Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition (FSN Forum)

Dear Moderator,

please find attached my statement to the HLPE consultation on "Sustainable Forestry for Food Security and Nutrition.

Thank you for your kind consideration.

best regards,

Sven Günter

Dear Coordinator

I have some comments at this preliminary stage of the committee report.

1.      Many issues are attempted to include in the outlines of the report. Almost all agencies working in the forestry field use many catchy words in the profile to show as if they were working seriously in addressing social, economic and environmental issues in societies. Based on my experiences activities specification, funding focus and implementation process are more important than the uses of the words in the outlines or objectives of the report. In addition involvement of people with wrong background or different motive lead the policy guidelines to address the interest of powerful people at the cost of poor people. Mostly people with wrong values on forest resources and little seriousness on critical socioeconomic issues are leading such policies development initiatives. Almost all international forestry policies and practices are designed for addressing interest and values of European societies, and urban elites, if any in developing countries. They have resulted negative impacts on women, indigenous ethnic groups and poor people in developing countries. The policies and practices have genocide effect on indigenous population. Based on my experiences I am sceptical about this policy guidelines to bring positive impacts in developing countries. I little trust on the FAO initiatives that it benefit the forest based people. Can you show me any example that FAO and other international agencies made notable positive difference in the life of disadvantaged people? The sustainable forestry for food security and nutrition can be prove as another propaganda, or another dirty strategic plot to lock private land and remaining forest areas in developing countries as Forest for food security initiatives of FAO is focused on tree based intensification of land. The incentives, activities and process of tree intensification build up resources stock and change institutions which impacts on many other activities in local areas and affect people with various degree with the advancement in time. The committee was serious on the negative impacts there would be some special points to address potential risks and outcomes from new programs.

2.       In some regions the forest of an area is a mean/resource to sustain economic activities of other regions. The foothill and below snowline forests critical resources for sustaining alpine livestock business in mountain. Similar relationship exists in resources of different areas in dry/desert zones. These are special and important issues which are not been recognised in this outlines.    

3.      Global forest policies and practices are hugely influenced by the policy for global climate change mitigation. The policy make critical impacts on food security due to contrary nature of management requirements and interest groups. This point must be dealt specially. 

Thanks for reading my comments.

B. Dhakal

Intersection of FSN w/ Forests w/ Survival Needs

I would like to introduce another area for consideration, from the Sub-Saharan Africa/East Africa perspective. There is an intersection (postive) and tension (negative) between the forest/jungle and subsistence-level farming in remote areas of East Africa that must be taken into account in policy-making.  This intersection includes not just food/nutrition survival, but also interfaces with broader policy issues of gender equality, child-soldiers, deforestation, and conflict resolution.  I provide an overview, and then suggestions on policy implications below.

In much of remote East Africa, women and girls are the primary farmers, with farming a manual labor activity. Farm size is approx. 2 acres, farm productivity is approx 1 MT per acre => barely enough food to sustain the household. There is little or no incentive for local farmers to grow surplus food to sell because the storage facilities are bamboo & mud, the transportation is done via women's head or donkey-back, and the markets are barter. So even if there was capacity to grow surplus, the farmers do not because it would probably spoil rather than be sold.

The results of this food value chain are that 1) girls are kept out of school because they must labor in the field to feed the family.  2) young men and boys are excess mouths to feed. They are not viewed as productive members of the household, typically. 3) During the "hungry times", young men and boys are often (reluctantly) evicted from the family, and left to fend for themselves.  4) These young men/boys have the choice of starvation and being eaten by lions (which happens with regularity), or joining a local militia which provides them with food, shelter and protection from lions.  The "creation" of child soldiers, in many rural subsistence areas of East Africa is frequently caused by this systemic problem of "who produces the food to feed the family" combined with "joining a militia is better than being eaten by lions or starving.

The tension between subsistence-rural farm householders and local wildlife is not limited to local predators such as lions. Troops of monkeys can strip a maize field of grain near harvest in a single night, far faster than birds can eat the grain.  Elephants can flatten a field if the farmer happens to plant fields in the migratory paths.  And so forth. Forests and "the bush" are frequently "hostile" environments for the smallholder, subsistence farmer in many areas of rural East Africa (aka "the bush").

On the other hand, without any other source of fuel or building materials, the forests also provide the basics for survival. Bamboo and large trees provide the basic building materials for houses, grain silos and community buildings.  Special grass is encouraged to grow, providing water-proof thatch for roofs.  Palm fronds make baskets, and vines make ropes. Wild fruit, nuts, and so forth provide sustenance.  Deforestation would be a risk if the population density were higher, given that cooking is done using wood fires. 

It is important that policy-makers understand both the benefits and challenges of the rural "Bush" smallholder/subsistence level farmer/village. As others have mentioned, the "Bush" provides nuts and other food supplies during the "hungry times". The Bush provides sometimes also provides protein.  It provides building materials.  It also provides danger and death from crop destruction or being eaten.  

One way to improve the standard of living of these subsistence level farmers is to improve the post-harvest food value chain through investments in storage, transportation, and markets that reaches these more remote areas.  Electrification through stand-alone solar installations would provide refrigeration and light, reducing the strain on forests for fuel supply and light. Who will pay for these improvements is a major policy question. 

Infrastructure investment that especially addresses the post-harvest Food Value Chain (storage, transport, & markets) will require both visions, and private capital.  Governments have historically been poor providers of the infrastructure to remote areas, whereas private capital has a better incentive for investment - i.e., to support the entire food value chain and move surplus goods to market.

In summary, the balance between Forestry and FSN, or Forestry and the Holistic Food Value Chain, will only be achieved in "The Bush" areas when the local population has the infrastructure to be more than simply surviving.  Increase the demand for surplus food, improve the means to move the food through the supply chain to market, and you will increase the survivability of not just the individual farmer, but the entire rural population.  Boys will not be evicted from the household to become lion meat or forced to join militias to live.  Girls will be able to stay in school and become literate, and the balance between forests, wildlife, FSN, and survival will be better managed.

Dennis Bennett

CEO, AfriGains

US & East Africa

La gestion des produits forestiers non ligneux est un axe de reflexion important pour cerner le role des forêts pour la sécurité alimentaire et la nutrition. Dans le resumé des principales orientations de l'étude il semble que cette dimension est peu abordé, par exemple lorsque vous dites que:

1. considérer les différents niveaux, de l'échelle locale à l'échelle mondiale, en dressant notamment une cartographie des flux du bois et des produits ligneux dans le monde, pour différentes utilisations;

Il serait donc pertinent de procéder à la même analyse pour les produits forestiers non ligneux, qui restent pour une grande partie des communautés forestiéres des élements essentiels de la gastronomie ainsi que la source principale des revenus. 

Une analyse de la chaine de valeur de ces produits serait aussi pertinente pour voir dans quelles mesures les communautés forestiéres profitent réellement de leur valorisation et quels impacts celà a dans leurs conditions de vies.

Je vous partage une reflexion tirée d'une étude empirique publiée dans une revue scientifique qui porte sur la question. 

Below 2, under the analysis of current state of forests,.... And treats and nckuding climate change, ... I am suggesting that the committee also considers the impact that the commodification of forests under schemes as REDD+ and PES may have on food security.

On number 3, under governance, the role of different models of CBNRM will need to be interrogated as well as the current transfer of huge  forested lands to individuals, private sectors and corporations, both foreign and local and how this impacts on FSN.

USTADI Foundation - a Local Capacity Development Facility in Kenya – Finding the Balance in Conserving Mangrove forests along the Coast, Livelihoods and Social Systems Support in Kwale County.

USTADI Foundation Kenyan not-for profit organization that seeks to bring a ‘coalition of change’ comprising partners from the private sector, civil society, government and different interest groups to focus on changing the rules around local capacity development market, alongside facilitating deliverables in sectors and themes that are important to local actors in priority sectors including; agriculture, water, renewable energy and environment.

USTADI received funding in December 2014 from Act Change Transform (Act!), another local NGO, to implement marine fishing, sea-weed farming and bee-keeping projects in Kwale County as a means for improving nutrition and supplementing incomes of rural entrepreneurs operating along the coastal strip, largely building on previous work by other actors in including; Coastal Rural Support Program, CRSP (funded by Aga Khan Foundation/Honey Care Africa), The Kenya Coastal Forest Protected Area System Project (Global Environment Facility, GEF), Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute (KMFRI) and Act! (EU funding), among others. All the above actors sought to establishing cost-effective means for sustainable exploitation of aquatic and (riparian) environmental resources for economic and food security purposes by the local communities in Kwale County. 

Kwale, one of Kenya’s 47 counties, is located in Southern Kenya, Based on the 2009 National Census the county population density stood at 78.5 ppl/sq km [population 649,931; area 8,270.2 Km2] and 122, 047 households (Kenya Population & Housing Census, 2009), with, 74.9% of the population living under the poverty datum line. This poverty created the problem of forest and coastal ecosystem destruction for food, fuel, settlement and grazing of livestock. Main economic activities included; fishing, mixed farming, apiculture, commercial businesses, mining, forestry and tourism – main forest-based attractions being Tsavo national park, Shimba Hills National Reserve, Mwaluganje Elephant Sanctuary, Sheldrick Falls, Maji moto springs and the mangrove beaches.

80% of Kwale County lies in arid and semiarid lands (ASAL; average temperature is 24.2°C and rainfall amounts range between 400mm and 1,680mm per annum), which is suitable for livestock rearing. The most important livestock species are; dairy cattle and goats, sheep, poultry and bees.

Kwale County is overlapped by the humid, higher rainfall coastal belt and the semi-arid interior, presenting a stark contrast between the eastern and western climatic zones. The western semi-arid interior covers a greater portion of the county. The eastern part of the district has high humidity displaying a more varied mix of vegetation, including forest areas, indigenous and exotic vegetation compared with the homogenous character of thorny Acacias, Commiphora, Euphobias and savanna grasses of the western zone.

The project target area (along the coast-line in Msambweni) has received much attention of actors working with local communities to achieve more balanced outcomes in ecological, social and economic activities, among them bee-keeping.

The ecosystem and livelihoods project began with an assessment of current status of marine fishing, sea-weed and bee-keeping business in Kwale (inventory of activities, capacity gaps at production, processing and market levels, gender, youth, environment/marine ecosystem conservation) and recommended structures that could inform scale-up, commercialization of the enterprises while maintaining the coastal forest lands and marine ecosystems using the value chain approach. Baseline information was obtained from local farmers, key actors including; commercial enterprises, relevant county government agencies, financial institutions, Kenya Forest Services, Kenya Marine Fisheries Research Institute and research agencies (International Center for Insect Physiology and Ecology, ICIPE).    

In 2003/4, Honey Care Africa (HCA) was involved in a community-based conservation (CBC) program that sought to generate income and conserve biodiversity in a manner that included participation of local communities and resource users.  For nearly a decade now, Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute (KMFRI) has implemented socio-economic programs that focus on establishing cost-effective methods for sustainable exploitation of the aquatic resources (and the environment) while deriving social and economic benefits through participatory approaches with stakeholders including local communities. Under this program, indigenous uses of the flora and fauna, and the critical aquatic habitats have been documented. Since bees play an important role in in pollinating crops as well as their need for well conserved riparian vegetation, it became necessary to recognize the importance of establishing partnerships between communities and other like-minded institutions (i.e. governments, NGOs, etc.) in conservation and development projects.

Apiculture was not among the top 3 prioritized value-chains for Kwale Agriculture Sector Development Support Program (ASDSP-2010) but was nevertheless promoted in the rural areas as one of the industries that improve off farm incomes and conserve the environment, supplementing local fishermen incomes and therefore reducing overfishing and destruction of marine ecosystems. It was an activity that could be done by both genders; young or old improve the economic situation of hundreds of households in those riparian communities. Specifically, USTADI started out on current production level of 180 tons of honey/year and targets to raise that to 403 tons within the next one year as contribution to the rural economy from honey and bee-products alone.

The project is under implementation until 2016 and some of the key objectives will be to;

a)          Identify a local host organization that will organization will appreciate the ecological context within which these projects are located and will foster relationships with custodial government and private agencies mandated to protect marine ecosystems (KMFRI, KFS, WWF, Carbon Experts etc) to ensure that ecological, social and economic goals achieved with balance. This will reduce the perceived strain on natural resources (mangroves, over-fishing, and forests) as they seek to improve livelihoods.

b)          Scaling up carbon programs which are already being implemented in Kwale. KMFRI confirmed that in 2014, one government of Kenya sponsored Project (Gazi Mangrove re-forestation Program) pursued their economic objectives of running local enterprises and redeeming carbon credits while protecting the marine ecosystem largely through mangrove re-forestation. 

c)          Seek to strengthen horizontal institutional linkages among forestry, ecological, research and commercial actors.

Seeking to achieve good-will and key partnerships of all stakeholders at the local food and nutrition project implementation level, leveraging programs that seek to bring a balance in the stated areas, leveraging ecological, social and economic programs at the local level, scaling up incomes through low-carbon path programs are all approaches that have been pursued by USTADI Foundation with the aim of achieving sustainable and balanced coastal (mangrove) forestry for increased incomes, improved livelihoods, food security and nutrition by 2016.

Forest is one of the richest terrestrial ecosystems. Forests are the real seat of biodiversity and are in fact the main source of ecosystem functions useful to human. Forests play regulatory role (climate), protection role (predators of agricultural pests, soils) and production role (food, wood), including food production (fruits, leaves, nuts, insects, etc). A large part of agricultural production depends on pollination made by insects living in forests.

Forest foods and tree products such as leaves, seeds, nuts, honey, fruits, fungi and insects were important components of rural diets for thousands of years (FAO, 2013). The wide range of medicinal plants found in the forests contributes to the health and well-being of forest-dependent people and is the basis for many pharmaceutical products now manufactured worldwide. Forests are an important source of fodder for livestock, especially in arid areas. The genetic diversity present in natural forests has tremendous potential for the discovery, development and improvement of new sources of food and medicine. There is significant potential for greater use of forest species, including plants and insects for food production on a large scale. Numerous of forest foods and tree products have an extremely high nutritional value. Forest wetlands and mangrove forests help protect coastal areas against flooding, thus increasing the stability of food production in coastal areas.

Forests are sources of food and important income for the poor populations, and women in particular, and could be essential in times of economic, political and ecological crisis. The presence of forests increases the resilience of ecosystems and the ability of people to meet their nutritional needs.

A wide range of agroforestry systems is available to support food and nutrition security, through the direct provision of food, increasing farmers' income, the supply of fuel for cooking, soil improvement and agricultural productivity, and the contribution of other ecosystem services.

Indigenous peoples and other local communities have a vast wealth of traditional knowledge on the cultivation, harvesting and preparation of forest and tree foods and sustainable land management. One of the best known wild palms in Benin is B. aethiopum whose pulp and seeds are used as food, as well as its rootlets, shoots and the terminal bud. B. aethiopum palm wine is also collected. The ashes of the male flower are used as "salt" and are the raw material for various medical substances (Mollet, 1999). Other wild palms are Raffia sudanica, Raphia hookeri and Raphia vinifera which are used for human food (palm wine), utensils and tools, construction, and cultural purposes and in traditional medicine (Akoegninou 2006; Jiofack, 2011).

However, the importance of forest, recognized through the Rio Convention on biological diversity (ratified in 1993) and the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gas (signed in 1997), contrasts a bit with the pace of forest loss in the world, especially in Africa. For example, from 1990 to 1995, a total loss of 298 000 ha of forest cover was recorded in Benin (FAO, 1999) and as a result, many plant species are threatened and disappearing more and more of their natural ecosystems (Adomou, 2005). Deforestation, climate change, overexploitation, bad farming systems, population pressure, wild fires, etc. contribute to the loss of indigenous plants (Assogbadjo et al., 2010). That’s why the sustainability of the forest management is beginning a growing concern. Sustainable forest management is a broad and evolving concept aimed at ensuring the sustainable use and conservation of forests, while providing benefits to local populations, including strengthening food security and nutrition. This sustainable forest management calls for objective and empirical analysis of the socio-economic factors that determine the forests maintenance or degradation.

The role of forests in FSN varies by the services it provides and its benefits across different regions. Sustainability at this point directly depends on governance and management of forest resources. In cases with uncontrolled access to forests ensures necessary food and nutrients to users, but at the same time deforestation as a result of overlogging, pasturing and timber collection occurs. On another hand overregulation of forestries can lead to the reduction of subsistence sources for the local communitites. 

It may seem like double-ended stick. There are however decisions available to find the compromise.

- Payment for Ecosystem Services (monetary and non-monetary) approach may increase the responsibility of users towards sustainable use of forests. For this more knowledge sharing regarding forest ecosystem is needed. Increasing awareness about the value of underutilized species in forests may influence on more careful attitude to biodiversity in forests. 

- Agroforestry - as a tool for reducing the load on forest resources by using byproducts and advantages of trees for farming. E.g. Allowing to grow trees on empty spaces for further grazing (or crop farming) and using of tree byproducts may motivate communities for increasing the afforestation plots near forests. That could lead to better food security (communities will start depend less on forests, especially to those living in forest margins). 

Afforestation of degraded land and using such plots under efficient agroforestry farm could extend land capitals of farmers and strengthen their food security. 

Along with food and nutriotion forestry is considered to have vast variety of option prices that also should be taken into, since more diverse opportunity costs for using the forest increases its value consequantly leading to its more sustainable and responsible utilizaion. 

Agroforestry on sloped lands can decrease soil erosion, nutrient runoff and water pollution. 

Those needs more institutional (property rights, regulatory rights, mechanisms for governance and allocation of resources) and informational (awareness raising, research, education, capacity building etc.)  support of such activities with respect to the ecological, socio-economic and political frameworks of each region. 

The Role of Forestry in Sustainable Agriculture

The purpose of this note is to outline the scope of the proposed study with a view to using its results as an integral part of a holistic attempt towards sustainable agriculture. It does not attempt to accomodate the threats to forestry posed by natural and man-made disasters, over population, etc.

In this discussion, I would like to expand the meaning of the term agriculture not only to include the cultivation of traditional food crops and fodder, and animal husbandry but also fostering animal and plant life as a source of useful products. Fostering as used here, may include active measures undertaken for their enhancement, but also refraining from actions that may threaten  their qualitative and quantitative bio-diversity in situ.

Moreover, I shall use the term forest to mean a collection of flora and fauna occupying a given area possessing a set of distinct attributes.  Thus, it may include marshlands and mangroves, scrub bush country, as well as rain forest. My reason for this extended definition is that every habitat contributes in some way to make possible the existence of the equilibrium between the living and the mineral resources they need to live.

I think it would be reasonable to begin by distinguishing between the two logically distinct ways in which forests are involved in agriculture. We may call the first its contribution to sustainability , and the second, its participatory contribution to agriculture in the sense given above.

Forests contribute not only to the sustainability of agriculture, but also to the very possibility of our engaging in it. The follwing is a non-exhaustive list of their contributions:

1. Participation in the Nitrogen cycle

2. Participation in the Carbon cycle

3. Prevention of top-soil erosion

4. Ensuring the accessibility of water to living things by facilitating its absorpsion into the ground

5. Local temperature regulation through transpiration and reduction of the amount of solar heat absorbed by the ground

6. Serving as a wind-break to more vulnerable growths, animals, and man

Forests' participatory contribution to agriculture is also well-known. In addition to timber, fruits and nuts, gums, etc., it may harbour game that  could be an adjunctive  source of protein in some locations. However, in many areas of the world, yields of such products have nearly disappeared owing to radical exploitation of this resource.

For instance, families living in the Amazon basin were once engaged earned a part of their livelihood by collecting Brazil nuts for export. Deforestation has now reduced this activity to insignificance.

In West Africa, cutting down the rubber wine to harvest the product has made it extinct in many areas where it once grew. Likewise, Guanaco and Rhea, once the most important sources of protein to the natives of Patagonia are now very scarce.

So, the very possibility of our engaging in agriculture, and the possibility of our obtaining some 'natural products',  depends on the continued existence of forrests having certain logically distinct attributes, viz., their qualitative and quantative bio-diversity.

The possibility of having this bio-diversity depends on having a certain minimal area of habitat at the disposition of a given forest, for its existence depends on the equilibrium between the mineral resources required by its living members, and the qualitative and quantitative equilibrium among them. The qualitative here represents the number of diverse species, while quantitative is concerned with the size of their individual populations in a habitat.

Naturally, the location and the climate of a habitat predetermines the attributes of those equilibria; for instance, muddy areas of brackish water favour the growth of mangroves, while 'bush' thrives on arid uplands of the South African Veld.

* This opens for us the first necessary area of study, viz., a careful ecological survey of the existing forests, those under threat, and perhaps, most important,  the ecology of those destroyed froests, which now lie fallow, or are barren lands. The purpose of it is twofold; first, to ensure the continued existence of the present forests, retaining their bio-diversity, and secondly, to restore the bio-diversity of our threatened forests, and to reforest as many now destroyed forests as possible.

In order to achieve these objectives some additional studies are required. before, we continue, it is very important to remember that ecologic surveys must consult the local inhabitants, especially older people, who would recall the types of flora that no longer exists in the threatened and destroyed forests.

Reintroduction of species into threatened forests and to now barren areas requires the follwing obvious studies:

1. Possibility of establishing seed/sapling banks of species that have disappeared from a threatened forest or a barren area.

2. Sequence of their viable reintroduction with respect to the local species. It is not recommended  that rapid growing foreign species are introduced for the sake of short term results, for this violates the critical equilibria mentioned above.

3. Ascertaining the conditions that would enable one to undertake the sequential reintroduction of forest species to a given area. These may include finding out the possible means of rain harvesting and water storage in situ, establishment of wind breaks, or it may even require short-term irrigation. It may also embrace mechanical adjuncts such as terracing the now barren hillsides with more or less permanant structures.

4. Means of reintroduction of the local fauna required for the existence of a forest. These may range from insects involved in pollination, degradation of dead vegetable matter, dispersal of seeds, etc.

5. How to monitor the bio-diversity of a given forest, and how to maintain it.

6. What constitutes rational harvesting of a given forest, and who are entitled to do so.

7. How to secure the inter-sectorial expertise needed to achieve this?

8. How to finance this endeavour?

9. How to secure the political will needed to get this study off the ground?

10. How best to involve local people, and get them to play an active role here?

Even though I have deprecated the introduction of 'rapidly growing' foreign species as a means of reforestation,  I do not exclude promoting the natural transformation of forests. For instance, one can observe this process in how the West African mangroves are slowly transformed from soft wooded  to hard wood forests as time passes and the mangroves extend out into the sea. The crucial point is that the species involved here, are local.

As this note is more in the form of a summary of already established knowledge, I shall conclude with the hope that it would be of some use.

Lal Manavado.

Small farmers in a mountainous country directly or indirectly depend on forest biodiversity for their livelihood. Forest provides fuel wood (energy), leaf liter ( to enrich soil) and non-wood forest products ( direct food). The non-wood forest products include medicinal plants, mushroom, and other wild vegetables that contribute significantly to the small farmers’ food and nutrition security. This is particularly true for those farmers living in remote areas or those farmers with small land holdings. These non-wood forest products are either consumed or sold in the local market to earn additional cash income. For example during summer months, many small farmers do make a good money from the sale of mushrooms and medicinal plants, cordyceps in particular.  The risk of over harvest and its impact (negative) on the local environment is also likely to increase with time.

Many agriculture and horticulture crops require assured irrigation to produce good yield consistently. The assured irrigation is only possible if the source of water is conserved and protected. In a mountainous country, water for irrigation and drinking/sanitation mostly arises from the local watershed. The good management of watershed is critical and it is possible with community participation although the current fashion is to focus more on glacial retreat. It appears ( from field observations) that the volume of water originating from glacial melt is minimal compared to volume of water coming from local watersheds. Indeed healthy watershed provides good quantity and quality water for drinking and irrigation. There is hardly any water treatment (chemical) for rural drinking/sanitation supplies in a mountainous country. This is because of healthy ecosystems and cultural/religious beliefs (many water sources are regarded as a holy sites). Availability of clean water for irrigation and drinking/sanitation has a direct bearing on food and nutrition security of a household.