Skip to main content



17 - 19 May 1999
Sagadi Estonia

Report of the Team Meeting

Chairman's summary

I would like to take this opportunity to again thank all team members for their contributions over the past year and to challenge you to keep active in the Team's new affairs!  A special thanks go to the participants, speakers and hosts of this superb meeting in Sagadi!  As the following report is intentionally long to provide team members not present the full substance of the meeting, I will summarize the key points and recommendations.  What you read below are the outcomes of the formal meeting, but I want to mention that as a result of this meeting our working relationships are stronger and our network is larger.

The theme of the meeting was public relations in the forest and forest industries sector in central and eastern European countries (CEECs).  There are common issues and problems in the CEECs, as exemplified by the need for PR capacity building to provide information to the growing population of private forest landowners.  The Team established a Subgroup on PR in CEECs.  Developments could be a topic to be presented at a workshop during the International Forestry Communications Forum 2000 and the Subgroup will report at the Team's next meeting (see paragraphs 13-19).

Following a discussion and a proposal on a European Forest Academy for Decision Makers, the Team established a new subgroup to conduct this work (see paragraphs 9, 11 and 12).

The Team, via the Forum Subgroup, will conduct the International Forestry Communications Forum 2000 in Québec, Canada.  The next few steps are: 1. seek lists of potential participants from team members; 2. design the programme; 3. request speaker suggestions; and 4. establish a forum website and mailing list (see paragraphs 20-23).

"The competitive climate for wood and paper packaging—factors causing substitution with emphasis on environmental promotion" is published thanks to the Substitution Project Subgroup!  The report is important background information for campaigns and discussions, including as a basis for the International Forestry Communications Forum 2000.  Countries are challenged to analyse the parts of the report which have national importance and then to compare results at the Forum 2000 (see paragraphs 24-28 and 31-32).

The next meeting of the Team will be in Canada in conjunction with the International Forestry Communications Forum 2000 in March 2000 (paragraph 50).

Ingwald Gschwandtl
Team Leader

Report of the Meeting


1.  The meeting of the FAO/ECE Team of Public Relations Specialists in the Forest and Forest Industries Sector took place in Sagadi, Estonia on 17-19 May 1999.  Representatives were present from Austria, Belarus, Canada, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland and USA.  The following organizations were represented: Conféderation Européenne des Propriétaires Forestiers (CEPF), UN-ECE, FAO and the Malaysian Timber Council (a full list of participants appears in Annex I).

2.  Mr. Andres Talijarv, Director General, the National Forestry Board welcomed the meeting participants to Sagadi, Estonia.  At this important turning of the millennium, he reflected that forest land had doubled in Estonia over the last century and that ownership had changed four times.  Currently there are 35,000 private forest landowners, but with increased restitution of land, that number would triple to 100,000.  He noted that public relations was becoming increasingly important for Estonia and he wished the FAO/ECE Team of Public Relations Specialists success in their meeting.

3.  Mr. Ingwald Gschwandtl (Austria), Leader of the Team, welcomed participants and described the Team's mandate, membership, activities and accomplishments.  He mentioned the methods of work including an annual meeting supported by periodic planning and subgroup meetings.  Networking is a key element of the Team and now the Team has its own website and communicates increasingly by e-mail.

4.  Mr. Ari Tarjanne, Jaakko Pöyry Consulting, presented a keynote speech on "Forestry under pressure" and described the increasing demands placed on the forest and forest industry sector by markets, authorities, forest owners and environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs).  Hard issues (competing materials, certification, financial returns, economic sustainability, greenhouse gas abatement, intensive silviculture) were contrasted to soft issues (employment, multiple-use, indigenous peoples, biodiversity, forest protection).  Concerning geographical dimensions, North America, Europe, South America and Southeast Asia have their individual issues and then some overlapping issues too.  Wood use patterns differ geographically and consumption rates are volatile in developing countries.  The attention to environmental issues of genetically modified organisms, greenhouse gases, old growth forests, clearcutting and forest certification were predicted to decline between now and 2004, but the nuclear power issue was forecast to escalate.  Concerning forest trends, he predicted: more careful forest management; more intensive fibre production from plantations; rapidly rising numbers of private forest landowners; more protection of biotypes and regional subsidies; more NGO involvement; and harmonisation of legislation and enforcement.  He linked forestry stakeholders to the life cycle of forest products and said that key business stakeholders as well as external stakeholders must be included in PR work.  He forecast that genetically modified organisms and cloning will be the next hot topic in forestry PR, although currently the key issues are health, sustainability, renewability and viability of disadvantaged regions.

5.  Mr. Yves St-Onge (Canada) presented a keynote address on the "Strategic approach to professional communications in forestry"--how it is done and what are the issues.  He said that communication is more listening than talking, a shared corporate responsibility and a process for change (globalization, information technologies and reorganizations).  Much of the communication function is to identify and to analyse gaps: perception versus reality; getting the whole picture; and quality of communication.  Three main elements of communication are:  messages (perspective and interpolation, using target audience language (level, media, etc.)); tools; and networks.  The communication function is for motivation, education, change, planning and strategies, responding to changing values, developing partnerships and presenting your point of view.  The learning plan was defined to be product knowledge (features, benefits, applications, resources, competition), plus communications skills, tools and processes, plus customer knowledge.

Item 1.  Adoption of the agenda

6.  The provisional agenda was adopted.  Mr. Gschwandtl chaired the meeting and Mr. Ed Pepke, (FAO/ECE) was rapporteur.

Item 2.  PR activities with potential for international interactions and cooperation

7.  Mr. Steffan Norin (Sweden) presented a new campaign in Sweden called the "Greener Forests—putting forest policy into practice!"  The message for forest owners is to visualise forest policy goals and long-term objectives expressed on each stand viewed within an ecosystem context and building that into a forest management plan.  Main parts of the programme are: extension materials, demonstration areas, and interactive techniques.  The impetus for the programme is to increase training and knowledge, especially at this time of decreasing funding for extension work.  The National Forestry Board wants to motivate their target audiences to change attitudes as well as increase knowledge and the Board will attempt to document the change.  There are a number of evaluation and feedback mechanisms built in throughout the project's 2 to 3 year life.  Wide cooperation with industry, NGOs, universities, institutions and  recreationists is expected.  Benefits for the forestry administration are: elevating external profile; building consensus about forest policy; developing extension services; and learning about and building relationships with forest owners.  Target groups are: forest owners, schools, others in the forest sector, key public groups in Sweden plus internationally too.  The project is funded for 20 million euros.  Internationally, the Board has ambitions to initiate a dialogue about Swedish forest policy, establish bilateral initiatives, work with the Baltic 21 Process, exchange information on Greener Forests' follow-up, and if successful, to export the idea of Greener Forests.

8.  Mr. João de Sousa Teixeira (Portugal) presented the campaign "Vivier é Convivier" (To live is to share).  The goal of the campaign is to enlighten citizens on the prevention of forest fires, specifically about their causes (human origin 56% ( by shepherds, farmers, recreationists), 2% natural and 42% unknown).  Why the campaign?  To develop a positive attitude towards fire in a coordinated effort.  Their slogan is, "The forest takes care of you!" in order to build a feeling of reciprocity with the forest, as opposed to the feeling of responsibility.   Communications products are: a brand (symbol, slogan), mascots, a practical guide, plays, songs, a pact with the forest, forest keepers, a flag.  Cooperation with organizations to use the campaign brand is sought through media relations and conferences.

9.  Mr. Juhani Karvonen (Finland) presented a proposal for a programme to initiate a series of European Forestry Academies for Decision Makers saying there is a need to change what we do and how we do it due to changing financial markets, more environmental challenges, globalization, substitution and urbanization.  There is an information overload and we need more knowledge and understanding and to put the information into know-how.  In the forest sector we have now: scientific seminars, policy forums, international committees and processes.  But a link is needed between all of these fora which is open to other groups.  Strategies of influence are changing from individual lobbying to joint lobbying and now to "opening-up", that is, participatory lobbying.  In Finland this successful approach is repeated in 2 to 3 academies per year, for a selected group of people from government, industry, media, business community, EU parliament, NGOs, and others, of which one-third are from the forest sector.  The participation profile recommended by past participants are key political figures, scientists, media, and NGOs.  A variety of policies and issues are presented on harvesting, processing, research, etc.  Personal contact and interaction are facilitated and participants come away with integrated views and new ideas.  Results have been evaluated in terms of increased productivity and effectiveness.  Each course results in a publication, plus information in newspapers, magazine articles and on a website.  Finland offered to be the host for the first European Forest Academy for Decision Makers, perhaps in May or June 2000.

10.  In a discussion of the 3 initiatives, the Team looked at possibilities for interactions and to explore potential for the programs.  How are forest owners' goals linked with Swedish forest policy?  Mr. Norin said the benefit is to integrate forest policy into individual owners' management plans.  How could Greener Forests be used in other countries?  Mr. Norin responded that through the text book the programme could be transferred and used as an example.  What do you expect on the forest level from Greener Forests?  Mr. Norin replied, "improvement in silvicultural practices, implementation of national policy, change of attitudes and increased knowledge."  Why are bad examples not used?  Mr. Norin said forest owners have seen the bad clearcuts but need to see positive examples.

11.  Regarding the forest academy for decision makers, a participant asked how is the educational sector involved?  Mr. Karvonen said the sector has been involved in the academies, but there are more specific programmes for the educational sector too.  How will the European-wide academy differ from the Finnish academies?  Mr. Karvonen said that this is up to the Team and perhaps a new subgroup to decide, but perhaps shorter than 4 days, and perhaps only a seminar without an excursion.  The participants benefit by joining forces and the European academy could be a natural advancement.  A suggestion was made to rotate the academies around Europe so that different host countries could benefit by bringing out local issues. Mr. Gschwandtl and others stated the need to decide on the PR Team's involvement and any links, without overlap, to the International Forestry Communications Forum 2000.  The academies have the potential for a long life.  It was stated that the International Forestry Communications Forum 2000 is internal, ie for PR Specialists, but the academies are external, for decision makers outside the forest and forest industries sector and definitely not directed for the PR specialists.  Mr. St-Onge, who is leading the Forum Subgroup said that the Finnish Forestry Academies for Decision Makers could be an example of successful PR initiatives at the Forum 2000.

12.  The Team welcomed the initiative of Mr. Karvonen and thanked him for the offer to host the first European Forest Academy for Decision Makers in Finland.  Its organization will be through a new subgroup from the Team to be led by Mr. Karvonen and the Subgroup will include at least Mr. Werner Ebert and Mr. Gschwandtl.

Item 3.  PR activities in countries and institutions with special emphasis on central and eastern European countries

13.  Mr. Pepke presented a report summarizing national reports which focussed on the following points: 1. national capacities in PR; 2. new developments and significant activities; 3. PR training; 4. typical interest groups; 5. funding sources for PR; 6. main obstacles to PR; and 7. examples of successful activities.  The summary emphasised  the theme of the meeting, ie  PR in central and eastern European countries (CEECs).  He thanked the 12 countries that submitted reports in advance of the meeting as they had been posted on the website (to which the summary has been added too).

14.  Mr. Kristjan Tönisson (Estonia) presented capacity building for public relations in the Baltic Countries, based in part on a proposal made at the FAO European Forestry Commission.  Parts of the proposal include training of PR staff, assessment of public views and concerns and elaboration of a strategy.  A monitoring strategy was defined to assess progress and redefine direction to reach the goals.  Building on other's experiences, especially from the PR Team, could lead to joint implementation with common training to meet common problems and perhaps eventually to have common campaigns.  A risk analysis was performed using the SWOT technique (strength, weakness, opportunities and threats).

15.  Mr. Tönisson described successful PR activities in Estonia which include supporting journalists in comprehensive forest-related communication.  Two-day seminars are being organized for the media and in addition there is a forestry week, information materials for new forest landowners, a multimedia program, a TV series, etc.  He displayed the multimedia programme about Estonia's forest and forest industry sector which was designed in conjunction with an external information technology consultant.

16.  A discussion followed which focussed on CEEC capacity building in PR.  Countries have common problems and can find common solutions.  However funding is the main obstacle for all countries, both CEEC and non-CEEC.

17.  FAO responded to the request at the last European Forestry Commission session for assistance from the Baltic Countries by indicating that the Forestry Department does not have a comparative advantage in PR and does not have the capability to provide direct technical assistance in PR.  It depends on this Team of PR Specialists.  As FAO is not a funding agency, it offered to help build a proposal for funding, perhaps to the EU.  FAO recommended that the Baltic Countries designate members to, and attend the meetings of the PR Team, and that they network with other participants to build capacity. Countries should be active on the FAO PR list server and access the Team's website.  Finally, the model of the Baltic cooperation in building capacity can hopefully be used for other CEEC countries.

18.  In Poland a series of workshops were held using EU PHARE funding to build expertise through introduction of PR competence.  PHARE funds have also been used for public information campaigns in conjunction with spraying forest pests.  Due to the Team's initiative on substitutes, the Institute of Wood Technology in Poznan, Poland has established a new curriculum in this field.

19.  There are common issues and problems in the CEECs, as exemplified by the need for PR capacity building to provide information to the growing population of private forest landowners.  The Team established a Subgroup on PR in CEECs.  Developments could be a topic to be presented at a workshop during the International Forestry Communications Forum 2000 and the Subgroup will report at the Team's next meeting.  The Subgroup, currently composed of members from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, will meet to determine their plan of work and to select a leader and members.

Item 4.  The International Forestry Communications Forum 2000

20.  Mr. Yves St-Onge (Canada) presented a proposal to conduct a forestry communications forum from the Forum Subgroup (Mr. St-Onge, leader, plus Mr. Gschwandtl, Mr. Karvonen, Ms. Agneta Lindsted (Sweden), Ms. Annie Naif (France) and Mr. Pepke).  The tentative program would include panel discussions and presentations on life cycle analysis, certification, tropical forestry, etc.  Workshops would be conducted on specific issues and communications techniques including technology transfer and marketing, investor relations, Internet, education, public outreach programs (tree planting, national forestry days).  A final plenary would lead to a synthesis of discussions and preparation of conclusions and recommendations for actions and possibly a global communications plan.

21.  The Team discussed the forum and welcomed the offer from Canada to host the forum.  A date during the first 2 weeks of March 2000 will be considered.  A field trip could follow the 3-day forum on Thursday.  The PR Team could meet following the forum on Friday to incorporate any follow-up actions into their work.  The Team offered a number of additional recommendations: add "first" to the title; offer hands-on training in PR in place of the field trip; begin promotion in September 1999; assemble a mailing list of PR specialists within the forest and forest industries sector; disseminate materials after the event on the Team website; establish mechanisms for the forum's continuation; consider a secretariat; choose a title to attract all participants; assess participants expectations before and their perceptions afterwards; include NGOs on the panels and possibly as a keynote speaker; ensure wide country representation, perhaps focussed on the ECE region, but including emerging markets like Asia and the Mid-East; include tropical countries, especially if the issue of deforestation is discussed; limit participation PR program specialists; use FAO channels to locate participants in other countries; encourage active participation through breakout sessions.

22.  Potential topics for the forum's workshops and poster sessions are: Jaako Pöyry's early warning system; successful campaigns; forest fires; dealing with forest and forest industry statistics; cork and other non-wood forest products; promotion to specifier groups of architects, etc.; dealing with local government restrictions on wood including fire codes; tropical forestry versus temperate issues; carbon sequestration; life cycle analysis; capacity building in PR; education and training in PR; certification; and international media.

23.  The next steps are: 1. seek lists of potential participants; 2. launch programme; 3. request speaker suggestions; 4. establish a forum website and mailing list (with a form on the website to allow people to update their entry on the list); 5. Subgroup meeting in September.  To facilitate communications, the secretariat was requested to add a fax number list to the PR Team website.

Item 5. Strategies to stimulate and promote the sound use of renewable forest products

5.1 The competitive climate for wood

24.  Ms. Berit Sanness (Norway), Deputy Leader of the Team, and Leader of the Substitution Project Subgroup and Mr. John Burrows (Canada) presented the conclusions and recommendations from the Team's report on "The competitive climate for wood and paper packaging—factors causing substitution with emphasis on environmental promotion."  Ms. Sanness first thanked the members of the subgroup which has accomplished the first part of its task, and now faces an even greater task in promoting the results of the report.  (Please contact Ms. Sanness for copies of the report.)  She highlighted the strengths and weaknesses of wood in comparison to plastic, steel, aluminum and concrete, and emphasised that promotions must focus on wood's advantages, as well as using such positive developments like certification of sustainable forest management to also take care of perceived weaknesses.  Exhibits of the  loss of market share in some traditional wooden market sectors are evidence of the need to work together to promote wood.  The recommendations are to reinforce the network, organize a forest communications forum, prepare and run coordinated national education campaigns, make further studies in Europe and Japan, recognize the strength of the forests industries environmental position, and understand urgent need for international cooperation and actions within a 5 to 8 year perspective.

25.  She reviewed a seminar held to launch the report in Oslo in March 1999 and mentioned that a Geneva Timber and Forest Discussion Paper would be issued by ECE and FAO with an expanded executive summary of the report as requested by the Timber Committee.

26.  Mr. Burrows noted the need to update the "Substitution report" via a limited-access website with access to pre-qualified members, accessible from many websites and with regular maintenance.  The Canadian Wood Council offered to establish the website and maintain it for the first year on

27.  He updated the Team on the status of the wood industry in North America, and highlighted the growing competition from the steel industry in housing and packaging.  A strategy has been developed to defend wood market share with a $15 million per year campaign.  Proposals have just been sent to the industry and responses are expected in June 1999.

28.  The Team warmly thanked Ms. Sanness and Mr. Burrows and the rest of the Substitution Project Subgroup and other Team members who contributed to the report and its sponsors, especially Living Forests of Norway.  In discussion, the Team realized that there were potential for conflicts with competing industries, but that without a coordinated action to maintain market share, the wood industry wood continue to suffer.

29.  Ms. Agneta Lindstedt (Sweden) reported on a meeting of 22 Swedish and Canadian forestry communicators in October 1998 in Canada.  That meeting focussed on certification and the above mentioned Substitution Report.  Marketing arguments of substitutes were found to be: substitutes provide greater stability than wood and wood is less environmentally friendly than other materials.  However the wood industry knows the fallacies in these arguments and also how to promote wood's advantages.  The Swedish and Canadian communicators felt there was no need for a coordinated international campaign, but rather that it was necessary on the national level to reach out to architects, building authorities, governments, universities, designers, media, environmental NGOs, etc.  The communications tactics would be through providing information through key intermediaries via life cycle analysis, conferences and trade shows and Internet exchanges.  The conclusions of the session were that the industry is fragmented and needs to come together on an international level, with a basis on substitution and working with industry marketing groups to develop responses.  First there must be national campaigns.  The group of Swedish and Canadian communicators have opened a website ( which has a bulletin board titled "International forestry and forest industries web board" to facilitate on-going discussions.

30.  Mr. Jan Hagstedt (Sweden), the Nordic Timber Council, emphasised the need to increase the consumption of wood in Europe as the growing stock is increasing dramatically and that this is a message which must be disseminated.  He stated that it is naive to think that without a coordinated campaign that market share will increase.  The Nordic Timber Council has initiated a campaign called "Wood 2000" financed by both the forest industries sector and the forest sector for 5 million euros per year.

31.  In a discussion following these presentations, the Team considered how to cover the Living Forests' printing costs of the Substitution report.  Two possible solutions were seen: 1. direct contributions to Living Forests; and 2. purchasing copies.  The Team realized the need to widely disseminate the report and thus recapture the costs.  A suggestion was made to distribute future copies on compact disk.  The team also considered the reports distribution and a distinction was raised between strategic distribution of copies and free distribution.  A strategy to identify key target groups for distribution, including via NGOs.  Key audiences were the Team itself, plus new alliances .  The secretariat of the IFF has requested that a copy of the report be sent to each delegation before its next session in January 2000.

32.  How to follow-up on the Substitution Report and its outcome?  The report was seen as important background information for campaigns and discussions, including for the International Forestry Communications Forum 2000.  The report has been used in Poland for establishing related work and there are possibilities to expand their work and perhaps contribute to future updates.  A continuous update could appear via the Canadian Wood Council website.  Countries were challenged to analyse the parts of the report which have national importance and then to compare results at the Forum 2000.

5.2  PR aspects of timber and forest certification

33.  Mr. Per Hallerstig (Sweden), the National Forestry Board, presented the divergency of opinions on the fundamentals of implementing certification of sustainable forest management.  He stated that half of the Swedish industry forestland (37% of all forest land) is certified by the Forestry Stewardship Council (FSC) standard while the private forest landowners (50% of forest land) are developing their own alternative system called "Family Forest Certification".  Schemes should be voluntary, transparent, not a trade barrier, and while the government is remaining neutral, it has a role to provide information about certification to all forest


who is Chair of the Pan-European Forest Certification Working Group, described the new initiative which began in August 1998 and which now has 17 countries covering 100 million hectares of privately owned forestland.  Its objectives are to provide a voluntary initiative, offer mutual recognition, and to strengthen the image of forestry and wood as a renewable raw material.  The PEFC principles are sustainable forest management (based on the Pan-European Ministerial Conference for the Protection of Forests in Europe, and its criteria, indicators and operational level guidelines for sustainable forest management), credibility (by 3rd party auditing), non-deceptiveness, open access, non discrimination, cost effectiveness (individual or group certification), participation of all interested parties, transparency, subsidiarity, voluntary.  The PEFC is to be officially launched in June 1999.  She stressed that there should not be competition between certification schemes, but rather the accomplishment of common ecological, economic and social goals.

35.  Ms. Lindsted showed how the Swedish industry is using certification as a communication tool and has adopted the FSC system.  Targets are customers, media, politicians, NGOs, private forest landowners, and other decision makers.  As communication tools the industry uses printed and electronic material, study tours, briefings and seminars.

36.  Mr. Burrows stated that some Canadian industries have developed their own system with CSA International while other companies are becoming certified by FSC.  Home Depot has become a member of FSC even though there is a lack of demand for certified forest products.  He said that perhaps companies will participate in certification once market advantages are seen.

37.  Mr. Pepke presented the outcome of a Timber Committee workshop on "Certification of sustainable forest management in countries in transition" held 31 August–1 September 1998 in Prague.  Many of the conclusions of the workshop have relevance to the PR Team's activities and he urged the Team to consider the workshop's conclusions.

38.  Mr. Pepke also presented the latest discussion paper from ECE and FAO titled "The status of forest certification in the ECE region" by Drs. Eric Hansen and Heikki Juslin.  He noted that the paper will be on the Timber Committee website and that periodic updates are envisioned.  The paper contains an extensive list of references on certification.

39.  Mr. Gschwandtl stated that in Austria private forest landowners are participating in the Pan-European Forest Certification process.  The government is maintaining a neutral position by providing information on certification.

40.  Mr. Ebert said that in Germany, like in Austria, originally the forest landowners did not originally see the need for certification, but in the last 2 years they have been increasing involved in the PEFC system.

41.  Mr. Karvonen showed a video of the Finnish certification process.

42.  In an ensuing discussion the Team stressed that the certification debate is difficult with alliances being drawn to particular certification schemes.  In central European countries the costs of certification appear prohibitive for the new private land owners and they are wondering why they should be involved in a certification.  The response was that intermediaries in the market place are asking for certification and while currently there may be premiums for certified forest products, the additional costs of certification may not be recuperated.  There is confusion in the marketplace from specifiers, architects and wood users about certification and objective information is needed for the customers and consumers, especially as such confusion could lead to substitution of competing materials.

5.3  The role of wood and forests in carbon sequestration

43.  Mr. Heikki Granholm (Finland), Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, gave an overview of the climate change issue.  He said the CO2 concentration in the earth's atmosphere is increasing and reinforcing the greenhouse effect.  In the 1980s 20% of CO2 emissions were caused by deforestation.  During photosynthesis, CO2 is taken up and carbon is released back to the atmosphere through respiration, combustion and decomposition.  In Finland, most carbon is stored in peat, forests, landfills and forest products.  In 1994 the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change was established to stabilize the greenhouse gas concentrations at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with a climate system.  Countries have committed to promote sustainable management, conservation and enhancement of carbon sinks and reservoirs.  In 1996 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change revised the guidelines and the Kyoto Protocol in 1998 included a reduction of overall emissions by at least 5% below 1990 levels in the period of 2008-2012.  The debate continues on the definitions, accounting, verification and implementation of the articles of the Protocol and additional clarification is needed before all countries sign, ratify and implement it and its mechanisms of joint implementation, emission trading and clean development.  He said the potential for the forest sector in stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere could be in protection and enhancement of existing carbon stocks, establishing new carbon sinks, and encouraging the use of biomass and wood-based products.  In conclusion, the role of forests as carbon sinks and reservoirs can be best ensured through sustainable forest management.  He recommended that the Team use the debate and its outcomes in their PR work.

Item 6.  Other matters

44.  A study tour began with a visit to the Sagadi Forest Museum and the Sagadi Manor which are located in Lahemaa National Park and which are owned and managed by the National Forestry Board.  Following a lunch featuring wild game, the group visited one of Estonia's active oil shale strip mines.  Afforestation has been successful on the mine spoils over the last 30 years, however during this period of land restitution, no other management of the stands takes place.  Although this particular forest was closed to the public due to active mining, which might only continue another 5 years due to the low profitability of oil shale, the Team was interested in present and future PR opportunities.

45.  The following day the Team discussed: 1. how the National Forestry Board might promote the Lahemaa National Park; 2. what CEECs need to do to provide PR to new private forest landowners on correct forest management techniques?; and 3. what PR could be done related to the afforestation of the strip mines?  The Team encouraged the National Forestry Board to promote Lahemaa National Park as there is a good potential for tourism.  They would have to create a visitors centre.  Concerning PR to new private landowners, the Team recommended organizing exchanges of information, formulating forest management plans, following examples of technology transfer from the Swedish National Forestry Board and communicating the economic goals of producing high quality timber.  Regarding the quarry afforestation, the Team felt that it should be promoted as a good example of successful forestry operations.  First, the Estonian National Board of Forestry must define the real message(s) and then present the story to convey them via a media campaign, beginning with a pre-briefing of journalists.  Before starting, the Board was encouraged to assess public opinion and then monitor the success of the campaign.

46.  Mr. Pepke requested corrections to the addresses mailing and member list.  Mr. Steve Dembner (FAO) will add all team members to the FAO PR list server.  The member list appears on the Team's website and the next step is to add the Team's mailing list to the website, although secured by a password, and available only to team members.  A new e-mail system within the ECE Timber Section could facilitate increased distribution of documents and communication by e-mail; thus countries are asked to keep the secretariat current on any e-mail address changes as eventually possibly all correspondence will be by e-mail.

47.  Mr. Pepke welcomed members participation on the FAO/ECE Forest and Forest Industries Study Tour in Ireland on 5-11 September 1999.  Members were informed that full information on the tour appears on the Timber Committee website and encouraged to spread the invitation to other people in their countries.

48.  Mr. Tuomas Heiramo (Finland), Finnish Forest Industry Association, presented the results of an opinion survey conducted in conjunction with CEPI in 4 countries: Great Britain, Italy, Germany and France.  Three questions were asked about what comes to mind when mentioning: 1. "forest"; 2. "forest based industries?"; and "paper industry?".  Overall the responses were positive towards the forest and forest industries.

Item 7.  Closure of the meeting

49.  The report will be drafted by the rapporteur and finalized with Mr. Gschwandtl and then e-mailed to all meeting participants and the Team's mailing list, as well as be posted on the Team's website.

50.  The next meeting of the Team will be in Canada in conjunction with the International Forestry Communications Forum 2000 in March 2000.

51.  Mr. Pepke thanked the National Forestry Board for its excellent organization and warm hospitality, and he thanked the Team and its leaders for all their accomplishments and active participation at this meeting in Sagadi as well as past and future subgroup and planning meetings.  He also thanked the Estonian Ministry of Environment and the individual countries for their generous donations which facilitated the participation by so many participants from CEECs.  The participants thanked the hosts for all the arrangements and their exceptional hospitality.

52.  Mr. Gschwandtl thanked the hosts, the speakers and the participants and encouraged them to keep increasing their networking and to incorporate the results of the meeting in their work.  He said he looked forward to the next meetings and then closed the meeting.

Annex 1
List of participants

Meeting of the FAO/ECE Team of Public Relations Specialists in the Forest and Forest Industries Sector
Sagadi (Estonia) 17-19 May 1999

Ministerial Counsellor
Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
Ferdinandstrasse 4
A - 1020 VIENNA
Tel: +43 1 21 323 7307 / Fax: +43 1 213 23 7216

Chairman of Scientific and Technical Company of
  Timber Industry and Forestry
Concern "Bellesbumprom"
Marks Str. 16
BY - 220600 MINSK
Tel: +375 172 272 162 / Fax: +372 172 272 073

Senior Manager, Communication and Business
Canadian Wood Council
1400 Blair Place, suite 210
CDN - OTTAWA, Ontario
Tel: +1 613 747 5544 / Fax: +1 613 747 6264
E-mail: jburrows@cwc,ca

Manager, Communication and Production
Canadian Forest Service, Natural Resources Canada
580 Booth St., 8th floor
CDN - OTTAWA, Ontario K1A 0E4
Tel: +1 613 947 7354 / Fax: +1 613 947 7397

Director, National Forestry Board
Toompuiestee 24
EE - 15171 TALLINN
Tel: +372 62 62 905 / Fax: +372 62 62 901

Mr. Heikki Granholm
Senior Advisor, Department of Forestry
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
P.O. Box 232
Tel: + 358 9 160 2431/ Fax: +  358 9 160 2450

Information Manager, Finnish Forest Industries Federation
P.O.Box 336
Tel: +358 9 132 66 52 / Fax: +358 9 132 66 54

Managing Director, Finnish Forest Association
Salomonkatu 17 B
Tel: +358 9 6850 8810 / Fax: +358 9 6850 8820

Leitender Forstdirektor, Holzabsatzfonds
Flughafenstrasse 3
Tel: +49 69 212 33 184 / Fax: +49 69 212 30 708

Junior Expert, Department of Forestry
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Pf.1
H - 1860 BUDAPEST 55
Tel: +36 1 301 48 64 / Fax: +36 1 301 46 78

Chief of Division
Development Support & Information
State Forest Service, Ministry of Agriculture
13 Janvara iela 15
LV - 1931 RIGA
Tel: +371 7 228 390 / Fax: +371 7 211 176

Secretary of Public Relations
State Forest Service, Ministry of Agriculture
13 Janvara iela 15
LV -1932 RIGA
Tel: +372 7 210 366 / Fax: +372 7 211 176

Deputy Director, Centre of Forest Economics
P.O.Box 2370
Tel: +370 2 232936 / Fax: +370 2 232937

Private Forest Division
Department of Forests and Protected Areas
Juozapaviciaus 9
Tel: +370 2 72 25 18 / Fax: +370 2 72 20 29

Statistical Office
"Dame Gruev" 4,
MK - 91000 SKOPJE, Macedonia
Tel: +389 91 115 022 ext. 283 / Fax: +389 91 111 336

Director, International Affairs
The Norwegian Forest Owners Federation
P.O.Box 1438 Vika
N - 0115 OSLO
Tel: +47 22 01 05 50 / Fax: +47 22 83 40 47

Forest Research Institute
Ul.Bitwy Warszawskiej 3
PL - 00 973 WARSZAWA
Tel: +48 22 720 03 19/468 / Fax: +48 22 846 20 16

Ministry of Environmental Protection
Natural Resources and Forestry
Wawelska 52/54
PL - 00 922 WARSZAWA
Tel: +48 22 825 4012 ex. 655 / Fax: +48 22 825 47 05

Head of Wood Economics Department
Institute of Wood Technology
Winiarska St. 1
PL - 60-654 POZNAN
Tel: +48 61 822 40 81
Fax: +48 61 822 43 72

Head of Department, Directorate General of Forests
Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development & Forests
Av. Joao Crisostomo 28,
P - 1050 LISBOA
Tel: +352 1 312 48 03 / Fax: 351 1 312 49 96

General Director, General Directorate for Forests
Ministry of Waters, Forests & Environmental Protection
B-dul Libertatii nr. 12, sector 5,
Tel: +40 1 410 0243 / Fax: +40 1 411 0403

Head of the Department of Foreign Relations
Forest Reserch Institute
T.G.Masaryka 22,
SK - 960 92 ZVOLEN
Tel: +421 855 5314 124 / Fax: +412 655 5321 883

Head of Department for Extension & Public Relations
Slovenian Forest Service
(Zavod za Gozdove Slovenije)
Vecna Pot 2, p.p. 71
Tel: +386 61 123 54 32 / Fax: +386 61 123 53 61

Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food
Dunajska 56
Tel: +386 61 178 9145 / Fax: +386 61 178 9021

Managing Director, Nordic Timber Council AB
Drottning Kristinas väg 71
S - 114 28 STOCKHOLM
Tel: +46 8 440 85 60 / Fax: +46 8 411 22 21

Head of Department
National Board of Forestry
Tel: +46 36 15 57 08 / Fax: +46 36 16 61 70

Public Relations Manager
National Board of Forestry
Tel: +46 36 15 56 62 / Fax: +46 36 19 06 22

International Press Officer
Swedish Forest Industries Association
Box 5518
S - 114 85 STOCKHOLM
Tel: +46 8 783 84 79 / Fax: +46 8 661 73 06

Project Leader, Greener Forests
National Board of Forestry
S - 551 83 JÖNKÖPING
Tel: +46 36 15 56 57 / Fax: +46 36 15 55 73

Public Relations Manager
Swiss Forestry Association
Postfach, Rosenweg 14
Fax: +41 32 625 88 99
Tel: +41 32 625 88 00

Market Development
American Hardwood Export Council
3 St Michael's Alley,
Tel: +44 171 626 4111 / Fax: +44 171 626 4222

Conféderation Européenne des Propriétaires Forestiers (CEPF)
Forestry Specialist, MTK, Forestry Group
P.O.Box 510
Tel: +358 9 1311 5486 / Fax: +358 9 1311 5403
E-mail: lea.jylhä

Publications and Information Co-ordinator
Forestry Department
Viale delle Terme di Caracalla
I - 00100 ROME
Tel: +39 06 5705 4778 / Fax: +39 06 5705 2151

Malaysian Timber Council
Project Executive, Malayzian Timber Council
24 Old Queen Street
Tel: +44 171 222 8188 / Fax: +44 171 222 8884

Forest Products Marketing Specialist
Timber Section, UN-ECE Trade Division
Palais des Nations
CH - 1211 GENEVA
Tel: +41 22 917 2872 / Fax: +41 22 917 0041