Select a country... Brazil Canada Central Africa Chile Indonesia Russia United States Venezuela < Home

English Français Español Bahasa

About GFW: What is GFW? · FAQs · Staff · Review Process · Supporters · Support GFW · Jobs · Media Center · Publications · Feedback

Forest Transparency Workshop

Summary · Toolbox of Best Practices · Complete Report (HTML)(PDF) · Agenda · Participant List · Presentations · Pictures

Promoting Transparency in the Forest Sector: 

Best Practices for Detecting Illegal 

and Destructive Commercial Logging

May 29-31, 2002

Workshop report

Introduction

Day 1

• Welcome 

• Framework for Monitoring
• Field Investigations
• Paper Audits/Assessments

• Transparency/Access

Day 2

• Transparency/Access (Summary from Previous Day)

• Communicating Results for Change
• Opportunities for Partnerships and Collaboration

• Summary of Immediate Next Steps and Outcomes

Day 3

• Remote Sensing

• Plenary Session for Public

Introduction

A three-day workshop on best practices for detecting illegal and destructive commercial logging was held in Washington, DC May 29-31, 2002.  During the first two days, participants from 12 countries (see Figure 1) stayed at a conference center outside of Washington and shared lessons and experiences.  On the third day, participants gathered in Washington at the offices of the World Resources Institute.  In the morning, they participated in another session on tools.  The afternoon consisted of a presentation to a broad DC audience from the World Bank, US Government departments, White House Council on Environmental Quality and industry groups.  Participants from the workshop presented 5 case studies from all corners of the globe (Brazil, Canada, Cameroon, Russia and Indonesia) that highlighted best practices of monitoring and examples of how this monitoring has been creating change in the management of forests.  The hope is that the shared experiences of this workshop will help others to begin or improve their own monitoring programs, and to contribute to the overall improvement of forest management through increased transparency.

back to top

Welcome 

Wynet Smith (WRI), Art Blundell (USAID) and Alex Moad (USFS) welcomed everyone to the meeting, spoke to the genesis of the meeting.

Wynet gave a brief overview that described the increased awareness in recent years of the problems of illegal and destructive commercial logging, and the recognition that illegal timber harvesting and trade are a major threat to global forest resources which result in serious negative economic, environmental and social impacts. Many international meetings have been held to examine the problem at a policy level and there are recent ongoing discussions with industry that acknowledge the challenge that illegal and destructive logging poses to international wood and wood products trade.  On the ground field assessments of illegal logging activities are needed to detect, monitor and document the problem, to highlight where enforcement is needed, and to track progress in addressing the issue.  Effective detection and monitoring strategies and tools are needed to conduct this work at the local, regional and national level.  Civil society, NGOs, and research organizations have undertaken pioneering investigative work and played a major role in placing these issues on the international agenda.  

Wynet stressed the point made by many stakeholders that some technically illegal logging activities may not always represent worst practices, and similarly, some technically legal logging practices may be highly unsustainable and benefit from monitoring.  Land tenure issues are also critical but they require a different set of solutions. Therefore, in order to provide focus and a framework for workshop discussions, it was important to narrow the focus of the workshop to the detection of illegal and destructive commercial logging practices.  

Art Blundell, from United States Agency for International Development (USAID), welcomed people to the meeting and explained that the USAID’s goal is to maintain global forest cover as well as to develop civil society.  For USAID, funding this workshop was important because it provides recognition of the work that NGOs are carrying to detect and monitor illegal logging.  He said it was important to have people represented from all different regions of the globe and hopefully this meeting would serve to develop a network amongst practitioners that will not only advance work but also provide some measure of safety to what can often be dangerous work. Art also noted that if participants feel this workshop is useful, USAID is interested in promoting similar workshops regionally.  Art thanked people for participating and WRI for hosting and organizing the workshop. 

Alex Moad, United States Forest Service (USFS), joined in welcoming all and thanked WRI for organizing it and participants for attending.  In providing funding for the workshop, USFS hope to provide people with the opportunity to exchange techniques, and that there will be talk of future collaboration and support. Alex also emphasized the hope that by providing recognition for this work to detect illegal logging, it will result in increased safety for practitioners.  The issue of illegal logging and corruption can now be discussed openly at international meetings, which is an improvement on the past. Yet these meetings often happen without participation by practitioners who are working on the ground, in the field.  The illegal logging issue is analogous with human rights where NGOs have a critical role to play in collecting information and bringing pressure to bear on governments to encourage action and enforcement in the arena of illegal logging.

Outcomes of the Meeting

Outcomes of the meeting were reviewed by the participants.  Everyone agreed that a meeting report would be prepared and that this report and participants’ power point presentations would be shared via the internet and on a CD if funding allows. Best practices identified during the workshop will be compiled into a ‘tool box’ which practitioners can share to document and track illegal logging activities.  The toolbox will be made available on CD and in hard copy.  The immediate results of the workshop will be communicated to an audience on Friday May 31, which will include key decision makers in the US government who want to learn more about tools and methods used by participants.  This will enable practitioners to network with a broader audience and discuss opportunities for collaboration.

back to top

I. Framework for Monitoring

Wynet presented a framework for monitoring work (see Figure 2).  She discussed the various stages of monitoring activities and the role of monitoring tools in helping to detect illegal logging and associated trade. 

Key steps for an effective detection and monitoring project are to identify:

• what needs to be monitored in the appropriate local context,

• partners,

• appropriate tools,

•  strategy for using data, and

• a workplan.

back to top

II. Field Investigations

A discussion took place on the role and importance of field investigations. The purpose was to identify problems, challenges, training opportunities, and best practices when using field investigations as a tool to detect and monitor illegal logging.  Two case studies were presented to the group in order to generate discussion.  Paulo Barreto of the Brazilian research organization IMAZON and Aran O'Carroll of Forest Watch of British Columbia gave presentations on the work of their organizations to detect and monitor illegal logging (see Presentations 1 and 2).  They each stressed the role of field investigations and identified key lessons.

During discussions, other participants added to the summary of lessons learned.  Hernan Verscheure, from CODEFF provided a relevant example from Chile.  CODEFF conducted a study analyzing the results of 400 illegal logging court cases and found that 60% of the parties found guilty of illegal activities were not fined while the other 40% were fined very low amounts that can easily be incorporated into operational costs.  He stressed it is important to have an independent forest monitoring network, with the dual purpose of having monitors in the field acting as watchdogs, and also monitors of legal investigations and proceedings to continuously monitor legal proceedings and follow through.

Best Practices for Field Investigations

1. Look for patterns and explanations.

2. Examine topics from the perspective of available legal remedies. Identify and design monitoring field work and results around potential target legal remedies and tribunals.

3. Undertake programmatic as well as opportunistic investigations.

4. Prioritize monitoring based on ecological, social and topical significance and the available legal remedies. Scientific monitoring should have strategic objective that will help enforce compliance. Gain stakeholder credibility for work.

5. Use scientific approach with observation. Use appropriate measurements answering relevant questions.

6. Form a network of citizens to monitor compliance. Citizen networks can be very effective if adequately trained in legal and scientific skills and can play a key role in gaining local support for monitoring activities.

7. Illustrate investigative findings with specific examples.

8. Communicate and disseminate collected information in several formats (hard copy report, CDs, web).

Key issues/Challenges of Field Investigations

• Many people may benefit directly and indirectly from the illegal logging, therefore finding willing participants can be a challenge.

•   Corruption creates problems in obtaining official information.

• Plan on a strategy for legal action: conduct analysis to find legal legislation, and then investigate to be able to target.

• Link between NGOs and scientific community to present a strategy to promote legal practices.

• Interacting with companies using field data on their practices to improve their activities.

back to top

III. PAPER AUDITS/ASSESSMENTS[1]

The purpose of this session was to discuss the use of paper audits, establish best practices for conducting paper audits, and discuss tools and the training opportunities.  Two case studies were presented, one by Roger Ngoufo of Cameroon Environment Watch, and one by Denis Smirnov of Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) Russia (see Presentations 3 and 4).

Best Practice for Paper Audits/Assessments

1. Create a paper audit system with methods that are easily replicable.

2. Examine species-specific management plans and trade data.

3. Examine existing legal instruments.  e.g. the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

Key issues/Challenges with Paper Audits/Assessments

• Quality of data is not always consistent or comparable
• Access to data can be difficult
• Need to develop indicators to track: production/consumption data, trade data, judicial/enforcement review, concession oversight/process review, market price, management plans, review licenses
• Need to link and create partnerships with key local groups
• Corruption

back to top

IV. Transparency/Access

The purpose of this session was to provide an overview of, and discuss, the links between transparency, governance, human rights and the forestry sector.  Presentations were given by Emily Harwell, Human Rights Watch, Ajit Banerjee, WWF India, and Aarti Gupta, Forest Integrity Network (see Presentations 5, 6 and 7 respectively).

The meeting then broke into small working groups to discuss governance, security, transparency, corruption issues and the role the Forest Integrity Network might play.  Groups were asked to discuss some of the key issues and challenges in respective regions, and identify concrete examples of how to deal with identified challenges.

back to top

Transparency/Access (summary from previous day)

Break-out groups reported back on their discussions on governance, security, transparency, access and how these issues relate to detection and monitoring.  They also identified specific best practices.  

Best Practice for Transparency and Access

• Link environmental impacts of illegal logging with known labor conditions and labor rights violations to gain local support for improved governance.

• Engage international financial institutions as players and users of forestry information. They can in turn influence logging operations and create greater security for field investigators and researchers.

• Interview governments, and concession owners and ask for records including information on granting of concessions and proof of payment for concession rights.

•  Engage citizens and local community groups in on the ground monitoring.

• Access local knowledge by interviewing local groups.

• Access international tribunals/domestic fora.

• Assess debt-slavery in forestry (Brazil, Indonesia).

• Incorporate participatory decision making structures.

Examples

• Ring of Fire coalition ^[2]and Borneo blockades are good examples that people working at various levels can provide security to people working in the field.
• In Nicaragua, a community took the government to the American Court of Human Rights because a company to which the government granted concession failed to honor agreement to compensate locals.
• Russia Brigades: International wood retail company financing work with local NGO’s to help government enforce forestry laws.

Key issues/Challenges on Transparency and Access Issues

• Getting information to key decision making process/groups can be difficult

• Need to ensure effectiveness of international NGO observers (eg. Global Witness experience in Cambodia/Cameroon).

 Governance/Corruption

• Equity is a precursor to avoiding corruption.

•  Corruption occurs at many levels, even in communities. 

•  Land seizure happens without due process.

• NGOs fund legal cases against corruption.

• It is difficult to find partners on the ground – particularly in areas where corruption prevails. Important to have comprehensive knowledge about the area.

•  Community responsibility is core of effective monitoring.

Safety issues

• Field monitor need to prepare for contingencies and network before heading out in order to improve safety conditions - particularly when monitoring and collecting data on private land.

back to top

V. Communicating Results for Change

The purpose of the session was to provide an overview and discuss the best means of communicating results of detection and monitoring activities in order to influence policy and action.  In other words: once you have the data, how do you use it?  Case studies were presented by Alexey Morozov of Greenpeace Russia (see Presentation 8), Hu Kanping of the Green Environmental Times, China (presentation not available), and Adrian Wells of Overseas Development Institute and Filippo del Gatto of Cooperazione per lo Sviluppo dei Paesi Emergenti (see Presentation 9).  Discussion followed on best practices and key issues/challenges.

Best Practices for Communication

1. Develop specific communications messages and a plan and strategy for outreach to the media, focus groups, and targeted audiences.

2. Hire staff who understand communications and have appropriate skills.

3. Analyze and plan how to reach key audiences by identifying issues, building contacts, sharing information, and offering solutions.

4. Help educate environmental journalists.  Develop nurturing relationships and provide them with technical support.

5. Identify key allies in government and industry and provide them with information and support.

Key issues/Challenges on Communication

• Access to information outlets and audiences can be difficult.
• It is important to ensure the accuracy of disseminated information and data.
• Select an appropriate communication format (e.g. reports, meetings, briefing sheets, press releases, focus groups).
• Adapt key messages to specific audiences such as media, scientists and general public.  For example, focus on a specific issue or legalcase.
• Build a broad network of contacts.

back to top

VI. Opportunities for Partnerships and Collaboration

Participants were divided into two working groups to focus on opportunities for partnerships and collaboration.  Based on the discussions about best practices, they were asked to answer two questions: 1) What are the opportunities, gaps, needs and recommended next steps?  2) Where might government or industry play a role?

One group started by discussing the roles and challenges of NGOs in an effort to better identify opportunities to be effective partners in efforts to combat illegal logging.

Role of NGOs

• Independent  - help to create effective and accountable governance

• Help create political “space” for civil society dialogue

• Networks – both within countries and internationally

• Enhance the flow of information from government to people

• Collect new data on issues of import to civil society

  NGOs (are):

• Mobile

• Offer different perspectives

• Bring a variety of new skills, expertise and tools to issues

• Link efforts to combat illegal logging to long-term, big-picture issues and potential solutions within networks

• Forge new networks

Challenges for NGOs

• Need to create space for civil society and civil rights.

• Investment in long-term programs/participation needed.

• Multiple professional skills needed (e.g. GIS/Remote sensing, Paper audits).

• Need for financial stability.

• Need to look at larger scale monitoring – to see the big picture.

• Need for coordination between groups.

• Need to recognize that there is a challenge to coordinate between NGOs that use different tactics and may have different goals.

OPPORTUNITIES

Workshop/Training

• Conduct regional educational workshops that involve other audiences such as judges, prosecutors, labor, and unions.
• Conduct regional workshops/training with international, national and local perspectives.
• Conduct problem–solving oriented workshop (e.g. Amur River Conference: China and Russia).
• Conduct practitioner training workshops.  Training is required for all aspects of ‘tool box’ application – and tools different tools work best in different situations.
• Conduct hands-on training by inviting 1-2 people from the field (e.g. Brigades, EIA/Telapak for community practical training).

 Coordination within NGOs

• Coordinate/synthesize regional information on illegal logging detection and monitoring efforts – create an information clearing house and database.
• Connect and where possible coordinate work between NGOs to better leverage potential financial support and political opportunities.

 Coordination with Governments, Donors and Industries

• International donor agencies: Hold a donor meeting to establish coordinated principles (e.g. Bali FLEG)  and build in a role of NGO monitoring
• Government to government exchanges – monitoring enforcement à log tracking
• Partnerships between NGOs and Government can lead to efficiency and lower cost: 1) NGOs doing high-tech satellite interpretation work, 2) Cedar Brigades (anti-poaching brigades) by WWF where 3-4 people have managed to find more violations than a government agency with 1,500 staff, 3) IKEA are supporting the new brigades and now NGOs have state enforcement powers (6 tiger brigades and 1 forest brigade).  These are good examples of NGOs providing a service to government.

NEEDS

Tools

• Inexpensive satellite images
• Baseline (satellite) data on forest condition and activities in forests
• Digital cameras to use with GPS
• Radio communications in field
• Transportation means, such as vehicle and fuel to enable monitoring activities
• Alternative information medium of the internet for places where access to the internet is difficult or too expensive

Information Exchange

• Compile a database: local laws and rules (for use by NGOs, education source).
• Translate ‘tool box’ into different languages.
• Meeting local needs plus in country government needs.

Research/Field work 

• Categorize/prioritize illegality – to help frame debate and target NGO actions.
• Legal analysis/comparative international forest management/environmental laws
• Identify what constitutes illegal logging in any given country.
• Log trade transparency requirements
• Chain of custody using bar codes
• Log price/market issues
• Citizen enforcement provisions – in-laws Freedom of Information (FOI) requirements

Strategy

• International ombudsman for Forests
• Identify strategies to increase costs o f illegal logging.
• Communication strategies ‘marketing’.
• Increase/stimulate bottom-up grassroots involvement.
• Improve monitoring activities in both international and local scales.
• Media training à awareness/access
• Training à technical capacity, safety
• capacity building

Collaboration 

with NGOs

•  Coordinated NGO efforts

• Communication and training community/civic groups

• Citizen empowerment – NGO expertise and education

with Governments

• Create new incentives/market access for legal logging (certification).

• Monitoring tools – policy related access to Forest Management Plans (improve, broaden scope, databases)

• Lead to implement regulations and tax structure to favor legal wood over illegal wood.

with Industries

• Identify methods for monitoring and sourcing only legal wood.

• Market intervention strategies

• Facilitate stakeholder dialogue.

NEXT STEPS

Tools for Information Exchange

• Mechanism for ongoing exchange of information
• Website on local citizen groups/NGO data collection
• Clearing web-site – all presentations from the workshop and other information
• International actions website on illegal activities of government and industry
• Bulletin/Listserv  Transparency International/Forestry Integrity Network
• Database of experts on illegal logging issues
• Translate, adapt, and refine the tool box to meet specific needs in each region.
• General guidebook on detecting/monitoring illegal logging for NGOs
• FIN: common methodologies for case studies on trade and compliance monitoring

Workshops/Training

• In-country workshops- bring in government and industry
• Workshop on illegal logging targeting NGOs’ communications staff  and environmental reporters
• Bring in trainers with technical and local knowledge.
• Expand scope of NGO participation in follow-up workshop à development of strategies to combat illegal logging.

Methodology/Strategy Planning

• Establish coalition for citizen monitoring (Ring of Fire Coalition as an example).
• Organize Safety Campaigns for the people working on the ground.
• Study government incentives to increase wood consumption or increase trade to ‘alternative markets’ (e.g.  Canada is examining possibility of China as buyer, since USA is using tariffs to discourage trade), and the potential impact on illegal logging and demand from these incentives.
• Establish a better link between illegal logging and issues of higher concern for governments such as labor, poverty etc. for more impacts.
• Link pre-existing government/international development agencies to log market issues.
• Set Goals that will impact log/wood product and market dynamics.
• Fund coordination role (Forest Integrity Network as a potential).
• Hold Media outreach/education week joint effort in countries.

back to top

VII. Summary of Immediate Next Steps and Outcomes

Wynet summarized the outcomes and immediate next steps that will emerge from the workshop.

Immediate Next Steps  

Immediate needs have been identified in terms of providing basic support to people carrying out monitoring and detection work and funds need to be found for this.

• Create a website resource and listserv mechanism for communication.  The website can be a clearinghouse of information as well.

• A workshop report will be produced which will identify key issues, needs, challenges, best practices and opportunities that the practitioners here have identified.

• The tool box will be compiled into a CD and made available on a website, and funds will have to be identified for translations.

• The best practices identified by this workshop will also be incorporated into the report Wynet is producing on Illegal and Destructive Logging.

• The public session on Friday afternoon presents an immediate opportunity to present practitioners’ work to a wider audience of key US decision-makers and network.

In terms of longer term outcomes and next steps, Wynet emphasized that the potential for building on this workshop will depend on everyone present.  It will be important to follow-up.   

Short-term coordination: Wynet agreed to act as the coordination contact through September 2002, after which Kumi will act as contact. Longer-term coordination will need further discussion and FIN was suggested as a possibility.

back to top

VIII. Remote Sensing

The purpose of the remote sensing session was to provide information to participants about the use of remote sensing and satellite imagery as a tool to detect illegal logging and specific examples of best practices and results.  Eraldo Matricardi (Michigan State University) presented on the use of satellite imagery to monitor forests in Brazil (see Presentation 10).  Susan Minnemeyer (GFW) gave an overview of Global Forest Watch’s use of satellite imagery to for compliance monitoring in Cameroon (see Presentation 11).

Best Practices using Remote Sensing

• Satellite imagery can be used for wide-scale monitoring of forests at a national and regional level.  Results can be used to help government enforcement and stakeholder focus field work in high-priority areas.

• Satellite images provide objective documentation of potential infractions.

• Methods to identify infractions are replicable and consistent.

• A series of images over time can be used to build data/information base for long-term monitoring.

• Ensure both satellite images and resulting datasets are readily available to promote transparency and accountability.

Key issues/Challenges with using Remote Sensing

Nature of satellite imagery

• Images do not capture everything (e.g. some roads not visible under forest canopy etc.).

• Images can be expensive (~$600 for Landsat, over $1,000 for IKONOS).

• Analysis requires processing time and expertise.

• Need to develop ongoing method especially to detect/document different activities (e.g. fire, selective logging).

• Need to document lessons learned regarding methods for analysis; there can be a steep learning curve to conduct remote sensing well.

• Long-term commitment is needed to do this work.

• Remote sensing should be complemented by other ‘on the ground’ data such as logging concession boundaries, roads, and field checks with GPS for verification.

• Need skilled employees to analyze imagery.

Access to satellite imagery

• Due to cloudiness and high costs, images may not be available when needed.

• Infrastructure and location are key.

• How to solve problem of government restricting access and result dissemination?  One possible model for developing a monitoring program would be to transfer technology and skills to an “independent” group (e.g., NGO) – link to government but do not develop technology within governments to ensure access to data and results.

 Training for remote sensing

• Two levels of training are required: GIS specialists and non-specialist users.

• Time consuming to learn remote sensing.

back to top

Plenary Session for Public

Tony Janetos, former Senior Vice President/Chief of Program, and Linda Delgado, Co-Director Forest Program at World Resources Institute welcomed all to the workshop.

William F. Sugrue, Director of Environment and Natural Resources, USAID welcomed everyone on behalf of USAID.

Merlin Bartz, representing Ray Tierney, Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Agriculture welcomed all on behalf of USDA/USFS.

Jeffry Burnam, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environment, US State Department  spoke about how important the issue of illegal logging is and the urgency of taking steps to combat it.

Wynet Smith set the context for the workshop and why addressing the problem of illegal logging is crucial.  Participants from the workshop gave an overview of illegal logging in 5 countries (see Presentation 12):

• Paulo Barreto of IMAZON spoke about Brazil and how current work is affecting change.
• Aran O'Carroll, Forest Watch of British Columbia, highlighted the importance of citizen-based monitoring.
• Roger Ngoufo, Cameroon Environment Watch/GFW Cameroon, talked about the use of paper audits to track compliance with forestry legislation.
• Alexey Morozov, Greenpeace Russia, discussed how data on illegal logging in the Russian Far East has been used to create pressure for change.
• Fachrurrazi, Telapak, Indonesia, gave a presentation on the problem of illegal logging in Indonesia, the importance of good field investigations and of using the data to create change.

Key Findings/Conclusions from their presentations on the role of NGOs in monitoring of illegal logging included:

• Raising public awareness
• Documenting the facts efficiently, rigorously and cost-effectively
• Pressuring authorities to take action
• Taking legal actions
• Promoting transparency
• Promoting responsible wood purchasing
• Monitoring forest management
• Working with logging companies to find solutions

Following the plenary, some small discussion groups were formed with audience participants.  

Highlights from discussion groups 

GIS/Compliance Monitoring Working Group

Global Priorities for Compliance Monitoring

• S.E. Asia – Indonesia, Malaysia and Papua New Guinea

• Central Africa
• Brazil and Amazon Basin
• Russian Far East

Potential Role of US Government to facilitate International Remote Sensing for Compliance Monitoring

• Provide training

• Provide Internet access for groups in countries where internet access is too expensive
• Increase openness and transparency leading to public access to information

Communications Working Group

Best Means and Practices to Communicate Data

• Bring monitoring results to government (NGOs doing government’s job)

• NGOs collecting data that governments cannot collect due to cost and other constraints including field staff and technical expertise
• NGOs work to publicize government enforcement efforts (reinforce impact)
• NGOs as mediators or facilitators between government agencies and authorities
• NGOs help highlight key laws and regulations to government enforcers

• System/laws/regulations have to be enforceable in order for education and communication to work à  Identify where NGOs can have influence/impact…Is it civil society or government?

• Know your pressure points (governments are not monolithic)

• Identify allies in government (e.g. finance ministries looking for sources of revenue which can be obtained by
• Use different communication of data/results to different government agencies, due to different and contradictory laws and priorities.

Challenges

• In some cases, government decisions changed, due to NGO pressure, however, illegal activity still continues.

• NGOs communicate information, talk to press etc, but are not strong on next steps (i.e. specific recommended actions to governments).
• Need to connect rigorous data
• Corruption is a major factor, so even if policy change achieved, what is impact?

What is needed?

• Training NGOs on communication, data connection.

• Legal training and awareness, environmental reporter awareness.
• Long term commitment of funds for monitoring, training, and education efforts
• Find allies “agents for change” in government, industry, and donor community.
• Information exchanges between NGOs/Governments/Industry/Journalists.
• Respect conflicting interests and views.
• General information and awareness, promotion can be more effective than targeting a few bad actors, particularly if there are many bad actors.
• Product flows/consumption is key to dealing with corruption.
• Compelling stories needed to help raise awareness and engage potential change agents.

Close of Workshop

Thanks were extended to all. A wine and cheese reception was held to allow participants the opportunity to continue informal conversations.

This workshop was hosted by the World Resources Institute (WRI) and sponsored by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the United States Forest Service (USFS).

back to top