Sustainable Forestry for Food Security and Nutrition - HLPE e-consultation on the V0 Draft of the Report
In October 2014, the UN Committee on World Food Security (CFS) requested the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE) to conduct a study on Sustainable Forestry for Food Security and Nutrition. The findings of this study will feed into CFS 44 Plenary session (October 2017).
As part of the process of elaboration of its reports, the HLPE is organizing a consultation to seek inputs, suggestions, and comments on the present V0 draft. This open e-consultation will be used by the HLPE to further elaborate the report, which will then be submitted to external expert peer review, before finalization and approval by the HLPE Steering Committee.
HLPE V0 drafts are deliberately presented as a work-in-progress to allow sufficient time to give adequate consideration to the feedback received so that it can play a really useful role in the elaboration of the report. It is a key part of the scientific dialogue between the HLPE Project Team and Steering Committee, and the broader knowledge community. In that respect, the present V0 draft report also identifies areas for a series of recommendations at a very early stage, and the HLPE would welcome suggestions or proposals to strengthen and focus them.
Contributing to the Draft V0
At this early stage of the draft report we are in the process of better integrating boreal and temperate forests, and would welcome inputs on these types of forests. In order to strengthen the report as a whole, the HLPE would welcome submission of material, evidence-based suggestions, references, and examples, in particular addressing the following important questions:
- 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 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 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?
- 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?
- 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?
- 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.
- 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?
- 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?
- 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?
We thank in advance all the contributors for being kind enough to read and comment and suggest inputs on this early version of the report.
We look forward to a rich and fruitful consultation.
The HLPE Project Team and Steering Committee
- Прочитано 57 комментарии
The draft final report is well written and comprehensive. Two important issues, however, have not been highlighted in relation to the recommendation on forest governance. First is the discussion of an appropriate institutional model that could facilitate access of small upland dwellers/farmers to technology, credit and markets in the hope of achieving FNS and eventually increased income. For instance, there are variants of contract farming applicable for utilization of forest resources. A discussion on this aspect could strengthen the recommendation on forest governance. Second is the issue on value chain. This aspect was not given emphasis.
Dear all
I refuse to accept the FAO's stubborn refusal to clearly separate industrial tree monocultures (fake forests) from real forests, and until this changes, there can be nothing "constructive" about engaging in such a misleading process.
The FAO misuses the word "forestry" to muddle up any bunch of planted (usually alien, and often invasive) trees that can be cut down to produce wood, with naturally established, biodiversity rich, ecologically productive, climax forest habitats in which trees are the main component.
In the latest FAO "Forest Resource Assessment" reports, the simplistic and confusing term "planted forest" is used to designate timber or pulp wood plantations, but anyone with a basic understanding of 'forestry' should know that it would be far more accurate to apply this term to when functional forest habitat is planted or re-established using a mix of appropriate locally-occurring indigenous trees, under-storey shrubs and ground layer plants.
So why won't the FAO use precise and factual terminology to correctly describe an industrial land use that obliterates biodiversity, depletes and pollutes water resources, contaminates and erodes the soil, and displaces and disadvantages local communities?
No-one calls a maize field or a bamboo plantation a 'planted grassland', so why mis-represent tree plantations as "planted forests" unless there is an ulterior motive?
Wally
Wally Menne
CTRL + Click to follow link">[email protected]
Forestry contribute livelihood mainly for indigenous people, who are vulnerable in every sphere very often exploited against their fundamental rights. Tribal and rural habitants depend directly on forests for subsistence with traditional varieties of crops, primitive ways of agriculture tools and technology. Forest lands are not properly utilised for agricultural purposes. Forests can complement the agriculture-based strategy, most of the forest foods are not in commercial production systems be vital with sustainable harvesting. The International Day of Forests 2015 dedicated to the theme of "Forests for Food - Food for Forests" focussing on issue of food security and nutrition. Food from forests have much potential to address needs of nutrition and food security at a time when the limits of boosting agricultural production.
1) The contribution of Forests and forestry to Food Security and Livelihoods issues of internally displaced people in the context of emergencies need be emphasised and targeted specifically in the draft. For instance, how accessible are timber and non-timber forest products to IDPs in host communities especially to enable them meet both individual and household nutritional needs; as well as meet non-food item (e.g. shelter) needs?
2) In the light of the above, age and gender-related disparities in access need to be addressed. This is more so as the population of unaccompanied children (males or females) swells in conflict-instigated emergencies. It is also essential that the security of females in relation to access of these resources to meet the same needs be prioritised in the draft.
The basis of these (1) and (2) above is that there is connectivity between the roles played by access to improved nutrition and effective functional shelters directly and indirectly for IDPs in emergency contexts.
I have yet to see/read the draft report but I would like to take a look and possibly add some thoughts derived from my work on various NTFPs. Thanks.
Ramon Razal, Professor, UPLB
J'ai lu la version 0 du rapport que je trouve bien riche. Néanmoins, je ne suis pas bien satisfait de la typologie des forêts effectuée. La méthodologie utilisée pour la typologie ne me semble pas adéquate. En effet, il a été précisé que la typologie a été fondée sur deux critères: "la fonction" et "l'utilisation" des forêts. Mais, ces deux critères (variables) n'ont pas été présentés et décrits. De plus, les modalités exclusives rattachées à chaque critère n'ont pas été non plus présentées et décrites. Or, cela est nécessaire pour constituer les types. Les quatre types de forêts présentées n'ont pas non plus été décrits pour permettre de faire une nette distinction. Ainsi, je ne fais pas une nette différence d'utilité entre agroforestry" (forêt agricole) et "forêt plantée", toutes deux étant des forêts gérées (exploitées) "managed forests". De plus, une même forêt peut présenter plusieurs de ces types à la fois. Nous avons étudié une forêt communautaire d'une superficie initiale de 200 ha dans la Commune de Bonou au Bénin où l'on pouvait distinguer les 4 types en son sein: "natural forest", "managed forest", "agroforestry" et "plantation forest" (forêt plantée). Et ceci est fréquent. C'est vrai que sur la base de deux critères, on doit parvenir à 4, 6, 9, ... types de forêts en fonction du nombre de modalités définies pour chaque critère (variable). Mais, les 4 types de forêts présentés ne me semblent pas suffisamment exclusifs pour constituer des types séparés. Peut-être qu'une bonne description de chacun d'eux pourrait nous édifier. Je crois qu'en dehors des forêts intégralement protégées comme les forêts sacrées, l'agroforesterie et la forêt plantée sont aussi des forêts gérées/exploitées (managed forests). Les forêts classées ne sont pas non plus à occulter.
Dear All,
Good day!
I am providing comments below in my personal capacity specifically w.r.t. agroforestry:
In general, the draft has covered majority of the things. However, the following points may also be added.
Agroforestry barriers for controlling run-off
Agroforestry barriers are quite effective in controlling run-off their by recharge of ground water by increasing residency period of rainwater on undulating topography. Shifting the management of trees to contour hedgerows can minimize reduction in crop yield for accommodating trees in cultivated land. In some cases, the yield reduction was found to be fully compensated by the tree biomass (Dey and Sikka, 2010).
Polythene-lined small rainwater harvesting structure for establishment of agroforestry in upland
Studies conducted at Horticulture and Agroforestry Research Programme, Plandu, Ranchi by our team have shown that small rainwater harvesting (SRH) structure can be effectively used for establishment of agroforestry in upland which comprises more than 70 per cent area in Chotanagpur plateau region (Dey et al. 2003). Although on an average 120 cm rainfall is received in Chotanagpur plateau, water is the single most important constraint in establishment of agroforestry. In the process, each SRH structure with 4.5 m3 capacity (3.0 m length, 1.5 m breadth and 1.0 m depth) has been constructed for harvesting of rainwater before onset of monsoon. Inner sides of the SRH structure were lined with 200 µ black polythene sheet. The excavated soil was used to make a small bund covering the black polythene sheet. Rest of the soils was used to make bunds surrounding the group of 12 budded/grafted trees or MPTs (luxuriant growth of gamhar is seen in picture beside SRH). Clear rainwater is allowed to store in the SRH structure during monsoon months. Finally in the month of October, the SRH structure was covered with thatch made of straw/hogla. At fortnightly interval, neem/karanj oil is pored in the Chotanagpur plateau region to reduce evaporation (Dey and Sarkar, 2011).
The SRH structure could be constructed at Rs. 500, which could be used for three years. It was observed that these SRH structures were helpful in providing lifesaving irrigation for establishment of orchard under Chotanagpur plateau region (Fig. 5). One SRH is sufficient for establishment of 12 saplings. Earlier jalkund constructed for collecting rainwater before the onset of monsoon (Dey, 2003) were found helpful in providing life saving irrigation for establishment of horticulture and agroforestry under Chotanagpur plateau region.
Reference
Dey, P. (2003) Agro-forestry-Theory and Practice. In: Proc. Annual Workshop on Natural Resource Management (Asis Majumder ed.), published by Regional Centre- National Afforestation and Eco-development Board (Ministry of Environment & Forest, Govt. of India), pp. 22-24.
Dey, P., Kumar, S. and Sikka, A.K. (2003) Management of upland for horticulture development in Jharkhand. Chotanagpur Hort. 20 (1-4): 4-5.
Dey, P. and Sarkar, A.K. (2011) Revisiting indigenous farming knowledge of Jharkhand (India) for conservation of natural resources and combating Climate change. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge, 10(1): 71-79.
Dey, P. and Sikka, A.K. (2010) Water Conservation through Rainwater Harvesting. The IUP Journal of Soil and Water Sciences, 3(1):71.
My finding of your shortcommings;
1. Where is ownership for local?
2.How they perform it?
3. What is their safeguard against power struggle?
4.Their Marker Access?
5.How WTO help to price these foresty?
This is q. you didn't answer. I upload some of my study.
Forests as Food Producing Habitats
This exploratory study was taken up by Living Farms in the context of ongoing debates of how to ensure food and nutrition security for the most marginalized people in India. In spite of rapid economic growth in India in the last decade, a large number of people (42%), particularly women and children continue to be malnourished in the country.
The Public Distribution System (PDS), while widespread, has not reached the neediest or addressed the problem of malnutrition. This study examines forests as food producing habitats and its potential to meet the food and nutrition needs of Adivasi communities in Odisha. It also looks at the changes brought about by shifts in land use pattern.
It used a mixed methods approach in its objective to understand the issues around collection and consumption of uncultivated foods and the extent of dependence of adivasi / Indigenous communities on such food, for their food and nutrition security.
While secondary literature shows increasing importance accorded by international academic and policy discourse to forest foods, it is seen that there is a serious dearth of research on numerous fronts within India on the subject. Even civil society work has largely ignored the importance of uncultivated foods in their contribution to food and nutrition security of adivasis.
Forests have rarely been looked at as food producing habitats in our policy discourse or implementation of any development efforts related to food security. This is the fundamental shift required, that this study points to. Uncultivated foods are in fact safe, diverse and nutritious food that is in several ways superior to the food security frameworks that rest on intensive agriculture paradigms in particular pockets of the country. The fact that the forest department has always focused on plantation revenues ignoring the real and imputed value of non timber forest produces and unmarketed forest foods has to be challenged.
In terms of a nutritional analysis, it is found that the forest foods could be playing a vital role in terms of micro- nutrients; however, it is seen that mainstream research has not focused on this aspect and our food/nutrition. The study makes recommendations to the Government of Odisha, Government of India and Civil Society to protect and develop forests as food producing habitats, along with Adivasi communities
Click to read or download Forests as Food Producing Habitats(PDF 5Mb)
http://agrobiodiversityplatform.org/par/2014/10/21/forests-as-food-producing-habitats/
Causes of food insecurity in forests:
lack of recognition of rights especially rights to lands and forests
prohibitions of subsistence and livelihood activities
handing out of forest areas to competing interests
limited or restrictive regulations for community based forest management
Solutions:
Recognise rights
Stop prohibiting livelihoods and instead encourage Customary Sustainable Use as per CBD 10c
Freeze or revoke concessions overlapping indigenous peoples and communities' lands
develop more practical CBFM systems
require all operators in forests to recognise rights (including FPIC), promote community land use planning and secure High Conservation Values
В настоящее время это мероприятие закрыто. Пожалуйста, свяжитесь с [email protected] для получения любой дополнительной информации.