GD1. Cooperation between countries and regions

386 views

Published on

Cooperation between countries and regions

Published in: Environment
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
386
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
187
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

GD1. Cooperation between countries and regions

  1. 1. Cooperation between countries and regions
  2. 2. What have the key achievements been arising from cooperation between countries in each region (ENPI and Central Asia)? What results within each country came about as a result of regional cooperation? Какие основные достижения стали результатом сотрудничества между странами в каждом регионе (ЕИПД и Центральная Азия)? Какие результаты в каждой стране стали результатом регионального сотрудничества?
  3. 3. School Forest Units (under implementation in 9 districts (Intention to cooperate with MDA and UKR on SFU) SFU existed until 90th, now will be re-vitalized (including from cooperation with AZB and BLR) Community and private forests sector growing (E.g., in MDA and viewed in AZB as a potential trend (input from Regional ENPI FLEG Conference in MDA, 2010) National Forest Policy (E.g., In AZE a document elaborated with FAO and submitted to Ministry (as a result of ENPI FLEG regional activity / travels / exchange / sharing with Russia etc.) Agreement of Cooperation with OBf / ADA (in 2014 started) (E.g., in Georgia pilot forest inventory with the account of CC mitigation measures in Borjomi-Bakuriani) Forestry Policy Concept (E.g., in Georgia developed with OBf / ADA adopted by Parliament in 2013) Memorandum of Cooperation (E.g., between Agency Modlsilva (Moldova) and Transilvanian University of Brasov (Romania) on professional training)
  4. 4. What areas of international cooperation between countries within each region can best help tackle failures in forest governance and strengthen law enforcement? (Examples: (i) border checks on trade; (ii) intelligence sharing between enforcement authorities, including improved understanding of typologies and knowledge of organizations involved; (iii) tackling movements of proceeds of forest crime) Какие направления деятельности в рамках международного сотрудничества между странами в каждом регионе могут наилучшим образом способствовать решению проблем управления в лесном секторе и укреплению правоприменительной практики? (Примеры: (1) пограничные проверки коммерческих поставок; (2) обмен информацией между органами правопорядка, в том числе, расширение понимания типологий и знаний о вовлеченных в процесс организациях; (3) отслеживание движения доходов, полученных незаконным путем в лесной отрасли)
  5. 5. Passing and enforcement of legal acts (E.g. Implementation of EU TRs 995, affecting all countries)
  6. 6. What roles should non-governmental organizations (including those representing the private sector) play in strengthening forest governance in each region? How can dialogue between governments, civil society and the private sector be improved?
  7. 7. Ensuring that civil society is consulted – and the dialogue with CS is built (Example of Moldova: Government/Parliament won’t accept any legal/regulatory document/draft if such are not consulted with CS, there is a National Participatory Council to ensure that) Collaborative/Joint Forest Management (Example of Azerbaijan, this is included in the national forest policy) Participation of CS in FLEG implementation (In various forms and ways) Ensuring transparency and equal opportunity (Example of Georgia: Geoforest Portal that enables the large public to access thematic maps of Georgian forests Example or Armenia, interactive web-based map with results of public monitoring in forests)
  8. 8. Question 4: What existing regional structures are currently used to further address the aims of the Declaration? What changes to these, if any, are needed to improve capacities and cooperation between countries in each region? Are new structures needed? If so what would they do?
  9. 9. No need for such regional structures. ENPI FLEG can unite countries/intentions. EU versus Customs Union? NIS meetings can address various topics/themes, including forest/forestry, FLEG.
  10. 10. What opportunities are there for cooperation between the ENPI and Central Asia regions related to strengthening forest law enforcement and governance?
  11. 11. Involvement of FLEG (e.g., experts) in CARs projects/programs (For example, Moldova and CARs cooperated on carbon sequestration, including developing community forestry sector and forest plantation/extension, with Tadzhikistan and Uzbekistan) Changing experiences between/among ex-soviet countries (Such topics as legislative, social, economical, political) Motivation/Improving the HR potential/staff in the forestry sector through regional/international best practices (E.g., reducing corruption, well-being of forestry staff)
  12. 12. What further roles can international organizations (e.g., IBRD, FAO, UNFF, UNFCCC, World Customs Organization, Interpol) play in improving progress of forest governance and law enforcement within and between regions?
  13. 13. Better delivery of results/outputs to the Governmental level (E.g., results of studies/analyses, maintain the dialogue) Better coordination of international organizations between/among themselves within the country (E.g., sharing intentions to avoid overlapping and save funding, exchanging results of analyses/studies etc.) Ensuring follow-up of implemented projects (E.g., in some cases to come with other project to ensure sustainability)

×