Forum global sur la sécurité alimentaire et la nutrition (Forum FSN)

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.