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
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
Morgane Danielou