan of Action process. The management of this feedback should be considered by an ad hoc group on monitoring and reporting as soon as possible.

The reporting relating to the Plan of Action at the end of UNFF's first five years should address stated targets, success stories and obstacles. Because of the short timeframe, visions and ambitions on the further work are important.

Summary

Mr Chairman, to sum up: The Plan of Action should be seen as a process, and will have to work through existing instruments for more effective and coherent support for the implementation of IPF/IFF Proposals for Action, which are to be carried out at the national, regional and global level.

At national level, countries will need to identify and set their own priorities and incorporate them into national sustainable development plans.

At the regional and global levels, the Plan of Action should assist in the identification of priority actions.

As part of the MYPOW, the Plan of Action should give guidance to countries as well as regional and international organisations on the effective and coordinated implementation of the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action.

Mr Chairman, the EU hopes that its ideas and proposals have been positive and constructive and looks forward to pursuing the matters in dialogue with our partners and under your able leadership.

Ref: PRES01-089EN
Fuente UE: Presidencia de la UE
Foro NU: Segunda Comisión (Asuntos Económicos y Financieros, Medio Ambiente)
Fecha: 13/6/2001

| Arriba |

< Vuelta a la pagina anterior