Global Landscapes Forum
Warsaw, 16-17 November 2013

The potential of National Forest Programmes in support
of integrated ...
2

Mustertext

Lessons from the German NFP case

•
•
•
•
•

Why started?
The different phases over time
The set-up in Germ...
3

Mustertext

Reasons for starting a NFP
•

improve knowledge, consciousness and understanding of
society about the fores...
4

Mustertext

The different phases in Germany over time
•

Trial run at regional level: before 1999

•

First phase at fe...
5

Mustertext

The (too) “perfect” set-up in Germany
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Participation: all groups dealing with forests and bei...
6

Mustertext

Strengths
•

Listening to instead of talking about one another, learning
about „context“

•

Raising awaren...
7

Mustertext

Weaknesses
•

Not the same will, mandate or need for compromise of
non-state actors

•

Unbalanced skills a...
8

Mustertext

Lessons learnt
Need for the responsible agency to:
•organize the whole process, take the lead and ensure a
...
9

Mustertext

Relevance for landscape approaches?

Thinking in cross-border categories or dealing with
complexity does ne...
10

Mustertext

Thank you!

Mustertext
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

The potential of National Forest Programs in support of integrated approaches to SFM and landscape solutions in tackling climate change challenges

352 views

Published on

This presentation by Matthias Schwoerer, GIZ, teaches some lessons from the German NFP case:
1. Why started?
2. The different phases over time
3. The set-up in Germany
4. Strengths and weaknesses
5. Lessons learnt

Published in: Technology, News & Politics
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
352
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
5
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

The potential of National Forest Programs in support of integrated approaches to SFM and landscape solutions in tackling climate change challenges

  1. 1. Global Landscapes Forum Warsaw, 16-17 November 2013 The potential of National Forest Programmes in support of integrated approaches to SFM and landscape solutions in tackling climate change challenges Matthias Schwoerer Head of Division European and International Forest Policy
  2. 2. 2 Mustertext Lessons from the German NFP case • • • • • Why started? The different phases over time The set-up in Germany Strengths and weaknesses Lessons learnt Mustertext
  3. 3. 3 Mustertext Reasons for starting a NFP • improve knowledge, consciousness and understanding of society about the forests, their functions and SFM • Build consensus and ownership/activate dialogue and action towards common objectives • Support multifunctionality of forests and promote comprehensive approaches • Ensure a proper balance between societal needs and forests carrying capacity • Strengthen forest policy Mustertext
  4. 4. 4 Mustertext The different phases in Germany over time • Trial run at regional level: before 1999 • First phase at federal level: 1999-2000 (old style) • Second phase 2001 – 2007 (striving for perfectionism) • Consolidated third phase 2008 – 2011 (National Forest Strategy 2020/cabinet decision/implementation ongoing) Mustertext
  5. 5. 5 Mustertext The (too) “perfect” set-up in Germany • • • • • • • Participation: all groups dealing with forests and being active nationwide MYPOW agreed (one topic per round table) Partnership: important role for quality of arguments and readiness for consensus External moderator „basic rules“ agreed upon beforehand Monitoring of implementation Science-based process analysis Mustertext
  6. 6. 6 Mustertext Strengths • Listening to instead of talking about one another, learning about „context“ • Raising awareness and improving knowledge about the multiple products and services of the forest resource base • Understanding about forest tenure/forest ownership rights and livings made from forests • Building bridges and ownership of the outcome of the process • Change thinking from „demand-only“- into „what-is-realistic-and what-can-I-contribute“ Mustertext
  7. 7. 7 Mustertext Weaknesses • Not the same will, mandate or need for compromise of non-state actors • Unbalanced skills and facilities/strong NGOs dominating the smaller • Restricted interest in comprehensiveness/ instead, participation only for favorite topics • Ill-founded expectations of an NFP automatically turning into a government-led and financed work programme Mustertext
  8. 8. 8 Mustertext Lessons learnt Need for the responsible agency to: •organize the whole process, take the lead and ensure a broader or “landscape” view •balance the different strengths and weaknesses of the actors involved •circumvent blockades by a minority •keep an eye on integrating international with national objectives related to forests •organize political will to take up the outcomes at cabinet or parliament level Mustertext
  9. 9. 9 Mustertext Relevance for landscape approaches? Thinking in cross-border categories or dealing with complexity does neither easily align with existing systems nor with demands and thinking of the “ordinary” stakeholder Needs political will, information and guidance, incentives and/or support Mustertext
  10. 10. 10 Mustertext Thank you! Mustertext

×