The second meeting of the Open-Ended Intergovernmental Ad Hoc Expert Group on the International Arrangement on Forests (AHEG2) convened from 12-16 January 2015 at UN Headquarters in New York. In total 162 participants attended the meeting, including representatives from 79 Member States, nine members of the Collaborative Partnership on Forests, 10 Major Groups and two permanent observers.
AHEG2 took note of the Co-Chairs' Summary of Discussions and Recommendations, which, inter alia, identifies: areas of emerging convergence and where further discussion is required on the future of: the Forest Instrument; implementation and financing of sustainable forest management after 2015; the UN Forum on Forests (UNFF) and its Secretariat; and involvement of Major Groups and regional entities. The recommendations include elements or components of a possible resolution to be adopted at the eleventh session of UNFF in May 2015.
AHEG2 fulfilled its mandate, setting the stage for the discussions to come at UNFF11. While all options officially remain on the table, AHEG2 informally narrowed the range of options by identifying those for which there may be support and noting others that could prove politically infeasible, or for which there is little appetite.
The United Nations Forum on Forests was established in 2000, following a five-year period of forest policy dialogue within the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF) and the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF). In October 2000, the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), in resolution 2000/35, established the International Arrangement on Forests (IAF), which established the UNFF as a subsidiary body of ECOSOC, with the main objective of promoting the management, conservation and sustainable development of all types of forests.
The UNFF's principal functions are to: facilitate implementation of forest-related agreements and foster a common understanding on sustainable forest management (SFM); provide for continued policy development and dialogue among governments, international organizations and Major Groups, as well as to address forest issues and emerging areas of concern in a holistic, comprehensive and integrated manner; enhance cooperation, and policy and programme coordination on forest-related issues; foster international cooperation and monitor, assess and report on progress; and strengthen political commitment to the management, conservation and sustainable development of all types of forests.
ORGANIZATIONAL SESSION: The UNFF organizational session took place from 12-16 February 2001, at UN Headquarters in New York. Delegates agreed that the UNFF Secretariat would be located in New York, and made progress towards the establishment of the Collaborative Partnership on Forests (CPF), a partnership of 14 major forest-related international organizations, institutions and convention secretariats.
UNFF1: The first session of UNFF took place from 11-23 June 2001 in New York. Delegates discussed and adopted decisions on the UNFF Multi-Year Programme of Work, a Plan of Action for the implementation of the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action, and the UNFF's work with the CPF. Delegates also recommended establishing three ad hoc expert groups (AHEGs) to provide technical advice to UNFF on: approaches and mechanisms for monitoring, assessment and reporting; finance and transfer of environmentally sound technologies; and parameters of a mandate for developing a legal framework on all types of forests.
UNFF2: The second session of UNFF took place from 4-15 March 2002 in New York. Delegates adopted decisions on, inter alia, specific criteria for the review of the effectiveness of the IAF. UNFF2 agreed that specific criteria related to the implementation of the Proposals for Action are the extent to which: countries, the CPF and other actors progressed in implementing the Proposals for Action; countries developed and started to implement national forest programmes or equivalent processes; the IAF facilitated and promoted countries' implementation, focusing on means of implementation (MoI); and countries progressed in assessing the Proposals for Action in order to determine their relevance in their national context. Resolution 2/3 outlined the specific criteria related to the continued policy development, including the extent to which: the IAF enhanced forest policy development and dialogue and worked in a transparent and participatory manner; CPF members responded to the UNFF's guidance; and progress was made in reaching a common understanding of forest-related concepts, terminology and definitions.
UNFF3: UNFF3 met in Geneva, Switzerland, from 26 May - 6 June 2003, and adopted six resolutions on: enhanced cooperation and policy and programme coordination; forest health and productivity; economic aspects of forests; maintaining forest cover to meet present and future needs; the UNFF Trust Fund; and strengthening the Secretariat.
UNFF4: UNFF4 convened in Geneva from 3-14 May 2004 and adopted five resolutions on: review of the effectiveness of the IAF; forest-related scientific knowledge; social and cultural aspects of forests; monitoring, assessment and reporting, and criteria and indicators; and finance and transfer of environmentally sound technologies. On the review of the IAF, delegates agreed to request that Member States submit a voluntary questionnaire based on the specific criteria agreed to at UNFF2. UNFF4 attempted, without success, to reach agreement on resolutions on forest-related traditional knowledge, enhanced cooperation, and policy and programme coordination.
UNFF5: UNFF5 took place from 16-27 May 2005, in New York. Participants were unable to reach agreement on strengthening the IAF and did not produce a Ministerial Statement or a negotiated outcome. They did agree, ad referendum, to four global goals on: significantly increasing the area of protected forests and sustainably managed forests worldwide; reversing the decline in official development assistance (ODA) for SFM; reversing the loss of forest cover; and enhancing forest-based economic, social and environmental benefits. They also agreed in principle to negotiate, at some future date, the terms of reference for a voluntary code or international understanding on forests, as well as MoI.
UNFF6: UNFF6 took place from 13-24 February 2006 in New York. Delegates generated a negotiating text containing new language on the function of the IAF, a commitment to convene UNFF biennially after 2007, and a request that UNFF7 adopt a non-legally binding instrument on all types of forests (NLBI or Forest Instrument). UNFF6 also set four Global Objectives on Forests for the IAF to: reverse the loss of forest cover worldwide through SFM, including through protection, restoration, afforestation and reforestation; enhance forest-based economic, social and environmental benefits, and the contribution of forests to the achievement of internationally agreed development goals; increase significantly the area of protected forests worldwide and other areas of sustainably managed forests; and reverse the decline in ODA for SFM, and mobilize significantly increased new and additional financial resources from all sources for the implementation of SFM.
UNFF7: UNFF7 was held from 16-27 April 2007 in New York. After two weeks of negotiations, culminating in an all-night session, delegates adopted the Forest Instrument and a Multi-Year Programme of Work for the period 2007-2015. Delegates agreed that a "voluntary global financial mechanism/portfolio approach/forest financing framework for all types of forests" would be developed and considered, with a view to its adoption at UNFF8.
UNFF8: UNFF8 was held from 20 April - 1 May 2009 in New York. Delegates discussed: forests in a changing environment, including forests and climate change, reversing the loss of forest cover and degradation, and forests and biodiversity conservation; and MoI for SFM. After an all-night session on the last night, delegates adopted a resolution on forests in a changing environment, enhanced cooperation and cross-sectoral policy and programme coordination, and regional and subregional inputs. Delegates did not agree on a decision on financing for SFM, and decided to forward bracketed negotiating text to the Forum's next session.
UNFF9: UNFF9 took place from 24 January - 4 February 2011 in New York and launched the International Year of Forests 2011. The Forum adopted by acclamation a resolution on forests for people, livelihoods and poverty eradication, which addressed, inter alia: procedures for assessment of progress; increased regional and subregional cooperation; enhanced cooperation, including with Major Groups; and MoI for SFM, particularly the AHEG process on forest financing.
UNFF10: UNFF10 met from 8-19 April 2013 in Istanbul, Turkey. Among other items, delegates adopted the "Resolution on Emerging Issues, MoI and the UNFF Trust Fund," which decided that the effectiveness of the IAF will be reviewed in 2015, and established an open-ended intergovernmental AHEG to review the IAF's performance and effectiveness. The resolution set out the elements to be included in the review and decided that the review shall have the following components: submissions by countries, the CPF, its members and other relevant organizations and stakeholders; an independent assessment of the IAF; and an AHEG on the IAF review.
AHEG1: The first meeting of the open-ended intergovernmental ad hoc expert group on the international arrangement on forests (AHEG1) convened from 24-28 February 2014 in Nairobi, Kenya. The expert group took note of the Co-Chairs' conclusions, which, inter alia, outline the achievements, strengths and weaknesses, as well as areas and options for action or improvement, of the: UNFF and its Secretariat; the Forest Instrument; the CPF; regional processes and organizations; and Major Groups.
On Monday, 12 January, AHEG Co-Chair Charles Barber (US) opened the meeting, noting that in 2015 the future of the IAF will be negotiated at UNFF11 and that several important international events related to forests will take place, including the World Forestry Congress in September 2015. He recalled the intersessional activities that have taken place since UNFF10, including the first meeting of the AHEG in February 2014 in Nairobi, Kenya, the two rounds of submissions of stakeholders' views on the IAF and its future, the Independent Assessment of the IAF, and the China Country Led Initiative (CLI) on the IAF held in Beijing, China, in October 2014.
AHEG Co-Chair Raymond Landveld (Suriname) noted that forests figure prominently in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) process. He said the main objective of AHEG2 is to identify the most suitable and viable options among those proposed by the Independent Assessment of the IAF and to provide views on what should be included in the UNFF11 resolution on the future of the IAF in the post-2015 development agenda.
Amb. Marianne Odette Bibalou (Gabon), on behalf of UNFF11 Bureau Chair Noel Nelson Messone, Minister for Forests, Environment and Protection of Natural Resources, Gabon, highlighted the "unprecedented and positive" foundation for UNFF11 created by AHEG1, the China CLI and other intersessional activities. She underscored that a solid outcome on the IAF is necessary to place forests higher on the post-2015 sustainable development and climate change agendas and that a future IAF should include measures that strengthen financing for SFM.
Noting that the IAF provides for the only universal, intergovernmental forum on forests, Thomas Gass, Assistant Secretary-General for Policy Coordination and Inter-Agency Affairs, UN Department of Social and Economic Affairs (UN DESA), stated that in the future the IAF will be in a unique position to monitor and ensure achievement of the forest-related goals and targets in the SDGs, and to serve as a "conduit" between the forest and development communities.
Manoel Sobral Filho, Director, UNFF Secretariat, outlined several priorities necessary to meet rising demand for forest products when forests are disappearing and degrading: mainstreaming forests into the sustainable development agenda; addressing unplanned and illegal deforestation; mobilizing financing for SFM, including from the private sector; and maintaining a coherent international governance arrangement.
Co-Chair Landveld then introduced the AHEG2 provisional agenda (E/CN. 18/AEG/2015/1) and the provisional organization of work, which was adopted without amendment.
On Monday, AHEG members listened to and discussed presentations on the: report of the Independent Assessment of the IAF; outcome of the China CLI workshop on the IAF beyond 2015; post-2015 sustainable development agenda process; and views of Member States, organizations and stakeholders on the IAF. On Tuesday through Thursday, AHEG members met in working groups to discuss: the Forest Instrument after 2015; implementation and financing of SFM after 2015; the UNFF and its Secretariat after 2015; the CPF after 2015; involvement of Major Groups after 2015; involvement of regional entities after 2015; and key issues for inclusion in the UNFF11 resolution on the IAF beyond 2015.
• Option 4, which is the same as Option 3 but with regional-level legally-binding agreements.
He stressed that with any of the options it would be essential for the post-2015 IAF to have a strategic plan that can be adapted to reflect changing circumstances and emerging issues.
In the ensuing discussion, several AHEG participants welcomed the report of the IAT, with Iran stressing the need for constructive discussions on the future of the IAF. China inquired on the research necessary to overcome the information gaps related to the four options and France asked about the criteria used to select the four options.
Latvia stated that a discussion of institutional arrangements should be guided by an understanding of the functions, objectives and roles of a new entity. Cuba characterized strengthening implementation and resolving financing issues as key to the future design of the IAF. Germany stressed the need to focus on how to operationalize the proposed options for strengthening the IAF.
Brazil asked for clarification on the role of the Special Envoy, and Chile cautioned that creating an assembly could imply that decisions are legally binding.
The EU said that governance at the global level should focus on enhancing and facilitating implementation at the national level, but cannot be a primary driver of national level implementation.
Finland noted the need to further elaborate on the developments that have taken place outside the UNFF and possible coordination with other conventions and processes. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO) called for future arrangements to give other UN agencies a commensurate role in the IAF to provide incentives for those agencies to participate.
Colombia asked how the strategic plan would guide or link the parallel tracks proposed under Option 3.
In response, the IAT stressed that the post-2015 IAF should focus on the concept of "stewardship," to ensure that forest-related issues are connected with other policy areas. The IAT further clarified that the four selected options were chosen because they are possible within UN DESA and most closely resemble the current process, and highlighted a strengthened Forest Instrument as the most attainable option. Team members noted that there are examples for options 1, 2 and 4 in other processes. On the role of the Special Envoy, the team explained that a charismatic individual could help bridge the divide between the public, including those responsible for managing forests, with the highest political levels.
On option 3, team members clarified that they envisioned a step-wise approach where countries would join a binding agreement when ready, whereas Option 4 entails regions moving at different speeds. Regarding strategic planning for parallel tracks, the IAT suggested that the tracks could merge over time, while sharing the same overall objectives.
OUTCOME OF THE WORKSHOP ON THE IAF BEYOND 2015: On Monday, workshop Co-Chair Peter Besseau (Canada) reviewed messages from the workshop held 29-31 October in Beijing, China, highlighting the six workshop themes: strengthening regional/subregional involvement; strengthening the role and functioning of the CPF; supporting the involvement of Major Groups and other stakeholders; upscaling the Facilitative Process; undertaking low-cost/high-value actions over a relevant two-to-three-year horizon; and identifying possible elements of a "strategic plan." He said while none of the workshop's individual suggestions are daunting, bundling them into a single strategic plan may prove difficult. He urged seeking a plan that is flexible and adaptable, rather than perfect.
UPDATE ON THE POST-2015 DEVELOPMENT AGENDA PROCESS: On Monday, UNFF Director Sobral Filho presented an update on the post-2015 sustainable development agenda process, highlighting the UN Secretary-General's Synthesis Report entitled "The road to dignity by 2030," issued in December 2015 and the High-level Plenary meeting of the UN General Assembly to be held from 25-27 September 2015 in New York for the adoption of the post-2015 development agenda. He reported that the outcome report of the high-level meeting may include: a declaration, SDGs and targets, means of implementation and global partnership for sustainable development, and follow up and review.
VIEWS OF MEMBER STATES, ORGANIZATIONS AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS: On Monday, AHEG members and observers presented their views on the future of the IAF.
Norway underscored the need to consider developments outside UNFF, and, with Mexico, Latvia, Canada and the European Union (EU), noted the need to avoid duplication and consider existing institutions, with some noting existing funding arrangements. Japan highlighted the role of UNFF as a facilitating platform to help countries take full advantage of existing frameworks and ensure the relationship between SFM, the SDGs and the post-2015 development agenda. Colombia urged engaging with the process for developing the indicators for the SDGs.
The US noted UNFF should capitalize on its strengths as an intergovernmental forum for discussion. She also said that AHEG2 should identify options that are not realistic in the immediate timeframe and produce concrete recommendations to UNFF11.
Nepal noted the slow implementation of the Forest Instrument and stressed the need for a dedicated forest fund.
Malaysia, with Ecuador, called for a legally-binding instrument (LBI), with sufficient funding to enable effective monitoring of SFM implementation. Brazil said that the political will to support the IAF is more important than the legal nature of the arrangement. While acknowledging the contribution of regional organizations, he noted coordination among them could be difficult due to their differences. He called for greater coordination among CPF members.
Latvia highlighted the need for the post-2015 arrangement to employ the principles of coordination, cooperation and synergy, include an accountability framework, and promote comprehensive stakeholder involvement.
The African Forest Forum noted the conflicting roles and responsibilities between UNFF and the CPF and called for clarity on this in the future IAF. She suggested that the UNFF Secretariat may not be the appropriate institution to implement the IAF.
Switzerland underlined the need to give forests a single voice at the UN and supported an "appropriate platform" for all forest-related processes, while noting that countries need to address internal coordination challenges.
The EU highlighted current shortcomings that the IAF should address, including a lack of interest from stakeholders and disconnection from forest-related discussions in other fora. Germany identified shortcomings, such as a lack of systematic implementation of the Forest Instrument and Facilitative Process and little follow-up on ministerial declarations and UNFF decisions, including on access to funding.
Iran expressed concern about how the UNFF could address the growing demands for timber. Noting the drivers of deforestation are often outside the forest sector, Canada, with Switzerland, called for engagement with other actors.
Indonesia said the current structure of the UNFF should be maintained, but expressed interest in the Special Envoy. India emphasized the need for a very long time horizon and engaging other sectors in forest policy. The Republic of Korea said it is imperative to integrate forestry issues more into the post-2015 SDG process before these are finalized.
FAO, for the CPF, reported that the CPF members produced "self-critical yet proactive" recommendations on its vision of the CPF after 2015, which he looked forward to discussing with AHEG participants during the meeting.
The Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) reported that, without pre-empting any decisions by UNFF11, CIFOR, the International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO) and the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) have preliminarily agreed to coordinate their contribution to the IAF under the CPF umbrella.
IUFRO underscored that deliberations on the future of the IAF and the post-2015 development agenda should provide stakeholders with opportunities to further strengthen the science-policy interface.
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Secretariat highlighted the forest-related aspects of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, including halving the rate of loss of all natural habitats, including forests, by 2020.
The International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO) supported an effective and efficient IAF including the CPF and any successor body.
NGOs endorsed creating a UN Special Envoy on Forests, establishing a UN Forest Assembly and creating a global forest fund.
Co-Chair Barber summarized the areas of emerging consensus as: no mere extension of the IAF; support for the Forest Instrument, even as its form is debated; the key role of the SDGs; keep UNFF or its successor within the UN; and involve more coordination, dialogue and forest financing mechanisms. He summarized that the areas requiring further discussion include: the legal status and character of the IAF; regional bodies; the need for an implementation body; the role of Major Groups; and the institutional options to be pursued.
On Wednesday morning in plenary, the Secretariat responded to some of the questions raised during Monday's discussion. He explained that, as proposed in the Independent Assessment Report, a Forest Assembly would have the same membership as the UNFF and also reside under ECOSOC. He said that the institutional arrangements seem the same, although it is up to members to determine if the functions would differ. On a Special Envoy on Forests, he reported that four Special Envoys exist for political issues, and no such envoy exists for a socio-economic or environmental issue. He related that the budgets for the current Special Envoys, ranging from US$700,000 to US$4.6 million per year, are to support their programmes of work, and not to pay the Envoy's salary.
THE FOREST INSTRUMENT AFTER 2015: This item was discussed in parallel working groups on Tuesday, 13 January. After a review of the nine actions and options regarding the Forest Instrument after 2015 proposed by the Independent Assessment Report and AHEG1, participants' discussions centered on: the legal form of the Instrument; the possibility of regional agreements; the timeframe for the global objectives on forests (GOFs) and the Instrument; and the means and extent of the update of the Instrument.
On the legal form, participants debated whether to recommend the negotiation of a legally-binding instrument or to retain the non-legally binding nature of the Instrument. Two developing countries said the NLBI is not delivering the desired results on financing, SFM and implementation, and it is time to negotiate an LBI.
Several countries suggested that an NLBI with political support may be more effective than an LBI with weak support, questioning the added value of an LBI. Two developing countries noted that uneven resources among countries would constrain the implementation of an LBI.
Some cautioned against re-opening the debate on the legal nature of the Instrument, saying that it would distort future negotiations, and a participant added that this debate has preoccupied negotiators for over 20 years.
A developed country stressed the need to narrow the focus, independently from the type of the instrument, which was seconded by a developing country that suggested identifying what priorities and challenges lie ahead and then choosing what legal form best addresses these challenges.
A regional group expressed interest in exploring a parallel track and asked the IAT for clarification on precedents for this approach and an IAT member explained the two-track process used in the regional seas conventions. A developed country said legally and non-legally binding approaches to the forest instrument could be mutually supportive. A developed country stated its opposition to a parallel track process.
Regarding regional agreements, a civil society group expressed support for an NLBI that aligns with the SDGs, and, with a developed country, for regional agreements. An observer noted that regional agreements could facilitate the implementation of SFM. A developed country noted the possible need for legal advice on how to recognize regional agreements and another added that UNFF can at best encourage, and not negotiate, regional agreements. By putting together some of the options, a developing country suggested a global framework with regional agreements.
On timeframes, several observed the benefits of aligning the Instrument and GOFs with the SDGs until 2030. A developed country expressed concern that 15 years could be too long and during that time circumstances could change. Several developed and developing countries supported periodic reviews, including the suggestion that such reviews be reflected in a strategic plan.
On updating the Instrument, many developed and developing countries expressed support for the content of the Instrument and the GOFs. While some suggested aligning the GOFs with the SDGs, others cautioned against creating duplication of efforts already underway. A civil society group underlined the need to reduce, where possible, fragmentation among the various institutions undertaking forest-related work and a developing country highlighted that climate change, the CBD's Aichi Targets and the sustainable development agenda should be part of UNFF's agenda.
Three developing country representatives suggested extending the number of GOFs while two other countries cautioned against this, saying that efforts should be directed to advance the objectives that exist and have not been implemented as envisioned. A civil society group called for the new Instrument to recognize the legal tenure rights of local communities and indigenous people.
Three countries asked about how to update the Instrument, with one requesting legal advice on this matter. An IAT member clarified that the report suggested very limited and minor changes in the NLBI text, with any significant additions or changes left to an addendum. He explained that this approach would avoid reopening a "can of worms" by renegotiating the Instrument.
Two developed countries and a regional group agreed that negotiations of the Instrument should not be reopened, but rather urged more promotion of the Instrument, which could include changing its name, and a developing country proposed "the UN Forest Charter." Calling previous agreements "sacrosanct," a developing country did not support changing the Instrument's name from NLBI. A developing country supported changing the name without changing the legal nature of the Instrument.
In both working groups, the Co-Chairs thanked the participants for their concrete proposals and said they would reflect these comments in the Co-Chairs' Summary.
On Wednesday morning in plenary, the Secretariat responded to the questions posed during the working groups. On the legal aspects of updating the Instrument, he explained that, since the Instrument is not legally binding, members would need only to agree to the text and forward it to the General Assembly for adoption. He added that any addendum to the Instrument must have the same legal character as the Instrument, meaning that UNFF members cannot decide to add a legally-binding addendum to the Instrument.
IMPLEMENTATION AND FINANCING OF SFM AFTER 2015: This item was discussed in parallel working groups on Tuesday afternoon. The Co-Chairs first reviewed the options generated by previous discussions in the China CLI workshop and AHEG1 as well as the Independent Assessment Report. Participants discussed implementation, with a focus on monitoring, assessment and reporting, separately from finance.
On implementation, several noted that the suggestions raised in previous meetings could be grouped into a recommendation on monitoring, assessment and reporting, and expressed support for strengthening these aspects of the IAF.
Several noted that setting a common basis for reporting on SFM status and development poses several challenges, and one participant proposed that a common basis should apply across the whole IAF and have a common reporting format. A developed country said competing terminology and processes have developed parallel to the UNFF, so the focus should be on where the IAF can provide added value, such as promoting a common understanding of what SFM implementation means.
A developed country suggested that there may be need for agreeing on a global set of criteria and indicators for SFM, and a developing country called for time-bound quantifiable targets that would add value to implementation and reporting. A developing country drew attention to the need for baseline data to measure progress against, and said support should be provided to countries in order to help establish the baselines. Drawing attention to a suggestion he made at a previous meeting, a developed country called for establishing a global forest indicators partnership, which would be placed under the UNFF or CPF.
Three developed countries noted the need to synchronize the UNFF reporting cycle with the FAO's Global Forest Resources Assessment, i.e. every five years.
A developed country called for further streamlining reporting, while another pointed to the new reporting format developed at UNFF10, and expressed concern over further streamlining this format. A developing country called for including more information in the reports, saying that the reporting format provides an opportunity for countries to collaborate internally to collect the data. A member of the IAT called attention to the rising number of national reports received, from 57 reports at UNFF10, which was a new record at the time, to 79 reports submitted for UNFF11. He credited this trend to the specific questions on the new template and support provided to countries for reporting.
Saying "we need something to measure, assess and report," a civil society participant called for actions that improve on-the-ground implementation, and suggested a capacity-building role for the UNFF to support the development of national plans and national forest inventories. A regional group said that the CPF should continue to serve as the monitoring, research and development arm that provides information to the UNFF. Two developed countries said that measurable results on SFM were needed.
On financing, participants discussed the Facilitative Process, the proposal to establish a strategic trust fund (STF), other sources of funding, and existing financing mechanisms and funds.
On the Facilitative Process, a developed country supported addressing activities under the Facilitative Process as core elements of the future IAF, with another asking what the difference was between the STF proposal and the idea behind the AHEG1 proposal to establish a "global forest mechanism." He called for clearer rules to govern the Facilitative Process, clearer strategic planning, priority setting, regular reporting and greater involvement of donors in the Process.
On the STF, a member of the IAT urged distinguishing between the proposals for the STF, which would catalyze Forest Instrument implementation at the national level, and the global forest fund, which would address the SFM needs of developing countries. A developed country did not support the establishment of a new forest fund but, with another developed country, welcomed the idea of a strategic fund. Recalling that establishment of a global forest fund was proposed at UNFF8, a developing country expressed hope that such fund will be created. Another country said deciding on the necessary funding should depend on first defining what the post-2015 IAF will seek to accomplish, and added that it did not support creating a global forest fund when so many complementary funding sources already exist for forests.
On other sources of funding, one developed country noted that ODA in the forest sector has increased and that new financing mechanisms exist, such as payment for ecosystem services. Another developed country urged countries to identify forests in their development priorities if they are going to seek funding from ODA.
A developed country called for closer collaboration between the UNFF and financing mechanisms that have been developed outside of the UNFF, notably reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries; and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries (REDD+) and the Global Environment Facility (GEF). A developing country agreed on the need for closer collaboration between UNFF and the GEF and highlighted the need for a dedicated source of funding for SFM not dependent entirely on private investments.
Some developing countries emphasized the need to develop UNFF's own funding, with a civil society group saying UNFF should not be a "parasite" on other processes.
A delegate noted that, while the private sector is identified as a Major Group, there is need to reflect on how to engage them, with a developing country underscoring the importance of creating enabling environments for private investment. Noting that private investments often do not address social and ecological functions of forests, a civil society group called for public accounting systems that recognize the multiple values of forests.
An IAT member cautioned against the assumption that accessing GEF funds for SFM is easy, with a participant adding that the application time and complexity for accessing GEF funds for SFM depends on each project, and the GEF is seeking to streamline the process. Another noted that during the GEF's fifth replenishment, from 2010 to 2014, the GEF spent US$700 million and expects a similar level of expenditure during the GEF's sixth replenishment, and underlined that these figures fall short of the goal of US$1 billion because countries have not prioritized forests in their System for Transparent Allocation of Resources (STAR) allocation. He urged countries to make use of the SFM/REDD+ Incentive Mechanism.
The Co-Chairs said that the discussions would be reflected in the Co-Chairs' Summary.
UNFF AND ITS SECRETARIAT AFTER 2015: This item was discussed in parallel working groups on Wednesday.
The Co-Chairs first reviewed the ideas put forward in AHEG1, the China CLI workshop and the Independent Assessment Report. Participants first considered UNFF as an intergovernmental body after 2015 and then turned to a discussion of the UNFF Secretariat.
On UNFF as an intergovernmental body after 2015, most of the interventions opposed changing the name of UNFF. Many speakers supported keeping the basic form of the Forum, although one developing country expressed interest in further assessing the possible benefits of a UN Forest Assembly. Two developing countries added that a UN Forest Assembly would be a good way to raise the profile of forests, and help connect the Forum or Assembly to the High-level Political Forum (HLPF) or the UN General Assembly. Another called for a specific timeframe, before UNFF11, for the deliberations on whether a UN Forest Assembly would be different from the UNFF in its function and format.
A civil society representative suggested exploring the option of a Special Envoy, while a developing country proposed that the UNFF Director, not an additional appointed individual, provide high-level leadership in order to secure effective stewardship of forests within the global sustainable development agenda.
Many participants discussed the need to clarify and possibly add new functions to UNFF after 2015. Several participants underlined that UNFF could promote coordination for integrated action and create synergies with other forest-related discussions, including the Rio Conventions. A developed country said a main function of the UNFF should be policy dialogue and development, while other participants highlighted the need to create links with the wider sustainable development agenda. A regional group added: securing long-term, high-level political commitment; strengthening understanding of SFM and its holistic nature; and galvanizing the interest of a wider range of stakeholders.
A developed country suggested that UNFF undertake clearinghouse functions and voluntary peer reviews of country policies so countries can learn from the policy experiences of others.
An IAT member emphasized the need for the future IAF to provide space in its programme of work for new and emerging issues.
Four developing countries urged UNFF to play a role in raising the profile of forest issues within the UN and attracting attention to the need for funding, with one participant underlining the need for political commitment to mobilize resources to assist countries implementing SFM and addressing deforestation and forest degradation. A civil society representative drew attention to the need to strengthen and manage the Facilitative Process and funding mechanisms to catalyze implementation of the Forest Instrument.
Participants also discussed: adopting a strategic plan to guide UNFF work; limiting UNFF sessions to one week and undertaking more active intersessional work, such as through regular working groups, AHEGs and/or virtual meetings.
On the UNFF Secretariat, several participants noted that the mandate of the Secretariat should follow from the functions of the UNFF, with one participant underlining the Secretariat's only function as providing support to the UNFF.
Stating that undertaking strategic and analytical work could open the door to duplicative efforts, a developed and a developing country expressed concern that the UNFF Secretariat should be asked to undertake these roles. One participant expressed support for the Secretariat to coordinate monitoring, assessment and reporting. Several participants called for clearly delineating the roles and responsibilities of the UNFF Secretariat and the CPF.
A developing country urged making the Secretariat more action oriented, and finding resources to allow it to launch "regional projects," which would be guided by UNFF and discussed at subsequent meetings to provide lessons learned on implementation. Another added that the Secretariat should have a facilitating role in helping countries overcome challenges for SFM implementation. Another developing country suggested that the Secretariat should engage with actors outside the forest sectors.
Two developed countries expressed concern that it may not be feasible to provide more posts from the regular UN budget, with one suggesting that this option could be removed from the list of options. One participant said that resources should be found from within UN DESA and not from increased contributions, while another asked about changes expected within UN DESA in relation to the post-2015 development agenda.
A participant suggested that the Secretariat's capacity and resources be consistent with its mandate and function, and a developing country underlined that the Secretariat's resources should be commensurate with the strengthened functions of the future UNFF. A developed country called for discussing how to enhance the contribution of the UNFF Bureau to facilitate the functioning of the Secretariat.
Two countries agreed on the importance of a strengthened Secretariat and said they have started to contribute to the UNFF Trust Fund. Participants also discussed the possibility of strengthening the Secretariat through secondments from other organizations including through remote working arrangements.
THE COLLABORATIVE PARTNERSHIP ON FORESTS AFTER 2015: This item was first discussed in plenary on Wednesday, when the CPF presented its views on the future of the CPF, and then discussed in parallel working groups.
• considering the options of a CPF trust fund, a strategic plan for the CPF including a budgeted work plan, and a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between CPF members or a UN General Assembly resolution on the CPF.
During the discussion, participants considered the science-policy interface and possible institutional reforms to the CPF.
On the science-policy interface, one developing country underscored the role of the CPF in the forest science-policy nexus, including other forest-related processes. A developing country called for a more systematic approach to identify policy questions requiring input from the scientific community. Instead of creating new institutions, two participants preferred using existing bodies that already provide expertise, such as IUFRO, CIFOR, ICRAF, and the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). A developed country asked how the CPF or UNFF could better interact with IPBES, since 80% of biodiversity is in forests.
An IAT member noted that the independent assessment found that UNFF has tended to impose a heavy workload on the CPF and stressed the need for selective requests based on the future strategic plan. One developed country favored expanding the role of the CPF to support other forest-related processes, and a developing country supported the idea that the UN should recognize the CPF in all forest-related matters. A developed country observed that CPF actions may include actions by a subset of CPF members, but to be considered CPF actions they have to be approved by the CPF.
Recalling that the original ECOSOC decision is an invitation for the CPF to support the Forum, a participant suggested leaving the "form" of the CPF to its members to organize themselves, and instead focus on how UNFF can provide the "function" to the CPF, in terms of asking for concrete deliverables. He suggested, with some other countries, a workplan be developed that clarifies the deliverables the CPF is expected to produce and when the Partnership reports back to the Forum.
Two developed countries noted that a slightly more formalized CPF would facilitate catalyzing voluntary contributions, including by CPF members. Two developing countries noted that establishing more than one trust fund may not be realistic at UNFF11. A CPF member welcomed the proposals to formalize the partnership, for example through a MOU among the CPF agencies, and to establish an additional, stable CPF fund.
A developing country suggested following the example of UN Water, which was not supported by another participant who expressed concern that it is a significantly different mechanism. Another participant queried if organizations outside the UN system could become members of a possible UN Forests.
The Co-Chairs assured participants that the discussion would be reflected in the Co-Chairs' summary.
INVOLVEMENT OF MAJOR GROUPS AFTER 2015: This item was discussed in parallel working groups on Wednesday afternoon.
All interventions recognized the role of Major Groups in the work of the IAF. A developed country called for engaging the Major Groups more during intersessional work and in UNFF deliberations. A regional civil society group called for genuine engagement of all stakeholders in the planning, management and implementation of SFM policies and another participant underlined that Major Groups represent those who are managing forests on the ground.
On behalf of several Major Groups, a participant called for: recognizing and granting official status to the Major Groups Partnership on Forests (MGPOF) as the official coordination body of Major Groups; exploring an independent accreditation process; establishing a coordination mechanism between MGPOF and the CPF; and funding on an ad hoc basis to support the MGPOF's activities.
A representative of a Major Group urged: encouraging governments to collaborate with Major Groups at the national level and including them on their delegations; considering a comparative review of how convention bodies, UN bodies and CPF members interact with Major Groups; and raising the profile of the Forum in the private sector.
An IAT member, with a few developed countries, stressed the importance of finding ways to engage the private sector, with one country observing that the recent New York Declaration on Forests, adopted during the 2014 UN Secretary-General's Climate Summit, is an example of a partnership among governments, companies and civil society engaged in forest-related initiatives.
The Co-Chairs thanked the Major Groups for their inputs and said the discussion would be reflected in the Co-Chairs' summary.
INVOLVEMENT OF REGIONAL ENTITIES AFTER 2015: This item was discussed in parallel working groups on Wednesday afternoon.
Noting that forest challenges differ significantly across regions, a country stressed that a clear role for regional processes was important for the post-2015 IAF, while a developed country expressed skepticism about the IAT's proposal to organize new regional meetings.
A UN regional commission noted the regional commissions' role in the development of the SDGs and post-2015 development agenda, including forest-related SDGs. A developing country called for promoting a regional role in the Facilitative Process. A developed country, supported by a regional civil society group, called for more engagement of Major Groups at the regional level.
A civil society member characterized the need to engage regional bodies as a "very strong" message from AHEG1 and urged clarity on which regional groups the Forum intended to work with. An IAT member, supported by a developing country, discussed the role of Association of Southeast Asian Nations in promoting regional cooperation on forestry issues and another developing country suggested a recommendation that regional bodies include forest issues on their agenda.
A participant queried if in the IAT's proposal, regional organizations would be expected to fund the regional meetings, or if the funds would come from the global level. Recalling the intention is to encourage "cross pollination" between the global and regional levels, a developing country said that the benefits of collaboration between the global and regional levels may outweigh the costs.
The Co-Chairs encouraged participants to continue informal discussions and to bring ideas forward during their discussion of the Co-Chairs' summary.
KEY ISSUES FOR INCLUSION IN THE RESOLUTION OF UNFF11 ON THE IAF BEYOND 2015: On Thursday morning, the Co-Chairs began the discussion by circulating a draft paper on "Elements/Components to Include in UNFF11 Resolution on Future IAF," which Co-Chair Landveld confirmed is intended to be an annex to the Co-Chairs' summary. The paper included a preambular section and an operative section with proposed agreements on: the future of the Forest Instrument; strengthening the intergovernmental machinery of the future IAF; developing a strategic plan for the future of the IAF; and the post-UNFF11 intersessional work. On the intergovernmental machinery, the draft suggests, inter alia: establishing a standing body on the future UNFF; strengthening monitoring, assessment and reporting; establishing a STF; strengthening the CPF; encouraging greater involvement of Major Groups; and improving communication between the CPF and regional entities.
In the discussion, AHEG participants made general comments, as well as specific comments on the STF, the CPF and other issues.
Among the general comments, a developing country cautioned against making the paper too prescriptive. A developed country stated that the document should be high-level and noted that the section on intersessional work was prescriptive while the suggestion to encourage the participation of Major Groups was too general.
Several countries supported adding context on the basic objectives, functions and principles for the post-2015 IAF, and what would be handled intersessionally afterward. One developed country suggested mentioning the functions of the future IAF as described in the Independent Assessment report and a developing country suggested including the four options outlined in the report.
A developed country further suggested: discussing IAF components rather than "machinery;" elaborating on the restructuring of Forum sessions; and providing more detail on the intersessional process after UNFF11, including what issues it would be assigned, a roadmap, and how it would link to the post-2015 development agenda. Another agreed, and suggested the paper should be clearer about the Secretariat's functions and have sub-sections on the STF and on the CPF and its role in the IAF.
A developed country suggested creating a section for ongoing work, such as on monitoring, assessment and reporting, clarifying that this is different from the establishment of new bodies, as envisioned in the section on the machinery of the future IAF.
A developed country called for further clarity on the relationships between the IAF and other relevant conventions and processes and said the current draft underestimates the policy dialogue function of the IAF. Another developing country, supported by another participant, called for the SDGs to be mentioned in the operative paragraphs. A developed country called for clarification on the value added of the UNFF vis-à-vis the UN Environment Assembly, the HLPF and other bodies. A developing country, supported by a developed country, highlighted the need for promoting high-level awareness of the linkages between the UNFF and other cross-cutting environmental processes.
A Major Group suggested considering a long-term vision for forests and a mechanism to adjust to new and emerging issues.
A developed country said the paper should outline clearly what fundamental decisions need to be taken by UNFF11, such as the core mandate of the post-2015 IAF with another underlining that this discussion should not prejudge the UNFF11 resolution.
On the STF, two developing countries underscored the need for including capacity building and technology transfer. A developed country cautioned against giving too much prominence to financing as the IAF is not just a financing institution. Another participant noted that additional resources could be raised from partnerships with a range of actors.
A developing country proposed that the STF should be a "mixed fund" that can finance the development of national action plans as well as the establishment of sustainable development programmes and SFM.
Two developed countries underlined that the document should explicitly state that contributions to a fund should be voluntary.
A developing country suggested having a more structured and clearer document and queried why some elements, such as a global forest fund, were not included and Co-Chair Landveld clarified that the document only represents areas where emerging convergence was noted. Recalling a Group of 77 and China proposal made at UNFF8 for a global forest fund included considerations such as the provision of resources, governance, funding targets and operational and reporting procedures, another developing country asked that the UNFF8 proposal be circulated to AHEG2 members.
A CPF member sought clarification if the phrase "interagency collaboration mechanism" in the EU submission would exclude non-UN agencies, underlining the importance of scientific and research organizations, which are not UN agencies, to the CPF and the UNFF. She said a workplan and budget for the CPF would be useful to improve its accountability, and recalled that there is a timeline for the CPF to report to UNFF. Another CPF member added that CPF members should be able to internally decide issues such as chairing arrangements.
A regional group clarified that their submission intended that an interagency cooperation mechanism would include non-UN organizations.
On other issues, some countries highlighted that the document should be more specific regarding how to support the involvement of Major Groups. A Major Group suggested: the UNFF recognize the MGPOF as a permanent observer; countries include Major Groups in their delegations; the UNFF establish a Major Group accreditation body; and resources be devoted to encourage greater participation of Major Groups and their coordination bodies in UNFF activities.
A developed country expressed concerns over possible budgetary implications of some ideas such as intersessional bodies or establishing a STF, and another requested the paragraph referring to Secretariat resources be removed saying that this is not an issue for the AHEG to discuss.
A regional group asked about the difference between an ad hoc group and a working group and the Co-Chairs responded that an ad hoc group is temporary and its conclusions can be reversed by the Forum, while a working group can negotiate, agree and provide decisions to the Forum. The Secretariat added that a working group is granted access to full conference services and participation of all Member States, while an ad hoc group is not.
Co-Chair Barber said the Co-Chairs' summary will reflect these inputs.
On Friday, AHEG members discussed the Co-Chairs' summary and recommendations, which is annexed to the Co-Chairs' summary of the points of emerging convergence and where there seems to be differences as well as additional points on: the Forest Instrument; implementation and financing of SFM; the UNFF and its Secretariat; CPF; involvement of Major Groups; involvement of regional entities; and the discussion of elements or components to include in a UNFF11 resolution. The recommendations by the Co-Chairs on the future of the IAF consist of a preambular and an operative section. The preambular section includes: recognizing the contributions of the current IAF; emphasizing the need for a strengthened IAF beyond 2015, in particular in relation to advancing implementation and mobilizing financing; noting the developments related to forests in other fora; stressing the critical significance of the future IAF to position and integrate itself in the broader context of the post-2015 development agenda; and further emphasizing that the future IAF should be based on the principles of promoting coherence and value-addition by continuing to be a universal body for policy dialogue on all issues related to all types of forests.
• the post-UNFF11 roadmap or intersessional work.
On strengthening UNFF, the recommendations include: establishing an STF to advance implementation of SFM through the UNFF Facilitative Process; strengthening the human and financial resources of the Secretariat; and ensuring full coherence with the post-2015 development agenda, including through making the UNFF the body to report on the implementation of the forest-related SDGs.
Characterizing the importance of the Co-Chairs' summary as an important input to UNFF11, some countries underlined the need to discuss all sections of the document. Germany and the EU underlined the need to include the discussions of the shortcomings of the current arrangements. FAO, for the CPF, called for consistency in the terms used to describe the CPF. Cuba called for terminology that recognizes that access to finance is the "key" issue for developing countries.
Brazil noted that there was emerging consensus to update the Forest Instrument, but not on the form that the update may take. The US said that there was emerging consensus on the need to streamline the functions of the UNFF and the need for a cost-effective IAF that adds value, avoids duplication and promotes coherence. Japan suggested that the need to make clear that STF contributions would be voluntary was an area of emerging consensus. NGOs, for the MGPOF, stated that there was emerging consensus on: promoting Major Groups' participation, maintaining the multi-stakeholder nature of the Forum; and establishing cooperation and collaboration between the CPF and MGPOF.
The EU suggested a chapeau recognizing that the discussion thus far represents consideration of "low hanging fruits," but that all options remain on the table.
On the process moving forward, Switzerland noted that the Independent Assessment was requested in UNFF Resolution 10/2 and, supported by China, requested the Independent Assessment Report be formally presented at UNFF11. China reiterated the need to fully make use of the options presented in the report. Finland recalled the "very good" discussions at AHEG1 of the strengths and weaknesses of various elements of the IAF, and suggested that the AHEG1 report be an input to UNFF11.
The Co-Chairs explained that the AHEG2 report incorporated all the previous inputs to the IAF review process.
In response to a query from Latvia on the process toward UNFF11, the Co-Chairs also clarified that there will be no further inputs collected on the Co-Chairs' Summary after AHEG2, and that it will be up to the UNFF Bureau to consider the best way to conduct informal consultations between AHEG2 and UNFF11, building on the Co-Chairs' Summary for inclusion in the UNFF11 resolution on the future of the IAF.
In the afternoon, participants turned to the recommendations by the Co-Chairs on the future IAF, discussing both the preamble and operative section.
On the preamble, Norway called for avoiding language that implied a hierarchy among forest-related institutions, recalling that UNFF cannot "coordinate" other institutions. The EU called for a reference to the lessons learned from the shortcomings of the current arrangement to avoid replication of these shortcomings in the future.
Regarding the operative sections, participants discussed the references to other bodies, financing, the CPF, updating the Forest Instrument, the post-UNFF11 roadmap and other elements.
Regarding other forest-related bodies, Latvia suggested UNFF should also provide solutions for achieving SDG targets, not only report on them. Norway asked if the UNFF could decide that it would be the forum for reporting on and implementing the forest-related SDG actions, and, with Canada and the US, instead suggested that UNFF extend an invitation to the SDG process to contribute to the post-2015 development agenda's forest-related work. Canada requested removing reference to the HLPF given the uncertainty about the functions of this body.
The EU suggested a reference to a better use of existing sources of funds.
Regarding the CPF, Ukraine stressed the need for cooperation in addition to communication between the CPF and regional entities. Chile suggested the development of a CPF workplan, rather than a strategic plan. Germany cautioned against a business-as-usual approach to redefining the roles of a strengthened CPF.
FAO, for the CPF, requested deleting reference to "formalizing" the CPF and to the strategic workplan, as she said this does not exist yet, and underlined that working modalities should be decided among CPF members.
Regarding updating the Forest Instrument, Brazil, with Chile and Cuba, urged keeping all the options for the possible means to update the Instrument, such a resolution or an addendum, open, with Chile noting the possibility of the adoption of an LBI.
Regarding the post-UNFF11 roadmap, the US, Chile, and the EU expressed concern that this section may prejudge what UNFF11 will decide regarding intersessional work.
Regarding other elements in the resolution, NGOs called for concrete opportunities for the involvement of Major Groups, including through the provision of adequate resources. France noted that the proposal for strengthening the human and financial resources of the Secretariat seems premature given that the future functions of the Secretariat have not been agreed.
Children and Youth reiterated their suggestion to consider how the UNFF could take up emerging issues in the future. Germany highlighted that high-level commitments are an important political issue that require a separate section. The Russian Federation called for a new section underlining the importance of regional processes, such as the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe.
France noted that the proposal for a global forest indicators partnership has not been discussed or agreed yet.
Latvia remarked that participant's proposed modifications should be kept as options since not all countries have agreed on them. Co-Chair Barber reiterated that this is not a negotiated document but a Co-Chairs' summary and stated that comments will be presented as options. Panama, with Brazil, called for more clarity on the text and better reflection of the discussions in the working groups.
Co-Chair Landveld suggested, and members agreed, that AHEG2 take note of the Co-Chairs' Summary as annexed to the report of the meeting.
The Secretariat presented the new website for the Facilitative Process (http://unff-fp.un.org/), which provides information on UNFF projects and related reports. Participants asked, inter alia, why small island developing states (SIDS) and countries with low forest cover are highlighted and whether countries can report on the projects implemented as a result of the Facilitative Process.
In response, the Secretariat explained that SIDS and countries with low forest cover were prioritized because these categories experienced the sharpest decline in forest funding in the last decade. Another member of the Secretariat underscored that the impacts of the Facilitative Process are limited because resources are limited. He drew attention to the limited capacity of the Secretariat to help developing countries access the funds available for SFM, particularly GEF funds. He agreed that it is important to record the benefit of the Facilitative Process's efforts.
Co-Chair Landveld drew attention to the report of the session and, without amendment, AHEG2 took note of the report.
UNFF11 Bureau Chair Noel Nelson Messone, Minister of Forests, Environment and Protection of Natural Resources, Gabon, congratulated participants for setting a positive tone for the discussions and convergence of views at UNFF11. He explained that the Bureau will build upon this meeting to chart the next steps toward UNFF11 and appealed to participants for their continued collaboration and preparation.
Co-Chair Landveld gaveled the meeting to a close at 5:11 pm.
As if that task itself was not daunting enough, the AHEG2 Co-Chairs reminded participants at the opening session to bear in mind the broader context: 2015 is the year that the SDGs and post-2015 development agenda will be adopted at the September 2015 Summit for the Adoption of the Post-2015 Development Agenda and a climate agreement is supposed to be concluded in Paris in December, all of which will affect forests and their role in environmental protection and socio-economic development.
This brief analysis considers the extent to which AHEG2 fulfilled its mandate to provide forward-looking advice to enable UNFF11 to determine the future of the IAF.
UNFF10 tasked the AHEG to consider a wide range of inputs, and based on these views, to fashion a workable menu of options for UNFF11 to consider in its redesign of the IAF. UNFF Resolution 10/2 called for the AHEG to sift through numerous inputs, including a lengthy independent assessment and dozens of country and stakeholder submissions, to review all possible options for all the components of the IAF as well as its role in the post-2015 development agenda.
The AHEG's task was complicated by the timing of the production of the independent assessment, whose version with the full analysis and options was only released after AHEG1 in September 2014, allowing only three months for national capitals to digest and discuss the report and its recommendations before experts convened in New York for AHEG2.
Left with five days to review both the report and a second round of national submissions, AHEG2 managed to discuss the main suggestions from the various inputs, clarify government and stakeholder positions, examine all components, and sketch out basic elements for a UNFF11 resolution.
The AHEG2 Co-Chairs' summary document―the outcome of the review process―reflects a range of views and provides recommendations on elements for the future IAF. As a result, many thought AHEG2 fulfilled this mandate, noting that the document provides "strategic direction" and a solid basis for UNFF11 to discuss the function and institutional arrangements of the post-2015 IAF.
During the week "emerging convergence" was noted on many topics that are reflected in both the Co-Chairs' summary and the elements for a draft resolution, and these could very well shape the negotiations at UNFF11. By providing a forum for initial discussion and deliberation of many of the possible options for the future IAF, AHEG2 identified some options that were politically infeasible, or for which parties did not show an appetite. It became clear during the week that there was only limited support for proposals for a UN Forest Assembly or Special Envoy on Forests. In addition, the discussions illustrated that long-standing divides remain regarding whether to: negotiate a legally-binding instrument, reopen the carefully-crafted compromises contained in the Forest Instrument, or revisit negotiations on a Global Forest Fund. However, there was emerging convergence on clearly tying the post-2015 IAF to forest-related elements of the SDGs, adjusting the working modalities with the CPF, and adopting a concise strategic plan to focus and guide post-2015 IAF work.
In the end, AHEG2 produced a summary document that identifies the range of opinions, and areas where there may be future agreement, as well as recommendations for incremental change to the IAF.
For many, this outcome was not wholly unexpected. The original mandate from UNFF10 was so comprehensive, AHEG2 had many inputs to digest, while trying to balance divergent views on the future for the IAF in an increasingly congested landscape of institutions working on forest-related governance, that ten days of discussion over two years could not cover all aspects in great depth.
Substantively, participants acknowledged that a clear constraint on the review process was the differing views of the niche that the future IAF will occupy in the crowded field of institutions undertaking forest-related work. Disagreement among Member States about what they want from the IAF has dogged UNFF for many years and there is no clear solution in sight. Throughout the week many experts urged focusing first on the core mission, functions and value added of the post-2015 IAF vis-à-vis other institutions. Where some viewed the future UNFF as an implementation and reporting body serving the post-2015 development agenda, others envisioned a new IAF as an umbrella for all other forest-related work in the international arena.
Several delegates suggested a step-wise approach to reforming the IAF, whereas others sought a more comprehensive set of decisions. Some argued that UNFF11 should focus primarily on achieving consensus on these fundamental questions, with decisions on operationalization aspects (UNFF process, Secretariat, new funds, the relationship with the CPF, and relationship with Major Groups) to come later after the September 2015 Summit for the Adoption of the Post-2015 Development Agenda. As the European Commission and Latvia repeatedly urged during AHEG2, "form will follow function." Yet as some developing countries suggested, the form, in the shape of the non-legally binding instrument, was clear and what was really needed was on-the-ground implementation, accompanied by sufficient financing to achieve sustainable forest management.
In fact, the ongoing work to finalize and adopt the SDGs and post-2015 development agenda presented a moving target for AHEG2. Since there appeared to be growing consensus that the IAF's linkages to the SDGs and post-2015 development agenda are critical, certain aspects of IAF reform may not be able to be finalized at UNFF11 and will have to await the outcome of the September 2015 Summit. While nearly all agree some sort of follow-up to that Summit will be needed, the exact shape and timing of the follow-up process―another AHEG or a special UNFF session in 2016―is still open for debate.
Since no options can be taken off the table before Member States convene for UNFF11 in May, the Forum will be still be faced with a wide list of issues and options to choose from. Nevertheless, AHEG2 provided a short list of palatable options. Whether UNFF11 delegates choose to consider these expert suggestions or ignore them and revert to prior Forum debates over finance and an LBI―perennial flashpoints at UNFF sessions―may make all the difference in UNFF11's outcome.
This issue of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin © <enb@iisd.org> is written and edited by Jennifer Allan, Vivienne Caballero, Keith Ripley and Laura Russo. The Digital Editor is Mike Muzurakis. The Editor is Pamela Chasek, Ph.D. <pam@iisd.org>. The Director of IISD Reporting Services is Langston James "Kimo" Goree VI <kimo@iisd.org>. The Sustaining Donors of the Bulletin are the European Commission (DG-ENV and DG-CLIMATE), the Government of Switzerland (the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) and the Swiss Agency for Development Cooperation (SDC)), and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. General Support for the Bulletin during 2015 is provided by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB), the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, SWAN International, the Finnish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, the Japanese Ministry of Environment (through the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies - IGES), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and the International Development Research Centre (IDRC). Funding for translation of the Bulletin into French has been provided by the Government of France, the Wallonia, Québec, and the International Organization of La Francophonie/Institute for Sustainable Development of La Francophonie (IOF/IFDD). The opinions expressed in the Bulletin are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of IISD or other donors. Excerpts from the Bulletin may be used in non-commercial publications with appropriate academic citation. For information on the Bulletin, including requests to provide reporting services, contact the Director of IISD Reporting Services at <kimo@iisd.org>, +1-646-536-7556 or 300 East 56th St., 11D, New York, NY 10022 USA.
© 2015, IISD. All rights reserved.


"Great!" you might think. And so did we. At least at first.
However, we swiftly realised that our brand mention in last week's paper, rather than casting us in a positive light, was actually mocking a recent survey that we'd commissioned looking into office workers' opinion on their workspace.
Our 'yay' changed to 'hey' quite quickly, with sad faces all round.
Now, the good news is that Alistair, as opposed to taking the survey at headline value and merely dismissing it, did actually dig a little deeper and look at the blog on our website summarising the wider results (well, we're presuming he must have done to know about the breakout area element – as it wasn't mentioned in the release we sent him) before then covering it with an exasperated nib.
OK, we hold our hands up at this point and say, "Fair play, Guv," you've rumbled us. There is a vested interest in us doing the study. Ideally, we'd love the clamour for an office breakout area to be so loud that every employer would be beating down our showroom doors (the largest in Europe, fyi), desperate to buy a table tennis table to fend off hordes of ping pong starved employees, demanding access to a lunch time game.
Sadly, that isn't the case...and to be fair, we hope that never will be, as it all sounds a little too apocalyptic for our taste, on reflection.
Alistair clearly wasn't too impressed. And we certainly get why. He's no doubt inundated with all sorts of ridiculous surveys (with many likely simply made up) so just plucked ours out of the pile. In all honesty then, we're actually pleased he did, even if he was taking the proverbial out of us! A mention in The Times isn't to be sniffed at, even if they're sniffing at us.
The research was though, carried out by an independent research company, which canvassed authentic office workers' opinion. OK, yes, we admit that the line of questioning was geared towards breakout areas specifically – but that's because that's what we wanted to know. After all, it's what we do, and where we can help.
The findings are genuine, all the same, even if breakout areas have a heavy focus.
The mention was picked up on Twitter by Merryn Somerset Webb, Editor in chief of Moneyweek, no less, who pointed out that what workers really want is more money and more holiday. Now, that's fair enough – we absolutely agree with that, Merryn. However, even if your workforce only works 8 months a year and all earn £100k, an agreeable, engaging office space is conducive to both improved wellbeing and better productivity, regardless.
It's possible to improve working conditions in other areas, not just by boosting pay and holiday, after all. So, a brief plug to all employers: breakout areas are great for teambuilding, reduced screen time and improving physical activity, and we've got all the things you need, right here.
"The lack of ping pong represents all that's wrong with society today."
A simply magnificent strapline, which we're going to run with going forward.
*"Hello, now there's an idea!" said the surface repair specialist.


Winning University from Konica Minolta's International University Contest comes from South Africa | Document Advisors | IDeAs blog, for better document strategies.
On April 29th in Berlin, Konica Minolta staged the final of the International University Contest, in which university students from around the world were invited to submit innovative workflow solutions relating to aspects of academic life. Steven Swift of IDeAs, and Co-Chairman of IMPSGA, was invited to be one of the judges, as an independent industry representative, charged with evaluating the entries and selecting the winner.
Busisiwe Rekhostso, a student from the winning team from the Vaal Technical University of South Africa, emphasised "The contest was a wonderful experience and a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to meet new and interesting people. Over the course of the competition, I spent many hours with many different people, listening to them and talking with them about their goals and plans for the future. It was incredibly exciting to be able to compete and interact with them. The experience has been tremendously rewarding and beyond breathtaking." And Prince Madumise, another student from the winning team, adds: "Thank you for the opportunity you gave us. We had an amazing time in Berlin. We still, after the trip, cannot believe we were in a distant foreign land." In June, the 5 winners will attend the Pioneers Festival in Vienna, Austria, where smart start-ups present innovations of the future (1-2 June 2017).
The winning team was chosen by a top-class jury consisting of renowned members such as Alastair Creelman, a leading e-learning specialist from Linnaeus University, based in Sweden, and Steven Swift, founder of the IMPSGA alliance and industry analyst.
Speakers completing the event included Oliver Csendes, CEO of Pioneers, who provided an overview of this year's Pioneers Festival, and Milan Lakhani, client principal and innovation strategist within Konica Minolta's European Business Innovation Centre (BIC), who gave an insight into Konica Minolta's approach to innovation.
Following on from the success of this year's contest, Konica Minolta has decided to run the competition again in 2018.
This article was written on 16 May 2017, and is filled under Event.


text:
HomeRoyalsMeghan Markle opened up about suicidal thoughts so 'no one feels alone'
Meghan Markle opened up about suicidal thoughts so 'no one feels alone'
(Getty)
The Duchess of Sussex has revealed that she opened up about having suicidal thoughts because "I don't want anyone to feel alone".
At the Ripple of Hope Awards in New York on Tuesday, Meghan, 41, was asked why she decided to talk about that period in her life during her and Prince Harry's interview with Oprah Winfrey in 2021.
Page Six reports that the mum-of-two told the crowd: "I don't want anyone to feel alone.
"And when you've been through anything that's challenging, and everyone, especially in the past few years with lockdown and COVID, that spike in numbers of people having an experience they might not be voicing."
"We all need to, when we can, if we feel brave enough, to just speak honestly about your own experience," she said: "It gives other people space and the courage to do the same, but more than that to really feel like you're not alone because I think that is often what can be the largest hindrance when you feel that way, you don't see a way out."
The Sussexes received the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Award in honor of their "heroic" stance against racism within the royal family.
After picking up their award, Meghan added of her decision to speak out: "But ultimately, if you feel like there's someone else that has a lived experience, they've gotten to the other side, and gave example of resilience, an example of 'there is a happy ending', I think that's what most people are probably seeking out in those moments.
"And that's why I made the decision to just say 'if my experience can help someone else not feel the same way or to know that there's hope then it's worth every second of whatever comes with it.'"
Meghan admitted she had suicidal thoughts when pregnant with son Archie, saying during the 2021 Oprah interview: "I was really ashamed to say it and to admit it to Harry, because I know how much loss he has suffered. But I knew if I didn't say it, that I would do it and I just didn't want to be alive anymore and that was a very clear and real and frightening constant thought."
Previous articleRyan Reynolds jokes about 'inexcusable' photo with pregnant Blake Lively
Next articleBritney Spears 'had questions' about Justin Timberlake new flame after split

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Discussing the impacts of the Suncor shutdown
A spokesperson said in a statement that they expect to return to normal operations by "late Q1 2023," meaning around March.
COMMERCE CITY, Colo. — The state's only refinery, Suncor, seemingly has an impact, in some way, on most Coloradans.
However, what that impact is exactly depends on who you talk to.
"The biggest concern of the residents here in Commerce City has been the air quality," said Olga Gonzalez, the executive director of the Adams County-based nonprofit, Cultivando.
Her organization teamed up with Boulder AIR to install an air monitor in the area of the refinery, which is supposed to track the level of pollutants in the general area.
In December, the Suncor refinery entered a "shutdown" due to equipment damage. A spokesperson said in a statement that they expect to return to normal operations by "late Q1 2023", meaning around March.
The shutdown could hold impacts on both nearby residents and those across the entire state.
But Gonzalez hopes to take the time, while the refinery is shut down, as a learning opportunity.
"...and we'll continue to monitor what is happening during the three months and we'll be able to compare and contrast what the readings are showing," she said.
Credit: Luis de Leon
Gonzalez examines the air monitor nearby the Suncor refinery.
Keeping a close eye
Cultivando has been tracking air pollutants in Commerce City for around a year now, with a mobile air monitor in the Globeville-Elyria-Swansea area.
"This means so much to me because there are many families and children who live in this community. People sometimes forget that because they see the factories and everything," she said. "But we have had community members who've lived here for decades, and so we are concerned about the cumulative effect of living under these conditions every single day of their lives."
A spokesperson said in a statement in part that they are now in "safe mode" and that their investigation and repairs are ongoing.
Among other things, safe mode means that they have "reduced feedstock and have de-pressurized equipment."
"Flaring continues to be needed as we prepare equipment for maintenance, and it is controlled within emission limits," the statement adds in part. "While we work to repair and then re-start different areas of the refinery, there may be noise and traffic related to our operations."
As for the air monitoring operation, Detlev Helmig, an atmospheric scientist, who is also the owner and principal for Boulder AIR, says as of now, it's too early to determine whether or not there is an official significant difference between when Suncor was up and shut down.
"So we were just coming up to speed last year in January, February or March. So we're really slow on comparison data from last January, unfortunately," he said over the phone Thursday.
However, they anticipate having more concrete comparisons in the coming weeks and months as the shut down persists.
Helmig says they are monitoring anywhere between 25 to 30 different pollutants, each of which hold a different history, origin emission patterns and sources.
Additionally, he explained that it's important to note that weather can play a role in the readings they receive.
"And this complexity is that what we observe from the atmosphere is also driven very much so by the seasonal cycle - the seasonal behavior. In the winter, pollutants accumulate much more near the surface than during the warmer time of the year," he explained.
The impacts of the shut down however, extend also to consumers across the state.
A piece of the air monitor in Commerce City near the Suncor refinery.
Michael Orlando is a former petroleum engineer who is now a managing director with Econ One and an adjunct professor in the Global Energy Management Program at the University of Colorado Denver Business School.
While prices at the pump have fluctuated recently, he doesn't expect consumers to feel as big of an impact as expected.
"But I do think consumers should expect more volatility in prices. And so to the extent they're going to change their their driving or shopping patterns, it's got probably more to do with volatility than with average prices," he said.
While the refinery produces about 35% to 40% of the gas and diesel sold in Colorado, the majority of the fuel comes through pipelines and over roadways from refineries in neighboring states like Wyoming, Kansas and Texas, he said.
"Now, if we consider that overall distribution marketing costs make up 15% of the price of a gallon of gasoline, that's less than $0.50 per gallon at current prices that's going to distribution and marketing," he said. "So even based on a simplistic analysis, the most additional cost we can imagine Colorado motorists having to cover would be about $0.15 to $0.20 per gallon on a statewide basis based on our statewide consumption."
As a result, he believes consumers would be more likely to fill up their vehicle tank when they see the price is lower, rather than letting their tank run to near empty.
Editor's note: In March of 2021, a Word of Thanks micro-giving campaign was held for Cultivando.
No, there is not a national ban on gas stoves in the U.S.
EPA investigating Colorado for discriminatory air pollution
Suncor refinery shut down after equipment damaged
>Watch 9NEWS original shows, live Colorado news and weather updates, daily forecasts, and sports coverage for free on the 9NEWS+ app on Roku and Fire TV.
SUGGESTED VIDEOS: Latest from 9NEWS
Watch more from 9NEWS on the free 9NEWS+ app for Roku and Fire TV.
9NEWS+ has multiple live daily shows including 9NEWS Mornings, Next with Kyle Clark and 9NEWS+ Daily, an original streaming program. 9NEWS+ is where you can watch live breaking news, weather updates, and press conferences. You can also replay recent newscasts and find videos on demand of our top stories, local politics, investigations and Colorado specific features.
To download 9NEWS+ on Roku search for KUSA.
To download 9NEWS+ on Fire TV search for 9NEWS.
RELATED: Watch 9NEWS for free on ROKU, Apple TV, Fire TV


For inquiries about licensing e-mail moseshaygood@comcast.net.
For all other inquiries, you can e-mail moseshaygood@comcast.net.
Yes, it's the same. Just be specific in the RE: if your communique is business or other.


text:
Home/Metro/Ambode removes Deji Tinubu as chair Lagos Sports Commission
Ambode removes Deji Tinubu as chair Lagos Sports Commission
News of the People November 11, 2017
The Governor of Lagos State, Akinwumi Ambode, has removed Deji Tinubu as chairman of the Lagos State Sports Commission.
Mr. Tinubu had doubled as chairman of the sports commission as well as special adviser to Governor Ambode on sports. He will retain his job as special adviser on sports, the government said.
Mr. Tinubu was at the helm of affairs of sports since the inception of the Ambode administration.
But on Thursday, the governor made sweeping changes in the administration of sports in the state with new appointments.
Kweku Tandoh, a former Director of Sports, Lagos State Sports Council, is to take over as new chairman of the Commission.
A new Director General of the Commission was also appointed by the governor. He is Babatunde Bank-Anthony.
Mr. Anthony was the former Executive Secretary, Lagos State Sports Endowment Funds. He replaces earstwhile Director General, Adewumi Ogunsanya, who was redeployed. Mr. Ogunsanya's new posting is unknown at this time.
It is also understood that some other changes were approved by Mr. Ambode. Details of the postings have not been made public.
The state's Commissioner for Information, Steve Ayorinde, said the new appointees would attend confirmation hearings by the Lagos State House of Assembly.
Mr. Ayorinde further explained that the changes at the commission were "effected to strengthen sports administration in Lagos State in line with Governor Ambode's commitment to use sports, like the hospitality, tourism arts and entertainment sectors, to further develop Lagos State, create broader opportunities for our teeming youths and to bring excellence to the state".
Akinwunmi Ambode Deji tinubu Governor Akinwunmi Ambode lagos news Megalagos
Man arraigned for impersonating kidnapper of Lagos students
Sex workers reportedly take over Lagos council secretariat
Lagos Ready to Fund Quality Stats—Ambode
When Lagos partners LCDA to boost education
Bola Akingbade Quits MTN!


text:
En phonétique, la rhinoglottophilie fait référence au lien entre l'articulation laryngale (consonnes pharyngales et glottales) et nasale. Le terme a été créé par James A. Matisoff en 1975.

Propriétés
La glottophilie repose sur la proximité acoustique dans la production phonétique du larynx et du nez, comme le montrent les légers antiformants que chaque articulation peut produire sur un spectrogramme. Cela tient au fait que les deux articulations utilisent des résonateurs ramifiés : en effet, l'articulation nasale utilise les cavités nasale et buccale comme résonateurs, tandis que l'articulation pharyngale a pour résonateurs les cavités buccale et subglottale ; dans les deux cas, c'est ce phénomène qui produit des antiformants.

Conséquences

En synchronie
La rhinoglottophilie est notamment révélée par la propension de consonnes glottales à affecter nasalement les voyelles adjacentes. En krim, une langue sans voyelles nasales distinctives, les voyelles sont fortement nasalisées après la consonne . Le même phénomène se produit après les consonnes  et  en pirahã. Il est également attesté dans certaines variétés d'anglais américain, comme  pour Harvard par les Kennedys.

En diachronie
La rhinoglottophilie a pu jouer un rôle dans le développement de l'inor. Cette langue possède des voyelles nasales, ce qui est inhabituel pour une langue gouragué, qui dans de nombreux cas sont situées où, comme en témoignent d'autres langues de sa famille, une consonne laryngale a été perdue. La rhinoglottophilie a été documentée dans d'autres langues gouragué. Des processus similaires ont également été signalés en irlandais, en basque, dans les langues hlaï et en lunyole, où le bantou *p apparaît sous la forme de  plutôt que  comme dans les autres dialectes du luyia.

L'avestan montre également des signes de rhinoglottophilie : le *‹s› proto-indo-iranien devient normalement ‹h› en avestan, mais est devenu /ŋ/ entre /a/ ou /aː/ et /r, i̯, u̯/ ou /a, aː/. Les exemples incluent "aŋra", « mal » (en sanskrit "asra"), "aŋhat̰", « il peut être » (sanskrit "ásat"), et "vaŋ́hō", « meilleur » (sanskrit "vasyas").

Bien que la rhinoglottophilie soit le plus souvent liée aux consonnes glottales en particulier, elle concerne en fait toute l'articulation laryngale (consonnes glottales, pharyngales et parfois uvulaires). Par exemple, des correspondances telles que le mot khoïkhoï "xárà", « suricate » et le mot khwe "xánà", « mangouste rayée » (et des correspondances similaires entre les clics nasalisés et non nasalisés) témoignent de la pharyngalisation vocalique en proto-khoe.

Notes et références

Phonologie
Phonétique

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


I did an Ironman last weekend. Kind of. My T2 time was approximately 7 hours, but I managed to complete Vineman Full Aquabike on Saturday, and capped off the Ironman by running Big Basin Trail Marathon on Sunday. I'm back.
Some of you may recall that the idea of racing an "Ironweekend" first came to fruition last year. My friend Keith and I planned to race Vineman Full Aquabike followed by the San Francisco Marathon. Although Taylor and I stopped at mile 13, Keith finished the marathon, and proved that it was logistically possible to complete both in the same weekend.
Fast forward to this year: I kept my intentions to race Ironweekend under wraps until I got through Vineman 70.3. I felt really strong after the race, logged a few quality workouts, and decided that Ironweekend was on. I proceeded to smash the Full Aquabike and ran smart on Sunday – my first 13+ mile run in 8 months.
Going into the Aquabike, I had a decent grasp of how I would perform. My swim has been steadily improving year over year. My ~32 minute swim at the same venue led me to believe that I could shoot for a comfortable 35-36 minute pace per loop, and I targeted a 1:10-1:15 swim.
GGTC Ambassador Team ready to crush it!
Coming off a 2:35 bike split on the same course 2 weeks prior, I knew that doubling the time was completely unrealistic. Instead, I targeted a 2:48 first loop, and then a controlled push on the second loop without overdoing it. Simply put – I nailed both legs.
Other than a lingering marine layer to start the swim, it was uneventful in a good way. I started off very slow – sighting was challenging due to the fog, but I used other landmarks like the walking bridges that I've come to know from many swims in the Russian River. Although I knew I was off my 70.3 pace, I had plenty in the tank, and hit the start of loop 2 at 34 minutes elapsed. I swam at a comfortable pace for the second loop, and exited the water just over 1:10 – a 6+ minute Ironman swim PR!
Before Saturday, the last time I rode more than 70 miles was Vineman Full Aquabike 2014. I decided that a full wardrobe change was in order – I changed into bib shorts and a short sleeve jersey before heading out on the bike. Once I got going, I found my groove quickly, and comfortably sustained a 21mph pace on the flats/rollers.
Almost caught Jeff at the finish!
The miles ticked by, I rode to my strengths, and was passed by 3 people (max) on the first loop. I knew a podium finish was within reach. I finished the first loop in 2:48 – right on target.
I stopped at mile 57 to grab my special needs bag, chugged a coconut water, iced espresso, and was gone. I picked up the pace in the areas I knew I could make up time, and was managing to hold a 20+ mph pace through mile 90 – uncharted territory to say the least.
By the time mile 90 hit, I was over it. The headwinds/crosswinds kicked up, the sun was out, and I was really feeling the effects of a (very) long ride without adequate long ride training in the weeks prior. I held it together best I could, focused on proper pedal stroke, and small milestones based on my knowledge of the course. I got off the bike with a 5:42 on my Garmin – a massive 70 minute improvement from Ironman Lake Placid 2012. Strava showed a 5:38 moving time – a hair under 20 mph.
After chugging some liquids and cleaning out the buffet, I found out that I did indeed podium, and took 3rd in my AG – 16th overall. I couldn't have been more pleased with how the race went, and most importantly, I held back enough to feel good about running the marathon on Sunday.
I didn't want to admit it beforehand, but I was really nervous to run the marathon. I thought that I would build up my long run fitness faster than I have post injury, but the gradual approach has taken time. If there was a half marathon option, I would have dropped down. Instead, I focused on running SLOW and controlled, and tried to sustain a pace I could hold for 4+ hours.
Coming off a 4:05 finish on the same course in the fall, I knew that I was capable of running it fast while fit, but this time was different: I was very deliberate with my footing, and made sure that I was mitigating as much risk as possible knowing that my long run/trail running fitness aren't quite there.
Despite the Aquabike on Saturday, I felt surprisingly strong under the circumstances, and took it aid station to aid station while keeping fueling and pacing top of mind.
The first 16 miles were almost routine, but the stretch from 16-24.5 were rough: there were no aid stations in between. I rationed my water after failing to do so when I ran Skyline to Sea last October, however between the fatigue of running for ~4 hours and my lack of long run fitness, I was tired. My feet were particularly sore – it was a lot of pounding after an extended layoff.
I pounded coke at the last aid station (24.5) and hoped for the best knowing that a sub 5 finish was well within reach. I broke the tape at ~4:54 – an effort I'm extremely happy with given my injury, lack of long run fitness, and that 2.4 mile swim/112 mile bike the day before. The leaderboard showed me in 3rd place in my AG, but Keith knocked me off the podium; what a pal! When all was said and done, the result gave me an aggregate sub 12-hour Ironman – 11:54. Most importantly, I had a great time running both events and feel strong today; cycling class tomorrow is a go! Till next year!
Wow. This is incredible! Congrats on an impressive and difficult weekend. You totally amaze me. What a comeback!
Awesome work!! You are a beast!!!
Holy crap, that's awesome, congrats!!
Awesome Podium pics. Was that a wine bottle you won?
Congratulations Jesse, welcome back brother. Those are some mighty fine times.
Dude. You are my hero. This is such an awesome accomplishment!! And you didn't just go out and run a marathon – you did a TRAIL marathon. Holy. CRAP! Congrats!
Wow nice job!! Congrats!! Glad to see you are back in top form. Way to go on that 6 minute swim PR – clearly your crazy 10K swim this winter is still hard at work!!
Great job! Loved the race report(s). Congrats on the podium. That's a great return from injury.
Congrats! On the race and your successful recovery!
Good to see you're back in the game Jesse! I'm having a bit of time out from racing until December but, well, I'm hoping next year I'll be racing my first Ironman – not sure where yet but I'm 90% sold on the idea as I've been thinking about it since January!


Call me at 1-800-447-8667. I ship to Keith Jackson of ABC sports. This is home of the fighting Texas Aggies. we were voted best BBQ in the Big XII. I ship brisket, links, pork loin, pork ribs, and smoked turkey breast. For you Aggies out there, I now ship the Aggie special. Which is a half pound of meat per person plus one chunk of cheader cheese, a whole pickel, and a slab of onion for each person and you eat it right off the buther paper. As of March 2001, we will have our own site at tomsbarbeque.com. So look for us there until then please just call me. My name is Brian V Davis.