Print Version of Asia Forest Partnership Webpage

 Home > About AFP > Key Documents > Workshop Record (English)

Workshop Record| Recommendation | Announcement



Regional Workshop on Strengthening
the Asia Forest Partnership
30 August – 1 September 2004, Yogyakarta, Indonesia

Record of the Workshop


Rationale

Pursuant to the decision made during the third meeting of AFP in Kisarazu, Japan, 21 November 2003, and the ITTC Decision 3(XXXIV), Indonesia host the regional workshop on strengthening the Asia Forest Partnership. As stipulated in the ITTC Decision, the objective of the workshop is:

  • Refine and operationalize the goals of the AFP and the mechanisms for its implementation;
  • Draw from experiences and lessons learned in similar partnership, especially the Congo Basin Forest Partnership;
  • Solicit the views and contributions of a broad range of stakeholders from civil society and the private sector in formulating the programs and activities of the Asia Forest Partnership;
  • Create a network for the sharing of information among partners, including stakeholders from civil society and the private sector;
  • Make recommendations for various groups of partners to strengthen the Asia Forest Partnership.

A total of 160 participants and observers representing governments of 12 countries, 7 inter-governmental organizations, 49 Civil Societies (14 private sectors, 24 NGOs, 11 universities and research institutions), and 5 projects/donors participated at the Workshop.

Top


Opening Ceremony

Dr. Ir. Sanyoto, representing of the Governor of Yogyakarta Special Region Province, welcomed delegate to the city.

Representative of Executive Director of ITTO, Mr. Amha bin Buang, Assistant Director of Economic Information and Market Intelligence, reiterated that after the three previous meeting, this meeting has come for AFP to take off from its initial stage of consultation, conceptualization, and implementation. ITTO hoped that workshop also contributed towards strengthening the foundation of the AFP in the run-up to its Fourth Meeting.

Mr. Ichiro Ichikawa, Senior Vice Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of Japan, emphasized that the workshop was to discuss the organizational structure and decision-making mechanism, procedure for the consideration and implementation of possible activities, as well as the current activities and measures for promotion on three issues of AFP, namely “control illegal logging and its associated trade, prevention of forest fires, and rehabilitation and reforestation of degraded forest and lands”. He also informed that the fourth meeting of AFP will be held in Japan, 8-10 December 2004.

Mr. Koes Saparjadi, Director General of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation, Ministry of Forestry, Indonesia representing Dr. Mohammad Prakoso, opened the meeting. Mr. Saparjadi emphasized in his opening remarks that there is a need to develop structure and mechanism of the AFP. Therefore, the workshop could come up with applicable and concrete recommendations regarding the structure and mechanism of partnership.

Mr. Toshikatsu Matsuoka, Member of the House of Representatives of Japan, emphasized the importance of issues of illegal logging and its associated trade to be managed and controlled by related stakeholders in all over the world. The issue has been studied and considered as important issue in Japan, bilateral, and international including establishment of AFP.

Top


Plenary Session

Plenary Session
Draw from Experiences and Lesson Learned in Similar Partnership
Chairman: Mr. Djauhari Oratmangun (Director, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Indonesia)

Presentations were made by: Mr. Yuji Imaizumi (Assistant Director, International Forestry Cooperation Office, Forestry Agency of Japan); Mr. Francois Ossama (President of RIDDAC – International Network on Sustainable Development in Central Africa); Ambassador David H. Kaeuper (Facilitator CBFP); and Ms. Adelina Kamal (Senior Officer, Bureau for Resources Development of ASEAN Secretariat).

Mr. Yuji Imaizumi informed that 2 years ago, AFP was started as a “type 2” initiative, at the WSSD meeting in Johannesburg. At the second meeting in July 2003 in Yogyakarta the AFP was defined as a flexible partnership with diverse stakeholders and three focus areas (illegal logging, Fire protection, Rehabilitation). The third meeting in Nov 2003 in Japan discussed workplans e.g. minimum standard of legality, framework of customs, database of training facilities, review of past rehabilitation efforts. There are around 10 workplans on the website in different stages of planning and/or implementation. AFP includes now then 16 government, 8 international organizations and 4 NGO’s and has a website. AFP was supported and/or mentioned by ITTC in May 2003, UNFF3 in June 2003, ASEAN+3 in Aug 2003, Japan-ASEAN Plan of Action in Dec. 2003 and at the G8 Summit in June 2004 in the USA. AFP approach as a regional initiative is well received. More partners should join especially from the private sector. Further, AFP should focus more on action and cost effective collaboration among partners and initiatives.

Mr. Francois Ossama presented that the central-African region has similar characteristics as the Asian region. Awareness raising for conservation issues increased pressures of NGO’s and World Bank on governments that brought them to a higher level of institutional commitment that resulted in establishing COMIFAC. There are many partnerships in the central African region one of them is the Congo Basin Forest Partnership (CBFP). CBFP supports the mandate of COMIFAC. Goal of CBFP is to stimulate SFM and support economic growth. The main challenge is to balance development and environment. In the CBFP and COMIIFAC the great challenge is to translate commitment into action into changes on the ground to alleviate poverty and promote sustainable forestry.

Ambassador David H. Kaeuper presented that although the entire CBFP structure was not established yet project under the umbrella started soon. This is to credit the CBFP as to be not bureaucratic and action oriented. Four main lessons were learned as follows:

  • Pre-existing goals and institutions should be valued. Partnership only supports existing organizations.
  • CBFP is importance as a symbol, and has won credibility and support.
  • Critical role of leadership
  • Value of timing and risk (first CBFP as seen as a threat to other initiatives now it is valued as one of them). Timing was right to launch CBFP. Risk of not having a well defined structure before the start of project. A two tired approach was followed which was to discuss political challenges, while implementing projects.

He also thanked the AFP for the invitation and opportunity to participate in the workshop. The CBFP facilitator the importance of moving forward together on sustainable forest management issues, and particularly on the struggle against illegal logging and its associated trade where success and failure in one partnership impacts together.

Ms. Hj. Adeline Kamal highlighted the principles and mechanisms of ASEAN’s cooperation, and ways and means to move forward the implementation towards ASEAN’s regional integration. She highlighted salient features from ASEAN’s regional cooperation as suggestions to move forward the AFP’s implementation. These include among others the needs to set common vision and goals among partners and re-visit them on a periodical basis; determine the principles and strategies that underline partnership among AFP members; establish some sorts of mechanisms for implementation and monitoring; set clear priority and criteria to guide partners in submitting proposals and implementing them; develop long-term, medium-term and detailed operational action plans and follow them up; determine appropriate development interventions for each stage of cooperation; promote leadership among partners to spearhead implementation of action plans; have strong coordination support in the form of a lean and efficient Secretariat; and ensure that action plans of AFP correspond to the interests of the partners. She also highlighted the need for the AFP to determine ways to complement the existing initiatives in the Asian region and not to duplicate them. In this regard, She stressed the benefits for the AFP to take into account and utilise the existing established mechanisms and cooperation within the Asian region, such as ASEAN and the ASEAN+3 framework, that already have specific mandates to address issues in three AFP’s priority areas; and complement and support their existing initiatives in addressing these issues.

Discussions from the floor following the presentations emphasized that partnership is voluntary based, and equal position. Partnership has increased the pressure on wood producers and improved forest management, needs commitment from all partners as well as funding resources. The importance of AFP collaborating closely with other regional organizations with similar objectives, such as ASEAN and the Asia-Pacific Commission (APFC) was emphasized, in order to avoid duplication, reduce costs, and maximize impacts.

Top


Plenary Session
Refine and operationalize the goals of the AFP and the mechanisms for its implementation

Chairman: Mr. Patrick Durst (FAO, Bangkok)

Presentations were made by: Dr. Takeshi Toma (CIFOR) and Ms. Nina Haase (AFP Information-Sharing Secretariat); Dr. Agus Setyarso (Program facilitator for Indonesia – UK MoU on Combating Illegal Logging) and Mr. Nandang Prihadi (Ministry of Forestry, Indonesia); Mr. Bambang Murdiono (Director, Bureau of International Cooperation and Investment, Ministry of Forestry, Indonesia).

Dr. Takeshi Toma and Ms. Nina Haase presented current structure of AFP including decision making mechanism, information-sharing activities, work-plan mechanism, and financial implications for the partnership. They stated that the AFP should act as a catalyst to implement relevant activities and provide forum for sharing information. For that reason, the AFP should put great attention on its decision-making mechanism in their meetings, information-sharing activities as their core business, work plan mechanism as their action, and financial implications for the partnership. In addition, the AFP should define itself more clearly as a partnership and its uniqueness to other similar organizations.

Dr. Agus Setyarso and Mr. Nandang Prihadi presented that partnership is a relationship between individuals or/and organizations in which the parties have close cooperation and share specified rights and responsibilities. Trust, knowledge sharing, and collaboration are central elements of effective inter-organizational partnership. Following lesson learned from Indonesia – UK Partnership on Combating Illegal Logging, they proposals for AFP are:

  1. on type of institution: AFP tend to be a “shared-service” institution. It will address common interests, work trough agreed strategies, and operated based on contributions of partners.
  2. Necessary condition: Structured preparations have to be conducted before an effective partnership realistically materialized. This preparation has something to do with trust building, mapping of partners’ knowledge, and institutional capacity.
  3. Information sharing: Start with an action on information sharing, and put other proposals in the next priority; At the first phase, strategic mapping on information sharing can be formulated; The first round of information sharing might not be comprehensive and fully successful; It has something to do with improving knowledge, and naturally this will be attained gradually.
  4. Managing AFP: a strong facilitating unit for AFP may be established, consisted of full-time and capable staff. This unit will then be linked up to “responsible units” at each partner’s institution; Steering, monitoring and controlling instruments may be constructed complementarily to the Facilitating Unit.
  5. Legalising partnership: There shall be agreements among partners, no matter in formal or just informal arrangements. Such agreement is necessary to the facilitating unit and parties in getting the required resources to start working.
  6. Membership: can be practically free, but some minimum conditions must be met. These are related with statement of commitment, type of contribution that a candidate may offer in such “shared-service” organization, and type of information that a party may share for the partnership.

Mr. Bambang Murdiono presented that some partners has criticized that AFP is too loose, no standardized procedure to become an active partner, unclear mechanism for implementation and decision making process, and lack of financial commitment. He proposed a formalized structure and mechanism for the AFP. This proposal is formulated in a draft Announcement on Strengthening the AFP. The draft consists of, among others, the chapters on organizational matters, membership, and partners contribution.

Top


Plenary Session on Working Group Presentations

WG 1: Partners and Membership
Chairman: Mr. Transtoto Handadhari (Ministry of Forestry, Indonesia)
Rapporteur: Mr. Hugh Speechly (DFID – UK)

The working group identified a common understanding on partner requirements, actions, and secretariat operations. Partner requirements to be considered:

  • No geographic limits to participation but keep scope realistic
  • All partners equal
  • No specific requirements to become partners
  • Non-government partners major advantage, (but so far participation from South NGOs had been disappointing)
  • Members must perceive advantage to membership

Actions of the Asia Forest Partnership should be harmonised with other initiatives, so that activities are complemented and do not compete with each other. Sub-regional action to fill specific needs (e.g. common border issues) would be a useful area for collaboration.

The working group agreed that a Secretariat, was needed and that the “secretariat-lite”, approach adopted for the Congo Basin Forest Partnership was appropriate. This should support partners by acting as an information clearing house and facilitator but should not make decisions on AFP affairs.

Top

WG 2: Work Plan
Chairman: Mr. Yuji Imaizumi (Forestry Agency, Japan)
Rapporteur: Dr. Ronasit Maneesai (Thailand)

The working group reviewed the current arrangements on AFP work plans and identified a number of possible improvements, although for some of them participants expressed somewhat different views. The points raised by the group, together with those raised at the plenary session which followed the working group discussions, were summarized as follows:

  1. AFP should develop a short/mid-term overall “Action Plan” in order to have a clear view on what we aim to achieve in the next few years.
  2. For formulating and implementing Work Plans, there should be clear guiding principles and strategies.
  3. In formulating Work Plans, current situations and existing initiatives should be identified and inventoried (Context Mapping).
  4. Work Plans should identify other existing regional initiatives that may have interest.
  5. Work Plans should incorporate other existing initiatives with similar goals.
  6. Work Plans should be accompanied with information on the past experiences and current initiatives of relevant partners, in line with the Work Plan.
  7. How Work Plans would add value to existing initiatives should be clarified.
  8. The development, implementation and outcomes of Work Plans should be “SMART” (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Time-bound) and “TAP” (Transparent, Accountable, Participatory).
  9. For each Work Plan, time frame should be as clear as possible, particularly for the business sector to participate.
  10. Work Plans should come from partners, not from the forum (AFP) itself, nor from the Secretariat. The forum (AFP) or the Secretariat just facilitates the process.
  11. Work Plans should be formulated and implemented collaboratively by group of partners, not unilaterally. Some participants emphasized that collaboration is a process, not the goal in itself.
  12. Work Plans should focus on what AFP really want to do and what AFP are really concerned.
    In this connection, some participants pointed out that AFP is already clear on this – i.e. 3 priority issues, while some participants felt that AFP should elaborate more on each of 3 priority issues. Some suggested that a checklist of concerns for partners to express their interests and concerns may be developed, and some also suggested that specific concerns and issues to be addressed under 3 priority issues should be identified before calling for concrete Work Plans. (*Note: This was already done in AFP2.)
  13. Work Plans should be able to send strong messages to the outside world and attract their attention.
  14. For each Work Plan, target region and target group should be clearly identified.
  15. For each Work Plan, respective roles, responsibilities and rights of relevant partners (e.g., governments, inter-governmental organizations, civil society, business, etc.) should be clearly identified.
  16. 16. Although there may be a range of items to be included in the Work Plan template, they should not be obligatory. It should be flexible.
  17. We should not confine ourselves only to the form of “Work Plans”. For some kind of activities, only a general description may be enough.
  18. AFP partners should be more strongly asked and encouraged to propose Work Plans and/or to provide inputs.
    In this connection, it was pointed out that some partners are willing to do so if asked, while it was stressed also that those who are willing to contribute are strongly encouraged to do so voluntarily without being asked.
  19. Draft Work Plans should be delivered to AFP Partners before regular meetings. On the other hand, some participants pointed out that Work Plans may be formulated, submitted and circulated any time throughout the year, regardless of the timing of the meetings.

Top

WG 3: Other AFP issues
Chairman: Dr. Toni Soehartono (Ministry of Forestry, Indonesia)
Rapporteur: Ms. Nina Haase (AFP information-sharing Secretariat)

Currently, AFP web page as a repository/memory of the partnership with periodic ‘online update’ informing of new postings on the web, progress on the work plans and other AFP-relevant news. Web-based information-sharing through web page and email alerts most cost effective and efficient. In the future, web page needs reorganizing some minutes from previous meetings difficult to find and focal point to actively contribute information to the AFP Information-sharing secretariat.

Some problems with this approach were identified:

  • Is passive and one-way, but less so, as communications process around web updates e.g. minutes of meetings are being circulated around focal points, discussed, commented on and then posted. Suggestion to install a list-server/discussion forum to make it more effective to distribute email messages and allow partners to directly discuss and respond to comments online
  • Some might have problem with email access, in this case can request from Secretariat hard copies that can be send to you periodically
  • For external communications, AFP does not distinguish between official partners or other interested parties from the general public
  • AFP is not ready for extensive external communication beyond what it is doing already and one should not spread oneself too thin

Two different type of funding sources to think about: more permanent funding for the secretariat and specific funding for activities. Generally a lot of money is flowing into Asia. FAO report states that there is much money around for forestry activities. While all partners are responsible for fund raising some have more experience in it than others. NGOs have experience in fund raising. Partners from the NGO communities could share their knowledge and experience in raising funds. Other funding strategies:

  • private companies and foundations
  • rely on voluntary contributions from partners
  • rely on assessed contributions of member countries, but some governments have not paid their contributions, which means that funding still remains and issues
  • suggestion to set up a group to write and manage funding proposal for AFP

Top


Plenary Session

Issues Related to Forest Fire and Forest Rehabilitation
Chairman: Dr.Dicky Simorangkir (TROPENBOS – Indonesia)

Presentations were made by: Mr. Liu Jin Long & Mr. Ma. Shuangbiao (China); Mr. Hoang Chuong & Mr. Do Thap (Vietnam); Mr. Martinus Nanang (IGES); Mr. Junsei Nagai (Institue for Century Systems, Japan); Mr. Harjanto Wahyu Sukotjo (Directorate of Forest Fires Control, Indonesia); and Dr. Takeshi Toma (CIFOR).

Mr. Liu Jin Long & Mr. Ma. Shuangbiao (China) presented Chinese experience which gave a very clear picture of the serious and alarming global problems associated with forest degradation of 2 billion hectare and then, China having the largest land mass in the region said that 30% of the land mass is subjected to forest degradation and they have identified the following key issues as:

  • Poor understanding of the environmental conditions
  • Conflicting policies of Government
  • Landuse patterns not conforming to environmental conditions

In order to improve on the above problems they have actively undertaken measures and developed them into actions plan by way of 6 programmes to address them.

Mr. Hoang Chuong & Mr. Do Thap (Vietnam) presented country level issues. The problems were identified which affected a-1 million hectares of forest and the people whose lives depended on the forest. A detailed socio-economic study was undertaken to establish the real issues.

Using the results of the socio-economic study, they developed measures to address the problems identified by way of undertaking collaborative intervention by involving with Private sector, Government, Civil society organizations and more particularly the rural people who live in the areas where the forest were located.

The action plans developed were implemented through actions plans. It was slow and long, but after continued work, the results are clear. The social, environmental and economic benefits were realized after that lengthy process and time.

The presentation from West Kutai is an example of a localized community based one where, where the local community with the assistance and support of IGES developed VAG (Village Action Guidelines). The VAG are very practical as it is based on reality and works on the ground where:

  • it motivates, and guide facilitation for decision making process,
  • develop policies with input from local people and decision makers
  • and provide input for supporting organizations from NGOs and academia for developing cooperation and facilitation.

The presentation from the Dr. Nagai from Japan’s Institute of Century Systems, presented statistics and data of green house gas emission and forest fires, again it was alarming trend of things in the region and as well on the global scene.

It was very clear the, it emphasized that members of the AFP, partners and Government should not make the same mistakes again and we must take stock of the data and statistic from the past and develop initiatives and action that will improve the issues confront the region and the global community in the future.

Also, the environmental support services that are available in forest fire fight and forest fire surveillance can be taken on board by the AFP in the fight against forest future other issues that we are confronts with

Mr. Harjanto Wahyu Sukotjo that on the experience from the past, the Government of Indonesia has taken on board the issues and develop action and taken measure to address the issues. They are addressing the issues in Indonesia from 3 fronts:

  1. Policies/legislation and programme
  2. Strategies to deal with the issues in the country
  3. Statistics and data from past are very useful to predict and to plan out action to counter the forest fire when ever they come up

Dr. Takeshi Toma presented the result (for forest fires and rehabilitation of degraded forest lands) of the 2nd AFP meeting (July, 2003) in order to remind the participants that the discussions in this workshop should build upon what have been discussed last year and should not repeat same discussions.

Discussion from the floor emphasized that combining all the experiences and action taken at different levels (bigger land mass level, to country level and to localized community level) and the different actions taken, it is time now time that AFP partners and members take on board all the experiences and the actions and to develop mechanisms for the region.

As the issues are very much common and will remain at the same scale or get worse in the region and globally, unless we all take a proactive and practical measures in a collaborative manner to act now, rather then later before there will be no more forests left.

Top


Plenary Session on Working Group Presentations

WG1: Forest Fires
Chairman: Dr. Bishnu B. Bhandari (IGES – Japan)
Rapporteur: Mr. Kuldip Poudel (Care International – Nepal)

The Working group was discussed the issues relating to forest fires to improve common understanding with regards to issues relating to forest fire. Discussion from the working group resulting that

  • A need to work together to develop a fast, easy and cheap system to check forest fires.
  • Forest fire may be called land and forest fires (because over 60% of forest fires comes from private lands, at least in Indonesia).
  • Forest fire is a complex issue; its ramifications are wide. It should be seen in a wider context; due to factors like global warming, it needs a long-term perspective plan.
  • Forest fire is related to poverty, growing population, conflict in resource use, land tenure and socio-cultural systems, a holistic approach should be taken to address this vital issue.
  • Address the underlying causes of forest fires.
  • Encourage approaches like community-based forest management system adopted in the Philippines, where decisions are made at the subsidiary level i.e. local people identify their problem, make their own decisions, plan their ways, monitor their activities, implement it; the higher level comes only when they have expertise and absolutely required.
  • There is a lack of initiative to include the private sector forest fire. So, involve relevant stakeholders/players (government, IGO, the private sector and civil society). Coordinate their activities and conduct awareness of landowners, indigenous peoples and local people and provide them incentives whenever needed.
  • Sensitize local communities for their active, responsible and informed participation
  • Discover, document and disseminate the already existing wisdom, knowledge and information relating best practices of forest fire management. Do not reinvent the wheel.
  • Need pragmatic research works to fix the problem of forest fires; identify target groups; reach out to those needing assistance; adopt action research.
  • In order to enhance credibility, AFP should develop a clear work plan to deal with forest fires, especially answering 5W’s.
  • Develop institutional mechanism to coordinate the activities of partners.
  • Strengthen the existing database available with many organizations such ASEAN, ITTO, etc. and then establish the one that compliments these initiatives.

Top


WG2: Rehabilitation and Reforestation of Degraded Forest
Chairman: Mr. Harry Santoso (Ministry of Forestry – Indonesia)
Rapporteur: Mr. Ali Yusop (Forestry Department – Sarawak, Malaysia)

The Working Group was agreed to formulate action oriented activities based on several points provided by AFP Second Meeting (July, 2003), and taking into consideration some issues raised in plenary session by presenters. Participants’ concerns with issues included:

  • Need to define and classify “degraded” forest / lands
  • Need to define and classify types of reforestation / rehabilitation
  • Funding sources and potential partners for action plan and implementation should be explored, including : private sector, carbon sequestration (CDM), debt for nature swaps (DNS), global environtment facility (GEF).
  • Priority locations according to availability of funds and the objective of reforestation (restoration of watershed, forest function, rural development)
  • Identifying incentive and disincentive instruments for stimulating reforestation and plantation programme in degraded forest / land
  • Risk assessment (anticipated success / failure of the rehabilitation and reforestation, e.g fire, encroachment )
  • Reviewing/compiling research finding for rehabilitation and reforestation programme
  • Data needs assessment for selecting and planting reforestation (incl. biophysical, socio-economic, institutional, etc.)
  • Partnership between government and private sector for promoting private investment
  • Local / regional campaign to make concrete incentives for forest plantation (price premium and deregulation)
  • Conflict resolution between land/resource users
  • Involving local communities in the rehabilitation/ reforestation approach and program is a key factor, including how to increase their ability to take action.
  • Proposed project for rehabilitation and reforestation should take into account social problems including poverty reduction in their location, as well as contribute to social (rural) welfare through multi-sectoral approach

Top


Plenary Session

Issues Related to Illegal logging and its Associated Trade
Chairman: Dr.Agus Setyarso (Program Facilitator)

Presentations were made by: Dr. Nigel Sizer (Director for Asia-Pacific Forests Program, TNC; Mr. Hugh Speechly (Coordinator FLEG Program, DFID, UK); Mr. Banjar Yulianto Laban (Director of Forest Products Processing and Marketing); Mr. Bill Maynard (GFS) & Dr. Takeshi Toma (CIFOR); and Ms. Indra Setia Dewi (LEI).

Mr. Nigel Sizer presented that illegal logging is a priority issue for AFP because of lost government revenues, market access and competitiveness, social conflicts, environmental damage, and shared of responsibilities of partners. He also mentioned that cooperation among customs agencies and others in the Asia Pacific region is necessitate to reduce trade of illegal wood products. He indicated that bilateral and regional cooperation between customs agencies encouraged by exporting countries could be strategic, relatively low cost, and effective. Furthermore, identification of illegal products needs to be strengthened, and led by exporting countries, and, of course, legal framework needs to be strengthened in some countries to take action based on better identification of illegal products.

Mr. Hugh Speechly noted that it is now well recognized that illegal logging and its associated trade in illegally harvested forest products have reached serious levels and that joint actions are needed to tackle these problems. For the Asia region, two initiatives, which specifically seek to address illegal logging and its associated trade, are the East Asia FLEG process and the Asia Forest Partnership. He compared the initiatives and proposed alternatives for their harmonization, which ranged from the status quo of no formal arrangement to a merger of the two. Ultimately, such a decision needs to be made by the participants in both initiatives, with those from within the region for whom resolution of the problem is most urgent playing a lead role. In reaching such a decision there must be a clear view of the respective goals of each process, combined with practical ideas on how to implement actions aimed at reaching them. Details concerning their respective governance arrangements, their administrative needs, availability of resources and operational efficiency also need to be taken into account. There are also apparent synergies between AFP and other initiatives that address illegal logging in the region, including the Pan-ASEAN Forest Certification initiative and ITTO. Representation of both ASEAN and ITTO and their regional member states at AFP meetings should ensure that these synergies are maximised.

Mr. Banjar Yulianto Laban informed a policy of Indonesia for achieving sustainable forest management and initiatives and applications of multilateral and bilateral commitments on combating illegal logging and international trade of illegally logged timber and wood products. He mentioned that illegal logging is when the method of logging in the forests and the transportation of the wood are in contravention of laws and regulation of the country where the logging is done. In Indonesia, he further deliberated that wood legality to be proved by forest legality letters issued by the forestry department. Verification and endorsement by BRIK based on wood mutation report and forest legality letters for forest products to be exported. He recommends that any agreement on mechanism or practice for legality verification should be applicable for every country in the world with no discrimination, the problems facing the Indonesian forestry industries need solving through constructive engagement rather than trade boycotts, the cost of verification and legality are high therefore buyers are encouraged to pay the extra premium to make business competitive and fair.

Mr. Bill Maynard and Dr. Takeshi Toma presented that a need for evaluating legality of timbers come from the lack of governance in developing countries, especially in tropical regions. The concept of legality needs to be clear in respect to key elements that are acceptable to major stakeholders. Other issue is traceability of the material from a forest that can demonstrate compliance to legal requirements through processing and trading to the retail market. The only current method being practiced is 3rd party verified Chain of Custody and Inspection based systems. As there are a number of approaches to evaluate and trace material from legal sources it will most likely require the use of the different existing systems depending on market demand. There is no perfect system in operation to verify legality of timber harvesting and trace the material to the market. The key elements required in a system will be a practical means to evaluate legal origin or compliance depending on the market demands as well as a clear chain of custody to trace the material through processing and trading to the retail market. The market will be the key player to drive the demand for legal verification thus it will be dependent on credible independent assessors. This should also drive demand for additional people to act as assessors and consultants to aid companies to develop forest management and chain of custody systems to participate in the programme.

Ms. Indra Setia Dewi presented that LEI is currently developed Legal Origin Verification System (LOV) which is a timber tracking system for tracing the origin of timber sources. LOV is to identify the legality of the timber sources, done by independent 3rd party, involve assessors and experts panel, and adopt the similar verification tools of CoC. LOV is based on multistakeholder participation. The role of NGO network and communities are to monitor and give inputs to the assessors. The role of Government is to police their policies and provide incentives, and promote certification initiatives. The role of private sectors is to implement good practices and the legality of their sources. The role of 3rd party (independent certifiers) is to verify the legality of the timber source as the first step towards certification. The role of international communities is to buy timber from legal sources and give market incentives for producers moving towards certification. Support form AFP and others related stakeholders is really essential in order to curb illegal logging.

Discussion from the presentation resulting following:

  1. Enabling mechanism
    • Harmonized definition, interaction and synergies
    • Reinforce relationships
    • Provide platform for partnership
       
  2. Building partnership
    • Generate multi-stakeholder involvement
    • Develop public private partnership (accelerate investments)
       
  3. Creating alliances to address cross-boundary, multi-jurisdictional issues
    • Built on blocks/strengths
    • Complementing initiatives
    • Integrate obligations into legal instruments
       
  4. Strengthen capacities in governance
    • Implement capacity building
    • Strong database and transparent information sharing
       

Top | Back to Key Documents

Your comments and suggestions are most welcome. Please send them to afp@cgiar.org

Last Update: Tuesday, December 07, 2004
Copyright © AFP 2003 - Site Design: Center for International Forestry Research
Webmaster: webmaster-cifor@cgiar.org