WORKSHOP REPORT
Impacts of Climate Change on Forest Management and Possible Mitigation
and Adaptation Measures
A Regional Workshop for Eastern Europe and Central Asia
Menemen/Izmir, Turkey
26 - 29 November 2013
P a g e | II
List of Acronyms
BD Biodiversity
CCA Climate Change Adaptation
CCM Climate Change Mitigation
CSA Climate-Smart Agriculture
DKM (Turkish) Nature Conservation Centre
DLG (Dutch) Government Service for Land and Water Management
ERC European Regional Conference
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN
GEF Global Environment Facility
GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit
HQ (FAO) Headquarters
IW International Waters
LD Land Degradation
NFI National Forest Inventory
NFMA National Forest Monitoring and Assessment
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
NWFP Non-Wood Forest Product
OGM (Turkish) General Directorate of Forestry
PES Payments for Ecosystem Services
REC Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe
REDD Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation
REU (FAO) Regional Office for Europe and Central Asia
SEC (FAO) Sub-regional Office for Central Asia
SFM Sustainable Forest Management
SLM Sustainable Land Management
STAR (GEF) System for Transparent Allocation of Resources
TCP (FAO) Technical Cooperation Programme
TEMA Turkish Foundation for Combating Soil Erosion, for Reforestation and the
Protection of Natural Habitats
UN United Nations
UNCCD UN Convention to Combat Desertification
P a g e | III
Table of Contents
1 Background ............................................................................................................................. 1
2 Objectives ................................................................................................................................ 2
3 Participants .............................................................................................................................. 2
4 Results of Presentations and Plenary Discussions .................................................................. 3
4.1 First Day of the Workshop, 26 November 2013 .............................................................. 3
4.2 Second Day of the Workshop, 27 November 2013 .......................................................... 6
4.3 Third Day of the Workshop, 28 November 2013 ............................................................. 7
4.4 Fourth Day of the Workshop, 29 November 2013 ........................................................... 8
5 Potential Project Ideas Based on Group Sessions ................................................................... 8
6 Conclusions and Follow-Up .................................................................................................. 12
Annex I – Agenda of the Workshop ......................................................................................... 13
Annex II – List of Participants ................................................................................................. 14
Annex III – Discussion Transcripts for Project Identification ................................................. 16
P a g e | 1
1 Background
Climate change and its impacts on agricultural systems and rural economies are already
evident throughout the Eastern Europe and Central Asia region. There is a growing interest
among governments and many of their development partners to gain a better understanding of
the exposure, sensitivities and impacts of climate change at the landscape level, and to
develop and prioritize mitigation/adaptation measures to build resilience to the potentially
adverse effects as well as to mitigate the consequences of climate change.
To this end, FAO Regional Office for Europe and Central Asia (REU) and the Sub-regional
Office for Central Asia (SEC) have been guided by the 28th
European Regional Conference
(ERC) to address climate change related regional issues, ranging from adaptation to climate
change impacts to the mitigation of consequences in agriculture, forestry and fisheries. REU
will have to report on the work done in this field by the next ERC in 2014. It is assumed that
agriculture, forestry and fisheries related activities of REU and SEC will increasingly
comprise components related to climate change. The foundation for starting a consultation
process between REU/SEC countries was set with the project TCP/RER/3203 “Mapping of
and Policy Orientation for Adaptation to Climate Change”, implemented in 2009-10.
A regional consultation took place in 2010 at the FAO Workshop on “Climate change impacts
on forest management in Eastern Europe and Central Asia” held in Sopron, Hungary. On this
occasion, the FAO Headquarters (HQ) consolidated all the country reports into a document,
which was printed as Forests and Climate Change Working Paper 8. It can be accessed from:
http://www.fao.org/forestry/climatechange/53622/en/
Similarly, in the Regional Workshop on “Forests, Rangelands and Climate Change in the
Near East Region” in Cairo, Egypt in 2011, some central Asian countries (sub-group for Non-
Arabic Speaking Countries, including: Turkey, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan from SEC and
members of Near East Forest and Rangeland Commission) had the opportunity to share views
on this issue with countries of the neighbouring region and draft a regional project proposal
on “Addressing Climate Change issues of Forestry and Rangelands”.
Bearing in mind the results of the above-mentioned events, this regional workshop for
REU/SEC countries has, as its main purpose, the development of cross-sectoral project ideas
in related areas. The results and recommendations of the recently commissioned REU study
which examined impacts of climate change on agriculture, forestry and fisheries at different
levels, provides further food for thought.
P a g e | 2
2 Objectives
The objectives of the regional workshop were to highlight the impacts of climate change on
sustainable forest management and possible mitigation and adaptation measures, as well as to
identify possible areas for projects under the sixth Global Environment Facility (GEF)
replenishment period. The workshop aimed at producing the following outputs:
The GEF country focal points become acquainted with FAO’s ongoing work on
forests and climate change and are aware of what FAO can specifically offer in this
context;
Climate change impacts on forestry and related areas as well as associated challenges
are outlined and possible mitigation and adaptation measures identified for each
thematic area; and
Priorities and potential project areas for GEF 6 funding under climate change or other
focal areas (Land Degradation, Sustainable Forest Management, Biodiversity)
identified.
The workshop furthermore aimed at sharing country experiences and information,
strengthening capacities and enabling countries to take actions in the priority areas identified
during the workshop.
3 Participants
The workshop was attended by 32 representatives from 14 participating countries (Albania,
Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, TFYR Macedonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Serbia, Tajikistan, Turkey, Ukraine and Uzbekistan) and six partner
organizations (DKM, DLG, GIZ, OGM, REC and TEMA). In addition, 14 staff members
from FAO HQ, REU, SEC and FAO country offices (Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia,
Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Turkey) participated. A complete listing of all 46 participants can
be found in Annex II.
P a g e | 3
4 Results of Presentations and Plenary Discussions
4.1 First Day of the Workshop, 26 November 2013
Mr Norbert WINKLER-RÁTHONYI, Forestry Officer at REU, and Mr Ekrem YAZICI,
Forestry Officer at SEC, opened the workshop by welcoming the participants on behalf of
FAO and stressing the great opportunity of bringing together forestry staff and GEF focal
points from countries in the region as well as representatives of partner organisations for the
first time. They highlighted the need for cooperation between various sectors to respond to
future challenges related to climate change, but also in order to use the available scarce
resources more efficiently. After presenting the agenda and introducing the objectives and
expectation of the workshop, Mr YAZICI invited to a tour-de-table. Hereafter, contributions
were presented following to the workshop’s agenda (see Annex I).
Mr WINKLER-RÁTHONYI introduced FAO’s organizational structure, the
intergovernmental bodies as well as the new strategic objectives of FAO guiding the work of
FAO in the region. Looking at the forest cover in European versus Central Asian countries he
underlined the different challenges and opportunities when shaping FAO’s work and activities
at regional and national levels. Furthermore, he explained the ways of FAO delivering
technical assistance to countries such as through the Technical Cooperation Programme
(TCP), Government Cooperative Programme (GCP) and Unilateral Trust Fund (UTF), and the
main steps which are being followed during implementation processes. He also provided an
overview of selected ongoing projects and implemented capacity development activities in the
region in 2012-2013. Hereafter, Mr YAZICI briefed participants about FAO assistance
through GEF 5, possible trust fund agreements with the governments of Azerbaijan,
Kazakhstan, Russia and Turkey and introduced different ongoing projects implemented
throughout the region. He finished by presenting pipeline project ideas for the GEF 6 process
referring the previous consultation with national partners.
Mr Stepan UNCOVSKY, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ),
presented the EU Project on Forest and Biodiversity Governance Including Environmental
Monitoring (FLERMONECA). It is one of the components of the Regional Environment
Programme for Central Asia (EURECA) which is the core of the cooperation between the EU
and Central Asia. He gave background information about Central Asia, underscored global
and specific objectives and the project’s main components. In the end, he introduced the
programme activities of GIZ and relations with other organizations and donors.
Ms Duygu KUTLUAY, Turkish Foundation for Combating Soil Erosion, for Reforestation
and the Protection of Natural Habitats (TEMA), started her presentation by explaining the role
of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO) in the management of forests in Turkey. She also
introduced TEMA’s vision, awareness-raising activities, campaigns and education programs
throughout the country. She mentioned capacity development activities and projects on rural
P a g e | 4
developments, biodiversity conservation and forestry and shared lesson learnt over the course
of 20 years.
Mr Uğur ZEYDANLI, Nature Conservation Centre (DKM) in Turkey, stressed in a short
statement that it was important to focus on the impacts of climate change on biodiversity and
on fostering the cooperation of scientists and forest managers. The lack of biodiversity
perspectives in mitigation activities created mid- and long-term problems for the sustainability
of forest ecosystems. Another important point was to support the adaptation of forest
ecosystems to climate change. The adaptation process should be considered in a wider term,
as mentioned in the ecosystems-based approach in the Convention on Biodiversity, to
maintain the resilience of socio-ecological systems. A short discussion ensued relating to risk
management plans and possible FAO contributions.
Ms Aleksandra-Sasa SOLUJIC, Regional Environmental Center (REC), gave a brief
presentation about REC activities, working topic areas and projects related to climate change.
She also introduced the homepage of the local biodiversity action planning network in the
Western Balkan: http://www.seebap.com
The second session of the day was initiated by Ms Klára SZEKÉR, Climate Change and
Natural Resources Junior Technical Officer (JTO) at REU. She mentioned the challenges and
impacts of climate change on global food systems, specifically on agriculture, plant
production, forestry, fisheries and aquaculture and livestock. Ms SZEKÉR then continued to
explain adaptation and mitigation activities for each thematic area and emphasised the work
on multi-disciplinary levels. She finished by presenting the regional climate change priorities
and outlined climate change as the most important task on a global scale.
Ms Simmone ROSE, Forestry Officer from the Forest Assessment Management &
Conservation Division at FAO HQ, gave a presentation on “Mainstreaming Climate-Smart
Agriculture in Sustainable Land Management”, underlining FAO’s global goals. She gave
details about this new Sustainable Land Management (SLM) approach which embodied
efforts directed on landscape level, integrating forestry and environmental protection with
agriculture. In the end, Ms ROSE pointed out the key messages of practices, policies and
finance in Climate-Smart Agriculture (CSA). During the following round of questions Mr
Gurdogar SARIGUL, Dutch Government Service for Land and Water Management (DLG),
commented on the value chain inclusion in the approach for resource efficiency. Ms
Takhmina TOURAEVA, FAO Tajikistan, remarked on the usefulness of CSA in the face of
food waste and exceeding consumption as well as cross-cutting gender issues. She also raised
the subject of introducing payments for ecosystem services (PES) in Central Asia, with the
inclusion of other sectors on national and international level. Mr Khodjimurat TALIPOV,
Main Department of Forestry of Uzbekistan, gave an example of the use of medicinal plants
for the importance of forests for food security and production and underlined the need for
collaboration in this field. Answering to the comments and questions raised, Ms ROSE
expressed the agreement from her side on gender issues. She also stressed the importance of
medicinal Non-Wood Forest Products (NWFP) on household and community level and the
P a g e | 5
contribution of CSA to other sectors. Ms KUTLUAY raised the question of how biodiversity
is seen in this approach to agriculture to which Ms ROSE answered that CSA, with its
sustainable agriculture practices, integrates biodiversity conservation.
Ms ROSE again opened the third session with her presentation on “Forests and Climate
Change”. She mentioned direct and indirect impacts of climate change as well as adaptation
and mitigation measures for forestry. Furthermore, she introduced the latest publications and
tools for climate change by FAO, referred to operational guidance and summarized key
messages, challenges and opportunities for forestry. In the ensuing discussion, it was
remarked that the ongoing substitution of fossil fuels can lead to unsustainable management
of forest resources. The discussion also touched specific approaches for the Eastern European
and Central Asian regions, together with example activities from pilot projects. Mr
WINKLER-RÁTHONYI remarked on the importance of reaching forest managers in the field
with the presented guidelines and also Ms TOURAEVA stressed the need for specific
knowledge on local conditions in Central Asian countries.
The fourth session was initiated by Mr Dan ALTRELL, Forestry Officer at the Forestry
Department at FAO HQ. Mr ALTRELL presented the topic of “Moving from conventional
Forest Inventory to National Forest Monitoring and Assessment to meet Climate Change
Information Needs”. He briefly summarized how the requirements for information on natural
resources had evolved exponentially during the last decades and how the need to make this
information available quickly had prompted a change from conventional National Forest
Inventory (NFI) to National Forest Monitoring Assessment (NFMA). Whereas the NFI’s main
focus was on wood production inside forests only, NFMA offered a more holistic and cost
effective approach embracing all functions (productive, social and environmental) of forests
and trees on all land uses. NFMA also involved a wide range of stakeholders (government,
civil society, private sector) to promote integrated policy formulations at a national level. Mr
ALTRELL showed a short video illustrating modern NFMAs and presented the main
activities of FAO in assisting countries in designing, planning and implementing long-term
national forest monitoring programmes and stressed the importance of inventory systems
being maintained by the countries themselves after initial support by FAO. He underlined the
link of climate change related issues to national forest monitoring programmes, as these
provided input for evidence-based decisions to the climate change policy process. Forest
monitoring provided results on carbon stocks and changes in carbon stocks indicating
needs/incentives for climate change mitigation measures. Furthermore, it offered information
on impacts of climate change on the development of natural resources (production, health,
erosion, fires, etc.) and the change in user and management patterns caused by a changing
climate, which provided a basis for climate change adaptation measures.
As the final presentation of the day, a short movie was shown on request of the delegation
from Moldova. It presented environmental issues in agriculture and forestry and land
restoration activities in Moldova, which exhibits a sparse forest cover and is one of the
poorest European countries. Afterwards, Mr YAZICI concluded the first day of the workshop,
gave a review of the presentations and thanked all those present for their participation.
P a g e | 6
4.2 Second Day of the Workshop, 27 November 2013
The second day started with a short welcoming of Mr Vitaly KULIK, First Deputy Minister of
Natural Resources and Environmental Protection of Belarus, who had joined the workshop.
This was followed by a presentation of Mr Ferenc LAKATOS, Professor at the University of
West Hungary, about “New challenges in the control of transboundary pests and diseases as
well as invasive species in the context of climate change”. At first, he presented an overview
of actual forest health problems in Europe and then the expected problems as a consequence
of a changing climate. He gave basic information on the effects of climate change and
invasive species, then enhanced this with examples from the EU and Central Asia. In the end,
he stressed the importance of monitoring, sharing information and involving the public in
detecting transboundary pests and pathogens. During the discussion, Mr WINKLER-
RÁTHONYI remarked that measures against transboundary plant pests and diseases will be
included as a topic during the upcoming European Regional Conference (ERC) to be held in
April 2014 in Romania.
The first presentation of the second session was given by Mr WINKLER-RÁTHONYI about
wood energy and climate change and FAO’s support to countries. He highlighted the
important role of fuelwood in the energy and forestry sector in Eastern European and Central
Asian countries. Wood energy remains a very important source of renewable energy, despite
prominent role of hydropower, e.g. in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. He also stressed the
importance of accurate data for sound decision-making and showcased the example of a
successful TCP project in Serbia. The project successfully conducted an extensive household
survey and the volumes assessed were five times higher than reported in energy and forestry
statistics. The TCP generated information about socio-economic values of fuelwood
harvesting and trade, indicating that only 60 percent of fuelwood was harvested from actual
forests. Based on the data provided by the project, recommendations were outlined for a
revision of statistics and policies in the energy and forestry sectors of Serbia.
The following presentation by Mr Hernan GONZALEZ, Investment Officer at FAO HQ, was
an “Introduction to the GEF and the GEF 6 replenishment focal areas”. He gave an overview
of GEF structures, co-financing mechanisms and focal areas, especially biodiversity, climate
change, land degradation and sustainable forest management. Furthermore, he stressed that
GEF projects had to be country driven and based on national priorities. FAO’s role as an
implementing agency for GEF was also outlined as well as its comparative advantage in the
field of natural resources. During the first round of comments and questions, the topic of GEF
funding availability for forest inventories was well discussed, as it is not directly related to the
focal areas but still a necessary measure for baseline studies. Other topics in this session were
GEF’s System for Transparent Allocation of Resources (STAR) for the period from 2014 to
2018 and multi-focal as well as multi-agency project approaches.
P a g e | 7
The third session of the day continued with comments and question on GEF procedures. Ms
SZEKÉR raised the topic of priorities given by GEF to regional projects and the importance
of contributions from the private sector as well as public access to the goods provided by
those projects. It was also added, that any coordination of regional projects would be greatly
facilitated by targeting common issues. Another topic of the discussions was the availability
of co-financing funds after changes in governments or the occurrence of natural disasters, as it
happened during the earthquake in Chile 2010. Mr GONZALEZ remarked that a fair bit of
good faith had to be involved in project development and implementation, as not all
contingencies could be provided for. But project proponents have to keep in mind that the
GEF provides incremental financing and that countries must provide co-financing letters,
therefore co-financing is expected to materialize. He also explained the involvement of FAO’s
Investment Department (TCID) in the process and sources for co-financing, e.g. the World
Bank. In the end, he stressed again that any agency could only act upon government request.
The session was closed with a presentation of the Mr Kairat YEGEZHANOV, from the
Forestry and Hunting Committee of Kazakhstan, highlighting the country’s specific
environmental issues in forestry and agriculture. Afterwards, all country representatives were
asked to identify their specific priorities in the field of climate change and forestry to be used
as a basis for the group works on the following day.
4.3 Third Day of the Workshop, 28 November 2013
Based on the priorities identified by each country during the previous day, a set of five
broader project topics was formulated. These general ideas then served as reference in the
group sessions to develop tangible project ideas to be implemented by FAO and financed
under GEF 6 on national and regional level:
Forest resource assessment and monitoring (including inventory of tree resources in
and outside forests and relevant data management);
Transboundary pests and diseases;
Restoration and conservation of degraded forest and other land (with broad landscape
approach, including afforestation/reforestation and erosion control);
Sustainable management of existing forest resources (multifunctional planning
including water, wildlife and non-wood forest products); and
Promotion of integrated forest fire management to adapt to the changing climatic
conditions.
P a g e | 8
The participants split up into three groups to work out project ideas from the perspectives of
three focal areas, independent from REU or SEC affiliation: Biodiversity conservation,
climate change mitigation and adaptation and land degradation. Project ideas that were
formulated during these sessions are summarized in chapter 5 and more detailed discussion
transcripts can be found in Annex III.
4.4 Fourth Day of the Workshop, 29 November 2013
This day consisted of a field trip to the Kozak Plateau in the Bergama region. Its objective
was to show climate change mitigation and adaptation measures which had been implemented
by the Regional Directorate of Forestry of Izmir. Two main topics were examined during the
field trip, afforestation activities and combating forest fires. On the plateau, representatives of
the nearby village and the Regional Directorate of Forestry gave an overview of local site
conditions, completed and ongoing afforestation projects, as an initiative to restore land
degraded by wild fires, and the production of pine nuts in Stone Pine (Pinus pinea) stands.
Afterwards, the participants were informed about the main causes of forest fires in the region,
namely a lack of education, ignorance and lightning. This was followed by an explanation of
intervention methods by the fire brigade of the Regional Directorate of Forestry and a
demonstration of equipment and vehicles in their service.
5 Potential Project Ideas Based on Group Sessions
This chapter gives a concise overview of potential project ideas as a result of the group work
sessions (see Table 1). The discussions took the five general project topics, identified on the
previous day, as reference and approached each subject from the perspective of three focal
areas: Biodiversity conservation, climate change mitigation and adaptation and land
degradation.
P a g e | 9
Table 1: Consolidated list of project ideas agreed during the workshop together with proposed components, corresponding focal areas, interested countries and
international partners. (BD = Biodiversity, CCA = Climate Change Adaptation, CCM = Climate Change Mitigation, IW = International Waters, LD = Land Degradation,
SFM = Sustainable Forest Management)
Proposed
Project Titles Project Components
Relevant
Focal Areas
Country and
Regional
Relevance
Interested/
Potential
Partners
Comments
1. Natural
resources
(forests, land
and water)
assessment and
monitoring
1.1 Capacity development to improve existing forest
monitoring and inventory systems through innovative
data collection (remote sensing, GIS, interviews) and
trainings.
SFM, CCM
1.2 Enhancing capacities and improving
methodologies for the assessment, calculation and
reporting of carbon stocks in forested areas. SFM, CCM
1.3 Integrated approach to the assessment of biomass
resources outside forests to monitor changes in carbon
stocks.
SFM, CCM,
BD
1.4 Assessment of land degradation in forest and non-
forest land, including potential for afforestation and
restoration and monitoring land degradation.
SFM, CCM,
LD
1.5 Efficient use of information management
technologies for the assessment of biodiversity in a
broad landscape approach and impacts of climate
change and land degradation.
BD, SFM,
CCM
1.6 Assessment and monitoring of forest and tree
health (pests, diseases, fires, snow/wind damages, etc.)
in a broad landscape approach and in the context of
impacts of climate change.
SFM, CCA
2. Integrated
approach to
transboundary
2.1 Establishing accessible and easily applicable
regional information system (with citizen science),
including promotion of best practices in pest
SFM, CCA, BD
P a g e | 10
pests and
diseases
management
management and flow of information.
2.2 Capacity development to facilitate regional data
and knowledge sharing, collective actions (quarantine,
research and training) and monitoring related to
changing patterns of transboundary pests and diseases
due to climate change.
CCA, SFM
3. Restoration &
conservation of
degraded forest
and other lands
with broad
landscape
approach
3.1 Restoration and conservation of degraded forest
and other lands with broad landscape approach
including (i) integrated land-use plan;, (ii) ecological
restoration of forest lands; (iii) introduction and
promotion of agroforestry practices; (iv) capacity
building for establishing nurseries and land
preparation techniques; (v) upstream watershed
restoration; (vi) introduction and promotion of
conservation agriculture practices; and (vii)
rehabilitation of pastures, including grasslands and
steppe ecosystems.
LD, SFM,
CCM, CCA,
BD
3.2 Establishing ecological corridors and networks
between existing forest patches. SFM, BD
3.3 Streamlining biodiversity conservation into the
land restoration works, in particular re- and
afforestation, with consideration of existing ecological
and economic principles and circumstances.
BD, CCM, LD,
SFM
4. Sustainable
management of
existing forest
and tree
resources
4.1 Enhancing policies and legislations related to
forest and land management in order to improve CO2
mitigation efforts.
SFM, CCM,
LD
4.2 Harmonizing climate change and biodiversity
benefits between different land use types (forests,
pastures, agriculture) through capacity development
for landscape planning and enhanced stakeholder
dialogues.
SFM, BD, LD
P a g e | 11
4.3 Setting up country specific criteria and indicators
for sustainable forest management and monitoring. SFM, CCM
4.4 Multi-functional planning and management of
forest resources, including soil and water
conservation, carbon mitigation, biodiversity
conservation etc. and valuation of and payment for
these forest ecosystem services.
SFM, LD,
CCM
5. Promotion of
integrated forest
fire management
to adapt to the
changing
climatic
conditions
5.1 Improving the forecasting, prevention and
combating of fires by establishing forest fires decision
support system (alarm, early warning and logistic
support systems and mapping of vulnerable areas).
SFM, CCA,
CCM
5.2 Enhancing integrated forest fire management
strategies (preventing, monitoring and combating)
based on innovative technologies and practices
SFM, CCA,
CCM
6. Sustainable
land and water
management
under arid and
semi-arid
conditions
6.1 Preparing and implementing drought risk
management plans at national and regional level,
including drought risk management in transboundary
water resources management.
LD, CCA, IW
6.2 Promoting integrated land and water management
to mitigate carbon emissions. LD, CCM
P a g e | 12
6 Conclusions and Follow-Up
This regional workshop, co-organized by FAO Regional Office for Europe and Central Asia
(REU) and the Sub-regional Office for Central Asia (SEC) was unique insofar as it brought
together, for the first time, experts on forestry and GEF focal points from European and
Central Asian countries, potential partners and FAO country offices to discuss impacts of
climate change on sustainable forest management as well as possible mitigation and
adaptation measures within forestry and across sectors (agriculture, energy, etc.).
It was agreed that FAO will further review and consolidate the priorities and potential project
areas related to forestry and climate change interaction discussed during the workshop. The
results will be shared with workshop participants for review and commenting.
The workshop report will contribute to overall reporting to the 29th
ERC in 2014 on the work
done by FAO to address climate change related regional issues, ranging from adaptation to
climate change impacts to the mitigation of consequences in agriculture, forestry and
fisheries.
FAO will continue to communicate with potential partners, both beneficiaries and donors, for
further developing relevant focal areas and project ideas, while exploring possible funding
opportunities through available funding mechanism, both inside and outside the organisation.
P a g e | 13
Annex I – Agenda of the Workshop
Tuesday, 26 Nov. 2013 Wednesday, 27 Nov. 2013 Thursday, 28 Nov. 2013 Friday, 29 Nov. 2013
Opening remarks, introduction to the
workshop on climate change and forestry.
Presentations on FAO activities in the region
and national GEF 5 climate change projects
(e.g. Turkey, Kyrgyzstan).
- Norbert Winkler-Ráthonyi / Ekrem Yazici, FAO-
REU / SEC
Presentations by participating international
organizations and NGOs on climate change-
related projects in the region.
- DKM, GIZ, REC, TEMA
New challenges in the control of trans-
boundary pest and diseases as well as invasive
species in the context of climate change.
- Prof. Ferenc Lakatos, University of Sopron
Wood energy and climate change.
- Norbert Winkler-Ráthonyi, FAO-REU
Group sessions on potential climate change
mitigation projects (national & regional) in
forestry and cross cutting sectors to be
implemented by FAO and financed under
GEF 6.
Field Trip (whole day)
Climate change mitigation and adaptation
measures in Bergama and Izmir region:
- Afforestation projects;
- Forest fire management activities.
Break Break Break
“Climate change impacts and adaptation &
mitigation strategies in agriculture, forestry
and fisheries in the REU region”. Presentation
of study results.
- Klara Szeker, FAO-REU
Mainstreaming Climate-Smart Agriculture in
Sustainable Land Management.
- Simmone Rose, FAO HQ
Introduction to relevant GEF 6 replenishment
focal area strategies (including SFM, CC, LD,
BD and SCCF focal areas strategies).
- Hernan Gonzalez, TCID (FAO GEF
Coordination Unit) and
- Ekrem Yazici, FAO-SEC
Group sessions (cont.)
Field Trip (cont.)
Lunch (12:30 – 13:30) Lunch (12:30 – 13:30) Lunch (12:30 – 13:30)
Forests and Climate Change. Guidelines for
forest managers developed by FAO.
- Simmone Rose, FAO HQ
Introduction to relevant GEF 6 replenishment
focal area strategies (cont.)
Group sessions (cont.)
Presentation of group work and identification
of potential GEF projects (national or regional
projects; single or multi focal area).
Field Trip (cont.)
Break Break Break
Moving from conventional forest inventory to
“National Forest Monitoring and Assessment”
(NFMA) to meet climate change information
needs.
- Dan Altrell, FAO HQ
Introduction to relevant GEF 6 replenishment
focal area strategies (cont.)
Closure of regional workshop. Field Trip (cont.)
P a g e | 14
Annex II – List of Participants
Name and Surname Country E-Mail Organization/Position
Mr. Ekrem Yazici - ekrem.yazici(at)fao.org FAO-SEC Ankara; Forestry Officer
Mr. Ibrahim Yamac - ibrahim.yamac(at)fao.org FAO-SEC Ankara; JTO Forestry
Mr. Jaspar Albers - jaspar.albers(at)fao.org FAO-SEC Ankara; UNV Forestry Specialist
Mr. Norbert Winkler-Ráthonyi - norbert.winkler(at)fao.org FAO-REU Budapest; Forestry Officer
Ms. Klára Szekér - klara.szeker(at)fao.org FAO-REU Budapest; JTO Climate Change & Natural Resources
Management
Ms. Simmone Rose - simmone.rose(at)fao.org FAO HQ Rome; Forestry Officer
Mr. Hernan Gonzalez - hernan.gonzalez(at)fao.org FAO HQ Rome; GEF-TCID
Mr. Dan Altrell - dan.altrell(at)fao.org FAO HQ Rome; Forestry Officer FOM
Mr. Kliti Starja Albania klitistarja(at)yahoo.com National Environment and Forest Agency; Director of the Forest Unit -
GEF Liaison
Ms. Gayane Nasoyan Armenia gayane.nasoyan(at)fao.org FAO Armenia; Assistant
Mr. Niymat Rasulov Azerbaijan ilaha130713(at)gmail.com Shaki Forest Protection and Restoration Institute
Ms. Tarana Bashirova Azerbaijan tarana.bashirova(at)fao.org FAO Azerbaijan
Mr. Vitaly Kulik Belarus v.kulik(at)tyt.by First Deputy Minister of Natural Resources and Environmental
Protection - GEF Liaison
Mr. Sead Vojnikovic Bosnia and
Herzegovina svojnikovic(at)yahoo.com Faculty of Forestry, Sarajevo
Dr. Stepan Uncovsky - stepan.uncovsky(at)giz.de GIZ; Director of the Regional Program on Sustainable Use of Natural
Resources in Central Asia
Mr. Aleksandar Musalevski TFYR Macedonia aleksandar.musalevski(at)mzsv.gov.mk Unit for Farm Accountancy Data Network; Ministry of Agriculture,
Forestry and Water Economy
Mr. Leri Chochua Georgia l_chochua(at)yahoo.com National Forestry Agency; Main Forester
Ms. Lela Argvliani Georgia largvliani(at)gmail.com National Forestry Agency; Main Specialist of International Relations
Ms. Ia Mirazanashvili Georgia iamze.mirazanashvili(at)fao.org FAO Georgia; Programme Assistant
Mr. Ferenc Lakatos Hungary flakatos(at)emk.nyme.hu Institute of Silviculture and Forest Protection; University of West-
Hungary
Mr. Kairat Yegezhanov Kazakhstan yegezhanov.k(at)eco.gov.kz Forestry and Hunting Committee
Mr. Mairambek Aliev Kyrgyzstan aliev_les(at)mail.ru Department Head for Forest Ecosystems and Specially Protected Areas
P a g e | 15
Ms. Venera Surappaeva Kyrgyzstan surappaev(at)hotbox.ru State Agency for Environment Protection and Forestry; Chief of Forest
Monitoring Sector - GEF Liaison
Ms. Cholpon Alibakieva Kyrgyzstan cholpon.alibakieva(at)fao.org FAO Kyrgyzstan; Project Assistant
Mr. Dumitru Galupa Moldova dgalupa(at)yahoo.com Forest Research and Management Institute; Director
Mr. Petru Rotaru Moldova msilva(at)moldsilva.gov.md Head of Department for Forest Fund, Protected Areas, Guard and
Protection; Agency Moldsilva
Mr. Vitalie Grimalschi Moldova grimalschi(at)mediu.gov.md Head of Protected Areas, Biodiversity and Biosafety Section; Ministry of
Environment - GEF Liaison
Mr. Niek Bosmans Netherlands n.p.g.n.bosmans(at)dlg.nl Dutch Government Service for Land and Water Management (DLG);
Project Leader Twinning WQM
Mr. Predrag Jovic Serbia predrag.jovic(at)minpolj.gov.rs Directorate of Forests; Senior Adviser
Ms. Aleksandra-Sasa Solujic Serbia ASolujic(at)rec.org Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe (REC);
Environmental Policy Directorate
Mr. Abdulkadyrkhon Maskaev Tajikistan kodir61(at)mail.ru Head of the Department for the Protection and Use of Fauna and Flora
Mr. Rustam Muratov Tajikistan eco-forest98(at)mail.ru Director of the CEP Forest Research Institute - GEF Liaison
Ms. Takhmina Touraeva Tajikistan Takhmina.Touraeva(at)fao.org FAO Tajikistan
Ms. Fatma Güngör Turkey fgungor(at)ormansu.gov.tr Ministry of Forestry and Water Affairs (MFWA) - GEF Liaison
Mr. Caglar Bassüllü Turkey caglarbassullu(at)ogm.gov.tr MFWA - General Directorate of Forestry (OGM)
Ms. Aysegül Akin Turkey aysegul.akin(at)fao.org FAO Turkey
Mr. Mahir Keskin Turkey mahir.keskin(at)temavakfi.org Project Manager; TEMA
Ms. Kiymet Keles Turkey kiymetkeles(at)ogm.gov.tr MFWA - General Directorate of Forestry (OGM)
Mr. Eray Özdemir Turkey erayozdemir(at)ogm.gov.tr MFWA - General Directorate of Forestry (OGM)
Mr. Mustafa Güzel Turkey mustafaguzel(at)ogm.gov.tr MFWA - General Directorate of Forestry (OGM)
Mr. Gurdogar Sarigul Netherlands sarigulgurdogar(at)hotmail.com Dutch Government Service for Land and Water Management (DLG)
Mr. Uğur Zeydanli Turkey ugur.zeydanli(at)dkm.org.tr Nature Conservation Centre (DKM); General Director
Ms. Duygu Kutluay Turkey duygu.kutluay(at)tema.org.tr TEMA Foundation; International Relations Coordinator
Mr. Igor Buksha Ukraine buksha(at)uriffm.org.ua Ukrainian Research Institute of Forestry and Forest Melioration; First
Deputy Director
Dr. Sergey Myagkov Uzbekistan nigmi(at)albatros.uz NIGMI Uzhydromet; Deputy Director - GEF Liaison
Mr. Khodjimurat Talipov Uzbekistan talipov55(at)bk.ru Head of Afforestation Department; Main Department of Forestry
P a g e | 16
Annex III – Discussion Transcripts for Project Identification
Biodiversity Conservation
Forest resource monitoring and assessment:
- Lack of sufficient capacity (in some countries no inventory or assessment has yet
taken place);
- Lack of appropriate methodology (e.g. in Georgia);
- Collecting tree data outside of forests (including invasive plants).
Transboundary pests and diseases:
- Lack of information flow;
- Establishment of accessible and easily applicable regional information systems (with
citizen science), including promotion of best practices in pest management.
Restoration of degraded forests and other land:
- Conduct restoration in line with ecological principles;
- Restoring indigenous species;
- Restoring original structural properties;
- Eliminating invasive species under consideration of existing ecological and economic
circumstances;
- Establishing ecological corridors and networks between existing forest patches.
Sustainable management of existing forest resources:
- N/A
Promotion of integrated forest fire management to adapt to the changing climate conditions:
- N/A
P a g e | 17
Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation
Forest resource assessment and monitoring:
- Improving existing forestry monitoring and inventory system through innovative data
collection (remote sensing, GIS) and information management technologies for the
assessment of impact of climate change, land degradation and biodiversity. (As this is
a regional problem, the development and adaptation of one system would enable the
entire region to share data);
- Enhancing capacities and improving methodologies for the assessment and calculation
of carbon stocks in forested areas;
- Integrated approach (embracing also land-use outside forests) to the assessment of
biomass resources outside forests to monitor carbon change.
Transboundary pests and diseases:
- Facilitating regional data and knowledge sharing and collective actions (quarantine,
research and training) related to changing patterns of transboundary pests and diseases
due to climate change.
Restoration and conservation of degraded forest and other land:
- Aligning restoration and reconstruction of degraded land with climate change
mitigation objectives.
Sustainable management of existing forest resources:
- Enhancing policies and legislations related to forest and land management in order to
improve CO2 mitigation efforts;
- Harmonizing climate change and biodiversity benefits between different land use
types (forests, pastures, agriculture) through capacity development for landscape
planning and enhanced stakeholder dialogues;
- Promote integrated land and water management to mitigate carbon emissions;
- Setting up country specific criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management
(FAO assistance will be needed for baseline studies).
Promotion of integrated forest fire management to adapt to the changing climatic conditions:
- General concept: Forest fires are decreasing the CO2 sequestration capacity of
biomass;
P a g e | 18
- Improving forecasting, preventing and combating of forest fires through establishment
of forest fires decision support system (alarm system, early warning);
- Enhanced forest fire management strategies (preventing, monitoring and combating)
based on innovative technologies and practices.
P a g e | 19
Land Degradation
Forest resource assessment and monitoring:
- In Moldova, there are two types of forest funds: state-owned and privately-owned
forests exist in their country. An inventory related to land degradation in forests is
necessary;
- In Kyrgyzstan, a forest inventory was already implemented with FAO assistance. As a
result, it was found out that forests exist without defined ownership (unallocated
forest). Besides government land Kyrgyzstan has about 1 million hectare of this
unallocated (ungoverned) forest. There was no regulated management applied to these
forests and illegal logging was predominant. Now the country has implemented forest
restoration works and in the future the government will to define tenants or owners of
these forests. The illegal logging was a direct cause of land degradation;
- From the side of TEMA it was mentioned that degraded lands have to be assessed for
UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) processes (zero net land
degradation);
- As one example of FAO assistance, the Land Degradation Assessment in Drylands
(LADA) program was introduced which assesses land degradation in forest and non-
forest land and develops criteria and indicators for restoration (reforestation and
afforestation);
- In Turkey, the General Directorate for Combating Desertification and Erosion Control
(ÇEM) is assessing land degradation in forest lands to determine potential areas for
afforestation and reforestation;
- Uzbekistan has only 7 % land considered as forests. There is a need to point out the
uniqueness of forests and biodiversity and their importance. Also, climate conditions
and weather forecasts for the future. An assessment of today's condition of forests and
pointing out ways of using these resources is necessary. Unplanned and unsustainable
uses of resources and biodiversity are distinct problems. After an assessment, the
country will be able to work out a regime for forest management and planning. This
kind of project can have a great impact on regional level. Furthermore, it can take
place within the strategic areas of GEF. And on this basis, decision-makers can
consider the development of forests on deserted lands. It will lead to afforestation of
land and add to climate change mitigation. This will decrease desertification as well
and within this project the government will be able to work with other partners;
- Connected to the Uzbekistan statement, it was mentioned from FAO side that an
identical project was already in the pipeline of proposals submitted to GEF 5. The
future potential for locating and defining land area for reforestation was pointed out as
well;
P a g e | 20
- In the case of Moldova, 100 000 hectares of degraded forest and 200 000 hectares of
eroded land have a potential for reforestation. Assistance is needed to fully assess
these 300 000 hectares of land;
- Based on the comments and feedback from group members a suggestion was put
forward. Instead of a project directly related to forest resource assessment or
inventories, an “assessment of land degradation in forest and non-forest land,
including potential for afforestation and restoration” was proposed to address climate
change, desertification and biodiversity issues.
Transboundary pests and diseases:
- N/A
Restoration and conservation of degraded forest and other lands:
- FAO stressed the distinction between climate change and land degradation
approaches. Activities within the restoration area cannot have any effect on existing
forests. At the same time, no separation from other land-uses can exist as a broad
landscape approach has to be applied. Many examples for good restoration practices
exist, which delivered benefits for climate change mitigation and local communities,
e.g. through fire wood supply. Reference was made to agroforestry methods and the
principles of climate-smart agriculture as presented by Ms ROSE on the first day of
the workshop. A comment on the participatory development of integrated land use
plans was made from TEMA. It stressed the involvement of local stakeholders for
ownership. From FAO side it was clarified that this kind of approach is included
within FAO’s tools for land-use planning.
- A remark was made from Turkey side that these kinds of projects could lay within the
Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD+) subject area
which will soon become REDD++ with additional co-benefits for local communities.
Yet, none of the countries in the area had signed the REDD+ agreement so far, except
for a partial membership of Uzbekistan;
- During a short discussion on GEF priorities, it was clarified that even though GEF was
focusing on social and economic benefits, the targets and priorities were always global
environmental benefits. Under GEF 6, there would be a signature programme for food
security but the focus would still be on environmental benefits;
- It was mentioned that the implementation of agroforestry measures had been a good
approach in the case of Kyrgyzstan. Forest lands have been logged by local
communities over the last 20 years resulting in soil erosion. Many requests were
received from farmers to establish forest belts around their farms. A national plan for
the management of walnut forests would be developed until 2025, covering also
stands of almond and pistachio trees. Agroforestry was seen as a very useful approach
P a g e | 21
to fight erosion with the participation of local communities, guaranteeing improved
harvests. In line with this project, also degraded lands would be considered;
- In Moldova, the ecological reconstruction of forests was a priority program of the
government for sustainable development of forestry. Ecological principles implied a
wider view on forest matters;
- Discussing the creation of alternative incomes for local communities without global
benefits, it was clarified that GEF required countries to find co-financing for reaching
those targets. Solar energy or multipurpose stoves on the other hand could be covered
as these reduce fire wood demand, resulting in global benefits. In an example from
Kyrgyzstan it was hard to convince GEF to plant fast growing trees. But there was no
other alternative to cover the demand for fire wood;
- Continuing the discussion on agroforestry, it was remarked that in Turkey the
government did not support agroforestry measures as well as in Uzbekistan. There,
support to agroforestry was put on hold but it was still seen as a necessary tool for
land-use management. In Kyrgyzstan, an agricultural country like Uzbekistan,
agroforestry projects were supported but demonstration projects needed to be
implemented to introduce new techniques to farm owners. In the case of Moldova,
agroforestry projects were supported by the World Bank;
- FAO could provide support for building up capacities in certain fields which will
become the basis for following restoration projects (not only implementing big
projects from scratch): Nurseries, seedling production and land preparation techniques
could be included in capacity-building. Especially the production of containerized
seedlings was as an important aspect to provide planting material throughout the year
(e.g. in Moldova);
- As a project idea, it was discussed to set up watershed restoration projects to restore
upstream resources with inclusion of the Mountain Partnership (integrated
participatory watershed projects to rehabilitate upstream areas based on country-
specific techniques);
- In the case of Uzbekistan, the need for restoring and managing pastures including
grasslands and steppe ecosystems was stressed. From FAO side it was added that this
could build upon a similar current GEF project on steppe ecosystems in Turkey.
Sustainable management of existing forest resources:
- It was stressed from FAO side that the main outputs within this approach had to be
directed at institutional processes (administrative management by governments,
communities, etc.) and sustaining ecosystem services. In terms of the land degradation
focus, water and soil conservation functions of forests were two important examples.
Those should be, in most cases, the primary functions of forests, especially in upper
catchment areas;
P a g e | 22
- Furthermore, a discussion about direct or indirect payments for ecosystem services
(PES), e.g. for water production, was initiated. Related projects could include wood as
well as non-wood products, soil and water conservation or recreation as an amenity
value. In the case of Turkey, it was put forth that forests are in many cases considered
a public service without direct PES. It was added that GEF encourages PES and that,
ultimately, GEF was a global mechanism for PES in sustainably managed forests.
Promotion of integrated forest fire management to adapt to changing climatic conditions:
- N/A
Further project ideas with different topic approach:
- Another subject discussed was the outcome of the top-level United Nations conference
on national drought policy from March 2013. Within the framework of the UNCCD,
the development and implementation of drought risk assessment plans at national and
regional level could be included in the list of project ideas;
- In connection to FAO assistance it was stressed that establishing an enabling
environment and assisting capacity development were integral part of every project in
any case and not separate approaches;
- Further matters shortly discussed were land management issues connected to forests,
NGO involvement and, in the case of Moldova, community-based management of
forests where FAO supported legal adaptation.
