Bureau of Alternates Meeting Notes
May 8 – 10, 2007, San Francisco
1. Participants
USA:
-
Val Mezainis, US Forest Service
-
Margee Haines, US Forest Service
-
Liz Mayhew, US Forest Service
-
Liza Paqueo, US Forest Service
-
Phil Cannon, US Forest Service (Insects & Diseases and Invasive Plants Working Groups)
-
Tom Ledig, US Forest Service (Forest Genetics Working Group)
-
Steve McNulty, US Forest Service (Atmospheric Change and Forests Working Group)
-
Rick Scott, NAFC Liaison
MEXICO:
-
Carlos Gonzalez Vicente, CONAFOR
-
Alejandro Jacques, CONAFOR
CANADA:
-
Sylvia Boucher, Canadian Forest Service
-
Ben Moody, Canadian Forest Service (Insects & Diseases Working Group)
-
Fred Beall, Canadian Forest Service (Watershed Management Working Group)
FAO:
-
Douglas Kneeland, Programme Department, Forestry Department (FAO liaison to BOA)
2. Summary of Action Items and Decisions
GENERAL INFORMATION

All Working Groups have agreed to provide BOA with updates to their website and membership
lists.

BOA has agreed to a conference call in June—which US will organize—to discuss the following
items:
a. Each country will identify areas of cooperation that the Forest Products Working Group could
undertake.
1
Bureau of Alternates Meeting Notes
May 8 – 10, 2007, San Francisco
b. Each country will provide Canada (lead) with a representative from academia and from its forest
service agency to participate in the ad hoc Working Group on Partnership on Education.
c.
Each country will provide members to the Watershed Management Working Group as well as
ideas for how to guide its mandate.
d. Each country will provide Mexico (lead) with an author to help draft a technical paper on forest
and energy; the paper will be presented at the 2008 Commission meeting in Puerto Rico.
e. Each country will provide the US with a list of invited guests for the 2008 Commission meeting
in Puerto Rico.
f.
Each country will provide FAO (lead) with an economist to help draft a paper on changing
markets and products, and on which FAO will provide an outline.
XXIV SESSION OF THE NORTH AMERICAN FOREST COMMISSION (NAFC)


Date and Location of 24th Session of the NAFC: June 9-13. 2008 in San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Mexico has agreed to host the joint NAFC and Latin American and Caribbean Forestry Commission
(COFLAC) in 2010.

Logistics Website and Registration: Webmaster has agreed to create an informational website and
registration for participants to the 2008 Commission meeting.

Countries and FAO has agreed that the agenda adopt the same duration as the 2006 meeting in
Vancouver—2.5 days of meeting and one day for field trip.

US will issues invitations for the 2008 NAFC meeting to: relevant non-governmental organizations, subregional Chairs of COFLAC, representative(s) from another FAO regional Commission, as well as
invites from Canada, Mexico, FAO, and the International Institute for Tropical Forestry.

FAO will send letters to all other regional commissions to inform them of upcoming NAFC meeting in
2008.

Commissioners will provide country reports in addition to sharing issues and challenges relevant on a
regional level.

Mexico has agreed to take the lead in drafting the technical paper on Forests and Energy; Canada and
US will provide names of co-authors and will give a presentation at the 2008 Commission meeting.
WORKING GROUPS

General Working Group Business:
2
Bureau of Alternates Meeting Notes
May 8 – 10, 2007, San Francisco
o
US will organize an integrated Working Group meeting for all members as well as the Bureau of
Alternates.
o
All Working Groups are encouraged to update their website and membership list.
o
Rick Scott, the new NAFC liaison, has restated his commitment to attend Working Group
meetings and bridge the communication between groups and the Commissioners.

Invasive Plants:
o
Bureau of Alternates will contact Rob Mangold, Chair, to discuss the status of this Working
Group.

Forest Products Working Group:
o
Canada recommended disbanding the group on the basis of inactivity over the last biennium.
Mexico and USA requested that the recommendation be put on hold and indicated they would
identify areas of cooperation that the Forest Products Working Group could undertake.

Watershed Management Working Group:
o
Each country will provide members to the Watershed Management Working Group as well as
ideas for how to guide its mandate.

Ad Hoc Working Group on Partnership on Education:
o
Each country will provide Canada (lead) with a representative from academia and from its forest
service agency to participate in the ad hoc Working Group on Partnership on Education.
FUNDING REQUESTS
 The US will contact the Forest Genetics, Insects and Diseases and Silviculture Working Groups to
discuss the details of their funding requests.
 The US will post format for funding requests on the website.
 Forest Genetics Working Group is requesting $30,000.
 Insects and Diseases Working Group is requesting $10,000.
 Silviculture Working Group is requesting $10,000.
 The US has agreed to fund the requests.
WEBSITE AND MAILING LISTS
 The webmaster has agreed to create an informational website and registration database for both the
2008 NAFC meeting as well as the upcoming Integrated Working Group Meeting.
 All Working Groups are encouraged to update their website and membership list.
UPCOMING EVENTS and MEETINGS
 Next BOA Conference Call will be scheduled in June.
 US will organize an integrated Working Group meeting in the Fall.
3
Bureau of Alternates Meeting Notes
May 8 – 10, 2007, San Francisco
3. Previous Meeting
Canada hosted the last meeting of the North American Forest Commission in October 2006 in Vancouver,
British Columbia.
4. Details of Meeting – May 8, 2007
OPENING SESSION
V. Mezainis (USA) presided over the meeting. He welcomed all the participants, and especially, thanked the
Working Group representatives for attending the meeting. He referred to the recent evaluation of the NAFC and
the subsequent management response, in which there was a need to strengthen communication within the
NAFC. He, then, introduced Rick Scott, the new liaison for NAFC. Rick Scott has volunteered to attend all
Working Group meetings. He is currently retired from the US Forest Service and speaks Spanish.
The opening session concluded with a round of introductions and a review of the agenda.
ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGES
A. USA (V. Mezainis)
Since the last Commission meeting, leadership in the US Forest Service has changed. Former Chief, Dale
Bosworth, has retired. The current Chief is Gail Kimbell, first woman Chief of the Forest Service. She is a
long-time employee of the Agency.
Currently, she has not outlined any organizational changes. During his term, former Chief Bosworth had
outlined four threats to forests in the United States. These included fire and fuels, invasive species, loss of
open space and unmanaged outdoor recreation. In addition to these threats, Chief Kimbell has also
identified climate change, environmental services and cellulosic ethanol as key issues.
The budget for the US Forest Service is very flat. 45% of the budget is now going to fire. Due to the
political sensitivity surrounding fire in our forests, there has been a debate on creating a Fire Service within
the Agency. There is also an effort to downsize the Forest Service.
B. CANADA (S. Boucher)
Since the last Commission meeting, Jim Farrell, who was then Acting Assistant Deputy Minister and
Commissioner for Canada at the NAFC, has been officially appointed the Assistant Deputy Minister of the
4
Bureau of Alternates Meeting Notes
May 8 – 10, 2007, San Francisco
Canadian Forest Service at Natural Resources Canada. Former ADM of the CFS and Canada’s NAFC
Commissioner, Brian Emmett, announced his retirement.
Among the important forest policy issues currently facing Canada, the Mountain Pine Beetle (MPB)
infestation in western Canada is extremely serious. The Canadian Forest Service is looking for ways to
mitigate the spread of MPB. Climate change and its impact on forests, as well as innovation management,
adaptation strategies, and competitiveness in the forest products and services sector were also mentioned.
Linking competitiveness and the development of new technologies to emerging forest and energy issues,
reference was made to Jack Saddler’s (Dean of the University of British Colombia) presentation at the
Committee on Forestry (COFO)’s 18th session, on forests and energy including the use of bio-fuels in OECD
countries. CFS has been asked by FAO to work with UBC to develop further information on this theme.
In addition, Canada is considering a collaboration with Mozambique at the request of Mr. Arlito Cuco, chair
of the African Forestry and Wildlife Commission, who attended the last NAFC Commission meeting in
Vancouver. A small workshop on Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management is being
planned for Mozambique before March 2008.
C. MEXICO: (C. Gonzalez)
A new administration started in December 2006. The new Director of CONAFOR is Jose Cibrian Tovar,
who has previously been involved with the Forest Genetics Working Group. Carlos Gonzalez Vicente has
replaced Erika Lopez as the Director for International Cooperation and is the Mexican Alternate to NAFC.
One of the new strategies implemented is ProArbol. PROÁRBOL is a program that integrates rural and
economic development with forestry. Its main objectives are:
1. Reduce poverty and marginalization indices in the forest areas, through sustainable management of the
natural resources.
2. Generate development and economic expansion from the valuation, conservation and sustainable
management of the resources of the forests and the vegetation of the dried zones.
3. To impel the planning and forest organization, to elevate the production and productivity of the forest
resources, its conservation and restoration, as well as to elevate the level of competitiveness of the
sector, and improve the quality of life of the Mexicans.
The goals for this program include:
•
To plant 500 thousand hectares:
–
400 thousands reforestation and,
–
100 thousand commercial plantations.
5
Bureau of Alternates Meeting Notes
May 8 – 10, 2007, San Francisco
•
To incorporate 615 thousand hectares to Payment by Environmental Services.
•
To grant phytosanitary attention in 40 thousand hectares.
•
To integrate technological management
For more information on this program, please see the attached powerpoint presentation.
Questions:
M. Haines (USA): Is CONAFOR structure staying the same?
C. Gonzalez (Mexico): For now, it is the same. There are increasing opportunities at the local level.
S. McNulty (Atmospheric Working Group): Are there any potential consequences if schedule for
reforestation is not met?
C. Gonzalez: CONAFOR is trying to pass the responsibility to the local level. Commercial plantations have
been successful in the past and can determine future results.
V. Mezainis (USA): Can ejidos apply to this program?
C. Gonzalez: Yes. The ejidos are the most important owner of the land in Mexico.
V. Mezainis (USA): Will there be a big fire season?
C. Gonzalez: Yes. This year will be an El-Nino year which could be devastating. New equipment and a
new national fire center in Guadalajara that has a better system of communications plus participation of all
states in Mexico can hopefully mitigate any potential disasters.
V. Mezainis (USA): Does the GNP reflect the price of water and environmental services/recreation?
C. Gonzalez: The GNP only considers wood. New information system is needed to add the value of water
or carbon catchments to determine the true value of forests.
D. Kneeland (FAO): How many hectares have been reforested?
C. Gonzalez: 100,000 hectares have been reforested. Commercial plantations have been reforested at a
rate of 15,000 ha/yr.
D. Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO - D. Kneeland)
Jan Heino is the Assistant Director-General of FAO Forestry. In FAO, there has been an independent,
external evaluation of FAO. The US, Canada, and Europe are funding this project. The feeling is that FAO
could be more effective than it is. The effort took a year, and a report will be made in August and will
include recommendations for improving management. It should have no impact on regional forestry
commissions. This (regional commissions) is one area that is getting positive feedback due to the high level
6
Bureau of Alternates Meeting Notes
May 8 – 10, 2007, San Francisco
of activity. There is an ongoing dialogue on whether forestry should move from FAO to UNEP. Forestry
budget for FAO is 4% of FAO. The forestry budget is flat and has been for a number of years – about $35
million USD (of which $15m/year is core funding and $20m/year from additional contributions). There is
currently a total of 200 people in forestry with FAO worldwide. This represents a decrease of 100 positions
worldwide, over the past few years, which means that efficiency gains are required to stretch the forestry
budget and ensure program continuity.
S. McNulty: Is there a push within FAO to give carbon credits to countries?
D. Kneeland: FAO has organized a number of regional workshops on climate change. Climate change as a
potential topic to advise COFO. There is more information on FAO website (http://www.fao.org). USA noted
that the topic of avoided deforestation had received six different proposals at the last FAO COFO meeting
(i.e., including a proposal from Papua New Guinea on carbon credits) and the USA is proposing to organize
a meeting on this particular topic.
FOLLOW UP TO VANCOUVER:
At the 22nd Session of NAFC, the three commissioners agreed to undertake an evaluation of NAFC to assess
the strengths and weaknesses and to possibly enhance its effectiveness and to determine the impact of NAFC
on policy and working groups. The evaluation concluded that the Commission had minimal impact on forest
policy but was a good technical forum. Most working groups had little guidance from Commissioners and the
Bureau of Alternates (BOA). BOA was not effective in guiding the work of the working groups. Cost was difficult
to quantify because working groups were operating from existing forest service budgets and some were
receiving external funding. The evaluation found that the three countries should continue NAFC. NAFC
governance, communications at all levels could be improved. Working groups in general favored more
direction from the Bureau of Alternates and Commissioners.. There were opportunities across working groups
to collaborate on common issues.
A. Management Response
As a follow-up to the evaluation, a management response was drafted. It addressed whether NAFC
informed policy-making in the three countries; the communication gap within the Commission; and the
activity of the Working Groups.
1) Does the NAFC inform policy making in the three countries:
It was agreed upon that the NAFC did play role in informing policy. The strength of the NAFC has been
gathering and sharing valuable data and technical information among the member countries. For
instance, the Fire Management Working Group’s activities have led to the adoption of the Incident
Command System by the three member countries. Another example is the work of the Inventory and
Monitoring Working Group has led to the adoption of complementary approaches to forest inventory and
7
Bureau of Alternates Meeting Notes
May 8 – 10, 2007, San Francisco
assessment in North America. The NAFC also impacts global forest policy by identifying issues to be
raised at the Committee on Forestry meetings and providing input to global forestry, such as the Fire
Management and Planted Forest Codes.
2) Bridging the Communication Gap:
The Commission recognized the importance of improving communication at all levels of the NAFC. To
address this need, the United States as the current Chair of the NAFC, has offered to support Rick Scott
to serve as a liaison among the three levels of the NAFC for the next two years. Rick Scott was a
District Ranger on the Willamette National Forest for many years, has worked extensively in Mexico and
is fluent in Spanish. He will attend a portion of all Working Group meetings, receive feedback on current
issues and needs, and report back to the BOA and vice versa.
The NAFC website that is maintained by the US also has the potential to improve communication. It is
important receive input from the Working Groups. Rick Scott will interact between working group chairs
and the website manager to ensure that information is kept current and accurate.
3) Evaluating the Working Groups:
The NAFC received positive feedback primarily due to the activities of the Working Groups. However,
there were some working groups that have been inactive. There is a need to re-evaluate the future of
these groups. If there is a need to look at a particular issue or to pursue trilateral activities around such
an issue, then ad hoc working group should be formed. It is also important to look at the direction and
make up of the Working Groups.
P. Cannon (Insect & Diseases Working Group): How can Working Groups find out what Commissioners
believe the salient issues should be?
T. Ledig (Forest Genetics Working Group): It is often difficult to determine the level of activity within a
Working Group. For the Forest Genetics Working Group, there have been other sources of funding, for
example.
V. Mezainis: This illustrates the gap in communication and why Rick Scott has been asked to bridge the
gap as a liaison.
B. NAFC Liaison: Rick Scott
Since Vancouver, Rick Scott has managed to attend the Inventory and Monitoring Work Group Meeting
in Cancun. He has also communicated with several other Working Groups. At the meeting in Cancun,
he presented a brief overview of the NAFC. He has found that the biggest challenge has been
contacting the Chairs to update the website and membership lists.
8
Bureau of Alternates Meeting Notes
May 8 – 10, 2007, San Francisco
C. NAFC WORKING GROUPS PRESENTATIONS
A. ATMOSPHERIC CHANGE AND FORESTS (S. McNulty - USA)
Last Meeting: April 5, 2007, Guadalajara, Mexico
Al Riebau will be retiring this summer. Steve McNulty will be replacing him as US-lead on the Working
Group. The major foci of the Working Group has been on critical acid loads in North America, integrated
stress impacts, and on looking for ways to collaborate with other groups (such as IUFRO, Air Pollution
Workshop, CLAD, NOARSTO (Roger Cox) and IPCC.
To view the presentation, click here.
C. Gonzalez: Mexico is impressed with this working group and its level of activity and would like more
specific results.
S. Boucher (Canada): There is renewed interest on the use of forests for energy and on the impact of
climate change on forests. Maintaining a clear focus on the policy objectives of the three forest service is
also important to ensure working groups are aligned with regional priorities.,.
V. Mezainis: USA believes this Working Group is aligned with US Forest Service mission and interest in
climate change.
B. FOREST PRODUCTS (R. Scott)
Rick Scott talked to Suzanne Nash (Canada lead). There has been no participation from USA or Mexico.
Nash recommends the group be disbanded on the basis that there is no participation from the USA or
Mexico.
C. Gonzalez: There is no clear mission with this working group and suggests discussing what the working
group should focus on.
S. Boucher: The group has been inactive from 1998 to 2004. Efforts were made to reinvigorate the group in
2004 but with limited success. The objective of the group was to increase wood consumption in N. America.
Canada did not necessarily want to, but had to, by de facto, make a unilateral recommendation to Canada’s
Commissioner on the direction of this group in light of the fact that the only participant on the working group
was Canada.
9
Bureau of Alternates Meeting Notes
May 8 – 10, 2007, San Francisco
V. Mezainis: This group had too many sub-committees. The mandate was so wide. Forest product is so
wide and not specific enough. The three countries need to identify priorities for the working group or
consider disbanding the working group.
Action Items:
 Bureau of Alternates will organize a conference call. At this call, each country should identify 2
or 3 main issues they want to see if Working Group were to continue.
C. FOREST GENETIC RESOURCES (T. Ledig - USA)
Next Meeting: September 2007 in Corvallis
Brad St. Clair is currently the Chair of this group. Working Group has competed for outside funds and
published several volumes and peer review papers. It is vital to have continuity and support in the
membership. There must be at least 2 representatives from each country (according to the charter). The
Working Group is asking for support from CONAFOR to support membership of MEXICO.
One of the major issues that this Working Group is looking at is conserving genetic resources in the face of
climate change which will affect biodiversity.The Working Group would like to bring the following issues to
the attention of the BOA:
•
Climate change will be an unmitigated disaster for forests
•
Species survival will depend on wise movement of genetic resources
•
Conservation (using seeds) of present genetic resources is necessary to rescue forests
•
Protect long-term tests for value as genetic resources and predictors of adaptability
To view the presentation, click here.
C. Gonzalez: We are losing genetic resources from climate change and other problems -- this is an
opportunity to promote a world-wide project. We want to create a genetic resources program.
Funding Requests:
 $5,000 -- Search out theses and dissertations at Mexican universities and translate into English
 $25,000 – translation of notes to expand into comprehensive text
10
Bureau of Alternates Meeting Notes
May 8 – 10, 2007, San Francisco
D. FIRE MANAGEMENT (R. Scott)
Last meeting: October 24-26, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Next meeting: September 24 – 28, 2007 in Guadalajara
The working group is currently attending the 4th International Forest Fire Wildland Conference in Seville,
Spain. A report for international fire policy was drafted. The report will be circulated to the BOA members,
and other interested parties.
This working group has identified the following challenge: lack of funding, high turnover in membership, and
finding the time for the commitment that is needed to carry through planned activities. This working group
would also like to:
1) Enhance their relationship with other working groups.
2) Improve cooperation and assess fire activities in the region
3) Support global fire activities, such as a study tour for Australia and New Zealand fire managers.
4) Enhance committee efficiency and communication via midterm conference calls and the website.
E. FOREST INSECTS AND DISEASES & INVASIVE PLANTS (Phil Cannon, Ben Moody)
Last meeting: October 2006, New Brunswick, Canada
Next meeting: October 2007, Cape Cod, Massachusetts
There has been an ongoing discussion on merging these two different working groups, but many feel it is better
to keep them separate.
The Forest Insects and Diseases Working Group has been very active over the past year. The three main
objectives of the group were: i) to publish a book; ii) technical exchanges, and iii) training. The group completed
the writing of the book on forest diseases of Mexico, entitled (“Dwarf Mistletoe”). The group also engaged in
some technical exchanges; and added species to the Invasive Species website
(http://www.spfnic.fs.fed.us/exfor/)
The Invasive Plants Working Group met in October 2006 and created a charter. Its main goals are:

Develop a list of high priority invasive plant species

Develop a system for good early detection

Develop rapid response measures for dealing with each of the high-priority invasive plant species

Develop appropriate import and export regulations

Find effective and safe bio-controls

Train taxonomists to support invasive plant management and research and regulatory activities.

Establish effective training systems that will be of benefit to all three nations
11
Bureau of Alternates Meeting Notes
May 8 – 10, 2007, San Francisco

Develop a NAFC invasive weed website.

Determine how to most effectively engage the public of all three nations in dealing with the problems of
invasive weeds.
To view the presentation, click here.
Action Items:
 The US has agreed to contact Rob Mangold about the Invasive Plants Working Group
Funding Requests:
 Forest Insects and Diseases Working Group is requesting $30,000.
F. FOREST INVENTORY, MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT (R. Scott)
Last Meeting: January 2007 in Tucson, AZ
Next Meeting: January 2008 in western Canada
Rick Scott made the presentation on behalf of Mark Gillis who could not attend the meeting. He noted that the
working group is developing an integrated spatially-defined North American forest inventory database using the
FAO ecological reporting framework and common North America-wide protocols to facilitate data exchange,
evaluation and assessment. The goals is to report on forests in a consistent manner for all major forest
ecosystems of North America from a continental perspective by enlisting country forest inventory experts to
outline preliminary structure and attributes for database development.
To view the presentation, click here.
B. Moody: It would be good to link up vegetation types (insect and diseases) in N. America with inventory and
monitoring. Can Mark Gillis go to the imeeting of Insects and Diseases? (Note, The Insects and Disease
Working Group proposed to hold their next meeting in Cape Cod, Massachussetts in the fall 2007. The Forest
Genetic Resources WG proposed to hold their next meeting in Corvallis in September 2007).
S. McNulty: The Inventory and Monitoring group should meet with the National Phenology Network.
P. Cannon: There should also be some synergy between the Atmospheric Change Working Group, the Insect
and Diseases and Inventory and Monitoring?
12
Bureau of Alternates Meeting Notes
May 8 – 10, 2007, San Francisco
Action Item:
 BOA will organize an integrated working group meeting.
I. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT (F. Beall)
The group has not officially met.
The Charter of this new working group has been approved by the BOA. Current membership of the group
include Thomas Hofer (FAO), Ramon Cardoza (CONAFOR), Chris Knopp (USDA-FS) and Fred Beall (CFS –
current chair). Fred mentioned that there has been little activity with this working group because its membership
is not officially complete. . Chris Knopp (USA-lead) will meet with Fred Beall during this BOA meeting to discuss
a work plan. It is asking for help from the BOA on expanding its membership, focusing its mission, providing
some ideas for activities of high priority and working with other Working Groups. CONAFOR agreed to provide
the names of five additional representatives for this working group.
Some potential projects include:

Climate change adaptation responses in watershed management

Develop a hydro-ecological classification system

Developing data/science networks to share data/resources
To view the presentation, click here.
Action Item:

Each country will provide members to the Watershed Management Working Group as well as ideas
for how to guide its mandate.
J. OTHER WORKING GROUP BUSINESS

Funding Requests –
 The US will contact the Forest Genetics, Insects and Diseases and Silviculture Working Groups
to discuss the details of their funding requests.
 The US will post format for funding requests on the website.
 Forest Genetics Working Group is requesting $30,000.
 Insects and Diseases Working Group is requesting $10,000.
 Silviculture Working Group is requesting $10,000.
13
Bureau of Alternates Meeting Notes
May 8 – 10, 2007, San Francisco
 The US has agreed to fund the requests.
 Ad hoc Working Group on International Partnership of Education – The objective of this initiative is to
strengthen university-level education about forests and forestry programs and make them more global in
scope at universities around the world. The challenge, however, is that many university forestry curricula
are domestic in orientation Forest Services of national governments understand the importance of
international forestry issues, but universities do not necessarily consider these issues in the same
light. In addition, forestry faculties are not creating networks in the same way that other faculties
have succeeded in doing.
Action Item
a. Bill Singleton (Canada) will take the lead on this Working Group.
b. Each country will nominate one person from academia and another from forest service to this
working group by the conference call.
c.
Mexico nominates Alfredo Martinez
d. USA – nominate past deans of this organization. US also states that this effort will take some
resources
e. FAO nominates Eva Mueller
NAFC 2008
A. FAO REPORT on COFO:
Please insert report here. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/meeting/012/j9643e.pdf
B. NAFC PLANNING:
1) Location and Dates: The 24th North American Forest Commission meeting will take place from June 9-13,
2007 in San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Initially it was supposed to be Latin America Forest Commission and NAFC joint meeting. Due to prohibitive
costs, it was decided that the joint meeting would be postponed. Instead, a suggestion for having it in Mexico in
2010 was put forward and agreed upon.
Action Item:
 Liza Paqueo will create an informational website for this upcoming Commission meeting as well as
the integrated working group meeting. Information about registration, hotels, transportation and the
field trip will be in this website. The website will be ready by September 2007.
14
Bureau of Alternates Meeting Notes
May 8 – 10, 2007, San Francisco
2) Technical Papers:
In Vancouver, the technical paper was on climate change. Mexico suggested forests and energy as a focus for
a technical paper. This would look at the competing uses of land to respond to an increasing demand for
firewood as a source of energy in developing countries and the role of urban forests in energy conservation.
Action Item:
 Mexico has agreed to take the lead on this paper. By the conference call, each country will provide
an author to help draft this paper.
Mexico: Would prefer to have commissioners address main points at the regional level. Have them prepared to
talk about what to bring to SOFO. In Puerto Rico, have a time slot (1-2 hrs)
US also suggested looking at global trends in forestry, carbon markets and avoided deforestation during this
Commission meeting.
It was agreed upon that the meeting take 2.5 days (plus a 1 day field trip?) and that the Working Group chairs
would be invited.
3) Letters of Invitation:
The following will be invited to the 2008 meeting:





NGO’s
Sub-regional chairs of COFLAC
Dr. Lugo’s invites
Representative from another regional commission
Other invites from Canada and Mexico.
FAO: FAO will send letter to all the other regional commissions. Have one of the other regional commissions
give a presentation? What about someone from the FAO commissions (e.g. ITTO, CFP)? What about NGOs,
not as observers but as participants?
Action Items:
 By the conference call, each country will provide a list of invites for this meeting.
4) Field Trip: Dr. Ariel Lugo of the International Institute for Tropical Forestry will provide information on the field
trip.
15
Bureau of Alternates Meeting Notes
May 8 – 10, 2007, San Francisco
C. OTHER ACTIVITIES OF INTEREST
Other International Activities
1) FAO Mexico will chair the 25th session of the NAFC in 2010 and consequently will be on the FAO Forestry
Steering Committee.
2) SOFO (State of the World’s Forests): This is a report that is put out on the progress towards sustainable
forest management in each region.
Action Item:
 FAO has agreed to take the lead on a look at changing trends and markets in North America.
 By the conference call, each country should designate someone (chief economist) to work with FAO.
 FAO will develop a two page outline to guide this paper.
3) COFO Mexico will be the Chair of the COFO 19 meeting in 2009 since it will chair the NAFC in the 2008-2010
biennial. The COFO 19 agenda needs to be prepared by September 2008.
4) The World Forestry Congress will be held in October 2009 in Buenos Aires. Argentina is looking for donor
countries to help developing countries attend. Canada hosted the WFC in 2003 and has offered to support
Argentina by sharing lessons learned.
G. Website and Membership List
It is important for Working Groups to update their website and membership because it is one way to
communicate with the Bureau of Alternates and the Commissioners.
Action Items:
 All Working Groups should contact Liza Paqueo or Rick Scott for updates.
H. NEXT MEETING: Integrated Working Group Meeting will convene working groups and BOA. Each group
and BOA will hold its own independent meeting and then convene to discuss areas of collaboration.
Action Items:
 US will survey working groups and BOA for the best date to hold this meeting.
16