Dcouments from the meeting
UNECE and FAO Team of Specialists on Forest Products Markets and Marketing
Timber Committee Market Discussions, Statements and Press Releases
1. Did you like the present 1½ day format compared to previous 1-day Timber Committee market discussion format? Why or why not?
Yes: 23 or 25 responses. 2 could not answer, as had not been at discussions before.
2. Do you like the theme proposed for the 2002 market discussions, i.e., the market effects of wood promotion?
A. If yes, could you suggest an author for the chapter in the Forest Products Annual Market Review, 2001-2002 and speaker (same person) for the market discussions. Yes: 23.
B. If no, what do you suggest instead? No: 1.
3. The market sectors covered in 2001 were: 1. keynote on globalisation, 2. economic situation, 3. secondary forest products, 4. paper and pulp, 5. certified forest products, 6. sawn softwood, 7. temperate hardwoods, 8. tropical hardwoods, 9. panels, 10. roundwood. Should we cover any different ones in 2002? Do you have suggestions for speakers, including yourself?
10 sectors are OK: 19.
4. Should the secretariat continue to attempt to produce the Forest Products Annual Market Review as a background document before the market discussions? Yes or no?
5. Should the secretariat continue to attempt to produce the “Executive Summary” of the Forest Products Annual Market Review in all 3 official languages before the market discussions? Yes or no?
6. Do you have any addition advice or opinions about the market discussions or the Forest Products Annual Market Review?
7. My preference for a Timber Committee market statement which evolves from the annual market discussions would be for:
A. Version 1, as in 2000, i.e., a more detailed statement incorporating significant volume forecasts. If yes, why? Yes, A: 11.
B. Version 2, as in 2001, i.e., a shorter, simpler version, leaving forecasts to accompanying summary tables. If yes, why? Yes, B: 10.
8. My preference for the introductory chapeau of the annual Timber Committee market statement press release would be for:
A. Version 1, as in 2000, i.e., a more detailed, perhaps controversial style. Yes, 1: 5.
B. Version 2, as in 2001, i.e., a shorter, summary of key findings style. Yes, 2: 15.
C. No introduction, simply the official, approved market statement as a press release. No intro: 3.
Please briefly explain why you chose A or B or C.