FOREST EUROPE EXPERT LEVEL MEETING 4-5 February 2014, Valladolid, Spain

Transcription

1 FOREST EUROPE EXPERT LEVEL MEETING 4-5 February 2014, Valladolid, Spain Minutes The FOREST EUROPE Expert Level Meeting (ELM) took place in Valladolid, Spain on 4-5 February It was attended by 80 delegates representing 32 signatory countries and the European Union, 11 international observer organizations and the Liaison Unit Madrid (LUM). The meeting was co-chaired by Ms. María Tourné, Liaison Unit Madrid, and Mr. Boris Greguska, Slovak Republic. The Director General of Rural Development and Forest Policy of Spain, Ms. Begoña Nieto Gilarte, and the Director General of Environment of the regional Government of Castilla y León, Mr. José Ángel Arranz Sanz, welcomed the participants to Valladolid. 1. Opening of the meeting Ms. María Tourné opened the meeting by stressing the importance of this year as a key moment for implementing the Oslo Ministerial Mandate and as the third year of the implementation of the Oslo Ministerial Decision. She introduced Mr. Boris Greguska as the Slovakian Co-chair. 2. Adoption of the agenda The Co-chair proposed an amendment to the Agenda in order to deal first with the requests for observer status in the FOREST EUROPE process that had been received. The ELM did not object so this modification was adopted and introduced as item 3 of the Agenda. The title of item 4 was modified to capture the different proposals made by the Russian Federation, the EU and Norway resulting in the following wording: Road map with regard to the organization of the FOREST EUROPE Extraordinary Ministerial Conference. Switzerland proposed an additional agenda point to present a summary by the co-chairs of the meeting before the closure. This addition was accepted as agenda point 9 Presentation of the draft summary of the ELM by co-chairs and comments from member States on its content, if any. The agenda was adopted with these modifications and renumbered accordingly. 3. Decision on granting observer status to the applicants in accordance with the received requests. The Co-chair Ms. María Tourné presented the four organizations that had applied for observer status in the FOREST EUROPE process. The status was granted by the ELM and the Co-chair welcomed the Council of European Foresters, the International Association for Mediterranean Forests, Pro Natura - Friends of the Earth Switzerland - and Friends of the Earth Europe, and the Mediterranean Forest Model Network. 1

2 4. Information on the work of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee with the mandate to develop a Legally Binding Agreement on Forests in Europe. Mr. Jan Heino, Chair of the INC, was invited to provide information about the work of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee. The ELM welcomed this information and took note of the additional information provided by FAO with reference to the fulfillment of paragraph 27 of the Oslo mandate on the work carried out by FAO, LUM and the EFI serving the INC process. 5. Road map with regard to the organization of the FOREST EUROPE Extraordinary Ministerial Conference. The Co-chair Ms. María Tourné presented the document with the two options for a way forward to prepare for the Extraordinary Ministerial Conference (EMC). 1 The Russian delegation pointed out that, unfortunately, their position as expressed in the message circulated earlier on behalf of Mr. Panfilov, Deputy Head of the Russian Forestry Agency, with some critical remarks concerning the content of the document, remained the same. He reminded the ELM that the Agenda had just been modified. The Russian delegate stated that the ELM was not the right setting to consider any option that could be recommended to the ministers because of the level of representation and the scope of the delegations. The Russian Federation suggested handling these issues in an informal setting in order to find possible solutions for a way forward. Austria stated that there were two options to be considered in the document and that it was correct to discuss these subjects in the ELM, as the setting of the FOREST EUROPE process that was there to organize the FOREST EUROPE EMC and to prepare it properly. The Austrian delegate stressed that the substance of the LBA was a different issue that should not be confused with this process. He said that the solution for the outstanding issues should be found by the countries in whatever way they wished, for example in informal consultations as the Russian delegation had suggested. He pointed out that Austria would prefer to have an agreement to present to the ministers with all the outstanding issues solved; therefore option two would be preferable. He stressed the need to discuss in the ELM what to suggest to the ministers that would gather in a FOREST EUROPE EMC, pointing out that the FOREST EUROPE structures and procedures had been established and ratified for the last 25 years to prepare for a FOREST EUROPE Ministerial Conference. Norway pointed out the importance of having a transparent, open and inclusive process to work towards the finalization of the LBA. The Norwegian delegate expressed their support to the approach reflected on the GCC document. He also pointed out that option 1 would be the most appropriate choice as prolonging the Oslo Mandate did not necessarily mean prolonging the process in time compared to option 2. He stressed the need for a structured process, with transparent and clear rules of procedure, which would be the most efficient and fair way to solve the outstanding issues. The European Union and its member states expressed their preference for option 2 stating their willingness to go to a FOREST EUROPE EMC and to conclude the LBA successfully. They expressed their flexibility on the way forward and the duration of the EMC. They also welcomed the Russian proposal of having informal discussions at the same time as the ELM but they stressed the need to have clear directions and information concerning the process and the time schedule for the road map towards the EMC at this ELM in Valladolid. They also raised the question for other delegations concerning what the delegations expected as an outcome from the EMC. Ukraine supported Norway on the need for a clear mandate for negotiations, clarifying that for that reason they could not accept option 2. Ukraine supported the Russian proposal to have informal consultations on the margins of the ELM

3 Switzerland stated their preference, if there was a willingness to continue creating a forest convention, to prolong the Oslo mandate in order to have that framework for the negotiations. However, they emphasised that it should be the ministers who prolong the Oslo mandate and this prolongation should be the topic of the EMC, therefore the EMC should take place as soon as possible. The Swiss delegate pointed out that the framework for such negotiations was the INC as it has the rules of procedure. He explained a road map in which the INC 5 could be held back-to-back with COFO and there should be a second EMC in the autumn so the INC could report its results. That EMC could endorse the text of the convention and adopt the decision to ask that FAO and UNECE be authorized to serve as a joint secretariat and to organize jointly a diplomatic conference which would finally adopt the forest convention perhaps at the beginning of The Russian Federation stated the need to stick to the objective of item 5: the road map for the EMC and nothing else, as the ELM was not the setting to discuss the whole process of negotiations and adoption of the LBA. The Russian delegate stressed the need to hold first an informal consultation to discuss a way forward and see if there was a possibility for a quick consensus and solution, and then try to finalize finalise it before the EMC. The European Commission explained that the proposal from Switzerland was what they meant by a road map, however clearer indications and more information were needed about the process and the timetable. The Russian delegation insisted that the objective under item 5 of the agenda was to discuss the organizational organisational matters of the EMC such as timing, venue, and necessary technical requirements, in other words the things needed in order to make the conference a success from the technical and administrative point of view. Ukraine pointed out that the questions raised by Russia depended on the countries decisions. Therefore, she proposed to suspend the meeting and start the informal consultations immediately to discuss the content of the EMC. This proposal was supported by Switzerland and the European Union. Therefore, this point of the agenda was agreed to be addressed via informal meetings. The Russian Federation asked for the substance to not be discussed during the formal sessions of the present ELM. Informal consultations took place during the first day of the ELM. Then, during the second day, the discussions continued during the session in a formal setting. On the second day Ms. Lyuba Poliakova, from Ukraine, briefed the plenary about the results of the informal meetings held the day before. She explained that after long discussions and several proposals for elements of the road map, there were some elements on which it seemed there was a certain common understanding among the participants: the need for informal consultations led by Spain with the assistance of the INC Bureau, and the necessity of a final INC to agree on the results of those informal consultations if they succeeded. If they had not succeeded the INC would have to deal only with a decision to be presented to the Ministers at the Extraordinary Ministerial Conference. She presented a document gathering all these elements and she clarified that there were still several aspects on which no agreement had been reached, such as timing for concluding negotiations, timing to hold the INC, and timing for the EMC. Spain stated their difficulties to organize a FOREST EUROPE EMC without having an agreement to put on the table for the ministers to sign. Switzerland stated their preference for not having another session of the INC and of implementing the decision of the INC to transmit the text of the draft Legally Binding Agreement to the EMC for appropriate action. However, the Swiss delegate stated that if there was an agreement among all parties on having a final session of the INC, Switzerland would not oppose it. Additional proposals with the same elements were presented during the morning of the second day by the European Union and from a group of countries including the Russian Federation, Belarus, Serbia, Switzerland and Ukraine. The last proposal which the 3

4 participants discussed came from the European Union and some modifications were made by Norway and the Russian Federation. This latest draft of a road map discussed by the ELM participants (including suggested amendments from the floor) is attached in annex 2, after the Co-chairs summary of the meeting. However, no agreement was reached concerning some points of this draft proposal. The Russian Federation, supported by other delegations, urged the governments of Spain and Slovakia to communicate the date and the place of the EMC by the end of February 2014, and requested that this be included in the draft road map that it was being discussed. Spain pointed out that that text went against Spain s sovereignty as it was setting a deadline for the Spanish minister to make a specific decision whether Spain liked it or not, fixing the Extraordinary Ministerial Conference at all costs, which was something in the power of the Spanish and the Slovak Republic ministers, as Co-Chairs of the Extraordinary Ministerial Conference for the Protection of Forests in Europe. The Russian Federation stated that they did not have any intention to undermine the sovereignty of any country. The Russian delegate pointed out that the draft road map as it stood at that moment was incomplete. He insisted that preparing a decision in the INC for the ministers would not be enough. It would be necessary to envisage a procedure that would allow the ministers to consider that decision and endorse it so the exercise could be properly finalized. The EU supported Spain s intervention and stressed the enormous effort that had been made from the start to try to accommodate all participants concerns. They stressed their flexibility with the timing for the informal consultations as well as for the time frame for the last INC. However, they could not agree on point 1 and 5 of the draft road map as it was formulated by the Russian proposal. Finally since no conclusion was reached the issue remained opened. 6. Update on the implementation of the FOREST EUROPE work programme. Point 1 of the PoW: Further development of Sustainable Forest Management and its tools. The progress of the point of the Programme of Work on Further development of Sustainable Forest Management and its tools was introduced by Ms. Myriàm Martín from the Liaison Unit Madrid. The activities of this part of the PoW were approved during the ELM held in Madrid in 2012 and updated in the ELM in She informed the meeting about the evolution of each activity: - On the State of the Art, covering the analysis of the implementation of previous decisions on SFM in monitoring and policy, she explained that part of this analysis had already been developed by EFI in the project Implementing C&I for SFM in Europe, whose results would be presented by Mr. Hubert Inhaizer. - She then talked about the Expert Group to propose improvements in tools for SFM. After the first meeting, held in Madrid in November 2012, she explained that the work had continued and, inter alia, a Working Paper was being developed including background information, the new commitments and current challenges. She informed the ELM that the Expert Group was still working on the review of the SFM tools bearing in mind the EFI Project outcomes, the LBA negotiation process and issues raised during the brainstorming meeting that took place in Vienna during the Pan-European Forum last October. 4

5 Taking into account all these aspects, Ms. Myriàm Martín pointed out that the Expert Group could: - take a step back, and define the objectives and direction of the revision of the SFM tools as a whole and in each of the different tools, and at the same time, - continue to develop the main target group, ie, propose possible additional steps to develop the tools further, mainly focusing on: - how to develop means and channels to improve communication about the SFM concept and its tools, both within the sector and in other sectors. This may imply the need to engage representatives from other sectors to fill the gaps - further development and updating of the SFM tools to include new needs and cross-sectorial issues in a proactive and strategic way, and - how to strengthen the use of SFM tools for policy making and for implementing SFM at different levels. - Turning to the Round Table to explore proposal for improvements on SFM tools, Ms. Martín stated that the results of the Expert Group would be presented and discussed at a Round Table meeting in order to elaborate the proposal that must be presented to the ELM. She informed the ELM that this Round Table was planned to take place in autumn of Ms. Myriàm Martín then asked Mr. Hubert Inhaizer, the European Forest Institute leader of the project of Implementing C&I for SFM in Europe, to share with the ELM the results of the EFI Project, which feeds the FOREST EUROPE Programme of Work and had as main objectives: - To analyze the implementation of criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management in the 46 FOREST EUROPE signatory states, - To identify demands and potentials for the further development of the pan- European C&I set by drawing conclusions from lessons learned from the past process and current practice. Mr. Hubert Inhaizer presented the main outcomes of the EFI report and recommendations. The presentation can be found at the FOREST EUROPE webpage. A fruitful discussion was held among the ELM, which encouraged the LUM to continue working and to update the ToR of this Expert Group for their next meeting. Several countries offered their expertise to participate in this part of the PoW. Point 2 of the PoW: Further improvements in forest monitoring and reporting. Ms. Myriàm Martín presented the progress made in the implementation of work on Further improvements in forest monitoring and reporting. Information was provided about the collection of quantitative and qualitative indicator data. Concerning the preparation of the next edition of the SoEF, Ms. Myriàm Martín informed the meeting that LUM had been working with FAO-FRA and regional processes on C&I SFM in streamlining forest data collection through the CFRQ for the monitoring and reporting of the state of forests. They had achieved a joint questionnaire that comprises about 20% of the FOREST EUROPE quantitative indicator data to be collected under FAO s FRA network. She pointed out that FRA was still working on this, but that there was not yet a data set ready for CFRQ partners. She stated that the set would probably be ready in April and encouraged countries to submit their data to FRA before the end of February. 5

6 Regarding the joint data collection by UNECE/FAO and FOREST EUROPE she stated that this was currently taking place. The questionnaires had been sent out on 7 November and the deadline for replying was 31st March In response to a question from the Russian Federation, the UNECE clarified that no agreement had yet been reached between the UNECE-FAO Forestry and Timber Section and LUM on working modalities for the preparation of the State of Europe s Forests report. The Russian Federation stated their interest in the State of Europe s Forests report and called for the settlement of the copyright conflict. However, they also underscored that the information on the state of Russian forests will be only provided if the UNECE is an official party of the copyright. It was clearly pointed out that the information on the state of Russian forests should be transferred by the UNECE to any entities outside the UN only with the approval by the Russian Federation. The language issue is vital. The Russian Federation also insisted on the provision of the free official translation of the report into Russian, as had been the case in the past. Ms Myriàm Martín clarified that there was no problem with the copyright, as it belonged to FOREST EUROPE as in the previous editions. Switzerland regretted that the logos of the other UN organizations will not appear in the publication as a result of not having their copyright and urged all organizations involved to resolve these problems. Responding to the LUM, which stated that this edition did not differ from the previous editions, the UNECE noted that there were actually some differences because in the past editions the UNECE-FAO Forestry and Timber Section had coordinated the preparation of the study, including liaising with the authors, developing content and checking texts for accuracy. In the case of the next SoEF, given current issues with copyrights, the Section will no longer undertake these tasks. The Section will provide technical support via data collection. Ms. Myriàm Martín stated that the Liaison Unit Madrid is responsible for the State of Europe s Forest report. Concerning the translation to other languages LUM clarified that this translation will take place upon the request of the signatories, subject to available financial resources. Turning to the qualitative indicators, she shared with the ELM the suggestion made by the Advisory Group to improve reporting on qualitative indicators. To avoid heterogeneity in the answers, she pointed out the need to improve the questions asked, bearing in mind what was the right information needed to produce the report. She informed the meeting that the LUM was already working to improve the questionnaire, which would be sent to the National Correspondents in March. Ms. Myriàm Martín also informed the meeting about the work that would be carried out by EFI on monitoring and reporting on the achievements leading up to the goals and 2020 targets. Point 4 of the PoW: Valuation of forest ecosystem services. This point of the Programme of Work was introduced by Ms. Beatriz Bueno from the Liaison Unit Madrid. She informed the ELM that, after the discussions on the on-going work that was being done in several countries and organizations, which had been shared in the first Expert Group held in June 2012 in Madrid, the Expert Group finally decided to have 3 sub-working groups to developed online documents and information regarding: Identification of forest ecosystem services in the pan-european region. Toolbox with valuation approaches from countries and organizations. 6

7 Means to facilitate the implementation of the valuation of forest ecosystem services. She said that the next Expert Group Meeting would take place on 27 February in Madrid, Spain, to bring together the work of the 3 sub-wgs. She noted that it was not likely that a third meeting to finalise the outcomes and report would be needed, although this would be decided in situ at the Meeting. She also announced the workshop to consolidate the proposals in the report, and identify effective priorities and measures to promote its use, would be organized in collaboration with the Republic of Serbia and would take place in Belgrade after the summer. Point 5 of the PoW: Sustainable Forest Management in a green economy. Ms. Edurne Lacalle from the Liaison Unit Madrid introduced this point of the Programme of Work and announced that the Workshop on Green Economy and Social Aspects of SFM is planned to be held in Santander, Spain on April. She highlighted that this workshop would seek ways to develop a strategic approach to raise awareness and to assist decision making on the contributions of multiple forest functions to local, national and regional economies. In addition, it would aim to identify priority areas for enhancing not only the economic but also the social aspects of forests, and to address the role of forests and sustainable forest management in a green economy at national and pan-european level. She informed the meeting that the LUM was already working on the concept note of this workshop with the leading actors in this activity, which would be distributed among all FOREST EUROPE members as soon as it was ready. Building on that concept note LUM will work on a draft agenda that would be sent out as soon as possible. She also announced that the registration for this event would open in the following weeks. Point 6 of the PoW: Communication strategy. The point of the Programme of Work on Communication strategy was presented by Ms. Marta Chicharro from the Liaison Unit Madrid. She summarised the main points related to the communication and outreach activities that had been carried out by FOREST EUROPE. She pointed out that the FOREST EUROPE website had been totally revised in the last months of 2012 in order to make it more attractive and memorable. She informed the ELM that its contents are constantly updated; stressing that some sections (such as the event calendar and the news section) are more dynamic than others. The integration of social networks in the website, for instance, has contributed significantly to its increased dynamism. However, its design and contents are always under review. During 2013 the web site received 39, 892 visits. The social networks have proved to be very efficient tools to reach a broader public. She shared with the ELM the evolution of these media during 2013 mentioning the figures related to the FOREST EUROPE official Facebook page, the FOREST EUROPE official Twitter account and the FOREST EUROPE official Youtube channel. 7. FOREST EUROPE up-coming meetings. Ms. María Tourné, the head of the LUM, presented the upcoming FOREST EUROPE meetings related to the PoW. - Experts Group on Valuation of Forest Ecosystem Services on 27 February in Madrid. Spain. - Advisory Group on the Elaboration of SoEF on 11 March in Madrid, Spain. 7

8 - Expert Group on Sustainable Forest Management in April or May (dates and venue to be determined). - Workshop on Social Issues in a Green Economy on 29th and 30th April in Santander, Spain. - Meeting of the SoEF Coordinators and principal authors in June in Madrid, Spain (dates to be determined). - Workshop on Valuation of Forest Ecosystem Services at the end of September/beginning of October 2014 in Serbia (dates to be determined). - Round table on tools for the Sustainable Forest Management in the autumn. 8. Exchange of information on up-coming international meetings. The following up-coming international meetings were announced: UNECE/FAO Forest Communicators Network meeting, in Berlin, Germany on April nd Session of Committee on Forestry (COFO), at the FAO headquarters in Rome, Italy, on June th meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice of the Convention on Biological Diversity, in Montreal, Canada, on June XXIV IUFRO World Congress, in Salt Lake City, USA, on 5-11 October FAO provided information on the following meetings, relevant to the participants of the ELM: 22nd Session of Committee on Forestry (COFO), June The main theme of the Session will focus on the socio-economic benefits from forests. The agenda will be available soon on the FAO s web site. As a result of the successful experiences of the previous sessions, the 4th World Forest Week (4th WFW) is to be held in conjunction with COFO22. International Forum on Payments for Environmental Services of Tropical Forests, in San José, Costa Rica, on 7-10 April 2014, jointly organized by FAO, ITTO, and the Government of Costa Rica. International Seminar on REDD+ Implementation and Sustainable Forest Management, in Tokyo, Japan, on 6-7 February 2014, organized by FAO and the Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute of Japan (FFPRI). Spain announced the IV Mediterranean Forest Week, in March Other matters. LUM reported on the Workshop on Forests and Sustainable Development Goals: a regional view, that was convened by the ECE Committee on Forests and the Forest Industry, and the FAO European Forestry Commission in Geneva on January The results were presented by Finland at the UN Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals in New York on 3-4 February Presentation of the draft summary of the ELM by co-chairs and comments from member states on its content, if any. The Liaison Unit Madrid, given the lack of time to comment on the draft summary, proposed to send it via on Friday 7 February and provide time, until Thursday 16, to the ELM participants to comment on it. The ELM accepted this proposal. It was agreed 8

9 that the final version of the summary would be sent with all the comments gathered, no later than 24 th February. The Co-chairs summary is attached in annexe Closure of the meeting Mr. Boris Greguska thanked the participants of the ELM for their contributions and closed the meeting at 2.45 pm. 9

10 Annexe 1 Co-Chairs Summary The FOREST EUROPE Expert Level Meeting (ELM) took place in Valladolid, Spain on 4-5 February It was attended by 80 delegates representing 32 signatory countries and the European Union, 11 international observer organizations and the Liaison Unit Madrid (LUM). The meeting was co-chaired by Ms. María Tourné, Liaison Unit Madrid, and Mr. Boris Greguska, Slovak Republic. The Director General of Rural Development and Forest Policy of Spain, Ms. Begoña Nieto Gilarte, and the Director General of Environment of the regional Government of Castilla y León, Mr. José Ángel Arranz Sanz, welcomed the participants to Valladolid. 3. Opening of the meeting Ms. María Tourné opened the meeting by stressing the importance of this year as a key moment for implementing the Oslo Ministerial Mandate and as the third year of the implementation of the Oslo Ministerial Decision. She introduced Mr. Boris Greguska as the Slovakian co-chair. 4. Adoption of the agenda The Co-chair proposed an amendment to the Agenda in order to deal first with the requests for observer status in the FOREST EUROPE process that have been received. The ELM did not object so this modification was adopted and introduced as item 3 of the Agenda. The title of item 4 was modified to capture the different proposals made by the Russian Federation, the EU and Norway resulting in the following wording: Road map with regard to the organization of the FOREST EUROPE Extraordinary Ministerial Conference. Switzerland proposed an additional agenda point to present a summary by the co-chairs of the meeting before the closure. This addition was accepted as agenda point 9 Presentation of the draft summary of the ELM by co-chairs and comments from member States on its content, if any. The agenda was adopted with these modifications and renumbered accordingly. 3. Decision on granting observer status to the applicants in accordance with the received requests. The Co-chair Ms. María Tourné presented the four organizations that had applied for observer status in the FOREST EUROPE process. The status was granted by the ELM and the Co-chair welcomed the Council of European Foresters, the International Association for Mediterranean Forests, Pro Natura - Friends of the Earth Switzerland - and Friends of the Earth Europe and the Mediterranean Forest Model Network. 4. Information on the work of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee with the mandate to develop a Legally Binding Agreement on Forests in Europe. Mr. Jan Heino, Chair of the INC, was invited to provide information about the work of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee. The ELM welcomed this information and took note of the additional information provided by FAO with reference to the fulfillment of 1

11 paragraph 27 of the Oslo mandate on the work carried out by FAO, LUM and the EFI serving the INC process. 5. Road map with regard to the organization of the FOREST EUROPE Extraordinary Ministerial Conference. This point of the agenda was agreed to be addressed first via informal meetings. The Russian Federation asked to not discuss the substance during the formal sessions of the present ELM. Informal consultations have taken place. The outcome of the informal sessions was presented in the formal session. Amendments were suggested but no formal agreement was reached. The latest version of the draft roadmap (including suggested amendments from the floor), outcome of the informal consultations, is attached in the annex. 6. Update on the implementation of the FOREST EUROPE work programme. Point 1 of the PoW: Further development of Sustainable Forest Management and its tools. The progress of the point of the Programme of Work on Further development of Sustainable Forest Management and its tools was introduced by Ms. Myriàm Martín from the Liaison Unit Madrid. Mr. Hubert Inhaizer, as the European Forest Institute leader of the project of Implementing C&I for SFM in Europe, made a presentation on the results of the project, which feeds the FOREST EUROPE Programme of Work. Then LUM informed the meeting about the organization of the future work for this point of the programme, including the Expert Group meeting, which is planned to be held in the spring, and the Round Table that will take place in the autumn. A fruitful discussion was held among the ELM which encouraged the LUM to keep on working and to update the ToR of this Expert Group for their next meeting. Several countries offered their expertise to participate in this part of the PoW. Point 2 of the PoW: Further improvements in forest monitoring and reporting. Ms. Myriàm Martín presented the progress made in the implementation of work on Further improvements in forest monitoring and reporting. Information was provided about the collection of quantitative and qualitative indicator data. In response to a question from the Russian Federation, the UNECE clarified that no agreement had yet been reached between the UNECE-FAO Forestry and Timber Section and LUM on working modalities for the preparation of the State of Europe s Forests report. The Russian Federation stated their interest in the State of Europe s Forests report and called for the settlement of the copyright conflict. However, they also underscored that the information on the state of Russian forests will be only provided if the UNECE is an official party of the copyright. It was clearly pointed out that the information on the state of Russian forests should be transferred by the UNECE to any entities outside the UN only with the approval by the Russian Federation. The language issue is vital. The Russian Federation also insisted on the provision of the free official translation of the report into Russian, as had been the case in the past. 2

12 Ms Myriàm Martín clarified that there was no problem with the copyright, as it belonged to FOREST EUROPE as in the previous editions. Switzerland regretted that the logos of the other UN organizations will not appear in the publication as a result of not having their copyright and urged all organizations involved to resolve these problems. Responding to the LUM, which stated that this edition did not differ from the previous editions, the UNECE noted that there were actually some differences because in the past editions the UNECE-FAO Forestry and Timber Section had coordinated the preparation of the study, including liaising with the authors, developing content and checking texts for accuracy. In the case of the next SoEF, given current issues with copyrights, the Section will no longer undertake these tasks. The Section will provide technical support via data collection. Ms. Myriàm Martín stated that the Liaison Unit Madrid is responsible for the State of Europe s Forest report. Concerning the translation to other languages LUM clarified that this translation will take place upon the request of the signatories, subject to available financial resources. Point 4 of the PoW: Valuation of forest ecosystem services. This point of the Programme of Work was introduced by Ms. Beatriz Bueno from the Liaison Unit Madrid. She announced that the next Expert Group Meeting will take place on 27 February in Madrid, Spain; and the workshop that will be held after the summer will be in Belgrade, Serbia. Point 5 of the PoW: Sustainable Forest Management in a green economy. Ms. Edurne Lacalle from the Liaison Unit Madrid introduced this point of the Programme of Work and announced that the Workshop on Green Economy and Social Aspects of SFM is planned to be held in Santander, Spain on April. Point 6 of the PoW: Communication strategy. The point of the Programme of Work on Communication strategy was presented by Ms. Marta Chicharro from the Liaison Unit Madrid. 7. FOREST EUROPE up-coming meetings. Ms. María Tourné, the head of the LUM, presented the upcoming FOREST EUROPE meetings related to the PoW. - Experts Group on Valuation of Forest Ecosystem Services on 27 February in Madrid. Spain. - Advisory Group on the Elaboration of SoEF on 11 March in Madrid, Spain. - Expert Group on Sustainable Forest Management in April or May (dates and venue to be determined). - Workshop on Social Issues in a Green Economy on 29th and 30th April in Santander, Spain. - Meeting of the SoEF Coordinators and principal authors in June in Madrid, Spain (dates to be determined). - Workshop on Valuation of Forest Ecosystem Services at the end of September/beginning of October 2014 in Serbia (dates to be determined). - Round table on tools for the Sustainable Forest Management in the autumn. 3

13 8. Exchange of information on up-coming international meetings. The following up-coming international meetings were announced: UNECE/FAO Forest Communicators Network meeting, in Berlin on April nd Session of Committee on Forestry (COFO), at the FAO headquarters in Rome, Italy, on June th meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice of the Convention on Biological Diversity, in Montreal, Canada, on June XXIV IUFRO World Congress, in Salt Lake City, USA, on 5-11 October FAO provided information on the following meetings, relevant to the participants of the ELM: 22nd Session of Committee on Forestry (COFO), June The main theme of the Session will focus on the socio-economic benefits from forests. The agenda will be available soon on the FAO s web site. As a result of the successful experiences of the previous sessions the 4th World Forest Week (4th WFW) is to be held in conjunction with COFO22. International Forum on Payments for Environmental Services of Tropical Forests, in San José, Costa Rica, on 7-10 April 2014, jointly organized by FAO, ITTO, and the Government of Costa Rica. International Seminar on REDD+ Implementation and Sustainable Forest Management, in Tokyo, Japan, on 6-7 February 2014, organized by FAO and the Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute of Japan (FFPRI). Spain announced the IV Mediterranean Forest Week, in March Other matters. LUM reported on the Workshop on Forests and Sustainable Development Goals: a regional view, that was convened by the ECE Committee on Forests and the Forest Industry, and the FAO European Forestry Commission in Geneva on January The results were presented by Finland at the UN Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals in New York on 3-4 February Presentation of the draft summary of the ELM by co-chairs and comments from member states on its content, if any. The Liaison Unit Madrid, given the lack of time to comment on the draft summary, proposed to send it via on Friday 7 February and provide time, until Thursday 16, to the ELM participants to comment on it. The ELM accepted this proposal. The final version of the summary will be sent once all the comments are gathered, no later than 24 th February. 11. Closure of the meeting Mr. Boris Greguska thanked the participants of the ELM for their contributions and closed the meeting at 2.45 pm. 4

14 ANNEXE 2 ELM Valladolid 2014 Possible draft elements for the roadmap to the EMC (latest draft 5 February 2014, 14:30 as shown on screen during Item (5) of the ELM agenda, with comments from the floor added.) Participants in the ELM 1. Invited the Governments of Spain and Slovakia to communicate [till the end of February 2014 the road map including a time frame (RU)]as soon as possible the roadmap towards the EMC as presented below in accordance with the requirements as set by the Oslo mandate. 2. Invited the Governments of Spain and Slovakia to send a letter to all countries mentioned in the Oslo Mandate requesting the [extension of the INC mandate in order to allow it to hold one more additional session (RU)] prolongation of the Oslo Ministerial Mandate and that INC should resume its work for one session (NO). The INC should resume its work for one additional session by consensus of all countries mentioned in the Oslo mandate in response to a request to be sent by Governments of Spain and Slovakia.(EU) 3. Suggested to establish an informal, [ open and fully inclusive consultation open to all INC parties(no)] process with a duration of [two months (RU)]three months after this ELM with the aim to resolve all outstanding issues with regard to the draft decision of the EMC and the draft text of LBA and invited the Government of Spain to facilitate this process with the assistance of the INC Bureau member countries in a transparent and inclusive manner. 4. Should the informal consultation result in a consensus on the clean text of the LBA DNT and the draft decision for the EMC, an additional session of the INC shall be held within [2 months(ru)] 3 months and six weeks after this ELM. The purpose of this INC session is to formally endorse the outcome of informal consultations. 5. In case the objective of having the clean text of the LBA DNT with an informal consultation is not achieved within the [two (RU)] three months, the additional INC session will limit the focus of its work only to prepare a draft decision for the Ministers [at the EMC to be held no later than 3 months after the INC (RU)]. 5