Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition (FSN Forum)

The problem of sustanable forestry is closely connected with a problem of ensuring of food security. Preservation of a biodiversity by creation of biospheric territories doesn't contradict development of agriculture. But at the same time it is necessary to follow the rules of functioning of biosphere reserves accurately:

1. In a security zone carrying out researches and ecological tourism is possible. Even deforestation is excluded. The principle works: the nature restores itself.

2. In a buffer zone limited economic activity are possible: cattle pasture, collection of mushrooms, berries, herbs.

3. In a zone of development it is reasonable to perform organic agriculture and cattle breeding.

The similar project was developed at the beginning of the 2000th years for East Kazakhstan, but, unfortunately has not been realized.

Distinguidos Señores:

Sirva el presente para enviar la Nota Verbal N° 380/16M16/FAO/CSA, mediante la cual se trasladan las Contribuciones emitidas por la Secretaría de Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional al documento denominado V0.

Atentamente, 

Embajada de Guatemala ante la República Italiana

Representación Permanente ante los Organismos de Naciones Unidas con sede en Roma

Via Giambattista Vico, 20 - 00196 Roma, Italia

Dear Madam, dear Sir,

I would like to share a couple of comments on the v0 draft of the report “Sustainable Forestry for Food Security and Nutrition”, if still possible, on behalf of the “Asset creation & livelihoods” team (OSZPR) in WFP Rome:

1. Deforestation and other forms of land degradation represent key sources of social tensions, competition and conflict, particularly in rural areas largely dependent on scarce natural resources, but also in in displacement settings - such as around refugee/IDP camps. The report could emphasize this issue further, along with potential required responses. As an example, WFP and partners’ SAFE programme adopts a multi-faceted approach to meet the energy needs of displaced people worldwide through sustainable energy-related activities, protecting both people and the environment; more information is available at: www.wfp.org/climate-change/initiatives/safe.

2. Landscape-based approaches and integrated watershed management are key to tackle deforestation and land degradation; this applies with force to drylands, where there are important connections between land restoration, water management and food security; the “forest/land – water – food security nexus” could be further highlighted by this report.

3. Deforestation and other forms of land degradation calls for integrated, partnered efforts to match the scale of the problems that are affecting communities and countries. The required scale can be achieved through ambitious asset creation and livelihood support, productive safety nets, environmental restoration and other complementary programmes - developed in close consultation and collaboration with affected communities, technical services and Governments.

4. As a successful example, WFP’s MERET programme has concentrated on integrated watershed management in Ethiopia for several years. Over this period, it has accrued extensive knowledge on how to implement sustainable land management activities using participatory, community-based approaches and these have laid the foundation for many of the Government flagship programmes. See: www.wfp.org/node/14481.

Thanks, and best regards,

Philippe Crahay

OSZPR - WFP Rome

Please find attached as a PDF file my response to the HLPE e-consultation on the Draft V0 of the Report - Sustainable Forestry for Food Security and Nutrition.

With best regards,

Jay

J C Abrahams BSc Microbiology, Diploma in Applied Permaculture Design

Biologic Design Ltd.

Archenhills, Stanford Bishop, Herefordshire, WR6 5TZ

Buenas noches,

Espero sea considerado nuestro aporte.

Muchas gracias.

Atentamente.

Ma. Teresa Álvarez

Delegada de WAMIP y La alianza de pastores.

Documento preparado por el grupo de pastores y ganaderos extensivos de la sociedad civil (WAMIP)

BORRADOR DE COMENTARIOS DEL MSC

Documento HLPE V0 Draft Report on Sustainable Forestry

for Food Security and Nutrition (31 may 2016)

1. Comentarios generales

Es muy notable y gravísima la ausencia completa del ganado y los pastores en la descripción del sistema alimentario de los bosques. A nuestro entender, esto es inexplicable y absolutamente inaceptable para nuestros representados, dada la gran dependencia que los pastores tienen de los territorios de bosque y matorral, puesto que las especies leñosas constituyen una importantísima fuente de alimentación del ganado. Se puede ver un reciente informe al respecto en http://www.ganaderiaextensiva.org/JustificacionYConclusiones_InformeElegibilidadPastos.pdf, motivado por la exclusión de esa importante fuente de recursos pastables de la Política Agraria Común de la Unión Europea. A escala más global es necesario reseñar que los pastos leñosos constituyen un recurso pastable clave en momentos muy sensibles para la seguridad alimentaria, como por ejemplo durante sequías en las que desaparece el sustrato herbáceo, dado el carácter permanente de la vegetación leñosa.

Además, se omite el rol de la herbivoría en el mantenimiento de la función ecológica en áreas donde la vegetación leñosa tiene una presencia importante, ya sea para la dispersión de semillas, para la preservación del ciclo de los nutrientes o para la preservación de la biodiversidad mediante aberturas del dosel arbóreo que preserven la diversidad estructural de los bosques.

Es deseable introducir secciones específicas sobre los sistemas alimentarios ganaderos en el documento.

2. Ejemplo más notables de ausencia

· “Box 3”

· “Figure 4”

· “Figure 5”

· p 20 l 8-17: La referencia a los “natural parklands” se realiza desde el mismo prisma que el resto del documento, entendiendo los bosques como fuentes de alimento sólo desde un prisma extractivo y centrándose en alimentos para consumo humano “(forest foods)”, y no como paisajes que mantienen sistemas alimentarios asociados a la ganadería.

· “Figure 6” - se menciona el ganado pero no el rol de los pastos leñosos o cualquier otro elemento

· Sección 2.5 en página 25

· p 27 l 17-24

· “Box 8”

· “Figure 8” - ¡¡¡el forraje (“fodder”) no está incluido en los servicios de provisión!!!

· p 52 l 6-15 (y toda la sección 3.5, en realidad)

· sección 5.4 - ¿qué pasa con los recursos forrajeros forestales?

3. Escasos ejemplos de inclusión

· p 22 l 16-26

· “Figure 9”

· “Box 16” menciona la importancia del pastoreo en diversos bosques mediterráneos. A nuestro entender, en estos sistemas es tan evidente y sabido que el sesgo extractivista-forestal no lo ha podido ocultar.

· “Table 10” - ¿cómo es posible que los sistemas silvopastoriles sean tan mencionados y luego sean tan ignorados en el texto y en toda la sección 4????

· “Table 11” - aunque de forma mínima, igual que en toda la sección 5. Impera la visión de que los bosques son cosa del manejo forestal, ignorando todo el sistema alimentario basado en el ganado que en muchísimos lugares depende de ellos.

Dear HLPE,

The attached document conveys the comments of the ​​CSM on the Zero Draft of the HLPE Report on Sustainable Forestry for Food Security and Nutrition.

Warm regards, on behalf CSM,

Martín Drago

Coordinador

Programa de Soberanía Alimentaria

Amigos de la Tierra Internacional

Maldonado 1390 bis - CP. 11200

Montevideo, Uruguay

 

From the perspective of tenure and land-use change – Contribution from Eugenio Sartoretto, LEGN

All the existing definitions of “forest” recalled by the report, qualify it as an “area” (Box 1, p 11) with specific and variable assets that respond to different purposes and to different scales. However it should be noted that the term “area” is rather vague and does not help to clearly establish the link with the applicable tenure system. In this regard it would be important to highlight that defining forest first and foremost as a “land” rather than an “area” (with canopy cover), which would clarify and therefore strengthen the link with tenure, so enabling a better forest governance and further contributing to food security and nutrition.

Also the FAO forest definition is developed based on size, height and canopy cover without including any element in relation to the diversity of species and on its natural generation or, at least, regeneration process. The lack of these latter parameters clearly allows for a more inclusive definition of “forest” ranging from Natural, to Agroforestry and to Managed and Plantation forests. The result is that monocultures matching size, height and canopy cover criteria are also considered forests. It should be noted that not all these monocultures are for timber production, rather an increasing number of them aims at producing agricultural commodities, this is the case of agribusiness plantations of tree crops such as oil palm. This situation is relevant particularly in relation to “forest conversion” and “change of land use”.

Along this line the report rightly points out that forest conversion could involve intensive mono-cropping, further considered as a forest type, which does challenge biodiversity. Forest conversion is generally the result of land use change but, especially in the light of the existing forest types: this inter-relation should be clearer in the report. Once clearly established it will highlight some important underlying inconsistencies including that a forest following a forest conversion process will result in another forest. In fact, those monoculture plantation (agribusiness plantations of tree crops) which currently fit into the definition of “forests” while producing agricultural commodities, are often planted following the clearance of natural forest, alias a forest conversion process. According to FAO definitions, deforestation is the conversion of forest to another land use, but in the absence of the mentioned criteria, the border between forest and agricultural use lacks clarity, thus undermining any further consideration including on their possible interaction.

From the perspective of decent rural employment and right to food - Contribution from Sisay Yeshanew, LEGN

The report sets out to look at the economic, social and environmental values of all types of forest and their multiple benefits for people. It highlights the employment opportunities the forest sector creates and the importance of the income generated from such employment to household food security and nutrition. However, it does not create the important connection with decent rural employment/labour standards. The terms and conditions of employment matter for food security and nutrition as much as the employment opportunities the sector creates. Forestry is one of the most dangerous sectors to work in, personal protective equipment may not be available, most workers (including children and migrant workers) are informally engaged, wages are low and working hours are long, and the work locations are often in far off locations, making it difficult for labour inspection mechanisms to check compliance with labour standards. These conditions could have negative implications on the income, health and other socio-economic conditions for food security and nutrition. This may be addressed under section 3.4 or under section 5.5

Moreover, the report does not address the right to adequate food perspective, except where it talks about right to wild food in the “way forward” section. The right to food angle provides important governance (rights-holders, duty-bearers and accountability) perspective to the relevance of forestry to food security and nutrition.  There are materials that could be consulted at least in relation to non-wood forest products: e.g., http://www.fao.org/docrep/field/009/ap418e/ap418e00.pdf

- - -

Please also note that the report includes definitions that are not aligned with FAO Forest Resources Assessment 2015. In this regard it might be useful to  refer to http://www.fao.org/docrep/017/ap862e/ap862e00.pdf.

HLPE Draft V0 (31 May 2016)

Comments by United States

The United States recognizes the importance of sustainable forestry and its impact on food security and nutrition and appreciates the opportunity to provide input into the HLPE Draft report.

Overall Comments:

• The HLPE Draft V0 (31 May 2016) covers a large array of examples and lists numerous sub-recommendations.  Prioritizing these recommendations and creating a top message would enhance the report and make it an effective document for policy makers. 

• The link between forests and diets differ greatly from region to region.  The document could be strengthened by dividing information into geographical sections, and citing more strenuous peer-reviewed data. 

• Issues related to land tenure and property rights are discussed toward the end of the report, however, they are key to current patterns of land use and land cover, and will also shape future patterns and should be represented earlier.  Lack of clear property rights can be a driver of land clearing and unsustainable use, and this literature should be included. 

• Many non-forest land uses have potentially higher income generation potential than forested land uses, creating tradeoffs for food security and nutrition.  The impact of income should more pronounced in the document. 

• The draft focuses on a developing world view and has little application to U.S. agro-systems. 

Suggestions for Recommendations:

Recommendation 1:

1. Title Edits: Increase knowledge and awareness on the contributions of forests and trees to FSN through knowledge generation and training

• Incorporate recommendations on the need for research. For example, “Enhance research and improve data collection and monitoring”
• Incorporate the concept of increasing knowledge of the benefits of trees to crops through research as well as better dissemination of existing knowledge.
• Integrate the notion that agroforestry is important to households as well as communities, for example, by adding “and household” after community.
• Include the need to promote and support agroforestry into educational curricula, at all levels, but, in particular, into the curricula of agriculture, forestry, and rangeland students as well as extension specialists. In order to extend agroforestry, extension workers need to be better educated in the field.

Recommendation 2:

2. Title Edits: Address forest/agricultural land use trade-offs through valorization and market instruments

• Promote forests' contribution to local communities and national income by encouraging income generation and trade in forest foods and goods.
• Develop marketing information systems for NTFP and other forest goods and services to  promote the development of small-scale social forestry enterprises
• Assess socio-cultural, economic and health implications of deforestation and forest degradation on food security and nutrition.
• Under this section, the notion of value-added processing should be added, as a means to increase income generation. This is particularly relevant for tree crops.

Recommendation 3:

3. Title Edits: Manage multi-functional landscapes that combine food production with biodiversity conservation, to incorporate both land sparing and land sharing approaches

• Suggest revising this heading to read: "Manage multi-functional landscapes that combine food production with biodiversity conservation, to incorporate both land sparing and land sharing approaches."  Sub-heading “Engage with government and private conservation organizations to share information on the biodiversity benefits of agroforestry and other forest-based approaches to food production.”

• Incorporate the concept of increasing knowledge of the benefits of trees to crops through research as well as better dissemination of existing knowledge.
• Integrate the notion that agroforestry is important to households as well as communities
• The notion of value-added processing should be added, as a means to increase income generation. This is particularly relevant for tree crops.

Recommendation 4:

• Not clear what "higher levels of geographic aggregation" means.
• Add to beginning of sentence "Improve knowledge on best and most impactful" and delete "Promote use" climate smart agricultural technologies. In addition to improving knowledge on these, increasing adoption of “climate smart” agricultural technologies, agroecological solutions, and agroforestry practices seems important.
• Improve knowledge on best and most impactful practices of “climate smart” agricultural technologies, agro ecological solutions, and agroforestry practices for FSN.

Recommendation 5:

• Forest certification schemes and corporate social responsibility guidelines do not accomplish “means to respect and uphold the rights of women and indigenous peoples.” International certification can allude to a top down approach allowing for international intervention in cultural and country specific land issues.  Additionally, there are other means to accomplish this goal.
• Recognize claims to food sovereignty, when appropriate, as a means to support local communities’ efforts to gain better access to appropriate and adequate food, and to improve their diet quality and nutrition.
• Incorporate indigenous knowledge and inclusion of indigenous or traditional foods and, through collaborative initiatives, reintroduce them to the FSN value chain while respecting and upholding the in situ protection of local and indigenous peoples’ traditional knowledge and genetic resources.

Recommendation 7:

• Better integrate FSN in multifunctional landscapes and address concerns in the creation and management of protected areas through participatory process involving all concerned populations, including indigenous peoples.

Suggestions for Other Edits:

• There are contradictory statements regarding the role of forests in buffering shocks.  In some places, the report states that they are important and in others it dismisses their importance.

• Consider consolidating all the material related to household risk management and access to forest resources in one location and making more consistent.

• Few mentions of livestock, other than using forests as opportunity for fodder.

Australia’s comments on HLPE Report on Sustainable Forestry for Food Security and Nutrition

Australia recognises the importance of this report in addressing a key issue facing many countries and supports in principle the key tenants of the V0 draft paper. In particular, we value the opportunity to feed into this process as it highlights the importance of sustainable forest management as a mechanism to ensure the maintenance of productive multi use forests to deliver a variety of resources for the whole community, including food security and nutrition.

The report’s main messages align closely with Australia’s own policy settings around food security and nutrition i.e. including the need to:

• recognise that agriculture and the rural economy (including forestry) are heavily influenced by policies and outcomes in the rest of the economy;
• move away from siloed policy approaches towards an integrated food systems approach that promotes greater multi-sectoral coordination, involving multiple stakeholders;
• build a robust evidence base to inform future policymaking;
• ensure policies are underpinned by adequate capacity-building, particularly around implementation;
• embrace more efficient, sustainable production techniques;
• pursue future forestry policies that focus not only on the formal sector (e.g. commercial timber extraction)  but also explicitly recognise and address the role of forests in providing livelihood benefits, including food security, for many people; and
• ensure that policy and regulatory frameworks provide equitable access for the poor, women, vulnerable and marginalized groups .

HLPE Questions:

1. The V0 draft is wide-ranging in analyzing the contribution of forests and trees to food security and nutrition (FSN). Do you think that the draft adequately includes the range of contributions that sustainable forestry and forests can make to FSN? Is there additional important evidence or aspects that would enrich the report?

Australia has identified a few pieces of additional important aspects that would enrich the report.

Firstly, the report has a strong focus on the northern hemisphere, Africa and Asia resulting in a geographical bias that affects the scope of the study. Very little material is included from Europe, South America, Australia or New Zealand whether data, examples or case studies. In regards to Australia, the word “Australia” appears just three times in the entire 118‑page report – once in text (p.24), once in a table (p.65), and once in a reference (p.104). This partial global coverage contributed to a specific factual error on p.12: “Temperate forests occur in eastern North America, north-eastern Asia, and western and central Europe”. Temperate forests also occur in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and parts of South America.

Secondly, this geographical bias affects the scope of the study with a need for clear and consistent data and definitions throughout the report. For example, the listed characteristics of temperate forests are correct only from a northern hemisphere perspective, and are incorrect from a global perspective. Furthermore, the fauna listed is solely northern hemisphere, there is no mention of forest fire, and temperate forests are not limited to fertile soils. More balanced global coverage would ensure that the unique management systems required for different flora and fauna are considered and the examples provided are accurate.

Lastly, whilst we recognise that that sustainable forestry management and agriculture can be linked, there is a strong focus on agro-ecosystems. Firstly, we would appreciate clarification as to the meaning of agro-ecosystems. Secondly, agro-ecosystems are not always a possibility in every country and the inclusion and focus upon this in Section 4.2 reflects further underlying bias towards particular geographical areas, economies and countries. This report may better serve the international community by reducing its geographical bias and thus making its content, scope and recommendations more accessible and relatable.

2. The report’s structure consists of: the context and conceptual framework; the role and contributions of forests and forestry to FSN; the challenges and opportunities for sustainable forestry in relation to FSN; and governance issues for an integrated approach to sustainable forestry and FSN. Do you think that this structure is comprehensive enough, and adequately articulated? Does the report strike the right balance of coverage across the various chapters? What are the important aspects that could be covered more thoroughly?

The body of the report is very well crafted. The structure, context and breadth of issues are credible and balanced. However we have three further suggestions.

Firstly, line 13 (p.18) there is a reference to ‘reduced infections’. This is the first time that the discussion of food safety (through infection reduction) appears in a conversation about food security. While the report later discusses the use of forest wood for disinfection in depth (p.52), it seems out of place this early on in the report. We suggest removing the reference to reducing infections from p.18, or flagging that an in-depth discussion of this appears later in the text.

Secondly, there are references to ‘lifestyle diseases’ (on p. 9, 17 and 46). This may be appropriate in the context (to reference sedentary lifestyle and poor diets) but it seems more common in WHO documents to use the term ‘non-communicable diseases’ rather than ‘lifestyle diseases’. It may be preferable to refer to ‘non-communicable disease caused by lifestyle factors’.

Lastly, clearly the draft report is pitched at policymakers with a good working knowledge of the forestry sector and relevant policy issues that impact on that sector. However it is dense with terminology that the average layperson may find difficult to understand. As such, we recommend a glossary of key terms. Some of these terms are explained in the draft, but are very often buried in various sections.  For example, it is not until p.16 a definition of ‘sustainable forestry’ is provided. Similarly, we the report would benefit from having a good ‘Executive Summary’.  The ‘Conclusion’ section (p. 101) and ‘Recommendations for Action’ section (pp. 102-103) are helpful, but don’t really provide a succinct summary of what the report is about and what its key findings/recommendations are.

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please find below find my contributions, especially on land tenure, NTFPs and governance.

---

Proposed additions to assessment

Largely, seeking to enhance discussion of NTFPs, land tenure and governance

P 19

Line 24. Natural forests

This section deserves at least a paragraph on land tenure in natural forests. In fact, chapter 5 claims that this is treated in chapter 2 but I could not find reference there. Following is a suggested paragraph for the end of this section:

Land tenure is often poorly defined and governance is deficient in most natural forests. They may be public lands, protected areas or community lands, with classifications and circumstances varying from country to country. The large total area classified as public lands limits the presence of governing agencies. In the Brazilian Amazon, loggers, cattle ranchers and industrial agriculture have gained title to 30 million hectares of these lands (IPAM, 2006). USAID’s Indonesia Forest Program belatedly acknowledged that land tenure was an important issue, where the failure to deal with it can lead to landslides, flooding and reduced food security.  Natural forests classified as community lands may be able to resist similar pressure.  In Brazil, extractive reserves and indigenous lands (classified as protected areas) strengthen communities’ capacity to defend land and tree rights, reducing deforestation relative to nearby areas (see box). Community use may have detrimental or favorable effects on deforestation, food security and nutrition.

Box – Brazilian Amazon’s Protected Areas

Approximately 42% of the Legal Amazon is in protected areas in the form of conservation units and indigenous lands. Establishing these areas has been an effective means of reducing deforestation in the region. The protection and use of the sustainable development conservation units and indigenous lands generally improves food security through subsistence and cash income. However, there are formal initiatives underway to downgrade, downsize or degazette protected areas (Araujo and Barreto, 2010). (can add detail)

On page 20, suggest the following minor additions:

line 18 biosphere reserves and indigenous lands

line 30 Add: In the Brazilian Amazon, sustainable development protected areas and Indigenous Lands, where communities remain, have avoided loss in food security and generate cash income from NTFPs, with less deforestation from agriculture.

line 32 evolving policy and governance frameworks

line 37 new governance models and partnerships

p 21

line 18 Failure to apply forest principles often led to prohibition of community use of forest timber, reducing FSN.

line 34 as well as shaded cocoa and coffee, improved soil…

p 22

line 6 typo exist

p 23

figure 6 bottom right – perennials (not only forages)

p 24

line 27 hunting and fishhng

p 40

ntfp in brazil

p 46 box 15

In various places in Brazil’s Amazon, such as in Juruena, northwest Mato Grosso

P54

Line 4

Title: Fuelwood, charcoal, smoke …

Add to line 16 Unsustainable informal charcoal production in Brazil negatively affects nutrition as it often contributes to child and unfavorable labor practices as well as work-related pulmonary diseases and degradation of natural forests which contribute to nutrition and health

or

P54 l 34 fuelwood, charcoal and smole

In Brazil, some charcoal is produced from natural forests made by men and children hired temporarily under unsanitary and difficult conditions, leading to respiratory disease and poor family nutrition.

P 58

line 34 suggest inserting an additional subtitle

Opportunities for NTFPs

In some countries and for some NTFPs, communities have built fair trade ties with corporations. There are many other opportunities to develop these ties, turning non-profit to profit based support, enhancing income and nutrition. Pre-investment funding could be a way to make this happen. (can provide more detail).

P94

Line 14

The text could alternatively go here:

In some countries and for some NTFPs, communities have built fair trade ties with corporations. There are many other opportunities to develop these ties, turning non-profit to profit based support, enhancing income and nutrition. Pre-investment funding could be a way to make this happen. (can provide more detail).

P 102

Line 18

Alternatively, improve market chains and develop marketing information systems for NTFP and other forest goods and services to 18 promote the development of small-scale social forestry enterprises and fair trade-based community ties with corporations.

Elis Araújo and Paulo Barreto. Formal threats to protected areas in the Amazon. IMAZON – State of the Amazon, July 2010, no. 16. http://imazon.org.br/PDFimazon/Ingles/the_state_of_amazon/formal_threath...

Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazônia – IPAM, A grilagem de terras públicas na Amazônia brasileira. Brasília: MMA, 2006. 108 p. http://www.mma.gov.br/estruturas/168/_publicacao/168_publicacao30012009114114.pdf