Foresterie durable pour la sécurité alimentaire et la nutrition - Consultation du HLPE sur la version V0 du Rapport
En octobre 2014, le Comité des Nations Unies sur la sécurité alimentaire mondiale (CSA) a demandé à son Groupe d'experts de haut niveau sur la sécurité alimentaire et la nutrition (HLPE) de mener une étude sur la Foresterie durable au service de la sécurité alimentaire et la nutrition. Les conclusions de cette étude serviront de base aux débats de la 44e session plénière du CSA (octobre 2017)
Dans le cadre du processus d’élaboration de ses rapports, le HLPE organise une consultation pour solliciter vos contributions, suggestions et commentaires sur la version V0 du rapport. Le HLPE utilisera les résultats de cette consultation pour améliorer le rapport qui sera ensuite soumis à une révision par des experts externes avant l’approbation de la version finale par le Comité directeur du HLPE.
Les versions V0 des rapports du HLPE sont délibérément présentés à un stade précoce du processus, comme des documents de travail, pour laisser le temps nécessaire à la prise en compte des observations reçues, de façon à ce que celles-ci soient réellement utiles à l’élaboration du rapport. Ce processus de consultation est une partie essentielle du dialogue scientifique entre l’équipe de projet, et le Comité directeur du HLPE, et la communauté du savoir dans son ensemble. À cet égard, la version V0 du rapport identifie également des domaines susceptibles de faire l’objet de recommandations. Les contributions reçues permettront au HLPE de les améliorer.
Pour contribuer à la version V0 du Rapport
A ce stade très précoce du projet de rapport, nous souhaitons mieux intégrer les forêts boréales et tempérées et nous serions ravis de recevoir des commentaires sur ces types de forêts. Pour enrichir le contenu du rapport, le HLPE souhaiterait recevoir des contributions et suggestions fondées sur des preuves scientifiques, des références et des exemples, liés notamment aux questions de fond suivantes :
- La version V0 du rapport analyse un large éventail de facteurs pour déterminer la contribution des forêts et des arbres à la sécurité alimentaire et à la nutrition (SAN). A votre avis, le rapport couvre-t-il de façon adéquate, l’ensemble des contributions que la foresterie durable et les forêts peuvent apporter à la SAN ? Existe-t-il d’autres preuves ou aspects importants susceptibles d’enrichir le rapport ?
- Le rapport est structuré comme suit : le contexte et le cadre théorique ; le rôle et les contributions des forêts et de la foresterie à la SAN ; les défis et les opportunités qui se présentent à la foresterie durable dans le domaine de la SAN ; et les problèmes de gouvernance pour parvenir à une approche intégrée de la foresterie durable et de la SAN. A votre avis, cette structure est-elle assez complète et adéquatement construite ? Le rapport trouve-t-il le juste équilibre entre les différents chapitres ? Quels sont les aspects importants qui pourraient faire l’objet d’un examen plus approfondi ?
- Le rapport fait référence à quatre grandes catégories de systèmes de foresterie pour mieux préciser les différents défis à relever et les chemins de développement durable possibles dans chaque cas. Considérez-vous cette démarche utile pour définir les interventions des politiques et les mesures à adopter dans différents contextes socioéconomiques et environnementaux ? Estimez-vous que la terminologie utilisée dans ce rapport pour aborder les forêts, la foresterie durable et l’agroforesterie est suffisamment complète et pertinente ?
- Y a-t-il d’autres études sur lesquelles le rapport devrait se baser et qui offrent des perspectives différentes ou complémentaires sur l’intégration de la foresterie durable dans les stratégies de SAN ?
- Le rapport a mis en lumière une série de défis qui vont probablement devoir être relevés à l’avenir et que les décideurs et d’autres acteurs vont devoir prendre en compte pour que la foresterie durable puisse apporter une contribution substantielle à la SAN. Quels sont les autres défis/opportunités clés qui devront être abordés pour élaborer des approches intégrant les systèmes forestiers et agricoles, y compris des approches paysagères ?
- Les aspects sociaux et culturels de la foresterie durable et de la SAN ont souvent été moins bien décrits et compris pour de nombreuses raisons, notamment le manque de données globales et désagrégées. C’est pourquoi l’équipe serait ravie de connaître des exemples et des expériences portant sur des questions liées aux conditions d’existence, au genre, à l’équité, à la propriété foncière et à la gouvernance.
- Quelles sont les principales initiatives politiques ou interventions efficaces requises pour améliorer la pérennité de nos systèmes alimentaires mondiaux en termes de foresterie durable et de SAN, dans différents pays et contextes, qui devraient être abordées dans le rapport ?
- Existe-t-il des preuves relatives au potentiel d’incitations économiques (comme le mécanisme REDD+), de mesures réglementaires, de renforcement des capacités, de la recherche-développement et de mesures volontaires adoptées par différents acteurs ou parties prenantes susceptibles de renforcer la contribution de la foresterie à la pérennité des systèmes alimentaires ? Pouvez-vous nous fournir des exemples ou des études de cas de ce type de politiques, initiatives ou interventions efficaces ?
- La conception et la mise en œuvre de politiques visant à la SAN doivent se fonder sur des données robustes comparables dans le temps et entre les pays. Quelles sont les lacunes en matière de données que les gouvernements, les organisations nationales et internationales et d’autres parties prenantes vont devoir combler à l’avenir pour pouvoir appréhender les tendances et formuler/proposer des politiques plus efficaces dans le domaine de la foresterie durable et de la SAN ? Quels rôles pourraient jouer les différentes parties prenantes pour remédier à l'insuffisance des données, et trouver les moyens de pouvoir désagréger les données afin de formuler plus efficacement les politiques à appliquer ?
Nous remercions à l’avance toutes les personnes qui vont lire et commenter cette première version de notre rapport et nous proposer leurs contributions.
Nous espérons que cette consultation sera féconde et enrichissante.
L'équipe de projet et le Comité de pilotage du HLPE
- Afficher 57 contributions
Sir;
You need a directive body & directive operation to acieve those target. I didn't find it.
Regards;
Moshfaqur
Engaging developing economies PPP , and particularly private sector , in CFS/HLPE efforts can render your report much more credible to all ; noting a lot of forestry related projects are pending approval with local bureaucrats who do not realise the urgency of same or resist proacrtive measures.
best
atef
Dear all. It is a good job.
Some comments:
Agroforestry is a traditional from of pastoral and agricultural use of forest in the Mediterranean Europe.
Agroforestry and silvopastoral agroforestry ie the most dominat for of agroforestry found in wetern Europe (Dehesa in spanish and Montado in portuguese). acorn prodction from the trees (Quercus ilex and Q. Suber) is the main feed for fattening iberian pigs, and important food in the rural areas and a food witn high add value.
Regards,
Carlos G.H. Diaz-Ambrona
Cher Comité directeur du HLPE, cher coordinateur,
Nous vous remercions pour cette version V0 du rapport HLPE sur la forêt durable pour la sécurité alimentaire et la nutrition . En réponse à la consultation électronique, nous sommes heureux de vous adresser la contribution française.
En vous remerciant,
Bien cordialement,
Ségolène
Dear HLPE Secretariat,
please find attached the comments of Argentina on the Draft V0 of the Report Sustainable Forestry for Food Security and Nutrition.
Best regards,
Argentine Representation to FAO, IFAD and WFP.
Dear Nathanaël Pingault
I want to thank you very much for send me the report, the report is comprehensive but I want to give one remark that you must focous more about the role of medicinal plants in the forest.
Best Regards
Khaled Al-talafi
Amman-Jordan
Contributing to the Draft V0 – by Solidaridad
Comments by Katie Minderhoud
Guidance provided by HLPE - At this early stage of the draft report we are in the process of better integrating boreal and temperate forests, and would welcome inputs on these types of forests. In order to strengthen the report as a whole, the HLPE would welcome submission of material, evidence-based suggestions, references, and examples, in particular addressing the following important 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?
- In my opinion we need to deepen the argument around the impact of plantation forest and plantation agriculture on food security and nutrition (FSN). On page 23/R.9 HCV is mentioned “Sustainable forestry systems however, often incorporate or set aside areas of high conservation value (HCV) – areas of forest assessed to be of high importance for local communities and biodiversity conservation. Such HCV areas can provide sources of NTFPs and wild foods as well as ecosystem services for agriculture. However, integrating HCV areas of forest into the broader landscape as well as connecting them with wildlife corridors and buffer zones remains a challenge.” Can we share experiences (challenges and opportunities) how HCV methodology has contributed to supporting NTFP use and management, especially looking at health and diets?
How can we better quantify/qualify and support FSN functions in HCV? Is this an important opportunity for HCVRN to set the agenda and promote HCV as a prominent methodology? Also addressing the challenges around HCV use (beyond commodity sectors) and safeguarding the quality of the HCV assessments and capacity for management afterwards. These questions or suggestions could be more thoroughly addressed in this report with contribution of companies and standard setting bodies working with HCV methodology, or by the HCVRN secretariat.
- Elaborate on the food security challenges resulting from plantation agriculture. The point is made on page 24/R.9 “The contribution of plantation systems to FSN and livelihoods is often at the cost of negative environmental and social impacts” and there is supporting evidence which could highlight these negative impacts more clearly, building towards an argument that companies, investors and supply chain/sector as a whole have a greater responsibility to address these issues.
See: http://www.forestpeoples.org/sites/fpp/files/news/2015/04/Hollow%20Promises%20PRESS%20RELEASE.pdf
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?
- Typology is now based on forest functions and type of forest use but focus on type of landowners/users and their rights and customs allow more opportunity to consider who are the actors in this space (this is addressed later under governance for example, but in light of policy responses and development pathways it can help to highlight the actors earlier in the report – especially considering the role of business, both large national and multinational enterprises as sme’s.
- Important aspect which should receive more attention is how trade and export oriented commodities impact sustainable forests management as well as FSN locally; an interesting analysis has been carried out by FAO on Food Security and international trade http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5160e.pdf to unpack disputed narratives. In addition, ongoing efforts to increase transparency in international supply chains to understand local impacts in sourcing regions in relation to supply chain actors and linking this information to private sector commitments of zero-deforestation and responsible investments with respect for local communities increases the understanding and urgency for business to operate in a sustainable and inclusive way. Deforestation is already very much on the radar, but the link with Food Security and Nutrition not so much – while they prove to be highly interlinked.
3. The report uses four broad categories of forestry systems, in order to better identify distinct challenges and sustainable development pathways for each of them. Do you find this approach useful for identifying policy responses and actions in different socio-economic and environmental contexts? Do you think the terminology used in this report for forest, sustainable forestry and agroforestry are comprehensive and relevant?
- The approach is useful, although I would argue that the dependency of agriculture on forests ecosystem functions should be emphasized in such a way that agriculture in forest mosaic landscapes are mentioned as an additional category. For example in the Venn diagram on page 19, Agriculture is left out of the discussion of categories (when only referring to agroforestry and plantations as forest relevant agriculture) while actually the dependency of agricultural production on forests ecosystem functions for water, soil and carbon is clear and acknowledged, it is then not taken further in the discussion. However, to ensure appropriate development pathways are articulated regarding forests functions for sustainable agriculture through PES and landscape level solutions it is critical to include “agriculture in forest mosaic” as a category.
4. Are there other studies that the report needs to reference, which offer different or complementary perspectives on the integration of sustainable forestry in FSN strategies?
- Food Security and international trade by J. Clapp (FAO, 2016) http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5160e.pdf
- IPES: Uniformity to Diversity in Food Systems
http://www.ipes-food.org/images/Reports/UniformityToDiversity_FullReport.pdf
- AGROMISA Agro Special: Hidden Resources, NTFP for livelihood improvement and biodiversity conservation: examples from Kenya
- Supply chain relation food security and nutrition:
- RSPO relation to Food security and nutrition:
5. The report has identified a range of challenges likely to be faced in the future that policy makers and other stakeholders will need to take into account so that sustainable forestry can meaningfully contribute to FSN. What are other key challenges/opportunities to be addressed for the development of approaches that integrate forestry and agricultural systems, including landscape approaches?
- Building on the references provided above, the role of private sector players in commodity sectors needs to be tuned towards how they can contribute to food security and nutrition in a meaningful way in the production landscape where they operate. This requires a paradigm shift in how companies see their roles and responsibilities and how they set up their business models; it also requires partnerships with government, NGO’s and academia.
- Critically assess the role of certification and commodity standards in relation to agricultural investment, sustainable forest management and certification; sometimes it is overestimated what these standards can achieve and not all commodity standards make sufficient reference to land rights, food security and nutrition. HCV can function as recurring guidance, but still the awareness among both secretariat and members of the respective round tables and standards on dealing with these issues in an integrated way – looking at land use, rights, needs and possibilities - is lacking (i.e. making reference to the VGGT or structural assessment of food security and nutrition impact). The question is if it is their task. For example RSPO and RTRS are mentioned as forest certification on page 91/R.31; not sure if this is relevant or correct, deserves further elaboration how these standards come into play.
6. The social and cultural dimensions of sustainable forestry and FSN have often been less well described and understood for many reasons, including due to a lack of comprehensive as well as disaggregated data. Submission of examples and experience related to issues such as livelihoods, gender, equity, tenure and governance would be of particular interest to the team.
- AGROMISA Agro Special: Hidden Resources, NTFP for livelihood improvement and biodiversity conservation: examples from Kenya
7. What are the key policy initiatives or successful interventions needed to improve the sustainability of our global food systems related to sustainable forestry and FSN, both in different countries and contexts, that merit discussion in the report?
- Reference to the VGGT only starts in page 92 of the report, while landgovernance, land rights, access to land are discussed earlier on in chapters 5. I think this report can help position the VGGT as a critical guidance for how land administration and land management can be structured, clarified and negotiated between the different stakeholders. This should be more prominent in both the structure and content of the report.
8. Is there evidence of the potential of economic incentives (e.g. REDD+), regulatory approaches, capacity building, Research & Development, and voluntary actions by diverse stakeholders or actors that could enhance the contribution of forestry to sustainable food systems? Could you provide examples or case studies of such key policies, initiatives or successful interventions?
- Transformative Transparancy https://ttp.sei-international.org/ ; a traceability platform aiming to connect supply chain impacts to place of origin and actors in order to hold companies accountable to their zero-deforestation commitments. This kind of data analysis can help clarify impacts on forests and wider landscapes and spur action to halt negative impact and increase incentives (combined with local policies to regulate and support business and investments) to make a positive contribution to natural resource management and healthy local food systems.
9. The design and implementation of policies for FSN require robust, comparable data over time and across countries. What are the data gaps that governments, national and international organizations and other stakeholders might need to address in the future in order to understand trends and formulate/propose better policies for sustainable forestry and FSN? What roles could diverse stakeholders play in relation to addressing these data gaps, and identifying ways in which the data could be disaggregated for more effective formulation of policies?
- In the conclusion it is mentioned that “there is a need to measure socio-economic benefits from forests and data collection must focus on both people and trees”. I would like to suggest that it is of interest to look at the degree of dependency of people in terms of quantity and quality of food provision from the forest, but in such a way that the actual potential is part of this analysis at the same time. I do not have a concrete example, but I am aware of efforts assessing food security situation without touching on the potential for change – while this should be part of the same effort.
This type of complex subject how forests relate to food security and nutrition is also difficult to capture and quantify and requires more innovative ways to capture dependency and what people need or wish for in terms of food security and nutrition in relation to forests. Derived from complexity theory and systems thinking, the collection of self signified micronarratives might be an interesting approach to grasp changes over time (Sensemaker methodology). There is experience on the subject of inclusivity in business models, but this can be equally applicable for food security of communities in or near forests and can be run by both government, NGO, business or communities themselves to gather this information and discover trends and changes, as well as opportunities for change. See examples: https://vredeseilanden-wieni.netdna-ssl.com/sites/default/files/paragraph/attachments/veco_inclusive_business_scan_8_pager.pdf
Dear Moderators,
The Global Forest Coalition (GFC), an international coalition of NGOs and Indigenous Peoples’ Organizations defending social justice and the rights of forest peoples in forest policies, thanks the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition for the opportunity to comment on this V0 Draft Report on Sustainable Forestry for Food Security and Nutrition.
Please find attached our comments on the V0 Draft on Sustainable Forestry for Food Security and Nutrition.
best,
Mary Lou Malig
--
Mary Louise Malig
Campaigns Coordinator and Research Associate Global Forest Coalition www.globalforestcoalition.org
The Global Forest Coalition (GFC) is an international coalition of NGOs and Indigenous Peoples’ Organisations defending social justice and the rights of forest peoples in forest policies
Por instrucción de la Biol. Edda Fernández Luiselli, Coordinadora de Asesores del C. Subsecretario de Fomento y Normatividad Ambiental, remito en archivo Word las sugerencias y observaciones relativas a la consulta en línea tendiente a elaborar el Estudio sobre la “Actividad Forestal Sostenible para la Seguridad Alimentaria y la Nutrición”.
Sin otro particular por el momento, envío un cordial saludo.
Mtro. Oswaldo José Blanco Covarrubias.
Director de Regulación Forestal.
Dirección General del Sector Primario y Recursos Naturales Renovables.
Cette activité est maintenant terminée. Veuillez contacter [email protected] pour toute information complémentaire.