ANNEX 4

SUMMARIES OF WORKING GROUP DISCUSSIONS

Based on the presentations, discussions and ideas expressed, participants were divided into three topical working groups to discuss structure, issues and scopes, products and services to be provided by the proposed coordination mechanism.

Presentation by Working Group 1: key issues and scope

WG 1's rationale

• Forestry issues have been inadequately addressed
• Integrating forestry issues into tsunami response – a regional approach
• Mobilizing human and financial resources

Purpose of the regional initiative

• Bringing issues to the forefront
• Getting people together
• Technical solutions to problems

Scope

• To look beyond tsunami and focus on natural coastal catastrophe
• Preparedness for the long term
• First phase focus on tsunami-affected countries
• Later phases will include other countries in the Asia–Pacific region

Issues

• Land-based forest ecosystem + sea-based (seagrass, coral reef)
• People's need: forestry, fisheries and agriculture
• Sustainable livelihoods
• Legal mechanisms (legislation and enforcement, land tenure)
• Synergy (avoid duplication, share best practices)
• Standardizing technical methodologies (assessment, zonation and rehabilitation)

ii)           Human capacity

• Local community training (including study tours)
• Revising universities' curricula
• Developing modules on tsunami recovery
• Promoting traditional and local knowledge
• Communication and information dissemination – including cultural and traditional means of communication
• Provision of regional expertise

iii)         Wood needs for reconstruction

• Studies on long-term impact on ecosystems
• Urgent studies on timber quality and durability (including alternative materials, such as bamboo)
• Related issues of long-term policy directions

Discussions

Clarification was sought regarding whether sea-based ecosystems should be dealt with by the proposed mechanism. FAO replied that it does not have a comparative advantage in dealing with sea-based ecosystems and that these aspects should be addressed through other mechanisms.

Presentation by Working Group 2: structure of the mechanism

Why do we want to set up a mechanism?

• Develop an effective response to tsunami (cost effective and technically sound)
• Avoid duplication
• Identify gaps
• Build on existing mechanisms
• Stimulate information sharing
• Engage stakeholders currently not working together
• Is there a need for a new mechanism or are existing ones adequate?
• Up to 25 December, did people feel there were adequate mechanisms within the region?

Scope

i)             Information sharing

• Web page (links, analyzed/synthesized info)
• List server
• Hard copy/translated documentation
• Databases/geographic info
• Workshops – seminars, media

ii)           Capacity building

• Workshops
• Sharing resource persons for training
• Study visits
• Training materials

iii)         Technical support

• Technical guidelines
• Technical consulting/advising services
• South-South collaboration, sharing experiences/lessons learned
• Demonstration sites/pilot sites

iv)         Resources

• Coordination of similar activities (facilitate national-level coordination)
• Generate resource and resource assistance to achieve objectives
• Matching action and needs

Options for mechanisms

• Business as usual (FAO, national , research, NGO, private sector)
• Business as usual - but with need more resources (money); no need to change mechanism.
• Integrate existing partnerships. Expanded partnership. Not totally changing underlying structure. (coordinate existing groups/networks)
• New totally independent mechanism

Elements of the structure

• Targets/beneficiaries – affected communities, NGO, governments
• Countries – tsunami-affected, or tsunami-prone countries
• Partners – organizations from different sectors (government, NGO, research, etc.) – if you're going to be a partner, you have to contribute something
• Coordination committee/steering group/support group
• Function – guide whatever framework is developed, support operation of mechanism, contribute to development, oversee/support
• Secretariat
• Support activities, some tasks could be distributed to appropriate partners
• Need to link to existing coordination structures

Possible structures

i)             Traditional structure consisting of:

• Steering committee
• Secretariat
• Countries
• Country stakeholders

This is a beneficiary approach, similar to existing structures. It may however, constrain cross-cutting or regional approaches and could be difficult to fit in a regional and international organization.

ii)           Functional model consisting of:

• Secretariat (to run the day to day operations)
• Functional teams or sub-networks such as:

  - Mangrove/greenbelt

  - Research

  - Governance

  - Community involvement

  - Others

Each functional team could/should be led by a different partner with specific expertise.

iii)         Hybrid model

A hybrid model would integrate the best features of both the traditional and functional model structures.

iv)         Other Models

• Consortium to Restore Shattered Livelihoods in Tsunami-affected Regions (CONSRN). This consortium is composed of five international organizations or regional organizations/networks.
• Global Water partnership facilitates dialogue on water, food and nature. It is a broad, open-ended partnership with a steering committee drawn from different stakeholder groups.
• Umbrella network based partnership. This would be composed of a secretariat plus lead supporters for different functions.

Other issues

• Packaging – The name should be a reflection of the partnership and should distinguish it from a business-as-usual approach. Initially it should be linked to tsunami rehabilitation, but it should have the option to evolve. If its objectives are too general to begin with, it will not stimulate resources or partnership.
• Preamble – add that all of this is in line with what has already been established and agreed to by governments in various other international fora. So we are not creating a new thing, rather, improving the efficiency and effectiveness of existing mechanisms and ensuring the involvement of other stakeholders.

Discussions

A comment was made that the functional model proposed by the WG 2 seems to be suitable for medium-term response to the tsunami as participating organizations focus on where they have competencies. Another comment was that the former Forestry Research Support Programme for Asia and the Pacific (FORSPA) can be a good model for a hybrid type of organizational structure proposed by the WG.

Presentation by Working Group 3: the products and services to be provided by the mechanism

i)             Access to information

• Information on tools and methods to deal with governance issues: particularly land tenure (including people's aspiration for land), law enforcement pertaining to coastal zone management
• mapping who is doing what and where
• free remote sensing imageries for emergency areas
• multi-media, user-friendly documentation on mangrove/coastal rehabilitation methodologies and technologies
• information on appropriate technologies for more effective resource use
• making relevant research results available
• information clearing house (e.g. data from impacts assessments) with quality control mechanism
• web services

ii)           Technical knowledge/expertise and guidelines

• assessments of legal and policy frameworks for coastal resources management (e.g. a compilation of existing laws/regulations on mangroves and coastal greenbelts)
• case studies/good practice on governance (law enforcement), sustainable livelihoods from coastal forests, utilization of species useful for local livelihoods, spatial plans for integrated coastal management
• review of collaborative coastal zone management practices
• practical policy guidelines for coastal vegetative rehabilitation
• timber needs, including bamboos and other appropriate materials; cultural issues (e.g. right wood species for reconstructing houses)

iii)         Capacity building

• training for practitioners and implementers on coastal rehabilitation (TOT and financing)
• training of builders in use of appropriate local materials, linked to livelihoods
• capacity building (cross-sectoral issues, field assessments, policy formulation)
• model of inter-agency, multi-sectoral collaboration
• advice on scaling up field-level initiatives

iv)         Other coordination arrangements

• arrangements for linking donors and implementers
• coordination for obtaining heavy equipment (to facilitate mangrove rehabilitation)

Discussions

A question was raised regarding the sequencing and timing of the delivery of products and services. The need for prioritizing the proposed products and services and sequencing the delivery was highlighted.