Germany highly welcomes the opportunity to comment on the HLPE V0-Draft that aims to explore how sustainable forestry can contribute to achieving food security and nutrition (FSN). The authors have been able to synthetize very valuable information in a short time frame available. Many important topics are included, such as relationship with other ecosystem services, trade-offs between sustainable forestry and agriculture, climate change and governance aspects. However, in some parts there seems to be a lack of focus on cross cutting key questions and analytical depth, especially in the conclusions section. In many cases the authors remain relatively vague on what can we learn from the literature based evidence. Therefore sometimes it is hard to draw conclusions and recommendations. For decision makers a higher level of specificity might be useful, e.g. by being more spatially explicit, and indicate more clearly which policy instruments related to forests have been effective so far (e.g. PES for water, REDD+, protected areas etc.).
Major remarks
The forest classification used in this document is not very clear: governance aspects (community, concessions) are mixed with management systems (plantation/agroforestry) and management objectives (multipurpose forestry). Thus, the current classification does not distinguish carefully enough between governance aspects, managements systems and forest types. Overarching factors for the classification could be planted vs non planted forests, public vs. private land managed vs. non-managed. Additional attention should be given to the role of markets.
While many important topics are included in the draft, others apparently received less attention. It is not clear why.
Regional differentiation or differentiation into developing and industrialized countries is very limited, no differentiation into forest formations (dry forests, humid forests etc.). Therefore it is not easy to draw concrete conclusions and recommendations.
Potential detrimental effects of different forest functions (e.g. conservation, timber production etc.) on FSN are underrepresented in this draft.
Cultural services in general are somehow underrepresented. Especially conservation as cultural service is of very high importance for both protection of ecosystem services and competing land use as alternative to food-providing land use types.
Interactions between forests, water balance and FSN are underrepresented.
Pollination receives a relatively high attention, while other ecosystem services are more disregarded.
These problems could potentially be solved by including a separate chapter on tradeoffs between ecosystem services provided by forests and FSN. This chapter should also differentiate between different geographical regions and forest types.
• Tree cover is not forest cover. This has also implications for the definition of FSN from forests or FSN from tree-based management systems. This should be clarified somewhere.
• The role of the boxes for the draft is not always clear. Sometimes they are illustrative providing more insight in one particular topic, but it is not clear why a particular topic has received higher attention than others. Better linkages in the text are recommended.
• More generally: The forest is one of the main sources of renewable resources and, therefore, plays a major role in the bioeconomy. Since food security is among the major principles of the bioeconomy, including a chapter or section on the role of forests in a bioeconomy and the importance of establishing a bioeconomy could significantly enrich the report.
• To some extent the report gives the impression that forestry contributes in equal measure as agriculture to food security and nutrition. However, it seems to be rather the case that forestry provides a suitable environment for agriculture to contribute to FSN. Thereby, of course, forestry also contributes itself to FSN. Correspondingly, the contribution of agriculture to FSN should and could not be substituted by forestry measures.
• Chapter 4: To my understanding threats and challenges are not distinguished carefully enough. Deforestation/degradation and climate change are global threats for FSN. However, population increase and increasing pressure on nutrient stocks and water as productive factors are missing here, why? Based on an analysis of threats challenges can then be identified. This is somewhat mixed in this chapter. An important challenge e.g. is to my understanding the question of optimization of tree- /forest cover on management units: How many trees (and which species composition) are useful for FSN on which spatial scale? This implies ecological facilitating and competition effects, market issues, and governance issues.
Another important challenge is the question” How can we improve FSN by forest management under different contexts ”?
• Chapter 5: Governance suddenly appears as prominent and exclusive solution for integrated approaches to sustainable forestry for food security and nutrition. While there is no doubt about the importance of governance, it does not follow exclusively from the analysis in the previous sections. Market access, market failures, economics of ecosystem services in addition to best management practices are hidden. If governance failures are considered as potential threat or challenge, then it should be included as additional subtopic under chapter
4. In the current form chapter 5 is relatively isolated.
• Conclusions: In the current stage of the draft it is hard to stress too much conclusions and recommendations. For example it is absolutely not clear on which analysis the main messages are based. In the current form the main messages appear rather isolated from the previous sections. They should be better be imbedded within a dialectic scientific discussion.
In some cases this might be corrected with simple cross referencing. In other cases this might require a more balanced analysis and discussion of pros and cons of most important key questions.
Minor remarks
page 18, line 17
The role of forestry in the bioeconomy is widely discussed and should, therefore, also be reflected in this report. Suggestion: Also in the context of the world-wide strongly supported transition towards a bioeconomy, sustainably managed forests play a key role since the forest sector is among the biggest deliberants of bio-resources and services. A growing bioeconomy will lead to a significant increase in the demand of forest products. Since ensuring food security is the first principle of the bioeconomy, the potential of sustainably managed forests to contribute to FSN is huge. Hence, the role of forests in the bioeconomy should be addressed as early as possible.
page 101, lines 28 and 47
Referring to the main messages, please add as last bullet point: The transition towards a bioeconomy bares great potential for the further development of the forest sector and the creation of markets for higher value-added forest products.
page 103, line 43
Referring to item 7 “Better integrate forest–FSN interactions in policy processes”, please add the additional bullet point: Analyze and identify the role of forestry in the bioeconomy and its contribution to FSN. Promote the transition towards a world-wide bio-based economy.
GermanyGermany GErmany