TFD IMPF Dialogue

7 March 2007

Aryaduta Hotel

Pekanbaru, Indonesia

TFD’s Initiative on Intensively Managed

Planted Forests

Background, Evolution and Progress To Date

The Forests Dialogue

Overview Origins

IMPF dialogues and initiatives Objective of IMPF dialogue series

Conclusions and recommendations to date

The value of dialogue: Stora Enso’s experience

Next steps

The Forests Dialogue

1992 – UN Conference on Environment & Development recognizes significance of IMPFs to SFM

1999 – International Experts Meeting on the Role of Planted Forests in Sustainable Forest Management. Santiago, Chile. Considered role of IMPFs as complement to natural forests in SFM

2003 – Expert Meeting on Role of Planted Forests: Maximizing Planted Forests’ Contribution to SFM. Wellington, New Zealand. 10-year review.

Origins: IMPFs in the international arena

The Forests Dialogue

Gland, Switzerland – 2005

Beihai, China - 2006

Pekanbaru, Indonesia - 2007

Other IMPF initiatives FAO Planted Forests Code

FSC Plantations Standard

TFD IMPF Dialogues

The Forests Dialogue

Development of strategies to promote continued innovation in IMPF technology to

1. optimize social and environmental benefits

2. maintain competitive advantage and profitability

Ongoing development of best management practice systems and a sustainable development framework for IMPFs

Field visits to test and refine the understanding gained

Where appropriate, contribute to national IMPF policy discussions

Objective of IMPF dialogue series

The Forests Dialogue

General conclusions Under the right conditions, IMPFs can provide a range of important benefits

External drivers have the greatest influence in shaping design and determining impacts

Large-scale land use change has significant impact

Conclusions and recommendations to date: Gland

The Forests Dialogue

Identified needs

Clear definition of IMPF to minimize misunderstanding and address research gaps

Maintenance of a landscape perspective

Unresolved questions

Can IMPFs be considered a neutral technology?

Does IMPF development reduce pressure on natural forests?

Conclusions and recommendations: Gland

The Forests Dialogue

General conclusions

One size does not fit all: no template can satisfy all stakeholder concerns

Both companies and communities share common cause in terms of regulation, land tenure, productivity, ecosystem integrity, and timber security

Potential for community-corporate coalitions to lead government and promote transparency

Potential for private sector to serve as vehicle for development

Conclusions and recommendations: Beihai

The Forests Dialogue

Identified needs

Differentiated understanding (context)

Strengthening of smallholder and community capacity

Corporate best practice acquisition of land use rights

Partnership-building

Building of a diverse forest landscape mosaic

Conclusions and recommendations: Beihai

The Forests Dialogue

Unresolved questions

Should CSR extend beyond ‘do no harm’ and if so, how far?

Can IMPFs be considered a neutral technology?

Conclusions and recommendations: Beihai

The Forests Dialogue

Positive learning experience

Perspective: provided broader context to the issues; helpful to get different views

Rewarding and affirming: TFD recognition of issues assisted in prioritization of those same issues

Useful in company’s planning process to focus and prioritize work

Networking valuable

The value of dialogue: Stora Enso

What have companies gained from dialogue?

The Forests Dialogue

Going ForwardIssues to Address Need to raise the bar for competing sectors

Need to engage the finance sector

Significance of IMPFs for natural forests

Next Steps Southern US – late 2007

Brazil – 2008

The Forests Dialogue

Thank You!

For More Information:

TFD Secretariat at Yale UniversityEmail: info@theforestsdialogue.orgWeb: www.theforestsdialogue.orgPhone: + 1 203 432 5966