Regional Workshop 25-28 September 2007 (Page 3)

PANEL DISCUSSION: REGIONAL PROJECT FORMULATION
The panel discussion on regional project formulation was chaired by Dr. S. Chand Basha, India with co-chair Dr. Manmohan Yadav, India. Dr. S. Sankar and Dr. M. Balasundaran, KFRI were the Rapporteurs.
At the outset, Mr. Jukka Tissari, Finland presented his views. He favoured 2-3 proposals encompassing not only the major Asian teak producers, but also Central and Latin American and African countries. He appreciated the Malaysian approach of technological evaluation for quality attributes. The other points he touched upon included development of new technology for quality product development from planted teak, harmonizing market with socio-economical aspects, the importance of Myanmar as the natural resource giant and China as the biggest emerging consumer.
In his presentation, Mr. Raymond Keogh, Ireland stressed the importance of taking projects on devising pricing policy, harmonizing grading rules and attaching price tag for quality and grade. In the discussion followed, the impact of sellers' ignorance of market price and the problems in formulating international grading rules were touched upon.
Mr. Peter Laming, Netherlands emphasized the market premium for quality product. He commented on the European buyers' willingness to buy the products, provided reliable quality and regular supply are assured.
Dr. Ichiro Nagame, Japan voiced importance of projects with global perspectives such as millennium development goal, addressing global warming and poverty alleviation. The other points touched upon were on the importance of partnership with stake holders and problems in international transfer of genetic material.
Mr. Hiroshi Nakata from JICA, Japan expressed his opinion on formulating grading rules. He stressed the importance of networking in processing and marketing aspects. He listed the important potential elements such as the transfer of genetic material for plantation activities, international pricing mechanism and timber grading system and cost of networking and revitalizing Teaknet. The necessity for unhindered movement of genetic material was elaborately discussed.
Dr. Daniel Bhaskaran Krishnapillay, presenting on behalf FAO regional Office Bangkok stressed the need for making Teaknet operational for information dissemination. Promotion of R & D activities on short rotation crop and a viable pricing mechanism were the other major points raised by him.
The process and steps involved in approval of projects by ITTO was explained by Ramon Carrillo, ITTO. How the project implementation will benefit the stake holders would be a key point for consideration in sanctioning the projects.
While summing up, Dr. Manmohan Yadav discussed the issues addressing the IPR in particular.

Satellite Meeting of Teaknet Chairman for the session: Dr. S. Appanah, National Programme Advisor, FAO, Bangkok; Co-chairman: Mr. Masakazu Kashio, Forest Resources Officer, FAO, Bangkok.
The Chairman in his opening remarks presented the agenda items for the meeting. The agenda items were as follows:
i) Brief introduction to Teaknet
ii) Decision to be taken for future of Teaknet
iii) Location, structure and function
iv) Steering committee
v) Financial and Physical support

Brief introduction to Teaknet
Dr. Daniel Bhaskaran Krishnapillay, Advisor to FRIM, Malaysia gave a brief introduction to Teaknet with the presentations on why we need a Teaknet in the Asia Pacific Region, History of Teaknet, progress to date and the rules and functioning of Teaknet till late 1998. Since 1998, with the restructuring process in the Myanmar Government, regular activities of Network became difficult to implement and the Teaknet became inactive.

Dr. Krsihnapillay stressed the need for reactivating the Teaknet for the following reasons
i) Teak is an important hardwood species
ii) Readily traded in the world market
iii) Suited and grown in countries in different agro-climatic zones
iv) Now grown in 36 tropical countries
v) Out of the total 187.1 million ha global plantations, 3% are teak
vi) Have new production technology
vii) Needs for definite grading rules and stable pricing
viii) Information to be disseminated to all those who are associated with teak

He informed the forum that during last many years, much information was generated with new findings. These findings with the current pricing practices and other information are to be collected, organized and disseminated. The possible option he put forth is to make a strong recommendation to FAO for assisting to effect necessary changes. Options

• Retain the network in Myanmar and find out ways and means to reactivate
• Retain Myanmar as a referral Centre for natural teak management and move the secretariat to an already existing strong Network like APPARI or APAFRI which could co-host under FAO.
• Move the secretariat to a teak country that is: a) currently active in teak management, research and trade and also willing to host the Network, b) to commit space, staff and funding and c) country which is easily accessible and is able to support information portal.

With these remarks Dr. Krishnapillay concluded the presentation.
The chairman requested the Steering committee members to express their opinion.
All the steering committee members, Mr. R. T. Somaiya, Mr. Kashio, Mr. Nakata and Dr. Krishnapillay suggested to shift the Network to KFRI. Dr. Sadhardjo, Indonesia also endorsed the view and it was also suggested to retain Myanmar as a Referral Centre for Natural teak forest management and to move the secretariat to KFRI, India.
The Chairman went on record to express gratitude to Myanmar Government for supporting Teaknet in the past. He also asked the members to give their suggestions or disagreement for shifting the secretariat to KFRI. Chairman also asked the Institutions to come forward to express readiness to host the Network and the Director, KFRI expressed the willingness.
The Chairman sought the willingness from any Institution other then KFRI for consideration. Mr. Raymond Keogh upheld the decision and suggested that Teaknet need not be fixed to any country, but can move depending on the situation. Mr. Somaiya pointed out that KFRI is active and should host Teaknet since India is a major teak producing country in the world besides having natural teak forests. He also suggested that if any other country expresses willingness, an associate office could be activated in due course.
Structure and functioning
With regard to the structure and functioning of Teaknet, Chairman noted that APAFRI is functioning in Malaysia by the support from FRIM and Teaknet can function with the support from KFRI. Mr. Somaiya informed the forum that Teak21 in Ireland is active and can cooperate and work with Asian Teaknet in order to compliment each other.
Mr. Nakata informed that another project is submitted by Myanmar, which is same as that of India's and this can be sorted out through Teaknet. Mr. Ichiro Nagame asked whether Chairmanship of Teaknet could be rotated. It was clarified that Chairman of the Teaknet can be appointed from any member country and asked to fix the term for Chairmanship. Dr. Krishnapillay cited APAFRI's situation (having a Chairman from Sri Lanka) and pointed out that chairman can be replaced in 3-5 years.
With regard to Regional meetings, Mr. Kashio pointed out that originally it was planned for two years but in reality meetings were conducted at 3-4 years interval. Dr. Mammen suggested that based on the periodic performance review, the host of Teaknet can be relocated. Mr. Keogh suggested a Five Year period and it was unanimously agreed. Director, KFRI suggested to include this issue in framing new Bye Law.

With respect to Functioning it was agreed that the present Steering committee members could continue. Dr. Appanah, Chairman recommended to expand the Steering Committee with the constitution of 9 members. Research Institutions from Japan and from other countries can be included although currently it is for Asia Pacific region.
Regarding Physical and Financial support, Chairman suggested three points i) to bring more members to Steering Committee ii) to review the fee and make it uniform to developing and developed countries iii) to find out whether private companies can financially support Teaknet.
Mr. Ricardo from Costa Rica agreed to try his level best while others members from private companies also showed interest. As to the query from the forum, Dr. Appanah, Chairman also agreed for contribution of US $ 10,000 from FAO as seed money.
Next item for discussion was on the selection of a Co-ordinator at KFRI for the Teaknet. Dr. Bhat from KFRI was asked to give an account of the initiation of work. Dr. Bhat gave an account of the work initiated for a Global Teaknet at KFRI. He informed that FAO has already offered a consultancy to KFRI in this regard and KFRI has prepared a Website and a new Logo. The chairman and the members suggested to retain the old logo with few modification reflecting scope at global level. He also presented the strength and contributions of KFRI to Teak research and management.The forum unanimously approved selection of Dr. KM Bhat as the new Coordinator of TEAKNET. Coordinator is appointed initially for 5 years and change in leadership should have the concurrence of the Chairman of the Steering Committee and FAO. In response to a query, Mr. Keogh informed that Teak 21 would collect information and link it to Teaknet in future..