____________________Forward Header_____________________ Subject: Strategic review Author: =?iso-8859-1?B?Q29uY2Vp5+NvIEZlcnJlaXJh?= Date: 15/12/00 14:48 Dear Kit Here is our reply to the questionaire on the Strategic review. It was included in the body of the message because we have problems with attachments... Have a nice X-mas and all the best for 2001 to you and all the TC/EFC team. Conceicao -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Strategic review of the Integrated programme of work of the UN/ECE Timber Committee and the FAO European Forestry Commission (For background, see documents for the joint session, notably the draft programme of work TIM/2000/7:FO:EFC/00/9 and the session report) Name: Conceiçao Ferreira & Joao de Sousa Teixeira Organisation: Direcçao-Geral das Florestas Country: Portugal 1. Core mandate During the last strategic review of the programme, in the mid 1990s, it was agreed that the core mandate of ECE/FAO should be to "monitor and analyse sustainable forest management in the region". In addition, a forum for intergovernmental co-operation should be provided. This mandate is reflected in the structure of the programme. 1A. Should this core mandate be maintained or modified? It should be maintained. We believe that it is still valid. 1B. If the latter, in what way? 2. Priorities, notably support to the international forest dialogue at a global and regional level "Highest priority" was attached to supporting the follow-up to UNCED (which has led to the foundation of UNFF), and the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe. The role played by ECE/FAO in this respect is described in document TIM/2000/3 FO:EFC:/00/4 2A. Should highest priority continue to be attached to supporting the international forest dialogue? Yes. Now that a new phase is going to start with the UNFF, it is very important that ECE/TC and EFC/FAO show their commitment to the international forest dialogue and have a flexible approach in the mandate so that new issues arising from there can be translated into regional terms. 2B. Is ECE/FAO following the right strategy in this respect? Yes 2C. In general, does the programme adequately reflect countries' priorities? Yes 3. Outputs and resources The outputs of the programme and the resources - in the secretariat and in member countries and partner organizations - allocated to producing each output are described on the attached table. Concern has been expressed, inside the secretariat team and at the joint session, about over-stretching of resources, with possible negative consequences on quality of outputs and co-ordination between different parts of the programme. 3A. Is the balance between resources and output appropriate? Yes. 3B. If not, should some outputs be abandoned, modified or delegated to other organisations? Although resources and outputs are balanced, a more close collaboration or participation of private sector could be envisaged, including in providing additional resources. 3C. If so, which outputs? Mainly to issues like market and outlook studies which are specifically of their interest. 3D. Is the allocation of resources between outputs consistent with the priorities of the programme? It doesn't seem so. 4. Supplementary resources The secretariat has frequently informed the Committee and the Commission that the quality of a specific output would be better if more resources than those available under the regular ECE and FAO budgets were made available. In many case, countries have in fact made available extra resources in the form of funds, loaned personnel etc, a generosity which has made possible some of the most important achievements under the programme. Nevertheless, resources (rather than access to skills, networks, problems with formal mandates, lack of consensus or other similar problems) are still usually the main constraint to achieving more ambitious goals 4A. How could extra resources be mobilised to achieve the objectives of the ECE/FAO programme? Once a specific constraint is identified, it could be issued a request from the Secretariat to the countries and organisations, pointing out options to overcome it. 4B. Is your country or organisation able to contribute extra resources? Only to very specific issues that are linked with our priorities (a case by case analysis). Definitely not on a permanent basis. 5. Methods of work The programme uses several methods of work, including regular meetings of statutory bodies, seminars and workshops, teams of specialists, special questionnaires, secretariat analysis etc. The whole programme is reviewed and formally agreed by the Committee and the Commission at each session. 5A. Are the right methods being used for each output? Yes. 5B. Could more innovative methods be found in certain areas? Sure, but no specific suggestion occur... 5C. Are the Committee and the Commission able to carry out their programme review function in a satisfactory way? Yes. 5D. How much of the work programme should be devoted to: a. meetings and discussion; b. data collection and dissemination; c. production of technical advice for countries; and d. analysis of information? The present approach seems correct. 6. Alliances and partnerships In addition to the core relationship between ECE and FAO, many other continuing partnerships have been developed, including with ILO, for the Joint FAO/ECE/ILO Committee, with Eurostat, ITTO and other agencies in the Intersecretariat Working Group on Forest Sector Statistics, with MCPFE in a number of fields etc. 6A. Do you believe that all these partnerships have been mutually beneficial and brought significant advantages to all partners? Yes. This is in fact one of the strongest feature in the region - the ability to build on existing organisations, avoiding duplication and developing synergies that prove to be beneficial to all. 6B. Is there potential for building other strategic partnerships? Eventually with agencies/organisations on the environmental field. 6C. If so, with whom, with what objectives? This is fundamental if we want forests to be taken in a multifunctional perspective - there are lots of things evolving in other fora that we must be following more closely. a.. Other We have, as a whole, a very positive view on all the work developed so far and on the approaches taken by both the Commission and the Committee. We would appreciate it if you would contribute any other comments or suggestions regarding the programme of work. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Divisao de Relaçoes Internacionais Direcçao Geral das Florestas Av. Joao Crisóstomo 28 1069-040 LISBOA PORTUGAL tel:+351-21 312 4910 fax: + 351- 21 312 4992