Proposed Steps to Enhance the Asia Forest Partnership
Prepared by the four leading partners for consideration by all of the partners

Part 1: Options for Activities of the Asia Forests Partnership

There are various categories of activities that can be envisioned for AFP. Below these are separated into three categories (others could be suggested) with some brief discussion of pros and cons. The categories start with the simplest and lead onto more intensive alternatives. It is proposed that implementation of the AFP would involved a combination of activities from the various categories.

Category 1: Low-key information sharing and dialogue
These activities are the simplest and cheapest. This describes to some extent the current state of AFP.

This category includes the AFP partners continuing to meet on a regular basis (perhaps twice a year) with presentations and distribution of documents on the various key themes identified as priorities. This basic material would be posted on a website maintained by a part-time staff member at CIFOR. Some additional information would be added to the website by CIFOR's staff based on their knowledge of ongoing research in the region. Governments in the region would be encouraged to offer translations of the material into their respective languages.

Priority areas for information exchange are the three priority issues identified by the AFP (countering illegal logging, preventing forest fires, and reforestation and land rehabilitation).

Category 2: Active, action-oriented information exchange
This category builds on category 1, but would require more planning, coordination, and consequently be more costly. It could also, however, generate some measurable outcomes through increased likelihood of fostering joint action by the partners.

This category builds on low-key information sharing with the addition of identification of high-priority issues that merit targeted monitoring, assessment, research and potentially coordinated or joint action by some or all AFP partners.

The ongoing or scheduled activities that could be placed in this category (potential partners in parenthesis) are attached as Annex 1.

Beyond the activities described in category 1, this would require greater work to make information available, gather data, and produce syntheses and analyses of options for action. Institutions in different countries could volunteer to complement each AFP activity with studies and analyses of options for specific issues. Within this process there might be interest in forming smaller working groups to gather and share information more intensively on issues of special interest to some partners. The gathered information is shared through the AFP information Clearinghouse.

Category 3: Taking action together, commitment of resources, supported by information exchange
Activities in this category involve the additional step beyond activities described under category 2 of seeking and facilitating joint action under the AFP. The expected activities in this category are listed in Annex 2.

Category 3 would establish AFP as a significant process in the region, and could set some global precedents for how governments and others can work together at the regional scale. For activities in this category to be implemented, significantly greater resources and higher-level commitment from the partners would be needed. Partners should elaborate ideas to formulate well-shaped joint proposals to potential donors both within and out of AFP for their activities.