Dear Coordinator
I have some comments at this preliminary stage of the committee report.
1. Many issues are attempted to include in the outlines of the report. Almost all agencies working in the forestry field use many catchy words in the profile to show as if they were working seriously in addressing social, economic and environmental issues in societies. Based on my experiences activities specification, funding focus and implementation process are more important than the uses of the words in the outlines or objectives of the report. In addition involvement of people with wrong background or different motive lead the policy guidelines to address the interest of powerful people at the cost of poor people. Mostly people with wrong values on forest resources and little seriousness on critical socioeconomic issues are leading such policies development initiatives. Almost all international forestry policies and practices are designed for addressing interest and values of European societies, and urban elites, if any in developing countries. They have resulted negative impacts on women, indigenous ethnic groups and poor people in developing countries. The policies and practices have genocide effect on indigenous population. Based on my experiences I am sceptical about this policy guidelines to bring positive impacts in developing countries. I little trust on the FAO initiatives that it benefit the forest based people. Can you show me any example that FAO and other international agencies made notable positive difference in the life of disadvantaged people? The sustainable forestry for food security and nutrition can be prove as another propaganda, or another dirty strategic plot to lock private land and remaining forest areas in developing countries as Forest for food security initiatives of FAO is focused on tree based intensification of land. The incentives, activities and process of tree intensification build up resources stock and change institutions which impacts on many other activities in local areas and affect people with various degree with the advancement in time. The committee was serious on the negative impacts there would be some special points to address potential risks and outcomes from new programs.
2. In some regions the forest of an area is a mean/resource to sustain economic activities of other regions. The foothill and below snowline forests critical resources for sustaining alpine livestock business in mountain. Similar relationship exists in resources of different areas in dry/desert zones. These are special and important issues which are not been recognised in this outlines.
3. Global forest policies and practices are hugely influenced by the policy for global climate change mitigation. The policy make critical impacts on food security due to contrary nature of management requirements and interest groups. This point must be dealt specially.
Thanks for reading my comments.
B. Dhakal
B. Dhakal