HLPE

REPORT 11
Sustainable forestry
for food security and nutrition

A report by

The High Level Panel of Experts

on Food Security and Nutrition

June 2017

HLPE
High Level
Panel of Experts
 HLPE Reports series
#1 Price volatility and food security (2011)
#2 Land tenure and international investments in agriculture (2011)
#3 Food security and climate change (2012)
#4 Social protection for food security (2012)
#5 Biofuels and food security (2013)
#6 Investing in smallholder agriculture for food security (2013)
#7 Sustainable fisheries and aquaculture for food security and nutrition (2014)
#8 Food losses and waste in the context of sustainable food systems (2014)
#9 Water for food security and nutrition (2015)
#10 Sustainable agricultural development for food security and nutrition: what roles
for livestock? (2016)
#11 Sustainable forestry for food security and nutrition (2017)

All HLPE reports are available at www.fao.org/cfs/cfs-hlpe

2
HLPE Steering Committee members (July 2017)
Patrick Caron (Chair)
Carol Kalafatic (Vice-Chair)
Amadou Allahoury
Louise Fresco
Eileen Kennedy
Muhammad Azeem Khan
Bernardo Kliksberg
Fangquan Mei
Sophia Murphy
Mohammad Saeid Noori Naeini
Michel Pimbert
Juan Ángel Rivera Dommarco
Magdalena Sepúlveda
Martin Yemefack
Rami Zurayk

HLPE Project Team members

Terence Sunderland (Team Leader)
Fernande Abanda
Ronnie de Camino Velozo
Patrick Matakala
Peter May
Anatoly Petrov
Bronwen Powell
Bhaskar Vira
Camilla Widmark

Coordinator of the HLPE

Nathanaël Pingault

This report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE) has been approved
by the HLPE Steering Committee.
The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Committee on World Food Security,
of its members, participants, or of the Secretariat.
This report is made publicly available and its reproduction and dissemination is encouraged. Non-
commercial uses will be authorized free of charge, upon request. Reproduction for resale or other
commercial purposes, including educational purposes, may incur fees. Applications for permission to
reproduce or disseminate this report should be addressed by e-mail to copyright@fao.org with copy to
cfs-hlpe@fao.org.

Referencing this report:

HLPE. 2017. Sustainable forestry for food security and nutrition. A report by the High Level Panel of
Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security, Rome.

3
 Contents

FOREWORD ............................................................................................................................. 9

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................. 11

Summary ............................................................................................................................. 11
Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 16

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 21

1 FORESTS, TREES AND FSN: SCOPE AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK .............. 23

1.1 Forests, trees and agroforestry: definitions and scope ....................................... 24
1.1.1 An extreme diversity ...................................................................................... 25
1.1.2 Forest definitions ............................................................................................ 27
1.2 A typology of forests and trees outside forests .................................................... 29
1.2.1 Primary (or old-growth) forests ...................................................................... 30
1.2.2 Secondary forests .......................................................................................... 31
1.2.3 Plantation forests ........................................................................................... 32
1.2.4 Other wooded land ......................................................................................... 33
1.2.5 Trees outside forests: agroforestry and other systems ................................. 33
1.3 Forest-dependent people ......................................................................................... 35
1.4 Forests, trees and FSN: a conceptual framework ................................................. 37
1.4.1 Ecosystem services ....................................................................................... 37
1.4.2 Linking ecosystem services provided by forest and trees to FSN ................. 38
1.4.3 Sustainable forestry for FSN .......................................................................... 40
1.5 Concluding remarks ................................................................................................. 40

2 CONTRIBUTIONS OF FORESTS AND TREES TO FSN .............................................. 43

2.1 Direct provision of food ........................................................................................... 43
2.1.1 Contribution to dietary diversity and quality ................................................... 43
2.1.2 Provision of animal-sourced foods ................................................................. 45
2.1.3 Provision of feed ............................................................................................ 47
2.1.4 Traded forest food products ........................................................................... 47
2.1.5 A critical role to buffer food scarcity ............................................................... 48
2.2 Provision of bio-energy, especially for cooking .................................................... 48
2.3 Contributions to economy and livelihoods ............................................................ 50
2.3.1 Income generation ......................................................................................... 50
2.3.2 Employment ................................................................................................... 52
2.3.3 Gender roles .................................................................................................. 54
2.4 Provision of ecosystem services, essential for agricultural production ............ 55
2.4.1 Water regulation ............................................................................................. 55
2.4.2 Soil formation, protection and nutrient circulation .......................................... 56
2.4.3 Agroecosystem stability, biodiversity protection and downstream resources 57
2.4.4 Pollination ...................................................................................................... 58
2.4.5 Synergies and trade-offs ................................................................................ 59
2.5 Forests, health and well-being ................................................................................ 59
2.6 Contributions to resilience of food systems ......................................................... 60
2.7 Synthesis and conclusions ..................................................................................... 61

4
3 FORESTRY TRENDS: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR FSN .................. 63
3.1 Forests at a glance: global area and main trends ................................................. 63
3.1.1 Global net forest loss is slowing down ........................................................... 64
3.1.2 Contrasted evolutions across forest types: the “forest transition”.................. 65
3.2 Increasing and competing demands on forests .................................................... 71
3.2.1 Increasing demand for food ........................................................................... 71
3.2.2 Increasing demand for wood and energy ...................................................... 73
3.2.3 Increased recognition of the protective roles of forests ................................. 74
3.3 Forests, trees, climate change and FSN ................................................................ 76
3.3.1 Impacts of climate change on forests and trees ............................................ 76
3.3.2 The contributions of forests and trees to FSN in a changing climate ............ 78
3.3.3 The contribution of forests and trees to mitigation of climate change ........... 79
3.3.4 Potential impacts on FSN of policies strengthening the contribution of forests
and trees to mitigation of climate change ................................................................... 79
3.4 Impacts of changes on FSN ..................................................................................... 80
3.4.1 Impacts of deforestation and forest degradation ........................................... 80
3.4.2 Protected areas and FSN .............................................................................. 83
3.4.3 Production forests and FSN ........................................................................... 83
3.5 Conclusion: challenges and opportunities for FSN .............................................. 84

4 HOW TO OPTIMIZE THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF FORESTS AND TREES TO FSN IN A

SUSTAINABLE WAY? .................................................................................................... 85
4.1 Governance of forests and trees: an overview ...................................................... 85
4.1.1 Forests and trees as a shared resource ........................................................ 86
4.1.2 Forest and trees ownership ........................................................................... 88
4.1.3 Access and use rights .................................................................................... 90
4.2 Governance instruments and tools for forests and trees .................................... 92
4.2.1 International interventions and agreements................................................... 92
4.2.2 National rules and policies ............................................................................. 94
4.2.3 Certification and other market-based instruments ......................................... 96
4.3 Ways forward: sustainable forest management for FSN ...................................... 98
4.3.1 Forest management plans ........................................................................... 100
4.3.2 Towards integrated landscape approaches ................................................. 101
4.3.3 Stakeholder involvement.............................................................................. 103
4.3.4 A human rights-based approach .................................................................. 107
4.4 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 108

CONCLUSION....................................................................................................................... 110

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................................... 111

REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 112

APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................ 134

The HLPE project cycle ................................................................................................... 134

5
 List of Figures
Figure 1 Forest and land-use transition curve ................................................................. 26
Figure 2 Five types of forests and tree systems .............................................................. 30
Figure 3 Concept pyramid of ecosystem services ........................................................... 38
Figure 4 Forest functions and their links to FSN .............................................................. 39
Figure 5 Map of the world’s forests and tree cover .......................................................... 63
Figure 6 Global forest area (1990–2015) ......................................................................... 64
Figure 7 Drivers of forest changes impacting their contributions to FSN......................... 80
Figure 8 HLPE project cycle........................................................................................... 136

List of Tables
Table 1 Forest peoples’ number by type of dependence ................................................... 36
Table 2 Proportion of households cooking with woodfuel in 2011, by region
and fuel type .......................................................................................................... 49
Table 3 Gross value added in the forest sector and contribution to GDP in 2011,
by region and subsector ........................................................................................ 51
Table 4 Estimated income from the informal forest sector in 2011 (in billion USD
at 2011 prices) ....................................................................................................... 52
Table 5 Total employment in the formal forestry sector in 2011, by region
and subsector ........................................................................................................ 53
Table 6 Estimated number of people engaged in fuelwood and charcoal production
in 2011 ................................................................................................................... 53
Table 7 Summary of interactions between forest types and FSN functions ....................... 62
Table 8 State and trends of the world’s forests and changes from 1990 to 2015
by region ................................................................................................................ 66
Table 9 State and trends of the world’s forests and changes from 1990 to 2015
by climatic domain ................................................................................................. 66
Table 10 Evolution of main agricultural tree crops at global level ........................................ 69
Table 11 Population growth by region .................................................................................. 72
Table 12 Potential impacts of some climate changes on forests and FSN .......................... 77
Table 13 Private and public goods and services .................................................................. 86
Table 14 Forest ownership (percent of total forest area) in 2010 by regions ....................... 88
Table 15 Forest ownership (percent of total forest area) in 2010 by climatic domains ........ 89
Table 16 Area under a forest management plan in 2010, by region .................................. 100
Table 17 Area under a forest management plan in 2010 by climatic domains .................. 100

List of Boxes
Box 1 Forests and forest products: data availability and quality ........................................ 23
Box 2 The forest biomes .................................................................................................... 25
Box 3 Definitions used for FAO’s forest resources assessments ...................................... 28
Box 4 Mangroves: a key contribution to FSN ..................................................................... 31
Box 5 Shifting cultivation, or swidden agriculture ............................................................... 32
Box 6 Assortment, potential and actual procurement of forest food products, Russian
Federation ................................................................................................................ 45
Box 7 The role of bushmeat in the livelihoods and food security of rural people in
Equatorial Guinea .................................................................................................... 46
Box 8 Value of wild meat and hunting in the boreal area ................................................... 52
Box 9 Faidherbia albida agroforestry/agrosilvipastoral system .......................................... 57

6
Box 10 Environmental services from forests to agriculture: the role of forest shelterbelts
in the Russian Federation ........................................................................................ 57
Box 11 Forest restoration and food security in Burkina Faso .............................................. 68
Box 12 The “Kihamba” agroforestry system ......................................................................... 70
Box 13 Indian national agroforestry policy ........................................................................... 71
Box 14 Chinese protective forests ........................................................................................ 75
Box 15 Desertification control ............................................................................................... 76
Box 16 Impacts of poor governance on deforestation and forest degradation .................... 87
Box 17 Access rights and provision of berries and mushrooms in Finland, Sweden
and Norway .............................................................................................................. 91
Box 18 REDD+: potential and pitfalls ................................................................................... 93
Box 19 Swedish forestry model – a management system of forests focused
on sustainability ........................................................................................................ 95
Box 20 International forest certification schemes ................................................................. 97
Box 21 Local governance in Quebec and social networks in forest governance:
what lessons for sustainable forestry for FSN? ....................................................... 99
Box 22 New and inclusive forms of forest governance in Central and South America ...... 104
Box 23 Forests and FSN in the Republic of Korea – a model to follow? ........................... 105
Box 24 Management of commons and co-management in northern Sweden –
an example of a multiple-use situation and co-management ................................ 106

7
8
FOREWORD
The High Level Panel of Experts for Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE) is the science–policy
interface of the Committee on World Food Security (CFS), which is, at global level, the foremost
inclusive and evidence-based international and intergovernmental platform for food security
and nutrition (FSN).
HLPE reports serve as a common, comprehensive, evidence-based starting point for
intergovernmental and international multistakeholder policy debates in CFS. The HLPE draws
its studies based on existing research and knowledge. The HLPE strives to clarify contradictory
information and knowledge, elicit the backgrounds and rationales of controversies and identify
emerging issues. To do so, it organizes a scientific dialogue, built upon the diversity of
disciplines, backgrounds and knowledge systems among Steering Committee and Project
Teams members, and of the knowledge community involved in the open electronic
consultations.
HLPE reports are widely used as reference documents within and beyond CFS and the UN
System, by the scientific community as well as by political decision-makers and stakeholders,
at international, regional and national levels.
***
In October 2014, at its 41st session, the CFS requested the HLPE to prepare a study on
sustainable forestry for food security and nutrition to inform the debates at the 44th CFS Plenary
Session of October 2017. The key issue here is how to optimize the multiple, direct and indirect,
contributions of forests and trees to FSN in its four dimensions (availability, access, utilization
and stability), in a context of increasing and competing demands on land, forests and trees
(including for wood, food, energy and ecosystem services), as well as of climate change.
Recognition of the importance of forests within debates about FSN has come out recently.
Discussions on FSN often remained somewhat production-centric, focused on improving yields
from agriculture, and finding ways to disseminate new technologies and practices to enhance
outputs from the productive landscape. Forests were rarely featured in such discussions, other
than being perceived as a space for further agricultural expansion or a threatened resource to
be protected because of such expansion. The changing perception of the role of forests for
FSN has actually been influenced by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005), which,
while focusing on environmental concerns, has demonstrated the links between human health
and nutrition and the health of ecosystems, including forests. Addressing the CFS request, this
report deliberately reverses the perspective, adopting a focus on FSN.
The report identifies four main channels through which forests and trees contribute to FSN:
direct provision of food; provision of energy, especially for cooking; income generation and
employment; and provision of ecosystem services essential for food production in the long term,
including water regulation, soil protection, biodiversity conservation and climate change
adaptation and mitigation. These contributions vary across forest and tree systems, and
depend on the way they are managed.
When looking at the various contributions of forests and trees to FSN, there is no clear-cut point
at which trees stop providing these contributions. Trees in non-forested areas also play a major
role to improve FSN. The HLPE thus adopted a broad scope for this report, covering not only
forests, but also trees outside forests, and moving beyond a mere focus on deforestation, with
the view to enable the decision-makers to elaborate a comprehensive vision and strategy at
different spatial and temporal scales.
This report calls for sustainable forest management (SFM) that takes fully into account and
integrates the multiple and competing uses of forests and trees as well as the diverging and
sometimes conflicting interests, needs and rights of different stakeholders. SFM requires the
establishment of intersectorial governance mechanisms at different scales that: enable the full
and effective participation of concerned stakeholders, particularly of forest-dependent
indigenous peoples and local communities; articulate different functions of forests and trees
(including wood and food production, biodiversity conservation and socio-cultural benefits);
consider short- and long-term objectives; and that recognize and reduce conflicts between
stakeholders.

9
 With its 11 reports published since its creation, the HLPE is progressively building a global
narrative, a comprehensive analysis of FSN and its underlying causes. This report on
sustainable forestry, coming after the reports on fisheries and aquaculture (2014) and on
sustainable agriculture (2016), completes the HLPE analysis of FSN from a sectoral
perspective. These three sectors share some commonalities in their multiple contributions to
FSN: they directly provide food; they generate income and employment for many people; they
manage and impact natural resources; and they generate social and environment concerns.
These HLPE reports also show the interdependencies between those three sectors that
compete for natural resources, particularly land and water. They call for an integrated approach,
in particular at the landscape level, to improve the way human activities contribute to the
realization of the right to adequate food and of the 2030 Agenda. This report, like the report on
water, highlights trade-offs, which sometimes turn into conflicts, between stakeholders with
diverging rights, needs and interests. It demonstrates the need to integrate different spatial and
temporal scales to address local and global challenges with effective positive impacts on FSN.
This report builds upon the important research programmes undertaken by the International
Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO) and its many international and national
members, the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) and the World Agroforestry
Centre (ICRAF), as well as on the CGIAR Research Program on Forests, Trees and
Agroforestry. The HLPE commends the work coordinated by FAO, supported by international
and national organizations and by a network of national correspondents, to produce the Global
Forest Resources Assessment and encourages them to pursue their effort for the integration
of FSN concerns, in particular by improving the quality of data on forest-related informal
activities, including non-wood forest products collection. The HLPE considers that there is still
much to be done by the whole science and knowledge community to raise awareness and to
develop policy-relevant knowledge on the direct and indirect contributions of forests, trees and
agroforestry to sustainable development and FSN.

***
On behalf of the Steering Committee, I would like to acknowledge the engagement and
commitment of all the experts who worked for the elaboration of this report, and especially the
Project Team Leader, Terence Sunderland (United Kingdom) and Project Team Members:
Fernande Abanda (Cameroon), Ronnie de Camino Velozo (Chile), Patrick Matakala (Zambia),
Peter May (Brazil), Anatoly Petrov (Russian Federation), Bronwen Powell (Canada), Bhaskar
Vira (India), Camilla Widmark (Sweden).
This report also benefited greatly from the suggestions of the external peer reviewers and from
the comments provided by a large number of experts and institutions, both on the scope and
on the first draft of the report.
I would like to commend and thank the HLPE Secretariat for its precious support to our work.
Last but not least, I would like to thank the resource partners who support the work of the HLPE
in a totally independent way.

Patrick Caron

Chairperson, Steering Committee of the HLPE, 15 June 2017

10
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In October 2014, at its 41st session, the Committee on World Food Security (CFS) requested
the High Level Panel of Experts (HLPE) to prepare a study on sustainable forestry for food
security and nutrition (FSN) to inform the debates at the 44 th CFS Plenary Session of October
2017. The key issue here is the multiple contributions of forests and trees to FSN1 in its four
dimensions and how they can be optimized, at different spatial and temporal scales, in a context
of increasing and competing demands on land, forests and trees (including for wood, food,
energy and ecosystem services), as well as of climate change.
This report is an evidence-based, comprehensive analysis of the diverse, direct and indirect,
contributions of forests and trees to FSN. Chapter 1 examines the linkages between forests
and FSN and proposes, for the purpose of this report, a conceptual framework and a forest
typology grounded on management criteria. Chapter 2 provides an in-depth analysis of the
channels through which forests and trees contribute to FSN. Chapter 3 reviews the state of
the world’s forests and identifies challenges and opportunities for forestry in relation to FSN.
Chapter 4 is solution-oriented and discusses how to optimize the contributions of forests and
trees to FSN in a sustainable manner.

Summary
Forests, trees and FSN: scope and conceptual framework
1. There are numerous definitions of forests reflecting both the diversity of forest
ecosystems in the world and the diversity of human perceptions and uses of forests. The
term “forest” is used to describe a broad range of ecosystems from scattered trees in dry
landscapes to dense, close canopy old-growth forests in high rainfall areas. A forest can
be an administrative unit, a type of land cover or a type of land use. Land cover refers to
the physical appearance of land, while land use refers to its utilization by humans for
different purposes (including production, conservation, cultural or religious value). The
FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment (FRA) has contributed to harmonize, for
statistical purposes at the global level, the approaches used to define and categorize
forests. The FRA uses a definition of forests that includes minimum thresholds for the
height of trees (5 m), the canopy cover (10 percent) and the area (0.5 ha).
2. The FRA definition covers very different types of forests. In addition, there are various
types of landscapes incorporating trees. Given this diversity and the purpose of this
report, a typology of forests and landscapes with trees, building on the FRA statistical
categories, is proposed. This typology uses FRA data and is grounded on the degree of
management, as this is the criterion that most influences the various contributions of
forests to FSN and that can be more easily influenced by policies. This typology
distinguishes three broad categories that are considered as forests according to the FRA
definition (primary [or old-growth] forests, secondary forests, plantation forests); a fourth
one gathering other wooded lands that are not classified as agricultural land and with a
canopy cover of 5 to 10 percent; and a fifth one called “trees outside forests”.
Delimitations among these types are not always clear cut as they exist on a continuum of
management intensity along the forest transition curve.2
3. The category “trees outside forests” gathers the considerable diversity of agriculture
systems with trees. It includes in particular agricultural tree plantations such as palm

1
Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient
safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.
In 2009, the World Summit on Food Security stated that the “four pillars of food security are availability,
access, utilization, and stability”. Availability is the supply of food through production, distribution and
exchange; access is the affordability and allocation of food, as well as the preferences of individuals and
households requirements of each member of the household; utilization is the metabolism of food by
individuals; and stability is the ability to obtain food over time.
2
The forest transition curve, from natural forests to agriculture and reforestation, illustrates the evolution of
forests, through a continuum of management intensity across the different forest types. This curve can not
only illustrate the evolution of forests in time but also describes spatial variations across contemporary
landscapes.

11
 oil, olive trees and orchards (fruit and nut trees), as well as very diverse agroforestry
systems and mosaic landscapes where forest patches are too small to be considered
as forests for statistical purposes. The term “agroforestry” refers to systems and
technologies where trees are deliberately used on the same land-management units
as agricultural crops and/or animals, in some form of spatial arrangement or temporal
sequence. In spite of their diversity, all these systems share the common
characteristic of trees being closely linked to agriculture and food production
activities.
4. Any people who rely to some extent on forests and trees for their livelihood can be
considered forest-dependent. When including: indigenous peoples that mainly depend
on forests for their subsistence, rural dwellers living in or at the margins of forests,
smallholder farmers who grow trees or manage forest patches and employees in formal
or informal forest-based enterprises, from 1 to 1.7 billion people can be considered as
forest-dependent.
5. In this report, forestry is considered in a very broad sense, encompassing all decisions
related to forest management, in any type of system or landscape that includes trees,
including three broad types of decisions: those related to the presence or absence of
trees in a certain area, to the types of forests and trees, to the way they are managed.
The purpose of sustainable forest management (SFM), as defined by the United Nations
General Assembly, is to maintain and enhance the economic, social and environmental
values of all types of forests, for the benefit of present and future generations. SFM is
rooted in two main premises: first that ecosystems have the potential to renew
themselves, and second that economic activities and social perceptions or values that
define human interaction with the environment are choices that can be changed or
modified to ensure the long-term productivity and health of the ecosystem.

Contributions of forests and trees to FSN

6. Forests and trees contribute to FSN through four main channels: direct provision of food;
provision of energy, especially for cooking; income generation and employment; and
provision of ecosystem services that are essential for FSN, human health and well-being.
7. Direct provision of food: Although forest foods have been estimated to represent only 0.6
percent of global food energy supply, they make a considerable contribution to dietary
quality and diversity and play a critical role for the FSN of forest-dependent communities.
Forest foods, by reaching local, national and even international markets, also contribute
to diverse and balanced diets for people living far from forests. Forests and trees are
also used as a source of fodder by farmers and pastoralists in traditional extensive
systems and in more intensive silvopastoral systems.
8. Provision of energy: Woodfuel3 contributes globally to 6 percent of the total primary
energy supply and 27 percent in Africa. Some 2.4 billion people, one-third of the global
population (including two-thirds of the households in Africa), rely on wood as their main
source of energy for cooking. Moreover, 764 million people use woodfuel to boil and
sterilize water, of which 644 million are in Asia.
9. Income and employment: The formal and informal forestry sectors are also important
sources of employment and income, often underestimated given the importance of the
informal sector. In 2011, the formal forest sector employed an estimated 13.2 million
people worldwide and represented 0.9 percent of the world gross domestic product.
Such figures hide a huge diversity across countries and generally underestimate the real
contribution of forests to national income as they do not integrate the value added of
wood products accounted for in the industrial sector, nor, for instance, their contribution
to tourism and recreation. Moreover those figures only cover the formal forest sector and
data are still lacking to properly reflect the importance of informal forest-related activities
for income generation and employment, including through woodfuel and collection of
non-wood forest products (NWFPs).

3
Woodfuel designates the total of fuelwood plus charcoal, as per FAO terminology.

12
10. Forest products collected either for sale or for auto-subsistence can, in both cases, make
a crucial contribution to the FSN of women and of their entire household. In spite of a
lack of gender-disaggregated data, studies suggest that women play a lesser role in the
formal sector and in income generating activities, but are central in fuelwood collection
as well as in the collection of many forest products, with important regional differences.
11. Provision of ecosystem services: Forests and trees directly support food production at
farm, landscape and broader levels by delivering numerous non-provisioning ecosystem
services that are essential for FSN and sustainable development in the long term (such
as water regulation, soil protection, nutrient circulation, pest control and pollination).
Forests host the major part of terrestrial biodiversity and play a critical role for climate
change mitigation at the global level and for adaptation to climate change at farm,
household, landscape and broader levels. Production systems that integrate forests,
trees and crops need to explicitly take into account potential competition for nutrients,
water and light.
12. Human health and well-being: Forests, tree-based agricultural systems and forestry
impact human health in a diversity of ways, including: provisioning of food, medicinal
plants, fuelwood, clean water and income. Empirical evidence suggests that forest
environments can improve peoples’ mental health and reduce depression and stress.
However, forests can also provide habitat for parasites and diseases that can affect
human and domestic animals. The critical linkages between human, animal, and
ecosystem health are encompassed in the concept of “One Health”, which highlights the
need for collaboration across sectors.
13. Resilience and safety net: Forests and trees can play a crucial role to improve resilience,
defined as the capacity to prevent, mitigate or cope with risk, and recover from shocks,
at landscape, community and household levels. They thus make a significant
contribution to stability, the fourth dimension of FSN, by playing a major role as a safety
net during drought or lean seasons as well as during periods of crises and conflicts.
Forests and trees can provide a complement or a substitute to other sources of food,
income and employment, in periods of scarcity. This role of safety net is often important
for the most vulnerable groups.
14. Importantly, contributions of forests and trees to FSN depend upon numerous
interactions inside complex environmental, economic and social systems that are often
built and sustained with a considerable amount of traditional and indigenous knowledge.

Forestry trends: challenges and opportunities for FSN

15. Changes in forest cover, forest types and management have considerable impacts on
the contributions of forests and trees to FSN at different spatial and temporal scales.
These changes, as well as their drivers, enable the identification of some of the
challenges and opportunities for sustainable forestry to contribute to FSN.
16. In 2015, almost 4 billion ha worldwide (30.6 percent of the world’s land area) were
covered by forests. Despite relatively high rates of ongoing deforestation, particularly in
the tropics, the global net forest loss has slowed over the past two decades. The FRA
2015 (FAO, 2015) has also provided for the first time global figures on forest degradation
based on partial canopy cover loss (PCCL) 4 and estimated that, in the tropics, the area
subject to PCCL is 6.5 times the area deforested since 1990.
17. The overall decrease in total forest area is the result of contrasted trends across forest
types and across regions. Between 1990 and 2015, most regions showed a steady
decrease in natural forest area, including primary and secondary forests, and a sharp
increase in planted forests. The loss of primary forests is of particular concern as they
are irreplaceable reserves of biodiversity. Planted forests are increasingly important, not
only in terms of area, increasing from 4 to 7 percent between 1990 and 2015, but also in
terms of production, with 46.3 percent of industrial roundwood coming from planted
forests in 2012. Planted forests are also a way to restore degraded land and to provide
ecosystem services such as reduced erosion and protection from floods. Considering the

4
Defined as the loss of more than 20 percent of tree cover between 2000 and 2012.

13
 increasing demand for wood, planted forests could help to reduce the pressure on
natural forests.
18. Deforestation and forest degradation threaten income, livelihoods and ways of life of
forest-dependent populations, and compromise the provision of ecosystem services that
are essential to FSN and sustainable development in the long term. Deforestation for
agricultural expansion is sometimes considered to offer greater opportunities for welfare
improvement. However, those immediate benefits can result in depletion of natural
resources, simplified diets and compromised livelihoods and ways of life in the long term.
Finally, deforestation and forest degradation, leading to habitat fragmentation, can also
impact human health by increasing the risk of transmission of pests and diseases.
19. Changes in forest cover, forest types and uses are driven by the interaction of numerous
factors, at local and global levels: growing demand for food, feed, wood and energy,
driven by population and income growth; and increased importance given to the
protection of biodiversity, to carbon stocks, water and soil protection. They also depend
on the governance systems that address and manage these demands.
20. Given the global population and economic growth, the increase in demand for food, feed,
wood and bioenergy is expected to continue in the future. Wood and fibre demand is in
particular expected to double between 2005 and 2030.
21. In addition, forests need now to adapt to climate change and are called upon to
contribute to its mitigation. Land degradation fuels additional demand for land for
agriculture, creating additional pressure on forests, but also opportunities for
reforestation and afforestation. There is at the same time increased awareness of the
role of forests to protect soil, water and biodiversity and to contribute to climate change
mitigation. These trends intensify the competition for land. They also intensify the
competition between forest uses, for environmental preservation, for timber and wood
production, and for food and other NWFPs, each of which impacts FSN. Addressing the
issue of competition for land while taking into account agricultural and forests demands
on the one hand, environmental and climate concerns on the other hand, calls for
tackling consistently the trade-offs at and between different scales, from local to global.
This requires moving beyond the controversy materialized by the two opposite narratives
“land sharing – land sparing” to design and implement appropriate arrangements and
mechanisms.
22. These increasing demands on land, forests and trees create new challenges and
opportunities for their contributions to FSN. They can threaten some of the contributions
of forests to FSN, particularly when such contributions are less visible or concern
marginalized and most vulnerable groups. On the other hand, they can create additional
reasons to protect and invest in forests and generate new jobs and opportunities for
sustainable development. This calls for a better understanding of the drivers of change,
and of the dynamics at play in evolving landscapes such as secondary forests,
landscape mosaics, agroforestry systems and their impact for FSN and sustainable
development, and for a better support for the forest restoration of areas that qualify as
other wooded land.

How to optimize the contributions of forests and trees

to FSN in a sustainable way?
23. There are potential synergies and trade-offs between the benefits provided by forests
and trees for FSN, at different scales, from local and global, from short to long term. SFM
for FSN has thus to take fully into account and integrate the multiple uses of forests and
trees, as well as the diverging and sometimes conflicting interests, needs and rights of
different stakeholders, paying specific attention to the more vulnerable and marginalized
groups. It requires governance mechanisms at different spatial and temporal scales,
through international instruments, national policies and local arrangements.
24. The FRA identifies a set of enabling conditions for SFM: permanent forestlands, legal
frameworks, management plans, stakeholder involvement, as well as information,
monitoring and reporting systems. According to the FRA, only half of the 2.2 billion ha of
permanent forest land met all those conditions in 2015. However, areas under forest

14
 management plans have sharply increased during the last decades. In 2015, 167
countries reported to have such forest management plans and these plans cover more
than half of their forest area (around 2.1 billion ha). The main objective of a forest
management plan (whether forest conservation in primary forests and protected areas or
wood production in plantation forests) may conflict with rights of access to and use of
forest resources and therefore with the FSN of local forest-dependent people and
communities, including indigenous peoples. Legal frameworks regulating these rights
vary hugely across countries.
25. There are numerous international treaties and standards that have an influence on the
way forests are managed. Among them some focus on the environmental dimensions of
forest management, such as the three Rio Conventions, the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD) and the United Nations Convention to Combat Diversification (UNCCD). Other
treaties relate to international human rights, in particular to the right to adequate food
and nutrition. A third group of international instruments is directly linked to forest
management, such as the 1992 United Nations Forest Principles 5 and the Voluntary
Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in
the Context of National Food Security.
26. There is increasing interest in market-based instruments to recognize and valorize the
different contributions of forests, especially related to environmental issues. Examples
include carbon credits and other payments for environmental services, certification and
green procurement. Forest certification plays an important role in assessing and
monitoring the sustainable management of forests in an independent way. The two main
international certification schemes (the Forest Stewardship Council [FSC] and the
Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification [PEFC], introduced in the late
1990s) covered 438 million ha in 2014 (90 percent of which are situated in boreal and
temperate climatic domains). Also, voluntary green building programmes, codes and
standards promote the use of legally and sustainably harvested wood products. While
such instruments can link forestry management to people who consume forest products
from a distance by enabling them to pay for environmental impacts, they do not always
fully integrate FSN concerns and the needs of local forest-dependent people and
communities.
27. SFM for FSN thus requires integrated, innovative and inclusive governance systems
across sectors at different spatial and temporal scales, ensuring the full and effective
participation of all concerned stakeholders and affected groups, particularly of women,
as well as vulnerable and marginalized groups, including indigenous peoples and forest-
dependent communities. In particular, appropriate arrangements must be designed at
the landscape level where the challenges are to optimize the concrete cohabitation
among cities, agriculture, forests and other natural areas, and to better integrate FSN
concerns in forest management.
28. The realization of the right to adequate food of local communities, forest-dependent
communities and indigenous peoples requires ensuring their land and forest use rights.
Forest-based goods and services are also crucial for the realization of social, economic
and cultural rights of people around the world. In this context, laws, policies and
interventions related to forests should not only avoid infringing rights but advance human
rights outcomes, prioritizing the most disadvantaged groups in order to achieve
substantive rather than formal equality. Such processes should respect the human rights
principles of non-discrimination and equality, transparency and access to information,
participation, empowerment, legality and accountability.

5
Annex III – Non-Legally Binding Authoritative Statement of Principles for a Global Consensus on the
Management, Conservation and Sustainable Development of All Types of Forests – Report of the United
Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 1992.

15
 Recommendations
Forests and trees contribute directly and indirectly to FSN in numerous ways. They are a
source of energy, foods and other products. They provide livelihoods for an important part of
the worldwide population, often the most vulnerable. Forests perform vital ecosystem
services, including the regulation of the water and carbon cycles and protection of
biodiversity, that are essential to agriculture. These contributions vary according to types of
forests and the way they are managed. They are of course particularly important for forest
dependent people but have also impacts on a very large scale. Sustainable forest
management aims to maintain and enhance the economic, social and environmental values
of all types of forests, for the benefit of present and future generations, leaving no one behind.

1. DEVELOP AND USE POLICY-RELEVANT KNOWLEDGE ON THE DIRECT

AND INDIRECT CONTRIBUTIONS OF FORESTS AND TREES TO FSN

States and academic institutions should take measures to inform and train FSN policy-
makers and practitioners about the importance of sustainable forests for FSN. This should be
done using participatory methodologies that enable the co-construction of knowledge about
the contributions of forests and trees to FSN, at different spatial and temporal scales.
In particular, they should:
a. build the necessary capacities, professional training and organizational changes
needed for participatory expertise and research;
b. design metrics and collect data that are disaggregated by gender, ethnicity, social
class, age and other social parameters, to measure the multiple, direct and indirect,
contributions that forests and trees make to FSN through production, ecological
processes, income and livelihoods, cultures and well-being, with a particular focus on
the FSN status of forest-dependent people;
c. gather data on nutritional trade-offs between increased income and changing diets on
the one hand, and socio-cultural, economic, environmental and health impacts of
deforestation and forest degradation on FSN on the other hand;
d. improve trans-sectoral, systemic data collection in FSN and forestry monitoring
systems, on the use of wild foods (animals, plants, mushrooms) and forest products,
including for dietary quality and diversity, poverty alleviation, health and medicinal
purposes, as well as harvest impacts, to ensure long-term availability of wild foods
and forest products;
e. strengthen FAO INFOODS studies on the nutrient composition of wild foods.

2. ENHANCE THE ROLE OF FORESTS IN ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESSES

AT ALL SCALES WITHOUT COMPROMISING THE RIGHT TO ADEQUATE
FOOD OF FOREST-DEPENDENT PEOPLE

All stakeholders should use an ecosystem approach to promote the sustainable

management of forests and trees, from local to global levels, in order to preserve ecosystem
functions of forests and trees, as well as their contributions to FSN.
In particular, states, intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) and other stakeholders should:
a. recognize and enhance the role of forests and trees in regulating climate, water cycle
and water quality, as well as in biodiversity conservation;
b. promote the role of forests and trees to limit soil erosion and land degradation, and to
restore land;
c. consider how the implementation of initiatives designed to address environmental
issues will affect local communities’ and indigenous peoples’ access to forest foods,
and how this might impact dietary diversity and quality.

16
3. SUPPORT THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF FORESTS TO IMPROVE
LIVELIHOODS AND ECONOMIES FOR FSN

States and the private sector should:

a. develop and promote participatory forest planning and management policies and
measures that enable access to nutritionally important forest foods, in particular for
forest dependent communities and indigenous peoples;
b. promote and enable income generation and livelihoods opportunities in local
communities, through the sustainable management and use of forest resources,
particularly for those living in mountains and other remote areas;
c. integrate low-carbon, renewable energy schemes in forest management plans to
achieve multiple benefits, including adequate access to fuel for food preparation;
d. increase public investments to support community-driven, forest-based enterprises for
sustainable livelihoods, culture and well-being;
e. invest in social and technical innovations to minimize health risks associated with the
use of fuelwood and wood stoves;
f. develop transformative, transparent and understandable marketing information
systems for non-wood forest products.

4. PROMOTE MULTIFUNCTIONAL LANDSCAPES FOR FSN THAT

INTEGRATE FORESTS AND TREES AS KEY COMPONENTS

States, IGOs, local authorities, conservations agencies, NGOs and other stakeholders
should:
a. strengthen the contribution of forests and trees, within landscape mosaics, in the
provision of fundamental ecosystem services to support agricultural production,
including pollination and water and nutrient cycling;
b. promote integrated planning and local adaptive management of landscapes with
strong acknowledgement of the multiple functions and uses of forests and trees;
c. promote a nutrition-sensitive landscape approach to integrate the multiple goals of
FSN, sustainable forestry, land use and biodiversity conservation for human, animal
and ecosystems health;
d. promote and invest in research and technologies aiming at developing and up-scaling
diverse suitable agroforestry systems within integrated landscape mosaics;
e. ensure that governance mechanisms at different scales enable sustainable integrated
landscape approaches that: articulate different functions of forests and trees
(including wood and food production, biodiversity conservation and sociocultural
benefits); consider short- and long-term objectives; recognize and reduce conflicts
between stakeholders.

5. ACKNOWLEDGE THE IMPORTANCE AND STRENGTHEN THE ROLE OF

FORESTS AND TREES IN ENHANCING RESILIENCE AT LANDSCAPE,
COMMUNITY AND HOUSEHOLD LEVELS FOR FSN

States, IGOs, local authorities, conservations agencies, NGOs and other stakeholders
should:
a. identify and strengthen the ways in which forests and trees contribute to build
resilience at landscape, community and household levels;
b. develop integrated food-forestry systems building on local knowledge that contribute
to enhance resilience of landscapes, communities and livelihoods;
c. strengthen the capacity of forest-dependent and indigenous peoples, local
communities, local organizations and national institutions to mainstream and enhance

17
 the concept of resilience of landscapes, communities and households in policies,
plans and projects that address the forest-FSN nexus;
d. determine and provide the institutional and financial requirements to integrate and
implement resilience-enhancing dimensions of forests and trees into policies and
programmes.

6. RECOGNIZE AND RESPECT LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCE TENURE

AND USE RIGHTS OVER FORESTS AND TREES FOR FSN

States should:
a. ensure local communities’, forest dependent communities’ and indigenous peoples’
access to and use of forest resources for the realization of their right to adequate
food;
b. ensure that policies, legislation and programmes that affect forests and trees respect
and ensure the rights of indigenous peoples, smallholders and marginalized
communities, including the rights of indigenous peoples over their genetic resources
and associated traditional knowledge;
c. legally protect customary land and natural resource tenure and use rights of food-
insecure people over forests and trees for FSN through formal instruments consistent
with legal frameworks;6
d. ensure and enforce access, use and tenure rights of vulnerable and marginalized
groups to forests and trees, especially in the face of large-scale infrastructure
development as well as land grabbing and the establishment or expansion of
protected areas;
e. collaboratively develop rights-based initiatives with indigenous peoples to enhance
the productivity and resilience of forests and tree-based systems, and incorporate
these initiatives into policies, programmes and practices.

7. STRENGTHEN INCLUSIVE FOREST GOVERNANCE SYSTEMS ACROSS

SECTORS AND SCALES FOR FSN

States and other stakeholders should:

a. strengthen policy coherence across forestry, agriculture, education and other sectors
at different scales, in order to ensure sustainable forest management strategies for
improved FSN;
b. promote effective incentives for the sustainable production and consumption of forest
products for FSN;
c. promote a rights-based approach to the governance of forests and trees for FSN,
ensuring compliance with international human rights law and standards, 7 including
standards of transparency and accountability;
d. ensure that laws, policies and programmes affecting forests and trees avoid or
minimize negative impacts on FSN, create forest governance regimes that incorporate
FSN concerns, clearly define the roles, rights and obligations of various stakeholders,
and are effectively enforced;
e. ensure the full and effective participation of all relevant stakeholders in forest policy
development, governance and management at all scales, particularly of women as
well as vulnerable and marginalized groups, including indigenous peoples, and forest-

6
For example: UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; CFS Voluntary Guidelines on the
Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food
Security (VGGT), Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).
7
Including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the CEDAW, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples, and the CFS VGGT.

18
 dependent communities, by providing them with adequate support and capacity
building;
f. ensure the full and effective participation of concerned stakeholders, including
indigenous peoples and forest-dependent communities, in order to integrate FSN
concerns in the creation and management of protected areas;
g. facilitate the implementation of processes that take into account the impacts of
forestry management on FSN at different spatial and temporal scales;
h. ensure that forest certification schemes include FSN concerns of all stakeholders by
facilitating their full and effective participation;
i. promote inclusive co-management and co-production initiatives that are co-developed
with relevant stakeholders, including through concessions, and corporate and social
responsibility schemes.

19
20
INTRODUCTION
Forests and trees contribute directly and indirectly to food security and nutrition (FSN) in
numerous ways. They are a source of wood, energy, food and other products. They provide
livelihoods for an important part of the worldwide population, often the most vulnerable.
Forests perform vital ecosystem services, including the regulation of the water and carbon
cycles and protection of biodiversity, that are essential to food production and FSN in the long
term. These contributions vary according to types of forests and the ways they are managed
and governance is exerted. They are of course particularly important for forest-dependent
people but also have impacts on a very large scale.
Recognition of the importance of forests within debates about FSN has, arguably, been slow
to materialize. Discussions on FSN often remained somewhat production-centric, focused on
improving yields from agriculture, and finding ways to disseminate new technologies and
practices to enhance outputs from agricultural production. Forests were rarely featured in
such discussions, other than being perceived as a space for further agricultural expansion or
a threatened resource to be protected because of such expansion. The changing perception
of the role of forests for FSN has actually been influenced by the Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment (MA, 2005), which has demonstrated decisively that human health and nutrition
are “inextricably linked” with the health of natural ecosystems, including forests (Whitmee et
al., 2015). This invites a better integration of FSN issues and concerns in forestry-related
research and policies as well as a better integration of the contributions of forests to FSN in
agriculture and FSN research and policies.
The Collaborative Partnership on Forests convened a Global Forest Expert Panel (GFEP) in
November 2013, and produced a report on the role of forests in FSN (Vira et al., 2015), which
was released at the United Nations Forum on Forests in May 2015. This has resonated with
the forestry community. Forests and trees matter for FSN, both because of their direct roles
(provision of food – including fruits, nuts, seeds, mushrooms, etc. – and as a safety net in
times of food scarcity) and the indirect contributions that they make to the production systems
that underpin agriculture and nutrition strategies (provision of ecosystem services and source
of income from the sale of fuelwood and non-wood forest products [NWFPs]). This requires
forest sector decision-makers to re-imagine forests, not just as spaces for conservation,
protection or production (whether that be for wood, NWFPs and other forest products or
ecosystem services – all of which have been well recognized), but also as key to the world’s
food systems and diets.
It is also increasingly recognized that forests and trees can play an important role in
contributing to environmentally sustainable agricultural systems capable of meeting the global
food security requirements and be a principal driver of human and natural well-being (Ickowitz
et al., 2014, 2016; Vira et al., 2015). This resonates well with a contemporary discourse
around agriculture and nutrition that increasingly focuses on how best to create a food system
that is productive, equitable and sustainable in the long term (Pinstrup-Andersen, 2013; Ruel
and Alderman, 2013; Carletto et al., 2015). Today, the “grand challenge” is to feed a growing
population with adequately nutritious diets in an environmentally sustainable manner in the
context of climate change and natural resource scarcity (Frison et al., 2006; FAO, 2010a;
Fanzo et al., 2013; Powell et al., 2015). It calls for landscape configurations that allow for the
increase in agricultural production without undermining the capacity of natural ecosystems to
support agriculture (Sayer et al., 2013; Baudron and Giller, 2014).
Forests face increasing and competing demands for land, wood, food, feed, energy and
ecosystem services. Agriculture expansion is often at the expense of forests (Gibbs et al.,
2010) and is considered the largest cause of deforestation, responsible for approximately 80
percent of forest loss (Kissinger et al., 2012). Demand for renewable energy and materials is
also expected to increase (IEA, 2010), putting further pressure on forest resources. This has
immediate direct effects on the livelihoods and FSN of forest-dependent men and women. It
also impacts, at local and global levels, the delivery of ecosystems services on which
agricultural production systems depend, raising concerns about their capacity to meet global
future food demand. Policy responses to protect forests in turn influence the way they
contribute to FSN, particularly of forest-dependent people.

21
 In this context, in October 2014, at its 41st session, the Committee on World Food Security
(CFS) requested the High Level Panel of Experts (HLPE) to prepare a study on sustainable
forestry for FSN to inform the debates at the 44th CFS Plenary Session of October 2017. The
key issue here is the multiple contributions of forests and trees to FSN8 in its four dimensions
and how they can be optimized, at different spatial and temporal scales, in a context of
increasing and competing demands on land, forests and trees (including for wood, food,
energy and ecosystem services), as well as of climate change.
This report aims at providing an evidence-based, comprehensive analysis of the relationships
between forestry and FSN. It clarifies the links between sustainable forestry and FSN. It
considers how sustainable forestry can address competing demands and contribute to FSN in
the long term. It is organized as follows. Chapter 1 examines the linkages between forests
and FSN and proposes, for the purpose of this report, a conceptual framework and a forest
typology grounded on their level of human modification, i.e. the extent to which they have
been modified by humans. Chapter 2 provides an in-depth analysis of the channels through
which forests affect FSN. It describes the various contributions of forests and trees to FSN,
given the specificities of the time scales of forestry-related activities. It considers the different
roles of forests and forestry to support food systems in the long term (including forest
ecosystem services at different scales: biodiversity, water cycle, biogeochemical cycles).
Chapter 3 reviews the state of the world’s forests and examines the current pressures and
challenges for forestry in their contributions to the FSN of people living in the forests, at the
forests’ margins and outside forests, from local to global levels. To do so, the report
addresses relevant issues of land use and relationships between forests and agriculture. It
considers threats to and opportunities for the social, economic and environmental functions of
forests and forestry, including biodiversity, the role of forests in the climate system and the
impacts of climate change. Chapter 4 is oriented towards solutions, to highlight how
sustainable forestry can contribute to FSN, focusing on the enabling environment for it and
thus on policy instruments and governance issues.

8
Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient
safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.
In 2009, the World Summit on Food Security stated that the "four pillars of food security are availability,
access, utilization, and stability”. Availability is the supply of food through production, distribution and
exchange; access is the affordability and allocation of food, as well as the preferences of individuals and
households requirements of each member of the household; utilization is the metabolism of food by
individuals; and stability is the ability to obtain food over time.

22
1 FORESTS, TREES AND FSN: SCOPE AND
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Defining the scope of this report is in itself a challenge. Forests and landscapes with trees
are extremely diverse around the world. Definitions of forests vary. There is also a need to
choose between a restricted approach, considering forests in a narrow sense, and a
broader perspective, encompassing trees in agricultural landscapes, such as orchards or
agroforestry systems.
When looking at the various contributions of forests and trees to FSN, there is no clear-cut
point at which trees stop providing these contributions. Trees in non-forested areas can
often play a major role to improve FSN. Also, as emphasized by the Forests, Trees and
Agroforestry (FTA) programme of the CGIAR,9 forested areas experience changes in both
type and amount of tree cover in landscapes. Too narrow a scope would not enable the
discussion of some of the landscapes where these dynamics are at play, nor of their
consequences for FSN. This report thus adopts a broad perspective, covering both forests
in their diversity and trees outside forests.
Box 1 presents the main sources of data on forests and forest products used in this report
and some of the related challenges.

Box 1 Forests and forest products: data availability and quality

At the global level, the most comprehensive source of data on forests and forest products is
provided by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), which has
been monitoring the world’s forests at five- to ten-year intervals since 1946.10 The Global
Forest Resources Assessments (FRA) are now produced every five years, based on data
provided by a growing number of countries. At the global level, the FRA is the only database
that allows analysis of the relationships between forest management and forest functions
(Miura et al., 2015).
The latest FRA (FAO, 2015) is the result of contributions of a network of national
correspondents from 155 countries, who prepared country reports that present government
forest statistics in a common format, using common definitions. The quality (precision,
reliability, validity) of data about forest area has improved in recent years. As of 2014, 112
countries, representing about 83 percent of the global forest area, had carried out or were
carrying out a national forest assessment, based on either a field inventory, remote sensing or
a combination of the two, for which most information had been collected or updated during the
last five years.
The recent production of several independent global satellite-based estimates of forest area
and forest change can renew and enrich the debate around the quality of the FRA data and
improve the precise monitoring of forest change at global level: the convergence between the
FRA 2015 (FAO, 2015) and remotely-sensed studies has already improved when compared
with previous FRAs (Sloan and Sayer, 2015). However, while the FRA defines forest as a
combination of tree cover and land use, remote sensing datasets, using satellite imagery, can
only monitor tree cover. For instance, they cannot differentiate between tree cover in forests
and tree cover outside forests (e.g. tree crops in agricultural systems, oil palm plantations,
coffee plantations, etc.). Moreover, they cannot differentiate between a permanent forest loss
and a tree cover temporarily removed as part of a forest management plan.
This report also relies heavily on the FAO’s State of the World’s Forests (SOFO) (FAO,
2014a), which analyses data on the socio-economic benefits of forests for sustainable
development and FSN using data from national censuses, national accounts’ statistics and
international surveys implemented by agencies such as the World Bank, the United Nations

9
The CGIAR Research Program on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry (FTA), launched in 2011 and gathering
multiple institutional research, development partners and donors to enhance the role of forests, trees and
agroforestry in sustainable development and food security and to address climate change. FTA works from
the piloting to the scaling-up of solutions from technical options, management, governance and policies to
unlock the potential and maximize the benefits that trees can bring. It has entered, in 2017, a six-year
second phase up to 2022 and operates currently 118 projects in 41 countries, for a budget of USD80
million in 2017. See http://www.foreststreesagroforestry.org/
10
See http://www.fao.org/forest-resources-assessment/en/

23
 Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the World Health Organization (WHO), FAO and the United States
Agency for International Development (USAID).
Information on gross value added (GVA) from and employment in the formal forest sector is
taken from international statistical data as well as from international statistical databases, from
the UN Statistics Division, the International Labour Organization (ILO) and the United Nations
Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), and is considered to be quite precise and
reliable. However, it does not integrate indirect contributions of forests to formal income and
employment in transportation and processing, since these activities are included in other
industrial or services sectors.
Estimates of the number of households using woodfuel for cooking seem quite accurate as
they cover 134 countries, accounting for 83 percent of the global population. Most of the
countries where data were unavailable were in developed regions (where this information is
probably not collected due to the small numbers of people using woodfuel for cooking),
whereas for the few less developed countries where data were not available, regional
averages were used as estimates (FAO, 2014a).
Conversely, the available information on the production, trade and consumption of non-wood
forest products (NWFPs) appears to be far from complete, and not comparable across
countries and over time (May et al., 2001). Available estimations probably largely
underestimate the informal contributions of forests to FSN for the following reasons: first, there
is no agreed international definition of NWFP; second, there are a wide variety of NWFPs to
be covered; third, NWFPs are often classified under agricultural products without distinction
between wild and farmed products; and fourth, NWFPs are often produced or collected for
auto-consumption or trade on informal markets and thus not captured through formal
statistics.
In order to address this gap, the FAO Forestry Statistics programme undertook a first
systematic review of NWFPs in the existing international classification systems used for
collection and dissemination of data (Sorrenti, 2017). It identifies “major” NWFPs (including:
edible mushrooms and truffles; forest berries; maple products; edible nuts; bamboo and
rattan; cork; bark; latexes; gums and resins; hides; skins and trophies; game meat and edible
insects) and calls for clarification and harmonization of terminology and classification in order
to improve data collection. It finally notes the need for targeted household surveys to
complement statistical databases and to capture the full value of NWFPs, including the
informal sector.
We use here, when available, global figures from FAO, which is generally the most
comprehensive source at global level. We complement these global figures with other data,
from the IUFRO assessment (Vira et al., 2015) and selected case studies.
Sources: FAO (2014a); FAO (2015); Sorrenti (2017).

This first chapter clarifies some of the concepts and definitions used in this report, and
proposes a typology of forests and other tree systems, based mainly on their degree of
human modification, that will be used in the report to help understand their contributions to
FSN and guide policies to improve them. This analysis enables clarification of the notion of
forest-dependent people. The chapter then considers briefly, building upon the notion of
ecosystems services, the relationships between forests and trees and the four dimensions
of FSN, showing the need to integrate both direct and indirect links, at different spatial and
temporal scales. It proposes a conceptual framework aimed at facilitating their analysis for
different systems and at clarifying the notion of sustainable forestry for FSN in light of the
definition of sustainable food systems (HLPE, 2014a).

1.1 Forests, trees and agroforestry: definitions and scope

Forests are extremely diverse, resulting from the diversity of environmental conditions with
which interact a diversity of cultures, economic conditions, institutions and management
systems/human activities. As forests play multiple roles, they can be defined from numerous
perspectives, by different actors: as a specific type of ecosystem; as an area producing wood;
a hunting area; a recreational space; a conservation area; etc. These two elements explain
the number and diversity of definitions used at local, national and international levels, often
for different purposes.

24
1.1.1 An extreme diversity
Forests and trees occur under varying geographic, edaphic and climate regimes ranging from
the boreal regions to the tropics. According to some estimates,3 out of the 867 terrestrial
ecoregions identified in the world (Olson et al., 2001), more than 60 percent could be
classified as forests or woodlands. In addition, trees are an important element in many
agricultural landscapes, grasslands and rangelands.
Forest types differ widely, determined by factors including latitude, temperature, rainfall
patterns, soil composition and human activity. They can be classified according to numerous
characteristics. Major types of forests are generally distinguished by climatic domains (see a
description of tropical, temperate and boreal forests in Box 2), with important variations in
each type.

Box 2 The forest biomes

Tropical forest
Tropical forests are characterized by the greatest diversity of species. They occur near the
equator, within the area bounded by latitudes 23.5 °N and 23.5 °S. One of the major
characteristics of tropical forests is their distinct seasonality: winter is absent, and only two
seasons are present (rainy and dry). The length of daylight is 12 hours and varies little.
- Temperature is on average 20–25 °C and varies little throughout the year: the average
temperatures of the three warmest and three coldest months do not differ by more than 5 °C.
- Precipitation is evenly distributed throughout the year, with annual rainfall exceeding 200 cm.
- Soil is nutrient-poor and acidic. Decomposition is rapid and soils are subject to heavy
leaching.
- Canopy in tropical forests is multilayered and continuous, allowing little light penetration.
- Flora is highly diverse: one square kilometre may contain as many as 100 different tree
species. Trees are 25–35 m tall, with buttressed trunks and shallow roots, mostly evergreen,
with large dark green leaves. Plants such as orchids, bromeliads, vines (lianas), ferns,
mosses and palms are present in tropical forests.
- Fauna include numerous birds, bats, small mammals and insects.
Further subdivisions of this group are determined by seasonal distribution of rainfall:
- Evergreen rainforest: no dry season.
- Seasonal rainforest: short dry period in a very wet tropical region (the forest exhibits definite
seasonal changes as trees undergo developmental changes simultaneously, but the general
character of vegetation remains the same as in evergreen rainforests).
- Semi-evergreen forest: longer dry season (the upper tree story consists of deciduous trees,
while the lower story is still evergreen).
- Moist/dry deciduous forest (monsoon): the length of the dry season increases further as
rainfall decreases (most trees are deciduous).

Temperate forest
Temperate forests occur in eastern North America, northeastern Asia, and western and
central Europe. Well-defined seasons with a distinct winter characterize this forest biome. A
moderate climate and a growing season of 140–200 days during 4–6 frost-free months
distinguish temperate forests.
- Temperature varies from –30 °C to 30 °C.
- Precipitation (75–150 cm) is distributed evenly throughout the year.
- Soil is fertile, enriched with decaying litter.
- Canopy is moderately dense and allows light to penetrate, resulting in well-developed and
richly diversified understory vegetation and stratification of animals.
- Flora is characterized by 3–4 tree species per square kilometre. Trees are distinguished by
broad leaves that are lost annually and include such species as oak, hickory, beech, hemlock,
maple, basswood, cottonwood, elm, willow and spring-flowering herbs.
- Fauna is represented by squirrels, rabbits, skunks, birds, deer, mountain lion, bobcat, timber
wolf, fox and black bear.

3 https://library.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10947/2564/fc4_crp6_report.pdf?sequence=1

25
 Further subdivisions of this group are determined by seasonal distribution of rainfall:
- Moist conifer and evergreen broad-leaved forests: wet winters and dry summers (rainfall is
concentrated in the winter months and winters are relatively mild).
- Dry conifer forests: dominate higher elevation zones; low precipitation.
- Mediterranean forests: precipitation is concentrated in winter, less than 100 cm per year.
- Temperate coniferous: mild winters, high annual precipitation (greater than 200 cm).
- Temperate broad-leaved rainforests: mild, frost-free winters, high precipitation (more than 150
cm) evenly distributed throughout the year.

Boreal forests
Boreal forests, or taiga, represent the largest terrestrial biome. Occurring between 50 and
60 °N latitudes, boreal forests can be found in the broad belt of Eurasia and North America:
two-thirds in Siberia with the rest in Scandinavia, Alaska and Canada. Seasons are divided
into short, moist and moderately warm summers and long, cold and dry winters. The length of
the growing season in boreal forests is 130 days.
- Temperatures are very low.
- Precipitation is primarily in the form of snow, 40–100 cm annually.
- Soil is thin, nutrient-poor and acidic.
- Canopy permits low light penetration and, as a result, understory is limited.
- Flora consists mostly of cold-tolerant evergreen conifers with needle-like leaves, such as
pine, fir and spruce.
- Fauna includes woodpeckers, hawks, moose, bear, weasel, lynx, fox, wolf, deer, hares,
chipmunks, shrews and bats.
See: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/exhibits/biomes/forests.php

Another important way to distinguish different types of forests is according to the degree of
human influence, which can be presented along a “transition curve” from natural forests to
agriculture and reforestation. Historically, forested countries have experienced phases of
decreasing and then increasing forest area, with changes in both type and amount of tree
cover in landscapes. The forest transition curve (see Figure 1) illustrates clearly how a
continuum of management intensity, from low to high intensity, cuts across the “evolution” of
forest and tree cover loss and recovery (Mather and Needle, 1998). The movement of a
country or region along this forest and land-use transition curve has tended to follow
demographic change and economic development. However, this curve is also useful for
describing spatial variation across contemporary landscapes.

Figure 1 Forest and land-use transition curve

ecosystems services
Forest and trees

Source: Adapted from CIFOR (2011).

26
1.1.2 Forest definitions
There are numerous definitions of forests. Lund (2017) found 1 660 different definitions for
forests and wooded areas in use around the world – with some countries using several
definitions at the same time. This reflects both the diversity of forests and forest
ecosystems in the world and the diversity of human perceptions and uses of forests. The
term “forest” can be used to describe a broad range of ecosystems from scattered trees in
dry landscapes to dense, close-canopy, old-growth forests in high rainfall areas (Sloan
and Sayer, 2015). Because of their wide geographic distribution within many diverse
biomes, forests are extremely diverse, from dry and sparse to moist and dense, driving a
diversity of national definitions. The diversity of definitions is also linked to differences in
culture and forest use (Helms, 2002). A forest may be an administrative unit, a type of land
use or a type of land cover (Lund, 2002). Some areas can be designated as forests as an
administrative unit, even if not totally forested.
Most definitions of forests are based on land cover or land use. Land cover refers to the
actual physical appearance of the land. Land use refers to its use by humans. From a
land-use perspective, an area temporarily devoid of trees because they have been cleared
is still a forest if it will be reforested in a foreseeable future. Most definitions combine
criteria of crown cover (canopy density determined by estimating the area of ground
shaded by the crown of the trees), tree height and minimum area size, often adding land-
use considerations to include areas currently devoid of trees but to be reforested and/or to
exclude some areas used for agricultural purposes.
The definition used, including such criteria and thresholds, can have a decisive influence
on the area considered as forest. Lund, taking the example of Turkey (Lund, 2014) notes
that the area considered as forest according to the national definition is almost double that
which Turkey declares to FAO using the FAO definition (see below). He shows that the
difference is mainly due to the inclusion in the Turkish definition of forest of areas with a
crown cover between 1 and 10 percent, named as “degraded forest”. He also notes that,
within the United States of America, the definitions of tree and forestland vary by federal
agency (Lund, 2002), each of them having a specific interest and perspective. As shown
by these examples, most definitions are adapted to national situations and often to a
specific purpose.
The FRA has contributed to harmonize, at the global level, the approaches used to define
and categorize forests, even if a total uniformity across national approaches is likely to be
elusive (Sloan and Sayer, 2015). The FRA (see Box 3), uses an agreed global definition of
forest that includes a minimum threshold for the height of trees (5 m), at least 10 percent
canopy cover and a minimum forest area size (0.5 ha). Urban parks, orchards, palm oil
plantations, agroforestry and other agricultural tree crops are excluded from this definition
(but rubber, cork oak and plantations of Christmas trees are included) (FAO, 2012a).
From this definition of forest, one can deduce the following definitions (FAO, 2012a):
 Deforestation: the conversion of forest to other land use or the permanent
reduction of the tree canopy cover below the minimum 10 percent threshold.
 Afforestation: establishment of forest through planting and/or deliberate seeding
on land that, until then, was not classified as forest.
 Reforestation: re-establishment of forest through planting and/or deliberate
seeding on land classified as forest.
With those definitions, in 2015, forests covered almost 4 billion ha globally, around 30
percent of global land area (FAO, 2015). A further 1.2 billion ha are covered by other
wooded land (FAO, 2015; Keenan et al., 2015) that is mainly, as defined in Box 3, land with
a canopy cover between 5 and 10 percent.

27
 Box 3 Definitions used for FAO’s forest resources assessments
In the FRA, FAO distinguishes three categories of land (FAO, 2012a).
1. Forest
“Land spanning more than 0.5 hectares with trees higher than 5 metres and a canopy cover of
more than 10 percent, or trees able to reach these thresholds in situ. It does not include land
that is predominantly under agricultural or urban land use.”
Among forests, FAO distinguishes again three categories:
- Primary forest: “Naturally regenerated forest of native species, where there are no clearly visible
indications of human activities and the ecological processes are not significantly disturbed.”
- Other naturally regenerated forest: “Naturally regenerated forest where there are clearly visible
indications of human activities.”
- Planted forest: “Forest predominantly composed of trees established through planting and/or
deliberate seeding.”
2. Other wooded land
“Land not defined as “Forest”, spanning more than 0.5 hectares; with trees higher than 5
metres and a canopy cover of 5–10 percent, or trees able to reach these thresholds; or with a
combined cover of shrubs, bushes and trees above 10 percent. It does not include land that is
predominantly under agricultural or urban land use.”
3. Other land
“All land that is not classified as forest or other wooded land.”
This last category includes land that is predominantly under agricultural or urban land use.
It includes in particular a subcategory named “other land with tree cover” defined as: “Land
considered as “Other land”, that is predominantly agricultural or urban land use and has
patches of tree cover that span more than 0.5 hectares with a canopy cover of more than 10
percent of trees able to reach a height of 5 metres at maturity. It includes both forest and non-
forest tree species.”*
This subcategory includes groups of trees and scattered trees (e.g. “trees outside forest”) in
agricultural landscapes and urban areas, respecting the three criteria described above. It
includes in particular fruit tree plantations and agroforestry systems, as well as tree plantations
established mainly for other purposes than wood production, such as oil palm plantations.
* More details/explanations on the definitions can be found in FAO (2012a).

Other regional and global maps and assessments of forests have been produced – often
with differing results, reflecting the various forest definitions and methodologies used and
also the differing interpretations made. For example, the use of satellite imagery might
produce very different results with regard to ground-based surveys as explained in Box 1.
Using large databases of satellite imagery at very high spatial and temporal resolution,
made available for scientists through the Google Earth platform, building on a new FAO
photo-interpretation tool, and on the participatory expertise of more than 200 local
operators, Bastin et al. (2017) identified 467 million ha of “hidden” forests in dryland
biomes that had not been reported before. This estimation of dryland forest area increases
previous estimates by 40 to 50 percent. These “hidden” forests represent at least 9
percent of the actual global forest area. The differences are particularly significant in Africa
where dryland forest area doubled. Such tools could improve sensibly the evaluation and
monitoring of forests areas and their evolution in the future and help to improve the quality
of the data collected in future FRAs.
Even at international level different definitions are used, resulting in data that are not
totally comparable. For instance, for the greenhouse gas (GHG) inventories
communicated to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC), each country documents and uses its own national definitions.

28
Forest definitions have been criticized (see Chazdon et al., 2016a) as not capturing such
characteristics as natural or planted, composed of native or non-native species, continuous or
fragmented, healthy or degraded, thus hiding some very significant changes in the
composition and health of forests. The inclusion of homogeneous plantations in the forest
definition has been particularly criticized for their lower level of biodiversity. Another critique is
that the minimum threshold used leaves out small patches and areas with sparse tree
densities, both of which can play important roles for ecosystems and local FSN and
livelihoods.
Such critiques are generally grounded on the recognition of the specificity and relative
importance of certain types of forests. They call for a nuanced approach to the notion of
forest, recognizing the need for definitions for statistical purposes while capturing differences.
In other words, even if there is a need for a single definition of forest for global statistical
purposes, there is also a need to distinguish inside this definition different types and
categories, for different purposes. In this report, figures related to “forests” refer, most of the
time and unless otherwise specified, to the FAO definition that is used for most global
numbers. The report uses, however, a more nuanced and broader typology, described in
section 1.2.

1.2 A typology of forests and trees outside forests

Historically, earth’s ecosystems and the human cultures associated with them have produced
a wide range of forests and tree-based systems, often connected to the traditional knowledge
and practices of indigenous peoples and local communities worldwide (Vira et al., 2015). A
typology of forests could use biotic criteria (climatic domains or types of ecosystems, density
of canopy cover) or management criteria (position in a historical continuum of forest and land-
use transition curve; degree of human modification; or main recognized role from a human
activity perspective).
For the purposes of this report, the typology used here is grounded on management criteria,
broadly the degree of human modification and the position on the transition curve, as these
are the criteria that most influence the various contributions to FSN and can be more easily
influenced by policies. It aims to facilitate the analysis of land-use management challenges
across a broad range of situations.
This typology thus distinguishes five broad categories:
1. primary (or old-growth) forests with little human-induced perturbation (although
shifting cultivation and selective logging can alter the forest structure);
2. secondary forests that have been profoundly modified at one stage by human
intervention and are the result of natural regeneration and/or active human
management;
3. plantation forests, including monospecific timber plantations;
4. other wooded land with scattered tree cover, not considered as forest by FAO;
5. trees outside forests, including trees in agricultural landscapes and agroforestry
systems, as well as small patches of forests in mosaic landscapes.
There is generally no clear delineation among these types, because they exist on a
continuum of management intensity along the forest transition curve, from relatively
undisturbed forest to intensively farmed agricultural land (see Figure 2). There is also a
considerable diversity within each type. It is, however, very useful to recognize the differences
between these types, as a means to approach diversity and to facilitate the design of
concrete and context-specific management. The first three types are comprised of what FAO
considers as forests, and are identified in FAO statistics, which gives the possibility to
consider their respective importance as well as their evolution in terms of surface (see
Chapter 3). The last two categories gather systems that are generally not classified as
forests, although based on, or incorporating, trees.

29
 The denominations proposed here take into account previous classifications as well as the
concerns expressed about the definition of forests (see above). It is, however, important to
recognize that whatever the terminology adopted, it can be misleading because it tends to
emphasize one aspect above others.
Figure 2 shows schematically how the various types of forests and tree systems are related to
each other and linked with forest and agriculture activities. There is an increasing human
modification and management intensity from primary forests, secondary forests to plantations
and agriculture. To a certain extent, monospecific intensively managed plantation forests
share many characteristics with monocropping farming systems. Shifting cultivation (see
Box 5) is an agricultural activity practised inside forests.
Figure 2 Five types of forests and tree systems

Forests Agriculture

Primary
forests Trees outside forests
(including agroforestry)
Shifting
cultivation

Secondary
forests

Plantation
forests

Other wooded
land

1.2.1 Primary (or old-growth) forests

Most forest practitioners and academics do not recognize the term “primary forest” as it
appears in the FAO terminology (see FAO, 2012a) and prefer “mature” or “old-growth” forest
to recognize the limited extent of truly untouched forests
Primary or old-growth forests are characterized by limited management (Pimbert and Pretty,
1997) and low level of human disturbance. Even in forests classified as primary, plant
distribution may have been influenced by humans. For instance, Levis et al. (2017) show that
plants domesticated by pre-Columbian peoples are much more likely to be dominant in
Amazonian forests than other species. These forests are considered as being close to their
original composition. Many primary forests have been and/or are being modified by the
people living in or close to them to increase the supply of plant-based food and/or change the
supply of favoured animal species (Jamnadass et al., 2015).
Primary forests account for almost one-third of the total forest area (Morales-Hidalgo et al.,
2015). In 2015, they still covered 1 277 million ha globally, half of which are located in the
tropics (FAO, 2015). Primary forests are distributed among all the climatic domains all over
the world with 400 million ha reported in South America (of which 203 million in Brazil), 320
million in North and Central America (of which 206 million in Canada), 277 million in Europe
(of which 273 million in the Russian Federation), 135 million in Africa (of which 103 million in

30
the Democratic Republic of the Congo), 117 million in Asia (of which 46 million in Indonesia),
and 27 million in Oceania (FAO, 2015).
Primary or old-growth forests, including mangroves (see Box 4) contribute to FSN through the
direct collection of products for immediate consumption and derivation of income through the
sale of NWFPs and a broad suite of forest resources (Angelsen and Wunder, 2003). They
also provide ecosystem services such as: air quality, water quality, climate regulation and
pollination; and nutrient cycling, water cycling, soil formation and photosynthesis. They often
provide religious, spiritual and cultural values and in some cases are used for recreation and
tourism.

Box 4 Mangroves: a key contribution to FSN

Mangroves are defined as assemblages of salt-tolerant trees and shrubs that grow in the
intertidal regions of the tropical and subtropical coastlines. They harbour a unique assemblage
of aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity. Their net primary production is among the highest
compared with any terrestrial ecosystem, providing wood and food as well as supporting
(nutrient cycling and land building) and regulating (pollution, salinity, carbon storage, wave,
storm surges and tsunami) services. They enhance fisheries productivity of the adjacent
coastal waters by acting as a nursery ground for commercially important fish, prawn and crabs
and supplying organic and inorganic nutrients. They play a critical role in reducing the impact
of cyclonic storms, hurricanes and tsunami on human lives and properties. Thanks to their
high productivity and carbon burial rates, the carbon stocks in the mangrove ecosystem can
be as much as four times higher compared with other terrestrial ecosystems (Alongi et al.,
2016).
They are, however, facing considerable pressure, with deforestation rates estimated to be five
to six times higher than average rates (Spalding et al., 2011).
Source: Alongi et al. (2016); Spalding et al. (2011); FAO (2007a).

1.2.2 Secondary forests

For the purposes of this report, secondary forests are defined as “forests regenerating largely
through natural processes after significant human and/or natural disturbance of the original
forest vegetation at a single point in time or over an extended period, and displaying a major
difference in forest structure and/or canopy species composition with respect to nearby
primary forests on similar sites” (Chokkalingum and de Jong, 2001). This change in structure
and species follows a successional process, and the time elapsed since the human or natural
disturbance plays an important role.
This category “secondary forests” includes what FAO calls “other naturally regenerated
forests”, which cover globally around 2.4 billion ha (FAO, 2015). Secondary forests can be
managed to various degrees and for various purposes. Such forests can contribute
significantly to FSN through the provision of income from timber, cash crops and the direct
provision of food. In addition, they contribute to FSN through the provision of ecosystem
services. Most of the secondary forests in Europe and North America are actively managed to
enhance wood production as well as other functions, through practices combining natural
regeneration, plantation and selective logging. Secondary forests are also the main providers
of fuelwood in the rural areas in most of the tropics, especially in the dryer areas (Henao-
Bravo et al., 2015). In some countries, the communities (mestizo or indigenous peoples) have
access to the forests through concessions (Guatemala) (Orjuela Vásquez, 2015), communal
property (Nicaragua) (Henao-Bravo et al., 2015) or forest use rights (Honduras) (Forest
Trends, 2013), and they produce wood, food, fodder and NWFPs.
As Wadsworth (1997) states: “if managed sustainably, secondary forests can contribute to the
generation of income, can provide, through wood production, other forest products for the
markets, and other environmental services”. Since many of them are regenerated in former
cattle and agricultural areas that have been degraded, secondary forests are normally easily
accessible through the rural road network.
Finally, shifting cultivation, which to a great extent could be considered as an agroforestry
system (see section 1.2.5), is practised inside forests, both secondary and primary (see
Box 5).

31
 Box 5 Shifting cultivation, or swidden agriculture
Shifting cultivation involves the intermittent clearing and burning of small patches of forest for
subsistence food crop production, followed by longer periods of fallow in which the forest
restores the productivity of the land (Cramb et al., 2009). Also known as swidden agriculture, it
covers a wide diversity of traditional practices in very different landscapes and ecosystems. In
many rural upland tropical areas, it remains the dominant form of agriculture, contributing to
the creation of complex landscapes. The forest clearings made for shifting cultivation, often in
secondary forests, may range from a few square metres to several hectares. Useful tree
species (frequently fruit trees) are spared and protected from fire. Intensive cropping of annual
species usually lasts one or two years and is then replaced by less intensive management
allowing natural vegetation to gradually dominate the site. Selective weeding spares natural
plants valuable for food, medicine or other purposes. These practices may lead to an
agrobiodiversity that can be very high in some of these systems (Rerkasem et al., 2009).
The extent and impacts of shifting cultivation are debated (van Vliet et al., 2012) and accurate
estimates of land and number of people involved are lacking. Swidden agriculture is still
practised in over 40 countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America. Regional estimates for
Southeast Asia suggest that swidden agriculture is still common, with between 14 and 34
million people engaged in nine countries (Mertz et al., 2009). Similarly, it can be assumed that
swidden agriculture concerns a significant proportion of the 850 million ha of tropical
secondary forests in Africa, Latin America and Asia (Mertz et al., 2008).
A growing body of research indicates that shifting cultivation, particularly where traditional
knowledge is well-developed and applied, can be managed sustainably, without undermining
soil fertility and productivity, while preserving biodiversity and various ecosystem services
provided by forests. However, the introduction of more intensive practices, such as new crops
and technologies unadapted to local agroecological conditions or shorter cropping cycles,
while increasing agricultural production in the short term could endanger the whole ecosystem
and contribute to soil fertility and productivity declines in the long term.
While suitable when there is an abundance of land and low human population, shifting
cultivation could lead to forest degradation with a denser population. This in turn compromises
FSN due to lost biodiversity upon which many rural poor households depend for their
livelihoods. However, the impact of policies promoting the abandonment of shifting cultivation
must also carefully consider alternatives for local communities and the impacts of such
transitions on diet quality and food security (Parrotta et al., 2015).
Sources: Peng et al. (2014); Vira et al. (2015).

1.2.3 Plantation forests

For the purpose of this report, “plantation forests” are defined as those forests planted with a
reduced number of tree species, sometimes a single one, often on large areas, mainly to
produce wood. Taking into account the critiques of forest definitions (see section 1.1.2), this
category is close to the FAO category called “planted forests”, which covers globally 291
million ha (FAO, 2015). It includes the “industrial fast-growing forest plantations” reported by
INDUFOR to cover 54 million ha worldwide (INDUFOR, 2012).
A large, increasing proportion of the timber products used in the world today, especially
pulpwood, comes from plantations. Plantation forests are often established for the purpose of
production and/or protection of soil and water.
Plantation forests generally contribute to FSN through providing a source of income,
employment and economic growth. They can be very efficiently managed, as wood-producing
systems, using improved, sometimes introduced species, and in some cases fertilizers and
weed control. Well-managed planted forests generally have higher yields of wood than
natural forests. In the tropics, commercial plantations have a yield of 10–30 m3 per ha,
compared with 1–5 for natural forests (Evans and Turnbull, 2004). There are examples of
significant yield gains, often linked to genetic improvements. For instance, in Brazil, the
average yield in the 1970s was 13 m 3 per ha and it now currently exceeds 40 m 3 per ha (IBA,
2015).

32
Plantation forests are sometimes perceived as being composed of exotic species. However,
only between 18 and 19 percent of planted forests comprise exotic species. This proportion is
particularly low in North America, West and Central Asia and Europe; it is much higher in
South America (88 percent), Oceania (75 percent) and Southern Africa (65 percent) (Payn et
al., 2015).
Plantations forests generallly barely contribute to direct food provision. Provision of other
ecosystem services depends greatly on the way they are managed. Well-managed planted
forests can provide various forest goods and services and help to reduce the pressure on
natural forests (WWF/IIASA, 2012; FAO, 2015).
There are also systems in which the main purpose is the harvest of trees, while at the same
time producing agricultural crops and/or cattle. These systems accrue from large-scale to
small-scale initiatives and from companies to individual farmers and communities. The non-
forest crop provides food, cattle or a permanent crop in order to keep a positive cash flow in
the system. They include mixes such as teak/cattle, mahogany/cocoa/cattle,
eucalyptus/coffee, eucalyptus/rice/soybeans/sunflower/cattle, etc. (de Camino et al., 2012).
Such systems, while integrating wood production as a main component, are in fact part of
agroforestry systems described below.

1.2.4 Other wooded land

As explained above, this category includes the wooded areas that are not considered as
forests by FAO because, while meeting the criteria of size and height, they do not meet the
criteria of canopy cover (see Box 3). This category also excludes all agricultural land with
trees (see below).
The area classified as “other wooded land” is equivalent to the primary forest area and
represented 1 204 million ha in 2015 globally, with over three-quarters situated in the tropical
and subtropical domains (FAO, 2015). There is a lack of data and analysis on these “other
wooded lands” that include a significant part of degraded forests.

1.2.5 Trees outside forests: agroforestry and other systems

This last category includes a considerable variety of systems that provide, in many countries,
a critical source of wood, fruits and other NWFPs. It encompasses diverse agroforestry
systems, mosaic landscapes where forest patches are too small to be considered as forest
for statistical purposes, as well as agriculture tree plantations like palm oil, olive trees and
orchards (fruit and nuts trees). In spite of their diversity, these systems share the common
characteristic of trees being closely linked to agriculture and food production activities.
“Trees outside forests” are more difficult and costly to characterize, as they do not give way to
accurate and harmonized statistics and as they are in some cases exceptionally dynamic and
are evolving rapidly. This category includes areas characterized in FRA as “other land with
tree cover” (see Box 3). Only 84 countries, representing 51 percent of the global forest area
reported on tree cover in agricultural and other landscapes in the FRA 2015 (FAO, 2015),
mainly because of lack of data. Some 284 million ha globally are reported in the FRA 2015
(FAO, 2015) as “other lands with tree cover”, of which 75 percent (214 million ha) are in the
tropics. This area has increased by 0.52 percent per year from 1990 to 2015 (FAO, 2015;
Sloan and Sayer, 2015).
In tropical Asia and subhumid Africa, vast areas considered as agriculture have substantial
tree cover (Sloan and Sayer, 2015). The growth of such systems can coincide with ongoing
deforestation. For instance, El Salvador reported net forest loss for the period 1990–2015,
resulting from deforestation of dense forest, while not accounting as forest the growth of trees
in agropastoral mosaics that results, in fact, in a net gain according to satellite observation
(Sloan and Sayer, 2015).

33
 Agroforestry systems
“Agroforestry is a collective name for land-use systems and technologies where woody
perennials (trees, shrubs, palms, bamboos, etc.) are deliberately used on the same land-
management units as agricultural crops and/or animals, in some form of spatial
arrangement or temporal sequence. In agroforestry systems there are both ecological and
economical interactions between the different components” (Lundgren and Raintree,
1982). Agroforestry systems range from scattered Faidherbia albida trees in Sahelian
millet fields to the high-density multistoried home gardens of the humid tropics, such as
the rubber gardens of Indonesia (Rahman et al., 2016), and from systems in which trees
play a predominantly service role (e.g. windbreaks) to those in which they provide the
main commercial product (e.g. intercropping with plantation crops).
Agroforestry and tree-based agricultural systems provide a wide array of benefits for local
communities and the environment. These include the provision of shade in parklands and
agricultural landscapes, important for shade-tolerant agricultural crops, especially vegetable
crops. For instance, under optimal soil and climate conditions, cocoa grown under tree shade
can produce significant yields for 60–100 years, instead of less than 20 years for cocoa
grown without shade (Ruf and Schroth 2004; Obiri et al., 2007, 2011). Agroforestry can also
provide: improved soil fertility resulting in increased crop yields, fodder for livestock, fuelwood,
and improved household resilience through the provision of additional products for sale or
home consumption (Rahman et al., 2016). Some communities, such as the Bribri of Costa
Rica, plant or maintain fruit trees in their agricultural landscape to attract wild animals for
hunting (Sylvester and Segura, 2016).
Agroforestry systems can be classified according to their structure, i.e. the spatial and
temporal arrangements between tree and non-tree components. Three broad classes of
agroforestry systems can be distinguished (Nair, 1993; Vira et al., 2015):
 agrisilvicultural systems, combining agricultural crops and trees or shrubs;
 silvopastoral systems, combining trees and pasture for grazing livestock;
 agrosilvopastoral systems, combining crops, pastures and trees.

There are no reliable statistics on agroforestry systems at the global level, but Zomer et al.
(2009, 2014, 2016) made a first attempt to quantify the place of trees in agricultural
landscapes using available remote sensing datasets. They showed that, at the global level,
40 percent of agricultural land had more than 10 percent of tree cover.
Mosaic landscapes with trees
In addition to agroforestry, forests often constitute patches inside small- and medium-size
farms. They also provide food for auto-consumption and for the local markets, to complement
agricultural production, especially when food crops are grown under the canopy of the forest.
Forest fragments in diverse landscapes also support local livelihoods, both directly and
indirectly through the provision of diverse ecosystem services, including pollination and pest
control services (Ricketts, 2004; Rickets et al., 2008; Holzschuch et al., 2010). Fragmentation
may affect the health of the forest and induce biodiversity loss, increase of invasive species
or pests and reduced water quality (Bogaert et al., 2011). Fragmentation and lower
connectivity of forest patches also affect the ability of pollinators, pest predators, water and
nutrients to move across a landscape (Vira et al., 2015).
Agricultural tree crop plantations
Agricultural tree crops (such as palm oil, coffee, cocoa or olive tree plantations, as well as
orchards) provide food directly, most of which is often sold, providing income and
employment. They share, especially when of large dimensions, many of the characteristics of
plantation forests and their contribution to other ecosystem services depends both on their
size and the way they are managed. Small and/or mixed orchards are close to or part of
agroforestry systems.

34
FAOSTAT11 provides statistical data for those tree plantations that are considered as
agricultural crops. For instance, palm oil plantations were reported to cover almost 19 million
ha in 2014 at the global level, while cocoa, coffee and olive trees covered around 10 million
ha each.

1.3 Forest-dependent people

Evaluating the number of “forest-dependent people” is challenging and has given way to very
diverse estimates for two major reasons: first, uncertainty of data (Chao, 2012) and second
the ambiguity of the concept itself.
Although it is possible to refer to any people who rely on forest products for their livelihood as
being to some extent “forest-dependent”, this generic concept obscures fundamental
distinctions between different types of relationships. Byron and Arnold (1997) have presented
a fundamental critique of the use of the term “forest dependence”, arguing that it is more
useful to present a typology of different types of users. They make a crucial distinction
between those who rely on forest use and have no alternative, and those who use forest
products or engage in economic activities involving forests, but do so as a matter of choice.
Fisher et al. (1997) propose distinguishing three types of forest-dependent people:
(a) People who live in and around natural forests, or on the forest frontier, often living as
hunter–gatherers or shifting cultivators, and who are heavily dependent on forest
resources for their livelihoods primarily, but not always, on a subsistence basis. Shifting
cultivation is a major contributor to their food security. People in this category are often
indigenous peoples or people from minority ethnic groups. They are, thus, usually outside
both the political and economic mainstream.
(b) People who live in proximity to forests, are usually involved in agricultural practices either
within or outside the forest, and regularly use forest products (timber, fuelwood, bush
foods, medicinal plants, etc.) partly for their own subsistence purposes and partly for
income generation. For those more involved in agriculture, dietary supplements from
forests are often of critical importance to FSN.
(c) People engaged in such commercial activities as hunting, collecting minerals or forest
industries such as forest management and logging. Such people may be part of a mixed
subsistence and cash economy. These people depend on forest mainly as a source of
cash income. Howver, it is important to note that this type of people–forest interaction can
exist even in a highly monetized context: for example, small rural communities in highly
industrialized countries such as Australia can be almost totally dependent on wages from
commercial logging.
The assumption is that forest dependence type (a) is found most commonly within primary
forests systems, forest dependence type (b) in both primary and secondary forests, as well as
in some agroforestry systems, while forest dependence type (c) is predominantly found within
some secondary and plantation forests, which are more intensively managed. Communities in
remote areas may have fewer opportunities to find off-village employment and fewer
resources to purchase foods (Narain et al., 2008). They thus may show higher forest
dependence of types (a) or (b). For instance, in the more remote areas in Pando (Bolivia),
forest income may represent up to 64 percent of total household income, against 12 percent
in Acre (Brazil), a region better connected to cities and markets, infrastructures and services,
with more off-village job opportunities (Duchelle et al., 2014).

11
See http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data (accessed March 2017).

35
 Aside from economic dependence on forests, people may also be socially or culturally
dependent on the forest, regardless of which of the above-mentioned groups they belong to.
It may be for religious reasons, or for recreational reasons (Glück, 2000). Spiritual or religious
values of forest have also contributed to protect forests through religious rules (Stara et al.,
2016). Further, for many people around the world, forests have important recreational and/or
aesthetic values. Forests are also providing health-related treatments and may contribute to
mental health status (Gibson et al., 1979). Especially for indigenous peoples, forests typically
play an important role not only in their livelihoods, but are also in their cultures, traditions,
religions, spiritual beliefs and practices (e.g. Widmark, 2009).
Various attempts to quantify the number of forest-dependent people have been made,
although relying on different methodologies and definitions of what forest dependence
actually means. As such, various estimates have placed the number of people considered
forest-dependent at between 250 million (Pimentel et al., 1997), 500 million (Lynch and
Talbott, 1995), “over one billion” (WCFSD, 1999; Agrawal et al., 2013) to 1.6 billion (Chao,
2012). This latter figure includes indigenous peoples, rural communities, smallholder farmers
and employees of forest-based enterprises (see Table 1).
In terms of direct forest income, the pantropical Poverty and Environment Network (PEN),12
covering 58 sites across the world, showed the importance of the income derived from
forests, calculating that on average over one-fifth (22.2 percent) of rural income is derived
from forest and environmental resources, often equivalent to, or even outstripping, direct
income from agriculture (Angelsen et al., 2014). This shows how the contributions of forests
and agriculture to FSN and livelihood security can be complementary.
Importantly, all these figures rely on estimations of dependence mainly for food or income.
They do not reflect the fact that most agricultural activities depend to some extent on
ecosystems services provided by forests. Nor do they account for the people, often remote,
that depend on forests, for instance for water management (quality, protection against floods).

Table 1 Forest peoples’ number by type of dependence

Estimated
Type of forest dependence
population
Indigenous peoples who depend primarily on natural (usually closed
canopy) forests for their livelihoods (hunting, gathering, shifting 200 million
cultivation)
Rural people who live in or at the margin of natural forests or
woodlands, who rely on the forest as a safety net or for supplemental 350 million
income
Smallholder farmers who grow farm trees or manage remnant forests 500 million–1 billion
for subsistence and income
Artisans or employees in formal or informal forest-based enterprises 45 million
Estimated total 1.095–1.745 billion
Source: Chao (2012).

12
The PEN is a collaborative effort led by the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). Launched
in 2004, PEN is the largest and most comprehensive global analysis of tropical forests and poverty. It
involves more than 50 research partners, covers the major tropical forested regions in Africa, Asia and
Latin America, and analyses data gathered from more than 8 000 households in 25 developing countries
(http://www.cifor.org/pen).

36
1.4 Forests, trees and FSN: a conceptual framework
Starting from the notion of ecosystem services, this section aims to show the links between
forests and trees and FSN in its multiple dimensions, in order to better understand the
contributions that sustainable forestry can make to sustainable food systems and FSN.

1.4.1 Ecosystem services

The term “ecosystem services” is borrowed from biodiversity conservation science, and can
be defined in multiple ways, which illustrates the complexity of the concept (Danley and
Widmark, 2016). For the purpose of this report, ecosystem services can broadly be defined
as the structures and functional attributes of ecosystems that result in the provisioning of
goods and services that contribute to human well-being (Daily, 1997; Boyd and Banzhaf,
2007).
Ecosystems services are all linked to human well-being either directly or indirectly (MA,
2005). Ecosystem services can be classified into those provided directly and those obtained
indirectly. Direct services from forests and trees are represented by the provisioning of a wide
range of products (wood and NWFPs) collected for food, feed, energy, construction and other
uses. Indirect services are largely biophysical environmental processes that support the
production of food in the long term, including access to clean water and nutrients, and
enhanced quality of life (MA, 2005).
Ecosystem services are divided by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) into four
groups: regulatory, supporting, provisioning and cultural ecosystem services, as shown in
Figure 3.
Regulatory services represent those ecosystem functions that provide environments
conducive to human well-being and that ensure protection against natural disasters. They are
realized over a global scale encompassing substantial marine and terrestrial ecosystems.
Such services include clean air supply, groundwater purification, protection against runoff and
erosion, and the global mobility of pollinators (both wind and animal pollinators).
Supporting services are the crucial functions of soil and the atmospheric stabilization that
enable the production of crops and livestock. Such supporting services include
photosynthesis, precipitation and the bioavailability of soil nutrients for plant growth. Long-
term processes of soil formation and cycling of nutrients mediated by soil organisms as well
as atmospheric interactions of nitrogen and phosphorous deposition also fall under this
category.
Provisioning services, sometimes called “ecosystem goods”, include the directly available
food, medicines, building material and fuel that can be harvested from marine and terrestrial
ecosystems.
Cultural ecosystem services are described as the intangible values that society derives from
the environment.

37
 Figure 3 Concept pyramid of ecosystem services

Regulating
Climate, water, air quality,
runoff erosion, natural hazards,
pollination, etc.

Supporting
Nutrient cycling, water
cycling, soil formation,
photosynthesis,
etc.
Culture Provisioning
Existence values, Food, freshwater, fibre,
ethical values, biomass, fuel,
recreation, ecotourism, etc. natural medicines, etc.

Source: adapted from conceptdraw.com based on the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

(MA, 2005).

1.4.2 Linking ecosystem services provided by forest and trees to

FSN
The World Food Summit provided an extensive understanding of food security: “Food security
exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and
nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy
life” (World Food Summit, 1996). This widely accepted definition points to four dimensions of
food security:
- Food availability: The availability of sufficient quantities of food of appropriate quality,
supplied through domestic production or imports.
- Food access: Access by individuals to adequate resources (entitlements) for
acquiring appropriate foods for a nutritious diet.
- Utilization: Utilization of food through adequate diet, clean water, sanitation and
health care to reach a state of nutritional well-being where all physiological needs are
met.
- Stability: To be food secure, a population, household or individual must have access
to adequate food at all times.
Building upon the MA (2005) and the International Union of Forest Research
Organization’s (IUFRO) assessment (Vira et al., 2015), Figure 4 shows how the economic,
social and environmental roles of forests and trees can contribute to and support FSN in its
four dimensions.

38
Figure 4 Forest functions and their links to FSN

39
 Figure 4 shows the different channels (provision of food; provision of energy, especially for
cooking; income generation and employment; and provision of ecosystems services for
agricultural production) through which forests and trees can contribute, directly or indirectly, in
the short, medium or long term, to FSN in its four dimensions. Forests and trees also
contribute to human health and well-being, including through the provision of medicinal
plants. The relative importance of these contributions varies across the types of forests or
tree systems considered, and also depends on the way they are managed.
On the right of Figure 4, the three portions of circle indicate that these contributions impact
differently the FSN of the various categories of forest-dependent people identified in section
1.3 (people living in or near forests, as well as people engaged in forest-related activities all
over the world). They also represent the different scales, from local and landscape, national
and regional, to global, that should be considered in forest governance mechanisms (Vira et
al., 2015).

1.4.3 Sustainable forestry for FSN

For the purpose of this report, forestry is considered in a very broad sense, as encompassing
all decisions related to forest and tree management (including three broad types of decisions:
those related to the presence or absence of trees in a certain area, to the types of forests and
trees, to the way they are managed), and applying to any type of system or landscape that
includes trees.
The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA, 2008) recognizes “that sustainable forest
management (SFM), as a dynamic and evolving concept, is intended to maintain and
enhance the economic, social and environmental values of all types of forests, for the benefit
of present and future generations”. It aims to restore and reverse the effects of deforestation
and degradation and provides multiple benefits for people and society (FAO, 2011a).
SFM is rooted in two main premises: first, that ecosystems have the potential to renew
themselves, and second that economic activities and social perceptions or values that define
human interaction with the environment are choices that can be changed or modified to
ensure the long-term productivity and health of the ecosystem (MacDicken et al., 2015). It
encompasses all forests, both natural and planted, in all geographic regions and climatic
zones, managed for conservation, production or multiple purposes, to provide a range of
forest ecosystem goods and services at the local, national, regional and global levels (Brandt
et al., 2016). This is in line with the five strategic goals on biodiversity conservation of the
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) 13 and with Sustainable Development Goal #15 – “to
manage natural resource assets sustainably” of which forests are a key component (Reed et
al., 2015).
As such, sustainable forestry is an essential part of sustainable food systems, which are
defined as “food systems that ensure FSN for all in such a way that the economic, social and
environmental bases to generate FSN of future generations are not compromised” (HLPE,
2014a).

1.5 Concluding remarks

This opening chapter has provided an introduction to some basic forestry definitions,
concepts and approaches. It provides a typology of forests and trees that will be used
throughout the report to facilitate analysis of specific situations. It also clarifies the notion of
forest-dependent people. It finally proposes a conceptual framework of the relationships
among forests, trees and FSN that organizes the reflection in the report.

13
See https://www.cbd.int/

40
The contributions of forests and trees to FSN, further developed in Chapter 2, are to be
considered taking into account the following parameters:
 Their importance varies across the types of forests or tree systems considered, and
according to the way they are managed.
 Their effects can be medium or long term.
 Their geographical impact depends on the type of contribution, and obviously on the
size of forests.
 They also contribute to resilience at landscape, community and household levels.
Those parameters are key to understand how changes in the management of forests and
trees (size, place, type, practices) can impact their contributions to FSN and the role that
governance can play to improve them.
Chapter 2 now takes on the discussion and provides an in-depth analysis of the channels
through which forests and trees affect, and are linked to, FSN.

41
42
2 CONTRIBUTIONS OF FORESTS AND TREES
TO FSN
This chapter presents more detailed insights on the various contributions of forests and trees
to FSN in its four dimensions.
It is important to underline here the gaps in data and their uncertainties, as many forest
products, including food but also fuelwood, are, in large part, either auto-consumed or traded
informally. As a consequence, their contribution to food availability and to adequate nutrition,
as well as to access to food through the income they generate, are often underestimated.
Since statistics are generally calculated on an annual basis, seasonal variations are masked,
and this impedes the ability to highlight the critical contribution that forests and trees often
provide to the stability of livelihoods, to access to food and good nutrition. Also, the lack of
disaggregated figures, both at local level as well as by gender, prevents the formation of a
complete picture of their social effects, in particular on the FSN of the most vulnerable.
Finally, as ecosystem services are usually not ascribed with an economic value, their
contribution is both underestimated and undervalued.
The chapter is structured as follows. The first section describes the importance of forest- and
tree-derived foods. The second section recalls the importance of woodfuel particularly for
cooking in developing countries. The third section attempts to quantify the importance of
forestry as an economic activity and details the role of forests in providing employment and
income, thus improving food access. The fourth section highlights the importance of the
ecosystem services that forests and trees provide to agriculture. The chapter concludes with
a synthesis of the links with the four dimensions of FSN and a descriptive matrix summarizing
the relationship between forest types and FSN dimensions.

2.1 Direct provision of food

Evidence reviewed in Jamnadass et al. (2015) shows the variety of forest foods that are
consumed on a regular or occasional basis. These foods are particularly important for forest-
dependent people living in or near forests, including indigenous peoples, who depend on
them for an important part of their diet, often most of it. They provide essential nutrients, often
lacking in poor diets that are mainly based on staple foods. Forest foods are an important
source of income through trade in local, regional or even global markets. Finally, they also
play a key role in periods when food is scarce, during the “hungry season” (Powell et al.,
2015).
Hunting and gathering of forest foods still provide an important contribution to FSN and to the
cultural identity14 of many forest-dependent communities, including indigenous peoples, not
only in the tropics but also in boreal forests of North America (Canada and Alaska) and
northern Europe (Sweden, Finland, Norway and parts of the Russian Federation). Indigenous
peoples are often highly attached to their traditional forest food resources (Kuhnlein et al.,
2009).

2.1.1 Contribution to dietary diversity and quality

Animal- and plant-based forest foods have been estimated to represent 0.6 percent of global
food energy supply (FAO, 2014a). However, this global figure, which needs to be considered
with caution, does not give an adequate picture of the contribution of forest foods to FSN.
Firstly, it is probably an underestimate, due to the lack of available data.
Second, such a global figure underestimates in particular the contribution of nutrient-rich wild
forest foods to dietary quality and diversity (Vinceti et al., 2008; Powell et al., 2013a, 2015).
For example, despite low to moderate contribution to energy intake, wild foods are considered
to represent 36 percent of total vitamin A and 20 percent of iron in the diet in a study from
Gabon (Blaney et al., 2009); 31 percent of retinol activity equivalents (vitamin A) and 19
percent of iron in the diet in a study from the United Republic of Tanzania (Powell et al.,

14
Forests and forests products (e.g. copal) can also play a significant role in the community health systems
and spiritual/religious practices of the Maya and other indigenous peoples.

43
 2013b); 42 percent of calcium, 17 percent of vitamin A and 13 percent of iron in a traditional
swidden agricultural community in the Philippines (Schlegel and Guthrie, 1973). In forests and
tree-based systems, particular nutrients such as vitamins can often be made available all year
round since different species in the landscape have different fruiting phenologies (Vira et al.,
2015). Edible leaves of wild African trees, such as baobab (Adansonia digitata) and tamarind
(Tamarindus indica) are important sources of protein, iron and calcium (Kehlenbeck and
Jamnadass, 2014). Consumption of only 10 to 20 g of baobab fruit pulp (or a glass of its juice)
can cover a child’s daily vitamin C requirement (Vira et al., 2015).
Finally, this global figure hides the importance of wild foods for specific populations, in
particular for forest-dependent communities. Even if the proportion of supply of food from the
forests is small at the national level, it can vary drastically from one site to another and can be
fundamental for specific communities (Food Secure Canada, 2008; Powell et al., 2015).
Rowland et al. (2016) investigated the dietary contributions of wild forest foods for smallholder
households in forested landscapes in 24 tropical countries, using household level data
derived from the PEN project; the study estimated the contributions of micronutrient-rich
forest foods to meeting dietary recommendations. They found high variability in forest food
use and created a forest food use site typology made of four types to characterize the
variation: forest food-dependent, limited forest food use, forest food supplementation and
specialist forest food consumer sites. The results suggest that, in some sites where large
quantities of forest foods are consumed, their contribution towards dietary adequacy is
substantial.
Studies pairing satellite-based information on tree cover and dietary intake information yield
emerging evidence of a positive link between tree cover and dietary diversity, as well as fruit
and vegetable consumption (Ickowitz et al., 2014, 2016; Johnson et al., 2013, Powell et al.,
2011). Ickowitz et al. (2016) also found that, in Indonesia, swidden agriculture or agroforestry
systems were associated with higher quality diets. Parrotta et al. (2015) provide a summary of
the potential impacts of different livelihood strategies and their associated land-use patterns
on FSN.
In parts of West Africa, shea butter (made from the fruits of Vitellaria paradoxa) is one of the
main sources of cooking fat. Baobab and other tree leaves are some of the most commonly
used vegetables and the nutrient-rich fermented seeds of the Parkia tree are an almost
ubiquitous seasoning in stew (Rowland et al., 2015).
In southern Chile and Argentina, the Pehuenche people in pre-modern times used the seed of
Araucaria araucana as their main staple food. It remains part of their diet despite the fact that
they now have access to urban markets to buy food. Furthermore, members of the
Pehuenche communities have been introducing the seeds into national markets and are
utilizing them for ethnic cuisine in local restaurants for consumption by tourists visiting the
Araucarias de Alto Malleco and Panguipulli Model Forests in Chile (Conforti and Lupano,
2011).
At least 138 crops had been domesticated and used by native Amazonians in various types of
production systems at the time of European conquest, including 83 crops native from
Amazonia and immediately adjacent areas in northern South America, and 55 exotic ones,
i.e, from other regions, such as northeastern Brazil, the Caribbean and Mesoamerica
(Clement, 1999). Since then, products that were once restricted to forests such as peanuts
(Arachis hypogea), various species of beans (Phaseolus spp.), cassava (Manihot esculenta),
pineapple (Ananas comosus), cashew (Anacardium occidentale), maracujá (Passiflora
edulis), achiote (Bixa orellana) and peach-palm (Bactris gasipaes) have all become
domesticated and traded commodities.

NWFPs are also still collected in developed countries. For instance, in Sweden and
Finland, even if the collection of plant-based NWFPs has decreased over the years, there
is still a large share of individuals that state in different surveys that they pick berries and
mushrooms, typically found in forestlands. In Sweden, around two-thirds of the population
pick berries and mushrooms. The younger generations are underrepresented among the
berry- and mushroom-picking population (Fredman et al., 2013). The shares of berries and
mushrooms left in the forest are still very high (see figures for the Russian Federation in
Box 6). In general, researchers estimate that 95 percent of berries are left unharvested. In

44
Finland, estimates show that no more than 10 percent of berry species and 1–3 percent of
mushrooms are collected each year (Salo et al., 2014).
Domestication of indigenous trees could bring large production gains (Vira et al., 2015).
More efforts and research are needed to fully realize their potential in terms of production,
marketing and trade (Jamnadass et al., 2011; Gyau et al., 2012). These efforts could build
upon the traditional knowledge systems of indigenous forest-dependent communities.

Box 6 Assortment, potential and actual procurement of forest food products,

Russian Federation
Annual biological
Actual production*
Forest food products resources (million
(million tonnes)
tonnes)
Wild berries (cowberry, cranberry,
8.8 0.14
bilberry, etc.)
Wild mushrooms 4.3 0.43
Nuts (total) 3.5 **
Siberian pine nut (as part of total) 0.991 0.0346
Wild fruits 1.632 **
Honey 0.35 0.06
Wild animal meat (hunting) ** **
* Does not include subsistence production. ** Data unavailable.
Source: A. Petrov (personal communication)

2.1.2 Provision of animal-sourced foods

Animal-sourced foods (ASFs) are important for FSN not only as source of protein but also
of highly bio-available15 micronutrients. In regions with high rates of micronutrient
deficiency, modest amounts of ASFs can result in substantial improvements in nutritional
status and cognitive development in children (Neumann et al., 2007).
The nutritional potential of bushmeat, fish and insects as important forms of ASFs should
not be underestimated.
Bushmeat
Meat from wild terrestrial or semi-terrestrial animals, termed “bushmeat‟, is a significant
source of animal protein extracted from the forest. Nasi et al. (2011) estimated that nearly 4.6
million tonnes of bushmeat are extracted annually from the Congo Basin and 1.3 million
tonnes from Amazonia.
In tropical areas, where livestock production is limited due to tsetse fly and other
environmental constraints, bushmeat is a particularly important source of micronutrients and
may be the main source of animal protein available, cheaper than any source of domesticated
meat. For example, data from Madagascar have shown that the loss of access to wild
bushmeat would result in a 29 percent increase in the number of children with anaemia
(Golden et al., 2011).
At the same time, this resource needs to be managed in a sustainable way (van Vliet et al.,
2015). The depletion of wildlife is intimately linked to the food and livelihood security of
numerous inhabitants of the Congo Basin, as many forest-dwelling or forest-dependent
people have few alternative sources of protein and income. Estimates of per capita
consumption of illegally harvested bushmeat (driven largely by low dietary standards and
poverty) from the Congo Basin, for instance, range from 180 g/person/day in Gabon, to 89
g/person/day in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and 26 g/person/day in Cameroon (Fa
et al., 2002). Similar information is only available from case studies in a few specific locations
in the United Republic of Tanzania. In five districts in Western Serengeti National Park, per

15
Indicating they are easily absorbed and utilized by the body.

45
 capita bushmeat consumption ranged from 3 to 89 g/person/day, depending on the distance
from the national park boundary (Ceppi and Nielsen, 2014).
Primary forests are not the only source of bushmeat. Secondary forests and plantation
forests, as well as fallows and agroforestry systems, which attract wild animals, also play a
critical function in the FSN of millions of rural families, particularly in Amazonia and Central
America (Smith, 2005; Parry et al., 2009).
Hunting and food gathering in boreal forests among diverse indigenous peoples include
important food and nutrient sources such as: elk/moose, mountain goats, Dall sheep, musk
ox, beaver, ducks and other fowl species; freshwater and migratory fish such as wild salmon,
trout, pike and char; and plant-derived vitamin C sources that include many types of berries,
angelica, and the inner bark of pine trees (Kuhnlein and Turner, 1991; Baer, 1996; Vors and
Boyce, 2009; Kivinen et al., 2010; Roturier and Roué, 2009; Nuttall et al., 2009).
While in North America (Canada and Alaska) the Inuit and other indigenous peoples hunt wild
reindeer (Ford, 2009), in Northern Europe16 (more specifically in Sweden, Finland, 17 Norway
and parts of the Russian Federation) the Sami actively herd reindeer. The reindeer is also an
important cultural symbol for those indigenous peoples (Vors and Boyce, 2009).
In Canadian Inuit societies, the combination of hunting and fishing is of importance not only
economically but also culturally. In a survey, about 40 percent of the respondents stated that
about half of their meat and fish were sourced from the wild (Ford, 2009).
Apart from being vital for survival, hunting plays an important role in societies, fulfilling a
social function through its historical, religious, symbolic and culture-bearing values
(Konijnendijk, 2010; Fischer et al., 2013). Hunting is also important economically, providing
livelihood and income from recreational hunting; socially (hunting being an important cultural
and social determinant); and environmentally when management of game is integrated in
land use management (for instance in policies both regarding population control and
regeneration of forests for conservation or commercial purposes) (Fischer et al., 2013).

Box 7 The role of bushmeat in the livelihoods and food security of rural people
in Equatorial Guinea
Bushmeat is an important resource for rural people in the Congo Basin, as either a regular
source of protein or income, or a safety net in times of hardship. However, it is important to
understand the extent to which rural communities depend on bushmeat, and would therefore
suffer with its demise. An evaluation of wildlife use and dependence within the context of other
available livelihoods and foods was carried out in continental Equatorial Guinea, a country
currently undergoing a dramatic economic boom. Household surveys and hunter interviews
over 12 months in three villages with differing combinations of market and forest access
enabled comparisons between communities, households and individuals.
At community-level, bushmeat was an important source of income (with nearly 90 percent of
men hunting), while wild plants were more important for consumption, particularly where
limited market access increased prices of imported alternatives. Within a village, the poorest
and most vulnerable households gained a significantly greater proportion of income and
production from bushmeat, largely because of a lack of other livelihoods, and this increased in
the lean season. Poorer households were least food-secure (having higher “food insecurity”
scores) and least livelihood-secure (having fewer sources of income). At individual-level,
hunting income benefited men more, and was less likely to flow back to the household.
Median monthly income from hunting was, however, less than half that of preferred paid
employment.
Bushmeat contributed significantly to income in all communities studied, suggesting it is an
important component of the rural economy across the country. Forest and particularly market
access were important factors in determining livelihood strategies. Critically, bushmeat was
important for the poorest households, particularly as a safety net at vulnerable times. To
ensure the sustainability of bushmeat hunting, policy needs to account for the true value of
forests to people, control trade, manage forest access and off-takes, and also promote
alternative livelihoods for potential commercial hunters.
Source: adapted from Kümpel (2006).

16
Reindeer husbandry in Greenland is very limited and most reindeer are wild and hunted accordingly.
17
In Finland, reindeer husbandry is not an exclusive right of the Sami, but rather based on a long tradition of
carrying out reindeer husbandry.

46
Fish and aquaculture
Inland fisheries are often overlooked as an important source of low-cost protein and income,
particularly where alternatives are scarce (HLPE, 2014b). In many tropical forests, wild fish
represent the main source of animal protein in the diet. In the Amazon Basin, fish
consumption by local people is in many cases the most important source of protein. For
instance, in the Rio Negro region of the Brazilian Amazon, da Silva and Begossi (2009) found
that fish caught in flooded forests and in forest rivers accounted for 70 percent of animal
protein in the diet, excluding other aquatic species such as turtles. In the Congo Basin, fish is
often the major source of protein for both urban and rural dwellers, as well as an important
source of income (Oishi and Hagiwara, 2015). McIntyre et al. (2016) estimate that freshwater
fisheries provide enough animal protein to cover the dietary needs of 158 million people.
However, catches increase with both river discharge and human populations and it is
estimated that 90 percent of global freshwater catch comes from river basins with above-
average stress levels. In addition, fish richness and catches are positively correlated, so that
fishing pressure is most intense in rivers where the potential impacts on biodiversity are
greatest (McIntyre et al., 2016).
Insects
The global importance of insects as a source of protein is difficult to evaluate, as statistics are
mostly restricted to specific studies. However, insects have recently regained attention (FAO,
2013a) as a potential cheap and available source of nutrients, protein and fat, and to a lesser
degree carbohydrates. Some species provide vitamins and minerals (Dunkel, 1996; FAO,
2013a; Schabel, 2010). Many forests and tree-based systems are managed to enhance
edible insect supply (Johnson, 2010). For example, sago palms (Metroxylon spp.) are
managed in forest-agriculture landscape mosaics in Papua New Guinea and eastern
Indonesia to support grub production (Mercer, 1997).

2.1.3 Provision of feed

Forests and trees are also a source of feed for livestock.
Fodder trees have been traditionally used by farmers and pastoralists on extensive systems
but fodder shrubs such as Calliandra and Leucaena are now being used in more intensive
systems, increasing production and reducing the need for external feeds (Franzel et al.,
2003). Agroforestry systems for fodder are also profitable in developed countries. For
example, in the northern agricultural region of western Australia, using tagasaste
(Chamaecytisus proliferus) has increased returns to farmers whose cattle formerly grazed
only on grasses and legumes (Abadi et al., 2003). In the western Mediterranean, silvopastoral
systems (called in Spanish dehesa or Portuguese montado) are characterized by the
presence of trees, mainly oak (Quercus spp.) and annual grasses (Diaz-Ambrona, 1998), with
pigs eating acorns, and cows, sheep or goats grazing on over five million ha (about 30
percent of forest land) in the Iberian Peninsula (Joffre et al., 1999).
Semi-domesticated reindeer grazing in the forest are the main source of meat in some
indigenous peoples’ communities in several boreal areas,18 but also as a source of material
for handicrafts (derived from antlers and hides). In winter, semi-domesticated and wild
reindeer rely for feeding on a number of species of lichen called “reindeer lichen” (including
Cladina stellaris) growing in boreal forests.

2.1.4 Traded forest food products

A recent report on biodiversity for human health highlights the importance of the trade of
wild/forest foods in local and regional markets (WHO/CBD, 2015), providing those not only to
populations living in or near forests (types (a) and (b) of forest-dependent people, see section
1.3) but also to a much wider population.
Bushmeat markets in some regions are highly developed and can be physically sited
hundreds of miles from the hunting source. There is such a great difference between the
supply and the national and regional demand for bushmeat that supply crises for bushmeat

18
In Norway, Finland, Sweden, the Russian Federation, Greenland, Alaska, Mongolia, China and Canada.

47
 have developed in some areas such as Central and West Africa (Bennett et al., 2007; Nasi et
al., 2008). As a result of such crises, scarcity of bushmeat has in turn led to price increases,
and bushmeat can in such situations become more expensive than conventional protein
sources (eggs, beef, chicken, etc.). Recent studies of the consumption of bushmeat
comparing rural and urban children from Kisangani in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
(van Vliet et al., 2015) show evidence that despite the tendency towards urbanization and
increased livelihood opportunities in urban areas, wildlife harvest remains a critical
component of dietary quality and diversity in both rural and urban areas. Bushmeat
consumption in urban areas is rapidly increasing and appears to be income-elastic,
suggesting that bushmeat is socially and culturally viewed as a “high status food”. Nasi et
al. (2011) estimated that in central Africa 289 000 tonnes per year (or around 6 percent of the
total bushmeat extracted in the Congo Basin) were consumed primarily in urban areas,
whereas almost all the bushmeat extracted from the Amazon Basin was consumed in rural
areas. In Colombia, bushmeat consumption was found to be lower in urban than in rural
areas, and in urban areas wealthier families consumed bushmeat more frequently than did
the poorer ones (van Vliet et al., 2015).
Numerous species are being introduced to local, regional, national and international markets
(Lescano, 1996). Although the scarcity and fragility of some useful species have been
overcome in part through domestication, those that continue to be utilized primarily from wild
sources are subject to overharvesting, which can threaten their production in the long term
and the income they provide.
Together with the increasing commercialization of berries, a market has developed in Sweden
and Finland. Today, most of the production of berries is exported. Berries from northern
Sweden are in especially high demand due to the midnight sun and its effect on berries,
increasing anti-oxidant properties (for the medical industry), as well as pigmentation (for the
cosmetic industry) (Salo et al., 2014).

2.1.5 A critical role to buffer food scarcity

For some communities, forest foods play an important function as a safety net during times of
agricultural crop failure or seasonal downturns in agricultural production (Blackie et al., 2014;
Keller et al., 2006; Shackleton and Shackleton, 2004; Sunderland et al., 2013; Karjalainen et
al., 2010).
In Sahel ecosystems with dry spells lasting up to seven months a year, trees and shrubs are
vital sources of food to supplement cereal staples (Nyong et al., 2007) as well as fodder for
livestock (Franzel et al., 2014). For example, in the Niger 83 percent of informants reported
increased reliance on wild foods during drought (Humphry et al., 1993) and in the United
Republic of Tanzania a greater portion of the diet came from wild foods during periods of food
insecurity (Powell et al., 2013b). A recent review reported that for studies on the role of wild
foods for diet and nutrition that included an assessment across seasons, six out of the nine
cases reviewed showed higher dependence on wild foods in the lean or food-insecure
season, while the other three showed higher wild food use in periods of higher availability
(Powell et al., 2015). A greater diversity of fruit tree species in agroforestry systems has been
shown to help fill seasonal gaps in fruit supply (Jamnadass et al., 2011; Vinceti et al., 2013).
A recent study based on the PEN survey conducted in forest-dependent or forest-adjacent
communities found that an average of 4 percent of household income was derived from the
sale of wild foods, despite the fact that 77 percent of households reported having sold wild
foods. The study did, however, also report that poorer households and households
experiencing shocks derived higher income shares from wild foods. As with many
comparative studies, the authors of this study also caution that there is a large amount of
variation across sites (Hickey et al., 2016).

2.2 Provision of bio-energy, especially for cooking

At the global level, wood energy contributes 6 percent of the total primary energy supply
(FAO, 2014a). Wood energy is often the only source of energy available and accessible in
rural areas and is especially important for poor people in developing countries, particularly in
Africa where it accounts for 27 percent of the total primary energy supply (FAO, 2014a).

48
Cooking is essential to food safety and to the bio-availability of micronutrients. Opportunities
associated with woodfuel19 use are evident (it is available in rural areas, cheap, renewable,
can be sustainable and produces fewer emissions compared with fossil fuel), but challenges
persist (lack of secure tenure, unsustainable harvesting practices, health impacts).
Therefore, a major contribution of forests to FSN and health is the provision of woodfuel to
cook and sterilize water. At the global level, 2.4 billion people, one-third of the global
population, relies on woodfuel for cooking, particularly in Africa where two-thirds of the
households are reported to use woodfuel as their main fuel for cooking. Moreover, 764 million
people are reported to use woodfuel for boiling and sterilizing water, of which 644 million in
Asia (FAO, 2014a).
Yet over-harvesting is reducing the availability of fuelwood. In Central Africa, fuelwood
extraction is an important component of human impacts on forests. This is for instance well
observed around Kinshasa, the capital of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where 90
percent of the 10 million inhabitants rely largely on charcoal for cooking (Gond et al., 2016).
In rural areas of developing countries, where people have no alternative energy sources, the
lack of fuelwood can reduce the quality and variety of food consumed. Fuelwood availability
can also impact cooking and dietary decisions, with scarcity leading to omission of meals, or
exclusion of foods that require longer cooking times (Brouwer et al., 1996,1997; Wan et al.,
2011). Remedial efforts like village woodlot planting near communities have been successful
in combating the increased effort associated with dwindling fuelwood supplies (Kumar et al.,
2015).
Table 2 Proportion of households cooking with woodfuel in 2011, by region and
fuel type

Share of households where Estimated population using

wood is the main fuel used for woodfuel for cooking (x1000)
Region* cooking (%)
Fuelwood Charcoal Woodfuel Fuelwood Charcoal Woodfuel
Africa 53 10 63 555 098 104 535 659 632
Asia and
37 1 38 1 571 223 59 034 1 630 257
Oceania
Europe 3 - 3 19 001 156 19 157
North America – – – – – –
Latin America
15 1 16 89 569 5 383 94 952
and Caribbean
World 32 2 34 2 234 890 169 108 2 403 998
*This table, as well as all the other tables with regional breakdowns in this report, being built mainly
on data from the SOFO and the FRA reproduces the regional breakdowns used in those documents,
which are different from FAO regions.
Sources: FAO (2014a), based on national census data and the results of WHO and UNICEF
surveys.
The impacts of woodfuel on human health are complex. Access to woodfuel ensures proper
cooking of foods and sterilization of water, and thus prevention of food-borne illness.
However, the links between the use of woodfuel and respiratory illness (which impacts
nutritional status) in women and children are well established (Kiraz et al., 2003; Wan et
al., 2011; WHO, 2015). According to WHO,20 3 billion people cook and heat their homes using
solid fuels (i.e. fuelwood, charcoal, coal, dung, crop wastes) on open fires or traditional
stoves. FAO (2014a), using data from WHO, estimates that, globally, 2.5 million people die

19
“Fuelwood” designates “wood in the rough (from trunks, and branches of trees) to be used as fuel for
purposes such as cooking, heating or power production”. “Charcoal” designates “wood carbonized by
partial combustion or application of heat from an external source to be used as a fuel or for other uses”.
“Woodfuel” designates the total of “fuelwood” plus “charcoal”. See
http://www.fao.org/waicent/faostat/forestry/products.htm , accessed May 2017).
20
See WHO estimates on the impacts of indoor air pollution (http://www.who.int/indoorair/en/).

49
 each year due to the effects of long-term smoke inhalation as a result of using woodfuel for
cooking and heating, representing 12 percent of child mortality (under five years) and 3
percent of adult deaths. Almost all of these reported deaths occurred in Africa, Asia and
Oceania. The introduction of more efficient cooking stoves can make a significant
improvement in the amount of fuel required and on health effects. Culturally sensitive efforts
to introduce improved cooking stoves have been successful. A set of examples and principles
for successful project design are provided in Soini and Coe (2014), as are numerous
interventions in both indoor cooking technology and forest restoration for fuelwood
accomplished through the Safe Access to Fuel and Energy (SAFE) programme of the World
Food Programme (WFP).21 With the support of NGO partners, WFP’s SAFE programme
provided 540 000 internally displaced women and their families in Darfur with an alternative to
collecting firewood and safer methods of preparing meals, contributing to improved
livelihoods and reduction of forest depletion.
Because women are the primary cooks in most cultures, the burden of illness affects them
much more significantly than men. One systematic review and meta-analysis from 2011,
reporting on over 2 700 studies, showed much higher risks of acute respiratory infection in
children and chronic bronchitis in women with exposure to solid biomass fuel smoke (Po et
al., 2011).
Fuelwood collection is physically demanding, leading to illness from excessive workloads in
contexts where wood sources are distant from the home (FAO, 2014a; MA, 2005; Wan et al.,
2011). It can also be very time-consuming and affect time available for agricultural or other
forest-related income-generating activities, as well as for cooking and caring for children or in
achieving full educational potential (Sunderland et al., 2013; Wan et al., 2011). The time
needed to gather fuelwood, chiefly by women and children, tends to increase, because of
scarcity and increasing distance to the resource. However, very little research has examined
the drivers of woodfuel demand or the possible adaptations to reduced availability. A review
of the literature conducted by FAO suggests that the average time needed to collect one
cubic metre of fuelwood varies from about 106 hours in Latin America and the Caribbean to
139 hours in Asia and Oceania (FAO, 2014a). Similarly, responsibility for fuelwood collection
varies significantly among regions: women are responsible for 55.8 percent of fuelwood
collection in Latin America, 39 percent in Asia and 77 percent in Africa (Sunderland et al.,
2014, using household level data from the PEN). Even in countries with moderate fuelwood
scarcity, women have been reported to walk up to 10 km to gather wood (Wan et al., 2011).

2.3 Contributions to economy and livelihoods

Forests and trees do not only contribute to FSN through direct provision of food or energy for
cooking, but also indirectly through income generation from sale of wood and NWFPs in local,
national and international markets, and from forest-related employment.

2.3.1 Income generation

It is estimated that global industrial roundwood production is around 1.8 billion m 3/year
(FAOSTAT), the majority coming from forests in the northern hemisphere. The United States
of America, China, the Russian Federation, Canada and Brazil are among the world´s largest
wood producers. Wood is used for building, furniture manufacture, tools and crafts, pulp and
paper, as well as charcoal and pellets for biomass energy.
According to FAO (2014a), the global gross value added (GVA) in the formal forest sector
represented, in 2011, USD606 billion, i.e. 0.9 percent of the world GDP.

21
See http://www.wfp.org/climate-change/initiatives/safe

50
 Table 3 Gross value added in the forest sector and contribution to GDP in 2011,
by region and subsector

Gross value added in the forest Forest sector

sector (in billion USD at 2011 GVA in total
Region prices) GDP (%)
Forest SWP PP Total Total
Africa 11 3 3 17 0.9
Asia and Oceania 84 66 111 260 1.1
Europe 35 61 68 164 0.9
North America 26 29 61 115 0.7
Latin America and
14 12 24 49 0.9
Caribbean
World 169 170 266 606 0.9
Forest = Forestry and logging activities; SWP = sawnwood and wood-based panel production;
PP = pulp and paper production.
Source: FAO (2014a), based on UN national account main aggregates database (available at
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/snaama) supplemented with national income account data from country
sources.

These global and regional figures hide a huge diversity across countries. The highest
proportionate contribution of forestry to GDP is in Liberia (15 percent of total GDP) (FAO,
2014a). At a national level, the GVA forest sector is not correlated with forest area but
depends mainly on the types of forests and management systems present in the country. For
instance, on 19 million ha of forests in Cameroon, 16 million ha are reported as production
forests and the GVA in the formal forest sector amounts to USD695 million. Conversely, in
the Democratic Republic of the Congo, only 12 million out of 153 million ha of forests are
reported as production forests and the GVA in the formal forest sector amounts to USD85
million (FAO, 2014a, 2015a). In Europe, the GVA produced in the formal forest sector is
highest in Italy (USD15 billion), France (USD14.5 billion), Sweden (USD13.8 billion) and the
Russian Federation (USD13 billion) (FAO, 2014a). Such figures generally underestimate the
real contribution of forests to national income as they do not include the value added on wood
products that is accounted for in the industrial sector or, for instance, in tourism.
Specific studies show that values of NWFPs can be important in some countries as shown,
for instance, in Box 8 on hunting in boreal areas. In the Maya forest in the north of
Guatemala, Belize and Southern Mexico, the forests provide many NWFPs that are
commonly used by the local people, but also reach export markets. Some of them are edible
and others have other uses such as: xáte (Chamaedorea ernestii-agustii), which is an
ornamental palm for export; bayal (Desmoncus orthocantos), a fibre for handicrafts; guano
(Sabal sp.), a palm leaf for roofing or local consumption; ramón tree seeds (Brosimum
alicastrum) for biscuits and bread that is moving from local consumption to rural and town
markets; allspice (Pimenta dioica) as a spice; latex (Manilkara zapota) for chewing gum; and
copal resin (Protium copal) for perfumes and cosmetics (Godoy, 2010). In Canada in 2015,
maple products represented 53 528 tonnes and USD279.9 million (Sorrenti, 2017). The
Sudan, Nigeria and Chad produce 95 percent of the gum arabic exported to the world market.
The Sudan is the main producer with 76 000 tonnes in 2013 (data from Central Bank of
Sudan in Sorrenti, 2017).
Moreover, official figures only cover the formal forest sector. FAO (2014a) estimates that,
when including the contribution of the informal sector, GVA from the forest sector increases to
almost USD730 billion, of which USD88 billion from NWFPs (animal- and plant-based,
including medicinal plants) and USD33 billion from informal production for construction and
fuel (see Table 4).

51
 Table 4 Estimated income from the informal forest sector in 2011 (in billion USD
at 2011 prices)

Woodfuel and
Region NWFPs Total
construction
Africa 14.4 5.3 19.7
Asia and
9.9 67.4 77.3
Oceania
Europe – 8 8
North America - 3.6 3.6
Latin America
9 3.6 12.6
and Caribbean
World 33.3 88 121.3
Source: FAO (2014a), based on various sources.

Most non-provisioning environmental services are not accounted for in global economic
figures. According to FAO (2014a) USD2.4 billion of payments for environmental services
(PES) can be added to the GVA from forests. This represents a very small part of the
environmental services that are provided. Only recently has the UN Statistical Office
determined the need to include ecosystem services in the System of National Accounts, but
this inclusion is still voluntary and how this approach may be applied more broadly in both
developed and developing countries should still be assessed.

Box 8 Value of wild meat and hunting in the boreal area

In the boreal area, aside from its practice by indigenous peoples, hunting has mostly
recreational and/or social functions. Hunting has historically been an important provider of
food, but also helped in developing symbolic and social capital. At the present time, the
symbolic and social values of hunting are still important in many societies (e.g. locals being
part of stalking moose in Sweden during hunting seasons) (Fischer et al., 2013). In some
parts of the boreal zone, hunting is mostly a leisure activity among locals and hunting tourism
is limited, although currently growing. In other parts, hunting tourism is a mature market,
contributing extensively to local societies’ economies (Fischer et al., 2013; MacKay and
Campbell, 2004; Willebrand, 2009).
Several attempts have been made to value the economic benefits of hunting in the boreal
area. For instance, in Norway, hunting of moose is valued at USD70 to USD90 million
(Storaas et al., 2001). In Sweden, the moose is considered to be the most valuable game
(Mattsson, 1990). In Finland, Norway and Sweden, non-market valuation studies show that
the value of hunting can be divided into one recreation-based part, and one meat-based part
(Fredman et al., 2008). However, other game species such as fowl, deer or bear are not
included in these studies.
Hence, an overall view of the economic value of hunting and hunting’s contribution to the
livelihood of societies in the boreal area is difficult to grasp. One of the reasons is the
challenge of valuing complex goods with both market and non-market values, as hunting is
strongly rooted in social and cultural functions as well as being a recreational activity. Some
of the meat, but probably only a small portion, ends up in the marketplace. Further, there are
extensive statistics on harvest per year, but little on how much is sold on the market and how
much is individually consumed.

2.3.2 Employment
The formal and informal forestry sector is an important source of employment, particularly for
some groups. According to FAO (2014a), in 2011 the formal forest sector employed some
13.2 million people around the world representing 0.4 percent of the total workforce. It does
not include, for instance, work in furniture manufacture, most of which is wood-based, nor
work in building that uses wood.

52
Official statistics on employment are often weak, largely due to the importance of informal and
part-time activities that play a crucial role in the livelihoods of people in rural areas especially
in developing countries (Whiteman et al., 2015). According to FAO (2014a), the three
countries with the highest formal and informal employment in the forestry sector are Brazil
(7.6 million), China (6 million) and India (4 million). Forest-related activities in Zambia
represent more than one million jobs in the formal and informal sectors (total population is
about 13 million), supporting over 80 percent of rural Zambian households that are heavily
dependent upon the use of natural resources to supplement or sustain their livelihoods
(Turpie et al., 2015). Agrawal et al. (2013) mention that an estimated 40–60 million people are
employed in the informal forestry sector, while FAO (2014a) suggests that at least 41 million
people are engaged full time in fuelwood and charcoal production.
Box 1 highlights the gaps in data employment in NWFP gathering and utilization. However,
comparable estimates at the global level exist for certain forest products such as fuelwood
and charcoal (see Table 6).

Table 5 Total employment in the formal forestry sector in 2011, by region and
subsector

Employment in the forest sector Share of the total workforce

Region (in millions) employed in the sector (%)

Forest SWP PP Total Forest SWP PP Total

Africa 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2
Asia and
1.8 2.6 2.5 6.9 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3
Oceania
Europe 0.8 1.5 0.9 3.2 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.9
North America 0.2 0.4 0.5 1.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.6
Latin Am. and
0.4 0.6 0.4 1.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.5
Caribbean
World 3.5 5.4 4.3 13.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.4
Forest = forestry and logging activities; SWP = sawnwood and wood-based panel production;
PP = pulp and paper production.
Source: FAO (2014a), based on International Labour Organization database on labour statistics.
(www.ilo.org/ilostat), supplemented with employment statistics from country sources.

Table 6 Estimated number of people engaged in fuelwood and charcoal

production in 2011

Gross number of people (in millions) Proportion

Part time of total
Region Full time Total population
number Allocation of number (%)
Number
time (%)
Africa 19 176 8 195 19
Asia and
11 631 4 642 15
Oceania
Latin
America and 10 35 9 45 8
Caribbean
World 41 841 5 882 13
Source: FAO (2014a), based on data from FAOSTAT and International Labour Organization
database on labour statistics (www.ilo.org/ilostat).

53
 Forestry continues to be one of the most hazardous sectors in most countries for
occupational safety and health (ILO, 1998). Personal protective equipment may not be
available. Most workers (including children and migrant workers) are informally engaged and
wages are low. Working hours are long, and the work locations are often in far off locations,
making it difficult for labour inspection to check compliance with labour standards. These
conditions could have negative implications on the income, health and other socio-economic
conditions for FSN.
Production of tree crops for major global markets provides income and employment locally
and internationally and involves a number of smallholders. It is estimated that, at the global
level, smallholders produce over 67 percent of the coffee and 90 percent of the cocoa. 22. For
instance, it is also estimated that the cultivation, processing, trading, transportation and
marketing of coffee provide employment for 15 million people in Ethiopia and over 5 million in
Uganda (Vira et al., 2015).
Forests also provide employment for migrant workers, creating potential tensions with local
communities. A well-documented example is berry picking in Sweden and Finland. Thousands
of migrating workers, typically from Eastern Europe or East Asia, come to pick berries for
approximately three months. Problems occur each year between berry companies and local
people who consider the berries their property. Also, in recent years there were some cases of
labour exploitation, but that has decreased since the adoption of regulations to protect migrant
berry pickers (Vanaspong, 2012). It is hard work but most workers earn a decent amount of
money to support themselves over the next year. Together with local sellers, migrating workers
help ensure berries on the marketplace all over the world (Salo et al., 2014).

2.3.3 Gender roles

Social processes are key to forest-dependent livelihood, resource management decisions,
governance processes, and to the distribution of the benefits, with strongly differentiated
gender roles and impact. A challenge to fully document this at national, regional and global
levels, is the limited availability of gender disaggregated data, except for some employment
data. This underscores the importance of developing gender research in forests, trees and
agroforestry systems, an issue already raised about fisheries and aquaculture and about
water (HLPE, 2014b, 2015).
The data collected for the FAO SOFO (2014a), suggest that women play a lower role in the
formal forest sector and in informal activities that generate income and are largely confined to
the collection of forest products for subsistence use.
According to FAO (2014a), women represented only 24 percent of total employment in the
formal forestry sector in 2011, whereas, according to ILOSTAT,23 they represent in 2017
around 40 percent of the total labour force (15 years-old and more) when considering all
economic sectors.
Concerning informal activities, FAO (2014a) analysed the gender dimension of only woodfuel
collection, due to a lack of data for other activities. Out of the 41 million people engaged full
time in fuelwood and charcoal production, only 4 million are women. Out of the 841 million
people that devote part of their time to collecting fuelwood or producing charcoal, 706 million
are women (FAO, 2014a). Thus, women appear to bear the greatest responsibility for
fuelwood collection. In some areas with fuelwood scarcity, women have been reported to
carry up to 70 kg of wood (Wan et al., 2011).
Very few gender-disaggregated data on consumption of forest products are available at the
global level. Although women tend to commercialize forest products less than men, the sale
of forest products can be an essential source of cash income for women, who lack many of
the opportunities commonly available to men (Sunderland et al., 2014). In West Africa, over
four million women earn about 80 percent of their income from the collection, processing and
marketing of oil-rich nuts from shea trees that occur naturally in the forests (UNEP, 2014).

22
See International Coffee Organization (www.ico.org) and International Cacao Organization (www.icco.org)
(accessed 15 January 2015).
23
See https://www.ilo.org/ilostat/ (accessed March 2017).

54
The different roles of women and men in forest management and the different benefits they
receive from forests are documented at the local level. A recent study (Sunderland et al.,
2014), using household level data from the PEN project, shows that both men and women
collect forest products, whether for subsistence or for market. This study shows regional
differences in the respective contributions of men and women to the value of household
income from unprocessed forest products such as timber, poles, fruits and mushrooms. In
Latin America, for example, men bring about seven times more income from unprocessed
forest products to the household than women. The opposite trend occurs in Africa, whereas
men and women contribute more equally in Asian sites. In Latin America, the data show that
men are very involved in the commercial production of non-timber forest products such as
Brazil nuts. In Africa, women play a stronger subsistence role, while in Southeast Asia men
and women tend to share more responsibilities in forest management and agricultural
production. In Africa, where the markets tend to be more subsistence-oriented, women tend
to dominate. In Latin America, which has more specialized markets, men dominate. In Asia, it
is a combination of the two.

2.4 Provision of ecosystem services, essential for

agricultural production
Forests and trees deliver numerous non-provisioning ecosystem services that are essential to
agriculture (Richardson, 2010; Foli et al., 2014) and to food production as a whole, including
inland fisheries, as well as to human health and well-being. They host the major part of
terrestrial biodiversity and play a critical role for climate change mitigation at global level as
well as for adaptation to climate change at farm, landscape and regional scales (see
Chapter 3). This section focuses on some of the ecosystem services that provide direct
support to agricultural activities: water regulation, soil protection and nutrient circulation, pest
control and pollination. It also examines some trade-offs for the provision of these services.

2.4.1 Water regulation

Forests and trees play a considerable role in the hydrological cycle at local and global levels,
by regulating surface and groundwater flows while contributing to water quality (Miura et al.,
2015; Ellison et al., 2017). They contribute to rainfall, locally and remotely, through
evapotranspiration.24 They facilitate infiltration and can improve groundwater recharge.
Forests and trees can also offer important protection against flooding, which may threaten
water supply, both in terms of quantity and quality as well as infrastructure, dwellings and
other buildings, including shelter for displaced communities. A study conducted in 56 African,
Asian and Latin American countries shows that a 10 percent increase in deforestation would
result in a 4–28 percent increase in flood frequency (Bradshaw et al., 2007),
A review of scientific papers on the Amazon Basin and its relationships to climate and rainfall
in Brazil (Nobre, 2014) concluded that deforestation in this region influences water shortages
in other parts of the country. The removal of vegetation cover interrupts the soil moisture flux
to the atmosphere. The decrease in the number of trees in the biome prevents the flow of
moisture between the north and the south. A “flying river” 25 greater than the Amazon River
and responsible for freshwater supply in Southeast Latin America is seriously threatened by
deforestation (HLPE, 2015). This suggests that forest loss to expand pasture and soybean
cultivation could have negative feedback effects on the productivity of the expanded crops
and pasture grasses, so that the net effect of deforestation may be a decline in output
(Oliveira et al., 2013). A recent review (Ellison et al., 2017) highlights the considerable role
that forests play at national, regional and continental levels in determining rainfall and water
circulation.
An adequate water supply is clearly essential to FSN in all its dimensions. The regulation and
provision of an adequate volume of water of appropriate quality for human and animal

24
Evapotranspiration, a critical element of the water cycle, is the overlap/sum of evaporation and plant
transpiration from the earth's surface (land and ocean) to the atmosphere.
25
The term “flying rivers” (Marengo et al., 2004) refers to low-level jets of water (water vapour flux) driven by
the winds that move from the Amazon region towards the east of the Andes and, barred by the mountain
range, reach the southeast and southern regions of Brazil and the north of Argentina.

55
 consumption are also strongly associated with forest cover in watersheds, hillsides and
streambanks. FAO (2013b) estimates that at least one-third of the world’s largest cities draw
a significant proportion of their drinking water from forested areas. The water supply benefits
from the maintenance of forest cover depend on the overall water balance of the system that
depends on water availability and on evapotranspiration (FAO, 2013b). Water quality is
strongly enhanced by forest protection of streams and vegetative coverage of hillsides subject
to erosion. Thus, forest coverage also plays a critical role in ensuring stability and quality of
water provision to lakes and rivers on which inland fisheries depend (Carignan and
Steedman, 2011).
Forest protection of watershed services may be enhanced if native species are retained or
restored, but agroforestry systems and plantation forests may provide similar water
production functions if they ensure sufficient forest cover to assure groundwater recharge and
spring flow and do not themselves exceed water demands (Gerten et al., 2004). Evidently,
there can be trade-offs between forest cover and agricultural land use in watersheds that can
only be resolved within each specific context.
According to the FRA (FAO, 2015), almost 40 percent of forests in the United Nations
Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) region, home to 20 percent of the world’s
population, are designated for soil and water protection – and a significant 54 million ha of
them are managed and protected exclusively for water purification.
Indirectly, forests also contribute to the provisioning of fish resources, both for the local
communities and for the local, regional and national markets. Sport fishing is often an
important contributor to income generation. In the United States of America there are over
150 000 miles (241 499 km) of streams and 2.5 million acres (approximately 1 million ha) of
lakes found in the national forests and grasslands.26 But the impacts that this and other
income-generating activities have on subsistence fishing and FSN should be considered.
Importantly, most water regulation also has a remote effect, at landscape, watershed or even
regional levels. However, much of it is not fully understood, nor appropriately taken into
account and valued.

2.4.2 Soil formation, protection and nutrient circulation

Along with their role in water regulation, forests and trees also contribute to soil formation,
protection and to nutrient circulation. Forests and trees contribute directly to organic matter
accumulation on the soil (Kimble et al., 2007) that is directly exploited by swidden agriculture
and various forms of agroforestry. Organic matter can also, particularly in dry areas, be
transported by humans and animals, including as green manure and manure of domestic
animals fed in the forest, from forest to fields. Nutrients circulate, above and underground,
from trees to crops.
Forests and trees, through their root systems, also contribute to nutrient circulation and water
cycling, bringing deeper water resources and nutrients closer to the surface for other crops
(Bradshaw et al., 2007). Annual or seasonal capture of plant nutrients in the root zones of
trees and in the subsoils can be particularly important for bio-availability of plant nutrients in
tree-based crop production systems (Jose, 2009). Cropping systems with nitrogen-fixing tree
species enhance nitrogen availability to crops, increasing yield (see Box 9). In Malawi, more
than 180 000 farmers, encouraged to plant fertilizer trees, obtained increased maize yields, a
greater period of food security per year as well as an improved dietary diversity (CIE, 2011).
Green forest leaves can be used as a source of compost to enhance productivity of
agricultural crops, such as for instance in the areca nut plantations in India (Sinu et al., 2012).
Forests and trees protect the soil from erosion by water and wind, through above ground
protection as well as their root system. This action is particularly important in sloping areas and
where precipitation is intense and violent, such as in Mediterranean climates or where wind
erosion is important (see Box 10). For instance, windbreaks of two rows of Casuarina sp. used
in West Nubariah, a reclaimed desert area in Egypt, to protect wheat and barley fields,
increased the yields by 10 to 15 percent (Khalil, 1983).

26 USDA Forest Service: http://www.fs.fed.us/fishing/ (accessed May 2017).

56
 Box 9 Faidherbia albida agroforestry/agrosilvipastoral system
Faidherbia albida is a tree commonly found in agroforestry systems throughout sub-Saharan
Africa, in a range of soils and ecosystems, from deserts to wet tropical climates.
Faidherbia albida is a nitrogen-fixing tree that contributes to increase significantly, from 6 to
more than 100 percent, the yield of agricutural crops grown at proximity. It has a “reversed
leaf phenology”, meaning it is dormant and sheds its leaves during the early rainy season
and leafs out when the dry season begins. This feature makes it compatible with foodcrop
production, because it does not compete for light, nutrients and water. Like many other
agroforestry species, Faidherbia tends to increase carbon stocks both above ground and in
the soil and improves soil water retention and nutrient status. Faidherbia trees are currently
found on less than 2 percent of Africa’s maize area and less than 13 percent of the area
grown with sorghum and millet. With maize being the most widely cropped staple in Africa,
the potential for adopting this agroforestry system is tremendous.
Further research is needed to better explore the potential benefits Faidherbia can provide,
including for crop productivity in different agro-ecosystems – wood and non-wood products
for household use or sale on the market.
Source: FAO (2010b).

Box 10 Environmental services from forests to agriculture: the role of forest

shelterbelts in the Russian Federation
The role of forest shelterbelts in Russian agriculture has a long history, dating back to the
nineteenth century, when it became clear that this would help to secure the grain harvest
against losses due to drought and natural disasters. Forests are thus perceived to represent
a crucial environmental service to food productivity. The development of field protective
forest plantations received particular political attention during the Soviet period. From 1949 to
1953, forest belts were established on a total of 5.2 million ha. Later, the established forest
belts were maintained by forest authorities in order to protect agricultural lands. At present,
however, forest belts have lost their perception of ecological protective value. Federal and
regional authorities have not continued to maintain the forest belts for economic reasons.
According to Petrov and Lobovikov (2012), currently 126 million ha, or 75 percent of all
agricultural land, are exposed to different types of erosion. One of the main causes of
erosion is the shortage of forests in the main agricultural regions. Over recent years, about 5
million ha of protective stand have been planted, of which no more than 3 million ha have
been preserved. Petrov and Lobovikov (2012) estimate that, in order to ensure the forestry
protection of agricultural land, the Russian Federation should plant 11 million ha of various
types of protective forest belts and stands
Source: Petrov and Lobovikov (2012).

2.4.3 Agroecosystem stability, biodiversity protection and

downstream resources
Forests contain 80 percent of terrestrial biomass and provide habitat for over half of the
world’s known terrestrial plant and animal species (Shvidenko et al., 2005; Aerts and Honnay,
2011). Not all forests are equal in terms of the biodiversity they support and primary forests
are irreplaceable for biodiversity conservation. For instance, Barlow et al. (2007) found that 25
percent of species in the Brazilian Amazon, and almost 60 percent of tree and liana genera,
were unique to primary forests. Biodiversity in North American primary forests often includes
a wide range of lichens, fungi, insects, bats, spiders and other organisms found only in
structurally complex mature forests (Spies, 2003).
At the global scale, forests are also stores of genetic diversity and conserve endemic species.
Products derived from genetic resources (including agricultural crops, pharmaceuticals, etc.)
have been estimated to be worth USD500 billion per year (ten Kate and Laird, 1999; TEEB,
2010). Although many point at hotspots such as the Amazon and the forests of central Africa
as important stocks of biodiversity of global relevance, the critical presence of diverse species

57
 and ecosystem variability across all biomes and scales are important as contributors to food
availability.
Trees provide shelter and habitat for a number of species that provide beneficial services at
various spatial scales, including pollinators and natural enemies to pests. The biodiversity
maintained by forests has been shown to mitigate the effects of disease and crop damage, for
example through the regulation of pest species and disease vectors (Foli et al., 2014), then
contributing to food production and FSN. This particularly benefits low-input smallholder
systems that apply little to no agro-chemicals (Bale et al., 2008; Karp et al., 2013). Such
processes occur at a local scale but they inevitably have an effect at landscape and regional
scales, affecting adjacent agricultural systems. Examples of forest- and tree-based
ecosystem services provided at different scales are shown by Foli et al. (2014) and Reed et
al. (2017).

2.4.4 Pollination
Besides water provision, pollination is certainly the most widely studied ecosystem service,
largely due to its tangible significance for global food production. Klein et al. (2007) found that
fruit, vegetable or seed production from 87 of the world’s leading food crops depends upon
animal pollination, representing 35 percent of global food production. FAO (1995) provided a
detailed list of 1 330 tropical plant species, showing that, for approximately 70 percent of
tropical crops, at least one variety is improved by animal pollination. A recent study (Garibaldi
et al., 2016) has shown that on small farms that provide food for the most vulnerable
populations globally, pollinator diversity can significantly increase pollination intensity. They
found that yield gaps could be closed by a median of 24 percent for fields of less than 2 ha.
Bees and especially the honey bee (Apis melifera) are the backbone of agricultural
pollination. Managed honey bees provide pollination services in intensive systems. Globally,
as commercial agriculture has trended toward large-scale land conversion and monoculture
production systems, there has been an associated loss of essential pollinating species (Klein
et al., 2014). As such, managed honey bee populations are declining, as a result of colony
collapse disorder (CCD) and disease die-offs, as well as excessive pesticide application.
There is increasing consideration for native wild bees that have been found to enhance fruit
set in crops complementing the role of the honey bee (Garibaldi et al., 2011, 2013).
Moreover, with die-offs in honey-bee colonies, native species of bees can make up the
pollination deficit where forests provide the natural habitat needed to maintain diverse
assemblages of wild species as well as additional pollen sources (IPBES, 2016).
Forests provide a habitat for wild pollinators that are crucial to sustain crop yield in animal
pollinated crops (Aizen et al., 2009). Forests also provide a habitat for diverse assemblages
of pollinating species needed to ensure crop outputs and guarantee food security (Garibaldi
et al., 2011). Some studies indicate that forest strips can serve as corridors to restore animal-
mediated pollination in fragmented tropical forest landscapes (Kormann et al., 2016). There is
also evidence suggesting that the abundance of coffee pollinators is directly proportional to
the proximity to forest fragments (Ricketts, 2004). Freitas et al. (2014) highlighted the
importance of forest fragments on cashew productivity in Northeast Brazil, through their
provision of pollinator habitat. Rapeseed productivity is likewise enhanced by edge effects of
forestlands in France, which provide habitat for native bee species (Bailey et al., 2014).
Studies have demonstrated a negative relationship between the distance from forests and
pollination rates, bee abundance and richness both in tropical ecosystems (De Marco and
Coelho, 2004; Blanche et al., 2006; Chacoff and Aizen, 2006) and temperate ecosystems
(Hawkins, 1965; Taki et al., 2007; Arthur et al., 2010; Watson et al., 2011).
Garibaldi et al. (2016) note that flower-visitor assemblages are increasingly threatened,
posing risks of yield declines, and propose various measures to increase yields by increasing
flower-visitor density through the furnishing of diverse flower and nesting resources, for which
trees and forest patches can play a considerable role.

58
2.4.5 Synergies and trade-offs
There are synergies but also trade-offs between ecosystem services and even when they are
correlated they can have different spatial distributions (Locatelli et al., 2013). Proximate tree
cover can be beneficial to crop yield in agroforestry systems but can also have unintended
negative outcomes for crop yield. This includes the harbouring of pests within adjacent forests
or acting as incubation zones for plant diseases that can be transferred to growing plants.
Trees also directly compete for water, nutrient and light resources, especially where their
niches overlap with food crops. Such interactions have been established in agroforestry
systems in which tree roots often cover a larger soil surface area and are more capable of
accessing water and nutrients than the associated crop species. Responding to these factors
that may depress agricultural output, Zhang et al. (2007) coined the term “ecosystem
disservices”. This is why, when developing agroforestry systems, it is essential to understand
which tree options work in which agro-pedo-climatological, livelihood and institutional
contexts, to enable the full realization of agroforestry’s important potential for improved
agricultural yields and food security (FTA, 2016).
Wildlife animal populations encroach onto human-claimed land, including (but not limited to)
agricultural production areas (Distefano, 2005). For instance, in Kenyan rangelands,
problems associated with wildlife include crop damage, competition for water and grazing,
livestock predation, increased risk of some livestock diseases, inconveniences when
protecting crops and even human fatalities (Makindi et al., 2014). Human wildlife conflicts are
exacerbated by many factors such as: human and livestock population growth; land-use
transformation and wildlife habitat loss, degradation and fragmentation; or climate change
(Distefano, 2005).
Examples from Europe include wild boars, deer and badgers, as well as large predators such
as bears, wolves or lynx that attack sheep and even cattle (FAO, 2009a). In France, the total
amount paid to the farmers in compensation for the damage caused by wild boars and deer,
negligible in 1970, increased to between EUR 20 and 25 million per year between 2000 and
2007, wild boars representing 83 percent of the total and deer 17 percent (Carnis and
Facchini, 2012). In the United Kingdom, badgers have been known to spread bovine
tuberculosis to dairy cattle. In the Amazon Province of Tambopata in Peru, the principal wild
herbivore responsible for damage is the Brazilian tapir (Distefano, 2005).
Yet there is sufficient evidence to show that the benefits of forests and trees to agriculture are
far superior to their purported costs. A recent review (Reed et al., 2017) suggests that
incorporating trees in an appropriate manner can maintain or increase crop yields and also
bring additional benefits in terms of additional income sources and increased resilience. It
highlights the need for larger-scale and longer-term research to better understand and
improve the contribution of forests and trees within a broader landscape and food production
system approach. The design of agroforestry systems takes explicitly into account the shade
and root architecture of the companion species so as to limit competition. Additionally, the
forests at the borders with cattle and agricultural fields can be managed, controlling density of
trees, wind circulation, etc.

2.5 Forests, health and well-being

Forests, tree-based agricultural systems and forestry impact human health in a diversity of
ways, including provisioning of food, medicinal plants, fuelwood, clean water and income, as
well as mediation of disease transmission and mental health improvements associated with
time spent in nature-based recreation (Arnold et al., 2011; Colfer, 2008; Colfer et al., 2006;
Karjalainen et al., 2010; MA, 2005; WHO/CBD, 2015). Colfer et al. (2006) report on the
relationship between forests and health, including the importance of medicines gathered from
the wild, and the role of culture. Further, forests help mitigate air pollutions and improve air
quality (Nowak et al., 2014).

59
 Several studies have examined forest effects on mental health and stress reduction. Results
indicate that forests not only have a restorative effect on a person’s mind and thus contribute
to recovery from stress-related exhaustion, but also that the participants felt more harmonious
and in a better mood after regularly visiting the forests (Sonntag-Öström et al., 2011). Park et
al. (2010) demonstrate, from field experiments conducted in 24 forests across Japan, the
positive physiological effects of Shinrin-yoku (i.e. taking in the forest atmosphere or forest
bathing). They show that forest environments promote lower concentrations of cortisol, lower
pulse rate, lower blood pressure, greater parasympathetic nerve activity and lower
sympathetic nerve activity than do city environments. Another study concludes that the forest
itself cannot heal a person with an exhaustive disorder, but visiting the forest contributes to a
person’s mental state and attention capacity, improving the condition for rehabilitation
(Sonntag-Öström et al. 2015). Yet another study shows that the well-being of young girls is
enhanced by activities in the forest (Wiens et al., 2016). In sum, forests have three main
health effects on people: short-term recovery, faster physical recovery and long-term overall
improvement of health (Randrup et al., 2005).
Exposure to the natural environment, including forests, has been shown to correlate with
numerous mental health outcomes including reduced depression, anxiety and hostility –
especially if combined with physical activity (Sonntag-Öström et al., 2015). Empirical
evidence suggests that forest environments can improve peoples’ cognitive and emotional
health (Shin et al., 2010). Research shows that urban forests, in comparison with urban build
environments, offer an important contribution to peoples’ recovery from mental fatigue
(Konijnendijk, 2010; Randrup et al., 2005). Other research has shown that the environments
surrounding hospitals and clinics that have a high component of vegetation (trees, gardens)
reduce the post-operation recovery period of patients. Houses or schools with wooded
environments have been shown to influence heart rhythm and lower blood pressure.
On the other hand, forests also act as reservoirs for parasites and diseases that can affect
domestic animals and humans. The majority of emerging and re-emerging human diseases
are zoonotic – they come from animals and are transmitted to humans (HLPE, 2016). Most
emerging zoonoses have a wildlife component, and the study of disease emergence has a
strong focus on wildlife. Drivers of zoonotic disease emergence include land-use change,
encroachment of agriculture on natural ecosystems (see also section 3.4.1), urbanization,
conflict, travel, migration, global trade, trade in wildlife and changing dietary preferences
(IOM/NRC, 2009). The critical linkages between human health, animal health and
ecosystems are encompassed in the concept of “One Health”, which highlights the need for
collaboration across sectors (FAO/OIE/WHO/UN System Influenza
Coordination/UNICEF/World Bank, 2008).

2.6 Contributions to resilience of food systems

Forests and trees can play a crucial role to improve resilience of food systems (Vira et al.,
2015), defined as the capacity to prevent, mitigate or cope with risk, and recover from shocks,
at household, community and landscape level (Gitz and Meybeck, 2012).
At landscape level, forests and trees play an important role in reducing the impacts of climate
variability and weather-related shocks, including floods, droughts, winds and heatwaves.
They can also act as barriers in the propagation of some pests and diseases. As climate
change increases the potential volatility of food supply and markets, developing more resilient
production systems and integrating forests, trees and agriculture at the landscape level are
becoming essential to ensure FSN of the most vulnerable groups (Vira et al., 2015). In
agroforestry systems, trees can contribute to microclimate regulation and thus increase the
productivity and resilience of the food production system (Pramova et al., 2012). In the Sahel,
for instance, trees can facilitate the cultivation of nutritious vegetables and pulses despite the
long dry seasons (Sendzimir et al., 2011)
Moreover, they contribute to a diversification of sources of food and income that can help
buffer economic shocks whatever their origin. These sources of food and income can play a
particularly important role for the most vulnerable groups.

60
Forests and trees play, for the people that have access to them, a major role as a safety net
in lean seasons, or in periods of conflicts, natural disaster or economic crisis, particularly for
the more vulnerable members of a community, providing an additional source of food as well
as an additional source of income and employment, through woodfuel and NWFP collection
and sale, thus improving FSN of forest-dependent households and communities (Angelsen
and Wunder, 2003; Shackleton and Shackleton, 2004; Mulenga et al., 2012). Many people
depend on wildlife resources as a buffer to see them through times of hardship (e.g.
unemployment, illness of relatives, crop failure), or to gain additional income for special needs
(e.g. school fees, festivals, funerals), and this “safety net‟ is often more important for the more
vulnerable members of a community.
The PEN data also showed that lower income classes were proportionally more dependent
on NWFP collection (Angelsen et al., 2014; Wunder et al., 2014). Barriers to access to wildlife
resources mean that in some cases it is the middle-income or wealthier households in a
community that benefit most from hunting, with implications for development policies that
depend on absolute poverty and wealth distribution within the community (van Vliet et al.,
2012).

2.7 Synthesis and conclusions

Based on the studies summarized in this chapter, it is clear that forests provide a range of
benefits important to FSN in different contexts. These benefits are not all well characterized
and quantified, and thus often not fully taken into account. They also benefit different
categories of forest-dependent people (see Chapter 1), generally to a more pronounced
degree among communities that reside within or in close proximity to forests; they can also
have far reaching local, regional and global effects. Indirect benefits of forests at a landscape
scale also affect agricultural productivity and resilience at a much broader, even global scale,
given forests’ ability to sequester carbon and enhance water flow and quality for human
consumption, irrigation and energy. Forests and trees also provide important sources of
income and employment in many countries, as well as fuelwood and charcoal, essential to
food preparation and water sterilization among most rural communities in developing
countries. These benefits depend on the presence, extent and localization of forests and
trees, as well as on the type of forest and the manner in which they are managed. Table 7
summarizes the principal contributions to FSN dimensions of different types of forests and
trees.
As shown above, many of the benefits provided by forests and trees, especially at local scale,
result from delicate balances that are likely to be disturbed by any modification. Changes in
the extent, localization, type of forest, management practices and governance will thus have
an impact on the contribution of forests and trees to FSN (see Chapters 3 and 4).

61
 Table 7 Summary of interactions between forest types and FSN functions
Forest
Availability Access Stability Utilization
types
Important for
Forest fruits, Incomes from supply of clean
mushrooms/leaves (low sustainable use or Essential for global water for cooking
intensity harvesting in protection, and local climate and consumption
native forests ecotourism mitigation and
worldwide) Important for
regulation.
Income transfers recreation and
Primary Bushmeat/wild insects for forest Significant risk- psychological
forests (Asia, Africa, protective reduction health
Amazonia) services (REDD+, mechanism,
Sustainable
Regulating ecosystem PES and food providing food and
gathering of
services essential for security schemes income in times of
fallen branches
sustainable agricultural in protected crisis
for fuelwood
production areas)

Forest foods (fruits,

An excellent
leaves, nuts) as well as
source of
bushmeat (moderate Can be maintained
Income from sustainable
intensity harvesting) by farmers and
timber and fuelwood and
Grazing in woodland NWFPs where communities to charcoal for
pastures for management provide income in regional markets
Secondary times of crisis
domesticated animals systems and and local
forests
(meat, milk) property rights Contribute to consumption
permit access by global and local
Can provide regulating A source of
forest-dependent climate mitigation
ecosystem services medicinal plants
peoples and regulation
essential for
Can also be used
sustainable agricultural
for recreation
production
Timber can be sold
Can provide
by farmers and
Can provide regulating Income from sale fuelwood
communities to
ecosystem services of produce or provide income in Sawmills may
essential for timber,
Plantations times of crisis provide residues
sustainable agricultural employment in
production for fuel for local
forest product Contribute to
energy
industries global and local
production and
climate mitigation
use
and regulation
Tree foods, fruits, nuts,
leaves (intensive
harvesting) May be an
important source of
Also used for hunting food and feed in
animals attracted to seasonal shortage
fruit and crops A good source of
Evidence of the
An excellent source of sustainable
importance for fruit
grazing and fodder for fuelwood
Trees on in periods of low
domesticated animals Income from sale fruit supply Home gardens
farms:
(meat/milk) in of produce are a source of
agroforestry A source of income
silvopastoral systems medicinal plants
in time of crisis
Often provide and cultural pride
regulating ecosystem Modest and well-being
services essential for contributions to
sustainable agricultural global and local
production climate mitigation
and regulation
Increased
crop/agricultural yields.

62
3 FORESTRY TRENDS: CHALLENGES AND
OPPORTUNITIES FOR FSN
This chapter describes the state of forests worldwide and the main trends affecting it,
considering the various types distinguished in Chapter 1. Changes in forest cover, forest
types and uses are driven by the interaction of numerous factors, at local and global levels:
growing demand for food, feed, wood and energy, driven by population and income growth;
and increased importance given to carbon stocks, and to biodiversity, water and soil
protection. Climate change and the policies to strengthen the contribution of forests and trees
to mitigation are also having a growing influence on forest management. All these changes
affect forests and forest management and impact FSN.

3.1 Forests at a glance: global area and main trends

In 2015, 30.6 percent of the world’s land area was covered by forests (FAO, 2015). 44
percent of the global forest area is found in countries classified as tropical, 8 percent as
subtropical, 26 percent as temperate and 22 percent as boreal. Europe (including the Russian
Federation) represents 25 percent of global forest area, followed by South America (21
percent) and North America (16 percent). Figure 5 gives a global idea of this regional
distribution. Three-quarters of all forests are in high- and upper-middle-income countries
(Keenan et al., 2015).

Figure 5 Map of the world’s forests and tree cover

Tree cover density (%)

0 10 100

Source: FAO (http://foris.fao.org/static/data/fra2010/forest2010mapwithleg.jpg)27

At the global level, data available show a continuous, although decelerating, net forest loss,
particularly in the tropics, with some contrasted evolutions between forest types identified in
Chapter 1.

27
This map was published for the FRA 2010 (FAO, 2010c) and relies on older data from different sources
(including Carroll et al., 2009; Hansen et al., 2013; Iremonger and Gerrand, 2011) as well as from
www.fao.org/geonetwork).

63
 3.1.1 Global net forest loss is slowing down
The evolution of the global forest area is a net balance between forest loss and forest gain.
According to FAO (2015), from 1990 to 2015, the global forest area fell by 129 million ha, with
a loss of 195 million ha in tropical forest and a gain of 67 million ha for temperate forest.
Despite relatively high rates of ongoing deforestation, particularly in the tropics, the overall
rate of global forest loss has slowed over the past two decades: the rate of annual net loss of
forest decreased from 7.3 million ha per year (0.18 percent) in the 1990s to 3.3 million ha per
year (0.08 percent) between 2010 and 2015 (FAO, 2015; Keenan et al., 2015). Between 2010
and 2015, the tropical forest area decreased at a rate of 5.5 million ha per year, only 58
percent of the rate in the 1990s, while temperate forest area increased at a rate of 2.2 million
ha per year (Keenan et al., 2015). In Brazil, the net loss rate between 2010 and 2015 was
only 40 percent of the rate experienced in the 1990s, while Indonesia’s net loss rate has also
dropped by two-thirds over the same period (Keenan et al., 2015).

Figure 6 Global forest area (1990–2015)

4128
World total forest area (million ha)

4056

4033

4016

3999

1990 2000 2005 2010 2015

Source: FAO (2015).

Asia and Europe are the only regions where the total forested area has increased over the
period. The positive trends of forest cover in Asia are primarily driven by reforestation
programmes in countries such as China, the Republic of Korea and Viet Nam, which are
primarily comprised of plantation forests characterized by a focus on a small number of tree
species. China has substantially increased its forest area since the early 1990s because of its
important afforestation and reforestation programmes that have benefited from sustained and
substantial allocation of fiscal and other resources by central and local governments
(Antweiler et al., 2012). Forest area in Viet Nam increased from a minimum of 28 percent in
the 1990s to nearly 40 percent in 2013 despite a decrease in primary forest and a continuing
trend of deforestation and forest degradation (FAO, 2016a).
D’Annunzio et al. (2015) conclude that global forest area will continue to decrease over the
next 15 years, although at a lower rate, slowing down from 0.13 percent per year at the
beginning of the century to 0.06 percent per year by 2030. This global trend is the result of a
decrease in the area of natural forests (0.19 per year by 2030) combined with an increase in
planted forests (2 percent per year by 2030). According to their model, forest area will
continue to increase in Asia, Europe and North America and to decrease in Africa and South
America. Future policy measures related to forest management, climate change and land-use
planning have not been integrated in this model, and can have a strong impact on forest area
trajectories. For instance, Arima et al. (2014) showed that the decline in deforestation in the
Brazilian Amazon after 2008 is likely due in large part to political efforts.

64
There is a clear dichotomy between regions where the forest area is stable or increasing and
regions experiencing net forest loss, almost exclusively in the tropics. This dichotomy is
apparently correlated to national wealth. Since 1990, richer countries have experienced forest
gains, while poorer ones experience overall forest loss and many middle-income countries
are transitioning from net loss to net gain (Keenan et al., 2015). However, Sloan and Sayer
(2015) note that other factors are playing a major role, including changes in forest
management and land use. In particular, the expansion of planted forests represents an
important part of the gains in forest area since 1990 in many of the tropical countries
experiencing a more advanced forest transition. Countries with expanding economies in the
global south are rapidly establishing forests in response to market opportunities (Sloan and
Sayer, 2015).
There are also some countries in which natural regeneration of degraded pastures and
agricultural areas has recovered important forest areas. In Costa Rica, a period of important
deforestation between 1960 and 1986 when the forest cover decreased from 59.5 to 40.8
percent of total land area was followed by a period of reforestation and afforestation, when
the forest increased from 40.8 percent in 1986 to 51.4 percent in 2010 (Sanchez, 2015).
Forest degradation
FRA 2015 (FAO, 2015) has provided, for the first time, global figures on partial canopy cover
loss (PCCL), or degradation, defined as the loss of more than 20 percent of tree cover
between 2000 and 2012. The total area of PCCL over this period was 185 million ha,
unevenly spread across climatic domains, with 9 percent of the tropical forest affected (156
million ha), and respectively 2.1 percent and 1.3 percent of subtropical and boreal forests.
According to Van Lierop and Lindquist (2015), the area subject to PCCL in the tropical
domain is 6.5 times that deforested since 1990. With 18 percent of its forest area, Central
America is the region most affected by PCCL. In absolute terms, the largest amounts of
PCCL are identified in South and Southeast Asia with more than 50 million ha affected (FAO,
2015).
Such figures raise concerns. They show the need to take into account not only the extent of
forests but also their state of conservation. First, because degraded forests generally provide
less environmental services than intact forests, and also because degraded forests may be
more prone to deforestation. This may be even accentuated by the fact that several
prominent NGOs, and some of the schemes with the private sector that they have influenced,
recommend to assess forests according to their carbon stock and to orient forest conversion
in priority towards degraded forests (Dinerstein et al., 2014). This may lead to the conversion
of forests that have a reduced canopy cover because of selective logging or shifting
agriculture while retaining important value for conservation and the services they provide to
local populations and that could still be maintained and restored.

3.1.2 Contrasted evolutions across forest types: the “forest

transition”
As shown in Tables 8 and 9, the overall decrease in forest area hides contrasted trends
across forest types, regions and climatic domains. Even with no net loss of forest area, the
composition and structure of forest, and its value in terms of ecosystem services provided,
can change (Keenan et al., 2015). Such changes will profoundly modify forests contributions
to FSN.
Most regions showed a steady decrease in natural forest area during this period, including
“primary” and “secondary” forests (“other naturally regenerated forests” in the FRA
classification), and a sharp increase in “planted forests” (+57.9 percent at the global level, see
Table 8). Africa experienced the greatest decrease in natural forest area (in absolute and
relative terms) and South America the greatest increase in planted forest area.

65
 At the same time, there have been increasing efforts to reforest degraded lands, as well as to
protect natural forest regeneration. Such trends – if they continue – offer the potential of a
forest transition from net forest loss to net gain – a transition that has already occurred in a
number of countries, including middle-income countries (Sloan and Sayer, 2015). The
analysis of Keenan et al. (2015) suggests that, between 1990 and 2015, 13 tropical countries
or territories28 have already passed through this forest transition from net forest loss to net
forest gain.

Table 8 State and trends of the world’s forests and changes from 1990 to 2015
by region
Forest Other naturally Other wooded
Total Primary forests** Planted forests
area* regenerated forests land
(million ha) 1990 2015 (%) 1990 2015 (%) 1990 2015 (%) 1990 2015 (%) 1990 2015 (%)
World 4128 3999 -3.1 1203 1172 -2.6 2313 2163 -6.5 182 287 57.9 978 954 -3
Africa 706 624 -11.6 151 135 -10.7 511 446 -12.7 12 16 39.5 398 367 -8
Asia 568 593 4.4 67 68 0.8 303 304 0.1 75 129 71.0 231 235 2
Europe 994 1015 2.1 246 277 12.7 677 646 -4.5 61 80 31.7 104 100 -3
North and
Central 752 751 -0.2 321 318 -0.9 395 381 -3.5 23 43 85.7 84 89 7
America
Oceania 177 174 -1.9 33 20 -41.3 4 18 318.1 3 4 56.9 7 6 -5
South
931 842 -9.5 384 355 -7.7 422 368 -12.9 8 14 80.1 155 156 1
America
* The trends provided in this table for each forest type cover only those countries that reported data for

this forest type over the whole period. At the global level, 234 countries reported their total forest area,
189 their primary forest area, 184 their area of “other naturally regenerated forests” and 196 their
planted forest area. In particular, figures given for Oceania exclude Australia, which did not provide a
complete time series (except for planted forests).
** Many countries rely on proxies, such as the extent of forest within national parks and conservation
areas, to estimate the extent of primary forests. Reported increases are generally a result of
reclassifications at the national level – such as the designation of new protected or conservation areas –
rather than a real increase (FAO, 2015).
Source: FAO (2015).

Table 9 State and trends of the world’s forests and changes from 1990 to 2015
by climatic domain
Other naturally
Other wooded
Forest area Total Primary forests regenerated Planted forests
land
(million ha) forests
1990 2015 (%) 1990 2015 (%) 1990 2015 (%) 1990 2015 (%) 1990 2015 (%)
Boreal 1219 1224 0.4 451 481 6.7 738 685 -7.2 30 58 91.6 121 121 0
Temperate 618 684 10.8 102 108 5.4 395 406 2.7 99 148 49.8 158 167 6
Sub tropical 325 320 -1.6 47 42 -11.0 127 125 -0.9 19 25 30.7 150 148 -1
Tropical 1966 1770 -9.9 603 541 -10.2 1053 947 -10.1 34 56 67.0 550 517 -6
Note: The trends provided in this table for each forest type cover only those countries that reported
data for this forest type over the whole period.
Source: FAO (2015), Keenan et al. (2015).

28
Burundi, Gambia, Ghana, Rwanda, Bhutan, India, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Philippines, Viet
Nam, Cuba, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico (United States of America).

66
Decrease in primary forests
While some progress has been made in the protection of primary forests at a global scale,
including in the tropics, primary forests are still declining in the tropics, albeit more slowly.
Loss of primary forest in the tropics (62 million ha) and subtropics (6 million ha) mirrors total
forest loss in these biomes (Morales-Hidalgo et al., 2015). This is of particular concern as
primary forests are irreplaceable reserves of tropical biodiversity (Gibson et al., 2011).

Growing importance of planted forests

Planted forests are increasingly important, in terms of surface and even more in terms of
production.
Global planted forest areas have increased between 1990 and 2015 from 4 to 7 percent of
total forest area (i.e. from 182 to 287 million ha), the increase varying by region and climate
domain (FAO, 2015). In 2015, more than half of the planted forest was in the temperate area.
East Asia and Europe have the largest area, followed by North America and Southern and
Southeast Asia, China showing by far the biggest absolute increase with 30.7 million ha
(Payn et al., 2015). The increase in planted forests, peaking at 2.7 percent per year between
2000 and 2005, slowed down to 1.2 percent per year between 2010 and 2015 (Payn et al.,
2015).
The contribution of planted forests to pulp and timber production plays a major role to answer
the increasing demand for wood. In 2012, 46.3 percent of industrial roundwood came from
planted forests, ranging from 14 percent in boreal forests, 45 percent in temperate forests, to
almost 65 percent in the tropics and subtropics (Payn et al., 2015). A study by Buongiorno
and Zhu (2014) applying a general equilibrium model, the Global Forest Products Model
(GFPM), to 2009 data of roundwood concluded that the utilization of planted forests reduced
roundwood harvesting from natural forests in 2009 by 26 percent. In South America, 90
percent of industrial roundwood production is already sourced from planted forests (Payn et
al., 2015).
To realize the productivity benefit of plantation forests, while preserving natural ecosystems,
further expansion of tree plantations should be focused on degraded land (WWF/IIASA,
2012). Planted forests are in fact increasingly a means to restore degraded land and to
provide some ecosystem services such as reduced erosion or protection from floods. In
China, the Natural Forest Protection Program and the Conversion of Cropland to Forest
Program, following the floods of 1998, have afforested an estimated 32.5 million ha (Payn et
al., 2015).
Certification schemes such as the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for
the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) (see Chapter 4) do not allow conversion of
natural forests to plantations. Schemes such as the WWF’s new generation plantation
platform encourage better managed, more profitable and inclusive plantations (Payn et al.,
2015). Sustainable plantation systems often incorporate or set aside areas of high
conservation value (HCV) – areas of forest assessed to be of high importance for local
communities’ FSN and livelihoods, and for biodiversity conservation. Such HCV areas can
provide sources of NWFPs and wild foods as well as ecosystem services for agriculture.
However, integrating HCV areas of forest into the broader landscape as well as connecting
them with wildlife corridors and buffer zones remain a challenge. Community access to
commercial plantation areas for such use is also contentious in many contexts.
Planted forests may be affected by pest and disease outbreaks as well as by droughts and
fires – all of which risk being increased by climate change (Payn et al., 2015). Plantations of
introduced species such as Eucalyptus, Acacia and Pinus have been relatively free of pests
and diseases during their early years as a result of separation from their natural enemies
(Wingfield et al., 2008), but over time this has been changing, with pests and diseases being
accidently introduced and native pests becoming adapted to these alien species. Overall,
pests and diseases are likely to be an increasing cause of loss for planted forests in the
future, requiring important research efforts29 (Payn et al., 2015).

29
See IUFRO www.iufro.org

67
 Planted forests constitute an increasing resource for future wood and energy supplies, as well
as, depending on their location and management, for the provision of environmental benefits.
This invites more in depth consideration of the potential contribution of planted forests to
sustainable development and FSN. Planted forests have been criticized, in particular when
replacing natural forests – some even proposing to exclude planted forests from the definition
of forests. Planted forests generally provide fewer ecosystem services than natural forests;
they are less biodiverse, often monospecific. However, from a global perspective, and
especially considering the increasing demand for wood, they could play a crucial role to
reduce the pressure on natural forests (Sloan and Sayer, 2015).
Important potential for forest restoration
There are considerable dynamics at play, involving large surfaces, often not well-known, that
can offer space for future development of forests and trees systems.
Chazdon (2014) qualifies secondary forests as “the promise of tropical forest regeneration in
an age of deforestation”. Secondary forests are a great opportunity for initiatives such as the
Bonn Challenge30 since they represent restoration in action, and an alternative way to restore
soils and forests. In Latin America, important areas of abandoned agricultural land experience
spontaneous forest regrowth: according to Aide et al. (2013), 22 to 36 million ha of net forest
gain occurred on abandoned agricultural land between 2000 and 2010.

Box 11 Forest restoration and food security in Burkina Faso

In Burkina Faso, although the country does not have a substantial forest, the population is highly
dependent on forest for income, energy and food security. Natural resources are the main source of
employment; fuelwood and charcoal are the main sources of energy for cooking, and tree foods
provide a significant portion of income (especially for women). Shea (Vitellaria paradoxa), nere
(Parkia biglobosa) and baobab (Adansonia digitata) leaves supplement local diets and income.
These and other non-timber forest products contribute 16–27 percent of women’s income, which is
then used to supplement diets with purchased foods in seasons of resource scarcity (Lamien and
Vognan, 2001, Djenontin and Djoudi 2015).
The drivers of land degradation and deforestation in Burkina Faso include the expansion of
agriculture, cash cropping (that requires large areas), agro-business and bushfires. Joining
international efforts, forest restoration began in Burkina Faso in the early 2000s and has been led
by an NGO, NewTree/Tiipaalga, primarily in the central and northern parts of the country.
Restoration activities have involved assisted natural regeneration of tree resources as well as
increasing biodiversity. Involved households fence about 3 ha of degraded land (mostly land that
used to be cultivated) and protect it from fire. By December 2014, 247 such enclosures in 109
villages in eight provinces in Burkina Faso had been recorded, accounting for a total of 722 ha of
reforested lands under Tiipaalga’s leadership. A recent assessment of the impact of forest
restoration on FSN conducted interviews with 38 households in three provinces of central Burkina
Faso: Kadiogo, Kourweogo and Oubritenga. The assessment examined the diversity of products
procured from reforested lands, the share of the different products in the total production and the
role of the reforested lands as a safety net during the lean seasons. The results indicated that
informants harvested on average six different types of products from restoration areas, ranging from
non-wood forest products used for food to non-edible forest products, fodder for livestock, small
wildlife and crops including cereals and legumes. More than 26 percent of fruits, nuts, leafy
vegetables and spices produced by the households were obtained from restoration areas and 40
percent of households reported obtaining small species of bushmeat (squirrels, partridges, rats,
hedgehogs, hares and foxes) from restoration areas. These foods are micronutrient-dense and
therefore important for micronutrient intake in a country where rates of malnutrition remain high.
Restored forests further contributed to most of the food supply when other sources of foods were
most limited.
Sources: Djenontin and Djoudi (2015).

30
The Bonn Challenge is a global effort aiming at restoring 150 million ha of deforested and degraded land by
2020 and 350 million ha by 2030 (see http://www.bonnchallenge.org/content/challenge).

68
Secondary forests play an important role in contributing to carbon sequestration and thus to
REDD+ (see Box 18 in section 4.2.1), but only if well managed (Avitabile et al., 2016;
Chazdon et al., 2016b). In recent decades, forest conversion to cattle pasture or agricultural
fields, followed by land abandonment, has led to large areas of second-growth forest in the
Amazon. These forests grow rapidly and sequester large amounts of carbon in their biomass,
but they tend to be ignored, as most of the debate on the carbon balance of the Amazon
basin tends to revolve around old-growth forests.
“Other wooded lands”, which represent almost one-third of the total forest area at the global
level, as well as degraded lands and abandoned agricultural lands, provide significant areas
globally where forests could be developed or strengthened in order to meet the increasing
demands described in the following section. WWF/IIASA (2012) identify 2 155 million ha
worldwide, currently non-forested (mainly croplands, grasslands and degraded land), with
biophysical characteristics capable of supporting forests. In such areas, forest restoration
could take many forms, from ecological restoration of secondary forests to agroforestry
systems or intensively managed plantations.
This calls for a better understanding of the drivers of change, and of the dynamics at play in
evolving landscapes such as secondary forests, other wooded land and degraded land in
order to support forest and landscape restoration (FLR).31
Increased recognition of the role of trees outside forests
There is an increasing recognition of the critical role played by “trees outside forests” in a
variety of complex landscapes including agroforestry systems, mosaic landscapes with forest
fragments and agricultural tree crops plantations. Specific policies and programmes are
developed in some countries to support the conservation and improvement of traditional
systems and encourage the development of adapted systems.
FAOSTAT provides statistical data for those tree plantations that are considered as
agricultural crops. At the global level, in 2014, the four main agricultural tree crops, in terms of
area, are palm oil plantations, cocoa, coffee and olive trees. Table 10 presents the evolution
of these areas between 1990 and 2014. FAOSTAT also provides statistical data on many fruit
tree species, including: mangoes, mangosteens and guavas (5.6 million ha in 2014), apples
(5.1 million ha), and oranges (4 million ha).
Table 10 Evolution of main agricultural tree crops at global level

Area (million ha) 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2014

Cocoa 5.7 6.6 7.6 8.7 9.6 10.4
Coffee 11.2 9.7 10.8 10.7 10.5 10.5
Palm oil 6.1 8.0 10.0 12.9 16.1 18.7
Olive trees 7.4 7.7 8.4 9.2 9.9 10.3
Source: FAOSTAT (see http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data, accessed March 2017).

In Africa, many agroforestry systems, such as the 800 year-old “Kihamba” system in the
United Republic of Tanzania (see Box 12), rely on the traditional knowledge systems of
indigenous peoples and local communities. As an example of the successful application of
traditional knowledge on a massive scale, Reij (2014) presents the re-greening of the Sahel in
Burkina Faso, Mali and the Niger where, since the 1980s, hundreds of thousands of poor
farmers have been involved in the transformation of millions of acres of semi-desert degraded
land into more productive land.

31
In June 2014, FAO established a forest and landscape restoration (FLR) mechanism, working in full
collaboration with the Global Partnership on Forest and Landscape Restoration (GPFLR), and aiming at
scaling-up, monitoring and reporting on FLR activities in order to meet the Bonn Challenge and the CBD
Aichi Biodiversity Targets related to ecosystem conservation and restoration (see http://www.fao.org/in-
action/forest-landscape-restoration-mechanism/en/ and http://www.forestlandscaperestoration.org/).

69
 Box 12 The “Kihamba” agroforestry system
The “Kihamba” agroforestry system covers 120 000 hectares of Mount Kilimanjaro’s southern
slopes. Without undermining sustainability, it supports one of the highest rural population
densities in Africa, providing livelihoods for an estimated one million people.
This system has a multilayered vegetation structure similar to a tropical mountain forest, which
maximizes the use of limited land, provides a large variety of foods all year round, income
through wood and cash-crops production, as well as substantive ecosystem services beyond
the areas where it is practised. For instance, through its dense vegetation, the “Kihamba”
system contributes significantly to carbon storage and helps considerably to ensure that
Mount Kilimanjaro remains a “water tower” for the whole region.
Under FAO’s Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems Initiative (GIAHS), activities
were piloted in 660 households to enhance farmers’ cash income while preserving the
ecological and social integrity of the “Kihamba” system. An action plan was formulated and
implemented together with the community, through a free, prior and informed consent (FPIC)
process, with the following key activities:
 Rethinking sources of cash income. Three interventions were agreed upon:
(a) conversion to certified organic coffee farming; (b) introduction of vanilla as a high-
value additional cash crop; and (c) introduction of trout aquaculture along the canals of
the irrigation system.
 Rehabilitation of the irrigation system to reduce water loss and expansion of the capacity
of storage ponds to cope with longer dry seasons due to climate change.
 Training in sustainable land management.
The interventions in coffee management alone are expected to increase farm cash income by
25 percent in three years.
See: http://www.fao.org/giahs/giahsaroundtheworld/designated-sites/africa/shimbwe-juu-
kihamba-agro-forestry-heritage-site/en/; http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3817e.pdf;
http://www.fao.org/climate-change/news/detail/en/c/881113/

In Europe, the classification of land either as agricultural or forested land does not facilitate
the recognition and development of agroforestry systems (McAdam et al., 2009). However, in
some Mediterranean countries, traditional agroforestry systems produce for instance cork,
fruit, nuts, olive and olive oil (Rigueiro-Rodróguez et al., 2009). In Central Europe, hedgerows
and windbreaks are still very common (Herzog, 1998). The dehesas32 system, covering 3.1
million ha, mainly in Spain and Portugal, integrates natural forests, livestock, crops, cork and
firewood harvesting and hunting, under specific management treatment systems (von
Maydell, 1994; Brownlow, 1992; Moreno and Pulido, 2009). A more widespread agroforestry
system throughout Western, Central and Eastern Europe is the streuobst,33 which is a
combination of plantations of trees and pastures.
Agroforestry systems provide a wide array of benefits that are increasingly being recognized.
For instance, silvo-arable systems have been shown to reduce environmental degradation
and loss of fertility of arable land by reducing the leaching of nitrates and maintaining soil
integrity. Studies have shown that silvopastoral systems reduce environmental degradation
and improve agricultural productivity through increased retention of soil phosphorous and
carbon (Nair et al., 2007). It has been suggested that around one-fifth of European arable
land could be protected from nitrate leaching by intercropping trees (Reisner et al., 2007).
With the perspective to promote and develop those agroforestry systems, some countries are
developing national agroforestry policies. For instance, in 2014, India was the first country to
adopt a comprehensive national agroforestry policy in 2014, to overcome the historical
segregation between forestry and agriculture policy domains (see Box 13). In December
2015, France launched a national plan for the development of agroforestry with the view to
better understand agroforestry systems and to support their development at national and
international levels.34

32
An agrosilvopastoral system, in which land is partially cleared, combining trees, native grasses, crops and
livestock under a specific management treatment systems (Moreno and Pulido, 2009).
33
Streuobst is defined as ”tall trees of different types and varieties of fruit, belonging to different age groups,
which are dispersed on cropland, meadows and pastures in a rather irregular pattern” (Herzog, 1998).
34
See http://agriculture.gouv.fr/sites/minagri/files/160517-ae-agrofesterie.pdf (in French).

70
 Box 13 Indian national agroforestry policy
This policy was based on the work of a multistakeholder working group created by the Indian
National Advisory Council, comprising government, industry, NGOs, civil society organizations
and financial institutions, as well as the CGIAR Program on Forests Trees and Agroforestry,
through ICRAF, to provide technical support. After three years, 18 states have changed the
laws that had so far prevented the adoption of agroforestry at a wider scale, with new
harvesting and transit regulations for tree species grown on non-forest/private lands,
especially involving smallholder timber production and marketing; eight states now show
significant public and private agroforestry investments, with at least 11.7 million households
representing about 11 million ha already benefiting from changes arising out of the policy. At
the federal level, India committed about USD410 million (2016–2020) of federal and state
government’s resources to implement the agroforestry policy accompanied by a new
“percentage of green cover” criteria for allocating an additional USD9.0 billion in funds to
states. India identified agroforestry as a major tool to fulfil its Nationally Determined
Commitment (NDC) to the UNFCCC.
Source: Singh et al. (2016).

3.2 Increasing and competing demands on forests

Changes in forest cover, forest types and uses are driven by the interaction of numerous
factors, at local and global levels: growing demand for food, feed, wood and energy, driven by
population and income growth; and increased importance given to the protection of
biodiversity, to carbon stocks, water and soil protection.
These competing drivers will impact specifically the different types of forests and are likely to
strengthen the trends described in previous section of decrease in “natural” forests and
increase in plantation forests.
Deforestation and forest degradation are predominantly driven by agriculture expansion, while
energy, intensive forestry, unsustainable land use and infrastructure development are also
contributing drivers (Geist and Lambin, 2002; Gibbs et al., 2010). The underlying causes
include demographic (e.g. population growth, migration), economic (e.g. poverty and
overconsumption), technological, policy, governance and institutional failures, and cultural
drivers (e.g. conventional attitudes and practices that attach low value to biological resources)
(FAO, 2015; Keenan et al., 2015; Sloan and Sayer, 2015). The dynamics of forest change
have shifted these last 25 years. In the tropics, where most forest loss has occurred,
deforestation due to smallholder agriculture has given way to large-scale deforestation to
supply distant markets (Rudel et al., 2009; Sloan and Sayer, 2015). Forest gains, on the other
hand, are driven by two main factors: natural forest regrowth on abandoned agricultural land;
and tree plantations to meet the increasing demand for wood either for timber, pulp or energy
(d’Annunzio et al., 2015).
Those demographic and socio-economic drivers of forest changes are acting at global and
local levels and interacting between them at different scales. For instance, population growth
and infrastructure development impact the global level of deforestation but also act as a local
driver at the frontier of forests. In a recent study, Dezécache et al. (2017) developed a
spatially explicit model to explain and predict deforestation and called for a better
understanding of deforestation driving forces at different spatial scales.

3.2.1 Increasing demand for food

The world population has increased dramatically from 2.5 billion in 1950 to 7.3 billion in 2015
(UNDESA, 2015); 62 percent of this increase occurred in Asia and almost 20 percent in
Africa. This global trend is expected to continue in the twenty-first century, as shown in
Table 11, with marked regional differences. Most of the expected increase will take place in
Africa.

71
 Table 11 Population growth by region

Population
2015 2030 2050 2100
(millions)
World 7 349 8 501 9 725 11 213
Africa 1 186 1 679 2 478 4 387
Asia 4 393 4 923 5 267 4 889
Europe 738 734 707 646
Latin America
634 721 784 721
and the Caribbean
Northern America 358 396 433 500
Oceania 39 47 57 71
Source: UNDESA (2015).
Urbanization is also likely to consume more land. The share of the world population living in
urban areas increased from 30 percent in 1950 to 54 percent in 2014. By 2050, 66 percent of
the world’s population is expected to be urban (UNDESA, 2014). In Africa and Asia, the urban
population rates are projected to grow faster, from 40 and 48 percent in 2014 to respectively
56 and 64 percent by 2050. Lambin and Meyfroidt (2011) estimated that 48 to 100 million ha
would be needed for urban expansion between 2000 and 2030.
As discussed more in depth by the HLPE in a previous report (2016), the evolution of diets
driven by urbanization and income growth, and particularly the increased demand for animal-
sourced food, is a powerful driver of agricultural development. Between 1961 and 2010, the
value of global agriculture gross production increased faster than population, from 700 to
2 100 billion in constant 2004–2006 USD (FAOSTAT).
These trends are expected to continue in the future. FAO (2012b) projects that, between
2005–2007 and 2050, the global GDP per capita would increase by 82 percent (from
USD7 600 to USD13 800) at an average rate of around 1.4 percent per year. In response to
the growth in global population and incomes and to the evolution of diets, a continuation of
recent trends would imply global agricultural production in 2050 to be 60 percent higher than
in 2005–2007. This increase would come mainly from an increase in crop yields (80 percent
of the production increase at the world level), some increase in cropping intensity (the number
of cropping seasons per year) (10 percent of the total increase) and limited land expansion
(the remaining 10 percent). According to these estimates, arable land could increase by 4
percent (net increase of about 70 million ha, comprised of an increase of almost 110 million
ha in the developing countries and a decrease of nearly 40 million ha in the developed
countries). However, these findings could be questioned by the possibility of greater than
expected population growth, and by the effects of climate change on agricultural production
and land availability (HLPE, 2016). According to other projections, cropland could expand by
5–20 percent to 2050, mainly in Africa and Latin America (Byerlee et al., 2014). Much of the
increased crop output over that period will be for livestock feed (HLPE, 2016). Lambin and
Meyfroidt (2011) estimate that, in 2030, 81 to 147 million ha could be needed for additional
crop production, and up to 151 million ha for additional grazing land.
Moreover, land degradation, defined as the reduction of land capacity to provide ecosystem
goods and services, results in further encroachment into natural ecosystems, including
forests, as agricultural land competes for space (Gibbs et al., 2010). It is estimated that,
globally, 33 percent of the world’s farmland is moderately to highly degraded (FAO, 2017a).
Bringezu et al. (2010) mention an estimate of 2 to 5 million ha of global arable land lost every
year due to soil erosion and another estimate of 3 million ha lost annually due to severe land
degradation, but these estimates should be taken as rough indications only. Lambin and
Meyfroidt (2011) estimate that, between 2000 and 2030, 30 to 87 million ha could be lost
because of land degradation.

Agriculture expansion, driven by increased demand and by land degradation, is generally

considered as the largest direct cause of deforestation. Hosonuma et al. (2012) estimate that
agriculture expansion accounts for 73 percent of deforestation worldwide, while mining
explains 7 percent, urban expansion 10 percent and infrastructures 10 percent. Morales-
Hidalgo et al. (2015) found a negative correlation between the evolution of population density

72
and of forest area. Using satellite data between 2000 and 2005 in a sample of tropical
countries, DeFries et al. (2010) found a correlation between urban population density,
agricultural exports and deforestation. D’Annunzio et al. (2015) found a strong negative
correlation between the evolution of natural forest area and of arable land between 1990 and
2010 in almost all the subregions. Some studies estimate that 70–95 percent of forests lost in
the tropics are converted to agriculture (Holmgren, 2006; Hosonoma et al., 2012). Data from
the FRA (2010) suggest that conversion to agriculture represents 70–80 percent of forest
conversion in Africa, around 70 percent in subtropical Asia and more than 90 percent in Latin
America (Hosonouma et al., 2012).

3.2.2 Increasing demand for wood and energy

European consumption of forest products increased by 50 percent during the second half of
the twentieth century. Industrial and fuelwood removals in the tropics increased by 35 percent
during 1990–2015, while stagnating in other climatic domains. They increased most rapidly in
lower-middle and lower-income countries (Köhl et al., 2015) where demographic and
economic growth were the highest. China has increased its share of log imports three-fold in
the last decade. Studies project that such increases will be sustained, with demand for wood
products in developing countries expected to double by 2030 (WWF/IIASA, 2012).
In addition, high-income countries import more wood than those countries with lower GDP
(Mills Busa, 2013), and countries that experience increased forest cover often rely on
imported resources to satisfy their growing wood demand (Meyfroidt et al., 2010).
Industrial roundwood demand is derived from the demand for end products (sawnwood,
wood-based panels, pulp, paper and paperboard). Science and technology create new uses
for wood-based biomaterials in pharmaceuticals, plastics, cosmetics and hygiene, chemicals,
textiles and construction material that will trigger additional demand for wood. The Living
Forests Model projects that annual wood removals will triple between 2010 and 2050
(WWF/IIASA, 2012).
Wood demand will also depend on the technology employed for production and
transformation, as well as on the recycling of wood and fibre waste. Increased use of wood
residues and recycled materials is expected to reduce the share of industrial roundwood in
total wood and fibre use from almost 70 percent in 2005 to around 50 percent in 2030. While
the demand for wood and fibre is expected to double, the global production of industrial
roundwood is expected to increase by slightly less than 50 percent from 1.7 billion m 3 in 2005
to nearly 2.5 billion m3 in 2030 (FAO, 2009b). Between 2010 and 2020, while paper
production will increase from 400 million to 500 million tonnes, the share of recycled fibre in
total production is expected to rise from 53 to 70 percent (WWF/IIASA, 2012). In addition to
increased recycling, more efficient technologies could reduce the pressure on forests. For
instance, Enters (2001) estimated that a 10 percent increase in milling efficiency for tropical
sawnwood could reduce the annual global demand for industrial roundwood by 100–200
million m3.
Analyses point to a greater proportion of industrial roundwood coming from planted forests in
the future (Payn et al., 2015). D’Annunzio et al. (2015) estimate that, at the global level, the
share of wood production coming from planted forest could increase from 49 percent in 2013
to 69 percent in 2050. Moreover, the global production of planted forest could increase by 43
percent by 2030 to meet the future demand for wood (either for timber or energy).
In the period from 2001 to 2014, world biofuel production increased six times to reach nearly
130 billion litres (HLPE, 2013). Considering uncertainties both in energy markets and biofuel
policies, and considering also the future impacts of advanced biofuel technologies, a pertinent
question is whether such high growth will continue, and under what circumstances. The
International Energy Agency (IEA) forecasts global biofuel production of 139 billion litres in
2020 (OECD/IEA, 2014). According to the HLPE (2013), using typical biofuel yields, a
production of 100 billion litres would represent an equivalent of 20.4 million ha of sugar cane,
or 38.5 million ha of maize, or, if it were biodiesel, 58.8 million ha of rapeseed. Lambin and
Meyfroidt (2011) consider that 44 to 118 million ha could be needed for additional biofuel
production by 2030.

73
 Many studies also suggest that wood is increasingly used as an energy source at the global
level, not only in developing countries, but also in developed countries (d’Annunzio et al.,
2015). The traditional burning of wood and other biomass for cooking and heating in low-
income countries accounts for around two-thirds of the bioenergy used worldwide (FAO,
2017a). Wood required for bioenergy production could increase from 2.6 billion m 3 in 2005 to
3.8 billion m3 in 2030 (FAO, 2009b).
Lambin and Meyfroidt (2011) estimate that, by 2030, 56 to 109 million ha could be needed to
meet this increasing demand for wood (either for timber or energy). According to WWF/IIASA
(2012), an annual rate of growth of 2.4 percent of planted forests would be needed to meet
the global demand for wood products while preserving natural forests.

3.2.3 Increased recognition of the protective roles of forests

The international community has recognized the importance of forests for biodiversity and
acts for its preservation through multilateral agreements and processes. For instance, the
Aichi Biodiversity Targets established by the CBD include the objectives to halve the rate of
loss of natural habitats including forests (Target 5) and to conserve 17 percent of terrestrial
areas through effectively and equitably managed, ecologically representative and well-
connected systems of protected areas (Target 11) (SCBD, 2006). Even if deforestation has
slowed down, forest loss is still a matter of concern, especially when it occurs in areas with
particularly high ecological value.
Designating protected areas is one of the primary strategies for conserving biodiversity
(Morales-Hidalgo et al., 2015). The benefits of protected areas extend far beyond their
immediate environs. These areas provide a natural safeguard for biodiversity, including the
wild plant relatives of crops (Sunderland, 2011). Protected areas also provide ecosystem
services, benefiting the surroundings, with mountain areas playing a special role through their
contribution to clean water and decreased disaster risks (Foli et al., 2014).
National parks, game reserves and biosphere reserves are part of a growing network of
“protected areas” that are considered to be essential for the conservation of biological
diversity. Substantial stretches of national territories and forested areas are included in this
protection regime, and the total area is increasing on all continents. As of 2014, terrestrial
protected areas cover 15.4 percent of the earth’s surface, much of which include forests. 35
FAO (2015) reports the forest area within protected areas to be 651 million ha in 2015, which
represents a 63 percent increase between 1990 and 2015. 36 In 2015, protected areas cover
nearly 27 percent of the tropical domain, 13 percent of the subtropical domain, 11 percent of
the temperate domain and less than 3 percent of the boreal domain (Morales-Hidalgo et al.,
2015).
In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, forest cover loss within protected areas was more
than two times lower than the national average. However, forest-cover loss still increased by
64 percent between 2000–2005 and 2005–2010 (Potapov et al., 2012). Other studies also
question the efficiency of protected areas in preventing deforestation and also note that
declared protection does not always mean adequate protection (Morales-Hidalgo et al.,
2015).
The Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (MA, 2005) reported that many protected areas are
specifically situated in forests unsuitable for other human uses. This may limit the impact of
the protection strategy on deforestation. Moreover, as noted by Mills Busa (2013), high-
income countries tend to import more wood than lower-income countries, suggesting that rich
countries practise preservation within their borders but appropriate resources from poorer
countries to sustain consumption. In that sense, sustainable consumption strategies
(including certification schemes discussed in Chapter 4) might be as important as forest
protection. Furthermore, protected areas are often managed in such a way that undermines
the FSN of forest-dependent people (see Section 3.4.2).

35
See http://www.iucn.org/?18607/New-UNEP-report-unveils-world-on-track-to-meet-2020-target-for-
protected-areas-on-land-and-sea
36
When considering only the countries that reported this figure both in 1990 and 2015.

74
Beyond the strictly protected areas, the FRA includes under the topic “Biodiversity and
conservation”, the primary forests (1.277 million ha), as well as 524 million ha of forest mainly
devoted to the conservation of biodiversity.
Moreover, it distinguishes two main categories of protective forests, namely: (i) protective
forests for soil and water; and (ii) protective forests for ecosystems services, cultural or
spiritual values. Over the past 25 years, an increasing number of countries reported forest
area devoted to protection of soil and water, reflecting the increasing awareness of the
multiple functions of forests (Miura et al., 2015).
Globally, around 1 billion ha (25 percent of the world’s forest) have been reported in the FRA
2015 (FAO, 2015) as protective forests for soil and water resources, of which 534 million ha in
North and Central America, 195 million ha in Asia (see Box 14 on China), and 123 million ha
in Europe (FAO, 2015). Under this category, the FRA distinguishes protective forests for:
clean water (3.4 percent of global forest areas); coastal stabilization (0.83 percent);
desertification control (3.6 percent of global forest areas, all situated in Africa and Central
Asia); avalanche control (0.36 percent of global forest areas, including 14 percent of forest
areas in Tadjikistan and 7 percent in Switzerland); erosion and flood control (5.1 percent of
global forest area, including 30 percent of Austrian forests, 28 percent in Switzerland and 25
percent in Tadjikistan); and other control (Miura et al., 2015).
Almost 1.2 billion ha have been reported in the FRA 2015 (FAO, 2015) as protective forests
for ecosystem services, cultural or spiritual values, of which 642 million ha in North and
Central America (including 93 percent of Canadian forests and 100 percent of forests in the
United States of America), 167 million ha in South America, 123 million ha in Oceania and
122 million ha in Europe (FAO, 2015). Under this category, the FRA distinguishes protective
forests for: public recreation (4.3 percent of global forest area); carbon storage (1.3 percent of
global forest area in 1990 and 5.3 percent in 2015); cultural services (1.9 percent, mostly
situated in North and South America); and other services (Miura et al., 2015).
Forests and trees can play a fundamental role in the fight against land degradation through
the provision of essential ecosystem services (see Chapter 2), such as providing soil
structural stability, erosion protection, water regulation and nitrogen fixation (Foli et al., 2014).
Land degradation is particularly prevalent in the drylands and dry forested regions of the
world (Pulla et al., 2015). Those dry forest systems that have not been completely destroyed
are generally impoverished and fragmented. The degradation process thus initiated has led to
a shift away from the original vegetation types to drier, less productive and less resistant
forest types, exposing large numbers of people to the threat of desertification and associated
disastrous ecological, social and economic impacts (Derroire et al., 2016). However, even in
very arid areas, forests and trees can be used to fight desertification (see Box 15).

Box 14 Chinese protective forests

In China, protective forest areas have increased from 18 million ha to 58 million (i.e. from 12 to
28 percent of total forest area) between 1990 and 2015. According to the national report on
sustainable forest management in China (State Forestry Administration, 2013), at the end of
the 1990s, soil erosion (including wind and water erosion) impacted 356 million ha and
represented 5 billion tonnes of annual soil losses.
Forest degradation in China had continued for several decades until 1990s, because of
population growth, overexploitation of forest resources, and subsequent cultivation on steep
slopes (Wenhua, 2004), provoking serious frequent natural hazards and disasters as well as
important human and economic loss.
The Chinese Government therefore launched a series of top-to-bottom afforestation projects,
implemented natural forest conservation projects and planted shelter forests (for water and
soil conservation, windbreaks, sand fixing and desertification control). Areas of shelter forests
reached 83.1 million ha in the first decade of the 21st century, occupying 45.8 percent of forest
area and 8.7 percent of total national land.
Source: Miura et al. (2015).

75
 Box 15 Desertification control
The threat posed by desertification is particularly critical in Northern Africa and in the Arabian
peninsula. More than 95 percent of the region is arid or semi-arid and affected by or prone to
desertification. Live trees and dead vegetation have been used in different countries for sand-
dune fixation and desertification control since the early nineteenth century. In Morocco, 34 000
ha of fast growing species (such as Eucalyptus spp., Acacia cyanophylla and Acacia cyclops)
have been planted over 60 years in the early twentieth century, to control sand-dune
movements along the Atlantic coast and protect cities such as Tanger, Kenitra and Agadir. In
Tunisia, Mauritania and Morocco smaller greenbelts have been planted to protect oases,
continental cities or infrastructures.
In Algeria, in the 1960s, overgrazing and cultivation activities provoked the rapid degradation
of the Alfa grass steppe at the Sahara border. In the 1970s, to fight desertification, it was
decided to contribute to the reforestation of this area of 3 million ha by planting a “green dam”
of Aleppo pine (Pinus halapensis). After a few years, this programme turned into a large
multisector project. Since its creation, the Green Dam Project has enabled the rehabilitation of
around 300 000 ha of degraded forests in the Saharan Atlas, the plantation of green belts on
5 000 ha to protect villages and infrastructures, the management of 25 000 ha of pastures and
the establishment of 90 water sources to improve potable water availability (Saifi et al., 2015).

The Great Green Wall for the Sahara and the Sahel Initiative*
The Great Green Wall for the Sahara and the Sahel Initiative (GGWSSI), launched in 2007 by
the African Union (AU) has become Africa's flagship initiative to combat the effects of climate
change and desertification. It aims at reversing land degradation and desertification in the
Sahel and Sahara, eradicate poverty and hunger, improve FSN and support local communities
in drylands to address climate change adaptation and mitigation. It promotes long-term
solutions, integrated interventions and sustainable local practices to tackle the multiple
challenges affecting the lives of people in the Sahel and Sahara. It brings together more than
20 African countries, international organizations, research institutes, civil society and
grassroots organizations.
* http://www.greatgreenwallinitiative.org/; www.fao.org/in-action/action-against-desertification;
www.fao.org/dryland-forestry
Source: Hadri and Guellouz (2011).

3.3 Forests, trees, climate change and FSN

Four main types of interactions between forests, trees, climate change and FSN can be
identified:
 the impacts of climate change on forests and trees and thus on their contributions to
FSN;
 the contributions of forests and trees to FSN in a changing climate;
 the contribution of forests and trees to mitigation of climate change, and thus to FSN
in the medium/long term;
 potential impacts on FSN of policies strengthening the contribution of forests and
trees to mitigation of climate change.

3.3.1 Impacts of climate change on forests and trees

There is an increasing understanding of the impacts of climate change on forests and trees
(see Table 12). Negative impacts are already apparent in many places, even it is often
difficult to separate climate change from other stresses (FAO, 2016b). Signs of climate stress,
with increasing tree mortality, changes in fire regime, insect outbreaks and pathogen attacks
are becoming increasingly apparent (Settele et al., 2014). Evidence suggests that, in a wide
range of forest systems, warming and changes in precipitation are increasing tree mortality
through heat stress, drought stress and pest outbreaks (Allen et al., 2010).

76
 Table 12 Potential impacts of some climate changes on forests and FSN
Climate
change Impact on forests Impact on FSN
variable
Increased rates of regeneration Increased forest biodiversity and food
(Lindner et al., 2008; IPCC, 2014) availability, access, utilization and stability
Decreased forest vitality and Loss of forest biodiversity leading to
productivity (Kirschbaum et al., 2007; reduced availability, access, utilization and
FAO, 2015) stability of forest-sourced foods
Loss of forest biodiversity leading to
Increased forest pests and diseases
reduced availability, access, utilization and
(Lindner et al., 2008; FAO, 2015)
stability of forest-sourced foods
Moderate
increase in Shift in suitable habitats for many Reduced availability, access and utilization
average species and forest types to forest-sourced foods
temperature
Loss of forest biodiversity leading to
(e.g. 1 oC)
reduced availability, access, utilization and
Water stress leading to drought- stability of forest-sourced foods
induced forest/tree dieback and land Water stress could affect the sustainability
degradation (Williams et al., 2013) of rainfed agriculture in tropical regions,
thereby affecting food availability and
access (FAO, 2011b SOLAW)
Loss of forest biodiversity leading to
Increased wildfires (Kirschbaum et
reduced availability, access, utilization and
al., 2007; FAO, 2015)
stability of forest-sourced food.
Inhibition of seed germination,
changes in plant anatomy and Diminished forest biodiversity leading to
promotion of early senescence and reduced availability, access, utilization and
mortality (Kirschbaum et al., 2007; stability of forest-sourced foods
Lindner et al., 2008; Elbehri, 2015)
Increased water erosion and Decreased soil fertility due to leaching
landslides (Kirschbaum et al., 2007; resulting in low soil productivity and
Changes in Elbehri, 2015; FAO, 2015) affecting food availability (production)
precipitation Elevated budgets for food relief that may be
regimes insufficient in most developing countries,
Increased storm damage (FAO, 2015; thus failing to meet FSN dimensions
Elbeheri, 2015) elevating disaster risk
management costs by government Damage to transportation infrastructure
intended to facilitate availability and access
to forest-sourced foods by rural households
Reduced extent and vitality of Reduced productivity of coastal fisheries
mangroves and coastal forests (FAO, impacting on all FSN dimensions
2015) (availability, access, utilization and stability)

In boreal forests, many productivity declines have been attributed to drought (Williams et al.,
2013). Warming and drying, coupled with productivity decline, insect disturbance and
associated tree mortality, also favour greater fire disturbance (Settele et al., 2014). In
temperate forests, until recently, the overall trend has been an increase in growth rates,
thanks to a combination of a longer growing season, higher atmospheric CO 2 and nitrogen
deposition and forest management (Ciais et al., 2008). Models predict that the potential
climatic space for most tree species will shift poleward and to higher altitudes, accelerating
faster than natural migration processes. Climate change will also impact the emergence and
development of pests and diseases, as well as the spread and survival of populations of
invasive species. The composition of species may be affected, which may change ecosystem
productivity, hence FSN-relevant goods and services from the forest (Boulanger et al., 2016).
Climate change is expected to impact on forest biodiversity and the ability of forests to
provide soil and water protection, habitat for species and other ecosystem services, that will
at the same time be called upon because of climate change (Locatelli, 2016).

77
 The consequences of all those phenomena on forest health and forest functions are expected
to vary across regions and forest types (Payn et al., 2015). Forest ecosystems identified as
being particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change include mangroves, boreal
forests, tropical forests, cloud forests37 and dry forests. For tropical forests, a key uncertainty
is the strength of direct CO2 effects on photosynthesis and transpiration. Moist tropical forests
have many species that are vulnerable to drought and fire-induced mortality during extreme
dry periods; and there is evidence that forest-fire frequency and severity are increasing, due
to a combination of land-use change and drought, including in the Amazon. Climate change,
deforestation, fragmentation, fire and human pressure place virtually all dry tropical forests at
risk of replacement or degradation (Miles et al., 2006).
Tropical tree species are expected to be the most affected by climate change as they are
already close to their thermal tolerances (IPCC, 2014). The inability of species to adapt to
changing climates combined with phenological changes such as earlier flowering (and thus
reduced fruit yields and production) could result in direct impacts on the amount of forest
resources available for harvest and use by local communities, particularly impacting those
communities that are most dependent on forests and trees. A study in Brazil (EMBRAPA
2008) shows that climate change can have important impacts on the areas at low risk for
coffee production. In traditional production areas, coffee would be affected by lack of water or
high temperatures. On the other hand, with the reduction of the risk of frost, there could be an
increase of the production area in other areas. As a result, the global area at low climatic risk
for coffee would be reduced by 9.5 percent in 2020, 17 percent in 2050, and 33 percent in
2070. Models predict a reduction of cocoa production by 2050 in Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana, the
two main producers, accounting for 53 percent of the world production (CTA, 2012). However,
as pointed out in a previous report (HLPE, 2012), data are lacking on many species of
interest for FSN.

3.3.2 The contributions of forests and trees to FSN

in a changing climate
As shown in Chapter 2, forests and trees play a crucial role to increase resilience of food
systems, at landscape, farm and household levels. With climate change modifying and
increasing all categories of risks with which food systems and households are confronted
(FAO, 2016b), this role of forests and trees to increase resilience will be particularly
important, in particular their role for water and temperature regulation, for coastal areas
protection against sea level rise, and for protection against floods. Agricultural systems with a
diversity of cropping and land-use types are more resilient to extreme weather events caused
by climate change (Rahman et al., 2013), as well as to increased climate variability (FAO,
2016b). At household level, forests and trees play important roles in livelihood resilience in
the face of climate change, including: as safety nets in times of emergency; as sources of
products important for production and income diversification for farm households and rural
families; and as sources of employment (particularly important where farming and other rural
livelihoods are no longer viable). Wild foods may be of increasing importance as a safety net
for communities experiencing climatic shocks (Byron and Arnold, 1997; Wunder, 2014) and
as a source of dietary diversity (Phalkey et al., 2015).
This invites the integration of forests and trees in adaptation strategies aimed to secure FSN
(FAO, 2017b). This, in turn, calls for maintaining forest ecosystems in a healthy state, in order
to retain their resilience. Healthy forests are better able to cope with stress, recover from
damage and adapt autonomously to change. More broadly, healthy ecosystems are more
resilient to negative biotic and abiotic influences than are ecosystems under stress whose
ecological processes are impaired. Best practices include integrated pest management,
disease control, forest-fire management, employment of reduced impact logging (RIL) in
production forests, limitation of gathering of NWFPs or livestock grazing in forests at
sustainable levels, and forest law enforcement (FAO, 2016b). Forest managers will need to
take additional measures to increase the adaptive capacity of forests. Adaptive management
is particularly relevant in environments where the future is uncertain (Robledo and Forner,

37
Cloud forests include forests that are frequently covered in clouds or mist, thus receiving additional
humidity, other than rainfall (Stadtmüller, 1987). They are generally tropical or subtropical, and at high
altitude.

78
2005); it requires continual adjustment and improvement of management practices by
monitoring, analysing and learning from the outcomes (Seppälä et al., 2009).

3.3.3 The contribution of forests and trees to mitigation

of climate change
Forests absorb annually an important amount of carbon dioxide (CIFOR, 2010). However, the
average contribution of forests to carbon sequestration has fallen from 2.8 Gt annually in the
1990s to 2.3 Gt in the 2000s, and is estimated at 1.8 Gt in 2014 (FAO, 2016c). At the same
time, deforestation and forest degradation account for nearly 11 percent of all GHG emissions
(Smith et al., 2014), more than the transport sector.
Studies estimate the mitigation potential for forestry from 0.2 to 13.8 Gt CO 2 eq per year at
prices up to USD100 per tonne CO2 eq (Smith et al., 2014). The carbon mitigation potential of
reduced deforestation, improved forest management, afforestation and agroforestry differs
greatly by activity, region, system boundaries and the time horizon over which mitigation
options are compared. Reductions in deforestation dominate the forestry mitigation potential
in Latin America and Africa, while forest management, followed by afforestation, dominates in
OECD countries, economies in transition and Asia. However, this substantial mitigation
potential will not materialize without appropriate financing and enabling frameworks that
create effective incentives (FAO, 2016c) (see also Box 18 on REDD+ in Chapter 4). The
IPCC (Smith et al., 2014) notes that large-scale biomass supply for energy, or carbon
sequestration in the agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU) sector, provides
flexibility for the development of mitigation technologies in the energy supply and energy end-
use sectors, but that there are potential implications for biodiversity, food security and other
services provided by land.

3.3.4 Potential impacts on FSN of policies strengthening the

contribution of forests and trees to mitigation of climate
change
The Paris Agreement recognizes the important role of land use, land-use change and forestry
in addressing climate change. Its article 5 recognizes the central role of forests in achieving
the 2 °C goal through mitigation options covered by REDD+. It also acknowledges the
potential of forests for joint mitigation and adaptation approaches, and their important role in
yielding non-carbon benefits.
Parties to the Paris Agreement have prepared national determined contributions (NDC), to be
renewed every year, recorded in a public registry. The NDCs announce the objectives of
parties and include targets, strategies and measures to address the causes of climate change
and its effects. Most countries (FAO, 2016d) have integrated forestry and are making
reference to policies and measures, existing and/or projected in the forestry sector, to protect
and increase carbon stocks and increase the production of renewable materials and
renewable energy in forests and through land restoration. Most of these policies and
measures will reinforce some of the trends exposed above, either towards forest conservation
and development and/or increased production, with accompanying impacts on forests and
trees contributions to FSN. Energy production and product substitution will have social,
economic and cultural implications (EEA, 2016). For example, policies in the European Union
to increase the use of biofuels, including woodfuels, for energy generation are affecting how
foresters in the region manage their forests, and how land in developing regions is used (EC,
2013).
Importantly, the recognition of the crucial role that forests and trees can play in climate
change mitigation and adaptation can trigger stronger engagement, at both international and
national levels, to develop ambitious forestry policies for climate. A key issue will be to ensure
that such policies and mechanisms integrate consideration of all contributions of forests and
trees to FSN.

79
 3.4 Impacts of changes on FSN
Deforestation, forest degradation, as well as changes in the management of forest either for
production or conservation purposes all impact on FSN. Figure 7 illustrates how the drivers of
changes identified in this chapter interact with each other, and impact forests and tree-based
systems as well as their different contributions to FSN.
Figure 7 Drivers of forest changes impacting their contributions to FSN

3.4.1 Impacts of deforestation and forest degradation

Deforestation and forest degradation threaten income, livelihoods and ways of life of forest-
dependent peoples and communities, and compromise the provision of ecosystem services
that are essential to FSN and sustainable development in the long term. Deforestation and
forest degradation, leading to habitat fragmentation, can also impact human health by
increasing the risk of transmission of pests and diseases.
Impact on FSN through income and economic growth
Increased income may lead to greater purchasing power and thus improved nutritional status.
Clearly, forest-based communities rarely live solely from forest resources alone, but also
need cash to access goods and services from the local and regional economy. The evidence
of the positive effects of economic growth on reducing the prevalence of stunting is strong
and manifests even over short periods of time, partially explained by associated
improvements in female education, lowering of fertility rates and increased asset ownership
(Headey, 2013). However, economic growth in some cases may benefit the sections of
society least at risk of malnutrition, leaving behind the most malnourished (Subramanyam et
al., 2011).
The non-linear relationships between income and nutrition may be further complicated in
forest-dependent communities (Beddington et al., 2012). Economic analyses often fail to take
into account the importance of environmentally derived sources of income. For instance, if a
community has a higher monetary income but needs to purchase products that were

80
previously provided “for free” by forests and trees (such as firewood, fuel, food and medicinal
products), their FSN status will not be necessarily higher. Moreover, the effects of income on
nutrition are dependent both on market access to nutritious foods (fruits, vegetables, ASFs)
and on consumer preference to use income to purchase these foods.
Though forest resources may contribute positively to income and employment in some areas,
it is often argued that deforestation for agricultural expansion may offer greater opportunities
for welfare improvement. Higher rates of deforestation have been found to be associated with
higher human development indices (HDI) at an initial phase of frontier expansion, less so as
the frontier advances (Rodrigues et al., 2009), and recent comparative research suggests that
the immediate benefits can actually result in an eroded environmental base, simplified diets
and compromised livelihoods (Deakin et al., 2016; Ickowitz et al., 2016). The number of
people employed in forest-related jobs is also affected, as degraded sites tend to be
converted most easily to pasture, offering few jobs per hectare converted. Those
marginalized by deforestation tend to move outward towards new frontiers where the cycle
may begin anew. Sustainable forest management approaches may enable local livelihoods to
be stabilized, as has occurred in community forest concessions in Guatemala (de Camino et
al., 2007) and other case studies presented in this report (see Chapter 4).
Safety-net policies can also play an important role. For example, welfare transfers for food
consumption and access to them by forest communities such as those in Bolsa Verde and
Bolsa Floresta in Brazil provide conditional income transfers to residents of forest reserves,
contingent on various forest protection measures such as not opening new forest areas for
agriculture. Analysis of the food consumption and productive behaviour of Bolsa Familia
recipients suggests that such transfers make a significant difference in the variety and
nutritional value of foods consumed: there is a pronounced impact on intake of sugars and
processed foods, meats and cereals, but also foods desired by children with greater
proportions of fruit consumption within participating households. Recipients have not fully
abandoned agricultural production, though there is some indication that there has been a
reduction in NWFP production and bushmeat consumption in the Amazon region (Menezes et
al., 2008). Women have changed dietary patterns in response to a shift from subsistence to
cash sources of support that permitted them to abandon cassava cultivation in favour of
purchased substitutes (Piperata et al., 2011).
Impact on FSN through non-provisioning ecosystem services
A healthy ecosystem provides sustainably a balanced set of ecosystem services critical for
economic activity, agricultural productivity, human health and sustainability (Cairns, 1997;
Colfer, 2008; Sunderland, 2011; Foli et al., 2014). Definitions of ecosystem health have been
closely allied with the concept of stress ecology, which defines health in terms of system
organization, resilience and vigour, as well as the absence of signs of ecosystem distress
(Rapport et al., 1998). The definition also includes the presence of essential functions and
key attributes that sustain life systems (Reed et al., 2017).
Chapter 2 described the multiple ecosystem goods and services provided by forests and
trees in healthy ecosystems and showed the contribution of forests and trees to ecosystem
resilience, including adaptation to climate change. Deforestation, forest degradation and
habitat fragmentation threaten the continued supply of those ecosystem goods and services,
upon which the long-term FSN of rural and urban people alike depend (Deakin et al., 2016).
While cultivated cropland may retain trees or accommodate natural tree regeneration, these
alone may be insufficient to provide the environmental goods and services garnered from
formerly intact or largely natural forests (Firbank et al., 2008; Power, 2010; Flohre et al.,
2011).
However, even remnant forest patches can play a positive role for adjacent agricultural
landscapes. Mitchell et al. (2014) show that the provision and level of six ecosystem services
(crop production, pest regulation, decomposition, carbon storage, soil fertility and water
quality regulation) in soybean fields depend on the distance from forest fragment as well as
on fragment isolation and fragment size.

81
 Impact of deforestation and forest degradation on human health
An important effect of deforestation and forest degradation, and more generally of ecosystem
degradation, is an increased risk to human population health (Myers et al., 2013). These
health impacts are likely to arise from a variety of types of ecological and social disruption.
The impacts of deforestation and land-use change on infectious disease can be divided into
roughly four categories (Myers et al., 2013).
First, there are physical effects such as the building of roads, reduced tree cover, climatic
change and habitat fragmentation. Second, new land-use practices such as mining,
agriculture and monoculture plantations also affect the transmission of diseases and
introduce new risk factors (Colfer, 2008). Third, changes in habitats result in changes in the
ecological regulation of parasitic and vector-borne disease by changing predator–prey
relationships or by reducing the diversity of parasites and vectors.
Fourth, demographic changes and migrations result in a shift in exposure, with new diseases
being introduced to the area. For example, in-migration and commercial logging activity has
been associated with increased prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases including
HIV/AIDS as prostitution around logging camps and roads/truck stops increases (Colfer,
1999) and as formally relatively isolated populations intermarry with members of other
communities (Ndembi et al., 2003). As population sizes increase through migration and/or
natural increase, communities can reach a critical community size threshold whereby
diseases such as measles that previously would go extinct become endemic (Nåsell, 2005).
With increased population densities, the likelihood of spreading water-borne diseases also
increases as sanitation facilities – where they exist – become overburdened (Patz et al.,
2005). In many communities, rivers form the focus of all activities including washing,
defecating, fishing and sources of clean water (UNICEF, 2012). As population increases, the
likelihood of contamination increases without concurrent investments in sanitation and
hygiene (Bailie et al., 2004; Myers et al., 2013).
Many studies have demonstrated links between deforestation and increases in malaria risk
(Pattanayak et al., 2006; Patz et al., 2008; Vittor et al., 2006; Wan et al., 2011; Olson et al.,
2010). Conversely, at least one study has shown a reduced overall burden of malaria with
deforestation in Thailand (Yasuoka and Levins, 2007) and draining of swamplands has been
associated with decreased prevalence of malaria in many countries (Keiser et al., 2005).
Deforestation, road building, mining pits and predatory logging can create new breeding
habitats for insect vectors. For example, one study in the Peruvian Amazon showed that the
biting rate of the malaria vector Anopheles darlingi was proportional to the area of land-use
modification and inversely proportional to the area of remaining forest (Vittor et al., 2006).
There are similar studies for tsetse fly and sleeping sickness. Also, in temperate and boreal
forests, there may be a risk of infectious diseases, e.g. tick-borne diseases such as Lyme or
encephalitis (Karjalainen et al., 2010).
Likewise, there is a strong link between ebola and the deforestation of tropical rainforests
(Olivero et al., 2016). The recent outbreaks in Guinea and Sierra Leone are hypothesised to
be the result of an exceptionally arid and prolonged dry season, coupled with the extreme
deforestation of the area over recent decades that somehow influenced the number or
proportion of ebola forest-dwelling virus-infected bats and/or the frequency of human contact
with them (Bausch and Swartz, 2014).
The forest-dwelling poor, however, are often neglected by the services of the state and less
likely to benefit from increased healthcare provision than local elites (Stephens et al., 2006).
This concern of who receives the benefits of improved access to pharmaceutical medicine
and state healthcare infrastructure is central to the question of how land-use modification will
affect the healthcare of local people. Timber-producing companies have different approaches:
from very primitive installations and poor food provision for the workers, to companies that
provide for adequate food and nutrition, and that take on public responsibilities by having on
their premises healthcare posts and medical services. This is especially true in cases in which
the forest management operation has attained conformity with standards of the FSC or the
PEFC (see Chapter 4).

82
3.4.2 Protected areas and FSN
The extension of protected areas raises new questions. The successful recovery of declining
or near extinct species populations (Fall and Jackson, 2002) through wildlife management
and protection from overexploitation (Messmer, 2000) has also led to compounded human–
wildlife conflicts. Effective protection and habitat management within the Gir National Park
and Sanctuary in the Indian state of Gujarat doubled the Asian lion (Panthera leo persica)
population between 1970 and 1993. The social organization, habitat and prey requirements of
the species were difficult to accommodate within the human-defined home range, and
resulted in many lions straying out of the reserve into local villages (Vijayan and Pati, 2002).
Around Bénoué National Park in Cameroon, communities lost an estimated 31 percent of
their annual crop income and 18 percent of their annual livestock income per household: the
species inflicting the majority of the crop losses are elephants, baboons, green parrots and
warthogs, while the civet is the main predator causing losses to livestock (Weladji and
Tchamba, 2003). In the ranches of North America, European settlement almost exterminated
wolves. Recent recovery programmes, however, have contributed to the recolonization by
wolves of their original home range and in the process have increased the potential for
conflict, especially where domestic livestock is a major economic activity (Musiani et al.,
2003). Hunting bans or regulations in protected or certified forest favour wildlife conservation
but may also increase human–wildlife conflicts and impact the FSN of local communities
where bushmeat is a significant source of protein (Burivalova et al., 2017).
Forested protected areas also have an important role to play for FSN of many people
depending on those areas as a means of subsistence. In some cases, they benefit directly,
through the consumption of food produced or obtained in or around protected areas. In
others, employment and income provide indirect benefits that contribute to sustaining
livelihoods and may even attract immigration (Joppa, 2012). The growing interest in
ecotourism and increasing access to nature reserves have increased the human presence in
protected areas and raised concern about the sustainable management, including regulation
of public access, of those areas (Distefano, 2005).
However, global forest conservation benefits can collide with the need to improve FSN and
alleviate the poverty of local forest dwellers (Kremen et al., 2000). In Mexico, while a PES
project provided communities with cash to protect forests for watershed services, traditional
use of forests for food collection was prohibited (Ibarra et al., 2011). Management strategies
of protected areas for the conservation of natural resources often restrict resource use for
local communities (Sylvester et al., 2016), and neglect their needs and aspirations, their
traditional knowledge and management systems, their institutions and social organizations,
and the value they attribute to wild resources. As a result, forest-based national parks and
protected areas have led to extensive resource alienation and economic hardships for many
rural social groups, particularly in Africa, Asia and Latin America (Ghimire and Pimbert 1997;
Dowie, 2009). In many situations, this has undermined the FSN and livelihood security of
local communities living nearby or excluded from protected areas (Colchester, 1994; Pimbert
and Pretty, 1997).

3.4.3 Production forests and FSN

As shown in section 3.2.2, wood production is expected to increase to answer the increasing
demand for wood for fiber, energy and as renewable material in buildings and for furniture.
This increase could contribute to economic and employment development, depending on the
ways it is managed and in particular the groups that would benefit from it. Depending on
situations, and in particular on the systems that would be modified, increased wood
production could provide more income and jobs for local populations or impact negatively
FSN of local populations while benefitting to actors far away.
The corporate business sector grows forests basically to satisfy final consumer demands, or
those that serve as intermediate inputs into industrial and commercial production processes.
Forestry enterprises may restrict access of forest-dependent people to forest resources, while
providing them with marginally more significant monetary income or, conversely, allow the
local population to collect NWFPs while also providing employment.

83
 In Chile, for example, communities near to large-scale pine plantations are occasionally
prohibited from harvesting fuelwood and NWFPs from these forests (Armesto et al., 2001),
while in natural forests managed in the Brazilian Amazon under public forest concession,
arrangements for community use of extractive NWFPs in the regeneration cycle are legally
permitted but management plans have not been approved, effectively restricting access and
sustainable use (Calorio and Silva, 2014).
In Brazil, the important benefits of use and production of NWFPs by communities are
constrained by the proliferation of regulatory requirements (sanitary, environmental,
organizational, labour and tax law, etc.) that can make it practically impossible to produce and
market these products (Shanley et al., 2002).
Although increases in household income are generally considered to result in improved food
security, such effects can be confounded by other variables. Factors such as gender, market
and resource access, purchasing power and social and cultural food preferences all affect the
relationship between income and food security in forested areas (Kennedy and Peters, 1992).
Certification as well as governance mechanisms examined in chapter 4 can play an important
role to ensure better consideration of FSN of local communities.

3.5 Conclusion: challenges and opportunities for FSN

Increasing demands on land, forests and trees, create new challenges and opportunities for
their contributions to FSN. They can threaten some of the contributions of forests to FSN,
particularly when such contributions are less visible or concern marginalized and most
vulnerable groups. On the other hand, they can create additional reasons to protect and
invest in forests and generate new jobs and opportunities for sustainable development.
Global figures seem to show important potential for forest restoration as well as for the
development of agroforestry systems. This calls for a better understanding of the drivers of
change, and of the dynamics at play in evolving and complex landscapes such as secondary
forests, landscape mosaics, agroforestry systems and their impact for FSN and sustainable
development, and for a better support for forest restoration in degraded areas.
Given the global population growth and overall economic development, land is becoming an
increasingly scarce resource and multifunctional landscapes will have to fulfil multiple uses.
Conflicts are likely to arise not only on the most desirable use of agriculture and forestlands
but also on the best way to accommodate increased and competing demands for land and
natural resources, as well as on the governance mechanisms to be put in place for providing
local and global ecosystem services. These issues are further explored in the next chapter.

84
4 HOW TO OPTIMIZE THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF
FORESTS AND TREES TO FSN IN A SUSTAINABLE
WAY?
Forests and trees provide multiple direct and indirect contributions to FSN through several
channels illustrated in Figure 4 (Chapter 1). These contributions vary largely across countries,
populations, forest types and management regimes. They benefit different groups, at different
scales, within different timeframes. They are also likely to be profoundly modified by ongoing
trends affecting land use and forestry.
There can be either synergies, or trade-offs across the various contributions of forests and
trees to FSN, which depend on several parameters: the very existence of forests and trees,
their location, type and composition, management, use rights and income distribution. All of
these parameters are, in turn, dependent on decisions made by various actors, determined by
governance arrangements.
This last chapter will discuss the importance and challenges of governance in the forestry
sector, review available tools at different scales and suggest ways forward to promote SFM
for FSN.
SFM strategies and multiscale governance mechanisms are a way to better balance different
functions and objectives of forests and trees (that impact FSN in different ways, at different
spatial and temporal scales, as shown in previous chapters), and to integrate global
challenges and concerns in local sustainable management of forest resources. Such
mechanisms will help to prevent and manage conflicts between stakeholders.

4.1 Governance of forests and trees: an overview

Hyden et al. (2004) define public governance as “the formation and stewardship of the formal
and informal rules that regulate the public realm, the arena in which state as well as economic
and societal actors interact to make decisions”.
More precisely, governance can be defined as the set of political, social, economic and
administrative systems, rules and processes that (i) determines the way decisions are taken
and implemented by various actors and (ii) through which decision-makers are held
accountable (HLPE, 2015).
According to these definitions, governance can be seen as comprising the three following
elements: (i) the rules themselves (including formal and informal ones); (ii) the process by
which those rules are established, and the decision taken; and (iii) the way those rules and
decisions are implemented, assessed and monitored (HLPE, 2014b).
As a prelude to understand which are the possible ways forward in terms of enhancing the
governance of forests and trees for FSN (section 4.3), this section presents the key
governance issues of forests and trees as a shared resource, highlighting the importance of
forest and tree ownership regimes as well as of access and use rights for local peoples and
communities.
As illustrated in previous chapters, forests provide many different benefits, at different
geographical and temporal scales. They are used by many different stakeholders, with
contrasting power, for many different purposes. This diversity of perspectives, interests and
objectives might generate tensions or pave the way to conflicts. Several specific potential
areas of tensions can arise between:
 different objectives, for instance between conservation and production;
 different scales, between local, national and global;
 different actors, either at the same or at different levels.

85
 Three broad categories of governance instruments of forests and trees can be mobilized to
articulate and manage these different objectives and scales:
 direct management, given the importance of public actors in ownership and
management of forests;
 rules, mandatory or voluntary, including incentives;
 market mechanisms.
A particularly difficult point is that many issues need to be considered at both local and global
levels, with sometimes contradictory interactions between them, while there is often no
institutional mechanism to appropriately integrate these various dimensions in decision-
making processes.

4.1.1 Forests and trees as a shared resource

The governance and sustainable management of a shared resource requires a common
understanding of its scarcity and values. It also requires an understanding of diverging
perspectives, the specific roles and the interactions between the different categories of
stakeholders – states and public agencies, private corporations, civil society organizations,
local communities and individuals – involved in the decision-making process at different levels
(Krott, 2005). It finally requires appropriate tools to manage the resource collectively and
accommodate short-term concerns of most of the private actors with the longer-term general
interest.
A prerequisite for successful governance solutions is a clear and recognized rights situation
(Ostrom, 1990). Use rights and access to forest resources are essential for sustainable
development and improved FSN, but are also a challenge as the forest is used for different
purposes by a wide range of stakeholders.
Samuelson (1954), elaborated a typology of goods and services based on two properties:
 non-rivalry: each individual’s consumption of the good or service leads to no subtraction
of any other individual’s consumption;
 non-excludability: no individual can be excluded from consuming the good or service.
These two properties allow four categories of goods or services to be distinguished, as
described in Table 13.

Table 13 Private and public goods and services

Property Excludable Non-excludable

Rivalrous Private goods Common-pool resources

Non-rivalrous Club goods Public goods

Clear examples of public goods and services provided by forests and trees are biodiversity
conservation as well as the qualitative and quantitative regulation of climate and water. Other
goods and services, such as fuelwood and NWFPs, may be classified either as private goods,
club goods or common-pool resources, depending on the property and use rights in force in
the considered forest, these being different across countries and forest types.
Public goods and common-pool resources are typically difficult to govern (Ostrom, 1990), and
likely to suffer from the “tragedy of the commons” described by Hardin (1968), resulting in
unsustainable depletion or irreparable deterioration of the resource. Unregulated access can
cause overexploitation of forest resources, thus undermining their capacity to contribute to
FSN in a sustainable way. And poor governance has been identified as a key proximal cause
of deforestation and forest degradation (see Box 16).

86
 Box 16 Impacts of poor governance on deforestation and forest degradation
Poor governance is widely acknowledged as a major issue in the forestry sector. It plays a
central role in forest cover change in many tropical nations (Colfer and Pfund, 2011).
According to Kanninen et al. (2007), elements that may contribute to uncontrolled
deforestation include poorly defined property rights, non-transparent decision-making
processes, corruption, lack of accountability, inappropriate and contradictory forest laws, and
weak law enforcement capacity.
Illegal logging refers to forestry activities that violate national and international laws on
harvesting, processing, transporting and exporting wood products (Brack and Buckrell, 2011).
lllegal activities include: logging in protected areas or logging without authorization; harvesting
over allowed quotas; processing logs without licences; avoiding payment of taxes and duties;
and violation of international trade agreements. Widespread occurrences of illegal logging and
illegal conversion of land to agricultural use are symptomatic of the failure of governance,
particularly in remote frontier areas (Brack, 2003). Although it is impossible to calculate exact
figures, it has been estimated that illegal timber may represent up to 10 percent of the global
trade in primary wood products (Putz et al., 2012).
According to a World Bank study, more than half of all logging in southeast Asia, central Africa
and South America may be illegal, although the rate may be considerably higher in some
countries: for example, 70 to 80 percent of logging activity in Indonesia, Gabon, Bolivia and
Peru may be illegal (Pereira-Goncalves et al., 2012). Between 1995 and 2005, illegal logging
represented for developing countries governments an estimated USD15 billion per year in lost
revenue (Pereira-Goncalves et al, 2012). Illegal logging also causes numerous other
problems, including environmental damage, loss of timber resources for future generations,
and provision of revenues for insurgent groups involved in conflict (Brack. 2003; Brack and
Buckrell, 2011). The widespread nature of illegal logging and poor law enforcement provides
little incentive to invest in improved (and more costly) logging practices, nor in forest
regeneration.
The problem of poor forest governance is addressed through a range of initiatives at the
international, regional, national and subnational scale (Saunders and Nussbaum, 2007). For
example, since 2001, around 60 percent of all World Bank programmes in the forestry sector
have included governance components (Pereira-Goncalves et al., 2012). Broad governance
reforms that have been proposed for the forest sector include: the presence of effective
institutions, with clearly defined roles and responsibilities; clear and appropriate legislation; the
ability to enforce legislation; clear, reliable land tenure; creation of national verification and
monitoring systems; participation of all stakeholders in decision-making processes (including
civil society and the private sector); development of accountability; and policy reform to
remove ”perverse” economic incentives to deforest (Eliasch Review, 2008).

When it is difficult to exclude users from a common-pool resource, leading to risk of

overexploitation, sustainable use can be reached through clearly defined user rights,
regulations and policy instruments, e.g. quotas and licences (Ostrom, 1990; Sandström and
Widmark, 2007). From that perspective, Ostrom (1990) defines eight design principles of
sustainable common-pool resource management:
 clearly defined boundaries (effective exclusion of external unentitled parties);
 rules regarding the appropriation and provision of common resources that are adapted
to local conditions;
 collective-choice arrangements that allow most resource appropriators to participate in
the decision-making process;
 effective monitoring by monitors who are part of or accountable to the appropriators;
 a scale of graduated sanctions for resource appropriators who violate community rules;
 mechanisms of conflict resolution that are cheap and easy to access;
 self-determination of the community recognized by higher-level authorities;
 in the case of larger common-pool resources, organization in the form of multiple layers
of nested enterprises, with small, local common-pool resources at the base level.

However, such common-pool resource management systems are now facing broad
challenges such as transnational resource management or the need to manage resources for
more diverse stakeholders with more diverse interests and time scales and, often, with

87
 increased pressure on the resource itself. Decisions taken by states or non-local actors to
deal with broader challenges, such as biodiversity conservation through, for instance, the
designation of new protected areas, might conflict with the access and use rights of local
communities to forest resources for their FSN and livelihood (West et al., 2006).

4.1.2 Forest and trees ownership

The FRA defines forest ownership as the legal right to freely and exclusively use, control,
transfer or otherwise benefit from a forest (FAO, 2012a). This includes ownership of trees
growing on land classified as forest, regardless of whether or not the ownership of these trees
coincides with the ownership of the land itself (Whiteman et al., 2015).
Forest ownership
Three categories of ownership are distinguished (FAO, 2012a):
 Public ownership: forest owned by the state at national level; by administrative units;
or publicly owned institutions or corporations at subnational levels.
 Private ownership: forest owned by individuals and families; by private, profit or non-
profit entities or institutions; by local, tribal or indigenous communities.
 Unknown ownership: forest area where ownership is unknown, unclear or disputed.
Ownership of forest is a different concept than exploitation and use rights. The exploitation
and use of publicly-owned forests can be transferred to private actors via time-bound
concessions for instance: in this case forest ownership is public but the use is private.
Conversely (see section 4.2), rules can limit private ownership and use rights.
The last FRA (FAO, 2015) estimates that, in 2010, public ownership covered three-quarters of
the world’s forest (nearly 3 billion ha), private ownership around one-fifth (nearly 0.8 billion
ha) and unknown or unclear ownership only around 4 percent (Whiteman et al., 2015). Tables
14 and 15 show the repartition of forest ownership by regions and climatic domain in 2010.
Public ownership of forests remains the dominant form of ownership and control in the forest
sector in all regions and all climatic domains (except the subtropical domain). The high
percentages of public forests in Europe and in the boreal domain are partly explained by the
importance of the Russian forest, reported in the FRA to be publicly owned at 99 percent. In
Canada, 91 percent of forests are publicly owned, the vast majority of which are owned and
administrated by the federal government (FAO, 2015).

Table 14 Forest ownership (percent of total forest area) in 2010 by regions

Region Public Private Unknown

Africa 84% 11% 0.3%

Asia 77% 23% 0.2%
Europe 89% 11% 0.8%
North and Central
61% 32% 4.5%
America
Oceania 56% 42% 0.8%
South America 62% 17% 11.2%
World 74% 19% 3.5%
NB: Total of percentages in each row might be different from 100 percent because available data do
not cover 100 percent of forest area in all regions.
Source: FAO (2015).

88
 Table 15 Forest ownership (percent of total forest area) in 2010 by climatic
domains

Region Public Private Unknown

Boreal 93% 6% 0.7%

Temperate 52% 48% 0.1%
Subtropical 48% 34% 10.3%
Tropical 74% 15% 5.5%
Source: FAO (2015).
Between 1990 and 2010, public forest area decreased by 0.24 percent per year, while private
forest area increased by 1 percent per year (FAO, 2015). 38 This decrease in public forest area
is more pronounced in Asia and Africa (by 0.65 and 0.49 percent per year respectively). In
Africa, this decrease can be explained by net deforestation as private forest area is also
reported to have decreased slightly (–0.16 percent per year). Conversely, in Asia, private
forest area is reported to have increased by 5.32 percent per year (+87 million ha between
1990 and 2010); 72 percent of this increase is explained by privatization of public forest area,
24 percent by net afforestation, the rest by a decrease in unknown ownership over the period.
This trend towards privatization is the strongest in the temperate climatic domain, where
public forest area is reported to have decreased by 0.53 percent while private forest area is
reported to increase by 1.76 percent per year between 1990 and 2010. In the temperate
domain, the reported increase of 95 million ha in the private forest area between 1990 and
2010 is explained by a 40 million ha decrease in public forest area, the remaining 55 million
ha coming from private sector investment in afforestation (Whiteman et al., 2015). In the
tropics, public forest areas decreased by 0.45 percent per year between 1990 and 2010,
while private forest areas increased only by 0.36 percent per year.39
The first decade of the twenty-first century has seen a new wave of large-scale land
acquisition for oil palm and rubber plantations in Central Africa and Southeast Asia. This
represents an economic opportunity for host countries but also a threat for natural forest
conservation and for local communities’ access to land and resources. To transform risks into
opportunities, new governance mechanisms are needed at national and regional scales that
design and manage integrated land-use plans, considering the interest of different
stakeholders as well as the power relationships among them (Feintrenie, 2014).
Interestingly, the results of the FRA 2015 (FAO, 2015) did not demonstrate any correlation
between private ownership of forests and expansion of forest plantations or production forest
area. Similarly, available data on the evolution of forest ownership are not detailed enough to
determine whether changes in ownership lead to any major changes in the achievement of
SFM (Whiteman et al., 2015). These results could be due to the FRA definition itself. In fact,
the category “private ownership” encompasses very different kinds of forest managed by very
different stakeholders (individuals and families, small- or large-scale private corporations,
NGOs and local communities) for very different purposes (timber production, collection of
NWFPs, biodiversity and forest conservation, etc.). Moreover, in many countries where the
state owns the major share of managed forests and tree plantations, it commonly delegates
management and/or use rights to state’s local bodies or local communities (Vira et al., 2015).
It is estimated that 11 percent of the world’s forests are legally owned or administered by
communities, rising to up to 22 percent in developing countries (RRI, 2015).
At the global level, in 2010, the proportion of unknown or unclear forest ownership is relatively
small. In many countries, state ownership may be considered as a default position in the
absence of any other clearly defined and recognized ownership. In reality, while technically
owned by the state, many of these areas are used by local people for different purposes,

38
These trends cover only the countries that reported the data over the whole period, i.e. 169 countries and
76 percent of the total forest area for public ownership; 170 countries and 89 percent of the total forest area
for private ownership.
39
In the temperate domain, available data cover 100 percent of the total forest area, while in the tropics,
available data cover 86 percent of total forest area for private ownership but only 58 percent for public
ownership.

89
 meaning that the state does not always have exclusive control and use rights (as per the
definition above). Countries that reported unknown ownership might consider that state
ownership without oversight control is unsustainable in the long run and might be willing to
address this issue (Whiteman et al., 2015).
Tree tenure
It is important to distinguish between land tenure and tree tenure, as the two are often
different, particularly in some customary tenure systems (FAO, 1989; Howard and Nabanoga,
2007) and as tree tenure systems have a profound influence in inhibiting or stimulating tree
growing (Fortmann, 1984), particularly on agricultural land.
In many cases, ownership of land does not grant automatic rights to the trees growing upon it
(Fortmann and Riddell, 1984). Examples have been reported where property rights or use
rights of certain specific trees, even inside a forest, were held by distinct rights’ holders other
than the owners or users of the forest itself (Castro, 1983). In other instances, tree-growing
generated the rights to the land on which they grow; this was a common practice throughout
humid West Africa (FAO, 1989).
In other cases, even in areas where farmland is privately held, woodland would remain under
the jurisdiction of communities or other local groups. In some countries, the ownership of all
the trees in the country is officially vested in the state, with penalties for cutting trees without
permission, even those standing on a farmer's own land. In Morocco, for example, argan
trees (Argania spinosa) are owned by the state even if they are grown on private land
(Biermayr-Jenzano et al., 2014). Although designed to protect trees, this kind of legislation
often has the opposite effect and discourages farmers from taking the initiative and planting
trees themselves (Murray, 1981).
When farmland is rented, the details of the arrangement, formal or not, may be of critical
importance to encourage or discourage plantation of trees by the tenant. The length of the
contract, the need or lack of need to ask for the authorization of the owner and the existence
of compensation at the end of the contract are among the factors to consider.

4.1.3 Access and use rights

Multiple rights over land and natural resources can be held by different stakeholders, or
groups of stakeholders, on the same parcel, simultaneously or successively. This means that
even a single landscape would be subject to a complex web of different property rights
(Fortmann and Bruce, 1988; Bruce, 1999; Fuys and Dohrn, 2010). In Thailand, for instance,
upland dwellers have rights to collect bamboo on individually owned lowland farms (Fuys and
Dorn, 2010). This complex web of rights may cause conflicts between right holders despite
the existence of mediation mechanisms (Bruce, 1999). For instance, in southwestern
Morocco, conflicts are frequent between nomadic camel and goat herders with grazing rights
and local residents with rights to exploit the argan fruit (Biermayr-Jenzano et al., 2014).
This question of access and use rights is critical for the FSN of many forest-dependent people
and communities, including indigenous peoples. Communities with de facto access and use
rights are more vulnerable than private landowners or communities with de jure rights over
forest resources (RRI, 2012). For instance, logging concessions and illegal logging on
indigenous peoples’ lands have displaced thousands of people who depend on forests for
their FSN and livelihoods (UN, 2009).
Rules of access to private land vary across countries. Box 17 develops the specific case of
Scandinavian countries. In Finland, Norway and Sweden, the right to hunt is held by the
landowner and regulated by hunting permits. In Canada, hunting permits also regulate
hunting. However, the landowner has no exclusive right comparable with Scandinavian
measures (Heikkila and Aarnio, 2001; Storaas et al., 2001).

90
 Box 17 Access rights and provision of berries and mushrooms in Finland,
Sweden and Norway
In Finland, Sweden and Norway, the percentage of privately owned woodland is large:
respectively 70, 75 and 80 percent in 2010 according to the last FRA (FAO, 2015).
In these countries, the public is allowed by law to access all land, whether public or private.
Therefore multiple use for different objectives (not only timber production, but also NWFP
collection by the public) can create conflicting situations among stakeholders, especially as
there is a common-pool resource situation due to the public right of access.
For Finland, Sweden and Norway, the public right of access offers the general public the right
to enter private land, for example, to pick berries, mushrooms and herbs both for individual
consumption and for commercial purposes. However, in some areas in Finland and Norway,
cloudberries (Rubus chamaemorus) are exempted from the public right. Also, some private
land, such as yards and garden areas, are exempted from the access right. Additionally, in
Sweden, it is not allowed to pick nuts, a historical legacy still in use of nuts for feeding pigs
(Nordiska ministerrådet, 1997). With the growing interest for Swedish berries and as the
economic value of the berries has increased, conflicts over public access and berry picking for
commercial purposes has arisen (Sténs and Sandström, 2013).

Customary use of forest resources

Many communities have substantial knowledge and beliefs transmitted through oral traditions
derived from first-hand long-term observations about the local environment and developed
systems of self-management that govern resource use. Traditional indigenous knowledge and
practices, and customary uses of biological resources, are the fundamental basis of FSN for
forest-dependent people in many territories. Some empirical studies in Canada (Elliot et al.,
2012) and Central Africa on traditional knowledge and FSN have shown evidence that
harvesting, preparing and conserving wild forest foods by indigenous peoples according to
customary traditions can have positive impacts on FSN, especially at the local level (CCA,
2014).
The complex relationship that indigenous communities have with the forest took time to be
recognized and formalized at the international and national levels. But even today, this
recognition is limited to the principles and international declarations that several states have
adopted but to which they still have not attributed any legal value. The report Our common
future (Brundtland, 1987) set the tone by insisting that the starting point for a just and humane
policy for such groups is the recognition and protection of their traditional rights to land and
the other resources that sustain their way of life.
The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992) 40 proclaimed (in its principle
22) the vital role of indigenous peoples in environmental management and development
because of their knowledge and traditional practices. Since then, most international legal
instruments maintain that sustainable development cannot be achieved without protecting
and including local communities, especially indigenous peoples, who must have access to
specific rights according to their particular traditions. The Rio+20 Declaration (2012) The
future we want41 recognized “that traditional knowledge, innovations and practices of
indigenous peoples and local communities make an important contribution to the
conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, and their wider application can support
social well-being and sustainable livelihoods” and also “that indigenous peoples and local
communities are often most directly dependent on biodiversity and ecosystems and thus are
often most immediately affected by their loss and degradation”. In 2007, the United Nations
General Assembly adopted the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
(UNDRIP)42, setting a minimum standard for the survival, dignity and well-being of the
indigenous peoples of the world, including “the right to determine and develop priorities and
strategies for the development or use of their lands or territories and other resources”.

40
Available at http://www.unesco.org/education/pdf/RIO_E.PDF
41
Available at http://www.un.org/disabilities/documents/rio20_outcome_document_complete.pdf (accessed
May 2017).
42
Available at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf

91
 One proposed reason for the success of customary forest use is that the relationship
indigenous peoples have with food is deeply cultural. A case study on some First Nations in
Canada proposed the concept of “cultural food security” to emphasize the ability of aboriginal
peoples to reliably access important traditional food through traditional harvesting methods
(Power, 2008). Similarly, in Central Africa, several studies have provided evidence that when
forest products were harvested for local consumption, the harvesting techniques employed by
forest communities were more sustainable, and facilitated forest regeneration and biodiversity
conservation (Rerkasem et al., 2009). The challenge is now to ensure the in situ protection of
indigenous peoples’ traditional use of local knowledge and forest resources, in a way that
develops and continues to improve FSN, and to learn from these diverse knowledge systems.
Access to forest resources depends on the use and property rights organized at different
levels within the framework of international agreements and national legislation. The
Voluntary guidelines to support the progressive realization of the right to adequate food in the
context of national food security (VGRTF) (FAO, 2005) encourages states to facilitate
sustainable, non-discriminatory and secure access and utilization of resources, and protect
the assets that are important for people’s livelihoods.

4.2 Governance instruments and tools for forests and trees

Many governance tools for forests and trees already exist at international and national levels.
Some of those instruments are specialized, focusing on one function of forests and trees,
while others integrate their different benefits for sustainable development. Those instruments
can be either regulatory, or market-driven, or combine those two approaches.

4.2.1 International interventions and agreements

International agreements or treaties may be voluntary or mandatory, with the main purpose of
achieving a joint goal. There are several UN conventions on, for example, climate (see
section 3.3.4 and Box 18), biodiversity (CBD), and the International Labour Organization’s
indigenous and Tribal Peoples’ Convention (ILO Convention No. 169), most of them with a
very specific objective, that are of consequence for forests. The UN-initiated Forest principles
is a non-legally binding document adopted in 1992 at the United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro 43 that outlines suggestions for sustainable
forestry.
Directly touching on FSN matters are the CFS (FAO, 2012c) Voluntary guidelines on the
responsible governance of tenure of land, fisheries and forests in the context of national food
security (VGGT). They provide concrete guidance for countries to improve governance of
tenure of land, fisheries and forests, in the perspective of the progressive realization of the
right to adequate food, poverty eradication and sustainable development, focusing particularly
on vulnerable and marginalized peoples.
In 2017, the United Nations Forum on Forests adopted the UN Strategic Plan for Forests
2017–2030 (UNSPF). Its mission is to “promote sustainable forest management and the
contribution of forests and trees outside forests to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development, including by strengthening cooperation, coordination, coherence, synergies
and political commitment and actions at all levels”. It provides a global framework “for actions
at all levels to sustainably manage all types of forests and trees outside forests and halt
deforestation and forest degradation”, as well as “for forest-related contributions to the
implementation of international forest-related instruments, processes, commitments and
goals”.44

43
See http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126-3annex3.htm
44
Including the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the Paris Agreement adopted under the UN
Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Convention on Biological Diversity, the UN Convention to
Combat Desertification, and the United Nations Forest Instrument (UNFI).

92
 Box 18 REDD+: potential and pitfalls
REDD+ is a cross-country effort to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest
degradation, particularly in developing countries. The aim of REDD+ is to develop and
implement conservation practices in a sustainable management system, enhancing forest
carbon stocks. The initiative was first negotiated in the UN Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC) in 2005. A developing country that aims at undertaking REDD+ needs: to
develop strategies to prepare a national forest plan and a national forest monitoring system for
reporting REDD+ activities; and to provide information on how social and environmental values
are safeguarded. Among the critiques of REDD+ is that induced changes in land tenure and
economic benefits may negatively affect local people’s previous revenue from the forest. 45
There is concern that, by valuing forests for this globally important service, REDD+
programmes could undermine some of the ecosystem services that forests provide locally,
including food, fuelwood and medicine to the millions of poor who live in and depend on the
forests. REDD+ could create new incentives for states to restrict these people’s access to
forests. The insecurity of land tenure for many indigenous and other forest-dependent
communities may make them especially vulnerable to this risk (Phelps et al., 2010; Espinoza-
Llanos and Feather, 2011). There is a risk for communities to unknowingly accept terms that
sign away land-use rights, assume liability for forest loss, or accept payments that undervalue
the true opportunity costs of the land use foregone.
Some potential risks to forest dwellers associated with REDD+ are: violations of customary
land rights and harsh enforcement measures; loss of access to forests for subsistence and
income-generation needs; land-use conflicts; and physical displacement from forests. The
capture by elites of intended REDD+ benefits, due to inadequate forest governance systems,
could result in decreased production of food locally, creating food security risks and deepening
poverty (Poudyal et al., 2016).
While there is a need to focus REDD+ investment on bolstering national-level forest
governance, particularly in countries facing illegal logging and inadequate forest-sector
institutions, focusing only on the forest sector is not enough to confront and reconcile
agricultural drivers of forest clearing. In order for REDD+ carbon emission mitigation targets to
be reached, it is important for governments to address the role of agriculture, which is the
primary driver of forest clearing globally. However, despite the fact that REDD+ offers an
unprecedented opportunity to establish policies, institutions and capacity to respond to these
pressures, many countries have a long way to go before fundamentally addressing agricultural
drivers of deforestation and forest degradation. Kissinger (2013) argues that in order for
REDD+ carbon emission mitigation goals to be reached, it is important for governments to
address the role of agriculture, main driver of forest clearing globally, by:
 aligning REDD+ targets with transformational change in agricultural systems that intensify
production, satisfy domestic needs before serving export markets, are geared towards
stabilizing food security in the face of increasing climate change impacts, and solidify
forest-dependent community and smallholder tenure and access rights;
 ensuring that national governments engaging in REDD+ focus their REDD+ readiness
activities and development of national strategies on: establishing and enabling adequate
legal institutional frameworks (such as low-carbon development commitments);
governance; and measurement, monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) systems that
account for and are responsive to the role of agriculture in forest clearing, stretch beyond
the forest sector, and align long-term objectives of safeguarding terrestrial carbon stocks
while providing food for a growing population.
See: http://www.un-redd.org/

There are also some initiatives related to forests and trees at the regional level, for instance in
Central Africa that, with the Congo Basin, contains the second largest area of tropical forest in
the world. The increasing pressure exerted on those forests could lead to considerable
deforestation and degradation and increased poverty and food insecurity for a large number
of forest-dependent people. To tackle this issue, six Central African states signed the

45
See http://www.unredd.net/documents/redd-papers-and-publications-90/un-redd-publications-1191/fact-
sheets/15279-fact-sheet-about-redd.html

93
 Yaoundé Declaration in Cameroon (17 March 1999), 46 and established the Central African
Forest Commission (COMIFAC).47 COMIFAC drew up a Convergence Plan that defines
common objectives for forest conservation and encourages the development of coordinated
regional conservation efforts. The Congo Basin Forest Partnership (CBFP), created in 2002,
brings together 97 partners 48 willing to invest in the achievement of the Yaoundé Declaration
objectives (de Wasseige et al., 2012).

4.2.2 National rules and policies

At national level, public authorities have considerable means of intervention to orient forest
management. As shown above, they are often owners of most of the forest and as such either
manage it directly or delegate it to non-state actors, providing them more or less guidance on
management. National authorities also provide both normative principles and orientation for
the whole forestry sector. To do so, they can use a mix of instruments: direct or delegated
management of public forests, laws and regulations, incentives, including specific taxation
regimes, market instruments and, increasingly, combinations of these various instruments.
National legislations and regulations define what is a forest (see section 1.1), and the rules
applied to it. They can in particular determine land deemed as permanent forest (see section
4.3). They establish property and tenure rights for forest land and for trees. They can restrict
property rights, for instance by including provisions for the protection of trees on private land.
National rules also fixe the way access and use rights, including customary ones, are
recognized and protected, including for indigenous groups and local communities. For
instance, in most European countries public access to forests is allowed, with forest owners
having specific rights to limit this access, mainly for nature protection in order to protect
replanted or naturally regenerated forest stands. In most of these countries the public has
usage rights to collect some NWFPs, often requiring consent from the forest owner, with
considerable variations between countries and some rights being subject to regulation and
specific restrictions (UNECE, 2004).
National rules also establish the institutional organization of forest administration at national,
subnational and local levels including, the case being, the institutional organization of forest
management that can be different for public and private forest. It can delegate part of it to
various entities, public or not, including at community level. National rules also set the
respective roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders in the forest sector, and create a
legal framework for economic and financial relationships between them, including the role of
public–private partnerships.
Increasingly, national rules also includes dispositions creating a zoning for forest activities
and/or specific forest functions and roles. These can include protection areas, such as
national parks or other protected areas, or areas where forests are considered to exercise
specific protective functions (see section 3.2.3); with generally specific management rules,
both in terms of governance and/or to better fulfil this specific function. National legislation
can also establish or recognize silvicultural standards, and, increasingly, environmental or
sustainability standards, that can be linked to certification schemes (see section 4.2.2).
Increasingly national forest policies and legislation tend to consider the multiple functions of
forests and trees and pursue multiple objectives, including wood production, energy,
biodiversity conservation, climate change adaptation and mitigation, water and soil protection,
empowerment of local communities (see Chapter 3 and section 4.3.3). This manifests itself by
an increasing number of countries implementing enabling conditions for SFM (see section
4.3) and defining broad orientations that integrate the multiple functions of forests and trees.

46
Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon (see
http://pfbc-cbfp.org/docs/key_docs/declarationyaounde.pdf [in French]).
47
See http://www.comifac.org/. Since its creation, Burundi, Equatorial Guinea, Rwanda and Sao Tome and
Principe have also joined the COMIFAC.
48
Including African governments, donors agencies and governments, IGOs, NGOs, scientific institutions and
the private sectors (see http://pfbc-cbfp.org/home.html).

94
 Box 19 Swedish forestry model – a management system of forests focused on
sustainability
Sweden is a country that is dominated by forests: 1 percent of the world’s commercial forests
are found in Sweden, but 10 percent of global sawn timber, pulp and paper is provided by
Swedish forests. In 1993, a major shift occurred in Swedish forest policy, as a result of a
strong environmental lobby. In this reform, the production goal that had until this point been
dominant, was set equal to environmental goals. The new law applied equally to private forest
land (50 percent), corporate forest land (25 percent) and state-owned forest land (25 percent).
At the same time that the goals of forestry changed, forest law was also deregulated,
abolishing all detailed regulations on how to manage the forest. The term “freedom under
responsibility” was introduced in forest policy and, without detailed regulation, the forest
owners have to consider a number of goals in managing the forest:
 production goals;
 environmental goals;
 social goals;
 recreational goals (including tourism);
 other land users utilizing forest land (such as reindeer husbandry); and
 cultural environments in the forest (e.g. ancient monuments).

The environmental consideration is defined as the sum of the consideration of nature values,
ground, water, culture environments (including biological culture values) and social values in
managing the forest (Johansson et al., 2009).
The challenges in the Swedish forestry model are to find a balance between the multipurpose
use of the forest, both ensuring all values of the forest as well as continuing to have high
production of timber. In management, not only timber production is important, but also the
improvement of the environment, which indirectly affects FSN, and the production of NWFPs
linked to FSN, such as berries, mushrooms, game and the provision of grazing areas for
reindeer.
See: https://www.skogsstyrelsen.se/en/about-us/

The Swedish forestry model (see Box 19), along with many others, provides one such
example of an integrated approach to forest management, combining forestry that is built on
science and evidence with an active commitment to multiple uses (Lindahl et al., 2015; Pülzl
et al., 2014).
An important condition of success for forestry policies, given the time frame of forest growth,
is to provide the conditions for stability and long-term support, oriented by a clear
identification of priorities. A good example is provided by the succession of rules and plans for
forestry in China, focusing from the 1970s to the 1990s on both timber production and
ecological development, with then an even stronger emphasis on SFM and protective
functions of forests (State Forestry Administration, 2013). Box 15 on desertification control
provides other examples of such successful long-term forest policies against desertification in
northern Africa.
An analysis of case studies from seven countries (Chile, Costa Rica, the Gambia, Georgia,
Ghana, Tunisia and Viet Nam) demonstrates the opportunities for improving FSN while
maintaining or increasing forest cover (FAO, 2016a). Successful cases enable to draw some
important lessons. They all recognized and integrated in their policies the range of economic,
social and environmental benefits of forests, including their contributions to wider sustainable
development, poverty reduction and climate-change programmes. They showed the
importance of using the right mix of policy instruments, including regulatory tools, incentives
and tax breaks to promote SFM and increase agricultural productivity. All the case studies
showed the need for effective legal and institutional frameworks, with predictable and secure
land tenure, land use planning and measures to regulate land-use change, including
requirements for environmental impact assessments and special protection for designated
areas. They also showed the importance of adequate funding through public-sector
investment in the agriculture sector, the forest sector and wider rural development
programmes. They also demonstrated the importance of integrated land-use approaches at
the national, landscape and local levels (FAO, 2016a).

95
 Another condition of success is often the combination of various instruments. New Zealand
for instance has several programmes designed to protect forests and/or encourage
afforestation;49 some of them explicitly aimed at increasing carbon stocks either as a main
objective or a co-benefit of reduced erosion, and use carbon credits of the New Zealand
carbon credit scheme as collateral for grants provided by the government. This combination
enables to combine the pursuit of a global objective and mitigation of climate change, with
objectives at local and landscape levels, with a prioritization on degraded or sloppy areas for
soil conservation.

4.2.3 Certification and other market-based instruments

There is an increasing push for the use of market-based mechanisms, including payments for
environmental services (PES) or certification schemes, with a variable engagement of public
stakeholders, along with the private sector and civil society.
PES has been defined as a voluntary transaction between a service buyer and service seller
that takes place on the condition that either a specific ecosystem service is provided or land is
used in a way to secure that service (Wunder, 2005). Originally promoted as a form of non-
state governance, using market-based approaches to reduce forest degradation and
deforestation, it is more often taking hybrid forms operating across scales and involving
public, private and civil society stakeholders. States have often a major role in such
programmes, either by providing the legal framework for private PES or even by setting-up
PES schemes defined and financed by public funds (Vira et al., 2015).
The emergence of markets for forestry-related services (such as their role in carbon
sequestration, recognized in REDD+) has led to a new wave of interest of private actors for
forestry, often in collaboration with either state, non-state (NGO and commercial) or local
communities. In Indonesia, Brazil and other countries with significant remaining tropical
forests, REDD+ projects have attracted private investment on the voluntary carbon market.
Certification of carbon and community interests in these projects are essential ingredients to
market valuation (Ecosystem Marketplace, 2015) and would improve governance and the
relationships of companies with communities and rural neighbours (McDermott et al., 2015).
In any case, it is necessary to underline that carbon is a limited proportion of income
generation from forest management.
Scientists disagree on the capacity of market and incentive-based forest governance
approaches to deliver synergies between environmental and social goals, between
ecosystem services, local livelihood and FSN. Some consider that those approaches are able
to bring new incomes to rural communities and to support ecosystem services that enhance
FSN in the long term (Harvey et al., 2014; Smith et al., 2013). Others consider that the cost of
such approaches outweighs the expected benefits, favours large operations and wealthier
farmers (in terms of land or education) over smallholders and women, and enhances the risk
of local and indigenous peoples and local communities to be dispossessed of their right to
access land and resources (Vira et al., 2015).
Certification schemes and voluntary standards
Certification schemes are market-based instruments involving “non-state” standards
established and monitored through networks of producers, NGOs and/or private partners.
Forest certification schemes allow an independent assessment of the respect of a defined set
of management standards that promote and measure SFM (CEPI, 2006), providing final
consumers with an assurance that their demands are being met from well-managed and
sustainable sources. As such, forest certification plays an important role in assessing and
monitoring the sustainable management of forests in an independent way, determining
whether forest administration and management correspond to approved criteria and
indicators, and to legal regulations for the use of forest resources at the national level, in
accordance with accepted international principles.

49
https://www.mpi.govt.nz/funding-and-programmes/forestry/

96
Independent international certification schemes of forest management were introduced in the
late 1990s as voluntary tools to raise awareness and promote the sustainable management of
forests and the trade of products coming from sustainably managed forests (see Box 20).
Available data show the success of those schemes, with a sharp increase in area covered at
the global level, from 13.8 million ha in 2000 to 438 million ha in 2014 50 (FAO, 2015),
representing an annual average increase of some 30 million ha (MacDicken et al., 2015). This
increase is expected to continue in the future although other alternatives, such as voluntary
partnership agreements, are also available to ensure that forest products come from
sustainably managed forests. As of 2014, forest certification, however, is primarily focused on
boreal and temperate forests – which account for 90 percent of all internationally certified
forest area – while certification in the tropics only represents 6 percent of the total certified
forest area (MacDicken et al., 2015).
Private voluntary standards call for the engagement of all stakeholders, including private
corporations, in progressing towards sustainable production. But they also raise the question
of the respective roles of public and private stakeholders in the design and implementation of
such standards (Rival et al., 2016).

Box 20 International forest certification schemes

The Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) claims to be the world’s
largest forest certification system, aiming at transforming the way forests are managed around
the world, to make sure that humans can enjoy the environmental, social and economic
benefits of the forest. The North American (59 percent) and the European regions (31 percent)
have the largest forest areas certified by PEFC, while Asia and Oceania (both 4 percent) and
Central and South America (2 percent) have a much lower share of forest land certified by
PEFC. PEFC is absent in Africa.
The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) is an international organization with three main goals:
environmentally appropriate forest management; socially beneficial (in particular for
indigenous peoples and local communities; and economically viable. FSC covers 47.4 percent
of forest land in Europe; 35.9 in North America; 6.9 percent in South America and Caribbean;
4.3 percent in Asia; 4.2 percent in Africa; and 1.4 percent in Oceania.
FSC is built on decision-making bodies (one for each goal), while PEFC builds on consensus
between different goals. PEFC is based on a national forest management standard (bottom-up
approach), while FSC builds on international standards against which national standards are
evaluated (top-down approach).
In many regions, it is common that clients are certified by both certification schemes.
These certification schemes are organized on two levels: international and national. On the
international level, overarching vision, objectives and goals are set, while the national level is
more detailed, outlining national goals and objectives, with respect to local prerequisites.
National standards for forest certification have been elaborated in 39 countries for FSC and in
32 countries for PEFC: in some countries, such as China and Indonesia, certification is part of
state forest policy. As of 2013, 61 countries reported public forests certified under FSC and
around 30 countries under PEFC, mostly in Europe and North America (FAO, 2014a).
Both schemes, while not directly related to FSN, contain elements that are linked to it. For
instance, FSC standard 5 and PEFC criterion 4 relate to benefits from the forest including
ecosystem services (in which FSN may be included), and FSC standard 6 and PEFC criterion
3 deal with the control of hunting and fishing. Both certification schemes also talk about the
food chain in relation to pesticides. Further, both certification schemes relate to the indigenous
people’s rights to forests, however not specifically mentioning FSN (FSC, 2015; PEFC, 2010).
See: https://ic.fsc.org/en; http://www.pefc.org/about-pefc/who-we-are/facts-a-figures.

50
These figures contain some double accounting (approximately 2 percent), as some forest management
units are certified under both schemes.

97
 Voluntary green building programmes, building codes and standards also contribute to
promote the use of legally and sustainably harvested wood products. For instance, the NGO-
led International Green Construction Code of the United States of America was finalized in
March 2012 and has now been adopted in whole or in part by ten states in that country. The
voluntary Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building
Certification Program is widely recognized in the United States of America, as is the Building
Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) that has country-
specific schemes in seven European countries (Austria, Germany, Netherlands, Norway,
Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom) (FAO, 2014a).
Green procurement policies can support and increase demand for legal and sustainable
timber and timber products. By end-2010, a total of 14 countries worldwide had operational
public sector procurement policies at the central government level for wood and wood-based
products (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Mexico,
Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, United Kingdom) (EU Standing Forestry
Committee, 2010). Countries where green procurement policies or laws for timber products
existed by 2013 include Australia, China, India, Italy, Republic of Korea and Slovenia.
The Round Table on Sustainable Palm Oil, which gathers private stakeholders of the palm oil
supply chain as well as NGOs, commits itself to transform markets to make sustainable palm
oil the norm by developing and implementing credible global standards for “RSPO-certified
sustainable palm oil”, and by involving all stakeholders across the supply chain. One of its
central claims is to reduce deforestation. Almost 12 million tonnes (2.5 million ha) of palm oil
are already certified, which represent 21 percent of global production. 51 Similarly, the
Roundtable on Responsible Soy52 set up sustainable production standards and involves
multiple stakeholders along the value chain, including governments, NGOs, industry,
importers and exporters. Elgert (2012) expressed the concern that such schemes, while
enhancing new partnerships between private corporations and environmental NGOs, could
marginalize smallholders and threaten access to land and resources for indigenous peoples
and peasant communities. As smallholders represent 40 percent of the global palm oil
production, financing and supporting their engagement in RSPO certification is critical (Rival
et al., 2016).

4.3 Ways forward: sustainable forest management for FSN

While the critical ecosystems services provided by forests and trees are progressively better
integrated in forest management, the role they play for FSN, especially of some of the most
vulnerable, can conflict with other functions of forests and trees and is still relatively neglected
(Vira et al., 2015). Local communities’ and smallholders’ rights over their farmland and forest
resources can also be undermined by powerful non-local stakeholders such as private
corporations receiving concessions for developing new infrastructures or industrial projects
(Agrawal et al., 2008).
The Rio+20 Declaration The future we want highlighted the social, economic and
environmental benefits of forests and called for enhanced efforts and strengthened forest
governance to achieve SFM while slowing, halting and reversing deforestation and forest
degradation.
SFM, as defined in Chapter 1, has to consider and integrate: the multiple uses of forests and
trees; the trade-offs and synergies between those uses; as well as the interests, needs and
rights (including rights of access to resource) of different stakeholders, paying specific
attention to the more vulnerable. For the purpose of the FRA, information is collected on a set
of enabling conditions for SFM:
 permanent forest land: the intent to retain some areas as forest is the starting point
for sustainable management;
 legal framework: policies, legislation and institutions supporting SFM;
 national data reporting: the quality of forest inventory data as well as the existence of
regular monitoring and reporting mechanisms are indispensable to SFM;

51
See http://www.rspo.org/about (updated 31 May 2017).
52
See http://www.responsiblesoy.org/?lang=en

98
  forest management plans;
 stakeholder involvement in the decision-making process: such involvement can
inform political debates, help mitigate conflicts, enhance cooperation across
stakeholders and, finally, improve the quality of national forest policy (FAO, 2009c).
In the last FRA, 163 countries reported a total area of 2.2 billion ha of “permanent forest
land”, out of which slightly less than 1.5 billion have been legally assigned as “permanent
forest estate” 53; almost 150 countries declared having a policy and legal framework
supporting SFM, and 126 to have a national platform for stakeholder involvement in SFM
(FAO, 2015). According to MacDicken et al. (2015), the above enabling conditions for SFM
are met on 1.1 billion ha globally (i.e. half of the permanent forest land) and tropical forests
have by far the smallest proportion of their total area (23 percent) under an intermediate or
good level of sustainable management.
SFM implies setting up governance mechanisms at different geographic scales, from
landscape to global level, articulating short- and long-term objectives, involving many
stakeholders, including indigenous peoples and local communities, recognizing and
managing conflicts (see example of Quebec in Box 21)

Box 21 Local governance in Quebec and social networks in forest governance:

what lessons for sustainable forestry for FSN?
In Canada, public forests are under provincial jurisdiction, and each province is able to define its
own legislative and regulatory framework. In Quebec, since several decades, forest policy has
undergone significant changes (Blais and Boucher, 2013). In March 2010, Quebec adopted a
law on the sustainable management of the forest area, to put in place a new forestry regime.
This Act modifies the roles and responsibilities of all stakeholders in forest planning, and
develops an integrated approach to the use of forest resources. Recent research in Québec
revealed that the emergence of new actors in forest governance introduced new arrangements
wherein the state shares authority and responsibilities with other forest stakeholders, moving
towards a model of governance that ensures coordination between the different stakeholders in
the forest sector (Chiasson and Leclerc, 2013).
The regional round tables for integrated resource management planning are the principal
governance instruments at the local level in Quebec. Their purpose is to promote the sustainable
development of natural resources on public land, through integrated management, for the benefit
of all communities in the region. These round tables bring together representatives from a
variety of sectors directly interested in public land.
The role and mandates of these regional round tables are:
 to promote local cooperation and harmonization of uses;
 to identify shared goals for the protection and development of resources and land;
 to participate in the preparation of tactical and operational integrated forest management
plans in collaboration with the Regional Office of the Ministry of Forests, Wildlife and Parks.
In many of Quebec’s regions, the regional round tables for integrated resource management
planning are made up of six sectoral groups representing the major relevant partners (i)
Forestry; (ii) Wildlife; (iii) Other Users with Rights; (iv) Nature; (v) Territory; and (vi) First Nations.
This model of regional round tables for integrated resource management planning could be used
to promote synergies between the stakeholders and different users of forest resources. In
particular, this model could create and improve local social networks based on FSN in relation to
forest resources governance for FSN.
Regional round tables for integrated resource management planning are similar in certain
aspects to social networks in forest governance. A social network is a set of relationships
between different actors, and can be organized or informal. In forestry, some empirical studies
have demonstrated the importance of social networks when different stakeholders have come
together to deal with natural resource problems and dilemmas (Bodin and Crona, 2009).

53
The FRA distinguishes “permanent forest land” and “permanent forest estate”. “Permanent forest land”
identifies a “forest area that is designated or expected to be retained as forest and is highly unlikely to be
converted to other land use”, whereas the “permanent forest estate”is the forest area “that is designated by
law or regulation to be retained as forest and may not be converted to other land use” (FAO, 2012a).

99
 The following subsections highlight four important aspects of governance that could help
develop SFM for FSN:
 develop forest management plans;
 promote an integrated landscape approach that integrates forests and trees as key
components;
 foster stakeholder involvement in order to raise awareness and to optimize the direct
and indirect contributions of forests and trees to FSN;
 adopt a rights-based approach.

4.3.1 Forest management plans

In the FRA, FAO monitors the forest area under “forest management plans (FMPs)”, defined
as “a long-term documented management plan, aiming at defined management goals, which
is periodically revised”. Such plans must detail the operations planned on individual
operational units but may also present more general management strategies. FMPs may
define a main objective, whether production or conservation, or pursue multiple goals (FAO,
2012a).
In the last FRA (FAO, 2015), 167 countries, representing 98 percent of global forest area,
reported having at least some area under forest management plans (FMPs). At the global
level, in 2010, the forest area under a management plan had increased to 2.1 billion ha (52
percent of the total forest area). FMPs are seen as one of the enabling conditions for SFM,
although the presence of an FMP is not a guarantee of effective implementation (MacDicken
et al., 2015). Table 16 shows that if FMPs are now the norm in Europe and very common in
Asia, there is still a need to promote them in South America and Africa, where the challenges
to sustainable management of forests and FSN of local communities are more extreme.

Table 16 Area under a forest management plan in 2010, by region

Area under FMP
Region (% of total
(million ha)
forest area)
World 2100 52
Africa 140 22
Asia 410 70
Europe 950 94
North and Central America 430 57
Oceania 46 27
South America 125 15
Source: adapted from FAO (2015).
Since the 1950s, the area under FMPs for conservation purposes has increased sharply and, in
2010, the global area under FMPs was equally distributed between production and conservation
purposes in all climatic domains, as shown in Table 17.
Table 17 Area under a forest management plan in 2010 by climatic domains
FMP for
Area under FMP FMP for production
Climatic conservation
% of % of % of
domain
Million ha domain Million ha domain Million ha domain
forest area forest area forest area
Boreal 1074 88 443 36 401 33
Temperate 425 63 176 26 209 31
Subtropical 91 28 37 11 29 9
Tropical 510 28 191 11 204 11
World 2100 52 846 21 843 21
Source: MacDicken et al. (2015).

100
4.3.2 Towards integrated landscape approaches
Agricultural, forested and aquatic ecosystems are dynamic systems sharing space within a
landscape. A landscape is a socio-ecological system that consists of a mosaic of natural
and/or human-modified ecosystems, with a characteristic configuration of topography,
vegetation, land use and settlements that is influenced by ecological, historical, economic and
cultural conditions (Bioversity/Earth Institute, 2013). It is therefore at the landscape level that
key interactions among biophysical, socio-economic and institutional factors occur and can be
observed (Jackson et al., 2005; Sachs et al., 2012).
The challenge is to achieve multiple, and often competing objectives within a limited space
and with limited natural resources, while minimizing the damage to the environment. This
supposes moving beyond the “land-sparing” vs ”land-sharing” debate, towards more
integrated landscape approaches.
The “land sharing” vs “land sparing” debate
The central question in this debate has been how to increase agricultural production to meet
a growing demand while protecting biodiversity: whether by increasing productivity on existing
agricultural land and preserving natural ecosystems for biodiversity conservation (land-
sparing), or by privileging complex landscapes incorporating low-intensity farmlands and
natural features and integrating production and conservation objectives within the same land
units (land sharing) (Acton, 2014; Fischer et al., 2014; Vira et al., 2015; Phalan et al., 2016).
Many studies in different countries found that “land-sparing” is the best strategy to reconcile
production and biodiversity conservation (Vira et al., 2015; Deakin et al., 2016). Some argue
that sustainable increases in productivity on existing farmland can be reached that would
reduce the pressure on the environment and spare land for biodiversity (Garnett and Godfray
2012; Pretty and Bharucha, 2014). Strassburg et al. (2014) found that, with modest increases
in productivity, Brazil could stop deforestation driven by agriculture expansion. However, this
“land-sparing” strategy has also raised some concerns. Firstly, enhanced productivity would
increase the profitability of agricultural land, providing further incentives for agricultural
expansion and deforestation (Belassen and Gitz, 2008; Phelps et al., 2013; Byerlee et al.,
2014; Oliveira and Hecht, 2016). Second, sustainable intensification on agricultural land has
to be explicitly linked with natural habitat protection on “spared” lands, which is not always the
case (Vira et al., 2015). Third, intensification of agricultural practices may provoke declines in
agrobiodiversity (Green et al., 2005; Kleijn et al., 2009).
“Land-sharing” is seen by its proponents as a way to address those concerns by creating
multifunctional landscapes that aim to achieve both production and conservation objectives.
According to those studies, these complex “eco-agricultural” landscapes, mimicking natural
ecological processes within a socio-cultural context, are likely to be more resilient than
simpler ones (Elmqvist et al., 2003; Tscharntke et al., 2005; Scherr and McNeely, 2008). For
instance, in Japan, traditional landscapes, called satoyama (from “sato” home-village; and
“yama” wooded hills and mountains), comprise socio-ecological networks of villages and their
surrounding agricultural lands, as well as multifunctional forests (Indrawan et al., 2014).
Enhancing the connectivity of forest fragments in a landscape may sometimes be a more
efficient strategy for optimizing the long-term delivery of multiple ecosystem services than
simply limiting further forest loss (Mitchell et al., 2014). For instance, in a study on Northern
Bornean landscapes, Labrière et al., (2015) show how traditional landscapes shaped by
swidden agriculture, rubber tapping and logging, have created multifunctional mosaic
landscapes that largely outperform oil palm or rubber monocultures in terms of biodiversity,
carbon storage and soil erosion control, and that prove to be more resilient to price volatility.
However, this “land-sharing” approach is also limited because many species cannot survive in
human-dominated agricultural landscapes and because, with lower yields, more land will be
needed for agriculture (Kleijn et al., 2006; Jackson et al., 2007; Phalan et al., 2011).
Integrated landscape approach
This somewhat polarized and theoretical opposition between “land-sparing” and “land-
sharing” fails to consider broader perspectives (Perfecto and Vandermeer, 2010; Fischer et
al., 2014; Deakin et al., 2016).

101
 First, it does not consider interactions between different scales: what appears as land-sparing
at a local level may be considered as land-sharing in a broader landscape (Grau et al., 2013;
Baudron and Giller, 2014).
Second, it focuses on the tensions between production and biodiversity conservation but
overlooks other goals (whether environmental, economic or social) and other trade-offs
between these goals at different spatial and temporal scales (see Chapter 3). In particular,
difficult choices will have to be made to design and implement appropriate land use in
landscape mosaics as well as appropriate decision-making process to limit and manage
conflicts between stakeholders with conflicting needs and interests (Vira et al., 2015; Reed et
al., 2016).
Third, it neglects the political dimension of landscape management (Fischer et al., 2014) and
the influence of distant actors in local decisions. What are the interests at stake? What are
the power relationships between stakeholders? Who owns what in the landscape? Who
benefits or loses from any management choice and its impacts at different spatial and
temporal scales? How to compensate the owner or producer for the cost of practices that
benefit to other stakeholders?
Therefore, the scientific and political debate should move beyond the controversy between
“land-sharing” and “land sparing” towards fully integrated landscape approaches, consistent
with the “adapting mosaic“ scenario of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA, 2005), 54
and involving the relevant stakeholders (see section below).
Because of the multiplicity of contexts and the plasticity of approaches, scientists have been
reluctant to give a too strict definition to what constitutes landscape approaches (Sayer et al.,
2013). However, the CGIAR programme on FTA has characterized them in the following way:
“As it relates to agriculture, forestry and other land uses, and to the livelihoods they sustain,
the landscape approach transcends traditional management and governance boundaries,
seeking to provide tools and concepts to identify, understand and address a complex set of
environmental, social and political challenges, and to enable evidence-based and inclusive
prioritization, decision-making and implementation” (FTA, 2017).
Watershed management is a good example of an approach that can be applied at different
scales, from small-scale mountain watersheds to extended river basins. It contributes to
deliver various ecosystem services such as landslides and flood control or climate regulation
(FAO, 2006, 2007b). It integrates different land uses (including agriculture and forest) at a
landscape level, taking into consideration the links between natural resources management
and livelihood improvement (Turner, 1989).
The concept of nutrition-sensitive landscapes (NSL) aims to integrate FSN concerns in the
sustainable management of landscapes. Nutrition-sensitive approaches, as defined by Ruel
and Alderman (2013), are those that incorporate underlying, rather than immediate,
determinants of malnutrition and include sectors such as agriculture, health, education and
water and sanitation. The NSL approach adds an important dimension to nutrition
interventions by applying an integrated landscape approach. NSLs are those in which diverse
types of food are sustainably produced or procured to meet human nutrient requirements,
while also protecting the environment from which those foods are sourced. A NSL approach
considers the diverse interactions and interconnectivity within a given landscape to pursue
the multiple goals of FSN, and the sustainable use of natural resources and conservation of
biodiversity, both for human health as well as for environmental health.
The NSL approach moves beyond “do no harm” towards pro-active interventions and
practices in ecosystems and the services they provide (Daily, 1997) to contribute to healthy
and sustainable diets (DeKlerck, 2016). A NSL tends to produce a diversity of foods while
managing other ecosystem functions that are critical for sustainability, human FSN and well-
being. The main research area related to NSLs focuses on how ecosystems can contribute to
food availability, access and utilization, and stability as well as the impact of food system
activities on the health and sustainability of these ecosystems (Bioversity/Earth Institute,
2013).

54
See http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.332.aspx.pdf

102
The real challenge for the future will not merely be to measure the evolution of forest area but
to evaluate the capacity of a landscape to meet a diversity of societal needs, in order to allow
appropriate choices to be made at different spatial scales (Sloan and Sayer, 2015). This will
require the design and implementation of appropriate governance arrangements and
mechanisms, including exploring the possibility of labelling multifunctional rural landscapes
(Torquebiau et al., 2012; Ghazoul et al., 2009; Ghazoul, 2010), and defining adequate metrics
for assessing the different conservation and production values of forests and trees in mosaic
landscapes (Sloan and Sayer, 2015). To a great extent SFM itself could be a source of
inspiration for sustainable landscape management, provided that landscapes could be
defined as management units, with adequate governance, including, as appropriate,
mechanisms for cost and benefit sharing, such as in successful watershed management
schemes.

4.3.3 Stakeholder involvement

Stakeholder involvement in the governance mechanisms at different scales is increasingly
recognized as an enabling condition for SFM and a way to manage tensions between
different functions of forest and conflicts between different stakeholders, whether local or
distant. More than half of the national forest policies and programmes revised since 2007 in
42 different countries now include measures designed to enhance the involvement of
traditional users in the decision-making process (FAO, 2014b). For instance, the Central
African Republic’s 2008 Forest Code formally recognizes the traditional rights of local
communities living in or near protected areas or forest concessions. In Peru, the concept of
indigenous peoples’ forests, as well as the traditional knowledge and management of forests
and wildlife, is formally recognized in the forest and wildlife law enacted in 2011. In Ecuador,
the Constitution (2008) formally guarantees the participation of indigenous peoples in
decision-making processes concerning their territories, while the codified forest law and the
environmental management law give priority to indigenous and Afro-Ecuadorian peoples in
the use of their lands and forest products (FAO, 2014a). Yet, the effective implementation and
enforcement of these codes and laws is crucial.
Paradigms of management of forests and trees have considerably evolved in the last 50
years in many countries, from a state-controlled, production-centric approach to more
collaborative systems that prioritize the needs of local communities, and value the different
environmental, economic and socio-cultural roles of forests and trees (Mace, 2014; Vira et al.,
2015). There is a growing consensus that new, decentralized, inclusive and multiscale forms
of forest governance are needed (see Larson et al., 2010; Mwangi and Wardell, 2012; Ojha,
2014) to better balance national and global objectives with the rights and needs of local
communities, in particular their right to adequate food (see Box 22).
Three main non-centralized forms of forest governance can be distinguished (Vira et al.,
2015):
 decentralization: where responsibility is transferred to locally-elected government;
 deconcentration: where responsibility is transferred to local offices of the national
government, as in Senegal (Ribot, 2006); and
 devolution or “community management”: where responsibility is transferred to local
communities, as in Nepal (Pokharel et al., 2008).
New forms of multiscale approaches also appear, involving a co-management of forests that
share the rights and responsibilities between local communities and either the national state
or private corporations.

103
 Box 22 New and inclusive forms of forest governance in Central and South
America
Concrete examples of a shift towards greater decentralization of forest governance away from
previously state-dominated structures include: (a) the transfer of the forest concessions from
semi-public companies, to the ejidos communities in Quintana Roo, Mexico in the mid-1980s;
(b) the Community Forest Concessions in the Petén in Guatemala in the mid-1990s; and (c)
the decentralization, municipalization and devolution of rights to the local communities in
Bolivia through forest concessions, municipalities, social associations of villagers and original
community territories assigned to indigenous peoples. Prior to the 1990s, these forests
belonged to the state or to private owners.
The important common feature of these cases is that governance was transferred to local
people, municipalities and also to private companies. In the case of Quintana Roo, the first
planning decision and action was to undertake land-use planning in which the communities
designated land for agriculture, pastures and for permanent forest use, resulting in a more
balanced use of the landscape for food production and income generation. In Quintana Roo,
Petén and in many concessions in Bolivia, the forest management plans are FSC-certified,
which provides some assurance that the three dimensions of sustainability have been taken
into account.
Another important example of devolved governance is the establishment of extractive
reserves in Brazil. As Ruiz-Pérez et al. (2005) indicate: “extractive reserves constitute an
innovative approach to match conservation and development objectives, which were originally
envisaged as part of a land struggle by forest dwellers in Brazil.” They present a detailed
analysis of deforestation and demographic and socio-economic changes in Alto Juruá, the first
extractive reserve created in Brazil in 1990, and find that forest cover has remained fairly
stable, while population has declined slightly, with some internal displacements by people
positioning themselves to better benefit in other locations within the reserve. The cash
economy base has shifted from the original rubber production to a diversified portfolio of
agriculture and livestock, and there has been a dramatic rise in non-agrarian income. They
conclude that the reserve represents a very dynamic setting with positive conservation and
development outcomes during its first decade. Further, in the State of Acre in Brazil, there has
also been a process of value addition to enhance incomes, both in the case of rubber (with a
processing plant of rubber products, especially condoms) and Brazil nut (with a processing
plant).

Community forest management

Although community forest management (CFM) started to be officially recognized only in the
1970s, many forests were managed, often sustainably, by local communities, before land
began to be appropriated by colonial powers worldwide since the sixteenth century (Charnley
and Poe, 2007). Social forestry projects of FAO in the 1960s in Ecuador established
plantations on a sharing investment arrangement (government provided the land, private
sector provided funding and communities provided labour) (Kenny Jordan et al., 1999).
Conservation and development practitioners have increasingly promoted CFM as a means to
achieve multiple benefits. However, in a systematic review of the effectiveness of CFM,
mainly focused on South Asian and Latin American forests, Hajjar et al. (2016) highlighted
mixed results. For instance, the Indian social forestry programme has been heavily criticized
because it was dominated by priorities of the state, which reduced community enthusiasm for
collaboration and led to the breakdown of such arrangements (Arnold, 1990; Blaikie and
Springate-Baginski, 2007). Conversely, the Korean Community Fuelwood Project was seen
as a great success due to massive government investment, mobilization of local resource
users and the creation of a supportive institutional environment (Oh et al., 1986, see also
Box 23). According to Burivalova et al. (2017), the success of CFM depends on several
factors, including the community traditional experience in forest management and its power in
the decision-making process, as well as its possibility to derive income from forest resources.

104
 Box 23 Forests and FSN in the Republic of Korea – a model to follow?
The Republic of Korea is a mountainous country where the people traditionally relied heavily
on forests for timber, fuelwood and non-wood forest products such as mushrooms and edible
wild greens. In the 1950s and 1960s, it was one of the poorest and least-developed countries
in the world. Half of the country’s forest cover had been lost through slash-and-burn
agricultural practices, large-scale land conversion and overextraction of fuel and timber. The
deforestation resulted in severe erosion and exacerbated damage from repetitive droughts
and floods, leading to decreased agricultural production and loss of lives and property. In
short, attempts to meet FSN needs resulted in severe deforestation and paradoxically became
the main factor threatening FSN.
Breaking this vicious circle was the rationale for an intensive forest rehabilitation programme
that began in the 1960s, crowned in the 1970s and 1980s by two Ten-year Forest
Rehabilitation Plans that achieved complete rehabilitation in merely two decades. The
Government perceived that restoring forests, especially in mountain watersheds, would help
prevent agricultural disaster, provide a solid foundation for food production and be
fundamental in overcoming poverty and developing the national economy. These goals were
achieved by integrating forestry, rural development and community mobilization in the
rehabilitation policy. To mobilize people’s participation nationwide, the Government integrated
the rehabilitation plans with the New Community Movement (Saemaul Undong), a community-
based, integrated rural development programme initiated in the early 1970s to improve village
conditions, introduce new attitudes and skills and reduce the income gap between urban and
rural communities. Saemaul Undong contributed to the reforestation through small-scale
village-level self-help projects emphasizing community cooperation.
Community projects on nurseries, forest plantations, erosion control and fuelwood plantations
galvanized people’s participation and were central to the success of the forest rehabilitation
effort. They provided job opportunities compensated by food or wages, which helped people
overcome hunger and brought vitality to the rural economy.
Source: modified from FAO (2016e).

The term “indigenous peoples’ and community conserved territories and areas” (ICCAs) is
increasingly used to describe these initiatives. The International Union for Conservation of
Nature (IUCN) defines ICCAs as: “natural and/or modified ecosystems, containing significant
biodiversity values, ecological benefits and cultural values, voluntarily conserved by
indigenous peoples and local communities, both sedentary and mobile, through customary
laws or other effective means” (IUCN-CEESP, 2008). The community is the major actor in
making decisions about the local adaptive management of forests and trees in ICCAs. This
decentralized governance implies that local institutions have – de facto and/or de jure – the
capacity to develop and enforce decisions (Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2007).
In the context of protected areas, SFM for FSN calls for greater emphasis on community-
based natural resource management and the accompanying enabling policy frameworks.
However, the devolution of conservation to local communities does not mean that state
agencies and other external institutions have no role. Understanding the dynamic
complexity of local ecosystems, recognizing customary rights of access and usufruct over
forests and their products, honouring local intellectual property rights, promoting wider
access to information and funds, designing technologies, markets and other systems on
the basis of local knowledge, needs and aspirations all call for new partnerships between
the state, rural people and the organizations representing them (Pimbert and Pretty, 1997;
Ostrom, 2011). Building appropriate partnerships between states and rural communities
requires new legislation, policies, institutional linkages and processes in order to reconcile
biodiversity conservation with sustainable forestry for FSN.

105
 Co-management
The most common form of co-management, or joint forest management (JFM) occurs
between the state and local communities, most frequently for the regeneration of degraded
forests, although there are similar initiatives in the context of the management of protected
areas and mature forest ecosystems (Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2007). In this form of co-
management the state remains the landowner, but the local community can receive use rights
over trees and NWFPs. The final timber harvest is usually shared in a pre-arranged
proportion between the state and the local community. The state invests in the planting
material and equipment while the community volunteers invest time, often in the form of
unpaid labour, and bring their own local traditional knowledge and skills. Villagers can also
assist in the safeguarding of forest resources through protection from fire, grazing and illegal
harvesting, which reduces policing and monitoring costs for the state. In Viet Nam, the state
pays local communities to protect local forests and plant trees, to enforce regulations and
control illegal logging (FAO, 2016a).
Co-management arrangements can also occur between private corporations and local
communities, with the corporation retaining, the case being, ownership of land and rights over
wood production while granting local community rights over NWFPs in return for their
participation in management. Such agreements have been made in the Brazilian Amazon,
where local populations have been granted access to private forest lands for collection of
NWFPs.

Box 24 Management of commons and co-management in northern Sweden –

an example of a multiple-use situation and co-management
In northern Sweden, the Sami have the exclusive right to continue their millennial practice of
reindeer herding, a right formally recognized by the Swedish Government. In the same areas,
private forest owners are utilizing the same forest land for forestry, typically timber harvest for
commercial benefits. This parallel land use causes negative effects on both stakeholders:
forestry causes negative effects on reindeer herding as timber harvest has a negative effect
on lichens (vital for winter forage); and reindeer husbandry causes negative effects via trample
damage in young forest stands (Bostedt et al., 2015; Widmark et al., 2011).
The conflicts over land use between the two categories of stakeholders have evolved over
time, since the 1950s when forestry started to mechanize harvest. Conflict resolution was
initiated with the 1979-year forestry act in which forestry had to consider other land uses, and
further developed over time until the FSC was established in the 1990s. A co-management
system between the private landowners and the reindeer herders started to develop
(Widmark, 2009).
Forest companies are instructed to initiate a priori consultations beforefinal harvest, soil
scarification, fertilization and forest road construction, which means that the forest company
has to consult each reindeer herder (organized in small communities) to consider the negative
effects of management plans. This is typically done each year. The minutes from the
consultations have to be included in the management report that the forest company is
required to submit to the Forestry Agency before the planned measure is carried out (Widmark
et al., 2011).
Research shows that the co-management system did not work as well as intended as
consultations were characterized more as information meetings or dialogues and less of what
a partnership as co-management is intended to be (Sandström and Widmark, 2007).
However, with the revision of FSC in 2010, the role of consultations was clarified and a
conflict-resolving tool was initiated in cases where the two stakeholders could not agree
(Bostedt et al., 2015).
To further strengthen the position of the Sami reindeer herders in consultations, the
Government established an indigenous mapping project to ensure that the traditional
knowledge of the forest and grazing land would be equally represented in consultations as the
knowledge of the forest from the commercial point of view. This geographical information
system is, as of 2014, implemented in 49 of the 51 reindeer herding communities in Sweden
(Bostedt et al., 2015).

106
Brazil and the Philippines report an important proportion of public forests managed by
communities (respectively 37 and 47 percent) (FAO, 2011b). In Brazil local communities have
management rights over 160 million hectares of public forests (FAO, 2013c) In the Amazon
Basin, private management of public forest is not common, although this could change in
Brazil as a result of the 2006 forest concession law (Banerjee and Alavalapati, 2008).
Conversely, in Cameroon, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Indonesia, more than
40 percent of publicly owned forests are managed by private corporations and institutions
(FAO, 2011b).
In Cameroon, forest management relies mainly on large logging concessions. However,
small-scale logging has been developed in the last decades in two different forms. First, the
creation of community forests in the late 1990s allowed local communities to legally harvest,
process and trade timber, often with the support of external actors, whether NGOs or private
operators. Second, individual chainsaw milling, mainly informal, has grown considerably,
creating a flow of revenues around EUR30 million for the benefit of local communities
(Lescuyer et al., 2016).
These different forms of co-management may help to solve conflicts between different
stakeholders (for instance between timber harvesters and reindeer herders in boreal forests,
see Box 24), whether local or not, using land for different purposes and sharing legal rights
over land and resources (Widmark, 2009).
Evidence of such co-management regimes suggests a considerable variation in field-level
outcomes (Hobley, 1996; Poffenberger and McGean 1996; Saxena, 1997; Brown, 1999;
Ribot, 1999; Khare et al., 2000; Sundar et al., 2001; Widmark, 2009). Some projects retain
the rhetoric of participation, but are no more than extensions of forest agency priorities, with
local communities providing a cheap source of labour. Others have made a significant
transition towards collaboration, with formalized management agreements establishing each
partner’s rights and responsibilities (see the example from Quebec in Box 21). The most
successful projects have been in existence for over two decades, and have reached the stage
of harvesting the first crop of mature trees, and are encountering ”second generation
problems” such as re-investing and equitably sharing revenues from tree sales (Ojha, 2014).

4.3.4 A human rights-based approach

Human rights provide a normative framework and impose on states three obligations, namely:
to respect, protect and fulfil human rights (HLPE, 2015). Indisputable causal links exist
between the violation of human rights and the economic, social, cultural and political
deprivations that characterize poverty. The realization of all human rights and efforts to
eliminate extreme poverty are therefore mutually reinforcing, and human rights’ norms and
principles can guide efforts to reduce poverty (Sepúlveda and Nyst, 2012).
The right to food is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and in
the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). In its article
11, ICESCR established the right to food as a legally binding right for all states parties.55 The
content of the right has been further developed by the Committee on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights (CESCR) – the supervisory body of the ICESCR – in its General Comment
No. 12 (GC12) on the right to adequate food and General Comment No. 15 on the right to
water. Through these authoritative interpretations, the different components of the right to
food and its corresponding obligations have been further clarified.
According to CESCR, the right to food is realized “when every man, woman and child, alone
or in community with others, has physical and economic access at all times to adequate food
or means for its procurement” (CESCR, 1999). Food should be “sufficient, adequate and
culturally acceptable, produced and consumed sustainably, preserving access to food for
future generations” (UNGA, 2014). The UN General Assembly (UNGA, 2012) also recalled
that all people have a right to food that not only meets minimum requirements for survival but
is also nutritionally adequate.

55
Up to May 2017, 165 states are party to the ICESCR.

107
 The CESCR considers that the core content of the right to food implies “the availability of food
in a quantity and quality sufficient to satisfy the dietary needs of individuals, free from adverse
substances, and acceptable within a given culture; the accessibility of such food in ways that
are sustainable and that do not interfere with the enjoyment of other human rights” (CESCR,
1999).
In 2004, FAO developed practical voluntary guidelines for national governments to support
the progressive realization of this right to adequate food (VGRTF), especially for the most
vulnerable groups in their societies (FAO, 2005).
Rights-based approaches can be understood as integrating rights and standards into policy,
design, implementation and evaluation to ensure that forest and FSN practice respects rights
in all cases, and supports their further realization where possible (Campese, 2009). Thus,
laws, policies and interventions related to forest should not only avoid infringing rights but
advance human rights standards (outcomes) as well as ensure compliance with human rights
obligations in the processes by which they implement them. Such processes should respect
the human rights principles of non-discrimination and equality, transparency and access to
information, participation, empowerment, legality and accountability (UNICEF, 2004). They
should also ensure free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) processes.
Mainstreaming the right to food also requires policy-makers to undertake a situation analysis
to identify the immediate, underlying and root causes of development problems and prioritize
the marginalized, disadvantaged and excluded groups with the aim of achieving substantive
equality rather than formal equality, and the monitoring and evaluation of both outcomes and
processes.
The realization of the right to adequate food of local communities, forest dependent
communities and indigenous peoples requires ensuring their access to forest resources. To
this end, states should take a variety of measures, including: facilitating sustainable, non-
discriminatory and secure access, use and tenure rights of vulnerable and marginalized
peoples; protecting the assets that are important for their livelihoods (Guideline 8.1 in the
VGRTF); pursuing inclusive, non-discriminatory and sound forestry policies, which will permit
foresters and other food producers, particularly women, to earn a fair return from their labour,
capital and management; and encouraging conservation and sustainable management of
natural resources, including in marginal areas (Guideline 2.5 in the VGRTF).
Forest-based goods and services are crucial for the realization of social, economic and
cultural rights of people around the world, and these relationships have been studied in
considerable detail, especially in the contexts of forest conservation (Johnson and Forsyth,
2002; Campese et al., 2009) and climate change (Seymour, 2008). These studies affirm the
necessity of fair and equitable access to forest goods and services (see section 4.2.1), and
the importance of communities’ and individuals’ participation as principal components (see
section 4.4.3) with respect to rights and responsibilities in relation to forests.

4.4 Conclusion
As shown in previous chapters, forests and trees, if sustainably managed, can make a
substantial contribution to face global challenges such as FSN, climate change or
conservation of biodiversity and natural resources, all of which, ultimately, contribute to FSN.
Managing forests and trees to optimize their contributions to FSN, locally and globally, short-
term and long-term requires taking into account a vast number of parameters, perspectives
and interests so as to recognize and address synergies and trade-offs.
It will require coordination across different sectors at multiple scales and within different time
frames. There is a need for an intersectoral approach to overcome the compartmentalized
and fragmented nature of decision-making.
For this, governance mechanisms need to be articulated with management regimes at
different geographic scales, from international to national, local, and landscape levels.
Increasing the links between different instruments can go a long way in facilitating the
articulation between global demands and local needs. For instance, certification schemes
could better integrate as a criterion the fact that forest management plans explicitly integrate
impacts on FSN of forest-dependent communities.

108
Forest management is often characterized by multiple-use that complicates the governance
of the resource. Institutions, legislation and regulations need to make sustainable forestry
profitable for people (Sterner and Coria, 2012). Forest policies must explicitly address the role
of forests in providing livelihood benefits and FSN, taking into account ownership structure,
use and access rights, as well as cultural settings. While many countries have made
considerable progress in strengthening forest tenure and access rights, there remains a major
disconnect between a policy focus on formal forest sector activities (such as timber
extraction) and the considerable numbers of people using forests and trees to meet their
livelihood needs. Conservation efforts should avoid any potential negative impacts (and
enhance positive impacts) on FSN, especially of the most vulnerable forest-dependent
people. SFM strategies could use FSN concerns, in particular FSN of the most vulnerable
and marginalized forest-dependent people, as a lens to set their priorities and define the best
balance between the different functions and objectives of forests and trees.
To make further progress in enhancing the benefits from sustainable forestry, policies must
be underpinned by capacity building. Numerous policies and measures to promote
sustainable forestry have been adopted in the past 20 years, including incorporating
sustainable forestry as a broad national goal. This involves increasing the full and effective
participation of stakeholders as well as great openness to voluntary and market-based
approaches and capacity building and strengthening to turn such perspectives effective.

109
 CONCLUSION
Forest and trees contribute directly and indirectly to FSN in numerous ways. They are a
source of food, wood, bioenergy, medicinal plants and many other products. They are
providing livelihoods and income for an important part of the global population, often the most
vulnerable. Forests perform vital ecosystem services, including the regulation of the water
and carbon cycles and protection of biodiversity, that are essential to sustainable food
production and FSN in the long term. These contributions vary according to types of forests
and the way they are managed. They are of course particularly important locally for forest-
dependent people, but also have considerable impacts at broader scales, including global.
This report, while taking stock of the breadth of existing knowledge on the roles of forests and
tree-based systems for FSN and their potential contributions to the reduction of global hunger
and malnutrition, also highlights the need for further data collection and analysis that enable
to assess all these contributions case by case, to whom they benefit, at which geographical
and temporal scales in a diversity of contexts and situations. Some of them are more easily
quantified (e.g. carbon stocks, formal markets of industrial wood) than others (in particular the
direct provisioning of food and contribution to livelihoods of the most vulnerable, or non-
provisioning ecosystem services, including the role of forests in regulating the water cycle
downstream or downwind). If left unaddressed, these knowledge imbalances, often
accompanied by power imbalances, can have severe consequences for policy-making. Some
of these long-term and/or afar consequences risk being overlooked. The impacts of forest
management decisions on the FSN of the most vulnerable risk being ignored, because they
are not known well enough and because the most affected are not fully involved in decision-
making. This can be aggravated by the fact that decisions are increasingly driven by factors
and actors very far from the actual landscape that they affect.
Increasing demands on land, forests and trees create new challenges and opportunities for
contributions of forests and trees to FSN. They can threaten some of these, particularly when
they are less visible or concern marginalized and most vulnerable groups. On the other hand,
they can create additional reasons to protect and invest in forests and generate new jobs and
opportunities for sustainable development. This calls for a better understanding of the drivers
of change, and of the dynamics at play in evolving and complex landscapes such as
secondary forests, landscape mosaics, agroforestry systems and their impact for FSN and
sustainable development, and for better support for forest restoration in degraded areas.
Given global population growth and overall economic development, land is becoming an
increasingly scarce resource and multiple functions will have to be fulfilled by/within the same
landscape. Conflicts are likely to arise not only on the most desirable use of agriculture and
forest lands but also on the best way to accommodate increasing and competing demands for
land.
The evolution of governance regimes and structures towards more inclusive and
decentralized processes can offer new possibilities to integrate different interests and goals
related to forest and food systems. These processes can help to prevent and manage
conflicts between stakeholders with diverging needs and interests. It is important to articulate
governance mechanisms and management regimes at different geographic scales, from
international to local, and landscape levels. Articulating better the different instruments can go
a long way in facilitating the articulation between global and local needs. For instance,
certification schemes could better integrate as a criterion the fact that forest management
plans explicitly take into account the impacts on FSN of forest-dependent communities.
Sustainable forest management aims to maintain and enhance the economic, social and
environmental values of all types of forests, for the benefit of present and future generations,
“leaving no one behind”. As such, sustainable forestry is a key component of sustainable food
systems. Conversely, optimizing the contributions of forests and trees to FSN could be a key
objective of SFM.

110
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The HLPE warmly thanks all the participants who contributed with very valuable inputs and
comments to the two open consultations, first on the scope of the report, and second on an
advanced draft (V0). These contributions were channelled through FAO’s Global Forum on
Food Security and Nutrition (FSN Forum). All contributions are available online at
www.fao.org/cfs/cfs-hlpe.
The HLPE thanks all the peer-reviewers for their review of a pre-final draft (V1) of the report.
The list of all HLPE peer reviewers is found online at www.fao.org/cfs/cfs-hlpe.
The following individuals are thanked warmly for their contributions, suggestions and inputs to
the work of the panel: Frederic Baudron, Alain Billand, David Boerma, Vincent Gitz, Manuel
Guariguata, John L. Innes, Sooyeon Laura Jin, Orjan Jonsson, Alexandre Meybeck, Christine
Padoch, John Parrotta, Suzanne Redfern, Dominique Reeb, James Reed, Fabio Ricci,
Mirjam Ros-Tonen, Dominic Rowland, Sara Scherr, Josh van Vianen.
The HLPE process is entirely funded through voluntary contributions. HLPE reports are
independent collective scientific undertakings on topics requested by the Committee on Food
Security Plenary. HLPE reports are global public goods. The HLPE thanks the donors who
have contributed since 2010 to the HLPE Trust Fund, or provided in-kind contributions,
thereby enabling the process of work of the panel, while fully respecting its independence.
Since the creation of the HLPE, it has been supported by Australia, Ethiopia, the European
Union, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, New-Zealand, Norway, the Russian Federation,
Spain, the Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.

111
 REFERENCES
Abadi, A., Lefroy, T., Cooper, D., Hean, R. & Davies, C. 2003. Profitability of medium to low rainfall
agroforestry in the cropping zone. Barton, Australia, Rural Industries Research and Development
Corporation Publication No. 02.
Acton, J. 2014. Land sharing vs land sparing: can we feed the world without destroying it? The Royal
Society (http://blogs.royalsociety.org/in-verba/2014/12/03/land-sharing-vs-land-sparing-can-we-feed-
the-world-without-destroying-it/).
Aerts, R. & Honnay, O. 2011. Forest restoration, biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. BMC. Ecol.,
11: 29.
Agrawal, A., Chatre, A. & Hardin, R. 2008. Changing governance of the world’s forests. Science, 320:
1460–1462.
Agrawal, A., Cashore, B., Hardin, R., Shepherd, G., Benson, C. & Miller, D. 2013. Economic
contributions of forests. Background Paper for the United Nations Forum on Forests
(http://www.un.org/esa/forests/pdf/session_documents/unff10/EcoContrForests.pdf).
Aide, T.M., Clark, M.L., Grau, H.R., López-Carr, D., Levy, M.A., Redo, D., Bonilla-Moheno, M.,
Riner, G., Andrade-Núñez, M.J. & M. Muñiz, M. 2013. Deforestation and reforestation of Latin
America and the Caribbean (2001–2010). Biotropica, 45: 262–271.
Aizen, M.A., Garibaldi, L.A., Cunningham, S.A. & Klein, A.M. 2009. How much does agriculture
depend on pollinators? Lessons from long-term trends in crop production. Annals of Botany, 103(9):
1579–1588.
Alongi, D. M., Murdiyarso, D., Fourqurean, J.W., Kauffman, J.B., Hutahaean, A., Crooks, S.,
Lovelock, C.E., Howard, J., Herr, D., Fortes, M., Pidgeon, E. & Wagey, T. 2016. Indonesia’s blue
carbon: a globally significant and vulnerable sink for seagrass and mangrove carbon. Wetlands
Ecology and Management, 24(1): 3–13.
Allen, C.D., Macalady, A.K. , Chenchouni, H., Bachelet, D., McDowell, N., Vennetier, M.,
Kitzberger, T., Rigling, A., Breshears, D.D., Hogg, E.H., Gonzalez, P., Fensham, R., Zhang, Z.,
Castro, J., Demidova, N., Lim, J.H., Allard, G. Running, S.W., Semerci, A. & Cobb, N. 2010. A
global overview of drought and heat-induced tree mortality reveals emerging climate change risks for
forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 259(4): 660–684.
Angelsen, A. & Wunder, S. 2003. Exploring the forest-poverty link: key concepts, issues and research
implications. CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 40, Bogor, Indonesia, Center for International Forestry
Research. Bogor.
Angelsen, A., Jagger, P., Babigumira, R., Belcher, B., Hogarth, N.J., Bauch, S., Börner, J., Smith-
Hall, C. & Wunder, S. 2014. Environmental income and rural livelihoods: a global-comparative
analysis. World Development, 64(1): S12–S28 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.03.006).
Antweiler, P., Wei, L. & Liu, Y. 2012. Ecological rehabilitation in China. Achievements of key forestry
initiatives. Asia Pacific Network for Sustainable Forest Management and Rehabilitation. China
Forestry Publishing House.
Arima, E.Y., Barreto, P., Araujo, E. & Soares-Filho, B. 2014. Public policies can reduce tropical
deforestation: lessons and challenges from Brazil. Land Use Policy, 41: 465–473.
Armesto, J.J., Smith-Ramirez, C. & Rozzi, R. 2001. Conservation strategies for biodiversity and
indigenous people in Chilean forest ecosystems. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand,
31(4).
Arnold, J.E.M. 1990. Social forestry and communal management in India. Rural Development Forestry
Network (RDFN), ODI.
Arnold, J.E.M., Powell, B., Shanley, P. & Sunderland, T. 2011. Forests, biodiversity and food
security. Int. For. Rev., 13(3): 259–264.
Arthur, A.D., Li, J., Henry, S. & Cunningham, S.A. 2010. Influence of woody vegetation on pollinator
densities in oilseed Brassica fields in an Australian temperate landscape. Basic Applied Ecology,
11(5): 406–414.
Avitabile, V., Herold, M., Heuvelink, G., Lewis, S., Phillips, O., Asner, G., Ashton, P., Banin, L.,
Bayol, N., Berry, N., Boeckx, P., de Jong, B., DeVries, B., Girardin, C., Kearsley, E., Lindsell,
J., Lopez-Gonzalez, G., Lucas, R., Malhi, Y., Morel, A., Mitchard, E., Nagy, L., Qie, L.,
Quinones, M., Ryan, C., Slik, F., Sunderland, T., Vaglio Laurin, G., Valentini, R., Verbeeck, H.,
Wijaya, A. & Willcock, S. 2016. An integrated pan-tropical biomass map using multiple reference
datasets. Global Change Ecology, 22: 1406–1420.
Baer, L-A. 1996. Boreal forest dwellers: the Saami in Sweden. Unasylva 186
(http://www.fao.org/docrep/w1033e/w1033e05.htm).
Bailey, S., Requier, F., Nusillard, B., Roberts, S.P.M., Potts, S.G. & Bouget, C. 2014. Distance from
forest edge affects bee pollinators in oilseed rape fields. Ecology and Evolution, 4(4): 370–380.
Bailie, R.S., Carson, B.E. & McDonald, E.L. 2004. Water supply and sanitation in remote indigenous
communities--priorities for health development. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Public Health,
28(5): 409–14.
Bale, J.S., van Lenteren, J.C., Bigler, F. 2008. Biological condidtrol and sustainable food production.
Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Bio.l Sci., 363: 761–776.

112
Banerjee, O. & Alavalapati, J. 2008. A computable general equilibrium analysis of forest concessions
in Brazil. Forest Policy and Economics, 11 (4): 244–252.
Barlow, J., Gardner, T.A., Araujo, I.S., Avila-Pires, T.C., Bonaldo, A.B., Costa, J.E., Esposito, M.C.,
Ferreira, L.V., Hawes, J., Hernandez, M.I.M., Hoogmoed, M.S., Leite, R.N., Lo-Man-Hung, N.F.,
Malcolm, J.R., Martins, M.B., Mestre, L.A.M., Miranda-Santos, R., Nunes-Gutjahr, A.L., Overal,
W.L., Parry, L., Peters, S.L., Ribeiro-Junior, M.A., da Silva, M.N.F., Silva, Motta C. & Peres,
C.A. 2007. Quantifying the biodiversity value of tropical primary, secondary, and plantation forests.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 104: 18555–18560.
Bastin, J.F., Berrahmouni, N., Grainger, A., Maniatis, D., Mollicone, D., Moore, R., Patriarca, C.,
Picard, N., Sparrow, B., Abraham, E.M., Aloui, K., Atesoglu, A., Attore, F., Bassüllü, Ç., Bey,
A., Garzuglia, M., García-Montero, L.G., Groot, N., Guerin, G., Laestadius, L., Lowe, A.J.,
Mamane, B., Marchi, G., Patterson, P., Rezende, M., Ricci, S., Salcedo, I., Sanchez-Paus Diaz,
A., Stolle, F., Surappeva, V. & Castro, R. 2017. The extent of forest in dryland biomes. Forest
ecology. Science, 356(6338): 635–638.
Baudron, F. & Giller, K.E. 2014. Agriculture and nature: trouble and strife? Biological Conservation,
170: 232–245.
Bausch, D. & Swartz, L. 2014. Outbreak of ebola virus disease in Guinea: where ecology meets
economy. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, 8(7): e3056.
Beddington, J., Asaduzzaman, M., Clark, M., Fernández, A., Guillou, M., Jahn, M., Erda, L., Mamo,
T., Van Bo, N., Nobre, C., Scholes, R., Sharma, R. & Wakhungu, J. 2012. Achieving food security
in the face of climate change. Final report from the Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and
Climate Change. Copenhagen, CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food
Security (CCAFS).
Bennett, E.L., Blencowe, E., Brandon, K., Brown, D., Burn, R.W., Cowlishaw, G., Davies, G.,
Dublin, H., Fa, J.E., Milner-Gulland, E.J., Robinson, J.G., Rowcliffe, J.M., Underwood, F.M. &
Wilkie, D.S. 2007. Hunting for consensus: reconciling bushmeat harvest, conservation, and
development policy in West and Central Africa. Conservation Biology, 21(3): 884–887.
Biermayr-Jenzano, P., Kassam S.N. & Aw-Hassan, A. 2014. Understanding gender and poverty
dimensions of high value agricultural commodity chains in the Souss-Masaa-Draa region of south-
western Morocco. ICARDA working paper, mimeo. Amman, Jordan.
Bioversity/Earth Institute. 2013. Concept note: Nutrition-sensitive landscapes
(https://www.bioversityinternational.org/fileadmin/user_upload/research/research_portfolio/Diet_diver
sity/Nutrition__Sensitive_Landscapes_Concept_paper_March_2014.pdf).
Blackie, R., Baldauf, C., Gautier, D., Gumbo, D., Kassa, H., Parthasarathy, N., Paumgarten, F.,
Sola, P., Pulla, S., Waeber, P. & Sunderland, T.C.H. 2014. Tropical dry forests: the state of global
knowledge and recommendations for future research. Bogor, Indonesia, Center for International
Forestry Research (CIFOR).
Blaikie, P. & Springate-Baginski, O., eds. 2007. Forest, people and power: the political ecology of
reform in South Asia. London, Earthscan.
Blais, R. & Boucher, J.L. 2013. Les temps des régimes forestiers au Québec. In La gouvernance
locale des forêts publiques québécoises: une avenue de développement des régions périphériques,
pp.33–63. Presses de l’Université du Québec.
Blanche, K.R., Ludwig, J.A. & Cunningham, S.A. 2006. Proximity to rainforest enhances pollination
and fruit set in orchards. Journal of Applied Ecology, 43(6): 1182–1187.
Blaney, S., Beaudry, M., & Latham, M. 2009. Contribution of natural resources to nutritional status in a
protected area of Gabon. Food & Nutrition Bulletin, 30(1): 49–62.
Bodin, Ö. & Crona, B.I. 2009. The role of social networks in natural resource governance: what
relational patterns make a difference? Global Environmental Change, 19(3): 366–374.
Bogaert, J., Barima, Y.S.S,. Mongo, L.I.W., Bamba, I., Mama, A., Toyi, M. & Lafortezza, R. 2011.
Forest fragmentation: causes, ecological impacts and implications for landscape management. In C.
Li, R. Lafortezza & J. Chen, eds. Landscape ecology in forest management and conservation.
Challenges and solutions for global change, pp. 273–296. Beijing, Higher Education Press, and
Berlin/Heidelberg, Springer-Verlag.
Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Pimbert, M.P., Farvar, T.M., Kothari, A. & Renard, Y. 2007. Sharing power.
a global guide to collaborative management of natural resources. Routledge, London.
Bostedt, G., Widmark, C. & Andersson, M. 2015. Measuring transaction costs for pastoralists in
multiple land use situations: reindeer husbandry in Northern Sweden. Land Econ. 9(4): 704–722.
Boulanger, Y., Taylor, A.R., Price, D.T., Cyr, D., McGarrigle, E., Rammer, W., Sainte-Marie, G.,
Beaudoin, A., Guindon, L. & Mansuy, N. 2016. Climate change impacts on forest landscapes
along the Canadian southern boreal forest transition zone. Landsc. Ecol., 1–17. doi:10.1007/s10980-
016-0421-7.
Boyd, J. & Banzhaf, S. 2007. What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental
accounting units. Ecological Economics, 63(2–3): 616–626.
Brack, D. 2003. Illegal logging and the illegal trade in forest and timber products. International Forestry
Review, 5: 195–198.
Brack D. & Buckrell, J. 2011. Controlling illegal logging: consumer-country measures. Chatham House
Briefing Paper, EERG 2001/01.

113
 Bradshaw, C.J.A., Sodhi, N.S., Peh, K.S.H. &Brook, B.W. 2007. Global evidence that deforestation
amplifies flood risk and severity in the developing world. Global Change Biology, 13: 2379–2395.
Brandt, J., Nolte, C., & Agrawal, A. 2016. Deforestation and timber production in Congo after
implementation of sustainable forest management policy. Land Use Policy, 52: 15–22.
Bringezu, S., O’Brien, M., Pengue, W., Swilling, M. & Kauppi, L. 2010. Assessing global land use
and soil management for sustainable resource policies. Scoping paper for the International Panel for
Sustainable Resource Management, UNEP.
Brouwer, I.D., den Hartog, A.P., Kamwendo, M.O.K. & Heldens, M.W.O. 1996. Wood quality and
wood preferences in relation to food preparation and diet composition in Central Malawi. Ecology of
Food and Nutrition, 35(1): 1–13.
Brouwer, I.D., Hoorweg, J.C. & Van Liere, M.J. 1997. When households run out of fuel: responses of
rural households to decreasing fuelwood availability, Ntcheu District, Malawi. World Development,
25(2): 255–266.
Brown, D. 1999. Principles and practice of forest co-management: evidence from west-central Africa.
European Union Tropical Forest Papers, 2: 33.
Brownlow, M.J.C. 1992. Acorns and swine: historical lessons for modern agroforestry. Quarterly
Journal of Forestry, 86(3): 181–190.
Bruce, J. 1999. Legal bases for the management of forest resources as common property. Forests,
Trees and People Community Forestry Note 14. Rome, FAO.
Brundtland, G.H. 1987. Our common future. Report of the World Commission on Environment and
Development (http://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf).
Buongiorno, J. & Zhu, S. 2014. Assessing the impact of planted forests on the global forest economy.
NZ J. Forest Sci., 44(Suppl 1): S2 (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/1179-5395-44-S1-S2).
Burivalova, Z., Hua, F., Koh Lian, P., Garcia, C. & Putz Francis, E. 2017. A critical comparison of
conventional, certified, and community management of tropical forests for timber in terms of
environmental, economic, and social variables. Conservation Letters, 10 (1): 4–14
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/conl.12244).
Byerlee, D., Stevenson, J. & Viloria, N. 2014. Does intensification slow crop land expansion or
encourage deforestation? Global Food Security, 3: 92–98.
Byron, N. & Arnold, M. 1997. What futures for the people of the tropical forests? Working Paper No.
19. Bogor, Indonesia, Center for International Forestry Research.
Campese, J. 2009. Rights-based approaches to conservation: an overview of concepts and questions.
In J. Campese, T. Sunderland, T. Greiber & G. Oviedo, eds. Rights-based approaches: exploring
issues and opportunities for conservation, pp 1–46. Bogor, Indonesia, CIFOR and IUCN.
Campese, J., Sunderland, T., Greiber, T. & Oviedo, G. eds. 2009. Rights-based approaches:
Exploring issues and opportunities for conservation, pp 1–46. Bogor, Indonesia, CIFOR and IUCN.
Carignan, R. & Steedman, R. 2011. Impacts of major watershed perturbations on aquatic ecosystems.
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 57: 1–4.
Cairns, J. 1997. Protecting the delivery of ecosystem services. Ecosystem Health, 3: 185–194.
Calorio, C.M. & Silva, R.O. 2014. Seminário: Repactuação da Agenda do Manejo Florestal
Comunitário e Familiar na Amazônia: 2015–2018. Relatório. Brasília, IEB.
Carletto, G., Ruel, M., Winters, P. & Zezza, A. 2015. Farm-level pathways to improved nutritional
status: Introduction to the special issue. The Journal of Development Studies, 51(8): 945–957.
Carnis, L. & Facchini, F. 2012. Une approche économique des dégâts de gibier. Indemnisation, prix et
propriété. Economie Rurale Agricultures, Alimentations, Territoires, 327-328(janvier-mars): 126–142
(https://economierurale.revues.org/3393).
Carroll, M., Townshend J.R., Dimiceli, C., Noojipady, P. & Sohlberg, R. 2009. A new global raster
water mask at 250 meter resolution. International Journal of Digital Earth, 2(4).
Castro, A. 1983. Household energy use and tree planting in Kirinyaga. University of Nairobi, Institute for
Development Studies Working Paper, Nairobi.
CCA (Council of Canadian Academies). 2014. Aboriginal food security in Northern Canada: an
assessment of the state of knowledge. Ottawa, Expert Panel on the State of Knowledge of Food
Security in Northern Canada, Council of Canadian Academies.
CEPI (Confederation of European Paper Industries). 2006. A comparison of the Forest Stewardship
Council and the Programme for Endorsement of Forest Certification. Brussels.
Ceppi, S.L. & Nielsen, M.R. 2014. A comparative study on bushmeat consumption patterns in ten
tribes in Tanzania. Tropical Conservation Science, 7(2): 272–287.
CESCR (UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights). 1999. General Comment No. 12:
The right to adequate food (Art. 11 of the Covenant) 12 May 1999. E/C.12/1999/5. Adopted at the
Twentieth Session of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights (http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Food/Pages/FoodIndex.aspx).
Chacoff, N.P. & Aizen, M.A. 2006. Edge effects on flower-visiting insects in grapefruit plantations
bordering premontane subtropical forest. Journal of Applied Ecology, 43(1): 18–27.
Charnley, S. & Poe, M.R. 2007. Community forestry in theory and practice: where are we now? Annual
Review of Anthropology, 36: 301–336.
Chiasson, G. & Leclerc, É. 2013. La gouvernance locale des forêts publiques Québécoises: une
avenue de développement des régions périphériques? Presse de Univeristé de Quebec.

114
Chao, S. 2012. Forest peoples: numbers across the world. Moreton-in-Marsh, UK, Forest Peoples
Programme (http://www.forestpeoples.org/sites/fpp/files/publication/2012/05/forest-peoples-
numbers-across-world-final_0.pdf).
Chazdon, R.L. 2014. Second growth: the promise of tropical forest regeneration in an age of
deforestation. Chicago, USA, University of Chicago Press.
Chazdon, R.L., Brancalion, P.H.S., Laestadius, L., Bennett-Curry, A., Buckingham, K., Kumar, C.,
Moll-Rocek, J., Guimarães Vieira, I.C. & Wilson, S.J. 2016a. When is a forest a forest? Forest
concepts and definitions in the era of forest and landscape restoration. Ambio, 45: 538–550
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4980317/).
Chazdon, R., Broadbent, D., Rozendaal, A., Bongers, F., Zambrano, A., Aide, T., Balvanera, P.,
Becknell, J., Boukili, V., Brancalion, P. et al. 2016b. Carbon sequestration potential of second-
growth forest regeneration in the Latin American tropics. Scientific Advances, 2(5): e1501639
(http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/5/e1501639).
Chokkalingum, U. & de Jong. W. 2001. Secondary forests – a working definition and typology.
International Forestry Review, 3: 19–26.
Ciais, P., Schelhaas, M.J., Zaehle, S., Piao, L., Cescatti, A., Liski, J., Luyssaert, S., Le-Maire, G.,
Schulze, E.D., Bouriaud, O., Freibauer, A., Valentini, R. & Nabuurs, G.J. 2008. Carbon
accumulation in European forests. Nature Geoscience, 1(7): 425–429.
CIE (Center for Independent Evaluations). 2011. Evaluation of ICRAF’s agroforestry food security
programme (AFSP) 2007-2011. Final report submitted to IRISH AID. Lilongwe.
CIFOR (Center for International Forestry Research). 2010. Forests and climate change toolbox
(http://www.cifor.org/fctoolbox/).
CIFOR (Center for International Forestry Research). 2011. Forests, Trees and Agroforestry:
Livelihoods, Landscapes and Governance. CGIAR Research Program on Forests, Trees and
Agroforestry (FTA) Proposal. Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR.
Clement, C.R. 1999. 1492 and the loss of Amazonian crop genetic resources. I. The relation between
domestication and human population decline. Econ. Bot., 53, 188–202.
Colchester, M. 1994. Salvaging nature: indigenous peoples, protected areas and biodiversity
conservation. UNRISD Discussion Paper No. DP 55. Geneva, UNRISD.
Colfer, C.J.P. 1999. The BAG: basic assessment guide for human well-being. Bogor, Indonesia, Center
for International Forestry Research.
Colfer, C., ed. 2008. Human health and forests: a global overview of issues, practice and policy.
London, Earthscan. 374 p.
Colfer, C. & Pfund, J.-L., eds. 2011. Collaborative governance of tropical landscapes. London,
Earthscan, London. 289 p.
Colfer, C.J.P., Sheil, D. & Kishi, M. 2006. Forest and human health assessing the evidence. CIFOR
Occasional Paper No. 45. Bogor, Indonesia, Center for International Forestry Research.
Conforti, P.A. & Lupano, C.E. 2011. Selected properties of Araucaria angustifolia and Araucaria
araucana seed protein. International Journal of Food Properties, 14(1): 84–91.
Cramb, R.A. Colfer, C.J.P, Dressler, W. & Wadley, R.L. 2009. Swidden transformations and rural
livelihoods in Southeast Asia. Human Ecology, 37(3): 323–346.
CTA. 2012. Climate change: concerns for cocoa. SPORE, No. 159: 9.
Daily, G.C. 1997. Nature’s services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Washington, DC,
Island Press.
Danley, B. & Widmark, C. 2016. Evaluating conceptual definitions of ecosystem services and their
implications. Ecol. Econ., 126: 132–138. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.04.003.
d’Annunzio, R., Sandker, M., Finegold, Y.& Min, Z. 2015. Projecting global forest area towards 2030.
Forest Ecology and Management, 352: 124–133 (http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4895e/i4895e12.pdf).
da Silva, A. & Begossi, A. 2009. Biodiversity: food consumption and ecological niche dimension: A
study case of the riverine populations from the Rio Negro, Amazonia, Brazil. Environment
Development and Sustainability, 11: 489–507.
de Camino, R., Breitling, J. & Facilitators. 2007. El cambio es posible: 20 años de experiencias
innovadoras en los recursos naturales en Guatemala. San José, Costa Rica, Alianza para la
conservación de la biodiversidad en el trópico Americano. 181 p.
de Camino, R., Morales, J., Villalobos, R., Navarro, G., Ortega, M., Henao, E. & Sage, L. 2012.
Forestería de ingreso sostenible (FIS): para valorar los bosques y las tierras de vocación forestal.
San José, Costa Rica, CATIE, UICN. IUFRO, Tercer Congreso Forestal Latinoamericano.
DeFries, R.S., Rudel, T., Uriarte, M. & Hansen, M.C. 2010. Deforestation driven by urban population
growth and agricultural trade in the twenty-first century. Nat. Geosci., 3: 178–181.
DeKlerck, F. 2016. IPBES: Biodiversity central to food security. Nature, 531: 305. doi:10.1038/531305e.
De Marco, P. & Coelho, F.M. 2004. Services performed by the ecosystem: forest remnants influence
agricultural cultures’ pollination and production. Biodivers. Conserv., 13(7): 1245–1255.
Deakin, E., Kshatriya, M. & Sunderland, T., eds. 2016. Agrarian change in tropical landscapes.
Bogor, Indonesia, Center for International Forestry Research.

115
 Derroire, G., Balvanera, P., Castellanos-Castro, C., Decocq, C., Kennard, D., Lebrija-Trejos, E.,
Leiva, J., Odén, P.-C., Powers, J., Rico-Gray, V., Tigabu, M. & Healey, J. 2016. Resilience of
tropical dry forests – a meta-analysis of changes in species diversity and composition during
secondary succession. Oikos, 125: 1386–1397.
Dezécache, C., Salles, J.M,, Vieilledent, G. & Hérault, B. 2017. Moving forward socio-economically
focused models of deforestation. Global Change Biology (http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13611).
Diaz-Ambrona, H. 1998. La dehesa: aprovechamiento sostenible de los recursos naturales Madrid,
Editorial agricola espanola SA. ISBN 10: 848544146X / ISBN 13: 9788485441464.
Dinerstein, E., Baccini, A., Anderson, M., Fiske, G., Wikramanayake, E., McLaughlin, D., Powell,
G., Olson, D. & Joshi, A. 2014. Guiding agricultural expansion to spare tropical forests. Conserv.
Lett., 8(4): 262–271.
Distefano, E. 2005. Human-wildlife conflict worldwide: collection of case studies, analysis of
management strategies and good practices, pp. 1–29. SARD Initiative Report, Rome
Djenontin, I. & Djoudi, H. 2015. From degraded to functional restored forest land: Smallholder farmers
curbing food insecurity in central Burkina Faso. In C. Kumar, C. Saint-Laurent, S. Begeladze & M.
Calmon, eds. Enhancing food security through forest landscape restoration: lessons from Burkina
Faso, Brazil, Guatemala, Viet Nam, Ghana, Ethiopia and Philippines, pp. 18–41. Gland, Switzerland,
IUCN.
Dowie, M. 2009. Conservation refugees: the hundred year old conflict between global conservation and
native peoples. Cambridge, USA, MIT Press.
Duchelle, A., Almeyda Zambrano, A.M., Wunder, S., Borner, J. & Kainer, K. 2014. Smallholder
specialization strategies along the forest transition curve in Southwestern Amazonia. World
Development (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.03.001).
Dunkel, D. 1996. Nutritional values of various insects per 100 grams. The Food Insect
Newsletter. 9: 1–8.
EC (European Commission). 2013. Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing
countries from the point of view of Policy Coherence for Development – Final report. Brussels,
European Commission.
Ecosystem Marketplace. 2015. Full circle, REDD and indigenous people. Past, present, and
future (http://www.forest-trends.org/documents/files/doc_4942.pdf).
EEA (European Environment Agency). 2016. Renewable energy in Europe 2016: recent growth and
knock-on effects. Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union.
Elbehri, A. 2015. Climate change and food systems: global assessments and implications for food
security and trade. Rome, FAO.
Elgert, L. 2012. Certified discourse? The politics of developing soy certification standards. Geoforum,
43: 295–304.
Eliasch Review. 2008. Climate change: financing global forests. London, HMSO
(http://planetaryskin.org/sites/default/files/Climate_Change_Financing_Global_Forests.pdf).
Ellison, D., Morris, C.E., Locatelli, B., Sheil, D., Cohen, J., Murdiyarso, D., Gutierrezk, V., van
Noordwijk, M., Creed, I.F.,Pokorny, J., Gaveau, D., Spracklen, D.V., Bargués Tobella, A.B.,
Ilstedt, U., Teuling, A.J., Gebrehiwot, S.G., Sands, D.C., Muyst, B., Verbistt, B., Springgay, E.,
Sugandiv, Y. & Sullivan, C.A. 2017. Trees, forests and water: cool insights for a hot world. Global
Environmental Change, 43: 51–61.
Elliott, B., Jayatilaka, D., Brown, C., Varley, L. & Corbett, K.K. 2012. We are not being heard:
aboriginal perspectives on traditional foods access and food security. Journal of Environmental and
Public Health, 1–9.
Elmqvist, T., Folke, C., Nyström, M., Peterson, G., Bengtsson, J., Walker, B. & Norberg, J. 2003.
Response diversity, ecosystem change, and resilience. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 1:
488–494.
EMBRAPA. 2008. Aquecimento Global e a nova Geografia da Produção agrícola no Brasil.
Enters, T. 2001. Trash or treasure? Logging and mill residues in Asia and the Pacific. FAO Regional
Office for Asia and the Pacific. Bangkok (www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/X6966E/X6966E02.htm).
Espinoza-Llanos, R. & Feather, C. 2011. The reality of REDD+ in Peru: between theory and practice -
indigenous Amazonian peoples' analyses and alternatives. November.
EU Standing Forestry Committee. 2010. Public procurement of wood and wood-based products.
Report to the Standing Forestry Committee, by the Standing Forestry Committee Ad Hoc Working
Group IV on Public Procurement of Wood and Wood-based Products. November 2010
(https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sites/agriculture/files/fore/publi/wg4-112010_en.pdf).
Evans, J. & Turnbull, J.W. 2004. Plantation forestry in the tropics: the role, silviculture and use of
planted forests for industrial, social, environmental and agroforestry purposes. Oxford, UK, Oxford
University Press.
Fa, J.E., Juste, J., Burn, R.W. & Broad, G. 2002. Bushmeat consumption and preferences of two
ethnic groups in Bioko Island, West Africa. Human Ecology, 30(3): 397–416.
Fall, M.W. & Jackson W.B. 2002. The tools and techniques of wildlife damage management-changing
needs: an introduction. International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation, 49(2–3): 87–91.
Fanzo, J., Hunter, D., Borelli, T. & Mattei, F., eds. 2013. Diversifying food and diets: using agricultural
biodiversity to improve nutrition and health. London, Routledge.

116
FAO. 1989. Review of forest management systems of tropical Asia. Forestry Paper No. 89. Rome.
FAO. 1995. Pollination of cultivated plants in the tropics. D.W. Roubik, ed. FAO Agricultural Service
Bulletin 118. Rome.
FAO. 2005. Voluntary guidelines to support the progressive realization of the right to adequate food in
the context of national food security. Rome.
FAO. 2006. The new generation of watershed management programmes and projects. Forestry Paper
No.150. Rome.
FAO. 2007a. The world’s mangroves 1980-2005. FAO Forestry Paper 153. Rome.
FAO. 2007b. Why invest in watershed management? Rome.
FAO. 2009a. Human-wildlife conflict in Africa. Causes, consequences and management strategies. FAO
Forestry Paper 147. Rome.
FAO. 2009b. State of the World’s Forests. Rome (http://www.fao.org/3/a-i0350e.pdf).
FAO. 2009c. Enhancing stakeholder participation in national forest programmes. FAO Forestry Policy
Brief. Rome.
FAO. 2010a. Sustainable diets and biodiversity. Directions and solutions for policy, research and
action. Proceedings of the International Scientific Symposium. Rome.
FAO. 2010b. "Climate-smart" agriculture, policies, practices and financing for food security, adaptation
and mitigation. Rome.
FAO. 2010c. The Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010. FAO Forestry Paper 163. Rome
(http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1757e/i1757e.pdf).
FAO. 2011a. Biodiversity for food and agriculture. Contributing to food security and sustainability in a
changing world. Rome.
FAO. 2011b. The state of forests in the Amazon Basin, Congo Basin and Southeast Asia. A report
prepared for the Summit of the Three Rainforest Basins Brazzaville, Republic of Congo, 31 May–3
June 2011. Rome.
FAO. 2012a. FRA2015. Terms and definitions. Forest Resource Assessment Working Paper 180. Rome
(http://www.fao.org/docrep/017/ap862e/ap862e00.pdf).
FAO. 2012b. World agriculture towards 20130/20150: the 2012 revision, by N. Alexandratos & J.
Bruinsma. ESA Working Paper No. 12-03 (http://www.fao.org/economic/esa/esag/en/).
FAO. 2012c. Voluntary guidelines on the responsible governance of tenure of land, fisheries and forest
in the context of national food security. Rome (http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i2801e/i2801e.pdf).
FAO. 2013a. Edible insects: future prospects for food and feed security. FAO Forestry Paper. Rome
FAO. 2013b. Forests and water: international momentum and action. Rome
(http://www.fao.org/docrep/017/i3129e/i3129e.pdf).
FAO. 2014a. State of the World’s Forests. Enhancing the socio-economic benefits from forests. Rome
(http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3710e.pdf).
FAO. 2014b. Strengthening the links between resilience and nutrition in food and agriculture. A
discussion paper. Rome (http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3777e.pdf).
FAO. 2015. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015. How are the world's forests changing? Second
edition. Rome.
FAO. 2016a. State of the World’s Forests. Forests and agriculture: land-use challenges and
opportunities. Rome.
FAO. 2016b. Climate change and food security: risks and responses, Rome (http://www.fao.org/3/a-
i5188e.pdf).
FAO. 2016c. The State of Food and Agriculture. Climate change, agriculture and food security. Rome
(http://www.fao.org/3/a-i6030e.pdf).
FAO. 2016d. The agriculture sector in the intended nationally determined contributions: analysis, by R.
Strohmaier, J. Rioux, A. Seggel, A. Meybeck, M. Bernoux, M. Salvatore, J. Miranda & A. Agostini.
Environment and Natural Resources Management Working Paper No. 62. Rome.
FAO. 2016e. Integrated policy for forests, food security and sustainable livelihoods. Lessons from the
Republic of Korea. Rome (http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5444e.pdf).
FAO. 2017a. The future of food and agriculture. Trends and challenges. Rome. (http://www.fao.org/3/a-
i6583e.pdf)
FAO. 2017b. Addressing agriculture, forestry and fisheries in National Adaptation Plans –
Supplementary guidelines, (http://www.fao.org/3/a-i6714e.pdf).
FAO/OIE/WHO/UN System Influenza Coordination/UNICEF/World Bank. 2008. Contributing to One
World, One Health. A strategic framework for reducing risks of infectious diseases at the animal-
human-ecosystems interface (http://www.fao.org/docrep/011/aj137e/aj137e00.htm).
Feintrenie, L. 2014. Agro-industrial plantations in Central Africa, risks and opportunities. Biodiversity
and Conservation, 23 (6): 1577–1589. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10531-014-0687-5.
Firbank, L.G., Petit, S. Smart, S., Blain A. & Fuller, R.J. 2008. Assessing the impacts of agricultural
intensification on biodiversity: a British perspective. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society
B. 363: 777–787.
Fischer, A., Sandström, C., Delibes-Mateos, M., Arroyo, B., Tadie, D., Randall, D., Hailu, F.,
Lowassa, A., Msuha, M., Kereži, V., Reljić, S., Linnell, J. & Majić, A. 2013. On the
multifunctionality of hunting – an institutional analysis of eight cases from Europe and Africa. J.
Environ. Plan. Manag., 56: 531–552. doi:10.1080/09640568.2012.689615.

117
 Fischer, J., Abson, D., Butsic, V., Chappell, M., Ekroos, J., Hanspach, J., Kuemmerle, T., Smith,
H. & Wehrden, H. 2014. Land sparing and land sharing: moving forward. Conservation Letters, 7:
149–157 (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.12084/epdf).
Fisher, R.J., Srimongkontip, S. & Veer, C. 1997. People and forests in Asia and the pacific: situation
and prospects. FAO/RAPA. Working Paper No. APFSOS/WP/27.
Flohre, A., Fischer, C., Aavik, T., Bengtsson, J., Berendse, F., Bommarco, R., Ceryngier, P.,
Clement, L.W., Dennis, C., Eggers, S., Emmerson, M., Geiger, F., Guerrero, I., Hawo, V.,
Inhausti, P., Liira, J., Morales, M.B., Onate, JJ., Part, T., Weisser, WW. Winqvist, C., Thies C. &
Tscharntke, T. 2011. Agricultural intensification and biodiversity partitioning in European
landscapes comparing plants, carabids and birds. Ecological Applications, 21(5): 1772–1781.
Foli, S., Reed, J. Clendenning, J., Petrokofsky, G., Padoch, C. & Sunderland, T. 2014. To what
extent does the presence of forests and trees contribute to food production in humid and dry forest
landscapes? A systematic review protocol. Environmental Evidence, 3(1): 15
(http://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/articles/AFoli1401.pdf).
Food Secure Canada. 2008. Food sovereignity in rural and remote communities. Discussion Paper 2.
Montreal, Canada.
Ford, J.D. 2009. Vulnerability of Inuit food systems to food insecurity as a consequence of climate
change: a case study from Igloolik, Nunavut. Reg. Environ. Chang., 9(2): 83–100.
doi:10.1007/s10113-008-0060-x.
Forest Trends. 2013. La forestería comunitaria en Honduras. Un camino hacia una major gobernanza
forestal. Information Brief 08. Washington, DC.
Fortmann, L. 1984. The tree tenure factor in agroforestry with particular reference to Africa.
Agroforestry Systems, 2: 231–248.
Fortmann, L. & Bruce, J. W., eds. 1988. Whose trees? Proprietary dimensions of forestry. Boulder,
USA, and London, Westview Press.
Fortmann, L. & Riddell, J. 1984. Trees and tenure: an annotated bibliography for agroforesters and
others. Nairobi, ICRAF.
Franzel, S., Wambugu, C. & Tuwei, P. 2003. The adoption and dissemination of fodder shrubs in
central Kenya. Agricultural Research and Network Series Paper No. 131. London, Overseas
Development Institute.
Franzel, S., Carsan, S., Lukuyu, B., Sinja, J. & Wambugu, C. 2014. Fodder trees for improving
livestock productivity and smallholder livelihoods in Africa. Current Opinion in Environmental
Sustainability, 6: 98–103.
Fredman, P. ,Stenseke, M., Sandell, K. & Mossing, A. 2013. Frilufsliv i förändring [Recreation life in
transition]. Stockholm (https://www.naturvardsverket.se/Documents/publikationer6400/978-91-620-
6547-8.pdf?pid=6324).
Fredman, P., Boman, M., Lundmark, L. & Mattsson, L. 2008. Friluftslivets ekonomiska värden – en
översikt [Swedish] (The economic value of recreation – an overview) (http://svensktfriluftsliv.se/wp-
content/uploads/2012/12/Friluftslivets-ekonomiska-v%C3%A4rden-Rapport-2008.pdf).
Freitas, B.M., Filho, A.J.S.P., Andrade, P.B., Lemos, C.Q., Rocha, E.E.M., Pereira, N.O., Bezerra,
A.D.M., Nogueira, D.S., Alencar, R.L., Rocha, R.F. & Mendonça, K.S. 2014. Forest remnants
enhance wild pollinator visits to cashew flowers and mitigate pollination deficit in NE Brazil. Journal
of Pollination Ecology, 12(4): 22–30.
Frison, E.A., Smith, I.F., Johns, T., Cherfas, J. & Eyzaguirre, P. 2006. Agricultural biodiversity,
nutrition and health: making a difference to hunger and nutrition in the developing world. Food and
Nutrition Bulletin, 27(2): 167–179.
FSC (Forest Stewardship Council). 2015. FSC principles and criteria for forest stewardship. Bonn,
Germany.
FTA. 2016. CGIAR Research Program Proposal Phase II — Forests, Trees and Agroforestry:
Landscapes, Livelihoods and Governance (http://foreststreesagroforestry.org/forests-trees-and-
agroforestry-landscapes-livelihoods-and-governance/).
FTA. 2017. CGIAR Research Program on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry: Landscape approaches to
tackle climate change, and achieve sustainable development and food security
(https://library.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10947/4658/FTA%20Leaflet.pdf?sequence=3).
Fuys, A. & Dohrn, S. 2010. Common property regimes: taking a closer look at resource access. In L.
German, J. Ramisch & R. Verma, eds. Beyond the biophysical. knowledge, culture and power in
agriculture and natural resource management. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York, Springer.
Garibaldi, L.A., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Kremen, C., Morales, J.M., Bommarco, R., Cunningham,
S.A., Carvalheiro, L.G., Chacoff, N.P., Dudenöhffer, J.H., Greenleaf, S.S., Holzschuh, A.,
Isaacs, R., Krewenka, K., Mandelik, Y., Mayfield, M.M., Morandin, L.A., Potts, S.G., Ricketts,
T.H., Szentgyörgyi, H., Viana, B.F., Westphal, C., Winfree, R. & Klein, A.M. 2011. Stability of
pollination services decreases with isolation from natural areas despite honey-bee visits. Ecology
Letters, 14(10): 1062–1072.

118
Garibaldi, L.A., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Winfree, R., Aizen, M.A., Bommarco, R., Cunningham, S.A.,
Kremen, C., Carvalheiro, L.G., Harder, L.D., Afik, O., Bartomeus, I., Benjamin, F., Boreux, V.,
Cariveau, D., Chacoff, N.P., Dudenhöffer, J.H., Freitas, B.M., Ghazoul, J., Greenleaf, S.,
Hipólito, J., Holzschuh, A., Howlett, B., Isaacs, R., Javorek, S.K., Kennedy, C.M., Krewenka,
K.M., Krishnan, S., Mandelik, Y., Mayfield, M.M., Motzke, I., Munyuli, T., Nault, B.A., Otieno, M.,
Petersen, J., Pisanty, G., Potts, S.G., Rader, R., Ricketts, T.H., Rundlöf, M., Seymour, C.L.,
Schüepp, C., Szentgyörgyi, H., Taki, H., Tscharntke, T., Vergara, C.H., Viana, B.F., Wanger,
T.C., Westphal, C., Williams, N. & Klein, A.M. 2013. Wild pollinators enhance fruit set of crops
regardless of honey bee abundance. Science, 339: 1608–1611.
Garibaldi, L.A., Carvalheiro, L.G., Vaissière, B.E., Gemmill-Herren, B., Hipólito, J., Freitas, B.M.,
Ngo, H.T., Azzu, N., Sáez, A., Åström, J., An, J., Blochtein, B., Buchori, D., Chamorro García,
F.J., da Silva, F.O., Devkota, K., de Fátima Ribeiro, M., Freitas, L., Gaglianone, M.C., Goss, M.,
Irshad, M., Kasina, M., Pacheco Filho, A.J.S., Piedade Kiill, L.H., Kwapong, P., Nates Parra, G.,
Pires, C., Pires, V., Rawal, R.S., Rizali, A., Saraiva, A.M., Veldtman, R., Viana, B.F., Witter, S. &
Zhang, H. 2016. Mutually beneficial pollinator diversity and crop yield outcomes in small and large
farms. Science, 351(6271).
Garnett, T. & Godfray, H.C.J. 2012. Sustainable intensification in agriculture. Navigating a course
through competing food system priorities. Workshop Report
(http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/reports/201207SustainableFoodReport.pdf).
Geist, H. & Lambin, E. 2002. Proximate causes and underlying driving forces of tropical deforestation.
BioScience, 52: 143–144.
Gerten, D., Schaphoff, S., Haberlandt, U., Lucht, W. & Sitch, S. 2004. Terrestrial vegetation and
water balance—hydrological evaluation of a dynamic global vegetation model. Journal of Hydrology,
286(1): 249–270.
Ghazoul, J. 2010. Extending certification to landscape mosaics. ETFRN News, 51: 182–187.
Ghazoul, J., Garcia C. & Kushalappa C.G. 2009. Landscape labelling: A concept for nextgeneration
payment for ecosystem service schemes. Forest Ecology and Management, 258: 1889–1895
(http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/i2100e/i2100e06.pdf).
Ghimire, K. & Pimbert, M.P. 1997. Social change and conservation, environmental politics and impacts
of national parks and protected areas. London, Routledge.
Gibbs, H., Ruessch, A., Achard, F., Clayton, M., Holmgren, P., Ramankutty, N. & Foley, J. 2010.
Tropical forests were the primary sources of new agricultural land in the 1980s and 1990s.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 107: 16732–16737
(http://www.pnas.org/content/107/38/16732.short).
Gibson, P.M. 1979. Therapeutic aspects of wilderness programs: a comprehensive literature review.
Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 13: 21–33.
Gibson, T.M. Lee, L.P. Koh, B.W. Brook, T.A. Gardner, J. Barlow, C.A. Peres, C.J. Bradshaw, W.F.
Laurance, T.E. & Lovejoy, N.S. 2011. Sodhi primary forests are irreplaceable for sustaining tropical
biodiversity. Nature, 478 (7369): 378–381.
Gitz, V. & Meybeck, A. 2012 Risks, vulnerabilities and resilience in a context of climate change, In
FAO. Building resilience for adaptation to climate change in the agriculture sector, Rome
(http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3084e/i3084e03.pdf).
Glück, P. 2000. Policy means for ensuring the full value of forests to society. Land Use Policy, 17: 177–
185.
Godoy, C. 2010. Propuesta para elaborar planes de manejo integrados de recursos forestales no
maderables en la reserva de la Biósfera Maya, Petén, Guatemala. San Carlos University
(http://biblioteca.usac.edu.gt/tesis/01/01_2613.pdf).
Golden, C.D., Fernald, L.C.H., Brashares, J.S., Rasolofoniaina, B.J.R. & Kremen, C. 2011. Benefits
of wildlife consumption to child nutrition in a biodiversity hotspot. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Science, 108: 19653–19656.
Gond, V., Dubiez, E., Boulogne, M., Gigaud, M., Peroches, A., Pennec, A., Fauvet, N. & Peltier, R.
2016. Forest cover and carbon stock change dynamics in the Democratic Republic of Congo: case
of the wood-fuel supply basin of Kinshasa. Bois et Forêts des Tropiques, (327): 19–28
(http://bft.cirad.fr/cd/BFT_327_19-28.pdf).
Grau, R., Kuemmerle, T. & Macchi, L. 2013. Beyond ‘land sparing versus land sharing’: environmental
heterogeneity, globalization and the balance between agricultural production and nature
conservation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5: 477–483.
Green, R.E., Cornell, S.J., Scharlemann, J.P.W. & Balmford, A. 2005. Farming and the fate of wild
nature. Science, 307: 550–555.
Gyau, A., Takoutsing, B., De Grande, A. & Franzel, S. 2012. Farmers’ motivation for collective action
in the production and marketing of kola in Cameroon. Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development
in the Tropics and Sub Tropics, 113: 43–50.
Hadri, H. & Guellouz, M. 2011. Forests and rangelands in the Near East Region. Facts and figures.
FAO Office for the Near East, Cairo.
Hajjar, R., Oldekop, J.A., Cronkleton, P., Etue, E., Newton, P., Russel, A.J.M., Tjajadi, J.S., Zhou,
W. & Agrawal, A. 2016. The data not collected on community forestry. Conservation Biology, 30(6):
1357–62 (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.12732/epdf).

119
 Hansen, M.C., Potapov, P. V, Moore, R., Hancher, M., Turubanova, S., Tyukavina, T, Thau, D.,
Stehman, S. V, Goetz, S.J., Loveland, T.R., Kommareddy, Egorov, A., Chini, L., Justice, C.O. &
Townshend, J.R.G. 2013. High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change.
Science, 342: 850–853.
Hardin, G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science, New Series, 162: 1243–1248.
Harvey, C. A., Chacón, M., Donatti, C. I., Garen, E., Hannah, L., Andrade, A., Bede, L., Brown, D.,
Calle, A. & Chará, J. 2014. Climate smart landscapes: opportunities and challenges for integrating
adaptation and mitigation in tropical agriculture. Conservation Letters, 7: 77–90.
Hawkins, R.P. 1965. Factors affecting the yield of seed produced by different varieties of red clover.
Journal of Agricultural Science, 65: 245–253.
Headey, D.D. 2013. Developmental drivers of nutritional change: a cross-country analysis. World
Development, 42(1): 76–88.
Heikkila, R. & Aarnio, J. 2001. Forest owners as moose hunters in Finland. Alces, 37: 89–96.
Helms, J. 2002. Forests, forestry, forester: What do these terms mean? Journal of Forestry, 100(8): 15–
19.
Henao-Bravo, E.I., Ordóñez,Y., Camino Velozo, R.de., Villalobos Soto, R. & Carrera Gambeta, F.
2015. El bosque secundario en Centroamérica: un recurso potencial de uso limitado por
procedimientos y normativas inadecuadas. Serie técnica. Boletín Técnico No.77 CATIE,
CIFOR/FTA.
Herzog, F. 1998. Streuobst: a traditional agroforestry system as a model for agroforestry development
in temperate Europe. Agroforestry Systems, 42: 61–80.
Hickey, G., Pouliot, M., Smith-Hall, C., Wunder, S. & Nielsen, M. 2016. Quatifying the economic
contribution of wild food harvests to rural livelihoods: a global comparative analysis. Food Policy, 62:
122–132.
HLPE. 2012. Food security and climate change. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food
Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security, Rome.
HLPE, 2013. Biofuels and food security. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security
and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security. Rome.
HLPE. 2014a. Food losses and waste in the context of sustainable food systems. A report by the High
Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security.
Rome.
HLPE. 2014b. Sustainable fisheries and aquaculture for food security and nutrition. A report by the High
Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security.
Rome.
HLPE. 2015. Water for food security and nutrition. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food
Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security, Rome.
HLPE. 2016. Sustainable agricultural development for food security and nutrition: what roles for
livestock? A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the
Committee on World Food Security. Rome.
Hobley, M. 1996. Participatory forestry: the process of change in India and Nepal. Rural Development
Forestry Study Guide 3. London, Overseas Development Institute.
Holmgren, P. 2006. Global land use area change matrix: input to GEO-4. Rome, FAO (
ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/ag049e/ag049e00.pdf).
Holzschuh, A., Steffan-Dewenter, I. & Tscharntke, T. 2010. How do landscape composition and
configuration, organic farming and fallow strips affect the diversity of bees, wasps and their
parasitoids? Journal of Animal Ecology, 79: 491–500.
Hosonuma, N., Herold, M., De Sy, V., De Fries, R.S., Brockhaus, M., Verchot, L., Angelsen, A. &
Romijn, E. 2012. An assessment of deforestation and forest degradation drivers in developing
countries. Environ. Res. Lett., 7(4): 4009.
Howard, P.L. & Nabanoga, G. 2007. Are there customary rights to plants? An inquiry among the
Baganda (Uganda), with special attention to gender. World Development, 35(9): 1542-1563.
Humphry, C.M., Clegg, M.S., Keen, C.L. & Grivetti, L.E. 1993. Food diversity and drought survival.
The Hausa example. International Journal of Food Science and Nutrition, 44(1): 1–16.
Hyden, G., Court, J. & Mease, K. 2004. Making sense of governance: empirical evidence from sixteen
developing countries. Lynne Rienner Publishers.
IBA. 2015. Brazilian tree industry 2015: a report of the Brazilian tree industry. Brasilia. 62 p.
(http://www.iba.org/images/shared/iba_2015.pdf).
Ibarra, J.T., Barreau, A., Del Campo, C., Camacho, C.I., Martin, G.J., & McCandless, S.R. 2011.
When formal and market-based conservation mechanisms disrupt food sovereignty: impacts of
community conservation, payments for environmental services and food sovereignty in an
indigenous community of the Chinantla, Oaxaca, Mexico. International Forestry Review, 13(3): 318–
337.
Ickowitz, A., Powell, B., A. Salim M.A. & Sunderland, T. 2014. Dietary quality and tree cover in Africa.
Global Environmental Change, 24: 287–294.
Ickowitz, A., Rowland, D., Powell, B., Salim, M. A., & Sunderland, T. 2016. Forests, trees, and
micronutrient-rich food consumption in Indonesia. PLoS ONE, 11(5): e0154139.

120
IEA (International Energy Agency). 2010 Energy technology perspectives. Scenarios and strategies to
2050.
ILO (International Labour Organization). 1998. Safety and health in forestry work: an ILO code of
practice. Geneva, Switzerland (http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_protect/---protrav/---
safework/documents/normativeinstrument/wcms_107793.pdf).
Indrawan, M., Yabe, M., Nomura, H. & Harrison, R. 2014. Deconstructing satoyama – the socio-
ecological landscape in Japan. Ecological Engineering, 64: 77–84. doi:10.1016/j.
ecoleng.2013.12.038.
INDUFOR. 2012. Strategic review on the future of forest plantations. Helsinki
(http://www.fao.org/forestry/42701-090e8a9fd4969cb334b2ae7957d7b1505.pdf).
IOM/NRC (Institute of Medicine/National Research Council). 2009. Sustaining global surveillance
and response to emerging zoonotic diseases. Washington, DC, The National Academies Press.
IPBES (Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services).
2016. Summary for policymakers of the assessment report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy
Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services on pollinators, pollination and food production.
S.G. Potts, V.L. Imperatriz-Fonseca, H.T. Ngo, J.C. Biesmeijer, T.D. Breeze, L.V. Dicks, L.A.
Garibaldi, R. Hill, J. Settele, A.J. Vanbergen, M.A. Aizen, S.A. Cunningham, C. Eardley, B.M.
Freitas, N. Gallai, P.G. Kevan, A. Kovács-Hostyánszki, P.K. Kwapong, J. Li, X. Li, D.J. Martins, G.
Nates-Parra, J.S. Pettis, R. Rader & B.F. Viana, eds. Bonn, Germany, Secretariat of the
Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, 36 p.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report.
Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri & L.A. Meyer, eds]. Geneva,
Switzerland, IPCC.
Iremonger, S. & Gerrand, A.M. 2011. Global ecological zones for FAO forest reporting, 2010.
Unpublished report. Rome, FAO.
IUCN-CEESP. 2008. Recognising and supporting indigenous & community conservation — ideas and
experiences from the grassroots, CEESP Briefing Note 9. IUCN and CEESP, Gland and Tehran.
Jackson, L., Bawa, K., Pascual, U. & Perrings, C. 2005. Agrobiodiversity: a new science agenda for
biodiversity in support of sustainable agroecosystems. DIVERSITAS Report No. 4. 40 p.
Jackson, L.E., Pascual, U. & Hodgkin, T. 2007 Utilizing and conserving agrobiodiversity in agricultural
landscapes. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 121: 196–210.
Jamnadass, R.H., Dawson, I.K., Franzel, S., Leakey, R.R.B., Mithöfer, D., Akinnifesi, F.K. &
Tchoundjeu, Z. 2011. Improving livelihoods and nutrition in sub-Saharan Africa through the
promotion of indigenous and exotic fruit production in smallholders’ agroforestry systems: a review.
International Forest Review, 13: 338–354.
Jamnadass, R., McMullin, S., Miyuki, I. Dawson, I., Powell, B., Termote, C., Ickowitz, A.,
Kehlenbeck, K., Vinceti, B., van Vliet, N., Keding, G., Stadlmayr, B., Van Damme, P., Carsan,
S., Sunderland, T., Njenga, M., Gyau, A., Cerruti, P., Schure, J., Kouame, C., Obiri-Darko, B.,
Ofori, D., Agarwal, B., Neufelt, H., Degrande, A & Serban, A. 2015. Understanding the roles of
forests and tree-based systems in food provision. In B. Vira, C. Wildburger & S. Mansourian, eds.
Forests, trees and landscapes for food security and nutrition: a global assessment report, pp 25–50.
IUFRO World Series, Volume 33. Vienna, International Union of Forestry Research Organisations
(IUFRO) (http://www.iufro.org/science/gfep/forests-and-food-security-panel/report/).
Joffre, R., Rambal, S. & Ratte, J.P. 1999. The dehesa system of southern Spain and Portugal as a
natural ecosystem mimic. Agroforestry Systems, 45: 57–79.
Johansson, T., Hjältén, J., de Jong, J. & von Stedingk, H. 2009. Environmental consideration and
nature value indications [in Swedish: Generell hänsyn och naturvärdesinditationer]. Solna.
Johnson, C. & Forsyth, T. 2002. In the eyes of the state: negotiating a “rights-based approach” to
forest conservation in Thailand. World Development, 30(9): 1591–1605.
Johnson, D.V. 2010. The contribution of edible forest insects to human nutrition and to forest
management: Current status and future potential. In P.B. Durst, D.V. Johnson, R.N. Leslie & K.
Shono, eds.Forest insects as food: humans bite back. Proceedings of a workshop on Asia-Pacific
resources and their potential for development, February 2008. FAO Regional Office for Asia and the
Pacific, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Johnson, K. B., Jacob, A., & Brown, M. E. 2013. Forest cover associated with improved child health
and nutrition: evidence from the Malawi Demographic and Health Survey and satellite data. Global
Health, Science and Practice, 1(2): 237–248.
Joppa, L. 2012. Population change in and around protected areas. Journal of Ecological Anthropology,
1: 58–64.
Jose, S. 2009. Agroforestry for ecosystem services and environmental benefits: an overview,
Agroforestry Systems, 76(1): 1–10.
Kanninen, M., Murdiyarso, D., Seymour, F., Angelsen, A., Wunder, S. & German, L. 2007. Do trees
grow on money? The implications of deforestation research for policies to promote REDD. Bogor,
Indonesia, Center for International Forestry Research
(http://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/cop/REDD_paper071207.pdf)

121
 Karjalainen, E., Sarjala, T. & Raito, H. 2010. Promoting human health through forests: overview and
major challenges. Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine, 15: 1–8.
Karp, D.S., Mendenhall, C.D., Sandí, R.F., Chaumont, N., Ehrlich, P.R., Hadly, E.A. & Daily, G.C.
2013. Forest bolsters bird abundance, pest control and coffee yield. Ecol. Lett., 16:1339–1347.
Keenan, R.J., Reams, G.A., Achard, F., de Freitas, J. V., Grainger, A. & Lindquist, E. 2015.
Dynamics of global forest area: results from the FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015.
Forest Ecology and Management, 352: 9–20 (http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4895e/i4895e02.pdf).
Kehlenbeck, K. & Jamnadass R. 2014. Food and nutrition – fruits, nuts, vegetables and staples from
trees. In J. De Leeuw, M. Njenga, B. Wagner& M. Iiyama, eds. Treesilience: an assessment of the
resilience provided by trees in the drylands of Eastern Africa, Chapter 6.2.1. Nairobi, ICRAF
Keiser, J., Singer, B.H. & Utzinger, J. 2005. Reducing the burden of malaria in different eco-
epidemiological settings with environmental management: a systematic review. Lancet Infectious
Diseases, 5(11): 695–708.
Keller, G.B., Mndiga, H. & Maass, B. 2006. Diversity and genetic erosion of traditional vegetables in
Tanzania from the farmer’s point of view. Plant Genetic Resources, 3: 400–413.
Kennedy, E. & Peters, P. 1992. Household food security and child nutrition: the interaction of income
and gender of household head. World Development, 20(8): 1077–1085.
Kenny Jordan, C.B., Herz, C., Anazco, M. & Andrade, M. 1999. Pioneering change: community
forestry in the Andean highlands; natural resource management by rural communities in the
highlands of Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru and Colombia. Rome, FAO.
Khalil, G.M. 1983. Influence of windbreaks on microclimate and crop yields in West Nubariah region
(Egypt). International seminar on shelterbelts. Tunis, International Development Research Centre.
Khare, A., Sarin, M., Saxena, N.C., Palit, S., Bathla, S., Vania, F. & Satyanarayana, M. 2000. Joint
forest management: policy, practice and prospects. London, IIED.
Kimble J.M., Rice, C.W., Reed, D., Mooney, S., Follett, R.F. & Lal, R., eds. 2007. Soil carbon
management. Economic, environmental and societal benefits. Boca Raton, USA, CRC Press. 280 p.
Kiraz, K., Kart, L., Demir, R., Oymak, S., Gulmez, I., Unalacak, M. &, Ozesmi, M. 2003. Chronic
pulmonary disease in rural women exposed to biomass fumes. Clinical and Investigative Medicine,
26(5): 243–248.
Kirschbaum, M.U.F., Keith, H., Leuning, R., Cleugh, H.A., Jacobsen, K.L., Van Gorsel, E. &
Raison, R.J. 2007. Modelling net ecosystem carbon and water exchange of a temperate Eucalyptus
delegatensis forest using multiple constraints. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 145: 48–68.
Kissinger, G. 2013. Linking forests and food production in the REDD+ context. In M. Behnassi, O.
Pollmann & G. Kissinger. Sustainable food security in the era of local and global environmental
change, pp.41–65. Springer.
Kissinger, G. Herold, M. & De Sy, V. 2012. Drivers of deforestation and degradation: a synthesis
report for REDD+ policymakers. Vancouver, Canada, Lexeme Consulting.
Kivinen, S., Moen, J., Berg, A. & Eriksson, A. 2010. Effects of modern forest management on winter
grazing resources for reindeer in Sweden. Ambio, 39(4): 269–278.
Kleijn, D., Baquero, R.A., Clough, Y., Díaz, M., De Esteban, J., Fernández, F., Gabriel, D., Herzog,
F., Holzschuh, A., Jöhl, R., Knop, E., Kruess, A., Marshall, E.J., Steffan-Dewenter, I.,
Tscharntke, T., Verhulst, J., West, T.M. & Yela, J.L. 2006. Mixed biodiversity benefits of agri-
environment schemes in five European countries. Ecology Letters, 9: 243–254.
Kleijn, D., Kohler, F., Baldi, A., Batary, P., Concepcion, E.D., Clough, Y., Diaz, M., Gabriel, D.,
Holzschuh, A., Knop, E., Kovacs, A., Marshall, E. J. P., Tscharntke, T. & Verhulst, J. 2009. On
the relationship between farmland biodiversity and land-use intensity in Europe. Proceedings of the
Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 276: 903–909.
Klein, A.M., Vaissiere, B.E., Cane, J. H., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Cunningham, S.A., Kremen, C. &
Tscharntke, T. 2007. Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world crops. Proc. R.
Soc. Lond. (Biol)., 274: 303–313.
Klein, A.-M., Hendrix, S. D., Clough, Y., Scofield, A., & Kremen, C. 2014. Interacting effects of
pollination, water and nutrients on fruit tree performance. Plant Biology, 17: 201–208.
Köhl, M., Lasco, R., Cifuentes, M., Jonsson, O., Korhonen, K., Mundhenk, P., de Jesus Navar, J.
& Stinson, G. 2015. Changes in forest production, biomass and carbon: results from the 2015 UN
Global Forest Resources Assessment. For. Ecol. Manag., 352: 21–34.
Konijnendijk, C.C. 2010. The forest and the city. The cultural landscape of urban woodland. Dordrecht,
Netherlands, Springer.
Kormann, U., Scherber, C., Tscharntke, T., Klein, N., Larbig, M., Valente, J.J., Hadley, A.S. &
Betts, M.G. 2016. Corridors restore animal-mediated pollination in fragmented tropical forest
landscapes. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. Biological Sciences. doi:10.1098/rspb.2015.2347.
Kremen, C., Niles, J.O., Dalton, M.G., Daily, G.C., Ehrlich, P.R., Fay, J.P., Grewal, D. & Guillery,
R.P. 2000. Economic incentives for rain forest conservation across scales. Science, 288: 1828–
1832.
Krott, M. 2005.
Forest policy analysis. Springer.
Kuhnlein, H.V. & Turner, N.J. 1991. Traditional plant foods of Canadian indigenous peoples: nutrition,
botany and use. Amsterdam, Gordon and Breach Publishers.

122
Kuhnlein, H.V., Erasmus, B. & Spigelski, D., eds. 2009. Indigenous peoples’ food systems: the many
dimensions of culture, diversity and environment for nutrition and health. Rome, FAO/Montreal,
Canada, Centre for Indigenous Peoples' Nutrition and Environment.
Kumar, N., Harris, J. & Rawat, R. 2015. If they grow it, will they eat and grow? Evidence from Zambia
on agricultural diversity and child undernutrition. The Journal of Development Studies, 51(8): 1060–
1077. doi:10.1080/00220388.2015.1018901.
Kümpel, N.F. 2006. Incentives for sustainable hunting of bushmeat in Río Muni, Equatorial Guinea.
PhD Thesis, Imperial College, London (https://www.zsl.org/sites/default/files/document/2014-
01/Incentives-sustainable-hunting-bushmeat-kumpel-2006-phd-thesis-765.pdf).
Labrière, N., Laumonier, Y., Locatelli, B., Vieilledent, G. & Comptour M. 2015. Ecosystem services
and biodiversity in a rapidly transforming landscape in Northern Borneo. PloS One, 10 (10),
e0140423 (18 p.) http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0140423.
Lambin, E. & Meyfroidt, P. 2011. Global land use change, economic globalization, and the looming
land scarcity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 108(9): 3465–3472
(http://www.pnas.org/content/108/9/3465.full.pdf).
Lamien, N. and Vognan, G. 2001. Importance of non-wood forest products as source of rural women
income in Western Burkina Faso. INERA Ouagadougou WP - INERA-4.
Larson, A.M., Barry, D., Dahal, G.R. & Colfer, C.P.,eds. 2010. Forests for people: community rights
and forest tenure reform. London, Earthscan.
Lescano, C.E. 1996. Situacion actual y estrategia para el desarrollo de la produccion y el
procesamiento de especies frutihorticolas Amazonicas subutilizadas. Mesa Redonda sobre
Complementariedad de la Producción Sostenible Frutihortícola Amazónica con el Desarrollo de
Microempresas Agroindustriales en los Países del Tratado de Cooperación Amazónica. Pucallpa,
Perú, 21–25 octubre. Rome, FAO, and Lima, Dept. de Montes, Tratado de Cooperacion Amazonica.
Secretaria Pro-Tempore.
Lescuyer, G., Cerutti, P.O. & Tsanga, R. 2016. Contributions of community and individual small-scale
logging to sustainable timber management in Cameroon. International Forestry Review, 18(1),
n.spéc. Valuing the Cameroonian Forest: 40–51 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1505/146554816819683744).
Levis, C., Costa, F.R.C., Bongers, F., Peña-Claros, M., Clement, C.R., Junqueira, A.B., Neves,
E.G., Tamanaha, E.K., Figueiredo, F.O.G., Salomão, R.P., Castilho, C.V., Magnusson, W.E.,
Phillips, O.L., Guevara, J.E., et al. 2017. Persistent effects on preolumbian plant domestication on
Amazonian forest composition. Science, 355(6328): 925–931. doi:10.1126/science.aal0157.
Lindahl, K.B., Sténs, A., Sandström, C., Johansson, J., Lidskog, R., Ranius, T. & Roberge, J.-M.
2015. The Swedish forestry model: more of everything? For. Policy Econ.
doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2015.10.012
Lindner, M., Garcia-Gonzalo, J., Kolström, M., Green, T., Reguera, R., Maroschek, M., Seidl, R.,
Lexer, M.J., Netherer, S., Schopf, A., Kremer, A., Delzon, S., Barbati, A., Marchetti, M. &
Corona, P. 2008. Impacts of climate change on European forests and options for adaptation. Report
to the European Commission Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development. AGRI-
2007-G4-06.
Locatelli, B., Imbach, P. & Wunder, S. 2013.Synergies and trade-offs between ecosystem services in
Costa Rica. Environmental Conservation, 41 (1): 27–36
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0376892913000234).
Locatelli, B. 2016. Ecosystem Services and Climate Change. In: M. Potschin, R. Haines-Young, R.
Fish & K.R. Turner, eds. Routledge handbook of ecosystem services, pp. 481–490. New York, USA,
Routledge. ISBN 978-1-138-02508-0 (https://www.routledge.com/products/9781138025080).
Lund, H.G. 2002. When is a forest not a forest? Journal of Forestry, 100(8): 21–27.
Lund, H.G. 2014. What is a forest? Definitions do make a difference, an example from Turkey. Avrasya
Terim Dergisi, 2(1): 1–8.
Lund, H.G. 2017. Definitions of forests, deforestation, afforestation, and reforestation. Forest
Information Services. Gainesville, USA, Forest Information Services. Note: this paper has been
continuously updated since 1998. Last updated 10 May 2017. doi:10.13140/RG.2.1.2364.9760.
Lundgren, B.O. & Raintree, J.B. 1982. Sustained agroforestry. In B. Nestel, ed. Agricultural research
for development: potentials and challenges in Asia, pp. 37–49. The Hague, ISNAR.
Lynch, O.J. & Talbott, K. 1995. Balancing acts: community-based forest management and national law
in Asia and the Pacific. Washington, DC, World Resources Institute.
MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: current state
and trends. Vol. 5. Washington, DC, Island Press.
MacDicken, K.G., Sola, P., Hall, J.E., Sabogal, C., Tadoum, M., & Wassiege, C. 2015. Global
progress towards sustainable forest management. Forest Ecology and Management, 352: 47–56
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378112715000560).
Mace, G. 2014. Whose Conservation? Science 345 (6204): 1558–1560.
MacKay, K.J. & Campbell, J.M. 2004. An examination of residents’ support for hunting as a tourism
product. Tour. Manag., 25: 443–452. doi:10.1016/S0261-5177(03)00127-4.
Makindi, S.M., Mutinda, M.N., Olekaikai, N.K.W. & Aboud, A.A. 2014. Human-wildlife conflicts:
causes and mitigation measures in Tsavo Conservation Area, Kenya, International Journal for
Science and Research, 3: 6.

123
 Marengo, J., Soares, W., Saulo, C. & Cima, M. 2004. Climatology of the low-level jet east of the Andes
as derived from the NCEP-NCAR reanalysis: characteristics and temporal variability. Journal of
Climate, 17: 2261–2280.
Mather, A.S. & Needle, C.L. 1998. The forest transition: a theoretical basis. Area, 30(2): 117–124
(http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-4762.1998.tb00055.x/epdf).
Mattsson, L. 1990. Hunting in Sweden: extent, economic values and structural problems. Scand. J. For.
Res., 5: 563–573. doi:10.1080/02827589009382639.
de Wasseige C., de Marcken P., Bayol N., Hiol Hiol F., Mayaux Ph., Desclée B., Nasi R., Billand A.,
Defourny P. & Eba’a Atyi R. (eds.) 2012. The forests of the Congo Basin – state of the forest 2008.
Publications Office of the European Union. Luxembourg. 276 p. ISBN: 978-92-79-22716-5,
doi:10.2788/47210.
Mwangi, E. & Wardell, A. 2012. Multi-level governance of forest resources. International Journal of the
Commons, 6: 79–103.
May, P., Chevez, O. & Reydon, B. 2001. Compilación y análisis sobre los productos forestales no
madereros (PFNM) en el Brasil. FAO/RELAC. Informaciones para el uso sostenible.
McAdam, J.H., Burgess, P.J., Graves, A.R., Rigueiro-Rodríguez, A. & Mosquera-Losada, M.R.
2009. Agroforestry in Europe: current status and future prospects, In A. Rigueiro-Rodróguez, J.
McAdam & M.R. Mosquera-Losada, eds. Agroforestry in Europe, advances in agroforestry, pp. 21–
41. Dordrecht, Netherlands, Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-8272-6_2.
McDermott, C.L., Irland, L.C. & Pacheco, P. 2015. Forest certification and legality initiatives in the
Brazilian Amazon: Lessons for effective and equitable forest governance. For. Policy Econ., 50:
134–142.
McIntyre, P., Liermann C. & Revenga, C. 2016. Linking freshwater fishery management to global food
security and biodiversity conservation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 113:
12880–12885 (http://www.pnas.org/content/113/45/12880.abstract).
Menezes, J., van Leeuwen, J., Valiengo Valeri, S., Pessôa da Cruz, M. & Leandro, R.C. 2008.
Comparison of soils used for agroforestry and of remaining forests, in northern Rondônia State,
Brazil. Rev. Bras. Ciênc. Solo, 32(2) (http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-
06832008000200043).
Mercer, C.W.L. 1997. Sustainable production of insects for food and income by New Guinea villagers.
Ecology of Food and Nutrition, 36: 151–157.
Mertz, O., Leisz, S., Heinimann, A., Rerkasem, K., Thiha, Dressler,W., Cu, P.V., Vu, K. C., Schmidt-
Vogt, D., Colfer, C. J. P., Epprecht, M., Padoch, C. & Potter, L. 2009. Who counts? The
demography of swidden cultivators. Human Ecology, 37: 281–289. doi:10.1007/s10745-009-9249-y.
Mertz, O., Wadley, R.L., Nielsen, U., Bruun, T.B., Colfer, C.J.P., de Neergaard, A., Jepsen,M.R.,
Martinussen, T., Zhao, Q., Noweg, G.T. & Magid, J. 2008. A fresh look at shifting cultivation: allow
length an uncertain indicator of productivity. Agricultural Systems, 96: 75–84.
doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2007.06.002.
Messmer, T.A. 2000. The emergence of human-wildlife conflict management: turning challenges into
opportunities. International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation, 45(3–4):97–102.
Meyfroidt, P., Rudel, T.K. & Lambin, E.F. 2010. Forest transitions, trade, and the global displacement
of land use. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 107: 20917–20922.
Miles, L., Newton, A., Defries, R., Ravilious, C., May, I., Blyth, S., Kapos, V. & Gordon, J. 2006. A
global overview of the conservation status of tropical dry forests. Journal of Biogeography, 33: 491–
505.
Mills Busa, J.H. 2013. Deforestation beyond borders: Addressing the disparity between production and
consumption of global resources. Conservation Letters, 6(3): 192–199.
Mitchell, M.G.E., Bennett, E.M. & Gonzalez, A. 2014. Forest fragments modulated the provision of
multiple ecosystem services, J. Appl. Ecol., 51: 909–918.
Miura, S., Amacher, M., Hofer, T., San-Miguel-Ayanz, J., Ernawati, & Thackway, R. 2015. Protective
functions and ecosystem services of global forests in the past quarter-century. Forest Ecology and
Management, 352: 35–46 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.03.039).
Morales-Hidalgo, D., Oswalt, S.N. & Somanathan, E. 2015. Status and trends in global primary forest,
protected areas, and areas designated for conservation of biodiversity from the Global Forest
Resources Assessment 2015. Forest Ecology and Management, 352: 68–77 (http://www.fao.org/3/a-
i4895e/i4895e07.pdf).
Moreno, G. & Pulido, F.J. 2009. The functioning, management and persistence of dehesas, In A.
Rigueiro-Rodróguez, J. McAdam & M.R. Mosquera-Losada, eds. Agroforestry in Europe, advances
in agroforestry, pp. 127–160. Dordrecht, Netherlands, Springer.
Mulenga, B.P., Richardson, R.B. & Tembo, G. 2012. Nontimber forest products and rural poverty
alleviation in Zambia (http://www.saipar.org:8080/eprc/handle/123456789/58).
Murray, G. 1981. Mountain peasants in Honduras: guidelines for the reordering of smallholding
adaptation to the pine forest. Tegucigalpa, USAID.
Musiani, M. Mamo, C., Boitani, L., Callaghan, C., Gates, C., Mattei, L., Visalberghi, E., Breck, S. &
Volpi, G. 2003. Wolf depredation trends and the use of fladry barriers to protect livestock in Western
North America. Conservation Biology, 17(6): 1538–1547.

124
Myers, S., Gaffikin, L., Golden, C., Ostfeld, R., Redford, K., Ricketts, T., Turner, W. & Osofsky, S.
2013. Human health impacts of ecosystem alteration. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Science, 110: 18753–18760.
Nair, P.K.N. 1993. An introduction to agroforestry. Dordrecht, Netherlands, Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Nair, V.D., Haile, S.G., Michel, G.-A. & Nair, P.K. 2007. Environmental quality improvement of
agricultural lands through silvopasture in southeastern United States. Sci. Agric., 64(5): 513–519.
Narain, U., Gupta, S. & van ‘t Veld, K. 2008. Poverty and the environment: exploring the relationship
between household incomes, private assets and natural assets. Land Economics, 84(1): 148–167.
doi:10.3368/le.84.1.148.
Nasi, R., Brown, D., Wilkie, D., Bennett, E., Tutin, C., Van Tol, G. & Christophersen, T. 2008.
Conservation and use of wildlife-based resources: the bushmeat crisis. Montreal, Canada,
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, and Bogor, Indonesia, Center for International
Forestry Research (CIFOR). Technical Series No. 33. 50 p.
Nasi, R., Taber, A. & van Vliet, N. 2011. Empty forests, empty stomachs? Bushmeat and livelihoods in
the Congo and Amazon Basins. Int. For. Rev., 13(3): 355–368
(http://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/articles/ANasi1101.pdf).
Nåsell, I. 2005. A new look at the critical community size for childhood infections. Theor. Popul. Biol.,
67(3): 203–216.
Ndembi, N., Habakkuk, Y., Takehisa, J., Takemura, T., Kobayashi, E., Ngansop, C., Songok, E.,
Miura, T., Ido, E., Hayami, M., Kaptue, L. & Ichimura, H. 2003. HIV type 1 infection in pygmy
hunter gatherers is from contact with Bantu rather than from nonhuman primates. AIDS Res. Hum.
Retroviruses, 19(5): 435–439.
Neumann, C.G., Murphy, S.P., Gewa, C., Grillenberger, M. & Bwibo, N.O. 2007. Meat
supplementation improves growth, cognitive, and behavioral outcomes in Kenyan children. J. Nutr.,
137(4): 1119–1123.
Nobre, A.D. 2014. O futuro climático da Amazônia - relatório de avaliação científica. S.J. Campos (SP),
ARA (Articulación Regional Amazónica)/INPE/INPA
Nordiska ministerrådet. 1997. Allemnasrätten i Norden [in Swedish: Public right of access in Nordic
countries] TemaNord 1997:501. ISBN 92-91209902.
Nowak, D.J., Hirabayashi, S., Bodine, A. & Greenfield, E. 2014. Tree and forest effects on air quality
and human health in the United States. Environmental Pollution, 193: 119–129.
doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2014.05.028.
Nuttall, M., Berkes, F., Forbes, B., Kofinas, G., Vlassova, T. & Wenzel, G. 2009. Hunting, herding,
fishing and gathering: indigenous peoples and renewable resource use in the Arctic. In Arctic climate
impact assessment, pp 681–780. Cambridge University Press
(http://www.acia.uaf.edu/acia_review/acia_ch11_text_jan04.pdf).
Nyong, A., Adesina, F. & Osman Elasha, B. 2007. The value of indigenous knowledge in climate
change mitigation and adaptation strategies in the African Sahel. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob.
Change, 12(5): 787–797.
Obiri, D.B., Bright, G.A., McDonald, M.A., Anglaaere, L.C.N. & Cobbina, J. 2007. Financial analysis
of shaded cocoa in Ghana. Agroforestry Systems, 71(2): 139–149.
Obiri, D.B., Depinto, A. & Tetteh, F. 2011. Cost-benefit analysis of agricultural climate change
mitigation options: the case of shaded cocoa in Ghana. Research report prepared for IFPRI,
Washington, DC. 56 p.
OECD/IEA. 2014. Renewable energy 2014: market analysis and forecasts to 202
(https://www.iea.org/Textbase/npsum/MTrenew2014sum.pdf).
Oh, H.-S., Rao, Y.S., Hoskins, M.W., Vergara, N.T. & Castro, C.P. 1986. Economic development and
changing forest problems and policies: the case of Korea. FAO Regional Office for Asia and the
Pacific.
Oishi, T. & Hagiwara, M. 2015. A preliminary report of the distribution of freshwater fish of the Congo
River: Based on the observation of local markets in Brazzaville, Republic of Congo. African Study
Monographs, 51: 93–105.
Ojha, H.R. 2014. Beyond the ‘local community’: the evolution of multi-scale politics in Nepal’s
community forestry regimes. International Forestry Review, 16(3): 339–353.
Olivero, J., Fa, J., Real, R., Farfán, M., Márquez, A., Mario Vargas, J., Gonzalez, P., Cunningham,
A. & Nasi, R. 2016. Mammalian biogeography and the Ebola virus in Africa. Mammal Review, 47(1):
24–37. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/mam.12074.
Oliveira, L.J.C., Costa, M.H., Soares-Filho, B.S. & Coe, M.T. 2013. Large-scale expansion of
agriculture in Amazonia may be a no-win scenario. Environ. Res. Lett., 8(2).
Oliveira, G. & Hecht, S. 2016. Sacred groves, sacrifice zones and soy production: globalization,
intensification and neo-nature in South America, The Journal of Peasant Studies, 43(2): 251–285.
Olson, S.H., Gangnon, R., Silveira, G.A. & Patz, J.A. 2010. Deforestation and malaria in Mancio Lima
county, Brazil. Emerg. Infect. Dis., 16(7): 1108–1115.

125
 Olson, D.M., Dinerstein, E., Wikramanayake, E.D., Burgess, N.D., Powell, G.V.N., Underwood,
E.C., D'amico, J.A., Itoua, I., Strand, H.E., Morrison, J.C., Loucks, C.J., Allnutt, T.F., Ricketts,
T.H., Kura, Y., Lamoreux, J.F., Wettengel, W.W., Hedao, P. & Kassem, K.R. 2001. Terrestrial
ecoregions of the world: a new map of life on earth. Bioscience, 51(11).
Orjuela Vásquez, M. 2015. Gobernanza para el Manejo Forestal Comunitario en la Reserva de la
Biosfera Maya, Petén, Guatemala y la Región Autónoma de la Costa Caribe Norte de Nicaragua.
Cuatro casos de estudio desde la perspectiva de los actores locales. MSc Thesis. Turrialba, Costa
Rica, CATIE (http://repositorio.bibliotecaorton.catie.ac.cr/handle/11554/8510).
Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge
University Press.
Ostrom, E. 2011. Background on the institutional analysis and development framework. Policy Studies
Journal, 39: 7–27.
Park, B.J., Tsunetsugu, Y., Kasetani, T., Kagawa, T. & Miyazaki, Y. 2010. The physiological effects
of Shinrin-yoku (taking in the forest atmosphere or forest bathing): evidence from field experiments
in 24 forests across Japan. Environ. Health Prev. Med., 15(1): 18–26. doi:10.1007/s12199-009-
0086-9 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19568835).
Parrotta, J.A., Dey de Pryck, J., Obiri, B., Padoch, C., Powell, B., Sandbrook, C., Agarwal, B.,
Ickowitz, A., Jeary, K., Serban, A., Sunderland, T. & Nam Tu, T. 2015. The historical,
environmental and socio-economic context of forests and tree-based systems for food security and
nutrition. In B. Vira, C. Wildburger & S. Mansourian, eds. Forests, trees and landscapes for food
security and nutrition. A global assessment report, pp. 51–86. IUFRO World Series, Volume 33.
Parry, L., Barlow, J. & Peres, C.A. 2009. Hunting for sustainability in tropical secondary forests.
Conservation Biology, 23(5): 1270–1280.
Pattanayak, S., Dickinson, K., Corey, C., Murray, B., Sills, E. & Kramer, R. 2006. Deforestation,
malaria, and poverty: a call for transdisciplinary research to support the design of cross-sectoral
policies. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy, 2(2): 45–56.
Patz, J.A., Confalonieri, U.E.C., Amerasinghe, F.P., Chua, K.B., Daszak, P., Hyatt, A.D., Molyneux,
D., Thomson, M., Yameogo, L., Lazaro, M.M. et al. 2005. Human health: ecosystem regulation of
infectious diseases. In MA. Ecosystems and human well-being: current state and trends, Chapter 14,
391–415. Washington, DC, Island Press.
Patz, J.A., Olson, S.H., Uejio, C.K. & Gibbs, H.K. 2008. Disease emergence from global climate and
land use change. Med. Clin. North Am., 92(6): 1473–1491.
Payn, T., Carnus, J-M., Smith, P., Kimberley, M., Kollert, W., Liu, S., Orazio, C. Rodriguez, L.
Silva., L. & Wingfield, M. 2015. Changes in planted forests and future global implications. Forest
Ecology and Management, 352: 57–67
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378112715003473).
PEFC. 2010. PEFC international standard; requirements for certification schemes. PEFC ST 1003.2010.
Geneva, PEFC Council.
Peng, L., Zhiming, F., Luguang, J., Chenhua, L. & Jinghua, Z. 2014. A review of swidden agriculture
in Southeast Asia. Remote Sensing, 6:1654-1683. doi:10.3390/rs6021654
Petrov, A. & Lobovikov, M. 2012. The Russian Federation forest sector: outlook study to 2030. Rome
(http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i3020e/i3020e00.pdf).
Pereira-Goncalves, M., Panjer, M., Greenberg, T.S. & Magrath, W.B. 2012. Justice for forests.
Improving criminal justice efforts to combat illegal logging. A World Bank Study. Washington, DC,
The World Bank
(http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTFINANCIALSECTOR/Resources/Illegal_Logging.pdf).
Perfecto, I. & Vandermeer, J. 2010. The agroecological matrix as alternative to the land-
sparing/agriculture intensification model. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
USA, 107: 5786–5791.
Phalan, B., Onial, M., Balmford, A. & Green, R.E. 2011. Reconciling food production and biodiversity
conservation: land sharing and land sparing compared. Science, 333(6047): 1289–1291.
Phalan, B., Green, R.E., Dicks, L.V., Dotta, G., Feniuk, C., Lamb, A., Strassburg, B.B.N., Williams,
D.R., zu Ermgassen, E.K.H.J. & Balmford, A. 2016. How can higher-yield farming help to spare
nature? Science, 351(6272): 450–451. doi:10.1126/science.aad0055.
Phalkey, R., Arandra-Jan, C., Marx, S., Höfle, B. & Sauerborn, B. 2015. Systematic review of current
efforts to quantify the impacts of climate change on undernutrition. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 1073: E4522–E4529.
Phelps, J., Carrasco, R., Webb, E., Koh, L.P. & Pascual, U. 2013. Agricultural intensification
escalates future conservation costs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA,
10(19): 7601–7606.
Phelps, J., Webb, E.L. & Agrawal, A. 2010. Does REDD+ Threaten to Recentralize Forest
Governance? Science, 328: 312–313.
Pimbert, M.P. & Pretty, J.N. 1997. Parks, people and professionals. Putting "participation" into
protected area management. In K. Ghimire & M.P. Pimbert, eds. Social change and conservation,
pp. 297–330. London, Earthscan.
Pimentel, D., Mcnair, M., Buck, L., Pimentel, M. & Kamil, J. 1997. The value of forests to world food
security. Human Ecology, 25: 91–120.

126
Pinstrup-Andersen, P. 2013. Can agriculture meet future nutrition challenges? European Journal of
Development Research, 25: 5–12.
Piperata, B.A, Spence, J.E., da-Gloria, P. & Hubbe, M. 2011. The nutrition transition in Amazonia:
rapid economic change and its impact on growth and development in Ribeirinhos. American Journal
of Physical Anthropology, 146: 1–13
Po, J.Y.T., FitzGerald, J.M. & Carlsten, C. 2011. Respiratory disease associated with solid biomass
fuel exposure in rural women and children: systematic review and meta-analysis. Thorax, 66(3):
232–239.
Poffenberger, M. & McGean, B. 1996. Village voices, forest choices. Delhi, Oxford University Press.
Pokharel, B., Branney, P., Nurse, M. & Malla, Y., 2008. Community forestry: conserving forests,
sustaining livelihoods, strengthening democracy. In H. Ojha, N. Timsina, C. Kumar, B. Belcher & M.
Banjade, eds. Communities, forests and governance: policy and institutional innovations from Nepal.
New Delhi, Adroit.
Potapov, P.V., Turubanova, S.A., Hansen, M.C., Adusei, B., Broich, M. & Altstatt, A., 2012.
Quantifying forest cover loss in Democratic Republic of the Congo, 2000–2010, with Landsat ETM+
data. Remote Sens. Environ., 122: 106–116.
Poudyal, M. Ramamonijisoa, B., Hockley, N., Rakotonarivo, O., Gibbons, J., Mandimbinianiana,
A. & Jones, J. 2016. Cann REDD+ social safeguards reach the “right” people? Lessons from
Madagascar. Global Environmental Change, 37: 31–42.
Powell, B., Hall, J. & Johns, T. 2011. Forest cover, use and dietary intake in the East Usambara
Mountains, Tanzania. International Forestry Review, 13(3): 305–317.
Powell, B., Ickowitz, A., McMullin, S., Jamnadass, R., Miguel, C.P., Vasquez, P. & Sunderland, T.
2013a. The role of forests, trees and wild biodiversity for nutrition-sensitive food systems and
landscapes. Rome, FAO/WHO. 24 p.
Powell, B., Maundu, P., Kuhnlein, H. V & Johns, T. 2013b. Wild foods from farm and forest in the
East Usambara Mountains, Tanzania. Ecol. Food Nutr., 52(6): 451–478.
Powell, B., Thilsted, S.H., Ickowitz, A., Termote, C., Sunderland, T. & Herforth, A. 2015. Improving
diets with wild and cultivated biodiversity from across the landscape. Food Security, 7(3): 535–554.
Power, E.M. 2008. Conceptualizing food security for aboriginal people in Canada. Can. J. Public Health,
99(2): 95–97.
Power, A.G. 2010. Ecosystem services and agriculture: tradeoffs and synergies. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B., 365(1554): 2959–2971.
Pramova, E., Locatelli, B., Djoudi, H. & Somorin, O.A. 2012. Forests and trees for social adaptation
to climate variability and change. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 3(6): 581–596.
Pretty, J. & Bharucha, Z. 2014. Sustainable intensification in agricultural systems. Annals of Botany.
114: 1571–1596.
Pulla, S., Ramaswami, G., Mondal, N., Chitra-Tarak, R., Suresh, H.S., Dattaraja, H.S., Vivek, P.,
Parthasarathy, N., Ramesh, B.R. & Sukumar, R. 2015. Assessing the resilience of global
seasonally dry tropical forests. International Forestry Review, 17(S2)
(http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/cfa/ifr/2015/00000017/A00202s2/art00007?crawler=true).
Pülzl, H., Kleinschmit, D. & Arts, B. 2014. Bioeconomy – an emerging meta-discourse affecting forest
discourses? Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 29: 386–393.
Putz, F.E., Zuidema, P., Synnott, T., Pena-Claros, M., Pinard, M., Sheil, D., Vancaly, J., Sist, P.,
Gourlet-Gloury, S., Griscom, B., Palmer, J. & Zagt. R. 2012. Sustaining conservation values in
selectively logged tropical forests: The attained and the attainable. Conservation Letters, 5: 296–
303.
Rahman, S., Baldauf, C., Mollee, E.M., Al-Pavel, A., Abdullah-Al-Mamun, Mannan Toy M. &
Sunderland, T. 2013. Cultivated plants in the diversified homegardens of local communities in
Ganges Valley, Bangladesh.
Science Journal of Agricultural Research and Management.
Rahman, S.A., Jacobsen, J.B., Heley, J.R., Roshetko, J.M. & Sunderland, T. 2016. Finding
alternatives to swidden agriculture: does agroforestry improve livelihood options and reduce
pressure on existing forest? Agroforestry Systems, 91(1): 185–199
(http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10457-016-9912-4).
Randrup, T.B., Konijnendijk, C., Dobbertin, M.K. & Prüller, R. 2005. The concept of urban forestry in
Europe. In C.C. Konijnendijk, K. Nilsson, T.B., Randrup & J. Schipperijn, eds. Urban forests and
trees, pp. 9–21. Berlin/Heidelberg, Springer-Verlag.
Rapport, D., Costanza, R. & McMichael, A. 1998. Assessing ecosystem health. Trends in Ecology and
Evolution, 13: 397–402.
Reed, J., van Vlanen, J. & Sunderland, T. 2015. From global complexity to local reality: aligning
implementation frameworks with Sustainable Development Goals and landscape approaches.
CIFOR InfoBrief No. 129. Bogor, Indonesia, Center for International Forestry Research.
Reed, J., van Vianen, J., Deakin, E., Barlow, J. & Sunderland, T. 2016. Integrated landscape
approaches to managing social and environmental issues in the tropics: learning from the past to
guide the future. Global Change Biology, 22(7): Pages 2540–2554 doi:10.1111/gcb.13284

127
 Reed, J., van Vianen, J., Foli, S., Clendenning, J., Yang, K., MacDonald, M., Petrokofsky, G.,
Padoch, C. & Sunderland, T. 2017. Trees for life: the ecosystems service contribution for trees to
food production and livelihoods in the tropics. Forest Policy and Economics
(http://www.cifor.org/library/6381/trees-for-life-the-ecosystem-service-contribution-of-trees-to-food-
production-and-livelihoods-in-the-tropics/).
Reij, C. 2014. Re-greening the Sahel: linking adaptation to climate change, poverty reduction, and
sustainable development in drylands. In S. Hecht, K. Morrison & C. Padoch, eds. The social lives of
forests: past, present and future of woodland resurgence, Chicago and London, University of
Chicago Press.
Reisner, Y., de Filippi, R., Herzog, F. & Palma, J. 2007. Target regions for silvoarable agroforestry in
Europe. Ecological Engineering, 29(4): 401–418.
Rerkasem, K., Lawrence, D., Padoch, C., Schmidt-Vogt, D., Ziegler, A.D. & Bruun, T.B. 2009.
Consequences of swidden transitions for crop and fallow biodiversity in Southeast Asia. Human
Ecology, 37(3): 347–360.
Ribot, J.C. 1999. Decentralisation, participation and accountability in Sahelian forestry: legal
instruments of political-administrative control. Africa, 69: 23–65.
Ribot, J.C., 2006. Authority over forests: empowerment and subordination in Senegal’s democratic
decentralization. Development and Change, 40: 105–129.
Richardson, R.B. 2010. Ecosystem services and food security: economic perspectives on
environmental sustainability. Sustainability, 2(11): 3520–3548.
Ricketts, T.H. 2004. Tropical forest fragments enhance pollinator activity in nearby coffee crops.
Conservation Biology, 18(5): 1262–1271.
Ricketts, T.H., Regetz, J., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Cunningham, S.A., Kremen, C., Bogdanski, A.,
Gemmill-Herren, B., Greenleaf, S.S., Klein, A.M., Mayfield, M.M., Morandin, L.A., Ochieng, A. &
Viana B.F. 2008. Landscape effects on crop pollination services: are there general patterns?
Ecology Letters, 11: 499–515.
Rigueiro-Rodróguez, A., McAdam, J. & M.osquera-Losada, M.R., eds. 2009. Agroforestry in Europe,
advances in asgroforestry. Dordrecht, Netherlands, Springer.
Rival, A., Montet, D. & Pioch, D. 2016. Certification, labelling and traceability of palm oil: can we build
confidence from trustworthy standards? Oléagineux Corps gras Lipides, 23 (6), D609. 11 p.
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/ocl/2016042).
Robledo, C. & Forner, C. 2005. Adaptation of forest ecosystems and the forest sector to climate
change. FAO Forests and Climate Change Working Paper 2. Rome, FAO.
Rodrigues, A.S.L., Ewers, R.M., Parry, L., Souza, Jr, C., Veríssimo, A. & Balmford, A. 2009. Boom-
and-bust development patterns across the Amazon deforestation frontier. Science, 324(5933):
1435–1437.
Roturier, S. & Roué, M. 2009. Of forest, snow and lichen: Sámi reindeer herders’ knowledge of winter
pastures in northern Sweden. Forest Ecology and Management, 258(9): 1960–1967.
Rowland, D., Blackie, R.R., Powell, B., Djoudi, H., Vergles, E., Vinceti, B. & Ickowitz, A. 2015.
Direct contributions of dry forests to nutrition: a review. International Forestry Review, 17(S2): 45–
53.
Rowland, D., Ickowitz, A., Powell, B., Nasi, R. & Sunderland, T. 2016. Forest foods and healthy
diets: quantifying the contributions. Environmental Conservation. doi:10.1017/S0376892916000151.
RRI (Rights and Resources Initiative). 2012. What rights? A comparative analysis of developing
countries’ national legislation on community and indigenous peoples’ forest tenure rights.
Washington, DC, Rights and Resources Initiative (http://www.rightsandresources.org/).
RRI. 2015. Who owns the world’s land? A global baseline of formally recognized indigenous and
community land rights. Washington, DC.
Rudel, T.K., Bates, D. & Machinguiashi, R. 2009. A tropical forest transition? Agricultural change, out-
migration and secondary forest in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Annals of the Association of American
Geographers, 92(1): 87–102.
Ruel, M.T. & Alderman, H. 2013. Nutrition-sensitive interventions and programmes: how can they help
to accelerate progress in improving maternal and child nutrition? The Lancet, 382, 536–551.
Ruf, F. & Schroth, G. 2004. Chocolate forests and monocultures: a historical review of cocoa growing
and its conflicting role in tropical deforestation and forest conservation. In G. Schroth, G.A.B. Da
Fonseca, C.A. Harvey, C. Gascon, H.L. Lasconcelos & A.N. Izac, eds. Agroforestry and biodiversity
conservation in tropical landscapes. Washington, DC, Island Press.
Ruiz-Pérez, M., Almeida, M., Dewi, S., Costa, E.M.L., Pantoja, M.C., Puntodewo, A., de Postigo,
A.A. & de Andrade, A.G. 2005. Conservation and development in Amazonian extractive reserves:
the case of Alto Juruá. Ambio, 34(3): 218–223.
Sachs, J.D., Remans, R., Smukler, S.M., Winowiecki, L., Andelman, S.J., Cassman, K.G., Castle,
D., DeFries, R., Denning, G., Fanzo, J., Jackson L.E., Leemans, R., Lehmann, J., Milder, J.C.,
Naeem, S., Nziguheba, G., Palm, C.A., Pingali, P.L., Reganold, J.P., Richter, D.D., Scherr, S.J.,
Sircely, J., Sullivan, C., Tomich, T.P.& Sanchez, P.A. 2012. Effective monitoring of agriculture: a
response. J. Environ. Monitor., 14: 738–742. doi:10.1039/c2em10584e.
Saifi, M., Boulghobra, N. & Fattoum, L. 2015. The Green Dam in Algeria as a tool to combat
desertification. Planet@risk, 3(1): 68–71.

128
Salo, M., Sirén, A. & Kalliola, R. 2014. Diagnosing wild species harvest, resource use and
conservation. Elsevier.
Samuelson, P.A. 1954. The pure theory of public expenditure. Review of Economics and Statistics,
36(4): 387–389. doi:10.2307/1925895.
Sanchez, A. 2015. Análisis de la cobertura forestal de Costa Rica entre 1960 y 2013. Ambientico, 253,
Editorial, p. 2–3.
Sandström, C. & Widmark, C. 2007. Stakeholders’ perceptions of consultations as tools for co-
management — A case study of the forestry and reindeer herding sectors in northern Sweden.
Forest Policy and Economics, 10: 25–35.
Saunders, J. & Nussbaum, R. 2007. Forest governance and reduced emissions from deforestation
and degradation (REDD), Chatham House Briefing Paper, EEDP 07/03.
Saxena, N.C. 1997. The saga of participatory forest management in India. CIFOR Special Publication.
Bogor, Indonesia, Center for International Forestry Research.
Sayer, J., Sunderland, T., Ghazoul, J., Pfund, J-L., Sheil, D., Meijaard, E., Venter, M.,
Boedhihartono, A.K., Day, M., Garcia, C., van Oosten, C. & L. Buck, L. 2013. The landscape
approach: ten principles to apply at the nexus of agriculture, conservation and other competing land-
uses. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(21): 8345–8348.
SCBD (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity). 2006. Global biodiversity outlook 2.
Montreal (available at: http://www.cbd.int/doc/gbo/gbo2/cbd-gbo2-en.pdf)
Schabel, H.G. 2010. Forests insects as food: a global review. In P.B. Durst, D.V. Johnson, R.N. Leslie
& K. Shono, eds. Forest insects as food: humans bite back, pp. 37–64. Proceedings of a workshop
on Asia-Pacific resources and their potential for development, 19–21 February 2008.
Scherr, S.J. & McNeely, J.A. 2008. Biodiversity conservation and agricultural sustainability: towards a
new paradigm of ‘ecoagriculture’ landscapes. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B, 363: 477–494.
Schlegel, S.A. & Guthrie, H.A. 1973. Diet and the tiruray shift from swidden to plow farming. Ecology
of Food and Nutrition, 2(3): 181–191. doi:10.1080/03670244.1973.9990335.
Sendzimir, J., Reij, C.P. & Magnuszewski, P. 2011. Rebuilding resilience in the Sahel: regreening in
the Maradi and Zinder regions of Niger. Ecology and Society, 16(3): 1.
Seppälä, R, Buck, A. & Katila, P. eds. 2009. Adaptation of forests and people to climate change. A
global assessment report. IUFRO World Series Volume 22. Helsinki, International Union of Forest
Research Organizations.
Sepúlveda, M. & Nyst, C. 2012. The human rights approach to social protection. Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, Finland
(http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/EPoverty/HumanRightsApproachToSocialProtection.pdf).
Settele, J., Scholes, R., Betts, R., Bunn, S., Leadley, P., Nepstad, D., Overpeck, J.T. & Taboada,
M.A. 2014. Terrestrial and inland water systems. In C.B. Field, V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach,
M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S.
Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea & L.L. White, eds. Climate change 2014:
impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part A: global and sectoral aspects, pp. 271–359. Contribution
of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. Cambridge, UK, and New York, USA, Cambridge University Press.
Seymour, F. 2008. Forests, climate change, and human rights: managing risk and trade-offs. Bogor,
Indonesia, Center for International Forestry Research.
Shackleton, C. & Shackleton, S. 2004. The importance of non-timber forest products in rural livelihood
security and as safety nets: A review of evidence from South Africa. South African Journal of
Science, 100(11-12): 658–664.
Shanley, P., Luz, L. & Swingland, I.R. 2002. The faint promise of a distant market: a survey of Belém’s
trade in non-timber forest products. Biodiversity and Conservation, 11: 615–636.
Shin, W.S., Yeoun, P.S., Yoo, R.W. & Shin, C.S. 2010. Forest experience and psychological health
benefits: the state of the art and future prospect in Korea. Environmental Health and Preventative
Medicine, 15(1): 38–47.
Shvidenko, A., Barber, C.V., Persson, R., Gonzalez, P. & Hassan, R. 2005. Forest and woodland
systems. In MA. Ecosystems and human well-being/current state and trends, pp 585–622.
Washington, DC, Island Press.
Singh, V.P., Sinha, R.B., Nayak, D., Neufeldt, H., van Noordwijk, M. & Rizvi, J. 2016. The national
agroforestry policy of India: experiential learning in development and delivery phases. ICRAF
Working Paper No. 240. New Delhi, World Agroforestry Centre.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.5716/WP16143.PDF.
Sinu, P.A., Kent, S.M. & Chandrashekara, K. 2012. Forest resource use and perception of farmers on
conservation of a usufruct forest (Soppinabetta) of Western Ghats, India. Land Use Policy, 29: 702–
709.
Sloan S. & Sayer, J. 2015. Forest Resources Assessment of 2015 shows positive global trends but
forest loss and degradation persist in poor tropical countries. Forest Ecology and Management, 352:
134–145 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378112715003394).
Smith, D.A. 2005. Garden game: shifting cultivation, indigenous hunting and wildlife ecology in Western
Panama. Human Ecology, 33(4): 505–537.

129
 Smith, P., Haberl, H., Popp, A., Erb, K. h., Lauk, C., Harper, R., Tubiello, F. N., Siqueira Pinto, A.,
Jafari, M. & Sohi, S. 2013. How much land based greenhouse gas mitigation can be achieved
without compromising food security and environmental goals? Global Change Biology. 19: 2285–
2302.
Smith P., Bustamante, M., Ahammad, H., Clark, H., Dong, H., Elsiddig, E.A., Haberl, H., Harper, R.,
House, J., Jafari, M., Masera, O., Mbow, C., Ravindranath, N.H., Rice, C.W., Robledo Abad, C.,
Romanovskaya, A., Sperling, F. & Tubiello, F.N. 2014. Agriculture, forestry and other land use
(AFOLU). In O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A.
Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von
Stechow, T. Zwickel & J.C. Minx, eds. Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of climate change.
Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change. Cambridge, UK, and New York, USA, Cambridge University Press.
Soini, E. & Coe, R. 2014. Principles for design of projects introducing improved wood-burning cooking
stoves. Development in Practice, 24: 908–920.
Sonntag-Öström, E., Nordin, M., Slunga Järvholm, L., Lundell, Y., Brännström, R. & Dolling, A.
2011. Can the boreal forest be used for rehabilitation and recovery from stress-related exhaustion?
A pilot study. Scandinavian Journal of Forestry Research, 26: 245–256.
Sonntag-Öström, E., Nordin, M., Dolling, A., Lundell, Y., Nilsson, L. & Slunga Järvholm, L. 2015.
Can rehabilitation in boreal forests help recovery from exhaustion disorder? The randomised clinical
trial ForRest. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 30(8): 732–748,
doi:10.1080/02827581.2015.1046482.
Sorrenti, S. 2017. Non-wood forest products in international statistical systems. Non-wood Forest
Products Series No. 22. Rome, FAO.
Spalding, M., Kainuma, M. & Collins, L. 2011. World atlas of mangroves. London, Earthscan.
Spies, T. 2003. New finding about old-growth forest. PNW Science Update Series. US Department of
Agriculture Pacific Northwest Research Station (http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/science-update-
4.pdf).
Stadtmüller, T. 1987. Cloud forests in the humid tropics, a bibliographic review. The United Nations
University.
Stara, K., Tsiakiris, R., Nitsiakos, V. & Halley, J.M. 2016. Religion and the management of the
commons. The sacred forests of Epirus. In M. Agnoletti & F. Emanueli, eds. Biocultural diversity in
Europe, pp. 283–302. Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-26315-1_15.
State Forestry Administration. 2013. National report on sustainable forest management. China Forest
Publishing House.
Sténs, A., Sandström, C. 2013. Divergent interests and ideas around property rights: The case of berry
harvesting in Sweden. For. Policy Econ. 33, 56–62. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2012.05.004.
Stephens, C., Porter, J., Nettleton, C. & Willis, R. 2006. Disappearing, displaced, and undervalued: a
call to action for Indigenous health worldwide. Lancet, 367(9527): 2019–2028.
Sterner, T & Coria, J. 2012. Policy instruments for environmental and natural resource management.
Second ed. Rff Press.
Storaas, T., Gundersen, H., Henriksen, H. & Andreassen, H. 2001. The economic value of moose in
Norway – a review. Alces, 36(1): 87–101.
Strassburg, B.B.N., Latawiec, A.E., Barioni, L.G., Nobre, C.A., da Silva, V.P., Valentim, J.F.,
Vianna, M. & Assad, E.D. 2014. When enough should be enough: improving the use of current
agricultural lands could meet production demands and spare natural habitats in Brazil. Global
Environmental Change, 28: 84–97.
Subramanyam, M.A., Kawachi, I., Berkman, L.F. & Subramanian, S. V. 2011. Is economic growth
associated with reduction in child undernutrition in India? PLoS Med., 8(3): e1000424.
Sundar, N., Jeffery, R. & Thin, N. 2001. Branching out: joint forest management in India. Oxford
University Press.
Sunderland, T.C.H. 2011. Food security: why is biodiversity important? International Forestry Review,
13(3): 265–274.
Sunderland, T., Achdiawan, R., Angelsen, A., Babigumira, R., Ickowitz, A., Paumgarten, F.,
Reyes-García, V. & Shively, G. 2014. Challenging perceptions about men, women, and forest
product use: a global comparative study. World Development, 64: S56–S66
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.03.003).
Sunderland, T.C.H., Powell, B., Ickowitz, A., Foli, S., Pinedo-Vasquez, M., Nasi, R. & Padoch, C.
2013. Food security and nutrition: the role of forests. Discussion Paper. Bogor, Indonesia, Center for
International Forestry Research (CIFOR).
Sylvester, O. & Segura, A.G. 2016. Landscape ethnoecology of forest food harvesting in the
Talamanca Bribri Indigenous Territory, Costa Rica. Journal of Ethnobiology, 36(1): 215–233.
Sylvester, O., Segura A.G. & Davidson-Hunt, I. 2016. The protection of forest biodiversity can conflict
with food access for indigenous people. University for Peace Paper, No. 3.
Taki, H., Kevan, P.G. & Ascher, J.S. 2007. Landscape effects of forest loss in a pollination system.
Landscape Ecology, 22(10): 1575–1587.

130
TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity). 2010. Mainstreaming the economics of
nature: a synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB. By P. Sukhdev, H.
Wittmer, C. Schröter-Schlaack, C. Nesshöver, J. Bishop, P. ten Brink, H. Gundimeda, P. Kumar & B.
Simmons.
ten Kate, K. & Laird, S.A. 1999. The commercial use of biodiversity. London, Earthscan. 398 p.
Torquebiau, E., Garcia, C.A. & Cholet, N. 2012. Landscape ecosystem services: labelling rural.
Perspective – Cirad, 16: 1–4 (http://dx.doi.org/10.18167/agritrop/00022).
Tscharntke, T., Klein, A., Kruess, A., Steffandewenter, I. & Thies, C. 2005. Landscape perspectives
on agricultural intensification and biodiversity: ecosystem service management. Ecology Letters, 8:
857–874.
Turner, M.G. 1989. Landscape ecology: the effect of pattern on process. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst., 20:
171–197. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.20.110189.001131.
Turpie, J., Warr, B., Ingram, J.C. & Masozera, M. 2015. The economic value of Zambia’s ecosystems
and potential benefits of REDD+ in green economy transformation in Zambia. Report to the United
Nations Environment Programme on behalf of the Ministry of Lands, Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection, Zambia. 120 p.
UN. 2009. The State of the World’s Indigenous People. New York, USA, UN Department of Economic
and Social Affairs, Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.
UNDESA (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs). 2014. World urbanization
prospects. Highlights. ESA/P/WP.241. New York, USA, United Nations Population Division.
UNDESA. 2015. World population prospects. Key findings and advance tables. The 2015 Revision. New
York, USA, United Nations Population Division.
UNECE (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe). 2004. Forest legislation in Europe: how
23 countries approach the obligation to reforest public access and use of non-wood forest products,
Geneva Timber and Forest Discussion Paper 37. Geneva (www.fao.org/3/a-ae892e.pdf).
UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). 2014. Building natural capital: how REDD+ can
support a green economy. Report of the International Resource Panel, UNEP, Nairobi
(https://www.unep-
wcmc.org/system/dataset_file_fields/files/000/000/041/original/Building_national_capital__how_RED
D_can_support_a_Green_Economy-2014IRP-Full.pdf?1395408403).
UNGA (United Nations General Assembly). 2008. Non-legally binding instrument on all types of
forests. Resolution A/RES/62/98 of 31 January 2008
(http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/62/98)
UNGA. 2012. Promotion and protection of human rights: human rights questions, including alternative
approaches for improving the effective enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Report of the 3rd Committee: General Assembly, 67th session. A/67/457/Add.2
(http://www.refworld.org/docid/50f6a81e2.html).
UNGA. 2014. Final report: the transformative potential of the right to food, Report of the Special
Rapporteur on the right to food, Olivier De Schutter, A/HRC/25/57
(www.srfood.org/images/stories/pdf/officialreports/20140310_finalreport_en.pdf).
UNICEF. 2004. The State of the World’s Children 2004. Annex B. Human rights-based approach:
Statement of common understanding (https://www.unicef.org/sowc04/files/AnnexB.pdf).
UNICEF. 2012. Water, sanitation and hygiene. UNICEF Indonesia Issue Briefs.
Vanaspong, C. 2012. A case study of Thai migrant workers exploited in Sweden. International Labour
Organization–European Union Project: Going Back–Moving On: Economic and Social
Empowerment of Migrants, Including Victims of Trafficking, Returned from European Union and
Neighbouring Countries (http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---asia/---ro-bangkok/---ilo-
manila/documents/publication/wcms_182264.pdf).
Van Lierop, P. & Lindquist, E. 2015. Global forest area disturbance from fire, insect pests, diseases
and severe weather events. For. Ecol. Manag., 352: 78–88.
van Vliet, N. Nasi, R., Abernethy, K., Farguot, C., Kümpell, N., Obian, A.-M. & Ringuet, S. 2012.
The role of wildlife for food security in Central Africa: a threat to biodiversity? In C. de Wasseige, P.
de Marcken, N. Bayol, F., Hiol Hiol, P. Mayaux, B., Desclée, R. Nasi, A. Billand, P. Defourny & R.
Eba’a Atyi, eds.The forests of the Congo Basin: state of the forest 2010, pp. 123–135. Publications
Office of the European Union. Luxembourg. 276 p. ISBN: 978-92-79-22716-5, doi:10.2788/47210.
van Vliet, N., Fa, J.E. & Nasi, R. 2015. Managing hunting under uncertainty: from one-off ecological
indicators to resilience approaches in assessing the sustainability of bushmeat hunting. Ecology and
Society, 20(3).
Vijayan, S. & Pati, B.P. 2002 Impact of changing cropping patterns on man-animal conflicts around Gir
Protected Area with specific reference to Talala sub-district, Gujarat, India. Population and
environment, 23(6): 541–559.
Vinceti, B., Termote, C., Ickowitz, A. Powell, B., Kehlenbeck, K. & Hunter, D. 2013. The contribution
of forests and trees to sustainable diets, Sustainability, 5(11): 4797–4824; doi:10.3390/su5114797.
Vinceti, B., Eyzaguirre, P. & Johns, T. 2008. The nutritional role of forest plant foods for rural
communities. In C.J.P. Colfer, ed. Human health and forests: a global overview of issues, practice
and policy. Volume 12, pp 63–93. London, Earthscan.

131
 Vira, B., Wildburger, C. & Mansourian, S., eds. 2015. Forests, trees and landscapes for food security
and nutrition. IUFRO World Series, 33.
Vittor, A.Y., Gilman, R.H., Tielsch, J., Glass, G., Shields, T., Lozano, W.S., Pinedo-Cancino, V. &
Patz, J.A. 2006. The effect of deforestation on the human-biting rate of Anopheles darlingi, the
primary vector of falciparum malaria in the Peruvian Amazon. The American Society of Tropical
Medicine and Hygiene, 74: 3–11.
von Maydell, H-J. 1994. Agroforestry in Central, Northern and Eastern Europe. In E. Welte, I. Szabolcs,
& R.F. Huettl, eds. Agroforestry and land use change in industrialized nations. Proceedings of the
7th CIEC Symposium, pp 65–74. Berlin, Germany.
Vors, L.S. & Boyce, M.S. 2009. Global declines of caribou and reindeer. Global Change Biology,
15(11): 2626–2633.
Wadsworth, F. 1997. Forest production for tropical America. Agricultural Handbook 710. Washington,
DC, USDA.
Wan, M., Colfer, C.J.P. & Powell, B. 2011. Forests, women and health: opportunities and challenges
for conservation. Int. For. Rev., 13(3): 369–387.
Watson, J.C., Wolf, A.T. & Ascher, J.S. 2011. Forested landscapes promote richness and abundance
of native bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea: Anthophila) in Wisconsin apple orchards. Environmental
Entomology, 40(3): 621–632.
WCFSD (World Commission on Forests and Sustainable Development). 1999. Our forests, our
future. Summary Report of the World Commission on Forests and Sustainable Development
(https://www.iisd.org/pdf/wcfsdsummary.pdf).
Weladji, R.B. & Tchamba, M.N. 2003. Conflict between people and protected areas within the Bénoué
Wildlife Conservation Area, North Cameroon. Oryx, 37(1): 72–79.
Wenhua, L. 2004. Degradation and restoration of forest ecosystems in China. For Ecol. Manage., 201:
33–41.
West, P., Igoe, J. & Brockington, D. 2006. Parks and peoples: the social impact of protected areas.
Annual Review of Anthropology, 35: 251–277.
Whiteman, A., Wickramasinghe, A. & Piña, L. 2015. Global trends in forest ownership, public income
and expenditure on forestry and forestry employment. Forest Ecology and Management, 352: 99–
108.
Whitmee, S., Haines, A., Beyrer, C., Boltz, F., Capon, A.G., de Souza Dias, B.F., Ezeh, A., Frumkin,
H., Gong, P., Head, P., Horton, R., Mace, G.M., Marten, R., Myers, S.S., Nishtar, S., Osofsky,
S.A., Pattanayak, S.K., Pongsiri, M.J., Romanelli, C., Soucat, A., Vega, J. & Yach, D. 2015.
Safeguarding human health in the Anthropocene epoch: report of The Rockefeller Foundation–
Lancet Commission on planetary health. The Lancet, 386(10007): 1973–2028.
WHO/CBD. 2015. Connecting global priorities: biodiversity and human health: a state of knowledge
review (https://www.cbd.int/health/SOK-biodiversity-en.pdf).
WHO (World Health Organization). 2015. Global Health Observatory data repository
(http://apps.who.int/gho/data/node.main.CODREG6?lang=en).
Widmark, C. 2009. Management of multiple-use commons - focusing on land use for forestry and
reindeer husbandry in northern Sweden. Doctoral Thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural
Sciences, Umeå.
Widmark, C., Bostedt, G., Andersson, M. & Sandström, C. 2011. Measuring transaction costs
incurred by landowners in multiple-use situations (No. 376). Umeå.
Wiens, V., Kyngäs, H. & Pölkki, T. 2016. The meaning of seasonal changes, nature, and animals for
adolescent girls’ wellbeing in northern Finland: a qualitative descriptive study. International Journal
of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being, 11: 30160.
Wingfield, M.J., Slippers, B., Hurley, B.P., Coutinho, T.A., Wingfield, B.D. & Roux, J. 2008.
Eucalypt pests and diseases: growing threats to plantation productivity. Southern Forests, 70: 139–
144.
Willebrand, T. 2009. Promoting hunting tourism in north Sweden: opinions of local hunters. Eur. J.
Wildl. Res., 55: 209–216. doi:10.1007/s10344-008-0235-2.
Williams, A.P., Allen, C.D., Macalady, A.K., Griffin, D., Woodhouse, C.A., Meko, D.M., Swetnam,
T.W., Rauscher, S.A., Seager, R., Grissino-Mayer, H.D., Dean, J.S., Cook, E.R.,
Gangodagamage, C., Cai, M. & McDowell, N.G. 2013. Temperature as a potent driver of regional
forest drought stress and tree mortality. Nat. Clim. Change, 3: 292–297. doi:10.1038/nclimate1693.
World Food Summit. 1996. Rome Declaration World Food Security. Rome, FAO
(http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/w3613e/w3613e00.htm).
Wunder, S. 2005. Payments for environmental services: some nuts and bolts. Bogor, Indonesia, Center
for International Forestry Research. Occasional Paper No.42.
Wunder, S., Borner, J., Shively, J. & Wyman, M. 2014. Safety nets, gap filling and forests: a global-
comparative perspective. World Development, 64(1): S29–S42.
WWF/IIASA. 2012. Living Forests Report. Gland, Switzerland, WWF and IIASA.
Yasuoka, J. & Levins, R. 2007. Impact of deforestation and agricultural development on anopheline
ecology and malaria epidemiology. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg., 76(3): 450–460.
Zhang, W., Ricketts, T.H., Kremen, C., Carney, K. & Swinton, S.M. 2007. Ecosystem services and
dis-services to agriculture. Ecological Economics, 64(2): 253–260.

132
Zomer, R.J, Trabucco, A., Coe, R. & Place, F. 2009. Trees on farm: analysis of global extent and
geographical patterns of agroforestry. ICRAF Working Paper. Nairobi, World Agroforestry Centre
(ICRAF).
Zomer, R.J., Trabucco, A., Coe, R., Place, F., van Noordwijk, M. & Xu, J. 2014. Trees on farms: an
update and reanalysis of agroforestry’s global extent and socio-ecological characteristics. ICRAF
Working Paper 179. Nairobi, World Agroforestry Centre
(http://www.worldagroforestry.org/downloads/Publications/PDFS/WP14064.pdf).
Zomer, R., Neufeldt, H., Xu, J., Ahrends, A., Bossio, D., Trabucca, A., van Noordwijk, M. & Wang,
M. 2016. Global tree cover and biomass carbon of agricultural land: the contribution of agroforestry
to global and national carbon budgets. Scientific Reports, 6: 29987.

133
 APPENDIX
The HLPE project cycle
The High Level Panel of Experts for Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE) was created in
October 2009 as the science-policy interface of the UN Committee on World Food Security
(CFS).
The CFS is the foremost inclusive and evidence-based international and intergovernmental
platform for food security and nutrition (FSN), for a broad range of committed stakeholders to
work together in a coordinated manner and in support of country-led processes towards the
elimination of hunger and ensuring FSN for all human beings.56
The HLPE receives its working mandate from CFS. This ensures the legitimacy and
relevance of the studies undertaken, and their insertion in a concrete political agenda at
international level. The report elaboration process ensures the scientific inclusiveness and the
independence of the HLPE.
The HLPE produces scientific, policy oriented reports, including analysis and
recommendations, serving as a comprehensive and evidence-based starting point for policy
debates at CFS. The HLPE aims at providing a better understanding of the diversity of issues
and rationales when dealing with food and nutrition insecurity. It thrives to clarify contradictory
information and knowledge, elicit the backgrounds and rationales of controversies, and
identify emerging issues.
The HLPE is not mandated to conduct new research. The HLPE draws its studies based on
existing research and knowledge produced by various expertise-providing institutions
(universities, research institutes, international organizations etc.), adding value by global,
multi-sectoral and multidisciplinary analysis.
HLPE studies combine scientific knowledge with experiences from the ground, in the same
rigorous process. The HLPE translates the richness and variety of forms of expert knowledge
from many actors (knowledge of local implementation, knowledge based on global research
and knowledge of “best practice”) that draw on both local and global sources into policy-
related forms of knowledge.
To ensure the scientific legitimacy and credibility of the process, as well as its transparency
and openness to all forms of knowledge, the HLPE operates with very specific rules, agreed
by the CFS.
The HLPE has a two-tier structure:
1. A Steering Committee composed of 15 internationally recognized experts in a variety
of FSN related fields, appointed by the Bureau of CFS. HLPE Steering Committee
members participate in their individual capacities, and not as representatives of their
respective governments, institutions or organizations.
2. Project Teams acting on a project specific basis, selected and managed by the
Steering Committee to analyse/report on specific issues.
The project cycle to elaborate the reports (Figure 8) includes clearly defined stages, starting
from the political question and request formulated by the CFS. The HLPE institutes a
scientific dialogue, building upon the diversity of disciplines, backgrounds, knowledge
systems, the diversity of its Steering Committee and Project Teams, and open e-
consultations. The topic bound and time bound Project Teams work under the Steering
Committee’s scientific and methodological guidance and oversight.
The HLPE runs two open consultations per report: first, on the scope of the study; second, on
a V0 “work-in-progress” draft. This opens the process towards all experts interested as well
as to all concerned stakeholders, who are also knowledge-holders. Consultations enable the
HLPE to better understand the issues and concerns, and to enrich the knowledge base,
including social knowledge, thriving for the integration of diverse scientific perspectives and
points of view.
It includes an external scientific peer-review on a pre-final draft. The report is finalized and
approved by the Steering Committee during a face-to-face meeting.

56
CFS Reform Document, available at www.fao.org/cfs

134
HLPE reports are published in the six official languages of the UN (Arabic, Chinese, English,
French, Russian and Spanish), and serve to inform discussions and debates in CFS.
All information regarding the HLPE, its process and all former reports are available at the
HLPE Website: www.fao.org/cfs/cfs-hlpe.

135
 Figure 8 HLPE project cycle

CFS CFS defines HLPE mandate at plenary level

StC defines the project’s oversight modalities, and

StC proposes scope for the study

Draft scope of the study is submitted

to open electronic consultation

StC appoints a Project Team, and finalizes

StC its Terms of References

PT PT produces a version 0 of the report (V0)

V0 is publicly released to open electronic consultation

PT PT finalizes a version 1 of the report (V1)

HLPE submits V1 to external reviewers,

for academic and evidence-based review

PT PT prepares a pre-final version of the report (V2)

StC V2 is submitted to the StC for finalization and approval

Final approved version is transmitted to the CFS

CFS and publicly released

The HLPE report is presented for

CFS discussion and policy debate at CFS

CFS Committee on World Food Security

HLPE High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition
StC HLPE Steering Committee
PT HLPE Project Team

136
Cover photo: ©CIFOR/ Aulia Erlangga

Forests and trees contribute to food security and nutrition in

multiple ways. They provide wood, energy, foods and other
products. They generate income and employment for many
people, often the most vulnerable. They deliver ecosystem
services vital for food security and nutrition in the long term,
including water and carbon cycle regulation and protection
of biodiversity. These contributions vary according to types
of forests and the way they are managed. Increasing and
competing demands on land, forests and trees create new
challenges and opportunities and impact food security and
nutrition. This report calls for a renewed understanding of
sustainable forestry in order to fully integrate the different
functions of forests and trees, from farm and landscape to
global levels, as well as at different timescales, for enhanced
food security and nutrition and sustainable development. This
requires inclusive and integrative governance mechanisms at
different scales that enable the full and effective participation
of concerned stakeholders, particularly of forest-dependent
indigenous peoples and local communities.

Secretariat HLPE c/o FAO

HLPE Viale delle Terme di Caracalla
00153 Rome, Italy
High Level
Panel of Experts Website: www.fao.org/cfs/cfs-hlpe
E-mail: cfs-hlpe@fao.org
I5795E/1/07.16
I7395EN/1/06.17