Глобальный форум по продовольственной безопасности и питанию (Форум FSN)

Sustainable Forestry for Food Security and Nutrition - HLPE e-consultation on the V0 Draft Report “Sustainable Forestry for Food Security and Nutrition”

Comments by John Parrotta, U.S. Forest Service, Research & Development, Washington, DC, and Vice-President, International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO)

General Comments

The questions to be covered in this report are very similar to those that guided the recent work of the Collaborative Partnership on Forests’ Global Forest Expert Panel (GFEP) on Forests and Food Security, which produced its peer-reviewed assessment report last year (Vira et al., 2015[1]). This earlier publication provides – or should provide – a strong foundation for the current report which is intended to cover pretty much the same issues. The only major difference I see between the terms of reference for the two panels relates to geographic coverage – the GFEP (2015) report focuses primarily on regions of the world where food insecurity is most prevalent (with an emphasis on tropical and subtropical regions), whereas the HLPE is expected to be truly global in scope, covering temperate and boreal regions as well.

I would suggest using – and giving proper credit to –the 2015 GFEP report and its constituent chapters (currently minimally referred to in the V0 draft) to a much greater extent, and focusing efforts on the next draft on value addition in terms of the HLPE’s broadened geographic coverage and more in-depth work on those issues/topics that may not have been explored as fully in the GFEP report.

Terminology: The report needs to provide clear definitions of all of the key terms used in this report (or refer to a glossary – which is definitely needed). These terms need to be used consistently throughout the report.  I would suggest that the authors use FAO terminology and definitions to the greatest extent possible. Two excellent sources of definitions for the majority of the terminology used in this report may be found in the recent peer-reviewed Global Forest Expert Panel assessment reports:

Vira, B., Mansourian, S. and Wildburger, C. Forests, Trees and Landscapes for Food Security and Nutrition: A Global Assessment Report. IUFRO World Series Volume 33. Vienna. 169 p.

Parrotta, J.A., Wildburger, C and Mansourian, S. (Eds.), 2012. Understanding relationships between biodiversity, carbon, forests and people: The key to achieving REDD+ objectives. A global assessment report prepared by the Global Forest Expert Panel on Biodiversity, Forest Management, and REDD+. IUFRO World Series Volume 31. Vienna. 161 p.

Both reports are available at: http://www.iufro.org/science/gfep/

Throughout the report (except in Chapter 5, section 5.4.1) insufficient attention is given to traditional forms of forest and agro-forest landscape management that have supported – and continue to support FNS for hundreds of millions of people worldwide in a variety of environmental and socio-cultural contexts. Related to this, there should be a greater acknowledgement of the historical and present-day value of the traditional (i.e., local and indigenous) knowledge and innovation that underpins forest conservation and management.  I would recommend that the authors consider utilizing the material on these topics discussed in Chapter 3 of Vira et al. (2015). For more in-depth discussion, the material presented in Parrotta, J.A., Trosper, R.L. (eds.) 2012. Traditional Forest-Related Knowledge: Sustaining Communities, Ecosystems and Biocultural Diversity. World Forest Series vol. 12. Springer, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.  621 p. This reference includes highly relevant material in a series of regional chapters (across all biomes) as well as chapters relating to cross-cutting issues including globalization and climate change mitigation and adaptations and their relationship to food security.  A list of chapters and abstracts of their contents, is attached at the end of my review comments (starting on page 7)– I would be happy to provide electronic copies of any or all chapters to the authors on request.

Most of my specific comments (below) are related to chapters 2 and 3 which cover topics and issues most closely related to my areas of expertise and experience. Chapter 2 is particularly weak and requires a major restructuring and revision.

Specific Comments

Chapter 1

This chapter does a good job of laying out the background and scope of the report.

p. 10, line 13. Reference is made to crop-livestock-arboreal integration immediately after agroforestry. This is redundant since standard definitions of agroforestry include silvo-pastoral and other systems that involve integration of livestock production and tree systems.

Chapter 2

This chapter requires a thorough revision.

p. 11, and Box 1. 

While it is useful to point out that definitions of “forests” are not universally agreed upon, the report must settle on a single definition of forests, as well as more specific terms related to different forest types (based on management objectives, structure, etc.). As noted above, it is strongly recommended that the authors settle on working definitions to be used consistently throughout the report, and to use FAO definitions wherever possible – while not perfect, FAO definitions for forestry and agriculture terminology enjoy a much broader acceptance worldwide than those from other sources. 

Also, it would make more sense to refer to “forests and trees outside of forests” (standard FAO terminology) in this report since many of the “forest” systems covered in this report are not usually considered to be “forests” according to FAO (and other) definitions – i.e., trees in agroforestry systems and other systems in which trees may exist at low densities. For convenience, the report could simply use the term “forests” but explain (either in Chapter 1 or in Chapter 2) that this is being uses as shorthand for “forests and trees outside of forests”.

Section 2.1.

p. 12, lines 2-3, suggest adding – “According to [2010?] FAO Forest Resources Assessment data,” at the beginning of this sentence, as that is the source of information used in Keenan et al. (2015).

Lines 3-4.  Delete sentence referring to the number of trees on the planet – this is a pointless statistic, and the end of the sentence regarding tree densities in forest worldwide is erroneous.

Box 2 should be deleted and replaced with something more accurate and useful. The source of this information the website of the UC-Berkeley Museum of Paleontology and is hardly authoritative. Worse, it is simplistic, misleading, and filled with erroneous over-generalizations and myths (for example, that tropical forest soils are nutrient-poor and acidic). What would be more helpful would be a more authoritative forest biome typology such as that used by FAO’s Global Ecological Zone classification (or the UNEP classification used in Figure 1 on page 14). If adopting the FAO system, I recommend that the authors refer to Parrotta et al. (2012) cited above, for this information [in that publication, the FAO classification is illustrated in fig. 1.1, and further details on each forest type may be found in the source publication (Iremonger, S. and Gerrand, A., M., 2011. Global Ecological Zones for FAO Forest Reporting 2010. FRA Working Paper. Rome: FAO) as well as in Chapter 2 of the 2012 GFEP report referred to above (at least for the tropical and subtropical forest types)].

p. 13, lines 6-9.  While the statement regarding forest cover trends is true, it is important to note that the naturally regenerating and planted forests that are contributing to this generally offer far less to FSN than the natural forests that continued to be lost in many parts of the world – both in terms of ecosystem services relevant to FSN and particularly to food provisioning.

p. 14.  Fig. 2. More information needed in the title: (1) year of data; (2) over what time period are these changes in forest cover.

p. 15. Fig. 3. More information needed in the title: year of data;

p. 16. Lines 7-9. The authors should refer to the original source of this statement rather than Brandt et al 2015: i.e., Blaser, J., Sarre, A., Poore, D., Johnson, S. (eds), 2011. Status of tropical forest management. ITTO Technical Series No 38. Yokohama, Japan.

Section 2.2.2 Global trends and impacts….

This is a very important section, fundamental to this report. However, the authors have chosen to discuss (very briefly) only two of the many trends impacting sustainable forestry for FSN – population growth and dietary transitions. The earlier (and later) text mentioned several other trends that need to be covered here – deforestation, forest degradation, and agricultural land degradation, biodiversity loss, climate change. With the exception of biodiversity loss, these are discussed in Chapter 4, but they need to be introduced earlier – in this chapter – in order to develop and rationalize the conceptual framework. And there are other trends, such as globalization of markets for timber and non-timber forest products, globalization of agricultural production, trade and food systems, plus a number of important cultural, social, economic and governance trends - all of which have important implications for the forest-FSN relationship – that should be introduced in this section.

The panel should consider Vira et al. (2015) – and particularly chapters 1, 3 and 4, in their analyses of global trends and drivers affecting relationships between forests and tree-based systems and FSN.  This earlier work synthesizes very well the available scientific information on these issues. Specifically regarding deforestation and forest degradation in tropical and subtropical regions, the authors may also find it useful to refer to Chapters 2 and 3 of Parrotta et al. 2012 (cited above).

Section 2.3. Conceptual framework.

Page 18.  As far as it goes, the text above fig. 4 is OK, but the figure (and the conceptual framework) needs to incorporate what should have been said immediately before about all the major trends affecting actual/potential contributions of sustainable forestry for FSN.  Fig. 4 is extremely difficult to interpret, and needs to be redesigned to provide the reader with a better sense of the dynamics involved.  I would recommend using the conceptual model presented and clearly articulated in Chapter 1 of Vira et al. (2015) as a starting point.

Section 2.4 Typologies of forests for food security and nutrition

p. 18, line 23: need to more clearly define what is meant by “forest function” in this sentence.

p. 19: Figure 5.  This figure (and the typology it seeks to illustrate) needs to be re-worked. Part of the difficulty in understanding this properly may be the absence of clear definitions (noted above) for most of the terms used in the diagram, starting with “natural” vs “managed” forests.  If “natural forests” are those in which little or no conscious forest management takes place” as stated on line 20, then how can any of the activities (selective logging, agroforestry, shifting cultivation, hunting, NTFP harvesting) within that circle be included? These are certainly “conscious” activities.  Comments below on sections 2.4.1-2.4.4 may also help inform a redesign of this diagram, but I would recommend that the panel consider the typology used in Vira et al. (2015), which includes 4 clearly defined forest and tree-based systems across the forest-tree-landscape continuum: Managed forests, shifting cultivation, agroforestry, and single-species tree crop production.  Adopting a similar typology might help bring greater clarity and cohesion to the information presented and analyzed in the present report.

Section 2.4.1 Natural forests.

In addition to comments above, what is meant by “formal management” on line 31?

p. 20, line 18: in addition to national parks, game reserves and biosphere reserves, there are many other categories of protected areas – suggest referring to IUCN categories to capture the full range of ways in which forests are protected.

Discussion of shifting cultivation, a major contributor to FNS in many parts of the world, has been dealt with only very briefly and incompletely within Box 4.  Aside from the point made above that this should be considered as a form of forest management, I recommend that the authors refer to Parrotta et al. (2015) [chapter 3 of Vira et al. (2015)] for a more complete and informative discussion of shifting cultivation.

Forest-based activities and selective logging which are included within “natural forests” in Figure 5 are not discussed in this section.

p. 21: Section 2.4.2 Managed forests. Further elaboration needed.

Also, why are agroforestry and several other forest uses that are indicated within “natural forests” included in the description on lines 3-4? 

p. 21-22: Section 2.4.3 Agroforestry.

Suggest expanding this discussion to present a fuller picture of the broad spectrum of agroforestry systems practiced worldwide for centuries, and in many regions millennia.  A useful typology is that presented by Nair (Nair, P.K.N., 1993. An introduction to agroforestry. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers), but authors should also refer to Parrotta et al. (2015) mentioned above.

Figure 6 (page 23). I suggest reframing this using a more standardized typology such as that used by Nair (1993) or by the World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF). The figure title is misleading, stating that agroforestry developed as an interface between agriculture and forestry – it might be more accurate to indicate that it can be seen as an interface, but historically it certainly pre-dates “forestry” as defined in the figure, and most likely co-evolved with agriculture over past millennia (see Parrotta et al. 2015 for further discussion and helpful references).

p. 23-24: Section 2.4.4 Plantation forests.

I would question the consideration of industrial agricultural or bioenergy crops (particularly oil palm and jatropha) as plantation forests, as these. Jatropha plantations are clearly not forests by anyone’s definition, and whether such intensively managed agro-industrial systems such as oil palm plantations can be considered to be forests is highly debatable. In my view, they are part of the expansion of intensive agricultural systems that continue to degrade and replace forests in many parts of the world, particularly in tropical and subtropical regions.

Lines 4-6. The contribution of plantation forests to FSN depends very much on what these replace (i.e., prior land cover, land use) and their social, economic and governance contexts. For example, if they replace natural “primary” or secondary forests, they may result in a net reduction in ecosystem services and more direct contributions to FSN. Similarly, if they result in the alienation of local people who may have utilized the lands (or forests) on which these plantations are established, this can have serious implications for people in these communities from an FSN perspective. These realities – which apply both to forests planted for timber or pulp production, or for agricultural commodities such as oil palm – need to be acknowledged.

Lines 21-25, and Table 1 (on page 24). The data presented on timber plantations from Indufor (2012) may not be the best available data. These seem to be at variance (and are generally significantly lower) than data from FAO’s Global Forest Resources Assessments.

Chapter 3

This chapter is generally well-written and makes good use of existing scientific literature. However, I would recommend that the authors also review and make use of (and cite) relevant work discussed in Jamnadass et al. (chapter 2 in Vira et al. 2015)

Page 29 – Figure 7. What is the source of this figure (or was it created by the panel authors?). More importantly, (1) there are many more linkages that between ecosystem services and relationships to FSN – specifically: (a) agricultural practices are also connected to food supply, reduced land degradation, and agricultural productivity; (b) collection of wild foods is related to income; (c) [commercial forestry &] NWFP collection is related to reduced infections (or more accurately to human health more generally) as NWFPs in many regions include medicinal plants; and (d) health benefits of forests is related to food supply and nutritional quality of food.

Page 43 (section on ecosystem disservices).  Given the scanty (actually no) evidence provided on the negative impacts of forests on agricultural productivity, I would suggest either such evidence be presented, or else eliminating this subheading.

On lines 12-15, the sentence regarding tree-crop competition in agroforestry systems should be deleted – it is only in poorly designed agroforestry systems where this occurs. The foundation of agroforestry as it is practiced in the overwhelming majority of cases worldwide is the management of competition for light, soil water and nutrients among the tree and non-tree (crop and/or livestock) components.

Pages 44-45 (section on Economic growth, income and livelihoods), including Figure 10.  I think it is important to consider in greater depth the equity issues involved for local communities – i.e., who benefits and who loses (in terms of income and FSN) as a result of these activities, both at the local level (within communities) and broader scales.

Page 56 – Section 3.5.4 Forests and psychological health.  The Kapos et al. (2013) reference is not listed in the References section. There is a Kapos et al. (2012) in the references, but that publication does not deal with forest and human health.

Chapter 5

Section 5.2, page 72, paragraph starting on line 35. Reference is made to Chapter 2. While it would have been good for Chapter 2 to include a discussion of the historical trends related to forest management, at present there is no substantive discussion of this in that Chapter.

Draft areas of Recommendations for Action

These are excellent recommendations, but perhaps not all of them are as well-supported as others by the evidence and discussion in the main body of the report. 

In Recommendation 1 related to awareness-raising, I would just add that there is a need for increasing awareness – particularly among policy-makers, the scientific community (in agriculture, forestry and other relevant disciplines), and development community – of the historical role and current significance of traditional (i.e., local and indigenous) knowledge, practices and innovations related to forests, agriculture, agroforestry and agro-forest landscape management (as noted in my General Comments, above).

Parrotta, J.A., Trosper, R.L., editors. 2012. Traditional Forest-Related Knowledge: Sustaining Communities, Ecosystems and Biocultural Diversity. World Forest Series vol. 12. Springer, Dordrecht, the Netherlands. 621 p.

Abstracts & Contents

Chapter 1.  Introduction: The Growing Importance of Traditional Forest-Related Knowledge

Ronald L. Trosper and John A. Parrotta

Abstract The knowledge, innovations, and practices of local and indigenous communities have supported their forest-based livelihoods for countless generations. The role of traditional knowledge—and the bio-cultural diversity it sustains—is increasingly recognized as important by decision makers, conservation and development organizations, and the scientific community. However, there has long existed a lack of understanding of, and an uneasy relationship between, the beliefs and practices of traditional communities and those of formal forest science. This mutual incomprehension has a number of unfortunate consequences, both for human societies and our planet’s forests and woodlands, which play out both on solid ground in many parts of the world as well as in international policy arenas. In this chapter, we define traditional forest-related knowledge, and explore the relationships between traditional knowledge systems and scientific approaches. We follow with an overview of the scope and central questions to be addressed in subsequent chapters of the book, and then provide an overview of international and intergovernmental policy processes that affect traditional knowledge and its practitioners. Finally, we introduce some of the major international programmes and research initiatives that focus on traditional forest-related knowledge and its applications for sustaining livelihoods in local and indigenous communities in a world struggling to deal with environmental, cultural, social, and economic change.

Chapter 2.  Africa

Alfred Oteng-Yeboah, Doris Mutta, Dominic Byarugaba, and William Armand Mala

Abstract The rich body of traditional forest-related knowledge (TFRK) in Africa has been widely acknowledged as important for its contribution to current global efforts towards sustainable forest management and biodiversity conservation. While many rural communities in Africa continue to observe their age-old traditions in relation to forests to ensure the provision of their livelihoods, other communities have lost their traditions for many reasons, including their forced or voluntary cultural alienation from forests, reduced dependence on forests for rural livelihoods, and extensive urbanization. Nonetheless, many communities throughout Africa are still living in or near the continent’s diverse range of forest ecosystems and continue to depend on these forests for their livelihoods. A documentation of how communities have successfully managed these forests to provide for their needs until the present day can serve many useful purposes, including for evidence based sharing of experiences or case studies, research adoption and uptake, and knowledge transfer and training in forestry curricula. In this chapter, we provide a general background on traditional forest-related knowledge in Africa; its historical and present contributions to food security and rural livelihoods; the present challenges faced by the holders and users of this knowledge; and opportunities for its preservation, enhancement, and application to help solve pressing environmental, economic, and social challenges, including the conservation and sustainable use of forest biodiversity.

Chapter 3.  Latin America—Argentina, Bolivia, and Chile

Mónica Gabay, Santiago Barros, Sebastián Bessonart

Abstract Argentina, Chile, and Bolivia are home to a wealth of biodiversity and a wide variety of landscapes, which have shaped over many centuries a very rich cultural tradition among the numerous indigenous peoples present in their territory. This chapter deals with the traditional knowledge generated and preserved by these indigenous peoples, their encounter with Western science, and the resulting knowledge hybridisation processes. Key issues such as multipurpose forest management, non-timber forest products, co-management of protected areas, certification, and key elements related to indigenous forest management are presented here as examples of the encounter of these sometimes conflicting paradigms about forests and nature. A brief discussion on cross-cutting issues such as ethical considerations and equitable benefit sharing is included, stressing the need of further advancements along the line of the full recognition of the worth of indigenous traditional knowledge as well as the enforcement of indigenous communities’ property rights.

Chapter 4.   Amazonia

Miguel Pinedo-Vasquez, Susanna Hecht, and Christine Padoch

Abstract Greater Amazonia—the Amazon Basin, which stretches from the Andes to the Atlantic—is roughly the size of the continental United States. It contains the largest planetary extension of humid forests as well as a complex array of more open forest formations, savanna ecosystems, and agricultural mosaics. About 40,000 plant species are found there. Historically, Amazonia was viewed as a place where ecosystems had been minimally affected by human activity, but modern archaeological discoveries ranging from anthropogenic soils, large scale earthworks, and historical ecological studies are changing this view; the region is now viewed as one of the main civilizational hearths of Latin America, on a par with the Inca, Maya, and Aztec cultures. Recent ethnographic studies of indigenous, traditional, and diasporic populations are also recasting our understanding of the extent and forms of ecosystem management from soil, succession, cultivar, and forest manipulations. These are reviewed in this chapter, and point to the complex managed forests produced today and in the past. What is clear is that there are suites of management techniques that provide income and resilience and that protect and enhance diversity while maintaining biomass through successional processes at the landscape level. This knowledge and practice certainly merit greater attention for the longer term, especially given the pivotal role of tropical forests in climate systems.

Chapter 5.  North America

Ronald L. Trosper, Fred Clark, Patrica Gerez-Fernandez, Frank Lake, Deborah McGregor, Charles M. Peters, Silvia Purata, Teresa Ryan, Alan Thomson, Alan Watson, and Stephen Wyatt

Abstract The colonial history of North America presents a contrast between Mexico and the two predominantly English-speaking countries, the United States and Canada. In Mexico, indigenous and other local communities own considerable forested lands, a consequence of the Mexican Revolution of the early twentieth century. In the United States, forest land is now primarily in private or federal hands, while in Canada forest land is primarily managed by the provinces. In all three countries, traditional knowledge had little effect upon forestry until the end of the twentieth century. In Mexico and the United States, the central government retained control over forested lands ostensibly held by communities. Policy changes in those two countries have decentralized control to indigenous peoples, and their ideas have started to affect forestry. In Canada, although traditional management of lands in remote regions persisted until the middle of the twentieth century, provincial policies have generally been displacing indigenous control; First Nations knowledge, which has survived well in some areas, is only recently being applied to forest management, and in only a few examples.

Chapter 6.   Europe

Elisabeth Johann, Mauro Agnoletti, János Bölöni, Seçil Yurdakul Erol, Kate Holl, Jürgen Kusmin, Jesús García Latorre, Juan García Latorre, Zsolt Molnár, Xavier Rochel, Ian D. Rotherham, Eirini Saratsi, Mike Smith, Lembitu Tarang, Mark van Benthem, and Jim van Laar

Abstract Forests and other wooded lands cover about a third of the European land area and are therefore a characteristic element of the continent’s natural and cultural landscape. Woodland has always provided people with economic, social and environmental products and services. Indeed the history of Western civilisation would be dramatically different without the multiple benefits forests provided to society. However, the current distribution and composition of forests in most parts of Europe reflect the profound cumulative impacts of many centuries of land use change and forest management. While in many cases the loss of biodiversity of cultural landscapes we observe today is closely related to modern exploitation strategies, very often this situation is connected with changes in traditional agricultural systems and the abandonment of traditional land management practices. In this chapter, we examine the principal factors responsible for the development of locally adapted technologies and traditional forest management practices used historically to sustain the long-term availability of forest resources through generations. The chapter also considers the influences of science and modern forestry on the development of cultural landscapes. A central part of the chapter considers the relevance of traditional forest-related knowledge to current debates about sustainable forest management. Inclusion of traditional forest-related knowledge within formal scientific forestry is considered a necessary step to maintain an important part of the European cultural heritage. Such knowledge is also regarded vital for the development of an effective approach to maintaining the ecological balance of European forests and for securing the sustainable development of rural areas in Europe.

Chapter 7.   Russia, Ukraine, the Caucasus, and Central Asia

Vladimir Bocharnikov, Andrey Laletin, Per Angelstam, Ilya Domashov, Marine Elbakidze,  Olesya Kaspruk, Hovik Sayadyan, Igor Solovyi, Emil Shukurov, and Tengiz Urushadze

Abstract Interconnection and interaction of human beings and forests have shaped traditional forest-related knowledge (TFRK) over centuries in the vast region of Eurasia, where forestry practices of Russian and other former Soviet origin prevailed during the past century. There are significant differences in forestry practices across this region, a result of geographic and cultural diversity as well as historical differences in social, economic, and political conditions. In this chapter, the diversity of traditional forest-related knowledge and associated practices—as well as the problems and the prospects for their preservation—are introduced by focussing on selected, contrasting areas in the Russian Federation, Ukraine, the Caucasus, and Central Asia. Traditional uses of forest resources have survived in the huge area of barely modified ecosystems stretching from Scandinavia through the northern reaches of the Russian Plain, the Urals, and Siberia, and up to the Far East. Traditional uses of forest resources practised in the North, Siberia, and the Far East of Russia generally involve a combination of activities including reindeer breeding, hunting, fishing, and harvesting of non-timber forest products; traditional activities in northern villages also include the processing of yields from the above activities, breeding wild animals, honey, and hay production. Non-timber product gathering and hunting support the livelihoods of mountain dwellers in the Caucasus and Central Asia regions, where nomads have used forest resources for fuel and for making yurts and household utensils. Today, traditional forest-related knowledge throughout the region is at risk, complicated by the erosion of the role of families in the intergenerational transfer of this knowledge.

Chapter 8.   Northeast Asia

Youn Yeo-Chang , Liu Jinlong, Sakuma Daisuke, Kim Kiweon, Masahiro Ichikawa, Shin Joon-Hwan, and Yuan Juanwen

Abstract Northeast Asia including China has a vast land area that hosts many ethnic groups living in diverse environmental conditions. Its ecological diversity is matched with diverse cultural heritages, including forest-related cultures. There is a rich tradition of managing the villagers’ common forests, with well-organized institutions in accordance with traditional religious customs of the local communities. People of village groves and community common forests such as the ‘fengshui’ forest in China, ‘satoyama’ in Japan, and ‘maeulsoop’ in Korea have kept their traditional knowledge about forest ecosystems that provide physical, cultural and spiritual amenities to local communities. People in this region have been protecting some of their forests as seed and water conservation reserves, while some forest areas have been used traditionally as sources of medicinal herbs and food. Agroforestry has long been a common practice for the production of food, timber, and fibre in the region and has gained vitality when integrated with modern technology, in particular in China. Many species of medicinal herbs as well as mushrooms continue be collected, and cultivated, in the forests of Northeast Asian forests. Traditional forest-related knowledge, however, has been eroding in Northeast Asia as countries in this region have become industrialized and influenced by economic globalization. This rapid loss has been exacerbated by government policies promoting infrastructure development and free trade. In order to protect traditional forest-related knowledge, it should be given proper recognition and an equitable role alongside scientific knowledge in social decision-making. Suitable regulations should also be implemented in order to protect the local peoples who have created and inherited traditional forest-related knowledge. It is imperative, therefore, that scientific knowledge be integrated with traditional forestry-related knowledge.

Chapter 9.  South Asia

P.S. Ramakrishnan, K.S. Rao, U.M. Chandrashekara, N. Chhetri, H.K.Gupta, S. Patnaik, K.G. Saxena, and E. Sharma

Abstract Forests of the South Asian region, including major ‘hotspots’ of biodiversity, have been sustainably managed for generations by ethnically and culturally diverse traditional societies. The rich traditional forest-related knowledge possessed by the traditional societies in the region is closely linked to cultural diversity as well as to biodiversity in all its scalar dimensions (i.e., genetic, species, ecosystem, and landscape diversity). This knowledge, generated through an experiential process, has ensured sustainability of diverse forested ecosystems as well as livelihoods of forest-dependent communities. In recent times this knowledge base has been severely eroded, due in large part to deforestation and associated land degradation, processes triggered by forces external to traditional socio-ecological systems. Successful efforts have been made towards conserving traditional forest-related knowledge and linking it with formal scientific forest knowledge to develop ‘hybrid technologies’ relevant to sustainable forest management. To facilitate this process, it has been helpful to elucidate broad, generalizable, principles of traditional forest-related knowledge, rather than viewing this knowledge stream as ‘local knowledge.’ One such key principle that has contributed towards community participation in sustainable forest management initiatives relates to socially valued species that typically have important ecological keystone values. The protected ‘sacred groves’ that are abundant in the region are important learning sites both for understanding ecosystem dynamics and as a resource base for sustainable forest management practices. This is the context in which emerging institutional arrangements in the South Asian region, such as community forestry, joint forest management, and forest user groups are to be seen.

Chapter 10.  Southeast Asia

Lim Hin Fui, Liang Luohui, Leni D. Camacho, Edwin A. Combalicer, and Savinder Kaur Kapar Singh

Abstract Rich in biological and cultural diversity important for human survival, tropical forests in Southeast Asia provide a major management challenge. Loss and degradation of forests in the region are driven by a complex interplay of economic, social, cultural, political, and demographic factors. In rural areas, local communities have used traditional knowledge in the management of forest resources for centuries. The arrival of Western colonial rulers and the introduction of scientific forest management gradually marginalized traditional local forest management. Modernization and economic development continue to erode cultural diversity and traditional knowledge. In some communities, villagers have adapted to externally driven socio-economic changes emphasizing commercial economic activities; conversion to institutionalized religions (such as Christianity, Buddhism, and Islam); and formal education. In other societies, local communities continue to manage local natural resources based on traditional knowledge and governance systems. Post-colonial governments from the 1940s to the 1970s maintained policies that gave the state legal control over all, or nearly all, forest lands. In most countries local, traditional management systems are not legally recognised or accepted by state forest management authorities, and their role in sustainable forest management has not been recognized. To achieve long-term forest sustainability in Southeast Asia, new approaches involving empowerment of local communities to manage natural forests, along with selective combinations of traditional and modern scientific management practices, may prove to be a way forward.

Chapter 11.  Western Pacific

Sue Feary, David Eastburn, Nalish Sam, and Jean Kennedy

Abstract The forests of the Western Pacific range from tropical in Oceania to cool temperate in the Australian state of Tasmania, and all have been manipulated by humans for thousands of years. Indigenous communities across the Western Pacific used forest resources for food, medicine, and raw materials, based on an intimate knowledge of local ecologies, understood though a cosmological lens. Differing colonial histories have influenced the degree to which traditional knowledge has been retained and valued. New Zealand Maori and Aboriginal Australians lost their land and much associated knowledge, whereas customary forms of land tenure are largely intact across the oceanic Pacific, where traditional knowledge continues to underpin integrated systems of subsistence agriculture and forest use. Traditional forest-related knowledge is threatened by modernity across the Western Pacific, and its diminution has been linked with deforestation in the

Pacific Islands, with calls by non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and local people to replace large-scale commercial logging with more sustainable systems that give more credence to traditional knowledge. In Australia and New Zealand, indigenous people are partnering with government agencies to ensure their cultural values are adequately recognised and protected in publicly owned forests.

Chapter 12.   Globalization, Local Communities, and Traditional Forest-Related Knowledge

Jesús García Latorre and Juan García Latorre

Abstract  Traditional forest-related knowledge (TFRK) has allowed human communities to adapt to specific locales. However, this local context is being dramatically affected by changes introduced through globalization. This chapter explores the different paths through which globalization is affecting local and indigenous communities and their traditional forest-related knowledge, and the potential for these communities to adapt to, or counteract, the impacts of globalization. We start with a reflexion on globalization and its links with local communities. Current globalization can be regarded as the most recent phase of a long-term process initiated by European expansion 500 years ago. Following a brief discussion of the positive effects and potential benefits of globalization on local communities, the remainder of the chapter considers the more disquieting aspects of this topic. European countries provide examples of how globalization has affected local communities in capitalist industrial economies as well as under communism. We then address the long-lasting influence of European colonialism, and explore how local communities are still being affected by political ideas developed in Europe during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and introduced to the colonies, including centralized control of forests and their management. We continue with a focus on developing countries and the influence of environmental policies and the market economy as important facets of globalization’s impact on local communities. This discussion includes an examination of the application of violence in the framework of a market economy. Finally, we discuss how local communities deal with globalization, as well as the importance of participation and consultation processes to support these communities.

Chapter 13.  Traditional Forest-Related Knowledge and Climate Change

John A. Parrotta and Mauro Agnoletti

Abstract  The holders and users of traditional forest-related knowledge are on the front lines of global efforts to deal with climate change and its impacts. Because of their close connection with, and high dependence on, forest ecosystems and landscapes, indigenous and local communities are among the first to witness, understand, and experience the impacts of climate change on forests and woodlands as well as on their livelihoods and cultures. The history of forest and agricultural landscape management practices of indigenous and local communities based on their traditional knowledge offer insights into principles and approaches that may be effective in coping with, and adapting to, climate change in the years ahead. Global, regional, national and local efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change, however, have not yet given adequate attention either to the forest-related knowledge and practices of traditional communities, or to the interests, needs and rights of local and indigenous communities in the formulation of policies and programmes to combat climate change. Due consideration of, and a more prominent role for, traditional forest-related knowledge and its practitioners could lead to the development of more effective and equitable approaches for facing the challenges posed by climate change while enhancing prospects for sustainable management of forest resources.

Chapter 14.  Ethics and Research Methodologies for the Study of Traditional Forest-Related Knowledge

Christian Gamborg, Reg Parsons, Rajindra K. Puri, and Peter Sandøe

Abstract This chapter examines some of the main research methodologies for studying traditional forest-related knowledge (TFRK). Initially, we address ethical issues, asking, for example, what constitutes proper handling of research results. The relationship between TFRK and modern science is then discussed from a methodological perspective, after which an account of some of the main methods used for studying such knowledge—including participant observation, interviews, cultural domain analysis, questionnaires, and workshops—is provided. Ethnographic approaches are recommended for documenting both verbal and tacit knowledge embedded in skills and practices, while the tools of cultural domain analysis allow for both quantitative and qualitative analysis of individual variation in knowledge. Finally, recurring elements of best practice are presented. If ethical and methodological questions are not addressed in a consistent and systematic manner from the outset of the research, the rights of TFRK owners may well be infringed, meaning that benefits will not accrue to the owners and that access to resources (such as genetic resources) may be suddenly curtailed. Thus, all parties must address the challenges raised by the maintenance, use, and protection of traditional forest-related knowledge when there is interaction between the holders and users of such knowledge.

Chapter 15.  The Unique Character of Traditional Forest-Related Knowledge: Threats and Challenges Ahead

Ronald Trosper, John Parrotta, Mauro Agnoletti, Vladimir Bocharnikov, Suzanne A. Feary, Mónica Gabay, Christian Gamborg, Jésus García Latorre, Elisabeth Johann, Andrey Laletin, Lim Hin Fui, Alfred Oteng-Yeboah, Miguel A. Pinedo-Vasquez, P.S. Ramakrishnan, Youn Yeo-Chang

Abstract This chapter reflects on the major findings of the lead authors of this book regarding traditional forest-related knowledge (TFRK) using five criteria for distinguishing the unique character of traditional knowledge: (1) its attention to sustainability; (2) relationships to land; (3) identity; (4) reciprocity; and (5) limitations on market involvement. Following an explanation of these criteria, we discuss the definition of “traditional forest-related knowledge,” with some remarks about its resilience. We then consider threats to the maintenance of TFRK, how other definitions of sustainability differ from that used in TFRK, and how relationships that holders of this knowledge have to their land have been weakened and their identities challenged. We highlight how the key role of reciprocity, or the sharing of the utilization of land, is undermined by individualistic motives which are promoted by the global expansion of modern markets (for commodities, ecosystems services and for knowledge itself), which also challenge the policies of traditional knowledge holders to keep market influences under control. We then focus on two notable, but often ignored, contributions of TFRK (and the holders of this knowledge) to forest management today, specifically the preservation of biodiversity, and traditional knowledge-based shifting cultivation practices and their importance for both sustainable management of forests and food security.

At least in Brazil, and probably in many other countries, the low-cost and effective way to promote sustainable use of biodiversity and NTFPs, thus providing multiple environmental, economic and social benefits, would be to remove the various regulatory barriers (sanitary, environmental, organizational, labor law, tax law etc.) that make it practically impossible for local communities and small farmers to produce and market these products. See: Sawyer, Donald. 2011. Entraves regulatórios de atividades extrativistas na Amazônia: problemas, enfrentamentos e soluções. In: Pires, Tatiana de Carvalho; Bueno, Carmem (Eds.). Soerguimento tecnológico e econômico do extrativismo na Amazônia. Brasília: Centro de Gestão e Estudos Estratégicos, p.197-251.

We at Active Remedy Ltd are very sad to see that there is no mention of the water cycle and it’s dependency upon mixed forests within this report, given how many research papers and conferences the FAO has been part of since the 1990’s, which highlight the critical relationship between them. According to recent FAO Forest Resources Assessment, almost 40% of forests in the UNECE region are designated for water soil and water protection – and a significant 54 million hectares of them are managed and protected exclusively for the water purification.

“Forests and sustainable management of forests are core aspects of SDG15 and its targets. Forests are also explicitly addressed in the SDG6 target 6.6 on water and are crucial to achieving many of the other SDGs and associated targets. This includes poverty eradication (SDG1), food security and nutrition (SDG2), health (SDG3), gender equality (SDG5), sustainable energy (SDG7), sustainable economic growth (SDG8), infrastructure and innovation (SDG9), sustainable consumption and production (SDG12), climate change (SDG13), peaceful and inclusive societies, justice, accountable institutions (SDG16), and means of implementation (SDG17). “(FAO, COFO/2016/5.1, May 2016)

 “Governments recognized the vital interdependence between forests and water when they adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Target 15.1 stresses the need to conserve and restore both freshwater and forest ecosystems and target 6.6 calls for protecting and restoring water-related ecosystems, including forests.” (UNECE International Day of Forests Event Geneva, 21/3/16)

“The Water Convention also has a Protocol on Water and Health, which recognizes that by protecting water ecosystems, we protect the health and well-being of our citizens. Therefore, the Protocol requires its Parties to set targets across the whole water cycle. These targets have a strong focus on prevention, where forests can play a significant role.” (UNECE International Day of Forests Event Geneva, 21/3/16)

“Therefore, protecting our forest resources has significant implications for availability of water, and our access to it. And in fact, using forests to clean water is often cheaper than treating water in plants, even if the water needs to be transported further. A study found that for every 10% increase in forest cover in the source watershed, treatment costs decreased by approximately 20%. We all have the right to accessible, affordable water. Protecting our forests can help us ensure this right.” (UNECE International Day of Forests Event Geneva, 21/3/16

Today we celebrate healthy forests and clean waters. These celebrations should remind us how much we need both, and that one cannot exist without the other. (UNECE International Day of Forests Event Geneva, 21/3/16

We hope that you will revise and add this as we imagine it has been an oversight on your part

An excellent, very tightly argued report supported by rich, sound data. My main concern is that it is focused on what we know now, with recommendations for the present and short term.   I would have liked to see a more focused dicusssion of trends over the medium to longer term (population, demand for forest and tree products (for food and other competing products eg biofuel), trade (and energy/emissions issues in the context of the climate change agreement), and the implications for investment, land tenure, employment, R&D needs/investment, forest/tree food standards and regulations etc.  To reach the future we desire, we need to take some critical actions now with regard to policy, legislation, standards/regulations, investment, employment creation/conditions/skills and capacity building etc etc. Also we need to be clear on values - are we just permitting free market development (especially in the corporate sector) or are we looking for/protecting values of equity, poverty reduction, employment creation under decent conditions (especially for youth and women)?

Dear Sir/Madam

The report is tacking a complex issue with full of information. I appreciate the effort to prepare the report. I have three comments.

1. In 5.3 Policy instrument and institution--, Payment for Environmental service (PES)  can be put as one sub chapter. PES is described in the report in some parts, but I think it can be one subchapter here. Vietnam can be a good case study. http://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/OccPapers/OP-93.pdf

2. Page 45 

Forest directly contributes to livestock production under certain conditions. In Nicaragua we found positive effects of forests with higher tree density on milk production in dual purpose cattle production system. Please see attached file. 

3. 5.6.1 Intgrating food security and nuturition into forest governance

In India Uttar Pradesh Participatory Forest Management and Poverty Alleviation Project (http://www.uppfmpap.org/) has been supporting the rural poor (forest user group, more than 30,000 people) not only through allocating village forests with pillar with GPS coordinates and technical/financial assistance for plantation but also forming Self Help Group and funding threir business (mostly in agriculture sector) with strong emphasis on connecting support from other sector (so called convergence). This created many success stories (http://uppfmpap.org/uppfmpap/content/Compendium%20of%20Success%20Stories...). This can be a good case study.

regards,

Wataru Yamamoto

International Forest Specialist

Dear all members

Greetings

Please find my Research attached below

Bibhu Santosh Behera

Independent Scientist-Climate Smart and Climate Change Extension Education

Инциатива Наилучшая !

Отвечу по каждому пункту по отдельности:

1. Обогатить инициативу могут много аспектов, но всё это лучше представить как пути совершенствования стратегии реализации инициативы.

2. Считаю что для первичной инициативы главы предложения являются комплексными, в частности их можно разделить на пункты, но в целом я поддерживаю именно такое представление. Больше должны быть охвачены отношения между субъектами предпринимательства и всесторонне представлены разработанные предложения по их совместной деятеьности в области производства безопасных для здоровья продуктов питания.

3. Я полностью поддерживаю изложение стремления быть понятным и реализованным в разрезе разработанного проекта. Общеприянтым Терминология Соответствует принципам, поэтому мало что можно дополнительно включить сюда. Но, ещё раз подчеркиваю о том, что весь проект дожен позволять совершенствования в связи с местными или общечеловеческими принципами толерантного сосуществования с природой.

4. Сущестуют, но подведённоо под единую стратегию действий пока не встречал.

5. Данный пункт содержить ряд вопросов, которые в корне могут изменить весь проект, поэтому моё предложение этот пункт дорабатывать и совершенствовать в процессе реализации самой инициативы.

6. Правильно акцентированы требования условия изучения, но, каждое предложение подразумевает полномасштабное исследование, а также проработки многих вопросов требует, я предлагаю сделать акцент на то, что периодически будут совершенствоваться многие пункты этой инициативы, а структура проекта будет оставаться единой. бо, предложение всегда возникают, когда только начинаешь реализовавать свои первые шаги, а бумажный вариант всегда остаётся предположительным эскизом действий.

7. Единственное моё предложение это приницмать новые предложения не только от институтов (любого типа и направления), но и от тех людей, кто является индивидом в обществе. А также хотелось бы, чтобы проект был расширен до уровня - национального обсуждения, одобрения, голосования в странах. Ведь Вы говорите о политике, которая не может быть единой для всех стран в связи с разными подходами к решению этих проблем.

8. Не хотелось бы хвастаться, но сделанное не имеет значение, когда предстоящее может его сделать более эффективным. Главное иметь хладнокровие в принятии решения по реализации задуманного, а это приведёт обязательно к деятельности, которая будет для собственной этого проекта, предложения, инициативы.

9. Моя единственная просьба по этому пункту наделить всевозможными полномочиями и возможной поддержкой своего партнёра по этой инициативе, иначе все действия будут направлены лишь на преодоление трудностей, а активная деятельность отставать от поставленной времени реализации проекта. Единственный правильный путь - это постоянное и периодическое совершенствование инициативы в целом, и пунктов по реализации в частности.

Я надеюсь что, смог передать своё мнение доходчиво!

Благолучия Всем!

I suggest to further develop the proposed framework on the relationship between food security and nutrition security (especially figure 7) where it seems that food security and nutrition appear as the same concept. Forest products can be used for food security but they can also be used for income which in turn, can be dedicated to access to health services, to safe water to name a few and ultimately can contribute to nutrition through another channel than food security. Therefore, perhaps, it could be better to refer to the Unicef conceptual framework on the determinant of nutritional status (or nutrition security) which has resources (including forest resources) as the basis of the framework and shows how resources can be used to achieve food security and nutrition security (as measurd by nutritional status).

In addition to that, I do not see the link between forest resources and nutritional status of populations (since at the end of the day, one wants to show that forest products does improve nutrition security of populations) even though there is a reference to my paper in the document ("Contribution of natural resources to nutritional status...in Gabon" which shows that the consumption of natural resources by school-age children and adolescents contribute to their nutritional status. In this paper, I also explain why such relationship has not be observed for other age groups such as women and young children. I also suggest to refer to my other paper called “Determinants of undernutrition in rural communities of a protected area in Gabon” which highlights the link between the use of natural resources and food security (please see attached).

Hoping these comments are helpful and will contribute to improve the content of the report. Thank you again for sharing.

Maybe we could have a bit of more info on some wild (local, native) fruits consumed by rural (and urban for some fruits like kola nuts) communities.

Domestication of native fruit trees is an important key for natural resources management (these native fruits are part of AFS  and threatened), high nutrition and social/traditional value as well as important economic activity (more and more expensive as disappearing from forest & field a more and more consumed in big cities).

A kind of table (matrix) presenting major regions of the world and native fruits (selected with several relavant criteria (nutrition, market, extinction...) ) would be nice.

It would also be relevant to mention simple vegetative propagation practices like cuttings to propagate and domesticate native fruit trees, so that trees will fruit earlier (2 times earlier), then attractive for farmers who can eat and sell quickly, ensuring food security and revenue.

Other NFTP could be included (mushrooms, vegetables, animals...).

ICRAF have been working on native fruit trees domestication in West Africa and NGOs have done so with less funding.

A great resource person is Roger Leakey.

Pro-Natura international (www.pronatura.org) has pulished 3 Agroforestry Guides (Nigeria, Ghana and ivory Coast) soon available on-line. Attached is the Agroforestry Guide for Ivory Coast.

Producing and using biochar made from unutilised agricultural and forestry wastes is also a highly relevant option to improve crops and tree yields in a sustainable way, protecting soil biodiversity and fighting global warming.

Best regards,

Wilfrid PINEAU.

You might like to look at my recent article: