Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
GD4. Communications, information and monitoring
GD4. Communications, information and monitoring
GD4. Communications, information and monitoring
GD4. Communications, information and monitoring
GD4. Communications, information and monitoring
GD4. Communications, information and monitoring
GD4. Communications, information and monitoring
GD4. Communications, information and monitoring
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

GD4. Communications, information and monitoring

173

Published on

Communications, information and monitoring

Communications, information and monitoring

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
173
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. ENPI East and Central Asian Countries Regional Conference: Update on the 2005 Saint Petersburg (ENA FLEG) Ministerial Declaration July 09, 2014 Group discussions on regional cooperation Topic 4 – Communications, information and monitoring
  • 2. Participating countries in the group discussion: • Uzbekistan • Kirgizstan • Tajikistan • Armenia • Russia
  • 3. Question 1: What have the main achievements related to communications and publicity on FLEG within countries and regions been since 2005? • Uzbekistan – an ecological group in the Parliament • Kirgizstan and Tajikistan – no main achievements • Russia – no special campaign but media was participating, forest sector was aware of project • Armenia – media training, journalist award for the best FLEG/forest related article, www.antarner.net forest forum
  • 4. Question 2: Which are the main audiences for information concerning activities related to FLEG? What reactions by these audiences to information would be helpful in promoting FLEG? What types of information is needed to promote those reactions? • Kirgizstan – need to do awareness raisin with local communities • Tajikistan - need to do awareness raisin with local communities – illegal logging, poaching • Armenia – need to work with state authorities – two channels of communication for state authorities of all relevant fields and local communities accordingly • Russia – need to work with state authorities – two channels of communication for state authorities of all relevant fields and local communities accordingly
  • 5. Question 3: What current information channels are currently available to ensure useful information concerning FLEG reaches the intended audiences in the regions? How can these be improved? What additional approaches to communications are needed? • All participants – all existing information channels (TV - face to face ) depending on the audience; face to face acknowledge to be most effective with need to develop tools and capacity
  • 6. Question 4: What progress with transparency of information relevant to FLEG has been made since 2005? • All participants – information on illegal and legal forest use is open for public but sometimes there is disagreement on data of illegal forest use
  • 7. Question 5: How can stakeholders in participant countries cooperate to improve access to information relevant for FLEG? • All participants – the cooperation should be organized among participant counties as well as among different stakeholders within the countries
  • 8. Question 6: How should progress with implementing the Declaration be monitored, reported and assessed? • All participants – There is no established mechanism on monitoring, reporting – designated state authorities need to manage this • All participants – Availability of open shared database would facilitate the process

×