Charleston, South Carolina, USA
29 November B 3 December 1999
-
The Working Group
on Criteria and Indicators for the Conservation and Sustainable
Management of Temperate and Boreal Forests (Montréal
Process), hereafter the Working Group, held its eleventh meeting
in Charleston, South Carolina, USA on 29 November-3 December
1999. The Montréal Process includes Argentina, Australia,
Canada, Chile, China, Japan, Republic of Korea, Mexico, New
Zealand, Russian Federation, the United States of America and
Uruguay, which together represent 90% of the world's Temperate
and Boreal forests.
-
The meeting was
opened by Phil Janik, Chief Operating Officer of the US Forest
Service, who was endorsed by the Montréal Process countries
and served as chairman of the meeting.
-
Representatives
of 11 countries of the Montréal Process attended the
meeting (Mexico was absent), as did representatives of the Ministerial
Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe, the United
Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the United
Nations Environment Program (UNEP), International Tropical Timber
Organization (ITTO), the Central American Council of Forestry
and Protected Areas (Lepaterique Process), the African Timber
Organization (ATO), representatives from the US Department of
Agriculture, US Forest Service and the South Carolina Forestry
Commission as well as other intergovernmental organizations
and non-governmental organizations, including IUCN, IUFRO, the
Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF),
CIFOR, UK Forestry Commission, Japan Wildlife Research Center,
Global Forest Policy Project, Pulp and Paperworkers Resource
Council, American Forest and Paper Association, Society of American
Foresters, National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and
Stream Improvement and the Meridian Institute. Representatives
of Willamette Industries also attended. A list of participants
is included at Attachment A.
-
The meeting welcomed
presentations by the US Forest Service on recent developments
in US domestic forest policy and on regional initiatives related
to sustainability in the Southeastern US, and by the US Department
of State on international forest issues as they relate to the
US commitment to the Montréal Process Criteria and Indicators
(C&I). The head of the South Carolina Forestry Commission
provided an historical overview of forestry in South Carolina,
including a brief history of the city of Charleston.
-
The meeting received
with appreciation and interest a panel discussion on United
States' domestic implementation of the Montréal Process
C&I that included federal and state foresters, as well as
representatives of professional foresters, industry and environmental
NGOs. The panel discussed the progress made as well as the challenges
still to be met in C&I implementation in the US and the
role of the multi-stakeholder ad hoc ARoundtable on Sustainable
Forests@ in this process.
-
The meeting also
welcomed a presentation by the representative of IUCN on the
development of the IUCN Conservation Atlas of Temperate and
Boreal Forests as well as an informal discussion convened by
Australia on certification and labeling.
-
The meeting appreciated
a presentation by Japan on its upcoming domestic and international
initiatives, including training opportunities, regarding C&I
implementation.
-
The meeting also
welcomed presentations by representatives of ATO, FAO, UNEP,
IFF, Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in
Europe, CIFOR, ITTO and the Central American Council of Forestry
and Protected Areas (Lepaterique Process) on their experiences
with C&I processes and initiatives, including the development
of sub-national indicators, compatibility among the initiatives
and links to related work such as the FAO Forest Resources Assessment.
-
The Working Group
adopted a final text for (1) the Montréal Process Brochure,
entitled A Forests for the Future,@ and (2) the second edition
of the Santiago Declaration, entitled ACriteria and Indicators
for the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Temperate
and Boreal Forests B The Montréal Process.@ The Working
Group requested the Liaison Office to arrange for printing and
wide dissemination of these documents by January 2000; to post
the documents on the Montréal Process website; and to
have copies available at the Fourth Session of the Intergovernmental
Forum on Forests, which meets in New York, January 31-February
11, 2000. The Working Group requested the Liaison Office to
translate these documents into French and Spanish as soon as
possible, and post them on the website.
-
The Working Group
accepted the revised non-binding Technical Notes, entitled "Criteria
and Indicators for the Conservation and Sustainable Management
of Temperate and Boreal Forests - The Montréal Process:
Technical Notes@ as they relate to Criteria 1-6. The Working
Group also requested member countries to work with their respective
TAC members to produce a version of the Technical Notes as they
relate to Criterion 7 and the glossary, for acceptance by the
Working Group, as indicated in the Terms of Reference for the
TAC included at Attachment B.
-
The meeting also
discussed the revised TAC definitions and noted that different
countries were in various stages of translation of these definitions.
The Working Group requested the TAC to prepare the revised definitions
and provide them to the Liaison Office for circulation and final
approval by Working Group members. The Working Group also requested
the Liaison Office to post the final version of the definitions
on the website and also suggested that Working Group member
countries on their respective websites.
-
The Working Group
agreed that countries wishing to revise their contributions
to the policy update entitled "The Montréal Process:
Progress and Innovation in Implementing Criteria and Indicators
for the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Temperate
and Boreal Forests@ should forward their comments to the Liaison
Office by December 15, 1999, noting that these reports should
focus on innovations related directly to C&I. The Liaison
Office will then finalize the document and send it for publishing
so that it could be disseminated at the 8th session
of the UNCSD in April 2000 and the IUFRO World Congress in August
2000. The Working Group instructed the Liaison Office to explore
opportunities to present the report, perhaps at a side event
at both venues.
-
The Working Group
accepted the suggested approach for preparation of the First
Montréal Process Forest Report, to be produced in 2003,
as included at Attachment C. The Working Group
noted that this will build on both the First Approximation Report
and the Year 2000 report, "The Montréal Process:
Progress and Innovation in Implementing Criteria and Indicators
for the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Temperate
and Boreal Forests.@ It will be the first comprehensive joint
report by Montréal Process countries on forest conditions
and management. The Working Group agreed to discuss further
the format for this report at the 12th meeting, including
the process needed to synthesize the individual country reports.
-
The Working Group
also agreed that the Liaison Office would update the Montréal
Process website as needed to include information on all Working
Group and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meetings to date
as well as current contact information on Montréal Process
members and links to other relevant websites.
-
The meeting welcomed
the papers by the TAC on (1) AOptions on the Possible Application
of the Montréal Process Criteria and Indicators to Sub
National Levels@ and (2) AScale Issues and Periodicity Implications.@
Following a detailed discussion in which it became apparent
that the two papers were closely interrelated, the Working Group
requested the Reports= conclusions be summarized and posted
on the website. In view of these findings, the Working Group
requested the TAC to prepare and circulate two months prior
to the 12th Meeting of the Working Group a concise
paper that identifies mechanisms with which member countries
can develop, identify and implement sub-national indicators
that can be linked to the national-level C&I. The Terms
of Reference for this paper are included at Attachment
B. The Working Group accepted the two TAC papers and
requested the Liaison Office to post them on the website.
-
The Working Group
also invited countries to submit to the Liaison Office information
on their respective experiences in development of sub-national
indicators, as appropriate, to be shared among member countries
and posted on the website.
-
In considering
the international efforts in developing national level criteria
and indicators, the Working Group stressed the importance of
increasing compatibility and synergy among the several C&I
processes, including the further development of common definitions
for key terms and concepts as agreed under the Intergovernmental
Panel on Forests (IPF) proposals for action. The Working Group
agreed that a second international seminar along the lines of
the highly successful Intergovernmental Seminar on Criteria
and Indicators (ISCI) hosted by Finland in 1996 would be very
useful in order to take stock of progress made and further work
needed to enhance compatibility.
-
The Working Group
noted that FAO, just prior to this 11th meeting,
had sent a communication via electronic mail to the various
regional and international processes soliciting comments on
the possibility of a joint meeting. The Working Group noted
the usefulness, timeliness and importance of such a meeting
and encouraged FAO to pursue this initiative. The Working Group
agreed to forward through the Liaison Office a proposal to FAO
for a joint meeting, including possible objectives, as indicated
at Attachment D.
-
The meeting welcomed
the TAC report on AOpportunities for Further Technical Cooperation
and Information Sharing among Montréal Process Countries.@
The meeting stressed the importance of building country capacity
to inventory, monitor and assess forests using the C&I and
recognized in this regard the vital role of international financial
institutions and the private sector, as well as individual governments.
Recalling that Montréal Process countries are at different
stages of economic development, the meeting recognized the need
for assistance by some members and identified as a potential
immediate need for assistance the preparation of national input
into the joint First Montréal Process Forest Report--2003.
To begin addressing such needs, the Working Group encouraged
the members to explore a range of options to enhance national
capacity building. These suggestions included bilateral and
regional efforts, specific requests for support to FAO, UNEP
and ITTO, where applicable, and requests to the World Bank and
regional development bank that would focus the banks= attention
on the importance of implementing C&I to improve forest
management. The Working Group also requested the TAC, in cooperation
with the Liaison Office, to collect member country information
on capacity building needs, as included in the Terms of Reference
for the TAC at Attachment B. The Working Group
accepted the TAC report and requested the Liaison Office to
post it on the website.
-
The Working Group
urged countries interested in hosting the 12th meeting
to advise the Liaison Office by April 30, 2000. In a discussion
on the themes for the next meeting, the Working Group agreed
on the theme of technical needs for capacity building in C&I
implementation.
-
The Montréal
Process countries reaffirmed the procedure for countries to
join the Montréal Process is a diplomatic one. An interested
country should, by diplomatic channels, inform the Government
of Chile that its government endorses the Santiago Declaration.
Chile will inform Canada as the Liaison Office, which will inform
other Montréal Process countries. The Montréal
Process countries reiterated that the Montréal Process
Working Group is an informal non-binding group of countries
with a common interest in developing and implementing criteria
and indicators as a tool in support of sustainable forest management.
-
The Montréal
Process countries recognized with appreciation the excellent
support provided by Canada to the Working Group and welcomed
the continued willingness of Canada to serve as the Liaison
Office for the Montréal Process.
-
The meeting expressed
its deep appreciation to the Government and people of the United
States, especially the people of South Carolina and Charleston,
for their hospitality in hosting the Eleventh Meeting of the
Montréal Process Working Group. A special thank you was
also extended to the Chair for his excellent leadership throughout
the meeting.
Top
of Page 
Attachment
A
11th
Meeting of the Montreal Process Working Group
Charleston, South Carolina, USA
29 November B 3 December 1999
List of Participants:
Please see "Who
is Involved : Montreal Process Contacts"
Top
of Page
Attachment
B
Terms of Reference
for Future Work by the Technical Advisory Committee Identified by
the 11th Session of the Montreal Process Working Group
The Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC) is requested:
-
to transmit accepted
copies, as amended, of the three TAC technical papers presented
at the 11th Meeting of the Montreal Process Working
Group to the Liaison Office for publication on the Montreal
Process website (See Note 1 below);
-
to work with
Working Group member countries to produce an agreed-to version
of Criterion 7 Technical Notes and the glossary by March 1,
2000 and to transmit this version to the Liaison Office for
acceptance by the Montreal Process Working Group by March 31,
2000, for subsequent publication of an accepted version on the
Montreal Process website (see Note 1 below);
-
to produce a
draft version of TAC operational procedures for review by the
Montreal Process Working Group at its 12th Meeting.
The TAC shall consider the following factors at a minimum:
- Role of the TAC Convenor, nature
and duration of appointment, and authority to task TAC country
representatives for assistance in implementing Montreal Process
Working Group recommendations
- Process for soliciting review,
comment, and translation of documents prepared by TAC members
- Process for soliciting timely
review, comment, and approval of documents by Montreal Process
Working Group Members
-
to complete a
list of scientific contacts with forest management C&I expertise
for publication on the Montreal Process website;
-
to collect member
country information (in cooperation with the Liaison Office)
on capacity building needs for use at the 12th Meeting
of the Montreal Process Working Group;
-
to provide material
to member countries on how to present information on criteria
and indicators for the 2003 Report;
-
to identify
mechanisms with which member countries can develop, identify,
and implement sub-national indicators that can be linked to
national level indicators;
Note 1: Individual
member countries will be responsible for coordinating translation
of accepted TAC documents and the Technical Notes and Glossary and
posting translated versions on national websites.
Top
of Page
Attachment
C
Suggested Approach
for Preparation of the First Montréal Process Forest Report
2003
General
The 2003 report
needs considering in the context of what has gone before; i.e.,
will follow the 1997 First Approximation Report (FAR) & Montréal
Process 2000 Report.
FAR was a capacity
report and identified where gaps existed. Year 2000 report was
an update on progress. The Year 2003 report will describe forest
conditions and management. Consistency between these and 2003
report is required.
Breadth of reporting
It was suggested
that we shouldn't artificially limit which indicators are eligible
by reporting against a subset. Unanimous agreement that all 67
indicators should be reported against.
Recognize that
we can only report quantitatively where we have data. Where data
does not exist, use either qualitative, or case study, approach.
Can also report on why indicators are missing and the relevance
of missing information.
Reasons:
- Country situations
will vary considerably and obtaining agreement on what is an
appropriate subset is likely to be problematic.
- Countries can
learn from the experiences of others, including where problems
with data are faced.
- Selective reporting
would be less credible.
- Provides future
reporting with a common baseline.
Title
Discussion on purpose
and title were inextricably linked. After considerable debate
meeting agreed on a preliminary title:
A First Montréal
Process Forest report.@
Points noted in
arriving at this title:
- Concern over
various meanings of AState@ if included in title, in addition
to problem of other Astate of forests@ reports.
- Simple is good.
- Further elaboration,
if required, can be provided in a preface, recognizing that
the audience is wide-ranging.
- The report is
not necessarily an assessment of the forests.
Noting the Await
and see content before deciding@ option B the above does not preclude
subsequent modifications but the arguments still hold.
Audience
Policy-makers,
forest officials, interest groups, and stakeholders such as industry,
scientists, ENGOs, international organizations, and academia.
Purpose
A Afirst@ report
on forest conditions and management.
Implied is that
this has obvious implications for the policy-making, and legislative
processes.
Content
Country reports
plus an overall summary report.
US offered the
following for consideration:
An Executive
Summary, Introduction, Background, Reporting on Each Criterion
and Its Indicators, Conclusions [Future Challenges and Directions].
Reporting should include charts, graphs, tables, and photos
as needed to enhance the text.
This format was
seen as being appropriate for individual country reports (could
also be used as format for the synopsis report).
Noted that it is
unlikely countries will be able to standardize data collection
in 3 years.
Given the difficulties,
therefore, associated with collating disparate reporting it was
proposed that the summary could be more interpretive. Focus on
what we have learned, how we have progressed, what common challenges
are faced. Avoid country to country comparisons. The process is
intended to be a mutually supportive approach to SFM B the report
should be the same.
The summary report
could involve a series of leading questions that are then answered,
highlighting the positive.
It was acknowledged
that quality of data is at least as important as presence of data.
In that respect there may be merit in using a quality matrix that
is used consistently across countries. This would allow countries
to add a qualifying measure when reporting against indicators.
Suggested length
of individual country reports: 5 pages per Criterion x 7 = 35
pp plus annexes, and prefatory material.
Presentation
Presentation/ordering
of report will be very important, as noted. Keep format simple,
use graphics wherever possible (picture = 1000 words), start with
words, end with figures. This applies to individual country reports,
as well as overall report.
Common graphic
sets where possible.
Timeline
Initial drafts
will be due with the liaison office April 2002 . Draft joint report
will be distributed for the October 2002 meeting. Final reports
will be due April 2003. Final report target date of September
1, 2003.
Follow-up
This will be a
future agenda item for Working Group meetings.
The Montreal Process
Working Group members requested that the Technical Advisory Committee
provide material to member countries on how to present information
on criteria and indicators for the 2003 Report.
Top
of Page
Attachment
D
Montreal Process
C&I Working Group Proposal to Hold an International Meeting
of Forest-related Criteria & Indicator (C&I) Processes
Following discussions
by the Montreal Process Working Group members, the MPWG proposed
that the FAO, as lead agency for C&I in the Interagency Task
Force on Forests (ITFF), convene an Organizing Committee to develop
and plan for an international meeting of members and representatives
of C&I Processes and related initiatives.
The Montreal Process
Working Group considered that such an initiative would be useful
and that possible objectives of an international meeting of C&I
Processes and modalities of an organizing committee could include:
Objectives for
an International Meeting on C&I
- Share progress on development
of C&I in all processes with a view to examining compatibility
and to foster a common understanding of C&I and their implementation.
- Examine the contribution of C&I
to enable and facilitate sustainable forest management at all
levels (e.g., policy, monitoring and assessment, etc.)
- Examine opportunities for collaboration
and synergy with other international initiatives on indicators
related to sustainable development, e.g., CBD, OECD.
- Share experience in the application
of C&I at the national and sub-national levels.
Organizing Committee
Objectives
- Develop and expand objectives/results
for an international meeting.
- Determine Invitee list* B Meeting
would be open-ended
*Some Representatives/Guests
may need to be specially invited
- Determine the Format/Agenda for
the international meeting
- Determine the Chairs, Distinguished
Guests, etc.
Make-Up of Organizing
Committee and International Meeting
- Representatives from C&I
Processes
- Key Individuals with Lengthy
experience in C&I
- Private Sector/NGO Representatives
- Intergovernmental and International
Organizations and Mechanisms
Notes for Organizing
Committee
- Recognize that C&I are both
technical and policy issues in most countries.
- Organizing Committee or subset
of Committee may need to meet twice to sort through the planning
completely.
- May need to make recommendations
regarding funding issues (sources of which will be outside of
the Committee) including addressing support for developing countries.
- Location and timing of such an
International Meeting,
December 1, 1999
Top
of Page
|
