3. ORGANIZATIONAL MATTERS OF ASIAN FOREST PARTNERSHIP

3.1 Presentation by Dr. Takeshi TOMA, CIFOR

1) Issues to be discussed

• Information networks
• Decision making mechanisms
• Fund raising and management
• Measures to enhance and enlarge AFP

Insights from CIFOR occasional paper 41
The original document, “Bridging the Gap: Communities, Forests and International Networks” (size 1.6 Mb)  is downloadable [here]

2) Current status and Suggestions for discussion

3.2 Interventions from the participants

See list of participants for the affiliation of person's who made interventions

• Hiroshi Kudo (MoFA, Japan)

Criticisms have been made about AFP that actions are still lacking and there are no financial commitments. But, government of Japan will contribute USD 100,000 to AFP. This will be sued to support a secretariat, and for some concrete actions of AFP. It is important to nominate focal point for each partner of AFP. This will be necessary for the exchange of information. AFP multi-stakeholders approach, partners are equally accountable. Leading partners help to coordinate. The general meeting of AFP partners is the highest decision-making mechanism of AFP. Donors will pledge and earmark funds. But partners are encouraged to identify funds.

• Antonio Manila (FMB, the Philippines)

The Forest Management Bureau (FMB) of the DENR, the Philippines, was really interested and committed to join and participate in the AFP as an active partner.

• Participants welcomed the Philippines becomes an active partner of the AFP.

• Javed Mir (ADB)

• Agricultural and Natural Resources Division is the focal point for ADB. There are common elements of all partnerships. Suggestions to move from dialogue to action.
  The staying power of partnerships depends on how it can fit the agenda’s of participating organizations.
• ADB paper on illegal logging shows that every year governments loose 2.5 billion dollars in revenue as a result of illegal logging. This is a powerful argument to persuade governments to become serious about illegal logging.
  see: Mir and Fraser 2003. Illegal logging in the Asia-Pacific region: an ADB perspective. International Forestry Review 5, 278-281. contact jhmir@adb.org
• Upcoming Regional and Technical Assistance project for the Greater Mekong Region. This will provide adequate information about what is the demand and supply for forest products. This information needs to be understood to know what is legally sources, and what not.
• There is a need to know better where the forests are. Who owns them. We need to know what they are, what are the resources that they hold. We need to address issues of benefit and costs sharing, i.e. we need to look at the costs o controlling illegal logging, not only at the loss in revenue.

• Vo Min Tua (Viet Nam)

Announced that the Forestry Department will become an active member of the partnership. She would like to know what are the procedures to become an active partner.

• Takeshi Toma (CIFOR) responded:

No requirements. If you have intentions to become a member and somehow become involved, than you can become a member of AFP.

• Aditya Bayunanda (LEI)

Partnership is still too loose. We need to ask, what benefits of the partnership. The partnership should propose specific and concrete actions on the ground. AFP should be given a strong mandate such that its initiative should be followed up and completed and its recommendations be taking up by partner governments. He also mentioned the need for partners to define illegal logging and inform consumers.

• Edwin Brown (USA)

Congo basin forest partnership could be one examples for AFP. Congo FP has one designated facilitator who organize meetings, and communicates with partners. USAID provides support for this person. Six countries have designated a co-facilitator in the country. Partnership receives support from countries for co-facilitators. NGOs are members and they help to maintain a web-site. Partners look for own funds for their activities, but they look for opportunities to co-operate. Partnership contributes, for instance in the AFLEG initiatives.

• Togu Manurung (Forest Watch Indonesia)

Objective of AFP is important indeed. It is, however, very important that Malaysia, Singapore, and China participate in the AFP meetings such that we can discussions of illegal logging and illegal trade of logs.

Only two civil society organizations are mentioned as members, TNC and WRI. Why only those two mentioned. We need to put the right names of attending organizations and people.

• Hiroshi Kudo responded:

Malaysia has been participating in first and second meeting. They are also present in this meeting. China is also a member of the AFP and representatives participated in first and second meeting.

WRI want to become a partner to AFP. WRI visited Japan two weeks ago, and they want to contribute to AFP’s activities. But they could not send a representative to this meeting.

• Takeshi Toma added:

Lead partners invite very inclusively. AFP also wants to invite Forest Watch Indonesia to become a member.

• Maharaj Muthoo (Roman Forum)

Mr. Muto is a member of one civil society partner all the way from Rome. He observed that nobody from the trading and the corporate sector was present at this meeting. They should also become member of the partnership. That also should contribute to funding.

• Mr Mohd Paiz (Forestry Department, Malaysia)

Malaysian representative announced that he was present, and thanked the organizers for the invitation to attend.

• Kiyeon Ko (Korea)

He spoke of the need for an information network to share experience and skills and that the Secretariat should invite leading partners for ideas.

• Yuuji Imaizumi (Forestry Agency, Japan)

The four leading partners have worked together and share responsibilities until now. But the key persons need to do this next and in addition to their regular activity. They feel the need for one person to take responsibility especially for the administrative work.

• Bambang Moerdiono (Ministry of Forestry, Indonesia)

Indonesia also sees the need for a specialized secretariat. It should be decided who can support the secretariat, and who can host it.

• Chairman

Acknowledged the need for resources and management of them while at the same time avoiding bureaucracy and red tape.

• Hiroshi Kudo

CIFOR is information clearing house and has showed willingness to host the secretariat for information sharing. We should negotiate with CIFOR to make establish an agreement. However, any funding to be pledged for activities under the partnership, should be clearly earmarked. CIFOR would not be able to handle or manage funds that are only given to the AFP partnership.

• Byron Sigel (TNC)

We need to get high level political commitment on the part of government and civil societies for the AFP initiative. Once we have this commitment, than the management and funding part can be solved more easily.

• Tokiharu Okazaki (FoE Japan)

Observed the lacking presence of private company representatives, especially from Japan. Timber Industry/Private sector should be involved both from exporter and importer countries since they are main player of timber logging and trade. Finance resource should be not only from government but also from private sector whose benefit comes from sustainable Timber business. Local NGO representing the voice of people living in forested aria are to be invited in AFP framework. There is advisory NGO group organized in FLEG process. At the 2nd AFP meeting, it was raised that AFP would have the advisory NGO group.

• Javed Mir

How to achieve commitment of governments and civil society. We have not been able to convince governments that commitment is necessary. We need to show what forests and forestry can do for government/ policy decision makers. We need to put our priorities in their language. I.e. the argument, you loose 2.5 billion unless you get rid of illegal logging, then financial secretary will be listening to you.

We need to come to an understanding on the programmatical issues. We need to decide whether if we want to have a partnership that aims for a programme portfolio management (i.e. operational management of projects), or more a less executing partnership.

• Masahiko Hori (JICA)

This partnership should add more value to our own activities. We need to know better what each partner is doing. Then we can make proposals what we can do together.

Information exchange is very important, and AFP needs only a very small secretariat to facilitate this.

• Patrik Pardo (Switzerland)

Measures to enhance and enlarge AFP. In 2004 and 2005 two CSD meetings (12 & 13) will be held to define follow up of the Johannesburg World Summit, under which AFP activities fall. AFP could use this occasion and present its activities.

• Takeshi Toma

CIFOR is a research institution, and as such is happy to provide or facilitate technical support from a research viewpoint. CIFOR is not the most appropriate of the partners to host the permanent secretariat of the AFP.

[Agenda of Meeting] [1. Opening session] [2. Reports] [3. Organizational Matters of Asian Forest Partnership] [Presentation and Discussion on Concrete Actions] [Clossing items] [Feed back from the participants] [List of Participants]