AD HOC STEERING COMMITTEE (SC)
Rome, Italy, 10-11 January 2013
MINUTES
The first, ad hoc, Steering Committee (SC) of the Forest and Farm Facility (FFF) met at FAO HQ in
Rome from 10 to 11 January 2013.
A list of participants at the meeting is presented in Annex 1.
Following a brief welcome address by the FFF Manager and the ADG FAO Forestry Department and a
“round the table” presentation of the participants the issues were presented and discussed following
the Agenda (Annex II).
Selection of Chair
Mr. August Temu was proposed and unanimously elected as the Chair of the meeting and the future
Chair of FFF SC.
Brief introduction to the FFF
The FFF Management Team1 presented the background, rationale, mission and outcome of the FFF
programme. It was emphasised that the FFF is based primarily on the experience of NFP Facility and
GFP (Growing Forest Partnership) but that FAO, WB, IUCN, IIED and AgriCord experiences and
learning from other linked initiatives and projects have also provided significant contributions.
SC comments:
 Welcomed the mission and outcomes of FFF, while pointing out that the support to the
establishment of local organisations should include support to small and medium enterprises
as well as building capacity for them to link with other private sector actors, investors and
financing mechanisms .
 Highlighted the importance of making local voices heard in the international dialogue, as
international agreements often have substantial impact at local level – while cautioning
about any over-emphasis at the international level that might divert funds away from the
need to strengthen the foundations at local level.
 Commended the operational approach of the FFF that draws on emerging experience about
‘Investing in Locally Controlled Forestry – ILCF’ based on pillars of securing commercial forest
rights, building business capacity to make sustainable use of those rights, strengthening the
scale of producer organisation to negotiated better in markets and at policy level, and
attracting fair private sector deals – noting also that strengthening producer group
organisation is a gap in current international funding.
 Noted that the objective related to cross-sectoral coordination represents a paradigm shift
for Government and needs a clear definition of the concrete issues and careful strategic
thinking on exactly how those issues can be objectively and effectively addressed.
1
FFF Team members at FAO HQ, IUCN and IIED
1

Recognised that large-scale corporate interests are highly organised and represented in
decision-making processes across relevant sectors and that public and local communities
need strategic capacity and platforms to achieve fair negotiations.
FFF funding situation
The FFF Manager gave an overview of the fundraising activities undertaken in 2012 and the outcome
in terms of commitments and possibilities as of January 2013. Positive responses, for support to the
global programme, have so far been received from Germany, Sweden, USA and the WB. However,
he also pointed out that there are great opportunities for the FFF to leverage funds at regional and
country level through cooperation with e.g. African DB, IADB, IFAD, APFNet and UNREDD. The
upcoming WB/FIP call for proposals for the DGM (Dedicated Grant Mechanism for Community and
Indigenous People) was also mentioned as an important opportunity, particularly the global
component. WB informed that the call for expressions of interest for the DGM will be out by end
January 2013.
Given the present funding situation, the FFF manager concluded that i) continued fund raising is
absolutely necessary ii) quick and positive results on the ground in pilot countries would be
important and iii) a serious review of concept and funding must be done in 2014.
SC comments and suggestions on the continued fund raising:

Agreed on the conclusions and strategy presented – including the need to re-target former
supporters of the NFP-Facility such as DFID and the EC

Suggested a clearer focus on ‘entrepreneurship’, and the need to support entrepreneurial
organisation within smallholder farming and forest groups – following the current multidonor emphasis on private sector engagement

Highlighted the aspect of aid coordination and efficiency

Emphasized the strong producer group representation (IFFA, GACF, IAITPTFs, Agricord,
Alianza) in the FFF SC and suggested to make use of this representation in fundraising

Noting that funding is often available at country level, the SC suggested that the FFF could
leverage and harmonize donor funding for direct support to local organisations – particularly
by mobilizing the multi-institutional partnership within the SC and Management team to
push for in-country support

Proposed to develop a three-pronged nested strategy for fundraising i) core – the
programmatic part, including support to the secretariat, through the trust fund ii) country
activities through earmarked donor funding, and iii) collaboration with partners in Sweden,
Finland etc. for twinning arrangements with FFF supported organisations at country level

Facilitate access to domestic funding resources in FFF countries

FFF Management Team should give high priority to the actions needed in order to be
selected for the global component of the WB/FIP DGM
FFF Governance
The FFF management team presented to proposed governance structure, including the Steering
Committee and its composition and the Donor Support Group.
The SC expressed appreciation of the clear role proposed for the committee, focusing on
programmatic issues and not on the running of the office and day to day operations.
Regarding the composition, the SC discussed the possible emergence of a conflict of interest for
members representing stakeholder organisations requesting for FFF support.
SC comments and decisions:

Decided that the SC should consist of a mix of individuals, balanced between professional
background, geographical distribution and gender, and elected representatives of FFF
stakeholder groups (like G3).
2





Decided to maintain the members of the ad hoc SC, but add another three individuals to the
SC with background/experience from i) finance and investments ii) women groups and iii)
youth organisations. In addition, it agreed that 1-2 representatives of the donors should be
included.
Agreed that the Management Team , with support from the SC, should identify possible
candidates for the three additional posts while taking into account, in particular, the need for
improved gender balance. The Management Team will propose (through mail) identified
candidates to the SC for selection.
Agreed that conflict of interests should be avoided in decision-making by agreeing to abide
by a strict ‘out-of-the-room’ policy in any decisions in which conflicts of interests were likely
to occur.
Promoted the idea of SC members being FFF champions and good will ambassadors
Suggested the possibility of inviting resource persons to the SC meetings
FFF Management
The Manager presented the set-up and basic role of the small team to be based at FAO HQ. The
objective is to keep the costs of the management (programme delivery) at around 20% of total costs.
However, he added, although the present management team is kept at a minimum it will not be
possible to reach the 20% cost target until further funding for country/regional support has become
available. He pointed out that the support provided by WB/Profor for the participation of IUCN and
IIED in the management team is for 2013 only and that the intention was to institutionalise those
costs within the overall Management Team costs in future years – funding permitting .
SC comments and decisions:

Approved the management set up as proposed

Emphasized that the long-term cost for programme delivery should not exceed 20 % of the
total and that the management composition should be reviewed towards the end of 2013
based on the forecasted funding situation for 2014.
__________________________________________________________________________________
FFF Monitoring
The Management Team briefed the SC on the existing on-line database established by the NFP
Facility for monitoring inputs and outputs, including financial data, and results versus objectives and
targets in grant agreements. The same system will be used by the FFF.
For monitoring more long term outcomes and impact a system will be developed by the
management team to be tested at the start up of activities in pilot countries. The system, based on
experience from the NFP Facility and GFP, should be simple with only a few carefully selected
indicators and build on the participation of programme beneficiaries and stakeholders and thus serve
as a combined monitoring and capacity building tool.
SC comments:
 Welcomed the proposal and emphasized the need to develop the outcome and impact
monitoring system urgently in order to do a baseline before activities start. The SC member
from AgriCord offered collaboration from his organisation in the work.
 Agreed that there is a need to have a more focused and strategic view on what the FFF
should try to achieve in-country and internationally and that it should establish a system to
track these strategic objectives. It should not just be a small grant mechanism measured by
the number of grants.
3
FFF support mechanisms and modus operandi
The FFF Manager presented the two principal funding mechanisms; i) grants and the more long term
ii) partnership agreements. The small grant mechanism (average 25.000 USD) will be used to fund
start up activities and the partnership agreement for providing more long term funding security (max
400.000USD over a period of 3 years) of existing or emerging organisations. He concluded, given
also the present budget situation, that during the first year of FFF operations support will be focused
on start up activities in pilot countries and the small grant mechanism will be used. Decisions on
entering into a partnership agreement is proposed to be taken by the SC, based on a Concept Note
prepared by the recipient organisation and the initial experience gained by the FFF of the small grant
support provided. Eventual proposals for partnership agreements will be presented to the SC, within
existing budget frame, for decision at the next SC meeting.
The Management Team presented the proposed modus operandi for country as well as regional and
international organisations to be selected for FFF support. Regarding country selection, in future
additions to in-country support (beyond the selection of start-up countries where government
support was known to be high) the need for a formal expression of interest from Government was
highlighted as a basis for being considered.
SC comments and decisions:
 There is a need to develop a definition of who the grantees/stakeholders are. Need to focus
on representative organisations of those groups with rights to forest and forest land and with
ownership of production. Ownership is key, not the scale. “Local democratically controlled
producer groups” was proposed as a draft definition – in part to avoid capture of resources
by well-intentioned NGOs
 Forest Right holders associations should be engaged at different levels, including at the
country level implementation
 With respect to Govt grants for establishment of cross-sectoral fora, the SC emphasized the
importance of getting the relevant Government unit/department involved at high level and
added that the Forest Department may not be the most relevant entry point as was the case
in the NFP Facility.
 Given the funding situation the max amount available for partnership agreements should, for
the time being, be reduced to 100.000 USD /year or in total 300.000 USD
 Operational guidelines for the FFF should be produced and presented at the next SC
Selection of FFF Pilot Countries
In order to get FFF started and get quick positive results the Management Team presented 4
candidate countries in Latin America, 4 in Africa and 3 in Asia. The following criteria were used:
A. Experience gained by NFPF/GFP/FC and other relevant programmes
B. Known interest/possibility to strengthen or create farmer organsiations
C. Government interest to strengthen cross-sector cooperation (no formal expression of
interest requested or received as demanded in the proposed modus operandi )
D. Possible outputs/added value by the FFF support
SC comments on selection procedure:
 Based on member experience two countries were added to the list; Indonesia and Ethiopia
 Criteria on transferability of experiences and learning gained was added as well as political
stability and continuity.
 SC emphasized that quality should not be compromised for quick results
 Emphasized that regional balance is important
 Emphasized that this selection process should be used only at this occasion to get started
4


The next selection process by the SC should be based on expressions of interest by
Governments and criteria for selection agreed to by the SC.
A proposed list of criteria should be prepared by the Management Team for decision by the
SC
Based on individual rating of the 13 listed countries by SC members ( Latin America: Bolivia,
Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Paraguay, Asia: Indonesia, Nepal, Myanmar and Vietnam, Africa:
Ethiopoia, Gambia, Kenya, Liberia and Tunisia) the final selection was made by the SC. SC members
from proposed countries (Guatemala, Nepal) left the room during the rating of countries in their
respective regions.
Based on the scoring the SC decided to give the management the mandate to start FFF operations in
six countries, two “neighboring” countries per region, as follows :
Latin America: Guatemala and Nicaragua
Africa:
Gambia and Liberia
Asia:
Myanmar and Nepal
The selection of neighboring countries should facilitate exchange of experiences and learning and
strengthen regional or sub-regional cooperation.
5
FFF Work plan for 2013
Following discussions the following general work plan was approved by the SC.
Activity
Time
10-11 January
Ad hoc Steering Committee
January –April
Implementation start:
January - August
February – November
February - November
April- June
14 – 15 November
in Rome

Scoping missions/launching in selected pilot countries

Contracting G3 for a global baseline study on existing member
based forest organizations at national , regional and global levels

Development and introduction of Monitoring System

Development of Communication Strategy

Finalize criteria for support to national, regional and international
organizations

Announce the possibility of FFF support to potential countries and
regional and international organizations (targeted on organizations
with members in selected pilot countries)

Identify candidates for three additional SC members

Preparation of international meeting ( tentatively in China or a FFF
pilot country) on the key role of smallholders, community, women
and IP groups for sustainable forest management

Jointly with AgriCord undertake an analytical study on the
relevance and role of local membership based organizations as
stakeholders of the FFF
Continued fundraising:

Visit to African Regional Economic Communities ECOWAS, EAC,
SADC, COMIFAC)

Organize regional/sub regional workshop in Africa to exchange
experience on bank credits for productive agro-forestry activities of
smallholders and community forestry

Preparation for WB FIP/DGM bid

Renewed contact with Finland, EC and UK
Introduction of the new Facility Manager
FFF 1st Steering Committee to review and reflect on:

The pilot operations

The budget situation including costs for programme delivery,

The study undertaken by G3,

Criteria for selection of countries and regional/international
organization

Possibility to select a next group of countries and enter into
partnership agreements with national, regional and international
organizations

The monitoring system

The communications strategy
6
Selection of the new FFF Manager
 The SC elected August Temu (Chairperson) with Ignace Coussement as alternate to
represent the SC in the selection process of new FFF Manager.
(The FAO SC member informed that the VA has a deadline for applications on 18th January
and the selection process is expected to take place during February)
 The SC expressed concern over the potential gap in the Manager position and urged FAO to
minimize the time and requested the outgoing manager to provide support during the
transition period and be present at the next SC meeting as a resource person.
Next (1st) SC meeting
 It was decided that the next SC meeting will be held in Rome on 14 -15 November 2013
Closing of the meeting
The Chair thanked the ad hoc SC members for their contributions and enthusiasm and wished the
Facility management team all success in the start up of operations as well as in the continued fund
raising efforts.
7
ANNEX I
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
Steering Committee Members
NAME
POSITION
CONTACT
August Temu
(Chairperson)
Dy DG
World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF)
Nairobi, Kenya
a.temu@cgiar.org
tel. +254 20 722 4197
Chairperson
International Family Forest Association
Canada
grandpic@nbnet.nb.ca
tel: +1 506 367 2503
Estebancio Castro
Díaz
Executive Secretary
International Alliance of Indigenous and Tribal
peoples of Tropical Forests
Panama
estebancio@international-alliance.org
tel. + 507 3921074
mob: +507 611 53 101
Ghan Shyam Pandey
Coordinator
Global Alliance of Community Forestry
Kathmandu, Nepal
pandeygs2002@yahoo.com
tel. 00977 1 4485263
mob: 00977 9851002110
Peter deMarsh
Juan Raymundo
Morales Ovando.
Presidente
Alianza Nacional de Organizaciones Forestales
Communitarias de Guatemala
Guatemala
alianzaofcguate@gmail.com
federafogua@yahoo.es
tel. +502 776 36 131
mob: +502 532 19 824
Emelia Arthur
Deputy Regional Minister
Western Regional Coordinating Council
Sekondi, Ghana
Managing Director
AgriCord
Leuven, Belgium
ignace.coussement@agricord.org
Ignace Coussement
Senior Forestry Advisor
Agriculture & Rural Development
The World Bank
Washington DC, USA
pdewees@worldbank.org
tel. +1 202 4584021
fax. +1 202-614-1402
Peter Dewees
emelia.arthur@gmail.com
tel. +233 244 469 015
tel.+32 (0)16 242750
mob: +32 473 882 104
Eduardo Rojas
(on 10 January)
ADG
FAO Forestry Department
Rome, Italy
eduardo.rojas@fao.org
tel. +390657055879
Eva Muller
Director
FAO, Forest Economics, Policy and Products
Division
Rome, Italy
eva.muller@fao.org
tel. +390657054628
FFF Management Team
NAME
Jerker Thunberg
Jhony Zapata
Sophie Grouwels
Marguerite FranceLanord
Zoraya Gonzalez
Chris Buss
Duncan Macqueen
CONTACT
jerker.thunberg@fao.org
tel. +390657054530
jhony.zapataandia@fao.org
tel. +390657053102
sophie.grouwels@fao.org
tel. +390657055299
marguerite.francelanord@fao.org
tel. +390657054304
zoraya.gonzalez@fao.org
tel. +390657054205
chris.BUSS@iucn.org
Tel. +41229990265
duncan.macqueen@iied.org
tel. +44 131 226 6860
8
AD HOC STEERING COMMITTEE (SC)
ANNEX II
FAO HQ, Rome
Queen Juliana Room (B 324)
10-11 January 2013
Agenda
Thursday 10 January
Time
10:00
10:30
Welcome and round the table presentations
Selection of Chair for the meeting
Brief presentation of the Forest & Farm Facility
- Background (NFPF and GFP) and Rationale
- Mission, Beneficiaries and Outcomes
Questions & Discussion
Funding situation
- Fund raising activities
- Financial situation at the beginning of 2013
Questions & Discussion
12:30
14:00
Lunch Break
Proposed Organisation and Management
- Governance structure
- Steering Committee
- Donor Support Group
- FAO (hosting FFF)
- Operational Management
- Role of Management Partners; IUCN, IIED and WB Profor
Discussion and SC recommendations
15:30
16:00
Coffee Break
Support Instruments and Modus Operandi
- Grants, to Stakeholders and Government (Letter of Agreement)
- Partnership Agreement with lead organisations
Discussion and SC recommendations
18:00
Closure of the day
19:30
Dinner hosted by the Facility
9
Friday 11 January
09:00
Summary of recommendations and conclusions reached Day 1
10:00
Coffee Break
10:30
Selection of Pilot Countries for 2013 (3 + 3)
- Criteria and procedure for selection?
- Management proposal on possible pilot countries
Selection of regional and global level organisations
- Criteria and procedure for selection?
Discussion and SC decision
12:00
Lunch
13.00
How to get started in pilot countries?
- Selection of local, sub-national and national
partners/beneficiaries in pilot countries ?
Discussion and SC recommendations
15:00
Coffee Break
15:30
Monitoring and Reporting
- Presentation of proposal
Discussion and SC decision
16:30
SC representative(s) in selection panel for Facility Manager position
Next SC meeting – when and where ?
Discussion and SC decision
17:00
Closure of the meeting
10