Глобальный форум по продовольственной безопасности и питанию (Форум FSN)

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.

My assessments on work process and the report of forest for food security and nutrition are as follows. Only weaknesses are presented. I felt most problems in the report are not related to knowledge but the intensions, processes, and institutions. Therefore, my comments are focused on those problematic aspects. I included some background information which are important to be convinced from my comments.

1.       Covered up realities and potentials for protecting interest of powerful distant beneficiaries of forest services

Current forest values and knowledge in developing societies are explained and constructed mainly for meeting interest of and benefit to dominating societies and distant (invisible) beneficiaries or users whose previous generations occupied and destroyed the resources globally in the past. Their current generations have played key roles in shaping current international forest policies, their by national policies. They have often used remote tools and other means to influence forest policies of developing societies which have made barriers to use forest resources for food securities and nutrition.  Linking past actions are relevant now too because current forest and private land distribution and the resources need are largely determined by the past decisions and actions. Current global and national policies and practices are directed to address the problems created in the past and address the interest and benefit of the dominating societies. The policies and practices have oppressed, exploited and marginalised many forest based societies including many indigenous people whose previous generations lived in forest in harmony and used the resource just for bare survival. International agencies including FAO have played influential roles from backgrounds to direct the forest resources for the interest and benefit of powerful societies and distant users. From my understanding, if the mission of the HL committee to address current problem of managing the forest for food security seriously, the primary focus of the report would be for addressing food, livelihood and other social problems of the socially disadvantaged people where relevant. Utilising potentials of the resources to other societies would be of secondary interest. The report has not given enough priority on the problems of needy people.   

Forest resources in many communities have still adequate to benefit and make difference in life and feeling of the disadvantaged groups with making little differences in environmental benefits and benefit to the dominating societies. Some degree of compromising on environmental outcomes and other benefit of the resource but at tolerable level (referring to tipping point) to make substantial differences in some other communities. There is considerable degree of potentials to create sensational sentiments on power actors which could bring substantial changes on current direction of global, regional and national forest policies and practices.  However, the report has seriously undermined the potentials. Key institutional structures, working processes and power players, the culprits of the problems or barriers to use forest for food securities and nutrition are not clearly specified in the report. It has poorly discussed how current global forest policies (e.g. REDD Plus and Wildlife conservation) which hampered to manage and use the forest resources for food security and nutrition. It has also heavily supported or protected many values and interest of conservative foresters and extreme environmentalists. There are many points in the report which can be challenged by economic and social, environmental and other sciences’ theories. In reality the document has protected values and interest of the powerful societies and forest actors at the cost of socially disadvantaged societies.

The explanations in the following article are very relevant to understand forest for food security and institutional problems in achieving the objective: “The Local Environmental, Economic and Social Tragedies of Managing Community Forests for Global Environment Conservation: A Critical Evaluation. The Open Journal of Forestry. 4(1):58-69”.

2.       Conceptual model related problems

Some underlying phenomena or factors determines the level of important or need of forest resources based food and nutrition The report requires a good description of the key underlying phenomena or factors that made forest resources critical or useful for food securities and nutrition in particular agroecological region or communities. It should be in theoretical framework which would focus writing of the rest parts of the report in key problems. The important component is missing in the report. That is why critical important of forest for food security and nutrition of many important regions (e.g. Himalayan mountain region) are missing.  

Another important missing thing in the theoretical framework is classification and explanation of the forest food users’ categories. The information would help policy decision makers and other stakeholders to understand difference of values of forest resource based food to different social groups. The report has given little value in this aspect. The forest resource based food and nutrition users (consumers) can be grouped into different categories.

·         Categories One: Fully dependent consumers (no alternatives)

·         Categories Two: Complementary means (cannot manage food adequately from other sources)

·         Categories Three: Spare time/ off-work season users and free resources users

·         Categories Four: Recreational or hubby consumers

·         Categories Five: Optional consumers (use if the forest food products are cheaper than other sources)

·         Categories Six: Indirect users (forest ecosystems services indirectly contributes in production or availability of food) 

3.       Language structure related problem

Messages should be presented on appropriate language structures or wordings to communicate the problem effectively and bring a whim for effective working. This report is prepared in Gentlemen (polite) wordings. The language structure does not create driving sentiment on key change makers for addressing current forest problems to the level of seriousness.  The language structure has rather protected or covered up the actors who have been deceiving and exploiting to the forest based societies and other local people. It has saved you from unpleasing powerful actors but deceived to those people whom you are supposed to work for.

4.       Process related problem

Most policy and program documents national and international agencies are prepared is to increase benefit of forest resources to local people or socially disadvantaged groups. But the activities and actions resulted contrary outcomes. From my assessment and experiences, major problems in the report are not major matter of knowledge, but intensions and values of people who prepared the report, defined TOR of work and selected the working committee. The people who have not adequate level of knowledge, experiences or understanding of life reality of the forest based communities get influential positions including defining global policies. My argument applied in this case too. You might have felt that the regional experts representing the panel do not have good understanding on critical important of forest food security and nutrition. Forest resources have multiple and many competing uses. People can be benefited from forest from distant location. Key position holders of the panel are those categories people. The interest of the people (value highly on recreational consumption and carbon sequestration) extremely conflicts with the interest of forest based food needy people (getting food to meet basic need). Quality of the report proved the conflict. People in FAO management were well aware of global forest politics and ignored in their decisions. It is an ethical issue. FAO has done it in many previous commissions and other cases. But people have not dared to point it.

5.       A remark

I presented open comments and some of them are critical. My community and professional sentiments and experiences drove me to be opened on the problems. The comments might give unpleasant feeling to those who do not like critical comments about high profile people or who are benefited from current regime. But the people who value problems of socially disadvantaged groups or suffered by inappropriate external interventions might appreciate them.

Thanks for reading my opinions or suggestions.

B. Dhakal

Dear Friends,

Greetings

I have gone through this paper. Must appreciate your efforts for preparing such a detailed report of very good quality.

Few points came to my mind and have tried to articulate the same. Do let me know in case you need further information on any. Also find attached a report on forest prepared by Action aid for your reference.

Warm regards

Bratindi Jena|Head - Knowledge Activist Hub Natural Resources

331/A, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar, Odisha,India

www.actionaid.org

Input on HLPE Sustainable Forestry

I have few inputs in this document and have tried to put it page wise so that is becomes easier to check relevance and incorporate if felt appropriate.

Bratindi jena

1. Page 24 - Religious and cultural importance of forest and mountain. UNDRP has recognised this right for the indigenous/tribal people. There are many tribal communities who worship the forest and mountain they have been living for generations. One such community is the Dongaria Kondha of Niyamgiri forest located in Odisha of India. They worship the forest and mountain as their living God and are struggling to protect from onslaught by Vedanta Alumina Ltd (VAL). Vedanta is trying to extract bauxite from Niyamgiri. Forest is the cultural base of tribal community, they cannot think of many celebrations without a particular variety of trees, flowers, leaves and fruits. All seasonal celebrations revolve around those.

1. Page 27 – Balanced safe and seasonal food basket. Forest provided seasonal variety of food for every season in the form of leaves, flowers, fruits, tubers, barks and shoots. These form a balanced food rich with minerals, vitamins and what the community needs during each season. Being free from pesticide and chemical fertiliser forest food happens to be safe food.

1. Page 31 – Medicinal property. Forest food is rich in medicinal property. Most of the traditional or Ayurvedic medicines are drawn from forest. These are prepared from the varieties of non timber forest products. Women are more dependent on such medicines. This is a part of rich indigenous knowledge system

1. Page 56 – Healing power. For many communities forest provided the psychological space for healing diseases. Mangroves are protected for this purpose by communities with a belief that the forefathers live there and bless the next generations.

1. Page 68 – Forest through plantation. Monoculture of tree plantation is changing rather destroying the original characteristics of forest in many regions. As a result the alien varieties of tress are vulnerable to natural disaster and flash floods/ landslides. Forest fire of Uttarakhand, India in the most recent example. The chir pie forest caught fire and was beyond control of the NDRF (National Disaster Response Force). This fire destroyed thousands of hectares of forest and was spread to Himachal Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir.

The draft is well written, comprehensive with a wider range of contributions of specific functions of forests to FSN at the household, national and global levels.

In addition to the comments provided in the draft report (see attachment) we would like however to recommend some changes and additions:

1. Chapter 2 Context and conceptual framework: This chapter is rather lengthy and “forestry centric”. While useful for readers looking for details on the status of forestry sector, it might distract the reader who is looking at evidences about the contributions of forests to FSN. Further in this chapter there are a few references to FSN although FSN is looked at in Chapter 3, this causes duplications and might confuse the reader. We would recommend, to restructure the document to bring forward chapter 3 instead of chapter 2, this will permit to enter in the subject right away. Current Chapter 3 doesn’t need a detailed explanation of the forestry context to understand the contribution of forests to FSN and thus could be move forward without problem. Then current chapter 2 “Context” could be following “Roles and contributions of forests to FSN” or even be integrated in current chapter 4 in a much shortened version, providing only the most important facts and the details could be provided in an annex for those interested in these details.

1. The structure of Chapter 3 “Roles and contributions of forests” could be improved by following the 4 dimensions of FSN which are universally recognized and referred to in the report: 1) Availability; 2) Access; 3) Utilization; and 4) Stability. This will involves moving some paragraphs and modifying some of the headings. This will add clarity in demonstrating the roles and contributions of forests along the 4 dimensions of FSN.

1. We suggest the report to dedicate a section to summarize the changing role of forestry during the structural transformation of economies. Particularly, in the section 4.2 (Pg. 28-29) where the report captures the importance of both agricultural and economy-wide development to improve national FSN, it would be worthwhile to delve into how forests play a different role in developing and developed economy-context in relation to food security. As an example, i) in developing countries where the primary industry is a large sector, the role of wood energy in cooking and water sterilization is more relevant to direct food utilization benefits mainly when the alternative energy means are not available;   ii) in a changing economy where the secondary or the tertiary industries are being developed or having been remained as main industry, the contribution of forestry sector in terms of national income can become less relevant (with an exception of a major secondary industry being developed based on forest products); the contribution of forests to the long-term stability or health aspect of food security is more pertinent to this context.

1. The report would benefit from establishing a clear definition of non-wood forest products and its consistent use throughout the report. As well, the term (and the acronyms) for non-wood forest products (NWFPs) or non-timber forest products (NTFPs) should be used consistently. (e.g. pg. 44: “…However, in Canada, for example, non-wood forest products (NTFPs) 17 have a current yearly value of CAD241 million and contribute…”)

1. The report does not mention the value of edible insects, which goes beyond their nutritional value as, for instance, it is much more environmentally friendly and easy to produce yellow mealworm (Tenebrio molitor) protein than to produce beef[1]. Farming edible insects for food and feed puts much less pressure on already limited resources such as land, soils, water and energy.

1. Population growth and dietary transitions are mentioned as two main points when addressing global trends and impacts on sustainable forestry for FSN (pg. 17) at the beginning of the report. The “climate change” should be mentioned as one of the relevant and important points in this section.

1. Repeating paragraphs (e.g. i) examples used in pg. 26 (Indonesia, Africa) of Box 7 are repeated in pg. 30 of Box 9; ii) second paragraph of pg. 42 is a repeat of the first paragraph on pg. 39)

1. In general the importance of woodfuel to FSN is not well reflected compared to the availability and access dimensions of FSN, although woodfuel is used by 1/3 of the world population for cooking. As such woodfuel is probably one of the main contributions of forests to FSN. While Pg. 51-54, the “complex impacts of fuelwood on health” are analyzed in detail, issues related to sustainable production and utilization of woodfuel are not mentioned in the report (see comments in the report).

1. Pg. 79. Table 11. “Potential stakeholders in the forestry sector”: why are “downstream communities” only considered at the “local level”? “Upstream communities” are missing.

1. Pg. 101. In the “conclusion” section, it is suggested that “forest policies must address the role of forests in improved livelihoods including FSN”. In order to ensure the sound implementation of the relevant policies, the development of “operational guidelines” could be recommended in parallel, taking into consideration of diverse complex forest rural landscapes. (see other recommendations in the draft report)

N.B. small typo: Pg. 101 under “Main messages”-second bullet: “landscape-focused”

1. Pg. 102. The second “Recommendations for Action: Address forest/agricultural land use trade-offs through valorization and market instruments” suggests, “Integrate FSN concerns in forest certification schemes.” The recommendation should also be made for the “sustainable forestry” concerns to be better integrated into food security policy agendas and programmes. (see other recommendations in the draft report)

1. In general in the recommendations, recommendations should be both ways: forestry to integrate agriculture and FSN; and Agriculture and FSN to integrate forestry.

1. It would greatly help if each chapter is preceded by one page with a list of bullets with the key findings/messages of this chapter

1. Finally and very important, FAO will launch on July 20th the State of World’s Forests 2016 (SOFO 2016) “Forest and Agriculture: land-use challenges and opportunities”. This publication will bring a range a very useful findings and case studies that could be integrated in the HLPE report, especially for chapter 4, 5, the conclusion and the draft areas of recommendations for action.

The Private Sector Mechanism thanks the HLPE for the opportunity to provide our comments on the V0 Draft reprot on the contribution of forests and trees to food security and Nutrition. Please find below our replies to your 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?

The PSM finds the report of great quality with a very comprehensive content. All issues relating to forestry have been covered. They are well documented with good examples and case studies. The PSM would suggest adding references to the importance of investing in capacity building for data collection and good forest management. Another important subject that could be strengthened as well is the competition between land for food, forests and fuel/energy and the impact on food security and nutrition, as well as the interconnectivity among these sectors. Finally, we would appreciate seeing in a new version more references to the difficult decision making bestowed upon countries to make decisions that balance the socio-economic and environmental costs and benefits. It would be good to present the economic trade-offs at play: what is more profitable investing in natural forests, investing in forest plantations or investing in livestock production? The economic imperative placed on countries seem to be absent although they are the main trigger to land use changes (such as transforming natural forests into palm oil plantations).

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?

The report structure is comprehensive and we do not recommend changing its outline.

However, the PSM would suggest changing the framing of the issue in the introductory sections. The set up of the context in which forestry relates to food security and nutrition is too negative from the onset. The introduction fails to take into account the significant gains made to reduce the number of hungry people around the world in the last century despite population growth and the incredible advances made by the agriculture sector in general to keep up with the demographic boom of the last century. In addition, the introduction and other sections (such as 2.2.2) provide background and analysis of the nutrition challenge describing the nutrition context when it is not the subject of the report, using language and findings that have not yet been agreed upon in the CFS nutrition workstream. We recommend that the nutrition sections be reduced and use language relating to the CFS Engagement in Nutrition document.

In addition, in this conceptual framework, while much focus is put on nutrition challenges, there is little background provided on the tensions and trade-offs that are intrinsic to the forest sector vis-à-vis the agricultural sector on competition for land use and intensification versus extensification of agricultural systems. We would recommend adding this important background and noting the pressure on existing arable land to be more productive in order to conserve natural habitats and biodiversity.

In the same vein, the PSM finds that the contribution of the forest sector to overall development (income growth, poverty eradication, hunger eradication) could be more clearly outlined, thus grounding the forest sector in the economy of countries.

The first background sections completely omitted references to international policy frameworks. Section 2.3 should go into greater detail into indicating how forests are positioned within the SDG, not only in its stand-alone goal but also in the context of other goals (such as goal 1 Ending Poverty; goal 2 Ending Hunger, goal 13 Changing climate and others). The climate change negotiations and the COP21 accord should be referenced as forests have played such an important role; as well as the expected impact of the Paris accord and to the knowledge accumulated so far on ecosystem services and REDD+. It would be particularly relevant to understand the impact of Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INCD) that have included forests and what the impact of these commitments might be on food security (ICRAF did a study on this). For instance: India plans on planting +4b trees: in such a water stressed country, what would the impact of such an investment be on FSN. A section could review the implications of global agreements when translated at national level.

In fact, we would recommend that a whole section of the introductory sections be dedicated to the international political process affecting forests, such as:

·       UNCED Rio 92,

·       Rio+20,

·       UNCCD (COP12 UNCCD forest area forest/forest food crops in context of land degradation),

·       UNCBD,

·       UNFCCC,

·       SDGs and Agenda 2030.

·       Forest principles are mentioned as a stand alone while they have had an influence on many similar processes.

·       New York Declaration of 2014

·       Amazon Soy moratorium 

We think it is crucial to look at these processes as they put “forests” in the context of broader local, national and global policies relating to sustainable development, ecosystem management, natural resource management, environmental conservation, agriculture, climate change, food security and nutrition; thus forcing the audience to not look just “inside forests” but also at the interface of forestry with all other economic sectors and societal challenges.

We support the concept of “land-sharing” and “land-sparing” as good ways of talking about choices about unintended consequences.

We would have like see more on the role of farmers (not as damaging forests) but as land, water, and forest stewards.

The role of trade is barely mentioned and should be raised as a significant enabler to food security and of sustainability

Finally, the role of certification should be raised in the introduction as a tool to actively create dialogue, partnerships (SDG17), landscape approaches.

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?

Forests can be categorized in many ways but the proposed structure in the report is helpful in identifying ecosystems and actors. PSM particularly appreciates the linking of forestry systems with their main stakeholders and responsibilities (Who should do what?). However, we also believe that it would be important to consider “trees outside forests”: what is their role in various industries (pulp, paper and other non-wood forest products).

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?

PSM would like to submit case-studies (WBCSD) on private sector approaches.

Predictions on demand for wood (5) ICRAF: Dennis Garrity presented a report in Durban World Forestry Congress – lack of information/data, in particular given the scale of the informal markets.

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?

Challenges

The appropriate integration of agriculture and forestry will remain a long-standing challenge as agriculture is always much more dominant. How can we be sure that forestry gets its fair share of policymakers’ attention? In this respect, the report could provide a more in-depth analysis of different policies that can be conducive to such an integration of forestry and agriculture. By this integration, we do not only mean in terms of agroforestry but rather in terms of land and natural resource management and development strategy generally. What kind of policies have been tried that have worked or not work to support forestry vis-à-vis the agricultural sector? How much does the policy framework need to change for this integration to happen?

The section 2.4.4 Plantation forests makes reference to the criteria of “high conservation value” (HCV) highlighting a specific methodology instead of the objective that should be achieved. Multiple concepts exist contributing to the desired outcome conserving priority habitats, and while some soft commodity certification systems refer to HCV, others refer to other well-known concepts such as critical natural habitats or critical forest habitats (World Bank), Key Biodiversity Areas;  UNESCO World Heritage sites, RAMSAR sites, IUCN Protected Areas Types 1&2; Alliance for ZERO extinction sites, Biodiversity hotspots, and areas with conservation values of local, regional, or global importance. Referring to one particular mechanism and thereby excluding others does not contribute to the objective to safeguard critical ecosystems. We recommend to review this section.

While mentioning challenges is important, the PSM believes that the report should build upon the significant opportunities that are now provided in the context of COP21 and other internationally agreed accords, as well as international processes (see our earlier comment on the international policy framework). Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs)/Paris Accord should be referenced as well as the consensus building around landscape management. New funding workstreams will be made available to countries. or such approaches.

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.

N/A

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?

Agroforestry projects have had much uptake and success in Africa, it would be important to present them and discuss the reasons for their success and how they could be replicated elsewhere.

The Forests Dialogue is a really interesting initiative that would merit to be discussed. Created in 1998, it has set up a multistakeholder platform and process for finding solutions to challenges in achieving sustainable forest management. It would be interesting to see how agriculture could be featured in the Dialogue in the context of landscape approaches.

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?

Carbon Farming Initiative (AUSTRALIA): This scheme allows farmers and land managers to earn carbon credits by storing carbon or reducing greenhouse gas emissions on the land. These credits can then be sold to people and businesses wishing to offset their emissions.The CFI also helps the environment by encouraging sustainable farming and providing a source of funding for landscape restoration projects. The CFI is a legislated offsets scheme. 

https://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/emissions-reduction-fund/cfi/about

Forest Certification Scheme (CHINA): Prof Wenming Lu NWFP (China) of Chinese Academy of Forest Sciences works on sustainable forest management and the impact of the forest sector livelihoods, as well as the industrialized production of honey, medicinal plants

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/rap/Asia-Pacific_Forestry_Week/doc/Stream_1/ST1_26Feb_Wenming_Procurement_policies.pdf

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?

First, we would like to encourage the report team to look at the age of the data they have been using. Data from 2002 for example for Brazil or for Asia does not capture the astonishing amount of change that has happened since then. This is a very ‘western’ perpective as it is true that in the US and Europe not a lot has changed in terms of forests and agriculture in the last15 years. However, for BRIC and emerging countries the changes have been radical, in particular for countries like Brazil and Indonesia. We recommend that the report team use recent data. They will likely see that the deforestation story in both countries is different on the more recent timescale.

·       Informal charcoal market in Africa (section 3.4.3): needs to be expanded to understand the strain the informal wood energy market has on forest resources on the continent.

·       UNECE Rovanieni action plan for forest sector and green economy, detailed analysis of research gaps: https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/timber/publications/SP-35-Rovaniemi.pdf

Corrections recommended for accuracy:

In section 3.5.3 Forests and infectious diseases, the last paragraph of this section (page 56) makes reference to the FSC, it would be relevant also to mention the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) as both include a comparable set of requirements concerning forest workers. The PEFC could also be included in the para of the section 5.2.4 Forest governance on lands owned by the corporate sector, page 89, line 34. In the same section, like 46 when it mentions FSC as an example for Certification of Carbon and community interest projects, this could reference both PEFC and FSC as both provide certification. However, neither organization can specifically provide carbon and community interest certification. Certification can be useful for REDD+ as an alternative framework for e.g. dispute resolution, stakeholder dialogue etc, but more importantly, as a verification mechanism.

The section 5.3.4 Forest certification lists the “FSC (Forest Stewardship Council), PEFC (Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification), the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) and the Roundtable on 30 Sustainable Soy (RTRS), among others.” However RSPO and RTRS are not forest certification system and do not produce principles for forest management. PEFC and FSC are the only forest certification organizations that develop internationally accepted principles. We recommend to edit this list.

In this same section 5.3.4 we would like to note several issues with the information presented:

·        If this box is about Russia, what is the purpose of including information about other regions? The information is also misleading as in both regions PEFC is the most widely used system.

·        Forest certification deals with forest management, which also includes non-wood timber products.

·        The RNCFC no longer exists. It is the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification

·        Certification provides evidence for sustainable forest management. Sustainable forest management aims to what is listed in the bullet points (among other things). However, this is not how one would usually describe it.

PEFC is prepared to provide corrected text, or to provide more appropriate text in line with the messages the authors want to communicate.

Thank you, 

PSM Working Group on Forestry

Congratulations to the work on this important topic so far!

The paper presents a very good overview about important topics related to FSN based on literature and case studies. The team has been able to synthetize very valuable information in the short time frame available. Many important topics are already included, such as relationship with other ecosystem services, trade-offs between sustainable forestry and agriculture, climate change and governance aspects. Many illustrative case studies have been collected in form of boxes. However, it is not always clear if and how experiences from one case study can be transferred to another context.  Due to given time constraints, the focus on cross cutting key questions is not always visible, especially in the conclusions section. For decision makers a higher level of specificity might be useful, e.g. by being more spatially explicit, or indicating which policy instruments related to forests have been effective under certain contexts (e.g. PES for water, REDD+, protected areas etc.).

Some more observations are attached. Good work so far, all the best!

Non-formal Environmental Education for Local Sustainable Integrated Agricultural and Forestry Practices

Atila Torres Calvente*

Are we able to structure and disseminate educational methods and practices to amplify perceptions on food production and environmental protection, metacognition, abstract and critical thinking in schools and communities? Will children have, instead of large amounts of information in studying subjects and disciplines, the ability to comprehend interdependent life phenomenon, connection of variables that interfere on global, local environment; and more knowledge, experience and wisdom to make a transition from food systems and production processes to a more sustainable one? Can these processes of education better prepare younger generations to be challenged to face and disseminate agricultural production processes integrated to forestry? Although we do not have straight reasoning or answers to these questions we must experiment modes of education that might bring a holistic comprehension approach to the way our civilization has promoted land use and continuous natural resources exploitation over centuries in designing a conversion from land to large scale pastures. Only in Brazil we already have two hundred million hectares of pastures, one fourth of total Brazilian area, followed nowadays by yearly astonishing rhythm of five hundred thousand hectares forest destruction, at the same time partly converted then to thirteen million degraded pastures in the amazon. The picture in Cerrado is worse where we know more than two million hectares is destroyed every year with huge biodiversity loss.  

This communication aims to highlight various non-formal holistic educational activities and agricultural-forestry production practices in urban and rural communities near Mata Atlântica forests in the mountainous region of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. These activities were first conceived and tested in 1985-1994 in rural communities of Bom Jardim, a  municipality of Rio de Janeiro (Simpatia farm), other regions, and then better developed and tested later from the year 1997 to 2014, in more than thirty schools and communities of APA-Petrópolis (IBAMA – APA - Area of Environmental Protection), a municipality of the state o Rio de Janeiro. It was possible to involve many sectors of society, local, state government and private institutions, churchs, EMBRAPA (Brazilian Agricultural  Research Enterprise), EMATER (the extension department for agricultural techniques dissemination), the court of justice for children and youth (Educandário Princesa Isabel Foundation, of the  Court of Justice for Children and Youth, at Lopes Trovão street, Serra Velha de Petrópolis), academia, many children from slum areas and farmers from Brejal, Caxambu, Secretário, Araras, Pedro do Rio, and followed by the local TV, press and newspapers; basically to disseminate activities as planting fruit trees, organizing vegetable gardens, introducing leguminosae species and planting thousands of different native trees around schools, in degraded steep terrains, around water fountains and rivers without the use of chemical fertilizers nor pesticides; interpreting paintings and sculptures to build parks and arboretum; evaluating causes that degrade water fountains, local creeks and rivers; conceiving and undertaking other non-formal educational environmental actions and practices. In this experience we found that there are multidimensional aspects of non-formal education that can also enhance children serenity and equilibrium and may be more appropriate to complement traditional school activities, as it brings more an approach to real life phenomenon and production processes.

In our project (Cacaio project), land use, agricultural practices, local environmental and social problems, pollution, and biodiversity were not treated separately; and children and youth, from urban and rural areas, had to interact to exchange beliefs and moral values about the kind of world we live in; to compare local reality and understand and evaluate the impacts of man frenetic intervention elsewhere on natural ecosystems thus creating an unsustainable and irreversible process of destruction, for example in the Cerrado biome and Amazon forests, as unfortunately Mata Atlântica forest has already been totally destroyed; and soils are degraded, rivers and environment are near chaos. The recent disaster in the Doce river by Samarco Co. is an example of the consequences of large scale production processes in mining sector that did not take into consideration precautionary premises. In certains aspects large scale production processes of commodities fo export and nelore cattle are converting large areas of forests, water resources and degrading soils no matter bringing profits to capitalist farmers but not considering externalities and intergenerational ethical environmental conflicts, nor irreversibility (CALVENTE and FAVER, 2010; CALVENTE, 2014, 2015; reports on Doce river at Regência, UFRJ-PPED-EDS, 2016).

Environmental education can be applied not only to look into production structures and patterns but also to increase perception of the consumption of more vegetables and products from the forests to avoid a diet restricted to fats and red meat, and so enrich nutrient diets, fiber, vitamins and minerals from vegetables, fruits and species from local forest, valuing the conservation of local Mata Atlântica forests. On the other hand children can compare, and feel inside their experiments sensible differences in land use, smaller family farms compared to large clear cuts, deforestation, employment opportunities, values of nutrition and, productivity between vegetable production and cattle.

More than forty small experiments in local schools and communities were undertaken in those years mainly in rural and peripheral urban poor areas   (1997-2014) to also amplify abstract thinking and cognition, foster closer social interaction and cohesion through experiments engaging children and communities in designing those experiments. Non-formal educational methods may challenge social and environmental problems contributing to some metacognitive approaches in public schools, urban and rural communities where we find vulnerable children, disabled or even handicapped, and teenagers at social risk; and also a few of them who have had conflicts with the law because of their chronic ill family structures (CALVENTE, 2014, 2015).

Children were asked in group work to design and produce ideas and texts on interdisciplinarity, sustainability and ideas about the transition from clear cut of forests for land use in agricultural processes based in chemical fertilizers and pesticides to possible organic and integrated forestry-agroecology systems. Some local farmers living inside the PARNASO (Serra dos Órgãos National Park) near the road from Petrópolis to Teresópolis changed to organic agriculture, honey, shitake, mushrooms, and other products besides traditional vegetable production. They could also start selling their products in special markets created for that purpose. Farmers could observe aspects of decoupling in production processes through other forms of energy, work and combination of natural resources. So we thought on, reflected, interpreted, acted and evaluated together, more vividly, the comprehension of disciplines, theories and concepts, connecting them to local reality, environmental problems; and could focus on practicing a transition from conventional agriculture to a more sustainable one (CALVENTE e FAVER, 2010; CALVENTE, 1980, 1981, 2014, 2015).  

References

·         CALVENTE, A.T. e FAVER L.C. Políticas Públicas, preservação e desenvolvimento do setor agropecuário: uma experiência em Petrópolis – R.J. – in Prado R., Turetta A., Andrade A. organizadores, Manejo e Conservação do Solo e da Água no Contexto das Mudanças Ambientais, EMBRAPA, 2010.

·         CALVENTE A.T. The Cacaio Project: Non-formal Educational Practices for Children in Public Schools. ISSBD – International Society for the Study of Behavioural Development, Issue 2, vol. 38, November 2014. http://www.issbd.org/ContentDisplay.aspx?src=previousBulletins

·         ­­______________ abstract on non-formal educational practices for children at social risk, Grant approved by the international committee, oral presentation,  8th WEEC World Congress on Environmental Education (Gothenburg University, Sweden, June 29th, 30th, July, 1, 2, 2015).

·         ______________ The Cacaio Project:  Education for Environmental, Aesthetic and Moral  Development, Contemporary Aesthetics, support of RISD, 2015.

* Doctorate Program at UFRJ-IE-PPED-EDS. Member of UFRJ-FE- Laboratory LaPEADE.

Medium farmer in different regions of Brazil producing coffee, milk, cheese, vegetables, corn and beans (Simpatia farm, São José do Ribeirão, Bom Jardim, Rio de Janeiro; Santa Fernanda farm in Rio das Flores, Rio de Janeiro; Duas Barras farm, in Duerè, state of Tocantins; Murilo farm, Bom Jesus do Galho, state of Minas Gerais).  

Assistant to Professor Peter H. May, at UFRRJ - Rural Education - LEC in the period 2015-16.

                CONTRIBUTION

                 Le sujet sur la sécurité alimentaire et la nutrition est d'une actualité brulante et d'une importance capitale surtout dans le cas africain. Le climat change et impacte directement  les ressources forestières, qui subséquemment influe sur la sécurité alimentaire et la nutrition en l'occurrence des populations autochtones des forêts.

                 L’approche de la foresterie durable au service de la SAN tel qu’aborder par le panel des experts pour le compte de la version V0 du rapport est satisfaisante et couvre un éventail important des inquiétudes liées à la sécurité alimentaire et à la nutrition en forêts. Cependant, Les zones tropicales en Afrique connaissent une baisse de leur rendement agricole du fait des aléas climatiques ou des activités anthropiques. Ainsi, pour apporter notre pierre à l’édifice, nous aborderons le cas des acteurs locaux qui peuvent servir de relai à l’administration publique : il s’agit des autorités traditionnelles.  Ces autorités étant proches des agriculteurs sont utiles dans la compréhension et la pratique de l’agroforesterie afin de pouvoir capitaliser le rendement de cette activité.

                 Dans le cas du Cameroun, le décret de 1977 et la loi constitutionnelle de 1996 ont institué les chefferies traditionnelles comme un échelon au sein de l’organisation administrative. A l’époque, les puissances coloniales française et anglaise se sont presque toujours appuyées sur les chefs traditionnels comme des auxiliaires administratifs à titre provisoire afin de maitriser l’ensemble du territoire national. L’agroforesterie au Cameroun se pratique dans une zone souvent très enclavée et de manière rudimentaire.  Le renforcement de la sécurité alimentaire dans ces régions reculées passe par l’application d’une politique alimentaire ciblée par le gouvernement en s’appuyant sur les informations fournies par les chefs traditionnels. L’intervention des gouvernements dans les politiques de SAN peut se faire à travers des acteurs de relai locaux (chefs traditionnels) qui sont « très » écoutés par les populations et peuvent souvent être de vrais leaders capables d’influencer positivement ses « sujets » mais malheureusement ces médiateurs sont jusqu’ici ignorés ou négligés. Entant qu’intermédiaires de choix ceux-ci peuvent être d’une utilité publique en sensibilisant les agroforestiers à une meilleure pratique de leur activité pour l’optimisation de leurs récoltes.

                 Dès lors, considérant l’apport historique des chefferies traditionnelles en Afrique à l’époque coloniale, à notre avis, les acteurs traditionnels peuvent jouer un rôle essentiel afin d’aider les décideurs politiques à saisir efficacement tous les défis lié à la SAN afin de territorialiser les politiques publiques dans ce domaine.

Ibrahimou HAMIDOU

Chercheur,

Doctorant en sciences politiques à l’Université de Dschang

CAMEROUN

Congratulations on the work on the links between environmental and social issues.

At least in Brazil, and perhaps 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, is simply to remove the various regulatory barriers, as described in my analysis (in Portuguese), attached.

Abraço,

Don

My personal comment and observation is that as far as forest is consign to the mind of many including the so called educated elite - forest is an expandable,inconsequential bunch of trees hendering estate/resorts development.that anybody or organisation asking for its protection is anti-development. Add these to the lingering poverty,I believed that any discussion on forest must start with  environmental education and poverty reduction to have any meaningful impact and to utilised the many known benefits of forest and its resources. The data gap need to be filled for any positive impact and for any policy to be accepted by the policy makers and the general populace.

Thank.Please keep it up.