Establishing
an
Report of the Second Expert
Consultation
held
21 –
FAO, DENR and APFC
September
2007
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Reflecting on Why this Initiative is
Needed. 6
Forest Policies in a
Borderless World.. 6
The
Thinking Behind the Think Tank. 9
Underpinnings of Think
Tank. 9
Plenary Discussion on
Functions and Form... 11
Academic and Research
Institutions. 13
Seeking
Consensus on the Way Forward. 18
Potential Collaboration with International
Partners. 20
Annex 1:
Consultation Program.. 25
Annex 2:
List of Participants and Support Staff. 27
Annex 3:
Composition of Working Groups. 33
Co-organized by FAO, DENR and APFC, the second expert consultation on Establishing an Asia-Pacific Forest Policy ‘Think Tank’ was successfully held during 21-22 August 2007 in Manila, Philippines. The meeting was powered by 41 colleagues from government, academia, research, civil society and international organizations in the Asia-Pacific region and beyond.
Through a two-day process of overview presentations, panel discussions, working groups, and brainstorming in plenary, the assembled experts made excellent progress on the stated objectives, and were able to identify not only what the proposed think tank should do, but also what it should not do.
The scope was prioritized and narrowed to key functional areas such as: communications, advocacy, coordination, capacity building, policy analysis and resource mobilization. It was agreed that the focus should be on policy implementation, value added and building upon existing networks and partnerships.
Recommendations on the appropriate structure highlighted the need for: an appropriate mother organization to host the initiative; an independent and flexible secretariat with full-time coordinator; an active advisory group; and thematic focus groups to carry out various activities supported by the think tank.
The expert group also identified a list of potential institutional and individual champions within the region to support the establishment and operation of the proposed think tank. Feedback on the term ‘think tank’ (e.g., a label that evokes “technical arrogance” to some) indicated the need to revisit and reconsider a more appropriate name for this initiative.
Several national, regional and international organizations expressed their keen interest to collaborate with the think tank/network/forum, and offered a range of possible in-kind and financial support. Very practical recommendations were made regarding the way forward, and these will be discussed immediately with the APFC Executive Committee. It was also recommended to explore further linkages with AFP, ASEAN Secretariat, as well as with other key partner countries, organizations and international processes.
To support and implement the next steps, it was decided that an interim coordinator and core group should be constituted as follows:
- FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific agreed to act as interim coordinator, working with a core group comprising RECOFTC, AFN and the new RAFT program;
- FAO will mobilize resources and consultant to do gap analysis, and develop and package proposals and materials for marketing to partners and donors (e.g., document and share relevant policy success stories and toolkits); and
- RECOFTC and RAFT also have available resources to support some actions.
During 21-22 August 2007 in
As a follow-up to the first expert consultation held during March 2006 – entitled Establishing a Regional Forest Policy Network – this present gathering had four main objectives (and associated expected outputs):
- To reaffirm the need for establishing an Asia-Pacific forest policy initiative.
- To explore some of the possible forms, modalities and models that the regional ‘think tank’ might take, and develop consensus on a suitable model for delivering the functions and impacts of the initiative.
- To generate options, nominations and commitments – both at an institutional and individual level – to ‘champion’ the establishment and operation of the think tank.
- To gain indications of interest from international partner organizations, and explore ways in which their institutional mandates and strategies may support and collaborate with the future think tank.
Thus, the consultation program (see Annex 1) was designed to address the above objectives through a series of panel discussions, working groups and plenary interactions. The consultation was powered by a diverse group of 41 experts from:
- Government agencies;
- Academic and research organizations;
- Civil society (non-governmental and private sector organizations); and
- International and regional organizations.
A six-person support team from the DENR Forest Management Bureau provided stellar secretariat and back-up services in organizing and implementing the meeting (see Annex 2 for the list of participants and support staff).
The 10 countries represented were:
To open the consultation, welcome remarks were delivered on behalf of DENR and FAO.
Mr. Manuel D. Gerochi, Undersecretary of DENR, welcomed all
participants to the
The FAO Representative to the
His message to the participants was that this is an important and significant consultation, and the group that has been gathered here comprises people regarded as being among the best “thinkers” in the Asia-Pacific region. It is a group that is strong on experience, ideas, judgment and innovation. As such, they are the most appropriate people to shape and christen this ‘think tank’ – ideally an innovative body that transcends conventional notions of networks, commissions and the like. It is here that we have a real opportunity to craft a body capable of consolidating the best the region has to offer, while identifying and addressing its challenges.
Following these inspiring opening remarks by the DENR
Undersecretary and FAO Representative, Mr. Patrick Durst, Senior Forestry
Officer, FAO Regional Office for
He also shared the key outcomes and conclusions from the first consultation:
- There was strong need for a forest policy “think tank” in the region and strong support for the idea of its establishment;
- The initiative should start small, with some manageable discreet tasks, and gradually work toward bigger and more ambitious objectives;
- It was recommended to seek endorsement from APFC (approved April 2006);
- There was also recognition that initial efforts should focus on refining tasks and objectives; and finally
- That “form should follow function.”
The consultation facilitator, Mr. Chun Lai, then provided an overview, including the objectives, expected outcomes, profile of participants, process during the two days, as well as suggested norms to follow. He urged the participants to seek consensus and commitments (individual and institutional) as much as possible in order to move this initiative forward. Also, to reduce the paper usage and carbon footprint, most of the papers and presentations will be put onto a CD – along with the consultation report – and distributed to all participants soon after the meeting.
A panel of five colleagues – Messrs. C.T.S. Nair (FAO), Lu De
(
- Do you think there is a need to support regional forestry policy development? Why or why not?
- To support forestry policy development and reforms within the region, do you think we need to establish a regional think tank? Why or why not?
- If such a think tank were to be established, what do you think would be the expected benefits and impacts? And who would be the main beneficiaries?
- From the perspective of your particular stakeholder group, how could your group contribute to and benefit from such an initiative?
Forest Policies in a Borderless World
Mr. C.T.S. Nair, Chief Economist, FAO Forestry Department, contended that economics and ecology have become borderless. This is being driven by globalization and increasing economic interdependence, as well as by global environmental issues and problems that are transboundary in nature.
National forest policies – such as logging bans, expansion of forest industries, conservation of resources and areas, and subsidies/incentives to plantations – have far-reaching regional and global impacts. At the same time, external factors can greatly impact on forestry, as in the case of energy policies, agriculture policies, environmental policies, industrial policies and exchange rate fluctuations.
Thus, the main challenge relates to the ability to analyze issues: particularly those that are outside the ‘forestry box’ and ‘beyond the borders’ of the forest sector. This calls for a capacity for broader policy analysis, which is practically non-existent, especially in the public domain.
To respond to this challenge, a regional think tank could contribute to the following:
• Creation of a critical mass of policy analysts addressing forestry issues;
• Systematic analysis of implications of policies within and outside forestry;
• Regional policy briefs; and
• Building up policy analysis capability.
A Chinese Perspective
Mr. Lu De, State Forest Administration,
An Indian Example
The next panelist, Mr. Promode Kant from
He concluded that a network should connect all the factors important to forestry (land, climate, soil and people), and connect science with people. This meant forestry professionals from provincial forestry departments, federal and district level governance, academics and researchers working together with communities and users of timber, pulpwood, plywood and NTFPs such as bamboo.
Regarding the coordinating body of a network, he recommended that this be a leading institution backed by government, but not part of a government agency because then the dialogue becomes demand. The network structure should be broad-based, within and among countries, and be either hierarchy or flat. In his view, a bit of hierarchy brings discipline, thus at least a moderator is needed.
APFC Perspective
Mr. Romeo Acosta of DENR shared the perspective of APFC, for which he is an Executive Committee member. He stated that, during the past 4-5 years, there has been strong consensus within APFC that a regional forest policy entity is needed, whether it be a network or think tank, to provide a platform for an Asia-Pacific voice on international forestry and forest policy. Such an entity could link with the expanding ASEAN community, as well as with prominent policy issues related to sustainable forest management and illegal logging and trade, the latter through the East Asia Forest Law Enforcement and Governance (EA-FLEG) process.
From the standpoint of the
A Pacific Example
The final panelist, Mr. Inoke Ratukalou, SPC,
PAFPNet aims to facilitate communications, information dissemination, capacity building and awareness raising, efforts intended to contribute to the development and implementation of sound policies, plans and decisions in the countries and in the region. The network recognizes NGOs, the private sector, civil society and local community groups as important actors in determining policy direction and action, and their involvement is promoted.
Open Forum Highlights
The five panelists stimulated a lively exchange of views and comments from the participants during the ensuing open forum. In particular, the following points helped to further examine the need and nature of the proposed regional forest policy entity:
- There is a sense of urgency, a strong need to “act” rather than to “think” on issues such as sustainable forest management and climate change.
- There is a need for support in policy development because: 1) the majority of today’s problems are regional and global in scope (illegal logging and trade, forest fire and haze, even forest land conflicts); and 2) policy failures are due to lack of political will.
- The importance of communications was stressed by several participants because many decision makers are ill-informed about policy issues. Therefore, the challenge for the think tank is how to “think out of the box” and start communicating effectively to decision makers and other stakeholders who influence policy development.
- Policies must reflect the increasing role of forests as suppliers of environmental services (and their associated externalities), rather than traditional products.
- Forestry-related problems are often connected with socioeconomic and cultural issues. There is a need to consider societal demands in the forestry sector, and for the think tank to link with various sectors of society.
- A network or think tank is needed to collect and analyze information from different countries on policy trends and initiatives, learn about the effectiveness and impacts of policy implementation, highlight the role of forestry, and promote cooperation among countries and regions.
- It is important to respect the sovereignty of the people in decision-making processes; and policy should be based on knowledge beyond forestry (e.g., leadership and business skills, aspects of ‘chaotic’ organizations).
- It is important to involve decision makers in this kind of initiative, but there should be a strong advocacy function. Study tours should lead to reflection and debate.
- The framework for the think tank should be two-fold: 1) enhancing policy content by thinking outside the box; and 2) enhancing the policy process through effective communications.
Based on the comments and suggestions by the participants, the panelists provided some concluding remarks for this session:
- The issue of sovereignty should refer specifically to the views of people.
- The significance of improved communications was recognized; awareness about the central issues must be effectively relayed to policy makers.
- The underlying need is for a regional initiative to capture different issues within countries, and for broad-based analysis: demystifying policy analysis so it can be readily understandable to people.
A pair of presentations from FAO colleagues stimulated some very useful discussion in plenary about the functions and form of the proposed think tank.
Underpinnings of Think Tank
Mr. Patrick Durst’s presentation focused on the concepts, principles and parameters underpinning the establishment of an Asia-Pacific forest policy think tank. Challenges in managing Asia-Pacific forests include: scarcity of skilled staff, lack of financial resources, inadequate political will, institutional weaknesses and weak operational structures. Thus there is significant interest in establishing a regional mechanism to address these policy issues.
The first consultation led to a consensus that a forest policy-specific network would be useful to “improve dialogue, improve policy formulation, contribute to the sharing of experiences and build capacities.” These main functions were identified:
- Improve formulation,
implementation and evaluation of forest and related policies in
- Strengthen national and regional capacities for formulating, implementing, evaluating and analyzing forest and related policies;
- Collect and disseminate international and regional policy information;
- Encourage innovative approaches and experimentation; and
- Provide a forum for interaction between policy analysts and policy makers.
Salient points regarding the structure and organization of the think tank included:
- Envisage an independent entity, possibly housed within a regional institute (e.g., similar to the hosting of APAFRI by the Forest Research Institute of Malaysia);
- Hosting institution should have long-term commitment to the goals and vision of the think tank;
- Managed by a full-time, energetic coordinator— an active “champion”;
- Flexible, nimble, and dynamic in structure;
- Open and flexible membership; and
- Collaborative partnerships as the operational principle.
In short, the think tank would serve as: an innovative place for reflective learning, a creative and technical training and resource center, a nurturing point for building partnerships for mutual learning and sharing of experiences, and a neutral forum for analyzing and improving regional forest policy.
Alternative Models
Ms. Regan Suzuki then presented some ‘models’ and examples of other networks and initiatives, which may be instructive for the group to consider. These included:
- Pacific Agriculture and Forestry Policy Network (PAFPNet): refer to general description in preceding section of report; grappling with challenges of distance and limited communications constraints; structure includes national focal points, nodal groups and coordinator (http:// www.spc.int/PAFPNet).
- Community Based Natural Resource Management Learning Institute (CBNRM LI): aim is to analyze and develop CBNRM as an important component of Cambodian development strategies; serves as nurturing point for mutual learning on CBNRM; provides innovative space for reflective learning, physical center for creative and technical training and resources, and neutral forum to facilitate communications (http:// www.cbnrmli.org/english.html).
- Council on Foreign
Relations: independent, national membership organization; nonpartisan
center for scholars; produces and disseminates ideas; target groups are
individual and corporate members, policymakers, journalists, students, and
interested citizens in
Plenary Discussion on Functions and Form
Before inviting comments and reactions from the floor, Mr. Chun Lai offered an observation that the discourse on the think tank is evolving from needs to functions to form and commitments, as well as from thinking to action to regional cooperation.
The ensuing plenary discussion provided many useful comments, suggestions, ideas and questions regarding the proposed think tank, including the following:
- Are we trying to achieve too
much?
- Scope is too broad
- Need to agree on “identity,” mission,
objectives, key functional areas
- Need to prioritize functions and
activities across the region
- Need to link with ongoing work and
initiatives
- Start with simple, stepwise
implementation
- Scope is too broad
- What is the value added from think
tank?
- Regional scope
- Problem-oriented, can provide useful
advice on solutions
- Analysis and synthesis of regional
dialogues (knowledge management)
- Linking knowledge to
action
- Focus on social equity, environmental
sustainability, forward-looking
- Address energy and climate change
issues
- Main clients are real decision makers
(often outside forest sector)
- Upstream social marketing: selling ideas
and research results to policy makers; benefits and costs related to
policies; communications planning
- Regional scope
- Regional scope should
consider:
- Poverty reduction (in relation to
MDGs)
- Impact of increasing protected
areas
- Decentralization
trends
- Emerging networks, alliances and forums
to tackle various issues
- Poverty reduction (in relation to
MDGs)
- Form follows
function
- Should focus on identifying and sharing
policy success stories (e.g., eco-forestry, community-based
approaches)
- Balance policy content with policy
process
- Ultimately to develop into an
independent entity, but first affiliate with existing
institution
- What type of ‘infrastructure’ is
needed?
- Full-time coordinator is
crucial
- Should focus on identifying and sharing
policy success stories (e.g., eco-forestry, community-based
approaches)
- Revisit name: ‘think tank’ versus
‘network’ versus something else?
- Emphasize government-to-government
linkages to bridge gaps
- Obtain government endorsement and buy-in
via APFC
- Obtain government endorsement and buy-in
via APFC
Participants were divided into three ‘affinity’ groups: 1) government agencies; 2) academic and research institutions; and 3) non-governmental and private sector organizations, with colleagues from international and regional organizations distributed among the groups (see Annex 3 for composition of groups).
Each group was assigned a facilitator, and selected a rapporteur and someone to report-back in plenary on the major outcomes and recommendations. The groups were requested to address the following suggested guide questions from their own perspectives:
- What are the three key functional areas the think tank should focus on?
- Given the previous discussions on the needs for and the possible functions of a regional forest policy think tank, what do you think would be the appropriate form or ‘model’ for this initiative?
- From among the various national, regional and international partners, who would be the potential institutional and individuals ‘champions’ to support such a think tank?
- What types of institutional commitments and arrangements would be needed to make this initiative work?
- From the perspective of your particular stakeholder group, how would your group contribute to and benefit from this think tank?
Government Agencies
The group focused its discussions on identifying: 1) main functions; 2) potential institutions and individuals; and 3) commitments and arrangements needed.
Main functions
Five key functional areas were identified for the think tank: communications, advocacy, coordination, capacity building and policy analysis:
Communications:
v Effectively communicating best practices, lessons, and implications of policy decisions to policy makers
v Promoting linkages among members, especially government agencies
v Creating a forum for dialogue and sharing experiences within the region
v Collecting, packaging and disseminating high-quality global, regional and national information
Advocacy:
v Becoming an advocacy body on forest policy development in the region
v Advocating forestry policy issues and experiences within the region, directed at high-level regional and national policy-makers
v Disseminating and selling forestry policies to decision makers
v Providing advice on specific issues and problems to decision makers
Coordination:
v Facilitating coordination among member countries with all relevant stakeholders to develop sound forest policies
v Coordinating with existing networks to help countries in solving problems
v Promoting coherence of forest polices among member countries
v
Acting like a ‘middle person’ among countries to
share common policy issues
Capacity building:
v Building capacity on policy development, analysis and assessment
v Assisting countries to develop and polish forest policies
v Providing inputs and technical assistance
Policy analysis:
v Conducting forward-looking analysis of emerging forestry issues
v Assessing and analyzing policies, and providing inputs to governments on the results/findings
Host, champions and commitments
The group felt that it was important to select an appropriate host for the think tank with the following qualities: willing to accommodate an independent secretariat, possess strong interest in forest policy, and be able to provide potential support (in-kind or otherwise).
Based on these criteria, potential hosts include:
v Existing international/regional institutions such as APAFRI, RECOFTC, CIFOR, AFN, IGES, EEPSEA, (AIT AND AIM); and
v Certain national institutions.
As far as individual champions of the think tank, the group felt it was important to attract people with the following profile: solid regional/international reputation; energetic and good communication skills; and able to make connections, organize and mobilize resources.
In terms of the institutional commitment and arrangements, the group identified four ingredients that would be needed: facilitation, logistics, inputs of experts and resource mobilization.
Academic and Research Institutions
Priority areas and functions
From their perspective, the academic and research group identified these priority areas for future forest policy development in the region:
v Formulating and coordinating research: solution-oriented; responsive to government t needs; action-research; evaluative research
o
Ability to see the larger picture &
provide broader implications
o
Coordinative / catalyst
v
Capacity building
v Information sharing and dissemination: advisory function
o Rapid response
o Practical and implementable
o Database of policies and policy research
o Provider of “neutral” and independent forum
o Awareness raising
These, in turn, translate into the three key prioritized functions for the proposed think tank:
- Advocate stronger Asian perspectives in policy issues, dialogues and initiatives through facilitating regular, open and inclusive dialogues.
- Coordinate regional studies and initiatives on policy-related issues and disseminate their outputs.
- Mobilize resources for the efficient functioning of the network, and its regional, national and local-level activities and initiatives.
The group also flagged two important issues that should be addressed in developing the think tank:
v Independent form, legality, and government involvement and acceptance
o How to create legitimacy? Through expertise, government involvement and monitoring.
v Establishing a strong Asia-Pacific voice for linking science and policy, providing advisory and advocacy functions; and linking knowledge to action.
Form and structure
Regarding the question of appropriate form for the think tank, the group proposed three possible models for further consideration:
v Model 1: Independent network, non-profit, multi-disciplinary
v Model 2: Internet-based forum meeting for functional analysis
v Model 3: Regional network hosted by a prominent institution as permanent secretariat, with government support
In selecting the most appropriate form, these issues need to be examined:
v Individual versus organizational membership;
v Big versus small secretariat;
v Experts versus anybody (core group plus others as and when needed);
v Experts’ capacity to be available when need arises within and outside the Asia Pacific region; and
v Funding support: for government agencies, NGOs or both?
Regarding the structure of the proposed think tank, it was recommended to develop an independent and flexible organizational structure comprising:
v The mother organization
o With an advisory group (10 persons) which could be nominated by the founding members; could even be pro-temp committee to set operational guidelines;
v Secretariat (administrative): nominated from government and civil society; and
v Thematic ad hoc groups (as and when needed).
Champions and commitments
Two potential institutional champions were identified: FAO as international organization; and the Chinese State Forestry Administration (provide logistical and in-kind support) as a government agency.
It was felt that institutional commitments and arrangements would have to include the following aspects:
v Continuity of advisory group;
v Commitment of APFC;
v Initial core funding from patron; and diversified funding sources for activities;
v Logistics, hosting of facilities, events and meetings;
v Networking and linkages;
v Information sharing;
v Research information supply; and
v Technical support.
Contributions and benefits
From the standpoint of academic and research stakeholders, the group articulated these contributions to and benefits from the proposed think tank:
v Information sharing;
v Inputs into decision making process;
v Scientific flavor;
v Networking and linkages, including science-policy linkage;
v Cooperation channel;
v Provide credibility, contribute prestige, intellectual enrichment and recognition;
v Capacity building;
v Policy protocol, analysis and feedback obtained by Asia-Pacific countries; and
v Curriculum development revisions and teaching materials.
On the challenge of how to engage policy makers, the group recommended:
v Encourage active involvement of government agencies in activities;
v Target some capacity building activities at government officers; and
v Hold regular meetings with government agencies (e.g., Forest Dialogue).
Civil Society
This group represented the perspectives of civil society – NGOs and private sector. They began by identifying the common backdrop across the Asia-Pacific region:
v Colonial policy history;
v Decentralization trends;
v Local livelihood issues;
v Access to participation, decision-making and benefit-sharing issues;
v Property rights issues;
v Communication aspects; and
v Labor versus capital intensive operations.
Functions and value added
The group discussed areas of opportunities and possible functional areas:
v Contribution in policy consistency;
v How to make decentralization work;
v Over regulation: the principle of legality;
v How to make policies equitable (elite capture issues);
v Defining more appropriate role of state (evolve from a regulating to a facilitating/enabling institution);
v ‘Ahead of the curve’ cutting-edge role;
v Communications and marketing (linking to decision-makers);
v Sharing of the best practices/examples of excellence; and
v Convening power: bringing forward unusual alliances (e.g., World Commission on Forests).
It was felt that these possible functions should all relate to two key characteristics of the think tank: 1) regional scope (where two or more countries share similar problems); and 2) problem-oriented to address key policy bottlenecks. The challenge is how to present this initiative as responding to specific needs. Moreover, caution should be exercised that intellectually satisfying work may not influence the government decision making process.
The group also identified areas where the proposed think tank would add value:
v Ability to identify regional bottlenecks and present analyses to governments;
v Inclusion of civil society in the policy process;
v Positioning: identifying the curve;
v Forestry contributing to poverty issues; and
v Community rights and empowerment issues.
Finally, in recalling that “silence is the powerful enemy of social justice” (Amartya Sen), the think tank could add value by acting as a catalyst in “breaking the silence.”
Form and arrangements
In brainstorming on the appropriate forms and arrangements, the group came up with the following points for further consideration:
v Demand-driven (responding to government requests) versus supply-driven (with ‘marketing’ of ideas/policies);
v On the demand-driven side: APFC could serve as the mechanism through which governments communicate their needs;
v Balanced focus on policy content and process;
v Multi-stakeholder processes;
v Set priorities for this year; identify existing mechanism that has comparative advantage (e.g., RECOFTC, AFP, etc.);
v Should be based on relations, linkages, and prioritization processes;
v Ideal would be to have ‘think tank’ (or advisory group) couched within a network; and
v Running AFP or APFC meeting back-to-back with ‘think tank’ meeting could lead to considerable reductions in transaction costs.
Partners and champions
A wide range of potential organizational partners within the region was identified by the group, as well as prototypes of individual champions who could advance the establishment of the think tank and its agenda (see below). The eventual form for bringing all these partner organizations and individuals together may vary from an informal mixed group to a formal inter-governmental entity.
|
Organizational
partners |
Individual
champions |
|
v RECOFTC (attached to policy analysis team) v AFP (might be good starting point to link to other stakeholders) v APFC v ASEAN++ (ASOF-ASFN, ASEAN-WEN) v SUSEP v SPC-SPREP v APAFRI-IUFRO (Forest Policy Working Group) v CIFOR v ICRAF v RRI v RARE v EA-FLEG v FLEGT v IUCN v TNC v WWF v WCS v FFI v ITTO v Relevant UN agencies v ADB v IIED |
v Pedro Walpole v Yam Malla v Frances Seymour (policy analysis experience) v Pat Durst v Pat Dugan v Tommy Cole v Vic Ramos v Howie Severino (commitment to sustainable development) v Elim Salim v Somsak Sukwang (many listen to him) v Percy Sajise Compiling an expanded list of individuals –
including more national colleagues – would increase the credence of the
initiative. |
Contributions and benefits
In terms of potential contributions to and benefits from civil society engagement in the think tank, the group came up with the following:
|
Contributions: |
Benefits: |
|
v Sponsoring specific analysis, and contracting networks to conduct analysis (e.g., TNC) v Ensuring: o issues of CBFM are properly considered (e.g., RECOFTC) o stakeholders are informed of these processes o conduit between this group and RECOFTC links o vehicle to get information out |
v Venue to convey information v Target key considerations of policy bottlenecks and accelerate program goals v Facilitate policy reform v Capacity development |
What’s in a name?
Finally, the group also shared their discussions and suggestions on the term ‘think tank’ and alternative names:
v ‘Think tank’: consensus was no! (implies elitist, closed doors, ‘technical arrogance’);
v Network: more inclusive, but very traditional
v Group: neutral-sounding (e.g., Philippine working group; ‘Wentworth Group’)
v Learning Group: sounds like a bunch of students
v Working Group
Other possible names to consider:
v Forest Policy Learning Group (FPLG)
v
v
v
Key Emerging Issues
Following the report-back by the three working groups, Mr. C.T.S. Nair provided a brief synthesis of the key issues emerging from the consultation discussions thus far.
He stressed the need to clearly define what the proposed think tank should and should not do; for him, the unique niche and focus should be on:
- Analysis of global and regional developments on forests and forestry in the Asia-Pacific countries; and
- Analysis of country policies (within and outside the forest sector) on forests and forestry at the regional and global levels.
The think tank should be able to provide real-time, holistic and objective analysis on key issues and problems – as they unfold, as well as periodic assessment of emerging issues and their larger implications. This can only be done by bringing together the best brains capable of analyzing issues in their totality. Furthermore, the work must be totally unbiased (not driven by the agenda of any particular organization); therefore, ‘no sacred cows’!
If form truly follows function, what then is the ideal structure that will help to mobilize the best brains? What will provide respect and credibility, as well as be cost-effective? In his view, the structure should consist of:
- A small, proactive secretariat;
- A regular advisory group (or steering committee/executive committee) to provide technical guidance and help raise funds;
- Ad hoc group of experts who can be drawn into teams for specific tasks depending on the needs; and
- An organization that provides a home for the secretariat, but does not interfere in its functioning.
As for the name or label, it should clearly indicate what the entity is all about. ‘Think tank’ was not favored by several participants. ‘Network’ is comfortable and familiar, but lacks novelty. Other suggested labels include: Asia-Pacific Forest Alternatives, Forest Policy Learning Network, and Forest Policy Group.
Elaboration on Issues
The synthesis presentation elicited some interesting comments and suggestions from the participants on several pertinent aspects. There was an elaboration on who the primary clients should be: real policy makers in government, as well as stakeholders in civil society – particularly the media, which provides an effective forum for intergovernmental interactions.
Another comment related to the supply-driven situation where there are too many networks. Thus, there is a need to link with and strengthen existing networks with forest policy components, conduct gap analysis, and channel the new regional forest policy entity toward addressing critical gaps.
Other useful comments included the following:
- The coordinator should be separate from the ‘champions’;
- Differentiate between mother organization and ‘patron’;
- Focus on key crosscutting issues such as poverty reduction, over-regulation and climate change; and develop thematic framework around these issues;
- Differentiate between functions and activities;
- Start small, with achievable goals;
- Linking with AFP will provide broader inputs and audience beyond government;
- Need
‘independence,’ but also appropriate incentives for government participation
(e.g., forestry working group led by MARD in
- Broaden the APFC Asia-Pacific Forestry Week concept to include more policy-related elements;
- Conduct gap analysis of existing networks to identify the niche for the future initiative; and
- For
the
Next Steps
The plenary discussion continued, with brainstorming and suggestions on the next steps forward, which included these concrete measures and actions:
- Ensuring
linkages to APFC: The Executive Committee will meet next week in
- Exploring linkages with AFP: There will be meeting at the end of 2007 in Japan to discuss the next five-year work program; there may be scope to include discussion of the proposed think tank/network in the agenda.
- Reaching
out to other partners: Seek participation and representation from
other key partner countries, organizations and international processes (e.g.,
- Identifying
interim coordinator and core group to support next steps:
a)
FAO Regional Office for
b) FAO to look for resources and consultant to do gap analysis, and develop and package proposals and materials for marketing to partners and donors (e.g., document and share relevant policy success stories and toolkits).
c) RECOFTC and RAFT also have resources to support some actions.
In the final session of the consultation, a panel of seven
colleagues – Messrs. Sim Heok Choh (APAFRI/FRIM), Jess Fernandez (SEANAFE),
Henry Scheyvens (IGES), David Cassells (TNC), John Guernier (RECOFTC), Marko
Katila (
They were requested to consider the following suggested guide questions:
- Does the establishment of a regional forestry policy think tank coincide with your organization’s mandates and ongoing programs? If yes, please specify which ones.
- What types of support and collaboration – moral, technical, information-sharing, financial or other – could your organization possibly offer to such an initiative?
- To what degree do you think your organization is interested and would be able to collaborate in this initiative?
- Do you have any other experiences, suggestions or lessons to share that would be useful to consider in the establishment of this think tank?
APAFRI
Mr. Sim Heok Choh, Executive Director of APAFRI, shared some interesting experiences and lessons regarding this initiative, which is hosted by FRIM and was started some 12 years ago with FAO support through the FORSPA program. He characterized APAFRI as an information hub and a regional platform for information sharing among members.
Among the useful products and services it can offer is a directory of forestry experts in the Asia-Pacific region. He also stressed on the importance of an active advisory group to provide programmatic oversight and technical guidance for the association.
SEANAFE
Mr. Jess Fernandez, World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF), made a presentation on the possible interfaces between SEANAFE and the proposed think tank. He introduced the nine global projects in ICRAF’s medium-term plan for 2008-2010, two of which are policy oriented: negotiation support and incentives; and strengthening institutions for linking knowledge to action.
SEANAFE’s third functional area is on agroforestry advocacy, which contains many elements of policy analysis and support. Of particular relevance to the proposed think tank is SEANAFE’s third themed project on Accelerating Forest Policy Implementation through Education, which supports the following activities:
- Compiling a status report of international, regional and national forest-related policies and policy processes, which will facilitate their incorporation into education programs and teaching materials;
- Analyzing the status
of forest policy curricula and implementation resources at undergraduate and
graduate level in
- Developing a regional curriculum guide on forest policy implementation;
- Evaluating, developing and disseminating forest policy teaching materials; and
- Training of lecturers on forest policy issues.
He summed up ICRAF-SEANAFE’s interest in the regional think tank as conditional: a supporter/partner who will most likely be involved in specific collaborative projects and activities. SEANAFE could possibly provide support in the form of technical expertise, sharing research results and information, and academic networks.
IGES
Mr. Henry Scheyvens provided a brief overview of IGES, established in 1998 by the Japanese government as an independent institute. IGES currently has some 80 staff, among which 40 are researchers, with climate change as the largest program.
Areas of possible collaboration with the think tank would include organizing events to link knowledge and research with policy makers, and on thematic policy areas such as forest certification and FLEG. In the future, IGES could offer in-kind support for hosting meetings, as well as collaborate on policy debates and regional studies. He also encouraged the think tank to explore linkages with AFP.
TNC
Mr. David Cassells, TNC’s Asia-Pacific Forest Program Director, described their international approach as leveraging and working with others to promote and move conservation to scale. He sees the key problem and the fundamental reason for forest loss and degradation as the disjuncture between costs and benefits for both forest exploitation and forest conservation.
TNC will launch a new program, Responsible Asia Forestry and Trade (RAFT), funded by USAID, with three objectives: 1) increase regional timber trade from legal and conflict free sources; 2) measurably improve sustainability of forest management on the ground; and 3) strengthen regional cooperation on forest management and trade. RAFT will address key policy challenges such as:
- Creating a more enabling policy environment for SFM;
- Creating more enabling market signals;
- Creating forest conservation and management learning networks to support forest reform and innovation; and
- Adding value and avoiding duplication.
Currently, TNC supports policy-related work in a number of
areas, including: legality standards and national toolkit in
RECOFTC
Mr. John Guernier pointed out that potential RECOFTC support for the think tank would be based on these common attributes: regional scope; inclusive but independent nature; forestry issues targeted through policies within and beyond the forest sector; and a system of prioritization in place.
RECOFTC could help ensure that CNFM issues are properly examined, and provide a conduit for connecting the think tank with RECOFTC partners throughout the region. Support could be in the form of short-term staff time, strategic funding, hosting of meetings and information dissemination (e.g., the RECOFTC e-news now reaches 6,000 readers).
Finland
Mr. Marko Katila provided some perspectives on behalf of the Finnish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which supports a range of initiatives and institutions, including: the implementation of multilateral environmental agreements and processes such as UNFF and FLEG(T); CIFOR; regional cooperation in the Mekong area; as well as forestry programs in Lao PDR and Vietnam.
In his view, this think tank/forum/network could play two important roles:
- Contribute to addressing regional policy-related issues at a level where bilateral cooperation is ineffective or even powerless; and
- Support the implementation of Finnish development policies (e.g., by helping developing countries to incorporate recommendations of various international processes into their policies, and build their capacity and readiness to participate in related international dialogues).
He stated that his ministry is ready to consider financially supporting the establishment and operation of such a forum/network, as well as participating in some of the meetings and activities. The focus should be on policy implementation, value added and building upon existing networks. However, more detailed information would be needed, even for a soft commitment to be made.
ADB
Mr. Javed Mir of the ADB Greater Mekong Subregional Core Environment Program (CEP) shared his perspectives on a possible platform for operationalizing the regional forest policy think tank.
The CEP is a 10-year program, with the following targets for phase I (2006-2008):
- Establish GMS
- Integrate environmental concerns into development planning and sectors;
- Establish sustainable use regimes in GMS biodiversity landscapes, starting with five pilot sites;
- Institutionalize use of environmental performance assessment and NSDS, develop regional indicators; and
- Develop for phase II (2009-2015) an ADB/GEF partnership and investment program.
Although still very early in the process, some preliminary lessons include: taking a long-term view on biodiversity and climate change issues; providing subregional facilitation and neutral framework for subregional cooperation; ensuring relevance to key audiences; supporting multistakeholder networks; and having the flexibility to act (adaptive implementation mode with robust back-up system).
In terms of think tank linkages opportunities with CEP, these areas stand out;
- Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEAs) of key development sectors internalizing and informing the policy action agenda of the think tank;
- Biofuels and sustainable forestry;
- Climate change, forestry and sustainable livelihoods and key sector performance; and
- Fora for legislators, road engineers, transport planners and engineers, development planners/practitioners, and possibly an agriculture/natural resources/forestry forum.
Closing remarks were made on behalf of FAO and DENR.
Mr. Patrick Durst extended his warm thanks to all the participants, the facilitation and support team, and DENR for hosting this consultation. He felt that the assembled experts made good progress on the stated objectives, and in the process identified not only what the think tank should do, but also what it should not do.
Recommendations on the structure highlighted the need for
flexibility and independence, an active advisory group, and thematic focus
groups to carry out various activities supported by the think tank. He commended
the group for identifying a list of potential institutional and individual
champions. Also, feedback on the term ‘think tank’ (e.g., a label that invokes
“technical arrogance”) indicated the need to revisit and reconsider a more
appropriate name for this initiative. Finally, he felt that very practical
recommendations were made regarding the way forward, and these will be discussed
next week in
Mr. Romeo Acosta, in turn, thanked the participants for their
valuable time and energy in advancing the regional forest policy initiative,
which will provide a platform for a stronger Asia-Pacific voice and perspectives
on international forest policy issues. He praised the support staff from DENR
for their hard work and effective backstopping, as well as the facilitator for
skillfully guiding the group throughout the consultation. He also thanked FAO
for providing the opportunity for the