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
Bhubaneswor Dhakal