Appendix 1: Summary results of the Survey of C&I processes

		PROCESS
		MCPFE	MPCI	NE	DZ AF	DF AS	ITTO	ATO
1.	Main factors inhibiting wider implementation of C&I
	• Lack of (political) commitment			•		•	•	•
	• Not generally understood/ appreciated			•		•		•
	• No driving force- nat. or international					•
	• Weak institutional/tech. capacity			•	•		•	•
	• Lack of financial resources				•			•
	• Lack of regional co-op/co-ord. mechanism				•
	• Lack of training							•
2.	Capacity of member countries to influence policy makers
	• Have the Ministers endorsed the process	Y		N		Y		Y
	• Regular reports to Ministers			N		N
	• Are regular meetings held?			Y		N	Y
3.	Liaison/secretariat facilities	Y	Y	N	N	N		Y
4.	If no such facilities, has it affected the process?			Y	Y	Y
5.	Role of FAO, ITTO & other regional and national bodies in strengthening country capacity
	• Promote N-S/S-S cooperation				•			•
	• Mobilize/leverage funding		•	•	•	•		•
	• Facilitate partnerships with other sectors				•
	• Promote regional project activities including demonstration projects	•		•	•	•		•
	• Undertake secretariat facilities			•		•
	• Involvement of countries outside any process			•
	• Organize meetings			•
	• Facilitate training/research	•		•
	• Promote awareness			•
	• Promote political commitment					•		•
	• Help capacity building		•	•	•	•
	• Themselves use C&I in promoting SFM in member countries		•
	• Promote availability of information through implementing C&I		•			•		•
	• Provide links with other processes	•	•			•
6.	What other actions are needed to enhance adoption and implementation of C&I in countries?
	• Find ways to use C&I in all forest-related activities				•
	• Reduce/simplify current C&I				•
	• More national/sub-national demonstration studies				•
	• Incorporate C&I in national forest policies				•	•		•
	• Involve policy makers more closely					•
	• Need for capacity building				•	•		•
	• Better co-ordination among processes				•	•		•
7.	The role of an ad hoc global technical advisory group
	• Share improved scientific knowledge	•	•					•
	• Achieve harmonization of objectives							•
	• Increase information flow between processes		•					•
	• Useful	•	•	•	•	•	•	•
	But:
	• Need some responsible body determine its tasks and priorities		•
	• Not high priority until all processors have considered it		•			•
	• As long as their recommendation can be made operational by processes			•
	• Should comprise experts and administrators from all processes			•
	• Based on experience gained in regions	•
	• Goals should be identified clearly	•
	• Composition should change with issues to be addressed	•

		PROCESS
		MCPFE	MPCI
1.	Lessons other processes could learn from their experience
	• Commitment of countries to finance such a voluntary endeavour	•
	• Cooperation with other regional and international institutions	•	•
	• Free participation by stakeholder observers but ultimate responsibility to implement with signatories	•
	• Having a technical advisory committee has been helpful to deal with and advise on issues that require in-depth work		•
	• Having a liaison office/secretariat very useful	•	•
2.	Ways the advanced processors can assist other to progress implementation
	• By exchange of experience, views and lessons learnt	•	•
	• Inviting participation of other processes at meetings workshops, etc.	•	•
	• Providing liaison office /secretariat facilities as feasible		•
	• Link with development agencies to assist other countries and processes		•