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

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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Mustertext
Thank you!
Mustertext