Forests, Trees and Landscapes For Food Security and Nutrition

A Global Assessment Report
Editors: Bhaskar Vira, Christoph Wildburger, Stephanie Mansourian
IUFRO World Series Volume 33
IUFRO World Series Volume 33 Forests, Trees and Landscapes for Food Security and Nutrition
2015
Forests, Trees and Landscapes

for Food Security and Nutrition
IUFRO World Series Vol. 33
Forests, Trees and Landscapes

for Food Security and Nutrition
A Global Assessment Report
Editors: Bhaskar Vira, Christoph Wildburger, Stephanie Mansourian
Funding support for this publication was provided by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland, the United States Forest
Service, and the Austrian Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management. The views expressed
within this publication do not necessarily reflect official policy of the governments represented by these institutions.
Publisher:
International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO)
Recommended catalogue entry:

Bhaskar Vira, Christoph Wildburger & Stephanie Mansourian (eds.), 2015.
Forests, Trees and Landscapes for Food Security and Nutrition. A Global Assessment Report.
IUFRO World Series Volume 33. Vienna. 172 p.
ISBN 978-3-902762-40-5
ISSN 1016-3263
Published by:
International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO)
Available from:
IUFRO Headquarters
Secretariat
Marxergasse 2
1030 Vienna
Austria
Tel: +43-1-877-0151-0
E-mail: office@iufro.org
Website: www.iufro.org
Language editor: Stephanie Mansourian

Layout: Schrgstrich Kommunikationsdesign
Cover photographs: Terry Sunderland, Terry Sunderland, Miguel Pinedo-Vasquez
Rightmost photograph originally published as fig. 4.6. in Parrotta and Trosper (2012).
Reprinted with kind permission from Springer + Business Media B.V.
Printed in Austria by Eigner Druck, Tullner Strae 311, 3040 Neulengbach
Preface
Connecting the dots
ith the establishment of the Global Forest Expert Panels (GFEP) initiative in the year 2007, the Collaborative Partnership on Forests (CPF) created an international mechanism which effectively links scientific
knowledge with political decision-making on forests. The GFEP responds directly to key forest-related policy
questions by consolidating available scientific knowledge and expertise on these questions at a global level. It provides
decision-makers with the most relevant, objective and accurate information, and thus makes an essential contribution to
international forest governance.
This report entitled Forests, Trees and Landscapes for Food Security and Nutrition presents the results of the fourth
global scientific assessment undertaken so far in the framework of GFEP. Previous assessments addressed the adaptation
of forests and people to climate change; international forest governance; and the relationship between biodiversity,
carbon, forests and people. All assessment reports were prepared by internationally recognised scientists from a variety
of biophysical and social science disciplines. They have all been presented to decision-makers across relevant international policy fora. In this way, GFEP supports a more coherent policy dialogue about the role of forests in addressing
broader environmental, social and economic challenges.
The current report reflects the importance of policy coherence and integration more than any previous GFEP assessment. It
comes at a time when the United Nations General Assembly seeks to adopt a set of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
which build upon the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and converge with the post-2015 development agenda.
In this context, the eradication of hunger, realisation of food security and the improvement of nutrition are of particular
relevance. By 2050, the international community will face the challenge of providing 9 billion people with food, shelter
and energy. Despite impressive productivity increases, there is growing evidence that conventional agricultural strategies
will fall short of eliminating global hunger and malnutrition. The assessment report in hand provides comprehensive
scientific evidence on how forests, trees and landscapes can be and must be - an integral part of the solution to this
global problem. In other words, we must connect the dots and see the bigger picture.
The review of the International Arrangement on Forests by the member states of the United Nations Forum on Forests
provides a unique opportunity to integrate forests into the SDGs in a holistic manner and to promote synergies in the implementation of the post-2015 development agenda across multiple levels of governance. It is my hope that those with a
responsibility for forests, food security and nutrition at all levels will find this report, and its accompanying policy brief,
a useful source of information and inspiration.
Alexander Buck
IUFRO Executive Director
Acknowledgements
This publication is the product of the collaborative work of scientific experts in the framework of the Global Forest
Expert Panel on Forests and Food Security, who served in different capacities as panel members and authors. We express
our sincere gratitude to all of them:
Bina Agarwal, Sarah Ayeri Ogalleh, Frdric Baudron, Sammy Carsan, Paolo Cerutti, Josephine Chambers, Ian K.
Dawson, Neil M. Dawson, Beatrice Darko Obiri, Elizabeth Deakin, Ann Degrande, Jason Donovan, Jennie Dey de
Pryck, Samson Foli, Lisa Fuchs, Amos Gyau, Gordon Hickey, Amy Ickowitz, Miyuki Iiyama, Ramni Jamnadass, Katy
Jeary, Gudrun Keding, Katja Kehlenbeck, Daniela Kleinschmit, Christophe Kouame, Godwin Kowero, Patti Kristjanson, Adrian Martin, Stepha McMullin, Henry Neufeldt, Mary Njenga, Vincent O. Oeba, Daniel Ofori, Hemant R.
Ohja, Pablo Pacheco, Christine Padoch, John A. Parrotta, Bronwen Powell, Nitin D. Rai, Patrick Ranjatson, James
Reed, Mirjam Ros-Tonen, Chris Sandbrook, Jolien Schure, Anca Serban, Bimbika Sijapati Basnett, Carsten SmithHall, Barbara Stadlmayr, Terry Sunderland, Celine Termote, Tran Nam Tu, Patrick Van Damme, Nathalie van Vliet,
Barbara Vinceti and Solomon Zena Walelign.
Without their voluntary efforts and commitment the preparation of this publication would not have been possible.
We acknowledge and sincerely thank the reviewers of the full report and the various chapters whose comments have
greatly improved the quality of this publication: Eduardo Brondizio, Carol Colfer, Martina Kress, Eric Lambin, Kae
Mihara, Sarah Milne, Ellen Muehlhoff, Ben Phalan, Dominique Reeb, Patricia Shanley and Ingrid Visseren-Hamakers.
We also gratefully acknowledge the generous financial and in-kind support provided by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs
of Finland, the United States Forest Service, and the Austrian Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment
and Water Management.
Our special thanks go to the IUFRO Secretariat for providing indispensable administrative and technical support to
the work of the Panel. Furthermore, we would like to thank the member organisations of the Collaborative Partnership
on Forests for providing overall guidance to the Panel. We are particularly grateful also to the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO, Rome, Italy), to the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR,
Bogor, Indonesia), the University of Cambridge (UK) and to the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF, Delhi, India) for
hosting expert meetings.
Bhaskar Vira
Panel Chair
Christoph Wildburger
GFEP Coordinator
Stephanie Mansourian
Content Editor
Contents
Preface
Acknowledgements
Acronyms, Units and Symbols
10
1 Introduction
Forests, Trees and Landscapes for Food Security and Nutrition
13
Coordinating lead author: Bhaskar Vira

Lead authors: Bina Agarwal, Ramni Jamnadass, Daniela Kleinschmit, Stepha McMullin,
Stephanie Mansourian, Henry Neufeldt, John A. Parrotta, Terry Sunderland and Christoph Wildburger
2 Understanding the Roles of Forests and Tree-based Systems in Food Provision
25
Coordinating lead authors: Ramni Jamnadass and Stepha McMullin

Lead authors: Miyuki Iiyama and Ian K. Dawson
Contributing authors: Bronwen Powell, Celine Termote, Amy Ickowitz, Katja Kehlenbeck, Barbara
Vinceti, Nathalie van Vliet, Gudrun Keding, Barbara Stadlmayr, Patrick Van Damme, Sammy Carsan,
Terry Sunderland, Mary Njenga, Amos Gyau, Paolo Cerutti, Jolien Schure, Christophe Kouame,
Beatrice Darko Obiri, Daniel Ofori, Bina Agarwal, Henry Neufeldt, Ann Degrande and Anca Serban
3 The Historical, Environmental and Socio-Economic Context of

Forests and Tree-Based Systems for Food Security and Nutrition
51
Coordinating lead author: John A. Parrotta

Lead authors: Jennie Dey de Pryck, Beatrice Darko Obiri, Christine Padoch,
Bronwen Powell and Chris Sandbrook
Contributing authors: Bina Agarwal, Amy Ickowitz, Katy Jeary, Anca Serban,
Terry Sunderland and Tran Nam Tu
4 Drivers of Forests and Tree-based Systems for Food Security and Nutrition
87
Coordinating lead author: Daniela Kleinschmit

Lead authors: Bimbika Sijapati Basnett, Adrian Martin, Nitin D. Rai and Carsten Smith-Hall
Contributing authors: Neil M. Dawson, Gordon Hickey, Henry Neufeldt, Hemant R. Ojha
and Solomon Zena Walelign
5 Response Options Across the Landscape
113
Coordinating lead author: Terry Sunderland

Lead authors: Frdric Baudron, Amy Ickowitz, Christine Padoch, Mirjam Ros-Tonen,
Chris Sandbrook and Bhaskar Vira
Contributing authors: Josephine Chambers, Elizabeth Deakin, Samson Foli, Katy Jeary,
John A. Parrotta, Bronwen Powell, James Reed, Sarah Ayeri Ogalleh, Henry Neufeldt and Anca Serban
6 Public Sector, Private Sector and Socio-Cultural Response Options
129
Coordinating lead author: Henry Neufeldt

Lead authors: Pablo Pacheco, Hemant R. Ojha, Sarah Ayeri Ogalleh, Jason Donovan and Lisa Fuchs
Contributing authors: Daniela Kleinschmit, Patti Kristjanson, Godwin Kowero,
Vincent O. Oeba and Bronwen Powell
7 Conclusions

Lead authors: Ramni Jamnadass, Daniela Kleinschmit, Stepha McMullin,

Stephanie Mansourian, Henry Neufeldt, John A. Parrotta, Terry Sunderland and Christoph Wildburger
ppendices to the report:

A
Appendix 1: Glossary of Terms and Definitions

153
Appendix 2: List of Panel Members, Authors and Reviewers
159
10
Acronyms, Units and Symbols

AFTP
AIPP
BNDES
CBD
CCBA
CFS
CFUG
CGF
CGIAR
CIE
CIFOR
CINE
CITES
CPF
CSA
CTA
DRC
ECOSOC
EIA
EMBRAPA
EP
EU
FAO
FAOSTAT
FDI
FLEGT
FMNR
FRA
FSC
GACSA
GAPKI
GAR
GBM
GDP
GEF
GFEP
GFRA
11
Agroforestry Tree Product

Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact
Brazilian Development Bank
Convention on Biological Diversity
Climate, Community and Biodiversity
Alliance
World Committee on Food Security
Community Forest User Group
Consumer Goods Forum
Consultative Group on International
Agricultural Research
Center for Independent Evaluations
Center for International Forestry
Research
Centre for Indigenous Peoples Nutrition
and Environment
Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
Collaborative Partnership on Forests
Climate Smart Agriculture
Technical Centre for Agricultural and
Rural Cooperation
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Economic and Social Council of the
United Nations
Environmental Impact Assessment
Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa
Agropecuria (Brazilian Agricultural
Research Corporation)
Equator Principles
European Union
Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations
FAO statistics
Foreign Direct Investment
Forest Law Enforcement, Governance
and Trade
Farmer-managed Natural Regeneration
Forest Resources Assessment
Forest Stewardship Council
Global Alliance for Climate-Smart
Agriculture
Indonesian Palm Oil Association
Golden Agri-Resources
Greenbelt Movement
Gross Domestic Product
Global Environment Facility
Global Forest Expert Panels
Global Forest Resources Assessment
GI
GN
GSCP
HCS
IAASTD
ICCO
ICO
ICRAF
IEA
IFAD
IFC
IFF
IFOAM
IFPRI
ILO
IP
IPBES
IPCC
ISPO
ITTO
IUFRO
IWGIA
IWMI
KADIN
LSP
MA
MDG
MEA
NGO
NTFP
OECD
PEN
PES
PFM
PPP
RAI
RECOFTC
REDD
Government of Indonesia
Government of Nepal
Global Social Compliance Programme
High Carbon Stock
International Assessment of Agricultural
Knowledge, Science and Technology for
Development
International Cacao Organization
International Coffee Organization
World Agroforestry Centre
International Energy Agency
International Fund for Agricultural
Development
International Finance Corporation
International Forum on Forests
International Federation of Organic
Agriculture Movements
International Food Policy Research Institute
International Labour Organization
Indigenous People
Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity
and Ecosystem Services
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change
Indonesian Sustainable Palm Oil
International Tropical Timber Organization
International Union of Forest Research
Organizations
International Work Group for Indigenous
Affairs
International Water Management Institute
Indonesian Chamber of Commerce
Livelihood Support Programme
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
(also MEA)
Millennium Development Goal
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
(also MA)
Non-governmental Organisation
Non-Timber Forest Product
Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development
Poverty Environment Network
Payment for Ecosystem Service
Participatory Forest Management
Purchasing Power Parity
Responsible Agricultural Investment
The Center for People and Forests
Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and
Forest Degradation
REDD+
Reducing Emissions from Deforestation

and Forest Degradation and the role of
conservation, sustainable management of
forests and enhancement of forest carbon
stocks in developing countries
RRI
Rights and Resources Initiative
RSPO
Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil
RTRS
Round Table on Responsible Soy
SARS
Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome
SCI
Sustainable Cocoa Initiative
SFM
Sustainable Forest Management
SMAP
Soil Moisture Active Passive Observatory
Short Message Service
SMS
SNV
Netherlands Development Organization
Shamba Shape-Up
SSU
UK
United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland
UNCCD
United Nations Convention to Combat
Desertification
United Nations Development Programme
UNDP
UNEP-WCMC United Nations Environment Programme
World Conservation Monitoring Centre
UNESCO
United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization
United Nations Framework Convention
UNFCCC
on Climate Change
United Nations Forum on Forests
UNFF
UNICEF
United Nations Childrens Fund (formerly
United Nations International Childrens
Emergency Fund)
US
United States of America
United States Agency for International
USAID
Development
USD
United States Dollars
USDA
United States Department of Agriculture
VFC
Village Forest Committee
WFP
World Food Programme
WHO
World Health Organization
WOCAT
World Overview of Conservation
Approaches and Technologies
WTO
World Trade Organization
WWF
Worldwide Fund for Nature
Units and Symbols

The International System of Units (SI) is used
in the publication.
ha = hectare (100 ha = 1 km)
yr = year
W = Watts
C = carbon
CO2 = carbon dioxide
SO2 = sulphur dioxide
NOX = nitrogen oxides (refers to NO and NO2)
HNO3 = nitric acid
NH3 = ammonia
Ca = Calcium
Cu = Copper
Fe = Iron
K = Potassium
Mn = Manganese
Mg = Magnesium
Na = Sodium
P = Phosphorus
Zn = Zinc
12
Chapter 1
Forests, Trees and Landscapes for
Food Security and Nutrition
Lead authors: Bina Agarwal, Ramni Jamnadass, Daniela Kleinschmit,
Stepha McMullin, Stephanie Mansourian, Henry Neufeldt, John A. Parrotta,
Terry Sunderland and Christoph Wildburger
1.1 Problem Statement: Can Forests

and Tree-based Systems Contribute
to Food Security and Nutrition?
As population estimates for 2050 reach over 9 billion,
issues of food security1 and nutrition have been dominating academic and policy debates, especially in relation to
the global development agenda beyond 2015. A total of
805 million people are undernourished worldwide, even
though the trend appears to be slowly reversing (FAO et
al., 2014) and malnutrition defined as either under-5
stunting, anaemia among women of reproductive age or
adult obesity affects nearly every country on the planet
(IFPRI, 2014). Despite impressive productivity increases,
there is growing evidence that conventional agricultural
strategies fall short of eliminating global hunger, result in
unbalanced diets that lack nutritional diversity, enhance
exposure of the most vulnerable groups to volatile food
prices, and fail to recognise the long-term ecological
consequences of intensified agricultural systems (FAO,
2013; FAO et al., 2013). In parallel, there is considerable
evidence that suggests that forests and tree-based systems
can play an important role in complementing agricultural production in providing better and more nutritionally-balanced diets (Vinceti et al., 2013); woodfuel for
cooking; greater control over food consumption choices,
particularly during lean seasons and periods of vulnerability (especially for marginalised groups); and deliver a
broad set of ecosystem services which enhance and support crop production (FAO 2011a; Foli et al., 2014). Already, while precise figures are difficult to come by, it has
been estimated that approximately 1.2-1.5 billion people
(just under 20 percent of the global population) are forest
dependent (Chao, 2012, cited by FAO, 2014a; Agrawal
et al., 2013). These estimates include about 60 million
indigenous people who are almost wholly dependent on
forests (World Bank, 2002).
Despite these figures, much of these forests remain under government control (even if the trend suggests a slight
increase in community control of forests; see Figure 1.1).
Ultimately, who controls forests has important implications for the role of forests in food security and nutrition.
The loss and degradation of forests exacerbate the
problem of food insecurity both directly and indirectly: directly, by affecting the availability of fruits and other forest- and tree-based food products, and indirectly by modifying ecological factors relevant for crop and livestock and
thereby affecting the availability of food (van Noordwijk
et al., 2014). As of 1990, an estimated nearly 2 billion ha
of the worlds land surface could be classified as degraded,
the legacy of extended periods of mismanagement in some
long-settled areas (Oldeman et al., 1991). Models of current global trends in land (soil) degradation indicate that
between 1981 and 2003, approximately 24 percent of the
global land area (in which 1.5 billion people live) could
be classified as degrading (Bai et al., 2008). Evidence
suggests that cropland and forests are disproportionately
represented in these areas undergoing degradation, with
consequent implications for net primary productivity, and
associated impacts on populations that depend on these
landscapes for food and nutrient provisioning.
While there is growing recognition that forests and
tree-based systems complement farmland agriculture
in providing food security and nutrition, responsibility
for managing these diverse elements of the productive
landscape is typically fragmented across different government departments and administrative jurisdictions in
most countries. The complex, overlapping and interconnecting processes which link tree products and services
to food security and nutrition are currently not adequately
represented in forestry, agriculture, food or nutrition-related strategies at global and national levels, though their
importance is often well known at more local scales by
consumers, forest producers and farmers.
All terms that are defined in the glossary (Appendix 1), appear for the first time in italics in a chapter.
14
1 FORESTS, TREES AND LANDSCAPES FOR FOOD SECURITY AND NUTRITION
Figure
1.1
Changes in statutory forest land tenure in low and middle income countries,
2002-2013, by percent
80%
71.4%
2002
70%
61.3%
2013
60%
50%
40%
30%
24.0%
18.2%
20%
10%
3.0%
7.4%
6.1%
8.7%
0%
Administered
by Government
Designated for
IPs & Communities
Owned by
IPs & Communities
Owned by
Firms & Individuals
Source: RRI (2014)
While the evidence base for the role of forests and treebased systems for food security and nutrition is growing
(see for example, Johnston et al., 2013; Ickowitz et al.,
2014) there remain many gaps in our understanding of
this relationship and its potential contribution to reducing
global hunger and malnutrition. There is a need to explore
the forest-food nexus in much more detail, particularly in
relation to the integrated management of multi-functional
landscapes, and the multi-scalar and cross-sectoral governance approaches that are required for the equitable
delivery of these benefits.
1.2 Prevailing Paradigms about

Forests, Agriculture, Food Security
and Nutrition
15
In 2012, at the UN Conference on Sustainable Development: Rio+20, the UN Secretary General proposed an
ambitious goal to eliminate global hunger by 2025 the
so-called Zero Hunger Challenge. Fulfilling this challenge requires not just providing universal and year-round
access to food for the worlds growing population, but doing so in a nutritionally-balanced way, while enhancing
livelihood security for smallholders, reducing waste from
consumption and production systems and also ensuring
that these systems are sustainable. Evolving strategies to
respond to this challenge primarily focus on achieving
sustainable intensification, by improving the productivity of agricultural systems, without causing ecological harm or compromising biodiversity and ecosystem
services (FAO, 2011b; Garnett et al., 2013). Plant biologists, crop scientists and agronomists are working hard to
find solutions both on-farm and in the laboratory, which
may be able to achieve this desired increase in productivity without the sorts of ecological side-effects that were
associated with the Green Revolution of the 1960s and

1970s (Struik and Kuyper, 2014).
There are reasons to be cautious about these production-centric approaches to the food security dilemma. As
Amartya Sen demonstrated through his seminal work on
famine, what keeps people hungry is not just the lack of
food, but the lack of access to that food and control over
its production (Sen, 1983). Enhancing global production
of food through productivity increases will therefore not
guarantee that those who are hungry will have the means
to increase their intake of food. The resource poor, in
particular, may not have the means by which to purchase
the increased output of food that these new technologies
promise, and may continue to rely on more locally-appropriate and accessible means of fulfilling their nutritional needs (Pinstrup-Andersen, 2009). What is needed
is recognition of the ways in which people command access to food, how this varies by season, and how the interpersonal dynamics and biases (especially due to gender)
of intra-household food allocation result in differential
nutritional outcomes within families. Enhanced food sovereignty (encompassing food security, the right to food
and healthy diets, as well as the right to control over ones
own food system (Patel, 2009; Edelman et al., 2014)) can
help ensure that local people have control over their own
diets and are engaged in efforts to improve the nutritional
quality of their diets.
Production is also constrained by the lack of equitable
access to land, technology and capital, which typically
remain unavailable to the large majority of smallholder
farmers (there are an estimated over 500 million family
farms worldwide) (FAO, 2014a; Pretty et al., 2011; Vanlauwe et al., 2014). In these contexts, food from forests
and tree-based systems is likely to continue to form an
essential part of household strategies to eliminate hunger
and achieve nutritionally balanced diets. Unfortunately,
there is little current appreciation of the diverse ways in

which these tree-based landscapes can supplement agricultural production systems in achieving global food
security amongst the international and national decisionmaking communities. Many forms of forest management
for food (whether strictly traditional or contemporary)
including the creation of multi-storied agroforests, the
planting of diverse forest gardens or, as discussed at
greater length in this report, the management of swiddenfallows for food, have remained, with few exceptions, either invisible to researchers and planners or condemned
by governments and conservationists. Even the many
contributions that woodlands make to agricultural production outside of forests have been largely overlooked.
Paradigms for forest and tree management have also
evolved considerably in the last fifty years, away from a
state-controlled, production-centric approach to more collaborative systems which prioritise the needs of local people, and also value the roles of forests in providing critical
ecosystem services, especially habitats for biodiversity
(including agrobiodiversity), pollination, soil protection,
water and climate regulation (Mace, 2014). Decentralised
management systems now better reflect local demands,
especially for woodfuel, fodder and small timber (Larson
et al., 2010). More recently, new management regimes
which take account of the key roles that forests and trees
play in biodiversity conservation, the regulation of carbon
fluxes, and the hydrological cycle have meant that these
landscapes are being managed for a much more diverse
(often non-local) set of purposes (Ribot et al., 2006).
What has been relatively neglected, however, in these reconfigurations of forests and tree-based landscapes so far
is an explicit recognition of the continued role that they
play in food security and nutrition, especially in providing resilient and accessible production and consumption
systems in general, and for some of the most vulnerable
groups. For many of these groups, linking the health of
forests and landscapes to food sovereignty also provides a
potential mechanism and argument to enhance greater autonomy over local food and agricultural systems, as well
as their wider landscapes and bio-cultural environments.
In many ways, this is a missed opportunity for stakeholders and decision-makers, as a greater emphasis on these
roles could allow forestry debates to engage more actively with wider concerns about poverty alleviation and
sustainable human well-being, which are at the centre of
global, national and local agendas.
1.3 Policy Context for this Report,

Scope and Objectives
The contribution of forests to sustainable land use approaches which balance livelihood security and nutritional needs of people with other management goals is of high
significance for the implementation of existing international commitments, including Agenda 21 and the three
Rio Conventions (UNFCCC, CBD, UNCCD) adopted by
the 1992 Earth Summit; the Global Objectives on Forests;
the Millennium Development Goals; the UN Declaration
on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; as well as the ILO

Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention (1989) No.
169. In the context of the discussions on the United Nations post-2015 development agenda, which seeks to establish a more integrated approach to poverty reduction in
the framework of the Sustainable Development Goals, the
contribution of forests to food security and nutrition, and
the impact of food production on forests and landscapes
are of particular relevance.
Against this backdrop, the Collaborative Partnership
on Forests (CPF) tasked the Global Forest Expert Panel
(GFEP) on Forests and Food Security to carry out a comprehensive global assessment of available scientific information on the relationship between forests and trees on
the one hand, and food security and nutrition on the other,
and to prepare a report to inform relevant international
policy processes and the discussions on the post-2015 development agenda. The report is targeted particularly at
decision-makers policymakers, investors and donors in
order to provide a strong scientific basis for interventions
and projects related to forests, agroforestry and landscapes
aimed at addressing food security and nutrition.
The work of the GFEP on Forests and Food Security
focuses on three key objectives:

To clarify the different dimensions and the role that

forests and tree-based systems play in food security
and nutrition;
To analyse the social, economic and environmental
synergies and trade-offs between forests and food security and nutrition, and related management interventions; and
To assess relevant frameworks and responses, as an
input to research, international policy processes, and
evolving development agendas in different regions of
the world.
This report documents evidence of the relationships between forests and tree-based systems and food security
and nutrition from different agro-ecological zones in all
continents. However, a particular concern is those parts
of the world that are characterised by deep-rooted hunger and malnutrition, where food security is a particular
challenge, primarily in poorer nations and in the tropics (see Figure 1.2). Our discussion includes not only
management of forests, woodlands, agroforests, and tree
crops for direct food provisioning, but also the management of forested landscapes for the conditions they create that in turn affect all agricultural systems. The systems included in our analysis range from management
of forests to optimise yields of wild foods and fodder,
to shifting cultivation, through the broad spectrum of
agroforestry practices, to single-species tree crop management (these systems are discussed in detail in Chapter
3 of this report). We consider the variability and applicability of these management systems within and across
geographical regions, agro-ecological zones and biomes,
highlighting the traditional and modern science and technology that underpin them.
16
Figure
1.2
Global maps of forest cover, hunger and undernourishment
FAO worlds forest map 2010
Source: FAO, 2010
Global Hunger Index 2014

Greenland
Iceland
Russian Federation
Finland
Norway
Sweden
Estonia
Latvia
Canada
Denmark
Lithuania
Ireland
United Neth.
Poland
Kingdom Bel. Germany
Lux. Czech Rep.
Slovakia
Austria
France Switz. Slov. Hungary
Croatia
Bos. & Serb.
Herz.
Italy Mont. Mace.
Albania
Spain
Greece
United States
of America
Portugal
Kazakhstan
Ukraine
Romania
Bulgaria
Uzbekistan
Georgia
Turkey
Armenia
Azerb.
Turkmenistan
Iran
Libya
Western Sahara
Egypt
Saudi Arabia
Cuba
Dominican Rep.
Jamaica
Belize
Honduras
Guatemala
Mauritania
Haiti
Nicaragua
El Salvador
Costa Rica
Trinidad & Tobago
Panama
Venezuela
Colombia
Guyana
Suriname
French Guiana
Senegal
The Gambia
Guinea-Bissau
Guinea
Sierra Leone
Liberia
Mali
Burkina Faso
Benin
Togo
Cte
d'Ivoire Ghana
Niger
S. Korea
Pakistan
Bahrain
Qatar
U.A.E.
Nepal
Central
African
Republic
Bhutan
Myanmar
Oman
Sudan*
Lao
PDR
Thailand
Yemen
Eritrea
Vietnam
Cambodia
South
Sudan*
Ethiopia
Philippines
Sri Lanka
Somalia
Brunei
Cameroon
Gabon
Japan
Bangladesh
India
Djibouti
Nigeria
Equatorial Guinea
Ecuador
Chad
N. Korea
Tajikistan
Afghanistan
Kuwait
Algeria
Mexico
Mongolia
Kyrgyz Rep.
China
Syria
Cyprus
Lebanon
Iraq
Israel
Jordan
Tunisia
Morocco
Belarus
Moldova
Malaysia
Uganda
Congo,
Rep.
Congo,
Dem. Rwanda
Rep. Burundi
Papua
New
Guinea
Kenya
Indonesia
Tanzania
Solomon Islands
Peru
Brazil
Timor-Leste
Comoros
Angola
Malawi
Zambia
Bolivia
Namibia
Zimbabwe Mozambique
Vanuatu
Mauritius
Botswana
Madagascar
Paraguay
Swaziland
Chile
Argentina
South
Africa
Australia
Lesotho
Uruguay
New Zealand
Name des Teilbereich | Chapter 1 | 2014 Global Hunger Index
Source: Von Grebmer et al., 2014
17
2014 Global Hunger Index | Chapter 1 | Name des Teilbereich
Extremely alarming 30.0 <

Alarming 20.029.9
Serious 10.019.9
19
Moderate 5.09.9
Low < 4.9
No data
Industrialized country
Although this report documents the role that forests

and tree-based landscapes play in relation to food security
and nutrition at a relatively aggregated level, it also highlights the important variations in these relationships. This
includes regional variability, depending on agro-ecological conditions and their relative suitability for different
forms of wild and cultivated harvests; seasonal variability, indicating the role that forest- and tree-based diets
might play at particularly lean periods of the agricultural
cycle; and socio-economic variability, which especially
emphasises the roles that land and tree tenure and governance, human capital, financial capital, and gender play
in mediating the ways in which people have access to, and
consume, food from forests and tree-based landscapes.
Throughout the report, there is specific attention to
a number of important cross-cutting issues. Prominent
amongst these is the role of gender specifically, and inequality more generally. Women and female childrens
roles in contributing to household food systems - both
directly and indirectly - are substantial and often greater
than mens, since they are the primary collectors of food,
fodder and fuel from forests. In framing our discussion
around the UN Secretary Generals Zero Hunger Challenge, it is important to recognise the salience and importance of forest- and tree-based diets for these most vulnerable groups, even when the aggregate contribution to
global food production from such landscapes might not be
quite as significant. In addition, given the increasing feminisation of rural livelihoods and especially agriculture, as
well as womens continued role in food provisioning for
families, the report highlights the need to reach women
as producers (by enhancing access to land, technologies,

information etc.) and consumers who shape important behavioural choices in relation to food security and nutrition.
1.4 Structure of the Report

This report consists of six further chapters. Figure 1.3
provides a conceptual overview of the structure, and the
broad linkages between the material presented in the different substantive chapters.
In Chapter 2, the available evidence on the direct and
indirect roles that forests and tree-based landscapes play
in providing food security and nutrition is presented, and
critically assessed. Chapter 3 focuses on the forest-agriculture continuum, and the role of different landscape
configurations in food production, the ways in which a
mosaic of forest, agroforest and crop production systems
combine and interact, and the importance of the social,
cultural and economic contexts in which these systems
exist, focusing on three factors that affect the socioeconomic organisation of forest and tree-based systems,
namely: land and tree tenure and governance, human capital, and financial capital. Chapter 4 steps back from this
landscape scale and examines the broader drivers environmental, social, economic and political that are impacting the forest-food security nexus, and highlights
the importance of these in framing available options for
responding to hunger and malnutrition. Chapter 5 starts
to discuss response options, at landscape scale, highlighting in particular the need for multifunctional landscapes
Prevalence of people undernourished (percent, 2012-14)
No data available
0 ~ < 5
5 ~ < 15
15 ~ < 25
25 ~ < 35
35 ~ 100
Source: FAO, 2014b
18
Figure
1.3
Conceptual structure
of the report
D apt
h
(c
NAT
IO
LOCAL
/L
A
G
L
L
AL
BA
O
ION
EG
/R
E
CA P
DS
s
er )
riv er 4
NA
L
N
FOREST
FOOD SYSTEM
direct/indirect links
production factors
(chapters 2 and 3)
es )
ns nd 6
o
sp 5 a
Re ters
ap
(ch
to be governed for their ability to provide food security,

natural resource conservation and sustainable livelihoods.
In Chapter 6, these response options are examined in relation to the broader drivers of change, focusing in particular on the role of markets and incentives, different forms
of governance and the public policy challenges associated with recognising and enhancing the role of foresttree landscapes in food security and nutrition. Chapter 7
concludes with some key messages for a range of decision-makers in local and national governments, the intergovernmental community, as well as the business sector
and civil society.
1.5 Forests and Tree-Based Landscapes for Food Security and Nutrition a brief preview
1.5.1 Direct and indirect Contributions of
Forests and Tree-based Systems to Food
Security and Nutrition
19
As this report explores in some detail, forests and treebased systems provide a steady supply of wild and cultivated fruit, vegetables, seeds, nuts, oils, roots, fungi, herbs
and animal protein, which complement more conventional
staple diets derived from agricultural production systems
(and, in some cases, provide dependable staple sources
for food security and nutrition). Evidence reviewed in the
report (especially in Chapters 2 and 3) suggests that some
50 percent of the fruit consumed globally comes from
trees (much of this collected by women and children) and

recent studies show that access to forests and tree-based
systems is associated with increased vitamin intake from
fruit and vegetable consumption. What this growing evidence suggests is that, while forests are not a solution for
global hunger in themselves, in many circumstances they
play a vital supplementary role, especially during periods
of unpredictability (such as long dry spells). In some regions, food from forests plays a central role in providing
calorific staples (such as aai palm fruit in the Amazon;
Brondizio, 2008). It is also increasingly recognised that
food from forests provides micronutrients and contributes
to dietary diversity, thereby supporting a shift away from
calorific intake as the primary metric for food security, towards a broader understanding of nutritionally-balanced
diets (FAO, 2013).
Forests provide not only food items, they are also critically important for providing fuel for cooking. In developing countries, 2.4 billion households still use conventional
biofuels (firewood, charcoal, crop residues and cattle dung)
for cooking and heating. This includes 90 percent of rural
households in large parts of sub-Saharan Africa and 7080
percent in China (Modi et al., 2005). The most important
biofuel used as rural domestic fuel is firewood, and the
numbers dependent on it and other traditional biofuels
are expected to increase over time (IEA, 2004). Firewood
shortages can have negative nutritional effects, since efforts to economise on firewood can induce shifts to less
nutritious foods which need less fuel to cook, or cause poor
families to eat raw or partially cooked food which could be
toxic, or to eat leftovers which could rot if left unrefrigerated, or even to miss meals altogether (Agarwal, 1986).
Apart from these direct roles, forests support the diversification of livelihoods through income earning opportunities that contribute to household food security (see
Figure 1.4). Their role in providing ecosystem services
which underpin the agricultural production system
through soil formation, nutrient cycling and provision of
green manure, water provisioning, pollination and microclimate regulation further enhances synergies between
the forest-tree landscape and the wider food production
system (MA, 2005).
1.5.2 Drivers Affecting the Relationship

between Forest-tree Landscapes and Food
Demographic change and mobility
In 2013, the world population totalled 7.2 billion and it
is projected to exceed 9 billion by 2050, with most of
the increase being in developing regions, especially Africa (Roberts, 2011). Consequently the demand for food,
feed and fibre will increase, while per capita land availability will decline. A continued focus, therefore, on understanding and responding to the drivers of population
growth is likely to remain an essential component of efforts towards ensuring food security in the twenty-first
century. In addition to the increase in absolute numbers,
however, changes in the structure and location of people
with populations moving between rural and urban areas,

as well as transnationally are likely to have an important
influence on the demand and supply of food. As Chapter
4 of this report discusses in some detail, the sheer scale
of internal and international migration is unprecedented,
and what is known about these numbers is likely to be a
considerable underestimate due to undocumented movements. While international migration has become one of
the defining features of globalisation, the worlds population is also increasingly becoming urban, with more
than half now living in urban areas (UN, 2014). Small
cities and towns in Asia, Africa and Latin America that
lie in or near tropical forest areas are likely to experience the greatest magnitude of urbanisation. Migration
and urbanisation lead to profound changes in socioeconomic systems, including the growing feminisation
of rural landscapes in many of these regions. Urban
migration is also resulting in major transformations in
rural production-based economies, and associated loss
of knowledge about forest foods and management. From
a food security perspective, these trends have important
implications for availability of, access to and relative dependence on forest products for food and income. However, research on the nexus between migration, urbanisation and forests remains very limited, let alone from a
food security and nutrition perspective.
Shifts to market-driven economies

The last three decades have seen a considerable shift in
public policy, encouraging the growth of markets and the
private sector. The management of agrarian and forested
landscapes for smallholders and their food needs is becoming less appealing to states in comparison to their
desire to attract agro-industrial investors for large scale
production systems, or for managing these landscapes in
response to emergent global markets for carbon, biofuels
and biodiversity (Fairhead et al., 2012). Pressures for the
expansion of commodity exports are also adding to the
degradation and loss of forest lands (Nevins and Peluso,
2008). As Chapter 4 points out, the resultant focus on enhancing production efficiency, specialisation and trade in
agricultural commodities exposes vulnerable groups to
the volatility of international commodity prices, and reduces their ability to access more localised food sources,
over which they often have greater control. The food price
spikes in 2008-09 demonstrated how the impacts of this
volatility are felt, especially in those parts of the world
that are least able to withstand such shocks, and contribute to undermining access to food for the poorest groups
(Akter and Basher, 2014; Berazneva and Lee, 2013). As
climate uncertainty adds to the potential volatility of
global agricultural and commodity markets, developing
more resilient production systems across the agriculturalforestry landscape is essential for ensuring food security
and nutrition to the most vulnerable populations.
Consumer preferences and values

As discussed in Chapter 4, with increasing incomes,
households demand for food increases less than proportionally, and there is generally a dietary shift with
decreasing importance of starchy staples (e.g. rice,

wheat) and increased consumption of meat, fish, fruits
and vegetables. Many forest foods are likely, in economic terms, to be seen as inferior goods (demand
decreases with rising incomes and increases with declining incomes) and rising incomes would thus mean
less forest food production, extraction and reliance.
Delang (2006) notes, however, that forest food gathering is important in many rural communities with low
economic growth, and likely to remain so, especially as
per capita incomes rise relatively slowly in some parts of
the world. Rising income and desire for meat consumption may also impact the demand for animal proteins,
including bushmeat, with subsequent impacts on forests. Chapter 4 also suggests that forest food consumption is increasing in some high income countries, e.g. in
northern Europe, apparently in response to perceptions
that food should be locally grown, organic and aesthetic,
indicating that we need to understand the dynamics of
forest food consumption better.
As Chapter 2 of this report discusses, household decision-making (mostly by women) regarding food use
and practice is influenced by levels of knowledge on nutrition (FAO, 1997; Jamnadass et al., 2011). Translating
the harvest and cultivation of tree foods and other forest
foods into improved dietary intakes therefore involves
making nutrition education and behavioural-change
communication to women a high priority. But, as Chapter 2 emphasises, the education of men should also not
be neglected, since they often have most control over
household incomes, and need to be aware of the importance of diverse cropping systems and the spending of
income on healthy foods.
Environmental transformation and

degradation
The effect of human activities on ecosystems has been
profound, particularly during the past century. Many
critical thresholds of the earths biophysical systems
have already been crossed as a result of human activities (Rockstrm et al., 2009; Steffen et al., 2015).
Though the consequences are complex, there is considerable evidence that ongoing and future climate change
will have drastic impacts, especially in the poorest regions of the world. As Chapter 4 elaborates, people living directly off the production from the earths ecosystems are particularly affected by these changes. Forests
are affected by increasing temperatures, variable precipitation, fragmentation, deforestation, loss of biological diversity and spread of invasive species. These
factors affect not only the extent of forest but also the
structure and species composition within forests (and
therefore, forest products) thus impacting on the availability of food and nutrition. Environmentally-induced
changes affecting forest cover imply both direct and
indirect consequences for food security and nutrition:
direct consequences result from changes in the availability and quality of food and nutrition, while indirect
consequences result from changes in income and livelihoods related to forest products.
20
Figure
1.4
The direct and indirect roles of forests and tree-based systems for
food security and nutrition
FOREST-TREE-LANDSCAPE CONTINUUM
Managed forests
Shifting cultivation
Agroforestry
DIRECT ROLES
INDIRECT ROLES
Dietary diversity,
quality & quantity
Tree products for

income generation
Food provisioning:
Fruits, vegetables, nuts, mushrooms,
fodder and forage, animal source
foods (bushmeat, fish, insects)
Tree crops, wood products,

other NTFPs and AFTPs
Livelihood safety nets
Provision of genetic resources,

pollination, microclimatic regulation, habitat provisioning, water
provisioning (quality and quantity),
soil formation, erosion control,
nutrient cycling, pest regulation
Ecosystem services
Food in times of seasonal and other

scarcities, nutritional composition,
wood fuel for cooking
THE FOOD SYSTEM
Access
Health &
Disease
Stability &
Seasonality
Food
Security &
Nutrition
Dietary
choice & Use
Availability
Sustainability
21
Single species tree

crop production
1.5.3 Trade-offs, Conflicts and Synergies in

Land Use, and Responses
Chapter 5 of this report discusses possible responses
across the landscape, that attempt to reconcile competing
demands for agriculture, forestry and other uses. There
is no single configuration of land uses in any landscape
that can provide all the different outcomes that people
might find desirable. For example, the best landscape
configuration for biodiversity conservation might include large areas of forest strictly protected from human
use, but this might support the livelihood needs of a very
small human population or even displace previously resident people (and the resultant conflict may undermine
conservation impacts in the long run). In contrast, the
best landscape for cereal production might contain
very little forest at all. Other desirable outcomes, like
malaria mitigation or food security may be best provided
by more diverse landscapes. With increasing pressure on
biodiversity and ecosystem services across many landscapes from the growing footprint of human activities,
choices have to be made about what is desirable and how
landscapes should be managed. There may be difficult
decisions about the relative merits of enhancing short
term outputs through intensification of increasingly
overworked landscapes versus maintaining their long
term ecological productivity. In a context where views
on these options are often deeply entrenched and conflicts of interest are difficult to reconcile, consensus on
what constitutes success may be difficult to achieve.
In a world characterised by increasing resource and
land scarcity, these conflicts are likely to arise not just
between the most desirable use of the agrarian-forest
landscape, but also about how best to accommodate increased demands for land to allow for the expansion of
urban settlements, industrial development and resource
extraction. Dilemmas arise in relation to difficult choices about the most optimal configuration of land use in
this mosaic, but also about who gets to decide when
such choices need to be made, and whose interests are
represented in the decision-making process. Trade-offs
arise not just between alternative landuse options, but
also amongst different resource users and stakeholders
in a landscape, and their associated preferences. Political economy issues have often meant that a theoretically optimal landscape is unrealistic or unachievable
on the ground.
Chapters 5 and 6 of this report emphasise the significant shifts in governance that are required to manage these
trade-offs and difficult choices, and to promote pathways
to more integrated multi-functional agricultural-forest
landscapes for food security and nutrition. As Chapter 6
elaborates, many of these responses lie outside the land
sectors altogether. The growing demand for food, fibres,
energy and other products from the land often result in
market pressures for exploitation that can lead to forest
destruction if they are not managed through appropriate
governance systems and institutions. Perverse incentives,
such as subsidies that have been set up to address the demand for cheap food without considering environmental
externalities, may aggravate these pressures. Issues of

presence and representation require the adoption of more
open, participatory and deliberative forms of multistakeholder governance, which enhance linkages between
food security and forests. Power needs to be exercised in
ways that are seen to be legitimate and accountable, and
transformative change requires innovative multi-level
linkages, and creative cross-sectoral partnerships. There
is also a need for market and natural resource governance-related responses focusing on global processes that
support sustainable supply, and innovative corporate and
multi-actor initiatives that support inclusive value chains
of forest and tree products. These need to be coupled with
social and cultural response options to enhance food security where the focus is on cultural norms and values including gender, and social mobilisation such as advocacy.
1.6 Evidence and Knowledge Gaps

The diversity of the Earths forest ecosystems and the
human cultures associated with them has produced a
vast array of food systems connected to forests and
trees. These food systems are based on the traditional
wisdom, knowledge, practices and technologies of
societies. They are dynamic, developed and enriched
through experimentation and adaptation to changing
environmental conditions and societal needs, often over
countless generations. Despite the huge potential of
forest and tree foods to contribute to diets, knowledge
on many forest foods, especially wild foods, is rapidly being lost due to social change and modernisation.
Lack of knowledge in the community might be exacerbated by the effects of migration and movement, with
considerable research demonstrating that information
on forest-based foods is higher amongst long-term residents than migrants. Much of this knowledge is also
associated with wisdom particularly held by the elderly
and by women, with implications for its preservation
and propagation within families and communities.
Equally, many of these traditional forms of knowledge
are non-formalised and have not been written down,
which makes access to this information challenging.
There are, of course, oral knowledge transmission traditions in many cultures (such as storytelling, folklore,
music and informal learning within families) and there
is a growing sensitivity in the research community to
try and find ways of recording these non-formal forms
of knowledge.
For the purposes of this report, however, this form of
knowledge production and generation makes collation
of evidence significantly more challenging. In reviewing the evidence, the authors have relied primarily on
available literature, which has undergone processes of
peer review and verification. Apart from work that is
published in journals, they have used sources from a
variety of organisations that have a repository of relevant information, and are reliable sources of data.
Grey literature, where available, has been used and
is indicated. What is largely missing are the voices
22
of the poor, which are typically under-represented in

these more formalised sources of knowledge. Despite
our best efforts, for many of the analyses undertaken
in the assessment, there are considerable limitations
on the availability of useful information from the literature and other relevant sources. Recognising these
constraints, the assessment tries to point out where the
current knowledge base is strong, where it is currently
weak or lacking, and the degree of consistency in the
literature (and among experts) regarding research findings (and other knowledge sources), all of which influence the degree of certainty regarding conclusions that
may be drawn from the available evidence.
The message of this report is nuanced. As the detailed chapters demonstrate, there is variability in the
ways in which forests and tree-based landscapes interface with human food and nutritional systems. In particular places, and for particular groups of people (and
individuals), these landscapes provide goods, services
and livelihood options that can be critical for avoiding
the worst forms of hunger, malnutrition and destitution.
As the discussion on the post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals becomes increasingly cognisant of the
importance of nutrition-sensitive approaches to eliminating hunger, and to the wider role of natural ecosystems in supporting human well-being and development,
these links between different forms of production across
diverse landscapes will allow a much greater recognition of the role of forests and trees in global (and local)
food security and nutrition.
References
Agarwal, B., 1986. Cold Hearths and Barren Slopes: The Woodfuel
Crisis in the Third World. London: Zed Books.
Agrawal, A., Cashore, B., Hardin, R., Shepherd, G., Benson, C.
and Miller, D., 2013. Economic Contributions of Forests.
Background Paper to UNFF tenth Session, Istanbul, 8-19 April
2013.
Akter, S., and Basher, S.A., 2014. The impacts of food price and
income shocks on household food security and economic wellbeing: Evidence from rural Bangladesh. Global Environmental
Change 25: 150162.
Bai, Z. G., Dent, D. L., Olsson, L. and Schaepman, M. E., 2008.
Proxy global assessment of land degradation. Soil Use and
Management 24(3):223234.
Berazneva, J. and Lee, D.R., 2013. Explaining the African food
riots of 2007-2008: an empirical analysis. Food Policy 39:
28-39.
Brondizio, E.S., 2008. Amazonian Caboclo and the Acai Palm:
Forest Farmers in the Global Market, New York: New York
Botanical Gardens Press.
Delang, C.O., 2006. The role of wild food plants in poverty
alleviation and biodiversity conservation in tropical countries.
Progress in Development Studies 6 (4): 275-286.
Edelman, M., Weis, T., Bavsikar, A., Borras Jr, S. M., HoltGimenez, E., Kandiyoti, D. and Wolford, W., 2014.
Introduction: Critical Perspectives on Food Sovereignty. Journal
of Peasant Studies, 41(6): 911-931.
Fairhead, J., Leach, M. and Scoones, I., 2012. Green Grabbing: a
new appropriation of nature? Journal of Peasant Studies 39(2):
237-261.
FAO, 1997. Agriculture Food and Nutrition for Africa- a resource
book for teachers of agriculture. Food and Nutrition Division.
Rome: FAO.
FAO, 2010. Global Forest Resources Assessment. Rome: FAO.
http://www.fao.org/forestry/fra/80298/en/ [Accessed on 15
February 2015]
FAO, 2011a. Forests for Improved Food Security and Nutrition
report. Rome: FAO. Available at: http://www.fao.org/
docrep/014/i2011e/i2011e00.pdf [Accessed on 15 February
2015].
FAO, 2011b. Save and grow: a policy makers guide to the
sustainable intensification of crop production. Rome: FAO.
Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/i2215e/i2215e.pdf
[Accessed on 15 February 2015].
FAO, 2013. The State of Food and Agriculture. Better food systems
for better nutrition. Rome: FAO. Available at: http://www.fao.
org/docrep/018/i3300e/i3300e00.htm [Accessed on 15 February
2015].
FAO, 2014a. Towards Stronger Family Farms. Rome: FAO.
Available at: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4171e.pdf [Accessed on
15 February 2015].
FAO, 2014b. Food and Nutrition in Numbers. Rome: FAO. http://
www.fao.org/3/a-i4175e.pdf [Accessed on 15 February 2015]
FAO, IFAD and WFP, 2013. The State of Food Insecurity in the
World 2013. Themultiple dimensions of food security. Rome:
FAO.
FAO, IFAD and WFP, 2014. The State of Food Insecurity in the
World 2014. Strengthening the enabling environment for food
security and nutrition. Rome: FAO.
Foli, S., Reed, J., Clendenning, J., Petrokofsky, G., Padoch, C. and
Sunderland, T., 2014. Exploring the dynamics between forests,
ecosystem services and food production: A systematic review
protocol. Environmental Evidence. Available at: http://www.
environmentalevidencejournal.org/content/3/1/15 [Accessed on
15 February 2015].
23
Garnett, T., Appleby, M., Balmford, A., Bateman, I., Benton,

T., Bloomer, P. Burlingame, B., Dawkins, M., Dolan, L.,
Fraser, D., Herroro, M., Hoffman, I. Smith, P., Thornton, P.,
Toulmin, C., Vermeulen, S. and Godfray, C., 2013. Sustainable
intensification in agriculture: Premises and policies. Science
341: 33-34.
Ickowitz, A., Powell, B., Salim, A. and Sunderland, T., 2014.
Dietary Quality and Tree Cover in Africa. Global Environmental
Change 24: 287294. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.
com/science/article/pii/S0959378013002318 [Accessed on 15
February 2015].
IEA, 2004. Energy and Development. In: World Energy Outlook.
Paris: International Energy Agency, OECD.
IFPRI, 2014. Global Nutrition Report. Actions and Accountability
to Accelerate the Worlds Progress on Nutrition. Washington
DC: IFPRI.
Jamnadass, R.H., Dawson, I.K., Franzel, S., Leakey, R.R.B.,
Mithfer, D., Akinnifesi, F.K. and 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
Forestry Review 13: 338354.
Johnston, K.B., Jacob, A. and 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): 237248.
Larson, A.M., Barry, D., Dahal, G.R. and Colfer, C.P. (eds.), 2010.
Forests for People: community rights and forest tenure reform.
London: Earthscan.
MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment), 2005. Ecosystems and
human well-being: synthesis. Washington DC: Island Press.
Mace, G., 2014. Whose Conservation? Science 345 (6204): 15581560.
Modi, V., McDade, S., Lallement, D. and Saghir, J., 2005. Energy
Services for the Millennium Development Goals. Washington,
DC: UNDP, World Bank, ESMAP.
Sen, A., 1983. Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and

Deprivation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockstrm, J., Cornell, S.E., Fetzer,
I., Bennett, E.M., Biggs, R., Carpenter, S.R., de Vries, W.,
de Wit, C.A., Folke, C., Gerten, D., Heinke, J., Mace, G.M.,
Persson, L.M., Ramanathan, V., Reyers, B. and Srlin, S.,
2015. Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a
changing planet. Science Published online 15 January 2015.
Struik, P.C. and Kuyper, T.W. (eds.), 2014. Sustainable
intensification to feed the world: concepts, technologies and
trade-offs. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability.
Special Issue (Volume 8).
UN, 2014. World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision Highlights. New York: Department of Economic and Social
Affairs, Population Division, United Nations.
Vanlauwe, B., Coyne, D., Gockowski, J., Hauser, S., Huising, J.,
Masso, C., Nziguheba, G. Schut, M. and Van Asten, P., 2014.
Sustainable intensification and the African smallholder farmer.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 8: 15-22.
Van Noordwijk, M., Bizard, V., Wangpakapattanawong, P., Tata,
H.L., Villamor, G.B. and Leimona, B., 2014. Tree cover
transitions and food security in Southeast Asia. Global Food
Security 3 (3-4): 200-208.
Von Grebmer, K., Saltzman, A., Birol, E., Wiesmann, D., Prasai,
N. Yin, S., Yohannes, Y., Menon, P., Thompson, J. and Sonntag,
A., 2014. 2014 Gobal Hunger Index: The Challenge of Hidden
Hunger. Bonn, Washington, D.c., and Dublin: Welthungerhilfe,
International Food Policy Research Institute, and Concern
Worldwide. http://www.ifpri.org/publication/2014-globalhunger-index [Accessed on 15 February 2015]
Vinceti, B., Ickowitz, A., Powell, P., Kehlenbeck, K., Termote, C.,
Cogill, B. and Hunter, D., 2013. The contributions of forest
foods to sustainable diets. Unasylva 64(241): 54-64.
World Bank, 2002. A revised forest strategy for the World Bank
Group. Washington DC: World Bank.
Nevins, J. and Peluso, N. L., 2008. Introduction: commoditization

in Southeast Asia. In: Taking Southeast Asia to market, edited
by J. Nevins and N.L. Peluso. Ithaca: Cornell University Press,
1-24.
Oldeman, L.R., Hakkeling, R.T.A. and Sombroek, W.G. 1991.
World map of the status of human-induced soil degradation,
(2nd edn). Wageningen: ISRIC.
Patel, R., 2009. Grassroots Voices: food sovereignty. Journal of
Peasant Studies 36(3): 663706.
Pinstrup-Andersen, P., 2009. Food Security: definition and
measurement. Food Security 1(1): 5-7.
Pretty, J., Toulmin, C. and Williams, S., 2011. Sustainable
intensification in African agriculture. International Journal of
Agricultural Sustainability. 9(1): 524.
Ribot, J. C., Agrawal, A. and Larson, A. M., 2006. Recentralizing
while decentralizing: How national governments reappropriate
forest resources. World Development 34(11): 1864-1886.
Roberts, L., 2011. 9 Billion? Science 333(6042): 540-543.
Rockstrm, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, ., Chapin,
F.S.III, Lambin, E.F., Lenton, T.M., Scheffer, M., Folke, C.,
Schellnhuber, H.J., Nykvist, B., de Wit, C.A., Hughes, T., van
der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., Srlin, S., Snyder, P.K., Costanza,
R., Svedin, U., Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L., Corell, R.W.,
Fabry, V.J., Hansen, J., Walker, B., Liverman, D., Richardson,
K., Crutzen, P. and Foley, J.A., 2009. A safe operating space for
humanity. Nature 461: 472-475.
RRI, 2014. What future for reform? Progress and slowdown in
forest tenure reform since 2002. Washington DC: Rights and
Resource Initiative. Available at: http://www.rightsandresources.
org/ [Accessed on 15 February 2015].
24
Chapter 2
Understanding the Roles of Forests and
Tree-based Systems in Food Provision
Coordinating lead authors: Ramni Jamnadass and Stepha McMullin
Lead authors: Miyuki Iiyama and Ian K. Dawson
Contributing authors: Bronwen Powell, Celine Termote, Amy Ickowitz, Katja Kehlenbeck,
Barbara Vinceti, Nathalie van Vliet, Gudrun Keding, Barbara Stadlmayr, Patrick Van
Damme, Sammy Carsan, Terry Sunderland, Mary Njenga, Amos Gyau, Paolo Cerutti,
Jolien Schure, Christophe Kouame, Beatrice Darko Obiri, Daniel Ofori,
Bina Agarwal, Henry Neufeldt, Ann Degrande and Anca Serban
CONTENTS
Abstract26
2.1 Introduction
26
2.2 Food Security and Nutrition
27
2.3 The Direct Roles of Forests and Tree-based Systems
29
2.3.1 Foods Provided by Forests and Tree-based Systems
29
2.3.2 Dietary Choices, Access to Resources and Behavioural Change
33
2.4 The Indirect Roles of Forests and Tree-based Systems
34
2.4.1 Income and other Livelihood Opportunities
34
2.4.2 Provision of Ecosystem Services
38
2.5 Conclusions
40
References42
25
2 UNDERSTANDING THE ROLES OF FORESTS AND TREE-BASED SYSTEMS IN FOOD PROVISION
Abstract: Forests and other tree-based systems such as agroforestry contribute to food and nutritional
security in myriad ways. Directly, trees provide a variety of healthy foods including fruits, leafy vegetables,
nuts, seeds and edible oils that can diversify diets and address seasonal food and nutritional gaps. Forests
are also sources of a wider range of edible plants and fungi, as well as bushmeat, fish and insects. Treebased systems also support the provision of fodder for meat and dairy animals, of green fertiliser to
support crop production and of woodfuel, crucial in many communities for cooking food. Indirectly, forests and tree-based systems are a source of income to support communities to purchase foods and they
also provide environmental services that support crop production. There are, however, complexities
in quantifying the relative benefits and costs of tree-based systems in food provision. These complexities mean that the roles of tree-based systems are often not well understood. A greater understanding
focuses on systematic methods for characterising effects across different landscapes and on key indicators, such as dietary diversity measures. This chapter provides a number of case studies to highlight the
relevance of forests and tree-based systems for food security and nutrition, and indicates where there is
a need to further quantify the roles of these systems, allowing proper integration of their contribution
into national and international developmental policies.
2.1 Introduction
The role played by forests1 and trees in the lives of
many people appears obvious through the many uses
made of tree products, including foods, medicines,
fodder, fibres and fuels, and for construction, fencing
and furniture (FAO, 2010). Indeed, forests and other
tree-based production systems such as agroforests have
been estimated to contribute to the livelihoods of more
than 1.6 billion people worldwide (World Bank, 2008),
but just how they contribute and the varying levels of
dependency of different communities on tree products
and services and how these change over time has often not been well defined (Byron and Arnold, 1997).
Complications arise for reasons that include the vast
diversity and ubiquity of products and services these
systems can supply, complexities of tenure, land-usechange dynamics, and the different routes by which
products reach subsistence users and other consumers (FAO, 2010). At least until recently, this has been
compounded by the inadequate attention that has been
given to the characterisation of these systems, and the
benefits and costs that are associated with them among
different portions of the community (Dawson et al.,
2014b; Turner et al., 2012).
Complexities in quantification and a general lack
of proper appreciation of relative benefits help explain
why the positive roles and limitations of tree-based
production systems in supporting local peoples livelihoods have frequently been neglected by policymakers,
and why rural development interventions concerned
with managing forests and tree-based systems have
sometimes been poorly targeted (Belcher et al., 2005;
Belcher and Schreckenberg, 2007; World Bank, 2008).
The vast diversity of forest products available includes
not only those derived from trees, but a wide range of
(often) less visible products from other plants, fungi,
animals and insects. Natural forests, agroforests and
other tree-based production systems not only provide
26
such direct products, but contribute indirectly to

support peoples livelihoods through the provision of
a wide range of ecosystem services (FAO, 2010 and
Figure 2.1).
In this chapter, we are concerned with describing
the direct and indirect roles of forests and tree-based
production systems (such as those based on commodity tree crops) in supporting the food and nutritional
security of human communities. Our emphasis is on
the tropics, where this role is often the greatest and
where development interventions have been widely targeted in this regard (FAO, 2010). With the world food
price spikes of the last decade, the political unrest
and suffering caused by the lack of an adequate diet
for many people, and the recognition of the threats of
anthropogenic climate change and other global challenges to agricultural production, the importance of
both food and nutritional security, and the roles of forests and farms in securing them, have come to the forefront politically (FAO, 2013c; Box 2.1). As a result,
a greater understanding of how forests and tree-based
production systems support food security and nutrition, both directly and indirectly is needed (Jamnadass
et al., 2013; Padoch and Sunderland, 2013; Powell et
al., 2013; Vinceti et al., 2013).
In the following sections of this chapter, we first
introduce key concepts related to food security and
nutrition. Both the direct and indirect roles of forests
and tree-based production systems in food provision
(depicted in Figure 2.1), including threats to these roles,
and gender aspects that determine value and usage, are
then discussed. Although our emphasis is primarily on
tree products and services because of their high importance and to illustrate the concepts involved, we also
consider other, mostly forest, products. In the concluding section, we provide indications where further work
is required to optimise the use of forests and tree-based
production systems to support food and nutritional
security.
2.2 Food Security and Nutrition

Food security exists when communities have physical
and economic access to sufficient safe and nutritious
food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for a healthy and active life (Pinstrup-Andersen,
2009). Well-nourished individuals are healthier, can
work harder and have greater physical reserves, with
households that are food- and nutrition-secure being
better able to withstand and recover from external
shocks. Despite advances in agricultural production
globally, approximately one billion people are still
chronically hungry, two billion people regularly experience periods of food insecurity and just over a third
of humans are affected by micronutrient deficiencies
(FAO et al., 2012; UN-SCN, 2010; Webb Girard et al.,
2012). Most of the countries with alarming Global
Hunger Index scores are in sub-Saharan Africa and this
region therefore is a particular target for intervention
(von Grebmer et al., 2014).
While rates of hunger (insufficient access to energy)
have been falling in many parts of the world, there has
been little change in the rates of micronutrient deficiencies (FAO et al., 2013). In particular, deficiencies
of iron, vitamin A, iodine and zinc, are associated with
poor growth and cognitive development in children,
and increased mortality and morbidity in both adults
and children (Black et al., 2013). Micronutrient deficiencies are often referred to as hidden hunger, as
they can occur within the context of adequate energy
intake, and can be overlooked using traditional measures of food security (FAO et al., 2012). Malnutrition,
including under-nutrition, micronutrient deficiency
and over-nutrition (obesity and over-weight, with the
concomitant cardiovascular and chronic respiratory
diseases, and diabetes) are key developmental challenges. Rates of obesity are increasing in virtually all
regions of the world, affecting 1.4 billion adults globally (FAO et al., 2012) and obesity can no longer be
viewed only as a disease of affluence. The burden of
double (over- and under-) nutrition on the well-being
of people in low-income nations is immense. As such,
there have been calls for greater attention to nutritionsensitive agriculture and food systems (Herforth and
Dufour, 2013).
There has been growing recognition in the nutrition
community that dietary behaviour is shaped by a broad
range of psychological, cultural, economic and environmental factors (Fischler, 1988; Khare, 1980; Kuhnlein and Receveur, 1996; Sobal et al., 2014). This complexity indicates that to address food and nutritional
security a multi-dimensional response is required
(Bryce et al., 2008). Such a response must consider the
production of sufficient food as well as its availability,
affordability and utilisation, and the resilience of its
production, among other factors (Ecker et al., 2011;
FAO 2009). Nutrition-sensitive approaches across disciplines, including health, education, agriculture and
the environment, are needed (Bhutta et al., 2013; Pinstrup-Andersen, 2013; Ruel and Alderman, 2013).
On the production side, nutritionists agree on the

importance of bio-fortification of staple crops through
breeding, as well as on the need for greater use of a
more biodiverse range of nutritionally-higher-quality
plants for more varied diets (i.e., not just enough food,
but the right food), rather than just relying on a few
Green Revolution staples (Keatinge et al., 2010).
This diversity of plants can include locally-available
and often little-researched species, including forest or
once-forest taxa (Burlingame and Dernini, 2012; Frison, et al., 2011; Jamnadass et al., 2011; see Box 2.1.).
Many nutritionists now accept evidence of changes
in intake of certain nutritious foods and a more diverse
diet (dietary diversity being defined as the number of
different foods or food groups consumed over a given
reference period (Ruel, 2003)) as enough to determine
impacts on nutrition and health, since the links between dietary diversity and energy and micronutrient
adequacy, and child growth, are now well established
(Arimond et al., 2010; Johns and Eyzaguirre, 2006;
Kennedy et al., 2007; Kennedy et al., 2011; Ogle et al.,
2001). Dietary diversity of individuals or households
is thus recommended as a reliable indicator to assess
if nutrition is adequate, and it is a useful measure of
impact following project interventions.
Fruit and vegetable consumption

in sub-Saharan Africa
Box
2.1
A good example where changes to a healthier and

more diverse diet would be beneficial is illustrated
by figures on fruit and vegetable consumption in
sub-Saharan Africa, where consumption is on average
low with mean daily intake, respectively, of between
36 g and 123 g in surveyed East African countries; 70
g and 130 g in Southern Africa; and 90 g and 110 g in
West and Central Africa (Lock et al., 2005; Ruel et
al., 2005). These figures add up to considerably less
than the international recommendation of 400 g in
total per day to reduce micronutrient deficiencies
and chronic disease (Boeing et al., 2012; FAO, 2012;
WHO, 2004; see also Siegel et al., 2014). In response,
initiatives are underway to bring wild foods in
Africa into cultivation (e.g., see Jamnadass et al.,
2011 for the case of fruit trees) and such approaches
are receiving increased attention globally (CGIAR,
2014). This is exemplified by a recent State of Food
and Agriculture report by the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO), titled Food
Systems for Better Nutrition, which states that greater
efforts must be directed towards interventions that
diversify smallholder production such as integrated
farming systems, including fisheries and forestry
(FAO, 2013c). Similarly, the World Health Organization (WHO) has recently agreed on criteria for a
healthy diet that include: balanced energy intake and
expenditure; the consumption of fruits, vegetables,
legumes, nuts and whole grains; and the low intake of
free sugars, fats and salt (WHO, 2014).
27
A framework depicting the direct and indirect roles of forests and tree-based
production systems in food provision. Components indicated in this framework are
addressed in this chapter
Figure
2.1
Managed forests
Agroforestry
DIRECT ROLES
INDIRECT ROLES
Dietary diversity,
quality & quantity
Tree products for

income generation
Food provisioning:
Fruits, vegetables, nuts, mushrooms,
fodder and forage, animal source
foods (bushmeat, fish, insects)
Tree crops, wood products,

other NTFPs and AFTPs
Livelihood safety nets
Provision of genetic resources,

pollination, microclimatic regulation, habitat provisioning, water
provisioning (quality and quantity),
soil formation, erosion control,
nutrient cycling, pest regulation
Ecosystem services
Food in times of seasonal and other

scarcities, nutritional composition,
wood fuel for cooking
THE FOOD SYSTEM
Access
Health &
Disease
Stability &
Seasonality
Food
Security &
Nutrition
Dietary
choice & Use
Availability
Sustainability
28
Single species tree

crop production
2.3 The Direct Roles of Forests and

Tree-based Systems
under five and tree cover in their communities. While the

communities globally that depend completely on forest
foods for their diets are relatively modest in number and size
(Colfer, 2008), the above African examples illustrate that
forest foods often play an important role as nutritious supplements in otherwise monotonous diets (Grivetti and Ogle,
2000). Since the productivity of trees is often more resilient to adverse weather conditions than that of annual crops,
forest foods often provide a safety net during periods of
other food shortages caused by crop failure, as well as making important contributions during seasonal crop production gaps (Blackie et al., 2014; Keller et al., 2006; Shackleton and Shackleton, 2004). Since different tree foods in
the landscape have different fruiting phenologies (as well
as different timings for the production of other edible products), particular nutrients such as vitamins can often be
made available year-round (Figure 2.2), by switching from
harvesting one species (or even variety) to another over the
seasons (the portfolio approach; Jamnadass et al., 2011).
2.3.1 Foods Provided by Forests and

Tree-based Systems
Access to forests and tree-based systems has been associated with increased fruit and vegetable consumption and
increased dietary diversity. Powell et al. (2011), for example, found that in the East Usambara Mountains of Tanzania, children and mothers in households who ate more foods
from forests, and who had more tree cover close to their
homes, had more diverse diets. In another African example,
Johnson et al. (2013) found that children in Malawi who
lived in communities that experienced deforestation had
less diverse diets than children in communities where there
was no deforestation. Using data from 21 countries across
Africa, Ickowitz et al. (2014) found a statistically significant
positive association between the dietary diversity of children
Figure
2.2
Fruit tree portfolio for year-round vitamin C and A supply

% of food-insecure HHs
100 %
HUNGER SEASON
80 %
60 %
40 %
20 %
0%
English name
Species name
Vit C
Vit A
Pawpaw
Carica papaya
+++
Mango
Mangifera indica
+++
Banana
Musa x paradisiaca
Loquat
Eriobotrya japonica
Mulberry
Morus alba
Tamarind
Tamarindus indica
Waterberry
Syzygium spp.
Custard apple
Annona reticulata
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct Nov Dez
+++
+++
Guava
Psidium guajava
+++
White sapote
Casimiroa edulis
Wild medlar
Vangueria madagascariensis
Lemon
Citrus limon
Orange
Citrus sinensis
Chocolate berry
Vitex payos
Avocado
Persea americana
Passionfruit
Passiflora edulis
Jacket plum
Pappea capensis
Desert date
Balanites aegyptiaca
Bush plum
Carissa edulis
Available vitamin C and A-rich fruit species
+++
Harvest time of vitamin C- and provitamin A-rich fruits (species given in red type)
Harvest time of vitamin C- and provitamin A-poor fruits (species given in black type)
Vitamin content levels:

+++ = very high
+ = intermediate
= moderate
Food security levels of smallholders households and the harvest periods for the most important exotic and indigenous (in italics) fruits, for 300 households in Machakos County, Eastern Kenya. Fruit harvest periods are according
to household respondents and the given ratings of vitamin C and provitamin A (a precursor of vitamin A) content
are according to chemical analysis (several sources, including Tanzania Food Composition Tables and the USDA
National Nutrient Database) Source: Katja Kehlenbeck (personal, previously unpublished observations).
29
Human foods from trees

Globally, it is estimated that 50 percent of all fruit consumed by humans originate from trees (Powell et al.,
2013), most of which come from cultivated sources.
Many of these planted trees still have wild or semiwild stands in native forest that are also harvested and
which form important genetic resources for the improvement of planted stock (Dawson et al., 2014b). Although
apparently wild, some forest fruit tree species have undergone a degree of domestication to support more efficient production (see for example Box 2.2), by increasing yields and quality, and by clumping trees together
in forests to increase their density at particular sites and
thus ease their harvesting. The classic case is in the Amazon, where ancient harvesting, managed regeneration and
cultivation have led to genetic changes and high density
aggregations, for example close to ancient anthropogenic
dark earth soils (Clement and Junqueira, 2010) of several food tree species such as peach palm (Bactris gasipaes)
and Brazil nut (Bertholletia excelsa) (Clement, 1989;
Clement, 1999; Shepard and Ramirez, 2011).
The case of allanblackia:

integrating markets and cultivation to support the sustainable
development of a new tree commodity crop
Box
2.2
The seed of allanblackia (Allanblackia spp.), found wild

in the humid forests of Central, East and West Africa,
yields edible oil with a significant potential in the global
food market, especially as a hardstock for the production of healthy spreads that are low in trans-fats.
The tree is being brought into cultivation by improving seed handling and developing vegetative propagation methods, and through the selection of markedly
superior genotypes. Tens of thousands of seedlings and
clones have so far been distributed to smallholders.
The development of an allanblackia market has potential to improve smallholders livelihoods and support
global health. A privatepublic partnership known as
Novella Africa is developing a sustainable allanblackia
oil business that could be worth USD hundreds of
millions annually for local farmers. The partnership allows different stakeholders with different interests and
organisational capacities to work together.
A supply chain for seed has been established based on
harvesting by local communities in natural forests and
from trees remaining in farmland after forest clearance.
The integration of allanblackia into small-scale cocoa
farms is being promoted in West Africa to support
more biodiverse and resilient agricultural landscapes.
As allanblackia trees grow, cocoa trees provide the
shade they need; when they are grown, they in turn
will act as shade for cocoa. Cocoa and allanblackia
provide harvests at different times of the year and
when the allanblackia trees have matured will spread
farmers incomes.
30
Adapted from Jamnadass et al. (2010, 2014).
Traditional agroforestry systems often harbour high

biodiversity and can deliver a wide array of tree foods including fruits and leafy vegetables that are both cultivated
and are remnants of natural forest (Table 2.1). When established in agroforestry systems with shade trees, food diversity and sustainability of tree crop systems increase. In
Ethiopia, for example, the inclusion of fruit-bearing trees
as shade in coffee plantations provides farmers with access
to additional foods, such as mangoes, oranges, bananas and
avocados, as well as firewood and timber (Muleta, 2007).
A small number of tropical food trees is widely cultivated globally as commodity crops (e.g., cocoa [Theobroma cacao], coffee [Coffea spp.] and oil palm [Elaeis
guineensis]; Dawson et al., 2013; Dawson et al., 2014b)
in a variety of production systems, some of which harbour high levels of tree diversity, especially smallholdings (Table 2.1). Tree foods are often rich sources of vitamins, minerals, proteins, fats and other nutrients (FAO,
1992; Ho et al., 2012; Leakey, 1999), although for many
traditional and wild species such information is lacking
or not reliable. A recent literature review on selected African indigenous fruit trees conducted by Stadlmayr et al.
(2013), for example, clearly showed their high nutritional
value, but also highlighted the huge variability and low
quality of some of the data reported in the literature. Edible leaves of wild African trees such as baobab (Adansonia digitata) and tamarind (Tamarindus indica) are
high in calcium and are sources of protein and iron (Kehlenbeck and Jamnadass, 2014). Fruits from trees such
as mango (Mangifera indica, native to Asia, but widely
introduced through the tropics) are high in provitamin A,
but there is a huge variability of almost 12-fold among
different cultivars, as indicated by the colour of the fruit
pulp (Shaheen et al., 2013). A childs daily requirement
for vitamin A can thus be met by around 25 g of a deep
orange-fleshed mango variety, while 300 g of a yellowfleshed variety would be required. As another example,
the iron contents of dried seeds of the African locust bean
(Parkia biglobosa) and raw cashew nut (Anacardium occidentale) are comparable with, or even higher than, that
of chicken meat (FAO, 2012), although absorption of
non-haem iron from plant sources is lower than from animal sources. Iron absorption is enhanced by the intake of
vitamin C, which is found in high amounts in many tree
fruits (WHO/FAO, 2004). Consumption of only 10 to 20 g
of baobab fruit pulp (or a glass of its juice), for example,
covers a childs daily vitamin C requirement. Increasing
knowledge on the biochemical components of indigenous
tree species that are not widely used in agriculture internationally remains an important area of research (Slavin
and Lloyd, 2012; WHO/FAO, 2004).
Human foods from other (forest) sources

Bushmeat (wild meat), fish and insects can all be important food sources. Bushmeat is often the main source of
animal protein available to forest and forest-boundary
communities, serving as an important source of iron and
fat, and diversifying diets (Golden et al., 2011; Wilkie
et al., 2005). It plays a particularly important role in
diet where livestock husbandry is not a feasible option
Examples of tree-species-rich agroforests in Africa, Asia and Latin America, with information on
tree uses and with particular reference to possible human food use. These case studies indicate that dozens
and sometimes hundreds of tree species can be found in agroforestry landscapes in the tropics, with a wide
range of species contributing directly to food production (adapted from Dawson et al., 2014b)
Reference
Location
Tree diversity
Table
2.1
Tree uses
Das and Das

(2005)
Barak Valley,
Assam, India
87 tree species identified in agroforestry

home gardens
Farmers indicated a mean of 8 species used as edible fruit

per home garden, many of which were indigenous. Fruit
trees were more dominant in smaller gardens. ~ 5 species
per garden used for timber, 2 for woodfuel
Garen et al.
(2011)
Los Santos and

Rio Hato, Panama
99 tree species, 3/4

indigenous, utilised,
planted and/or protected on farmers land
~ 1/3 of species valued for human food. 27 mostly exotic

fruits mentioned as planted. ~ 1/3 of species each valued
for their wood or as living fences. > 60% of species were
assigned multiple uses
Kehlenbeck et al. Surrounding

(2011)
Mount Kenya,
Kenya
424 woody plant species, 306 indigenous,

revealed in farm plots
Farmers indicated many species used for food. 7 of the 10

most common exotic species were planted, mainly for edible fruits/nuts. The most common indigenous species were
used primarily for timber/firewood
Lengkeek et al.
(2003)
East of Mount
Kenya, Kenya
297 tree species, ~ 2/3

indigenous, revealed in
smallholder farms
Farmers indicated that > 20% of species yield fruits/nuts for

human consumption. The most common exotic was coffee,
then timber trees
Marjokorpi and
Ruokolainen
(2003)
Two areas of
West Kalimantan,
Indonesia
> 120 tree species

identified in forest
gardens, most species
not planted
Farmers indicated ~ 30% of species used for edible fruit,

latex and in other non-destructive ways, ~ 50% used for
timber and in other destructive ways. Seedlings of unused
trees removed around naturally-regenerating and intentionally-planted fruit/other useful trees
Philpott et al.
(2008)
Bukit Barisan
Selatan Park,
Lampung province, Sumatra,
Indonesia
92 and 90 trees species

identified in coffee farm
plots outside and inside
the park, respectively
> 50% of farmers grew a total of 17 other products in

addition to coffee, including spices, timber and, most commonly, indigenous and exotic fruits. Farmers planting outside
the park grew alternative tree products more often
Sambuichi
and Haridasan
(2007)
Southern Bahia,
Brazil
293 tree species, 97%

indigenous, revealed in
cacao plantation plots
in forest understory
Many indigenous trees used for food. Seedlings favoured for

retention during weeding were those providing edible fruit
or good wood. The most abundant exotics were
fruit species
Sonwa et al.
(2007)
Yaound,
Mbalmayo
and Ebolowa
sub-regions,
Cameroon
206 mostly indigenous

tree species revealed
in cacao agroforestry
plots
Farmers indicated 17% of tree species used primarily for

food, 2/3 of which were indigenous. 22% of tree species
primarily for timber, 8% for medicine. Excluding cacao, the 3
most common species (2 indigenous) were used for food.
Close to urban Yaound, the density of food trees was higher.
and where wild fish are not available (Brashares et al.,

2011; Elliott et al., 2002). The hunting of animals and
eating of bushmeat also play special roles in the cultural
and spiritual identity of indigenous peoples (Nasi et al.,
2008; Sirn, 2012). For example, more than 580 animal
species, distributed in 13 taxonomic categories, are used
in traditional medicine in the Amazon region (Alves and
Alves, 2011).
Consumption patterns for bushmeat can vary widely
(Chardonnet, 1996; Fargeot and Dieval, 2000; Wilkie et
al., 2005), but hunting has been estimated to provide 30
to 80 percent of the overall protein intake of rural households in parts of Central Africa and nearly 100 percent
of animal protein (Koppert et al., 1996). Numerous
studies in Latin America have shown the importance

of bushmeat (Iwamura et al., 2014; Peres, 2001; 2012;
Van Vliet et al., 2014; Zapata-Rios et al., 2009). In the
Amazon, for example, rural consumption is believed to
equal ~150,000 tonnes annually, equivalent to ~ 60 kg
per person (Nasi et al., 2011).
In China, increasing affluence in major consumer
markets has led to spiralling demand for many wild animals, a demand that is supported by improvements in
transport infrastructure. Pangolins and turtles used for
meat and in traditional Chinese medicine are the most
frequently encountered mammals seized from illegal
traders (TRAFFIC, 2008), with major markets also in
Singapore and Malaysia. Bushmeat sales can constitute
31
a significant source of revenue for rural communities,

particularly where trade is driven by increased consumption in urban areas (Milner-Gulland and Bennett, 2003).
Urban consumers may have a choice of several sources
of animal protein but opt for bushmeat for reasons of
preference or cost relative to alternatives (Wilkie et al.,
2005). Surveys of bushmeat markets are a useful way to
estimate the state of fauna and to infer the sustainability
of hunting activities (Fa et al., 2015).
The value of fish as a nutritious food is well established (Kawarazuka and Bn, 2011). In many tropical
forests, wild fish represent the main source of animal
protein in the diet, outweighing the importance of bushmeat (cf. daSilva and Begossi, 2009 for the Amazon;
Powell et al., 2010 for Laos; Wilkie et al., 2005 for Gabon). In the Rio Negro region of the Brazilian Amazon,
for example, 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. The importance of
insects as a source of food has recently regained attention (FAO, 2013b). Insects are a cheap, available source
of protein and fat, and to a lesser degree carbohydrate.
Some species are also considered good sources of vitamins and minerals (Dunkel, 1996; FAO, 2013b; Schabel,
2010). Many forests and agroforests are managed by local communities 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). The global importance
of insects as a food source is difficult to evaluate, as
statistics are mostly restricted to a few specific studies.
For example, a study of the Centre for Indigenous Peoples Nutrition and Environment and FAO evaluated the
nutritional and cultural importance of various traditional
food items of 12 indigenous communities from different
parts of the world, and found that leaf-eating and litterfeeding invertebrates provide many Amerindian groups
with important foods that can be collected year-round
(Kuhnlein et al., 2009).
Tree products that support human food

production and consumption
32
Trees provide animal fodder, enabling communities to

keep livestock that provide them with nutritionally important milk and meat. They also provide green manure
that replenishes soil fertility and supports annual crop
production, as well as woodfuel that provides energy
(Jamnadass et al., 2013). In the case of fodder production, for example, a recent initiative in East Africa involved more than 200,000 smallholder dairy farmers
growing mostly introduced fodder shrubs (especially
calliandra, Calliandra calothyrsus) as supplementary
feed for their animals (Franzel et al., 2014). The typical increase in milk yield achieved enabled smallholders to raise extra revenue from milk sales of more than
USD 100 per cow per year and allowed them to provide
more milk more efficiently to urban consumers (Place
et al., 2009). Such tree-and shrub-based practices for
Boy spear-fishing in riverine forest outside of Luang Prabang,

Laos.Photo Terry Sunderland
animal fodder production increase farmers resilience to

climate change (Dawson et al., 2014a). Many tree and
other forest products are also used in ethnoveterinary
treatments that support animal health and hence human
food production (Dharani et al., 2014).
In the case of soil fertility replenishment, an analysis
of more than 90 peer-reviewed studies found consistent
evidence of higher maize yields in Africa from planting nitrogen-fixing green fertilisers, including trees and
shrubs, to substitute for (or enhance) mineral fertiliser
application, although the level of response varied by soil
type and the particular management applied (Sileshi et
al., 2008). A recent project in Malawi, for example, encouraged more than 180,000 farmers to plant fertiliser
trees, leading to improvements in maize yields, more food
secure months per year and greater dietary diversity (CIE,
2011). As well as increasing average yields, the planting
of trees as green fertilisers in Southern Africa stabilised
crop production in drought years and during other extreme
weather events, and improved crop rain use efficiency
(Sileshi et al., 2011; Sileshi et al., 2012), contributing to
food security in the context of climate change in the region. Supporting the regeneration of natural vegetation
in agroforestry systems also provides significant benefits
for the production of staple crops, with farmer-managed
natural regeneration (FMNR) of faidherbia (Faidherbia
albida) and other leguminous trees in dryland agroforests (parklands) in semi-arid and sub-humid Africa being
a good example. Supported in Niger by a policy shift that
has awarded tree tenure to farmers, as well as by more
favourable wetter weather, since 1986 FMNR is reputed
to have led to the regreening of approximately 5 million
hectares (Sendzimir et al., 2011). Improvements in sorghum and millet yields, and higher dietary diversity and
household incomes, have resulted in some Sahelian locations (Place and Binam, 2013).
Traditional energy sources have received little attention in current energy debates, but firewood and charcoal are crucial for the survival and well-being of as
many as two billion people, enabling them to cook food
to make it safe for consumption and palatable, and to
release the energy within it (Owen et al., 2013; Wrangham, 2009). In sub-Saharan Africa, for example, where
perhaps 90 percent of the population relies on woodfuels
for cooking (GEF 2013; IEA, 2006), the use of charcoal as a cooking fuel is still increasing rapidly, with the
value of the charcoal industry there estimated at USD
8 billion in 2007 (World Bank, 2011). In Asia, even
better-off rural households have often been observed to
be highly dependent on woodfuels, as found by Narain
et al. (2005) for India, the Government of Nepal (GN,
2004) for Nepal, and Chaudhuri and Pfaff (2002) for Pakistan. With the volatile and often high price of modern energy sources, this situation is unlikely to change
for some time, a fact often neglected in policy discussions on energy futures in low-income nations, which
place unrealistic emphasis on more modern energy
sources, rather than attempting to make woodfuel production and use more efficient and sustainable (Iiyama
et al., 2014a; Schure et al., 2013). Access to cooking fuel
provides people with more flexibility in what they can
eat, including foods with better nutritional profiles that
require more energy to cook (Njenga et al., 2013). The
cultivation of woodlots allows the production of wood
that is less harmful when burnt (Tabuti et al., 2003),
has higher energy content and requires less time for
collection (freeing time for other activities; Thorlakson
and Neufeldt, 2012). This is particularly beneficial for
women, who do most of the woodfuel collection and the
cooking, and whose health suffers most from cookingsmoke-related diseases (Bailis et al., 2005). Previously
collected sources of fuel can then be used for other more
beneficial purposes that support food production (e.g.,
not cutting fruit trees for fuel; Brouwer et al., 1997;
Khlin et al., 2011; Wan et al., 2011).
2.3.2 Dietary Choices, Access to Resources

and Behavioural Change
Although trees and other forest plants can provide edible
fruit, nuts and leaves, etc. that are often good potential
sources of nutrients and are sometimes used in this regard (see examples earlier in this chapter), it does not
follow that they are used by humans for food. In this
sense, long lists of edible non-timber forest products
(NTFPs) (Bharucha and Pretty, 2010) can sometimes be
misleading, as the presence of wild food species in local forest and woodland landscapes does not necessarily
mean that these are consumed. Termote et al. (2012) illustrated this point with a survey around the city of Kisangani in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where
a wide variety of wild food plants were found, but few

contributed significantly to human diets, despite significant local dietary deficiencies. The real contribution of
these foods to diets therefore needs to be assessed by
measurements of intake (as noted in Section 2.2).
When there is availability but relatively low NTFPfood use in areas of dietary need, reasons can include the
high labour costs involved in collection and processing,
low yields, high phenotypic variability (with large proportions of non-preferred produce), and lack of knowledge in
the community. Regarding the last point, in eastern Niger
and northern Burkina Faso, for example, women prepare
protein-rich condiments from the seeds of wild prosopis
(Prosopis africana) and zanmn (Acacia macrostachya)
trees, respectively, but women in other parts of the Sahel
(where the same trees are found) are not aware of these
food values and do not harvest or manage woodlands for
them (Faye et al., 2011). Research suggests that knowledge on the use of such products is often higher among
indigenous peoples than among immigrant communities, with knowledge being lost due to social change and
modernisation (Kuhnlein et al., 2009; Moran, 1993).
Within communities, cultural perceptions on who should
eat particular foods, and when, are also important (Bale,
2013; Hladik et al., 1993; Keller et al., 2006; Lykke et al.,
2002). Differences arise between genders and age groups
with respect to specialised knowledge and preferences in
tree use (Daniggelis, 2003). This is illustrated by the different relative use values assigned to plant products by
different-aged respondents in the Yuracar and Trinitario
communities in the Bolivian Amazon, where older people
generally had more recall on uses for particular categories
of plant, but both young and old people assigned high use
values to food products (higher than respondents in their
mid-years; Thomas, 2008).
From the above discussion it is evident that the relationship between the availability of food and its consumption
is often complex, and simple surveys of absence/presence
are therefore not in themselves adequate for understanding diets (Webb and Kennedy, 2012). When collection
costs, low yields and high proportions of non-preferred
produce are factors inhibiting the use of wild sources, domestication to increase productivity, quality and access
can play an important role (Dawson et al., 2014b). This is
exemplified by improvements in the performance of wild
African fruit trees being brought into cultivation in participatory domestication programmes in the Central African
region (Jamnadass et al., 2011; Tchoundjeu et al., 2010).
The option of cultivation also helps address the complex
threats to the use of wild stands through a combination of
over-harvesting, deforestation, the conflicting use of resources and restricted (or uncontrolled) access to forests
(Dawson et al., 2013; FAO, 2010; Vinceti et al., 2013).
The conventional wisdom that cultivation will support
the maintenance of wild stands for conservation purposes
and provide sustainable access for wild harvesters (rather
than cultivators) is, however, not widely supported (Dawson et al., 2013).
When bringing trees from the wild into cultivation,
an important aspect is to increase yields: if indigenous
33
trees are perceived as relatively unproductive and can

only be produced inefficiently, agricultural landscapes
are likely to be dominated by staple crops, with agrobiodiversity (and hence, likely, dietary diversity) reduced (Sunderland, 2011). Since many tree species are
essentially undomesticated, large increases in yield and
quality are often available through selection, supporting
cultivation; for example, this is the case for allanblackia
(Allanblackia spp.), described further in Box 2.2 (Jamnadass et al., 2010). Lack of knowledge on appropriate tree
management, however, can be a major limitation (Jamnadass et al., 2011). Increases in efficiency are important
for markets, since price to the consumer is a significant
factor influencing diet (Glanz et al., 2005; Ruel et al.,
2005; Story et al., 2008). Where limited access to extant
forest foods is a major issue, approaches that support access such as the development of community-based forest
management plans can be beneficial (Schreckenberg and
Luttrell, 2009), but wider efforts are required to include
all significant stakeholders, and in particular women
(Agarwal, 2001; Mitra and Mishra, 2011).
Household decision-making regarding food use and
practice, mostly made by women, is influenced by levels
of knowledge on nutrition (FAO, 1997; Jamnadass et al.,
2011). Translating the harvest and cultivation of tree and
other forest foods into improved dietary intakes therefore
involves making nutrition education and behaviouralchange communication to women a high priority (McCullough et al., 2004). There is, for example, a need to understand how best to educate on the benefits of eating fruit,
how to prepare nutritious foods, and how to access them
(Hawkes, 2013; Jamnadass et al., 2011). Children can also
be effective agents of change in societies, so teaching them
about agriculture and nutrition is a wise investment (Sherman, 2003). In Kenya, for example, the Education for
Sustainable Development initiative included a Healthy
Learning programme targeted at school children that resulted in attitudinal and behavioural changes in communities (Vandenbosch et al., 2009). Counselling to change
feeding behaviours is important (Waswa et al., 2014), within the appropriate context of culture and knowledge (Bisseleua and Niang, 2013; Smith, 2013). The education of men
should also not be neglected, since they often have most
control over household incomes, and need to be aware of
the importance of diverse cropping systems and the spending of income on healthy foods (Fon and Edokat, 2012).
2.4 The Indirect Roles of Forests and

Tree-based Systems
2.4.1 Income and other Livelihood
Opportunities
Income from non-timber forest products
34
Local communities derive income from timber and

non-timber products in forests. In this subsection, the
focus is on the latter, although research in the countries
of the Congo Basin, as well as in Indonesia, Ecuador
and elsewhere, shows that there is a large and vibrant
and largely informal domestic timber sector that supports the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of local
forest users (Cerutti and Lescuyer, 2011; Lescuyer et al.,
2011). In many countries, however, laws for timber extraction were designed largely around large-scale exportoriented forestry operations rather than to sustain healthy
small-scale domestic markets, which can be criminalised,
generating large revenues in bribes for unscrupulous state
officials (Cerutti et al., 2013). There are in turn, some encouraging efforts to change forest and resource governance rules to favour strengthened local rights (Campese
et al., 2009).
In addition to providing food directly, a multitude of
NTFPs harvested from natural, incipiently- and/or semidomesticated forests and woodlands provide a range of
resources that are used by harvesters directly for other
purposes, or are sold for income that can be used to
purchase a variety of products, including food. The increased demand for forest products in low-income nations, prompted by population growth and urbanisation,
provides particular opportunities to enhance rural livelihoods (Arnold et al., 2006). Difficulties in adequately
quantifying NTFP value, however, include the multiplicity of products, informal trade and bartering that occur in
unmonitored local markets, direct household provisioning
without products entering markets at all, and the fact that
wild-harvested resources have been excluded from many
large-scale rural household surveys (Angelsen et al.,
2011; Shackleton et al., 2007; Shackleton et al., 2011).
The heterogeneity of challenges to harness the incomeand livelihood-generating opportunities from these tree
products include the diversity of markets and of market
structures of which they are part (Jamnadass et al., 2014).
Despite difficulties in quantification, some overall
estimates of value have been attempted. Pimentel et al.
(1997), for example, estimated very approximately that
USD 90 billion worth of food and other NTFPs were
harvested annually from forests and trees in developing
countries. FAOs latest (2010) Global Forest Resources Assessment (FRA) provided more recent estimates
(based on 2005 figures), with worldwide values given
of USD 19 billion and 17 billion annually for non-wood
forest product- and woodfuel-removals, respectively. The
data compiled for the FRA were, however, acknowledged
to be far from complete (one problem is that, when they
do report value for NTFPs, many countries only do so for
the top few species of commercial importance; FAO,
2010). A good illustration of the discrepancy between
current estimates of importance comes from comparing
the value of woodfuel reported for Africa (most woodfuel is harvested from naturally-regenerating rather than
planted sources in the continent) in the 2010 FRA (USD
1.4 billion annually) with the World Banks (2011) much
higher estimate of the value of the charcoal industry in
the sub-Saharan region (USD 8 billion annually; quoted
in Section 2.3; see also FAO, 2014). There is also some
confusion regarding the meaning of the term income
in estimates: some studies use it to mean the cash made
from selling products; perhaps more commonly, however, the term is used in the sense of the environmental
Carrying bushmeat in Vietnam.

Photo Terry Sunderland
income from the diversity of goods provided freely by

the environment, which includes the often higher value of
subsistence extraction (Angelsen et al., 2014).
In recent years, more appropriate and systematic methods have been used to quantify the value of such products, including by the Poverty Environment Network
(PEN), which compiled a comparative socio-economic
data set from 8,000 households in 24 low-income tropical nations, focusing on tropical forest use and poverty
alleviation (PEN, 2015; Wunder et al., 2014). The results
of PEN revealed that, for the surveyed communities, environmental income constituted 28 percent of total household income, around three-quarters of which came from
forests (with the highest proportion coming from forests
in Latin America; Angelsen et al., 2014). According to
the PEN analysis, across all sampled communities the
major products and their contributions to forest income
were woodfuel (firewood and charcoal, 35 percent), food
(30 percent) and structure/fibre products (25 percent).
There is variation between geographic regions in the importance of particular products to surveyed communities,
with foods for example, being more important from forest
sources in Latin America than in Africa, and the reverse
being true for woodfuel. The PEN data also indicated that
lower income classes were proportionally more dependent on NTFPs, partly because they have less access to
private resources, although better-off households earned
more in absolute terms (Angelsen et al., 2014; Wunder et
al., 2014).
A wide range of other studies have also indicated an
important role for NTFPs in supporting rural peoples
livelihoods (Table 2.2). NTFPs are a common safety net
for rural households in response to shocks and as gapfilling to seasonal shortfalls, and in some instances allow
asset accumulation and provide a pathway out of poverty (Angelsen and Wunder, 2003; Mulenga et al., 2012;
Shackleton and Shackleton, 2004). The involvement of
women, who have limited access to land and capital resources, in NTFP trade can have positive effects on intrahousehold equity (e.g., Kusters et al., 2006; Marshall et
al., 2006). However, connecting such data with food consumption through direct provisioning or through sales
that are used to support food purchase and dietary diversity is a different matter, and much less information is
available (Ahmed, 2013). Given that much of the collection of NTFPs is done by women and children, they suffer
more when access to resources is restricted or if resources
are depleted (Agarwal, 2013).
As noted above and as is evident from Table 2.2, woodfuel is an important NTFP in many locations, which allows the preparation of food (Section 2.3). In contrast to
subsistence firewood collection, traditionally handled by
women and children, charcoal production is mainly an activity undertaken by men (Ingram et al., 2014), although
the growing participation of women has been reported in
some locations, such as in Zambia and northern Tanzania (Butz, 2013; Gumbo et al., 2013). Who benefits most
from production depends on the specific context (Butz,
2013; Khundi et al., 2011; Schure et al., 2014; Zulu and
Richardson, 2013). Charcoal production provides a good
illustration of some of the dilemmas for intervention in
NTFP harvest and trade since it is often based on unsustainable practices that are sometimes illegal (Mwampamba et al., 2013). Its value chain is generally affected by a
complex and multi-layered regulatory context that is unclear for stakeholders (Iiyama et al., 2014b; Sepp, 2008).
Interventions have rarely been effective, with economic
rents accruing to the transport/wholesale stages of the
value chain, as well as in bribes to those engaged in the
illicit licence trade (Naughton-Treves et al., 2007). Partly
as a result, producer margins are often low (Mwampamba
et al., 2013).
Commercialising the wild harvest of NTFPs has been
widely promoted as a conservation measure, based on the
assumption that an increase in resource value is an incentive for collectors to manage forests and woodlands
more sustainably (FAO, 2010). Experience shows, however, that the concept of commercialisation and conservation proceeding in tandem is often illusory (Belcher and
Schreckenberg, 2007), as more beneficial livelihood outcomes are generally associated with more detrimental environmental outcomes (Kusters et al., 2006). The harvest
of fruit from the argan tree (Argania spinosa), endemic to
Morocco, is a good illustration of the dilemmas involved.
The oil extracted from the kernels of argan fruit is one of
the most expensive edible oils (as well as being used for
cosmetic purposes) in the world and development agencies have widely promoted a win-win scenario for rural
livelihoods and argan forest health based on further commercialisation (Lybbert et al., 2011). As Lybbert et al.,
showed, however, while the booming oil export market
has benefited the local economy, it has also contributed to
forest degradation. Thus, although the commercialisation
of NTFP harvesting can contribute to livelihoods, not too
much should be expected from it in terms of supporting
sustainability, even if measures to engage in cultivation
are taken (see Section 2.3; Dawson et al., 2013).
35
Case studies indicating the proportional contribution of non-timber forest products to household budgets. The examples given show that the scale of the contribution varies widely, depending on
context and wealth group, with often higher proportional contributions to poorer households
Reference
36
Location
Land use type
% household
income**
Table
2.2
Further information
Shackleton et
al. (2007)
South Africa
Natural forest
20
Appiah et al.
(2007)
Ghana
Natural forest
38
Kamanga et al.
(2009)
Malawi
Forest, farmland
15 (17 P, 7 W)
Woodfuel, fodder, etc.
Babulo et al.
(2009)
Northern Ethiopia
Natural forest
27
Woodfuel, farm implements, construction

materials, wild foods, medicines
Yemiru et al.
(2010)*
Southern Ethiopia
Forests (participatory (53 P, 23 W)

management)
FAO (2011)
Mozambique
Natural forest
30
Woodfuel, fruit, mushrooms, insects,

honey, medicines
FAO (2011)
Sahel
Parkland, savannah
woodland
80
Shea nut
Mulenga et al.
2011
Zambia
Natural forest
32
Woodfuel, wild honey, mushrooms,

ants, caterpillars
Heubach et al.
(2011)
Northern Benin
Natural forest
39
Adam and
Pretzsch
(2010)
Sudan
Savannah woodland
54
Ingram et al.
(2012)
Congo Basin
Natural forest
47
Pouliot (2012)
Burkina Faso
Parkland, forest
28
(43 P, 18 W)
Shea nut, woodfuel, locust bean pod,

baobab fruit and leaves, fodder,
thatching grass
Pouliot and
Treue (2013)*
Ghana, Burkina Faso
Grassland, bushland,
farmland, forest
Ghana
(45 P, 20 W);
Burkina Faso
(42 P, 17 W)
Woodfuel, wild foods, fodder,

construction materials, medicines
Bwalya (2013)
Zambia
Natural forest,
woodland
30
Honey, mushrooms, tubers, berries,

woodfuel, construction poles
Kar and
Jacobson
(2012)
Bangladesh
Forest-adjacent hilly
areas
(16 P, 9 W)
Bamboo, wild vegetables, broom grass
Vedeld et al.
(2004)
Review of 54 studies
in 17 countries
20, ~ half as
cash income
Woodfuel, wild foods, animal fodder, etc.
Ziziphus fruits
* Studies conducted under the Poverty Environment Network (PEN).

** Average for the sample, and/or (in parentheses) the range of contribution between poorer (P) and wealthier (W) groups. Values normally
expressed in terms of environmental income.
Income from cultivated tree crops

Examples from Africa of widely-traded agroforestry
tree foods that support farmers incomes and consumers
choices include the indigenous semi-domesticated and
widely cultivated fruit safou (Dacryodes edulis, Schreckenberg et al., 2006), the indigenous incipient domesticated njansang (Ricinodendron heudelotii, Ndoye et al.,
1998) and exotic mango. New domestic markets for fruit
are developing in Africa as a result of recent investments
by Coca Cola, Del Monte and others to source produce
locally for juice manufacture, and also to meet growing
demand from population growth and increased urbanisation (Ferris et al., 2014). Worldwide, products supplied
from tree-crop systems are fundamental raw materials underpinning the development of small scale to multibillion
dollar industries. Coffee and cocoa are the most demanded tree crop commodities, particularly in the developed
world, by beverage- and confectionery-producing giants
such as Mars Inc., Nestl and Cadbury, among others.
Women have particular opportunities to earn income
from fruit and vegetable production because of their traditional involvement in harvesting and processing (Kiptot
and Franzel, 2011), thereby supporting the expenditure of a
greater proportion of the family income on food, although
men may co-opt tree-based enterprises when they become more profitable (Jamnadass et al., 2011). Women are
also more likely to grow a wider range of trees in the farm
plots they control, including food trees (FAO, 1999).
There are still glaring gaps in the knowledge and efforts to realise the full potential of indigenous food trees,
specifically in terms of production and trade status, and
in the operation of value chains (Jamnadass et al., 2011).
Big challenges to market engagement are the perishability of many fruits, combined with the geographic distance
to larger market centres and the lack of suitable infrastructure, lack of market information, and value chains
biased against small producers (Gyau et al., 2012). In
addition to foods, the production of timber and other
agroforestry tree products (AFTPs) for markets also provide incomes for food purchase. The high commercial
value of timber planting in smallholdings pan-tropically
is confirmed by the partial economic data available for
the sector (e.g., for teak [Tectona grandis] in Indonesia
see Roshetko et al., 2013; for acacia in Vietnam [Acacia
mangium and A. auriculiformis] see Fisher and Gordon,
2007; Harwood and Nambiar, 2014). Many trees are also
cultivated to provide medicines from bark, leaves, roots,
etc., which are sold to support incomes and are used for
self-treatment, supporting the health of communities
along with the provision of healthy foods (Muriuki et al.,
2012); however markets remain largely informal (McMullin et al., 2012; McMullin et al., 2014).
Market data recorded for agroforestry tree products are
relatively sparse, but information on export value globally is quantified for major tree commodity crops such as
palm oil, coffee, rubber (from Hevea brasiliensis), cocoa
and tea (primarily from Camellia sinensis). Each of these
crops is grown to a significant extent by smallholders, as
illustrated in Indonesia where, in 2011, small farms were
estimated to contribute 42 percent, 96 percent, 85 percent,
Moabi seeds contain highly valuable oil which is used for

cooking, traditional healing and cosmetics.
94 percent and 46 percent of the countrys total production

area for palm oil, coffee, rubber, cocoa and tea, respectively (GI, 2015). Unlike Indonesia, many countries do not
formally differentiate between smallholder and larger-scale
plantation production, but more than 67 percent of coffee
produced worldwide is estimated to be from smallholdings (ICO, 2015), while the figure is 90 percent for cocoa
(ICCO, 2015). Although in the 20th century there was a
general transition from plantations to smallholder production for a number of tree crops, in some regions this may
now be being reversed (Byerlee, 2014).
Taken together, the current annual export value of
the above five tree commodity crops is tens of billions
of USD, while other cultivated tree crops (such as avocados, cashews, coconuts, mangoes and papayas) also provide additional valuable contributions (Figure 2.3; FAO,
2015). Total production of these crops and their export
value have grown in recent decades, with FAOSTAT data
showing that export values have increased at a rate roughly four times faster than that of production. Less clear is
the proportion of the export value that accrues to smallholder producers, but often production constitutes a considerable proportion of farm takings. It is estimated that
cocoa accounts for 80 percent of smallholders incomes
in Bolivia, while in Ghana it provides livelihoods for over
700,000 farmers (Kolavalli and Vigneri, 2011).
There is a danger that the planting of some tree commodities will result in the conversion of natural forest
which contains important local foods to agricultural
land, and a risk that food crops will be displaced from
farmland in a trend towards the growing of monocultures
(e.g., oil palm, the cultivation of which has led to the
wide-scale loss of forest and agrobiodiversity; Danielsen
et al., 2009). Although it has often been suggested that
intensive monocultures raise productivity and therefore
reduce the amount of forested land that needs to be cut
for crop cultivation (leaving forest food sources intact),
there are few quantitative data to support the notion that
land sparing is more effective than land sharing as a
conservation strategy (Balmford et al., 2012; Tscharntke
et al., 2012; see discussion in Chapter 5).
There is an important opportunity to diversify risks
associated with the reliance on a few cash tree crops into
other tree crops whose domestic production and export
37
Global export values of a range of tree commodity crops over

a twenty year period, 1991 to 2010
Figure
2.3
Data were extracted from FAO (2015) and are combined figures for all nations providing information. Data for mangoes,
mangosteens and guava are reported together. Given values include re-exports (i.e., import into one nation followed by
export to another). Some commodities, such as coffee, cocoa and coconut, are exported in more than one form and
total export values are therefore higher than those shown here (for each of these crops only the most important form
by export value is given). The graph shows that there was a significant increase in export value for crops during the decade leading up to 2010, but that value was volatile. The most notable feature over the period was a sharp rise in palm oil
export value. Note that local trade can also be significant for many of these products
38
markets are growing steadily and rapidly, while also

meeting food security and nutritional needs of the growing population. For example, currently, the global supply of fruits and vegetables falls, on average, 22 percent
short of population need according to nutrition recommendations, while low income countries fall on average
58 percent short of need (Siegel et al., 2014). Although
tree crop cultivation provides opportunities for farmers to diversify and minimise risk, especially for products that can be consumed by the family as well as sold
(Jamnadass et al., 2011), buying food using the income
received from a single commodity cash crop can lead
to food insecurity for individual farm households when
payments are one-off, delayed or volatile in value. Similarly, individual countries can become too dependent on
one or a few commodities, with significant fluctuations
in GDP, dependent on unpredictable world prices (Jamnadass et al., 2014). Monocultures of tree commodities also reduce resilience to shocks such as drought,
flood and, often (although not always), the outbreak of
pests and diseases. As a result, tree commodity crops
are sometimes viewed sceptically within agricultural
production-based strategies to improve nutrition (FAO,
2013a). For farmers who have too little land to cultivate

enough food to directly meet their needs, however, income from tree commodity crops may be the only way
to obtain sufficient food (Arnold, 1990).
2.4.2 Provision of Ecosystem Services

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA, 2005) provided a comprehensive overview of ecosystem services
and much literature has been written on the subject. Here
we provide a brief overview of key ecosystem services
from forests and tree-based systems, and their roles in
food security and nutrition.
Forests, agroforests and to a certain extent plantations, provide important ecosystem services including:
soil, spring, stream and watershed protection; microclimate
regulation; biodiversity conservation; and pollination, all
of which ultimately affect food and nutritional security
(Garrity, 2004; Zhang et al., 2007). Multiple ecosystem
service scan generally be fund in any single forest fragment
(see Box 2.3). Forest users and farmers can be encouraged
to preserve and reinforce these functions by payments for
ecosystem services (PES), but more important in determining their behaviour is the direct products and services
they receive from trees (Roshetko et al., 2007). Neglect of
this fact by PES schemes has led to sub-optimal results
(Roshetko et al., 2015). Opportunities for ecological intensification (see Chapter 5) and for the better provision of environmental services to support food security vary by stage
of the forest-tree landscape continuum (van Noordwijk et
al., 2014 and see Chapter 3).
Forests, woodlands and trees elsewhere in landscapes
play a vital role in controlling water flows, and preventing soil erosion and nutrient leaching, all of which are
critical functions for food production systems (Bruinsma,
2003). At the same time, green manures in agroforestry
systems maintain and enhance soil fertility, supporting
crop yields when external fertiliser inputs are not available or are unaffordable (see Section 2.3; Garrity et al.,
2010; Sanchez, 2002). Nitrogen-fixing trees have in particular received considerable attention for their ability to
cycle atmospheric nitrogen in cropping systems (Sileshi
et al., 2008; Sileshi et al., 2011; Sileshi et al., 2012). Microclimate regulation by trees in agroforestry systems,
such as through the provision of a canopy that protects
crops from direct exposure to the sun (reducing evapotranspiration), from extreme rainfall events and from high
temperatures, can also promote more resilient and productive food-cropping systems (Pramova et al., 2012). In
Sahelian zones with long dry seasons, for example, trees
provide an environment for the cultivation of nutritious
leafy vegetables and pulses (Sendzimir et al., 2011).
Forest fragments modulate

ecosystem services
Box
2.3
Mitchell et al. (2014) provide empirical evidence that

forest fragments influence the provision of multiple
ecosystem service indicators in adjacent agricultural fields. Their study looked simultaneously at six
ecosystem services (crop production, pest regulation,
decomposition, carbon storage, soil fertility and water quality regulation) in soya bean fields at different
distances from adjacent forest fragments that differed
in isolation and size across an agricultural landscape
in Quebec, Canada. The study showed significant effects of distance-from-forest, fragment isolation and
fragment size on crop production, insect pest regulation, and decomposition. Distance-from-forest and
fragment isolation had unique influences on service
provision for each of the ecosystem services measured. For example, pest regulation was maximised adjacent to forest fragments (within 100 m), while crop
production was maximised at intermediate distances
from forest (150 m to 300 m). As a consequence,
landscape multifunctionality depended on landscape
heterogeneity: the range of field and forest fragment types present. The study also observed strong
negative and positive relationships between ecosystem services that were more prevalent at greater
distances from forest.
Forests, and frequently agroforests, are centres of plant

and animal biodiversity, protecting species and the genetic
variation that is found with them, which may be essential for
future human food security (Dawson et al., 2013). As already
noted in Section 2.3, as well as being sources of existing
and new foods, many already cultivated tree species have
their centres of genetic diversity within forests, and these resources may be crucial for future crop improvement. A good
example is coffee, an important beverage globally, which is
found wild in Ethiopian montane forests. These forests are
under significant threat from agricultural expansion (Labouisse et al., 2008) and climate change (Davis et al., 2012).
Economic option value analysis of wild coffee stands for
breeding purposes to increase yields, improve disease resistances and for a lower caffeine content in the cultivated
crop shows just how important it is to implement more
effective conservation strategies for Ethiopian forests (Hein
and Gatzweiler, 2006; Reichhuber and Requate, 2007).
Pollination is one of the most studied ecosystem services,
with perhaps the most comprehensive reviews of animal pollination and how it underpins global food production being
that of Klein et al. (2007). A diversity of trees in forests and
in farmland can support populations of pollinator species
such as insects and birds that are essential for the production
of important human foods, including fruits in both forest and
farmland, and a range of other important crops in farmland
(Garibaldi et al., 2013; Hagen and Kraemer, 2010; for the
specific case of coffee, see Ricketts et al., 2004; Priess et al.,
2007). For communities living in or around forests, pollination is therefore a crucial ecosystem service (Adams, 2012).
Of course, forests and trees in agroforests provide important
habitat for a range of other fauna that include the natural
predators of crop pests (as well as sometimes being hosts for
the crop pests themselves; Tscharntke et al., 2005).
Effects of distance-from-forest
on pair-wise Spearman rank
relationships between ecosystem
service indicators
P
Figure
2.4
Near Far Near Far Near Far Near Far Near Far Near Far Near Far
Soybean yield
Aphid regulation
Insect herbivory regulation
Cotton fabric decomposition

Leaf litter decomposition
P
Soil phosphorus saturation
Soil carbon
Negative relationship
Soil nitrogen
Positive relationship
Source: Mitchell et al., 2014.
39
2.5 Conclusions
Foods provided by forests and
tree-based systems
There is increasing evidence of the importance of forests and tree-based systems for supporting food production and contributing to dietary diversity and quality,
addressing nutritional shortfalls. By targeting particular species for improved harvest and/or cultivation,
more optimal portfolios of species could be devised
that best support communities nutrition year-round.
An overall increase in the production through cultivation of a wide range of foods, including tree fruits and
vegetables, is required to bridge consumption shortfalls.
There is much further potential for the domestication
of currently little-researched indigenous fruit trees to
bring about large production gains, although more information is needed on the nutritional value of many of
these species. Trees also provide other important products (e.g., fodder, green fertiliser, fuel) that support food
production and use.
Dietary choices, access to resources and

behavioural change
Dietary choices are complex and depend on more than
just what potential foods are available to communities in
their environments. Rather than assumptions based on
availability, assessments of actual diet through dietary
diversity studies and other related estimators are therefore crucial. Then, the reasons behind current limitations in usage can be explored and possibly addressed.
There are multiple targets to improve food choices, with
women and children being key targets for education.
Income and other livelihood opportunities

NTFPs and AFTPs, including tree commodity crops
within agroforestry systems, are important sources of
revenue to local people and governments, which can
support food supply. More is known about the economic value of tree commodity crops than of other
products, but recent initiatives have provided a clearer
picture of the environmental income from NTFPs
(though not necessarily for AFTPs). Only limited information is available on how cash incomes from these
resources are spent with regard to promoting food and
nutritional security, and there are clear dangers in relying on cash incomes from single commodity crops.
Provision of ecosystem services

Forests and tree-based production systems provide
valuable ecosystem services that support staple crop
production and that of a wider range of edible plants.
Many tree species that are important crops globally
require pollinators to produce fruit. The presence of
these pollinators is supported by forests and diverse
cropping systems. More is known about the environmental service provisioning of tropical humid forests
than of dry forests (Blackie et al., 2014).
40
Pineapple here in a homegarden in Cuba is rich in

manganese and vitamin C.
Photo Stephanie Mansourian
Outstanding gaps
The value of the hidden harvest of edible forest foods,
and the cultivation of trees by smallholders, is evident
from this chapter. To maximise future potential, greater
attention from both the scientific and the development
communities is required. In particular, the development of a supportive policy framework requires proper
attention to both the forestry and agriculture sectors in
tandem. For this to take place, a better quantification
of the relative benefits received by rural communities
from different tree production categories is required,
supported by an appropriate typology for characterisation (de Foresta et al., 2013). Despite recent advances
such as PEN (2015), data are still required to quantify
roles in supporting food and nutritional security that
include dietary diversity measurements.
Policies that support communities access to forest
and that encourage the cultivation of tree products are
required. Required reforms include more favourable
land tenure arrangements for smallholders, in how farmers obtain tree planting material, and in the recognition
of agroforestry as a viable investment option for food
production (Jamnadass et al., 2013). Research should
support food tree domestication options appropriate
for meeting smallholders needs. Emphasis should be
placed on mixed agroforestry production regimes that
can help to avoid many of the negative effects described
in Section 2.4, by combining tree commodities in diverse production systems with locally-important food
trees, staple crops, vegetables and edible fungi. Such
regimes include shade coffee and shade cocoa systems
(Jagoret et al., 2011; Jagoret et al., 2012; SCI, 2015),
which increase or at least do not decrease commodity yields and profitability (Clough et al., 2011). Such
systems have often been practised traditionally, but are

now being actively encouraged through schemes such
as certification by some international purchasers of tree
commodity crops (Millard, 2011).
To support diverse production systems, genetic selection for commodity crop cultivars that do well under shade may be of particular importance (Mohan Jain
and Priyadarshan, 2009). This may require returning
to wild genetic resources still found in shaded, mixedspecies forest habitats, reinforcing the value of their
conservation. Not all tree commodities are, however,
amenable to production in diversified systems; for
example, oil palm is not well suited (Donald, 2004).
There are also opportunities to develop valuable new
tree commodities that are compatible with other crops
and that therefore support more agro-biodiversity. Further research is also required to assess the complementarity and resilience of different crops in agroforestry
systems under climate change, in the context also of
other global challenges to food and nutritional security.
The development of nutrient-sensitive value chains
is also needed, which means improving nutritional
knowledge and awareness among value-chain actors and
consumers, focusing on promoting the involvement of
women, and considering markets for a wider range of
tree foods. By promoting tree food processing and other
value additions, the non-farm rural economy can also
be stimulated. As highlighted elsewhere in this publication, however, more research is required to understand
the economic, environmental and other trade-offs for
the different sectors of rural societies when the harvesting of NTFPs is commercialised or they are planted (and
perhaps are converted to new commodity crops; Dawson et al., 2014b), as the benefits and costs for different
members of society vary. For example, wild harvesters
without access to farmland can be disadvantaged when
NTFPs become cultivated as AFTPs (Page, 2003). More
work is therefore needed to ensure equitable relationships
between the different participants in market supply chains
(Marshall et al., 2006).
41
References
Adam, Y.O. and Pretzsch, J., 2010. Contribution of local trade in
Ziziphusspina-christi L. fruits to rural households economy in
Rashad Locality: Sudan. Forestry Ideas 1: 19-27.
Adams, W.M., 2012. Feeding the next billion: hunger and
conservation. Oryx 46: 157-158.
Agarwal, B., 2001. Participatory exclusions, community forestry,
and gender: an analysis for South Asia and a conceptual
framework. World Development 29: 16231648.
Agarwal, B., 2013. Gender and Green Governance: The Political
Economy of Womens Inclusion in Community Forestry
Institutions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Appiah, M., Blay, D., Damnyag, L., Dwomoh, F.K., Pappinen, A.
and Luukkanen, O., 2007. Dependence on forest resources and
tropical deforestation in Ghana. Environment, Development and
Sustainability 11: 471-487.
Ahmed, M. A., 2013. Contribution of non-timber forest products
to household food security: the case of Yabelo Woreda, Borana
Zone, Ethiopia. Food Science and Quality Management 20.
Alves, R.N. and Alves, H.N., 2011. The faunal drugstore: animalbased remedies used in traditional medicines in Latin America.
Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 7:9.
Belcher, B., Ruiz Prez, M. and Achdiawan, R., 2005. Global

patterns and trends in the use and management of commercial
NTFPs: implications for livelihoods and conservation. World
Development 9: 14351452.
Bharucha, Z. and Pretty, J. 2010. The roles and values of wild
foods in agricultural systems. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 365(1554): 29132926.
doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0123.
Bhutta, Z.A., Das, J.K., Rizvi, A., Gaffey, M.F., Walker, N., Horton,
S., Webb, P., Lartey, A. and Black, R.E., 2013. Evidence-based
interventions for improvement of maternal and child nutrition:
what can be done and at what cost? The Lancet 382(9890):
452-477.
Bisseleua, H. B. D. and Niang, A. I., 2013. Lessons from
Sub-Saharan Africa. Delivery Mechanisms for Mobilizing
Agricultural Biodiversity for Improved Food and Nutrition
Security. In: Diversifying Food and Diets: Using agricultural
biodiversity to improve nutrition and health, edited by J. Fanzo,
D. Hunter, T. Borelli, and F. Mattei. Oxford and New York:
Routledge, 111-121.
Angelsen, A., Jagger, P., Babigumira, R., Belcher, B., Hogarth,

N., Bauch, S., Brner, B., Smith-Hall, C. and Wunder, S.,
2014. Environmental income and rural livelihoods: a globalcomparative analysis. World Development 64 (1): S12-S28.
Black, R.E., Victora, C.G., Walker, S.P., Bhutta, Z.A., Christian,

P., de Onis, M., Ezzati, M., Grantham-McGregor, S., Katz,
J., Martorell, R. and Uauy, R., 2013. Maternal and child
undernutrition and overweight in low-income and middleincome countries. The Lancet 382: 427-451.
Angelsen, A. and Wunder, S., 2003. Exploring the forest-poverty

link: key concepts, issues and research implications. Occasional
Paper no. 40. Bogor: Center for International Forestry Research
(CIFOR). Available at: http://www.cifor.org/nc/online-library/
browse/view publication/publication/1211.html. [Accessed on
15 January 2015].
Blackie, R., Baldauf, C., Gautier, D., Gumbo, D., Kassa, H.,
Parthasarathy, N., Paumgarten, F., Sola, P., Pulla, S., Waeber,
P. and Sunderland, T., 2014. Tropical dry forests: the state of
global knowledge and recommendations for future research.
Discussion Paper 2. Bogor: CIFOR.
Angelsen, A., Wunder, S., Babigumira, R., Belcher, B., Brner, J.

and Smith-Hall, C., 2011. Environmental incomes and rural
livelihoods: a global-comparative assessment. Occasional
Paper. 4th Wye Global Conference, Rio de Janeiro, 9 to
11 November 2011. Wye City Group on statistics on rural
development and agriculture household income. Rio de Janeiro
and Rome: The Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics
and FAO. Available at: http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/
ess/pages/rural/wye_city_group/2011/documents/session4/
Angelsen_Wunder_Babigumira_Belcher_Birner__Smith-HallPaper.pdf. [Accessed on 15 January 2015].
Arimond, M., Wiesmann, D., Becquey, E., Carriquiry, A., Daniels,
M. C., Deitchler, Fanou-Fogny, N., Joseph, N.J., Kennedy, G.,
Martin-Prevel, Y. and Torheim, L., 2010. Simple food group
diversity indicators predict micronutrient adequacy of womens
diets in 5 diverse: resource-poor settings. Journal of Nutrition
140: 2059S-2069S.
Arnold, J.E.M., 1990. Tree components in farming systems.
Unasylva 160: 3542.
Arnold, J.E.M., Kohlin, G. and Persson, R., 2006. Woodfuels,
livelihoods, and policy interventions: changing perspectives.
World Development 34: 596611.
Babulo, B., Muys, B., Nega, F., Tollens, E., Nyssen, J., Dekkers,
J. and Mathijs, E., 2009. The economic contribution of forest
resources to rural livelihoods in Tigray, Northern Ethiopia.
Forest Policy and Economics 11: 109-117.
Bale, W., 2013. Cultural forests of the Amazon: A historical
ecology of people and their landscapes. Tuscaloosa: University
of Alabama Press.
Bailis, R., Ezzati, M. and Kammen, D.M., 2005. Mortality and
greenhouse gas impacts and petroleum energy futures in Africa.
Science 308(5718): 98-103.
42
Belcher, B. andSchreckenberg, K.,2007. Commercialisation of

non-timber forest products: a reality check. Development Policy
Review 25: 355-377.
Balmford, A., Green, R. and Phalan, B., 2012. What

conservationists need to know about farming. Proceedings of
the Royal College of London 279: 27142724. doi:10.1098/
rspb.2012.051.
Boeing, H., Bechthold, A., Bub, A., Ellinger, S., Haller, D., Kroke,
A., Leschik-Bonnet, E., Mller, M.J., Oberritter, H., Schulze,
M.S., Stehle, P., and Watzl, B., 2012. Critical review: vegetables
and fruit in the prevention of chronic diseases. European
Journal of Nutrition 51: 637-663.
Brashares, J., Goldena, C., Weinbauma, K., Barrett, C. and
Okello, G., 2011. Economic and geographic drivers of wildlife
consumption in rural Africa. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the USA 108: 13931-13936.
Brouwer, I.D., Hoorweg, J.C. and van Liere, M.J., 1997. When
households run out of fuel: responses of rural households to
decreasing fuelwood availability, Ntcheu District, Malawi.
Bruinsma, J., 2003. World agriculture: towards 2015/2030. An FAO
perspective. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd.
Bryce J., Coitinho, D., Darnton-Hill I., Pelletier, D. and PinstrupAndersen, P., 2008. Maternal and child under-nutrition:
effective action at national level. The Lancet 371: 510526.
Burlingame, B. and Dernini, D., 2012. Sustainable diets and
biodiversity directions and solutions for policy, research and
action. FAO Nutrition and Consumer Protection Division
Proceedings of the International Scientific Symposium
Biodiversity and Sustainable Diets United Against Hunger 35
November 2010, Rome: FAO.
Butz, R.J., 2013. Changing land management: a case study of
charcoal production among a group of pastoral women in
northern Tanzania. Energy for Sustainable Development 17:
138-145.
Bwalya, S.M., 2013. Household dependence on forest income in
rural Zambia. Zambia Social Science Journal 2:6.
Byerlee, D., 2014. The fall and rise again of plantations in tropical
Asia: history repeated? Land 3: 574-597.
Byron, N. and Arnold, J.E.M., 1997. What Futures for the People of
the Tropical Forests. CIFOR Working Paper 19. Bogor: CIFOR.
Campese, J., Sunderland, T.C.H., Greiber, T. and Oviedo, G., 2009.
Rights Based Approaches: Exploring Issues and Opportunities
for Conservation. Bogor: CIFOR.
Cerutti, P.O. and Lescuyer, G., 2011. The domestic market for
small-scale chainsaw milling in Cameroon - present situation,
opportunities and challenges. CIFOR Occasional Paper 61.
Bogor: CIFOR.
Cerutti, P.O., Tacconi, L., Lescuyer, G. and Nasi, R., 2013.
Cameroons hidden harvest: commercial chainsaw logging,
corruption and livelihoods. Society and Natural Resources 26:
539-553.
CGIAR, 2014. Research Program on Agriculture for Nutrition and
Health. Available at: http://www.a4nh.cgiar.org/ [Accessed on
January 2015].
Chardonnet P., (ed.) 1996. Faune sauvage africaine : la ressource
oublie. Luxembourg: Commission europenne.
Chaudhuri, S. and Pfaff, A., 2002. Economic growth and the
environment: what can we learn from household data? Working
Paper 2002, Department of Economics, Columbia University,
USA.
CIE, 2011. Evaluation of ICRAFs agroforestry food security
programme (AFSP) 2007-2011. Final report submitted to IRISH
AID. Lilongwe: Center for Independent Evaluations.
Clement, C.R. and Junqueira, A.B., 2010. Between a pristine myth
and an impoverished Future. Biotropica 42:534536.
Clement, C.R., 1989. A center of crop genetic diversity in western
Amazonia. BioScience 39: 624-631.
Clement, C.R., 1999. 1492 and the loss of Amazonian crop genetic
resources. I. The relation between domestication and human
population decline. Economic Botany 52 (2): 188-202.
Colfer, C.J.P., 2008. Human health and forests: global overview of
issues, practice and policy London: Earthscan Publications Ltd.
Clough, Y., Barkmann, J., Juhrbandt, J., Kessler, M., Wanger,
T.C., Anshary, A., Buchori, D., Cicuzza, D., Darras, D., Dwi
Putra, D., Erasmi, S., Pitopang, R., Schmidt, C.,Schulze,
C.H., Seidel, D., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Stenchly, K., Vidal, S.,
Weist, M.,Wielgoss, A.C. and Tscharntke, T., 2011. Combining
high biodiversity with high yields in tropical agroforests.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA
108: 83118316.
Danielsen, F., Beukema, H., Burgess, N.D., Parish, F., Brhl,
C.A., Donald, P.F., Murdiyarso, D., Phalan, B., Reijnders, L.,
Struebig, M. and Fitzherbet, E.B., 2009. Biofuel plantations on
forested lands: double jeopardy for biodiversity and climate.
Conservation Biology 23: 348358.
Daniggelis, E., 2003. Women and Wild Foods: Nutrition and
Household Security among Rai and Sherpa Forager Farmers in
Eastern Nepal. In: Women and Plants: relations in biodiversity
management and conservation, edited by P.L. Howard. New
York and London: Zed Books and St. Martins Press.
Dawson, I.K., Guariguata, M.R., Loo, J., Weber, J.C., Lengkeek,

A., Bush, D., Cornelius. J., Guarino, L., Kindt, R., Orwa, C.,
Russell, J. and Jamnadass, R., 2013. What is the relevance of
smallholders agroforestry systems for conserving tropical tree
species and genetic diversity in circa situm, in situ and ex situ
settings: a review. Biodiversity and Conservation 22: 301-324.
de Foresta, H., Somarriba, E., Temu, A., Boulanger, D., Feuilly, H.
and Gauthier, M., 2013. Towards the assessment of trees outside
forests. FAO Resources Assessment Working Paper No. 183.
Rome: FAO.
Dharani, N., Yenesew, A., Ermais, B., Tuei, B. and Jamnadass, R.,
2014. Traditional Ethnoveterinary Medicine in East Africa: a
manual on the use of medicinal plants, edited by I.K. Dawson.
Nairobi: ICRAF.
Donald, P.F., 2004. Biodiversity impacts of some agricultural
commodity production systems. Conservation Biology 18:
1738.
Dunkel, D., 1996. Nutritional values of various insects per 100
grams: The Food Insect Newsletter. 9: 1-8.
Ecker, O., Breisinger, C. and Pauw, K., 2011. Growth is good but is
not enough for improving nutrition. Paper prepared for the 2020
Conference: Leveraging Agriculture for Improving Nutrition
and Health: New Delhi, India, February 1012.
Elliott, J., Grahn, R., Sriskanthan, G. and Arnold, C., 2002. Wildlife
and poverty study. London: Department for International
Development.
Fa, J. E., Olivero, J., Farfn, M. ., Mrquez, A. L., Duarte, J.,
Nackoney, J., Hall, A., Dupain, J., Seymour, S., Johnson, P. J.,
Macdonald, D. W., Real, R. and Vargas, J. M. 2015. Correlates
of bushmeat in markets and depletion of wildlife. Conservation
Biology
doi: 10.1111/cobi.12441.
FAO, 2015. FAOSTAT Statistical Database, 2015. Available at:
http://faostat.fao.org [Accessed on 23 January 2015].
FAO, 2014. State of the worlds forests: enhancing the
socioeconomic benefits from the forests. Rome: FAO.
FAO, 2013a. Synthesis of guiding principles on agriculture
programming for nutrition. Rome: FAO.
FAO, 2013b. Edible insects: future prospects for food and feed
security. FAO Forestry Paper. Rome: FAO.
FAO, 2013c. The state of food and agriculture: better food systems
for better nutrition. Rome: FAO Available at:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3300e/i3300e00.htm.
[Accessed on 15 January 2015].
FAO, 2012. The West African Food Composition Table. Rome: FAO.
Available at: http://www.fao.org/infoods/infoods/tables-anddatabases/africa/en/ [Accessed on 15 January 2015].
Das, T. and Das, A.K., 2005. Inventorying plant biodiversity in

home gardens: A case study in Barak Valley: Assam, North East
India. Current Science 89:155-163.
FAO, 2011. Forests for improved food security and nutrition report.
Rome: FAO. Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/
i2011e/i2011e00.pdf. [Accessed on 27 January 2015].
daSilva, A. and 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.
FAO, 2010. Global forest resources assessment: progress towards

sustainable forest management. Rome: FAO.
Davis, A.P., Gole, T.W., Baena, S. and Moat, J., 2012. The impact of
climate change on indigenous arabica coffee (Coffea arabica):
predicting future trends and identifying priorities. Public
Library of Science One 7: e47981.
Dawson, I., Carsan, S., Franzel, S., Kindt, R., van Breugel, P.,
Graudal, L., Lilles, J.P., Orwa, C. and Jamnadass, R., 2014a.
Agroforestry, fodder production and climate change adaptation
and mitigation in East Africa: issues and options. ICRAF
Working Paper No. 178. Nairobi: ICRAF.
Dawson, I.K., Leakey, R., Clement, C.R., Weber, J., Cornelius,
J.P., Roshetko, J.M., Vinceti, B., Kalinganire, A., Tchoundjeu,
Z., Masters, E. and Jamnadass, R., 2014b. The management of
tree genetic resources and the livelihoods of rural communities
in the tropics: non-timber forest products, smallholder
agroforestry practices and tree commodity crops. Forest
Ecology and Management 333: 9-21.
FAO, 2009. Declaration of the World Summit on Food Security.

WSFS 2009/2. Rome: FAO.
FAO, 1999. Agroforestry parklands in sub-Saharan Africa. FAO
Conservation Guide No. 34. Rome: FAO.
FAO, 1997. Agriculture Food and Nutrition for Africa: A resource
book for teachers of agriculture. Food and Nutrition Division.
Rome: FAO.
FAO, 1992. Forest, trees and food. Rome: FAO.
FAO, IFAD and WFP, 2013. The state of food insecurity in the
world 2013. The multiple dimensions of food security. Rome:
FAO. Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3434e/
i3434e.pdf [Accessed on 15 January 2015].
FAO, WFP and IFAD, 2012. The state of food insecurity in the
world 2012. Economic growth is necessary but not sufficient to
accelerate reduction of hunger and malnutrition. Rome: FAO.
Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i3027e/i3027e.pdf.
[Accessed 15 January 2015].
43
Fargeot, C. and Dieval, S., 2000. La consommation de gibier

Bangui, quelques donnes conomiques et biologiques.
Canope 18: 57.
Grivetti, L.E. and Ogle, B.M., 2000. Value of traditional foods

in meeting macro- and micronutrient needs: the wild plant
connection. Nutrition ResearchReviews 13:3146.
Faye, M.D., Weber, J.C., Abasse, T.A., Boureima, M., Larwanou,

M., Bationo, A.B., Diallo, B.O., Sigu, H., Dakouo, J.M.,
Samak, O. and Diat, D.S., 2011. Farmers preferences for tree
functions and species in the West African Sahel forests. Trees
and Livelihoods 20: 113136.
Gumbo, D.J., Moombe, K.B., Kandulu, M.M., Kabwe, G., Ojanen,

M., Ndhlovu, E. and Sunderland, T.C.H., 2013. Dynamics of the
Charcoal and Indigenous Timber Trade in Zambia: A Scoping
Study in Eastern, Northern and Northwestern Provinces
Occasional Paper. Bogor: CIFOR.
Ferris, S., Robbins, P., Best, R., Seville, D., Buxton, A., Shriver, J.
and Wei, E., 2014. Linking smallholder farmers to markets and
the implications for extension and advisory services. MEAS
Discussion Paper 4. Washington DC: CRS and USAID.
Gyau, A., Takoutsing, B., De Grande, A. and 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.
Fischler, C., 1988. Food, self and identity. Social Science

Information 27: 275-92.
Hagen, M. and Kraemer, M., 2010. Agricultural surroundings

support flower-visitor networks in an Afrotropical rain forest.
Biological Conservation 143: 5463.
Fisher, H. and Gordon, J., 2007. Improved Australian tree species

for Vietnam. ACIAR Impact Assessment Series Report No.47.
Canberra: Australian Centre for International Agricultural
Research.
Fon, D. and Edokat, T., 2012. Marginalization of womens role
in sub-Saharan Africa towards crop production: a review.
Agricultural Science Research Journal 2(9): 499-505.
Franzel, S., Carsan, S., Lukuyu, B., Sinja, J. and Wambugu,
C., 2014. Fodder trees for improving livestock productivity
and smallholder livelihoods in Africa. Current Opinion in
Environmental Sustainability 6: 98-103.
Frison, E.A., Cherfas, J. and Hodgkin, T., 2011. Agricultural
biodiversity is essential for a sustainable improvement in food
and nutrition security. Sustainability 3: 238253.
Garen, E.J., Saltonstall, K., Ashton, M.S., Slusser, J.L., Mathias, S.
and Hall, J.S., 2011. The tree planting and protecting culture of
cattle ranchers and small-scale agriculturalists in rural Panama:
opportunities for reforestation and land restoration. Forest
Ecology and Management 261: 16841695.
Garibaldi, L.A., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Winfree, R., Aizen,
M.A., Bommarco, R. and Cunningham, S.A., Kremen,
C., Carvalheiro, L.G., Harder, L.D., Afik, O., Bartomeus,
I., Benjamin, F., Boreux, V., Cariveau, D., Chacoff, N.P.,
Dudenhffer, J.H., Freitas, B.M., Ghazoul, J., Greenleaf, S.,
Hiplito, 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., Rundlf, M., Seymour, CL., Schepp, C.,
Szentgyrgyi, H., Taki H, Tscharntke, T., Vergara, C.H., Viana,
BF., Wanger, T.C., Westphal, C., Williams, N. and Klein, A.M.,
2013. Wild pollinators enhance fruit set of crops regardless
of honeybee abundance. Science 339(6127): 1608-1611. doi:
10.1126/science.1230200.
Garrity, D., Akinnifesi, F., Ajayi, O., Weldesemayat, S., Mowo, J.,
Kalinganire, A. and Bayala, J., 2010. Evergreen Agriculture:
a robust approach to sustainable food security in Africa. Food
Security 2: 197-214.
Garrity, D.P., 2004. Agroforestry and the achievement of the
Millennium Development Goals. Agroforestry Systems 61:
517.
GEF, 2013. Africa will import not export wood. Washington
DC: Global Environment Facility.
GI, 2015.Government of Indonesia. http://www.deptan.go.id/
[Accessed on 15 January 2015].
Glanz, K., Sallis, J.F., Saelens, B.E. and Frank, L.D., 2005. Healthy
nutrition environments: concepts and measures. American
Journal of Health Promotion 19: 330-333.
GN (Government of Nepal), 2004. Nepal living standards survey
20032004. Statistical Report. Kathmandu: CBS, National
Planning Commission Secretariat, Government of Nepal.
Golden, C.D., Fernald, L.C.H, Brashares, J.S., Rasolofoniaina,
B.J.R. and Kremen, C., 2011. Benefits of wildlife consumption
to child nutrition in a biodiversity hotspot. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the USA 108: 1965319656.
44
Harwood, C.E. and Nambiar, E.K.S., 2014. Productivity of

acacia and eucalypt plantations in South East Asia: trends and
variations. International Forestry Review 16: 249-260.
Hawkes, C., 2013. Promoting healthy diets through nutrition
education and changes in the food environment: an
international review of actions and their effectiveness.
Nutrition Education and Consumer Awareness Group,
Rome: FAO. Available at: www.fao.org/ag/humannutrition/
nutritioneducation/69725/en/.
Hein, L. and Gatzweiler, F., 2006. The economic value of coffee
(Coffea arabica) genetic resources. Ecological Economics 60:
176-185.
Herforth, A. and Dufour, C., 2013. Key recommendations for
improving nutrition through agriculture: establishing a global
consensus SCN News. Rome: FAO.
Heubach, K., Wittig, R., Nuppenau, E. and Hahn, K., 2011.
The economic importance of non-timber forest products for
livelihood maintenance of rural West African communities:
a case study from northern Benin. Ecological Economics 70:
1991-2001.
Hladik, C. M., Hladik, A., Linares, O., Pagezy, H., Semple, A.
and Hadley, M. (Eds.), 1993. Tropical forests, people and
food: biocultural interactions and applications to development.
Carnforth, UK: Parthenon Publishing Group.
Ho, S-T., Tung, Y-T., Chen, Y-L., Zhao, Y-Y., Chung, M-J. and Wu,
J-H., 2012. Antioxidant Activities and Phytochemical Study
of Leaf Extracts from 18 Indigenous Tree Species in Taiwan.
Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine.
Article ID 215959: 8. doi:10.1155/2012/215959.
ICCO, 2015. International Cacao Organization. Available at: www.
icco.org/. [Accessed on 15 January 2015].
Ickowitz, A., Powell, B., Salim, M.A. and Sunderland, T.C.H., 2014.
Dietary quality and tree cover in Africa. Global Environmental
Change 24: 287. 294.
ICO, 2015. International Coffee Organization. Available from:
www.ico.org/ [Accessed on 15 January 2015].
IEA, 2006.World Energy Outlook. Paris: IEA/OECD.
Iiyama, M., Neufeldt, H., Dobie, P., Jamnadass, R., Njenga, M.
and Ndegwa, G., 2014a. The potential of agroforestry in the
provision of sustainable woodfuel in sub-Saharan Africa.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 6:138-147.
Iiyama, M., Chenevoy, A., Otieno, E., Kinyanjui, T., Ndegwa, G.,
Vandenabeele, J. and Johnson, O., 2014b. Achieving sustainable
charcoal in Kenya: harnessing the opportunities for crosssectoral
integration. Nairobi, Kenya: ICRAF-SEI Technical Brief.
Available at: http://www.sei-international.org/mediamanager/
documents/Publications/ICRAF-SEI-2014-techbrief-Sustainablecharcoal.pdf [Accessed on 25 February 2015].
Ingram, V., NdumbeNjie, L. and EwaneElah, M., 2012. Small scale,
high value: Gnetumafricanum and buchholzianum value chains
in Cameroon. Small-scale Forestry 11(4): 539-566.
Ingram, V., Schure, J., Tieguhong, J. C., Ndoye, O., Awono, A. and
Iponga, D. M., 2014. Gender implications of forest product
value chains in the Congo Basin. Forest, Trees and Livelihoods
23(1-2): 67-86.
Iwamura, T., Lambin, E. F., Silvius, K. M., Luzar, J. B. and

Fragoso, J. M. V., 2014. Agent-based modeling of hunting and
subsistence agriculture on indigenous lands: understanding
interactions between social and ecological systems.
Environmental Modelling & Software, 58(0): 109127.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2014.03.008.
Jagoret, P., Michel-Dounias, I. and Malzieux, E., 2011. Longterm dynamics of cocoa agroforests: a case study in central
Cameroon. Agroforestry Systems 81: 267278.
Jagoret, P., Michel-Dounias, I., Snoeck, D., Todem Ngnogu,
H. and Malzieux, E., 2012. Afforestation of savannah with
cocoa agroforestry systems: a small-farm innovation in central
Cameroon. Agroforestry Systems 86: 493504.
Jamnadass, R., Langford, K., Anjarwalla, P. and Mithfer, D., 2014.
PublicPrivate Partnerships in Agroforestry. In: Encyclopedia
of Agriculture and Food Systems, edited by N. Van Alfen Vol. 4,
San Diego: Elsevier, 544-564.
Jamnadass, R., Dawson, I.K., Anegbeh, P., Asaah, E., Atangana,
A., Cordeiro, N., Hendrickx, H., Henneh, S., Kadu, C.A.C.,
Kattah, C., Misbah, M., Muchugi, A., Munjuga, M., Mwaura,
L., Ndangalasi, H.J., Sirito Njau, C., Kofi Nyame, S., Ofori,
D., Peprah, T., Russell, J., Rutatina, F., Sawe, C., Schmidt, L.,
Tchoundjeu, Z. and Simons, T., 2010. Allanblackia, a new tree
crop in Africa for the global food industry: market development,
smallholder cultivation and biodiversity management. Forests,
Trees and Livelihoods 19: 251268.
Jamnadass, R., Place, F., Torquebiau, E., Malzieux, E., Iiyama,
M., Sileshi, G.W., Kehlenbeck, K., Masters, E., McMullin, S.
and Dawson, I.K., 2013. Agroforestry for food and nutritional
security. Unasylva 241(64): 2.
in smallholders agroforestry systems: a review. International
Forest Review 13: 338354.
Johns, T. and Eyzaguirre, P., 2006. Linking biodiversity: diet and
health in policy and practice. Proceedings of the Nutrition
Society 65: 182-189.
Johnson, D.V., 2010. The contribution of edible forest insects to
human nutrition and to forest management: Current status and
future potential. In: Forest insects as food: Humans bite back,
edited by P.B. Durst, D.V. Johnson, R.N. Leslie and K. Shono.
Proceedings of a workshop on Asia-Pacific resources and their
potential for development, February 2008. Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, Regional Office for Asia
and the Pacific, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Johnson, K.B., Jacob, A. and Brown, M.W., 2013. Forest cover
associated with improved child health and nutrition: evidence
from Malawi demographic and health survey and satellite data.
Global Health: Science and Practice 1: 237- 248.
Kamanga, P., Vedeld, P. and Sjaastad, E., 2009. Forest incomes and
rural livelihoods in Chiradzulu District, Malawi. Ecological
Economics 68: 613-624.
Kar, S.P. and Jacobson, M.G., 2012. NTFP income contribution to
household economy and related socio-economic factors: lessons
from Bangladesh. Forest Policy and Economics 14:136142.
Kawarazuka, N. and Bn, C., 2011. The potential role of
small fish species in improving micronutrient deficiencies
in developing countries: building evidence. Public Health
Nutrition 14:1927-1938.
Keatinge, J.D.H., Waliyar, F., Jamnadass, R.H., Moustafa, A.,
Andrade, M., Drechsel, P., Hughes, J.A., Kadirvel, P. and
Luther, K., 2010. Relearning old lessons for the future of food:
by bread alone no longer: diversifying diets with fruit and
vegetables. Crop Science 50: S51S62.
Kehlenbeck, K. and Jamnadass R., 2014. Chapter 6.2.1 Food and

Nutrition Fruits, Nuts, Vegetables and Staples from Trees. In:
Treesilience: An Assessment of the Resilience Provided by Trees
in the Drylands of Eastern Africa, edited by J. De Leeuw, M.
Njenga, B. Wagner, M., Iiyama. Nairobi, Kenya: ICRAF, 166.
Available from: http://www.worldagroforestry.org/knowfordocs/
Treesilience_Book_2014.pdf.
Kehlenbeck, K., Kindt, R., Sinclair, F.L., Simons, A.J. and
Jamnadass, R., 2011. Exotic tree species displace indigenous
ones on farms at intermediate altitudes around Mount Kenya.
Agroforestry Systems 83:133-147.
Keller, G.B., Mndiga, H. and Maass, B., 2006. Diversity and
genetic erosion of traditional vegetables in Tanzania from the
farmers point of view. Plant Genetic Resources 3: 400413.
Kennedy, G.L., Pedro, M. R., Sehieri, C., Nantel, G. and Brouwer,
I., 2007. Dietary diversity score is a useful indicator of
micronutrient intake in non-breast-feeding Filipino children.
Journal of Nutrition 137: 472-477.
Khare, R.S., 1980. Food as nutrition and culture: notes towards an
anthropological methodology. Social Science Information 19:
519-542.
Khundi, F., Jagger, P., Shively, G. and Sserunkuuma, D., 2011.
Income, poverty and charcoal production in Uganda. Forest
Policy and Economics 13: 199205.
Kiptot, E. and Franzel, S., 2011. Gender and agroforestry in Africa:
are women participating. ICRAF Occasional Paper No. 13.
Nairobi: ICRAF.
Klein, A.M., Vaissire, B.E., Cane, J.H., Steffan-Dewenter, I.,
Cunningham, S.A., Kremen, C. and Tscharntke, T., 2007.
Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world
crops. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
274: 303-313.
Khlin, G., Sills, E. O., Pattanayak, S. K. and Wilfong, C., 2011.
Energy, gender and development. What are the linkages?
Where is the evidence? Social Development World Bank Policy
Research Working Paper 163.
Kolavalli, S. and Vigneri, M., 2011. Cocoa in Ghana: Shaping
the success of an economy. In: Yes Africa can: Success stories
from a dynamic continent, edited by P. Chuhan-Pole and M.
Angwafo. Washington DC: The World Bank.
Koppert, G.J.A, Dounias. E., Froment, A. and Pasquet, P., 1996.
Consommation alimentaire dans trois populations forestires
de la rgion ctire du Cameroun: Yassa, Mvae et Bakola. In:
Lalimentation en fort tropicale. Interactions bioculturelles
et perspectives de dveloppement, edited by C.M. Hladik, A.
Hladik and H. Pagezy. Paris: UNESCO, 477496.
Kuhnlein, H., Erasmus, B. and Spigelski, D., 2009. Indigenous
peoples food systems: the many dimensions of culture, diversity
and environment for nutrition and health. Rome: FAO.
Kuhnlein, H.V. and Receveur, O., 1996. Dietary change and
traditional food systems of Indigenous Peoples. Annual Review
of Nutrition 16: 417-442.
Kusters, K., Achdiawan, R., Belcher, B. and Ruiz Prez, M., 2006.
Balancing development and conservation? An assessment of
livelihood and environmental outcomes of nontimber forest
product trade in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Ecology and
Society 11(2):20.
Labouisse, J., Bellachew, B., Kotecha, S. and Bertrand, B., 2008.
Current status of coffee (Coffea arabica L.) genetic resources in
Ethiopia: implications for conservation. Genetic Resources and
Crop Evolution 55: 1079-1093.
Leakey, R.R., 1999. Potential for novel food products from
agroforestry trees: a review. Food Chemistry 66: 114.
Lengkeek, A.G., Carsan, S. and Jaenicke, H., 2003. A wealth of
knowledge: how farmers in Meru, central Kenya, manage
their tree nurseries. In: Diversity Makes a Difference: Farmers
Managing Inter- and Intra-Specific Tree Species Diversity
in Meru Kenya, edited by A.G., Lengkeek. PhD, Thesis.
Wageningen: Wageningen University, 69-86.
45
Lescuyer, G., Cerutti, P.O., Ndotit Manguiengha, S. and Bilogo

bi Ndong, L., 2011. The domestic market for small-scale
chainsaw milling in Gabon Present situation, opportunities and
challenges. Occasional Paper 65. Bogor: CIFOR.
Muleta, D., 2007. Microbial inputs in coffee (Coffea arabica L.)

production systems, southwestern Ethiopia - implications for
promotion of biofertilizers and biocontrol agents. Doctoral
thesis. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences/Uppsala.
Lock, J., Agras, W.S., Bryson, S. and Kraemer, H., 2005. A

comparison of short- and long-term family therapy for
adolescent anorexia nervosa.Journal of the American Academy
of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 44:632639.
Muriuki, J., Franzel, F., Mowo, J., Kariuki P. and Jamnadass,

R., 2012. Formalisation of local herbal product markets
has potential to stimulate cultivation of medicinal plants by
smallholder farmers in Kenya. Forests, Trees and Livelihoods
21: 114127.
Lybbert, T.J., Aboudrare, A., Chaloud, D., Magnan, N. and Nash,

M., 2011. Booming markets for Moroccan argan oil appear to
benefit some rural households while threatening the endemic
argan forest. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
USA. 108: 1396313968.

Narain, U. S., Gupta, S. and Veld. K.V., 2005. Poverty and the
environment: exploring the relationship between household
incomes, private assets and natural assets. Discussion Paper
05-18. Washington DC: Resources for the Future.
Marjokorpi, A. and Ruokolainen, K., 2003. The role of traditional

forest gardens in the conservation of tree species in West
Kalimantan: Indonesia. Biodiversity and Conservation 12:
799822.
Nasi, R., Taber, A. and Van Vliet, N., 2011. Empty forests, empty
stomachs: bushmeat and livelihoods in the Congo and Amazon
Basins. International Forestry Review 13(3):355-368. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1505/146554811798293872.
Marshall, D., Schreckenberg, K. and Newton, A.C., 2006.

Commercialization of non-timber forest products: factors
influencing success. Lessons learned from Mexico and Bolivia
and policy implications for decision-makers. Cambridge: UNEP
World Conservation Monitoring Centre.
Nasi, R., Brown, D., Wilkie, D., Bennett, E., Tutin, C., van Tol,
G. and Christophersen, T., 2008. Conservation and use of
wildlife-based resources: the bushmeat crisis. Technical Series
No.33. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity:
Montreal, and Centre for International Forestry Research:
Bogor, Indonesia.
Lykke, A.M., Mertz, O. and Ganaba, S., 2002. Food consumption

in rural Burkina Faso. Ecology of Food Nutrition 41:119153.
McCullough, F.S.W., Yoo, S. and Ainsworth, P., 2004. Food

choice: nutrition education and parental influence on British
and Korean primary school children. International Journal of
Consumer Studies 28: 235-244.
McMullin, S., Phelan, J., Jamnadass, R., Iiyama, M., Franzel, S.
and Nieuwenhuis, M., 2012. Trade in medicinal tree and shrub
products in three urban centres in Kenya. Forests, Trees and
Livelihoods 21(3): 188-206.
McMullin, S., Nieuwenhuis, M. and Jamnadass. R., 2014.
Strategies for sustainable supply of and trade in threatened
medicinal tree species: a case study of Genus Warburgia.
Ethnobotany Research and Applications 12: 671-683.
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.
Millard, E., 2011. Incorporating agroforestry approaches into
commodity value chains. Environmental Management 48:
365-377.
Milner-Gulland, E.J. and Bennett, E.L., 2003. Wild meat: the bigger
picture. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18: 351357.
Mitra, A. and Mishra, D.K., 2011. Environmental resource
consumption pattern in rural Arunachal Pradesh. Forest Policy
and Economics 13: 166-170.
Mitchell, M.G.E., Bennett, E.M. and Gonzalez, A., 2014. Forest
fragments modulate the provision of multiple ecosystem
services. Journal of Applied Ecology 51: 909918.
Mohan Jain, S. and Priyadarshan, P.M., 2009. Breeding Plantation
Tree Crops: Tropical Species. New York: Springer Science &
Business Media.
Moran, E. F., 1993. Managing Amazonian Variability with
Indigenous Knowledge. In: Tropical Forests, People and Food.
Biocultural Interactions and Applications to Development,
edited by C.M. Hadlik, A. Hladik, O.F. Linares, H. Pagezy,
A. Semple and M. Hadley. Vol. 765: 753766. Indiana:
Anthropological Centre for Training and Research on Global
Environmental Change Indiana University.
Mulenga, B.P., Richardson, R.B. and Tembo, G., 2012. Nontimber forest products and rural poverty alleviation in Zambia.
Working Paper No. 62.
46
Mwampamba, T.H., Ghilardi, A., Sander, K. and Chaix, K.J., 2013.

Dispelling common misconceptions to improve attitudes and
policy outlook on charcoal in developing countries. Energy for
Sustainable Development 17:158-170.
Mulenga, B.P., Richardson, R.B., Mapemba, L. and Tembo, G.,

2011. The contribution of non-timber forest products to rural
household income in Zambia. Food Security Research Project
Lusaka, Zambia. Working Paper No 54.
Naughton-Treves, L., Kammen, D.M. and Chapman, C., 2007.

Burning biodiversity: Woody biomass use by commercial and
subsistence groups in western Ugandas forests. Biological
Conservation 134: 232-241.
Ndoye, O., Ruiz Prez, M. and Eyebe, A., 1998. The markets
of non-timber forest products in the humid forest zone of
Cameroon. Paper 22c. London: Rural Development Forestry
Network.
Njenga. M., Yonemitsu, A., Karanja, N., Iiyama, M., Kithinji,
J., Dubbeling M., Sundberg, C. and Jamnadass, R., 2013.
Implications of charcoal briquette produced by local
communities on livelihoods and environment in Nairobi, Kenya.
International Journal of Renewable Energy Development
2(1):19-29.
Ogle, B.M., Hung, P.H. and Tuyet, H.T., 2001. Significance of
wild vegetables in micronutrient intakes of women in Vietnam:
an analysis of food variety. Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical
Nutrition 10: 21-30.
Owen, M., Van der Plas, R. and Sepp, S., 2013. Can there be
energy policy in Sub-Saharan Africa without biomass? Energy
Sustainable Development 17:146-152.
Padoch, C. and Sunderland T., 2013. Managing landscapes for
greater food security and livelihoods. Unasylva 241(64): 3-13.
Page, B., 2003. The political ecology of Prunus africana in
Cameroon. Area 35: 357-370.
PEN, 2015. Poverty Environment Network. A comprehensive global
analysis of tropical forests and poverty. Available at: http://
www1.cifor.org/pen [Accessed on 22 February 2015].
Peres, C.A., 2001. Synergistic effects of subsistence hunting
and habitat fragmentation on Amazonian forest vertebrates.
Conservation Biology 15:1490-1505.
Philpott, S.M., Arendt, W.J., Armbrecht, I., Bichier, P., Diestch,
T.V., Gordon, C., Greenberg, R., Perfecto, I., Reynoso-Santos,
R., Soto-Pinto, L., Tejeda-Cruz, C., Williams-Linera, G.,
Valenzuelaa, J. and Zolotoff, J.M., 2008. Biodiversity loss in
Latin American coffee landscapes: review of the evidence on
ants, birds, and trees. Conservation Biology 22:10931105.
Pimentel, D., McNair, M., Buck, L., Pimentel, M. and Kamil,
J., 1997. The value of forests to world food security. Human
Ecology 25: 91120.
Pinstrup-Andersen, P., 2013. Special Debate Section, Can
Agriculture Meet Future Nutrition Challenges? European
Journal of Development Research 25 (1): 512.
Pinstrup-Andersen, P., 2009.Food Security: Definition and

Measurement.Food Security1:5-7.
Place, F. and Binam, J.N., 2013. Economic impacts of farmer
managed natural regeneration in the Sahel. End of Project
Technical Report for the Free University Amsterdam and IFAD.
Nairobi: ICRAF.
Place, F., Roothaert, R., Maina, L., Franzel, S., Sinja, J. and
Wanjiku, J., 2009. The impact of fodder trees on milk
production and income among smallholder dairy farmers in
East Africa and the role of research. ICRAF Occasional Paper
No. 12. Nairobi: ICRAF.
Pouliot, M., 2012. Contribution of Womens Gold to West
African livelihoods: the case of Shea (Vitellaria paradoxa) in
Burkina Faso. Economic Botany 66(3): 237248.
Pouliot, M. and Treue, T., 2013. Rural Peoples Reliance on Forests
and the Non-Forest Environment in West Africa: Evidence from
Ghana and Burkina Faso. World Development 43: 180-193.
Powell, B., Ickowitz, A., McMullin, S., Jamnadass, R., Padoch,
C., Pinedo-Vasquez, M. and Sunderland, T., 2013. The role
of forests, trees and wild biodiversity for improved nutrition:
sensitivity of food and agriculture systems. Expert background
paper for the International Conference on Nutrition 2. FAO:
Rome.
Powell, B., Watts, J., Boucard, A., Urech, Z., Feintrenie, L., Lyimo,
E., Asaha, S. and Sunderland-Groves, J., 2010. The role of wild
species in the governance of tropical forested landscapes. In:
Collaborative Governance of Tropical Landscapes, edited by
C.J.P. Colfer and J.L. Pfund. London: Earthscan Publications
Ltd. Chapter 7.
Powell, L.M., Schermbeck, R.M., Szczypka, G., Chaloupka, F.J.
and Braunschweig, C.L.,2011. Trends in the nutritional content
of television food advertisements seen by children in the United
States: analyses by age, food categories, and companies. Arch
Pediatricsand Adolescent Medicine 257269.
Pramova, E., Locatelli, B., Djoudi, H. and Somorin, O.A., 2012.
Forests and trees for social adaptation to climate variability and
change. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 3(6):
581-596.
Priess, J.A., Mimler, M., Klein, A.M., Schwarze, S., Tscharntke,
T. and Steffan-Dewenter, I., 2007. Linking deforestation
scenarios to pollination services and economic returns in coffee
agroforestry systems. Ecological Applications 17: 407-417.
Reichhuber, A. and Requate, T., 2007. Alternative use systems for
the remaining cloud forest in Ethiopia and the role of Arabica
coffee: A cost-benefit analysis. Economics Working Paper No.
7, 2007. Kiel: Department of Economics, Christian-AlbrechtsUniversitt.
Ricketts, T.H., Daily, G.C., Ehrlich, P.R. and Michener, C.D.,
2004. Economic value of tropical forest to coffee production.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA
101: 12579-12582.
Ruel, M.T., 2003. Operationalizing Dietary Diversity: A Review

of Measurement Issues and Research Priorities. Journal of
Nutrition 133: 3911S- 3926S.
Ruel, M.T., Minot, N. and Smith, L., 2005. Patterns and
determinants of fruit and vegetable consumption in sub-Saharan
Africa: a multi-country comparison. Geneva: World Health
Organization and Washington: IFPRI.
Sambuichi, R.H.R. and Haridasan, M., 2007. Recovery of species
richness and conservation of native Atlantic forest trees in the
cacao plantations of southern Bahia in Brazil. Biodiversity and
Conservation 16: 36813701.
Sanchez, P.A., 2002. Soil fertility and hunger in Africa. Science
295: 2019-2020.
Schabel, H.G., 2010. Forests insects as food: A global review.
In: Forest Insects as Food: Humans Bite Back, edited by P.B.
Durst, D.V. Johnson, R.N. Leslie and K. Shono. Proceedings
of a workshop on asia-pacific resources and their potential for
development, 19-21 February 2008. 37-64.
Schreckenberg, K. and Luttrell, C., 2009. Participatory forest
management: a route to poverty reduction? International
Forestry Review 11: 221-238.
Schreckenberg, K., Awono, A., Degrande, A., Mbosso, C., Ndoye,
O. and Tchoundjeu, Z., 2006. Domesticating indigenous fruit
trees as a contribution to poverty reduction. Forests, Trees and
Livelihoods 16: 3551.
Schure, J., Ingram, V., Assembe-Mvondo, S., Mvula-Mampasi,
E., Inzamba, J. and Levang, P. 2013. La Filire Bois nergie
des Villes de Kinshasa et Kisangani. In: Quand la ville mange
la fort edited by J.-N. Marien, E. Dubiez, D. Louppe and A.
Larzilliere. Versailles: Editions QUAE, 27-44.
Schure, J., Levang, P. and Wiersum, K.F., 2014. Producing
woodfuel for urban centres in the Democratic Republic of
Congo: a path out of poverty for rural households. World
Development 64: 80-90.
SCI, 2015. Sustainable Cocoa Initiative. Available at: http://
cocoasustainability.com. [Accessed on 15 January 2015].
Sendzimir, J., Reij, C.P. and Magnuszewski, P., 2011. Rebuilding
resilience in the Sahel: regreening in the Maradi and Zinder
regions of Niger. Ecology and Society 16(3): 1.
Sepp, S., 2008. Shaping charcoal policies: context, process and
instruments as exemplified by country cases. Bonn: GTZ.
Shackleton, C. and Shackleton, S., 2004. The importance of nontimber forest products in rural livelihood security and as safety
nets: a review of evidence from South-Africa. Southern Africa
Journal of Science 100: 658664.
Shackleton, C.M., Shackleton, S.E., Buitenb, E. and Bird, N.,
2007. The importance of dry woodlands and forests in
rural livelihoods and poverty alleviation in South Africa.
Forest Policy and Economics 9(5): 558577 doi:10.1016/j.
forpol.2006.03.004.
Roshetko, J., Dawson, I.K., Urquiola, J., Lasco, R., Leimona, B.,
Graudal, L., Bozzano, M., Weber, J.C. and Jamnadass, R., 2015.
Tree planting for environmental services: considering source to
improve outcomes (in preparation).
Shackleton, S., Paumgarten, F., Kassa, H., Husseelman, M. and

Zida, M., 2011.Opportunities for enhancing womens economic
empowerment in the value chains of three African non timber
forest products. International Forestry Review special issue 13.
Roshetko, JM., Rohadi, D., Perdana, A., Sabastian, G., Nuryartono,

N., Pramono, A.A., Widyani, N., Manalu, P., Fauzi, MA.,
Sumardamto, P. and Kusumowardhani, N., 2013. Teak
agroforestry systems for livelihood enhancement, industrial
timber production, and environmental rehabilitation. Forests,
Trees, and Livelihoods 22(4) Available at: http://www.
tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14728028.2013.855150.
Shaheen, N., Rahim, A.T., Abu Torab, M.A.R., Mohiduzzaman,

MD., Banu, CP., Bari, MD.L., Tukan, AB., Mannan, MA.,
Bhattacharjee, L., and Stadlmayr, B., 2013. Food Composition
Table for Bangladesh. Dhaka: University of Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Shepard, G.H. and Ramirez, H., 2011. Made in Brazil: human
dispersal of the Brazil nut (Bertholletiaexcelsa, Lecythidaceae)
in ancient Amazonia. Economic Botany 65: 44-65.
Roshetko, J.M., Lasco, R.D. and Delos Angeles, M.S., 2007.

Smallholder agroforestry systems for carbon storage. Mitigation
and Adaptation Strategies for Global Climate Change 12:
219242.
Sherman, J., 2003. From nutritional needs to classroom lessons:

can we make a difference? Food, Nutrition and Agriculture 33:
4551.
Ruel, M.T. and 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.
Siegel, K.R., Ali, M.K., Srinivasiah, A., Nugent, R.A. and Narayan,
K.M.V., 2014. Do we produce enough fruits and vegetables to
meet global health need? PLoS ONE 9(8): e104059.
47
Sileshi, G., Akinnifesi, F.K., Ajayi, O.C. and Place, F., 2008. Metaanalysis of maize yield response to planted fallow and green
manure legumes in sub-Saharan Africa. Plant and Soil 307: 1-19.
Sileshi, G.W., Akinnifesi, F.K., Ajayi, O.C. and Muys B., 2011.
Integration of legume trees in maize-based cropping systems
improves rain-use efficiency and yield stability under rain-fed
agriculture. Agricultural Water Management 98: 13641372.
Sileshi, G.W., Debusho, L.K. and Akinnifesi, F.K., 2012. Can
integration of legume trees increase yield stability in rainfed
maize cropping systems in Southern Africa? Agronomy Journal
104: 1392-1398.
Sirn, A., 2012. Festival hunting by the kichwa people in the
Ecuadorian amazon. Journal of Ethnobiology 32: 3050.
Slavin, J. L. and Lloyd, B., 2012. Health benefits of fruits and
vegetables. Advances in Nutrition 3(4): 50616. doi:10.3945/
an.112.002154.
Smith, I.F. 2013. Sustained and integrated promotion of local,
traditional food systems for nutrition security. In: Diversifying
Food and Diets: Using Agricultural Biodiversity to Improve
Nutrition and Health Issues in Agricultural Biodiversity,
edited by J. Fanzo, D. Hunter, T. Borelli and F. Mattei. London:
Earthscan Publications Ltd. 122139.
Sobal, J., Bisogni, C.A., and Jastran, M., 2014. Food choice is
multifaceted: contextual, dynamic, multilevel, integrated, and
diverse. Mind, Brain, and Education 8: 6-12.
Sonwa, D.S., Nkongmeneck, B.A., Weise, S.F., Tchatat, M.,
Adesina, A.A. and Janssens, M.J.J., 2007. Diversity of plants
in cocoa agroforests in the humid forest zone of Southern
Cameroon. Biodiversity Conservation 16: 23852400. doi:
10.1007/s10531-007-9187-1
Stadlmayr, B., Charrondire, U.R., Eisenwagen, S., Jamnadass, R.
and Kehlenbeck, K., 2013. Review: Nutrient composition of
selected indigenous fruits from sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of
the Science of Food and Agriculture 93: 26272636.
Story, M., Kaphingst, K.M., Robinson-OBrien, R. and Glanz, K.,
2008. Creating healthy food and eating environments: policy
and environmental approaches. Annual Review of Public Health
29: 253-272.
Sunderland, T.C.H., 2011. Food security: why is biodiversity
important? International Forestry Review 13: 265274.
Tabuti, J.R.S., Dhillion, S.S. and Lye, K.A., 2003. Firewood use in
Bulamogi County, Uganda: species selection, harvesting and
consumption patterns. Biomass and Bioenergy 25: 581 596.
Tchoundjeu, Z., Degrande, A., Leakey, R.R.B., Nimino, G.,
Kemajou, E., Asaah, E., Facheux, C., Mbile, P., Mbosso, C.,
Sado, T., and Tsobeng, A., 2010. Impacts of participatory tree
domestication on farmer livelihoods in West and Central Africa.
Forests, Trees and Livelihoods 19: 217234.
Termote, C., BwamaMeyi, M., DhedaDjailo, B., Huybregts, L.,
Lachat, C., Kolsteren, P. and Van Damme, P., 2012. A biodiverse
rich environment does not contribute to better diets. A case
study from DR Congo. Plos One 7: e30533.
Thomas, E., 2008. Quantitative ethnobotanical research on
knowledge and use of plants for livelihood among Quechua:
Yuracar and Trinitario communities in the Andes and Amazon
regions of Bolivia. PhD thesis, Ghent University: Ghent,
Belgium.
Thorlakson, T. and Neufeldt, H., 2012. Reducing subsistence
farmers vulnerability to climate change: evaluating the
potential contributions of agroforestry in western Kenya.
Agriculture and Food Security 1: 15
TRAFFIC, 2008. What is driving the wildlife trade: a review of
expert opinion on economic and social drivers of the wildlife
trade and trade control efforts in Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao
PDR and Vietnam. East Asia and Pacific Region Sustainable
Development Discussion Papers. Washington, DC: World Bank.
48
Tscharntke, T., Clough, Y., Wanger, T.C., Jackson, L., Motzke, I.,
Perfecto, I., Vandermeer, J., and Whitbread, A., 2012. Global
food security, biodiversity conservation and the future of
agricultural intensification. Biological Conservation 5359.
Tscharntke,T., Klein, A., Kruess, M., Steffan-Dewenter, A. and

Thies, C., 2005. Landscape perspectives on agricultural
intensification and biodiversity: ecosystem service
management. Ecology Letters 8: 857-874.
Turner, W.R., Brandon, K., Brooks, T.M., Gascon, C., Gibbs, H.K.,
Lawrence, K., Mittermeier, R.A. and Selig, E.R., 2012. Global
Biodiversity Conservation and the Alleviation of Poverty.
BioScience 62: 85-92.
UN-SCN., 2010. Sixth report on the world nutrition situation:
progress in nutrition. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations,
Standing Committee on Nutrition and International Food Policy
Research Institute.
H.L., Villamor, G.B. and Leimona, B., 2014.Tree cover
van Vliet, N., Quiceno-Mesa, MP., Cruz-Antia, D., Johnson Neves
de Aquino, L., Moreno, J. and Nasi, R., 2014. The uncovered
volumes of bushmeat commercialized in the Amazonian
trifrontier between Colombia, Peru & Brazil. Ethnobiology
Conservation 3:7.
Vandenbosch T., Ouko B.A., Guleid N.J., Were R.A., Mungai
P.P., Mbithe D.D., Ndanyi M., Chesumo. J., Laenen-Fox L.,
Smets K., Kosgei C.K. and Walema B., 2009. Integrating
food and nutrition: health, agricultural and environmental
education towards education for sustainable development:
lessons learned from the Healthy Learning Programme in
Kenya. In: Sustainable initiatives in the decade of education
for sustainable development: where are we? Proceedings of the
July 2009 Environmental Education Association of Southern
Africa (EEASA) conference.
Vedeld, P., Angelsen, A., Sjaastad, E. and Kobugabe Berg, G., 2004.
Counting on the environment: forest incomes and the rural
poor. Environment Economics Series No. 98. World Bank,
Washington D.C., USA.
Vinceti, B., Termote, C., Ickowitz, A., Powell, B., Kehlenbeck, K.
and Hunter, D., 2013. Strengthening the contribution of forests
and trees to sustainable diets: challenges and opportunities.
Von Grebmer, Saltzman, K., Birol, A., Wiesmann, E., Prasai, D.,
Yin, N., Yohannes, S., Menon, Y., Thompson, P. and Sonntag,
A., 2014. 2014 Global hunger index: the challenge of hidden
hunger. Bonn, Washington, D.C. and Dublin: Welthungerhilfe,
International Food Policy Research Institute and Concern
Worldwide.
Wan, M., Colfer, C.J.P. and Powell, B., 2011. Forests, women
and health: opportunities and challenges for conservation.
International Forestry Review special issue, 13.
Waswa, F., Kilalo, C. R. S. and Mwasaru, D. M., 2014. Sustainable
Community Development: Dilemma of Options in Kenya.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Webb, P. and Kennedy, E., 2012. Impacts of agriculture on
nutrition: nature of the evidence and research gaps. Nutrition
CRSP Research Brief No. 4. Boston: Tufts University.
Webb Girard, A., Self, J.L., McAuliffe, C. and Oludea, O., 2012.
The Effects of Household Food Production Strategies on the
Health and Nutrition Outcomes of Women and Young Children:
A Systematic Review. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology 26
(Suppl. 1): 205222
WHO, 2004. Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health.
Geneva: WHO.
WHO, 2014. Healthy Diet. WHO Fact Sheets. Available at: http://
www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs394/en/.
WHO/FAO, 2004. WHO/FAO Expert consultation on vitamin and
mineral requirements in human nutrition ( Second edition).
Geneva: WHO.
Wilkie, D., Starkey, M., Abernethy, K., Nstame, E., Telfer, P.
and Godoy, R., 2005. Role of prices and wealth in consumer
demand for bushmeat in Gabon: Central Africa. Conservation
Biology 19: 268-274.
World Bank, 2008. Implementation, Completion and Results Report

(TF-50612) on a grant in the amount of SDR 3.7 million equivalent
(US $ 4.5 million) to Centro Agronomico Tropical De Investigacion
Y Ensenanza (CATIE) for the Integrated Silvopastoral Approaches
to Ecosystem Management Project in Columbia, Costa Rica, and
Nicaragua. Washington DC: World Bank.
World Bank, 2011. Wood-based biomass energy development for
Sub-Saharan Africa: issues and approaches. Washington, DC
20433, USA: The International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development.
Wrangham, E., 2009. Catching Fire: How Cooking Made us
Human. New York: Basic Books.
Wunder, S., Borner, J., Shively, J. and Wyman, M., 2014. Safety
nets, gap filling and forests: a globalcomparative perspective.
World Development 64(1): S29-S42.
Yemiru, T., Roos, A., Campbell, B.M. and Bohlin, F., 2010.
Forest incomes and poverty alleviation under participatory
forest management in the Bale highlands, Southern Ethiopia.
International Forestry Review 12(1): 66-77.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1505/ifor.12.1.66.
Zapata-Rios, G., Urgiles, C. and Suarez, E., 2009. Mammal hunting
by the Shuar of the Ecuadorian Amazon: is it sustainable? Oryx
43: 357-385.
Zhang, W., Ricketts, T.H., Kremen, C., Carney, K. and Swinton,
S.M., 2007. Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture.
Ecological Economics 64: 253-260.
Zulu, L.C. and Richardson R.B., 2013. Charcoal: livelihoods and
poverty reduction: evidence from sub-Saharan Africa. Energy
for Sustainable Development 17:127137.
49
Chapter 3
The Historical, Environmental and
Socio-Economic Context of Forests
and Tree-Based Systems for Food
Coordinating lead author: John A. Parrotta
Lead authors: Jennie Dey de Pryck, Beatrice Darko Obiri, Christine
Padoch, Bronwen Powell and Chris Sandbrook
Contributing authors: Bina Agarwal, Amy Ickowitz, Katy Jeary, Anca
Serban, Terry Sunderland and Tran Nam Tu
CONTENTS
Abstract52
3.1 Introduction
52
3.2 Forests and Tree-based Systems An Overview
53
3.2.1 Historical Overview and the Role of Traditional Knowledge
53
3.2.2 Managed Forests, Woodlands and Parklands
55
3.2.3 Shifting Cultivation Systems
55
3.2.4 Agroforestry Systems
58
3.2.5 Single-Species Tree Crop Production Systems
60
3.3 The Influence of Forest Landscape Configuration Management and Use on Food Security and Nutrition
64
3.3.1 Interactions between Landscape Components
64
3.3.2 The Influence of Landscape Use and Management of Forests and Tree-Based Systems on Nutrition
66
3.4. The Socio-Economic Organisation of Forests and Tree-based Systems
68
3.4.1 Introduction
68
3.4.2 Land, Tree and Related Natural Resource Tenure
68
3.4.3 Gender, Rights to Land and Trees, and Food Security
72
3.4.4 Human Capital, Control and Decision-making in Forests and Tree-Based Systems
73
3.4.5 Financial Capital and Credit: Using and Investing in Forests and Trees
74
3.5 Conclusions
75
References
77
51
3 THE HISTORICAL, ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONTEXT OF FORESTS AND

TREE-BASED SYSTEMS FOR FOOD SECURITY AND NUTRITION
Abstract: Forests and tree-based systems are an important component of rural landscapes, sustaining
livelihoods and contributing to the food security and nutritional needs of hundreds of millions of people worldwide. Historically, these systems developed under a wide variety of ecological conditions, and
cultural and socio-economic contexts, as integrated approaches that combined management of forest
and agricultural areas to provide primarily for the needs of producers and their local communities. Today
they serve food and nutrition demands of growing global populations, both urban and rural. Population increase, globalisation, deforestation, land degradation, and ever-increasing demand and associated
conflict for land (including forest) resources are placing pressure on these lands. Farmers have been
encouraged to intensify food production on existing agricultural lands, by modifying some traditional
practices (such as agroforestry) or abandoning others (such as shifting cultivation) that evolved over
centuries to cope with biophysical constraints (e.g. limited soil fertility, climate variability) and changing
socio-economic conditions. This chapter provides an overview of forests and tree-based systems and
their role in enhancing food security and nutrition for rural communities and those served through
the marketplace. The variability and viability of these management systems are considered within and
across geographical regions and agro-ecological zones. Also discussed is the role of the social, cultural
and economic contexts in which these systems exist, with a focus on three factors that affect the socioeconomic organisation of forests and tree-based systems, namely: land and tree tenure and governance, human capital (including knowledge and labour) and financial capital (including credit). How these
biophysical and socio-economic conditions and their complex interactions influence food security and
nutrition outcomes, particularly for vulnerable segments of the population (i.e., the poor, women and
children), are of particular concern.
3.1 Introduction
Forests1 and trees outside of forests have ensured the food
security and nutrition of human populations since time immemorial. Throughout the world, forests and associated
ecosystems have been managed to enhance their production
of a vast array of wild, semi-domesticated and domesticated foods, including fruits, nuts, tubers, leafy vegetables,
mushrooms, honey, insects, game animals, fish and other
wildlife (discussed in detail in Chapter 2). The development and spread of crop agriculture and animal husbandry
over the past few centuries, and particularly since the early
20th century, has diminished dependence on forests for
food security and nutrition in many societies, particularly
those relying primarily on staple crops. Nonetheless forests
and tree-based systems which generally co-exist in the
landscape with other land management practices - continue to play a very important role for food security and nutrition, often complementing other food production systems,
particularly on lands unsuited to other forms of agriculture
due to soil productivity constraints.
The earths diverse forest ecosystems and the human
cultures associated with them through the course of history have produced a vast array of food systems connected
to forests and trees. These forests and tree-based systems
are based on the traditional wisdom, knowledge, practices and technologies of societies, developed and enriched
through experimentation and adaptation to changing environmental conditions and societal needs over countless
generations (Altieri, 2002; Berkes et al., 2000; Colfer et
al., 2005; Galloway-McLean, 2010; Parrotta and Trosper,
2012). Traditional forest-related knowledge and farmer
innovation have played a critical role in the development
52
of highly diverse, productive and sustainable food production systems within and outside of forests (Anderson,
2006; Kuhnlein et al., 2009; Posey, 1999; Turner et al.,
2011). Starting early in the 20th century, when anthropologists began documenting the ethnobotany and food
production systems of indigenous and local communities
worldwide, these forests and tree-based systems and the
traditional knowledge upon which they are based have
been rediscovered by a broader audience within the
(formal) scientific community, principally among agricultural scientists and ecologists.
A number of inter-related factors continue to drive the
general shift from forests and tree-based systems towards intensive agriculture (discussed in detail in Chapter 4). These
include, among others, population growth, urbanisation,
and the progressive movement from subsistence to marketdriven economies and food production systems required to
serve growing numbers of consumers globally. The resultant
increased demand for staples and other food crops has led to
expansion of mechanised agriculture and livestock production into forests and woodlands. This has frequently included
introduction of crop and livestock species and production
technologies developed under very different environmental
and socio-cultural conditions. It should be noted, however
that in some regions such as Amazonia, urbanisation has increased the demand for, and production of, foods from forests and tree-based systems (Padoch et al., 2008).
Deforestation continues unabated in many parts of the
world, in large part the result of agricultural expansion
and cattle ranching (particularly in Latin America) (FAO,
2010), driven notably by urbanisation and globalisation
of agricultural trade (c.f. De Fries et al., 2010; Rudel et
al., 2009). Further, an increasing proportion of the worlds

and across geographical regions and biomes (agro-ecological zones). The social, cultural and economic contexts
in which these systems exist and how they determine food
security and nutrition outcomes are of particular concern.
We therefore focus (in Section 3.4) on four factors that affect the socio-economic organisation of forests and treebased systems, namely: land and tree tenure and governance; gender relations; human capital (including labour);
and financial capital (including credit).
remaining forests have been degraded both structurally

and functionally. The drivers of forest degradation include
unsustainable forest management for timber, fuelwood,
wildlife and other non-timber forest products, overgrazing of livestock within forests, and uncontrolled humaninduced fires, exacerbated in many regions by a number
of factors, including climate change (Chazdon, 2014;
Cochrane, 2003; ITTO, 2002; Thompson et al., 2012) and
changing rural demographics (c.f. Uriarte et al., 2012).
These trends are not encouraging, particularly in light
of extensive and ongoing land degradation, i.e., the longterm decline in ecosystem function and productivity
caused by disturbances from which land cannot recover
unaided. Land degradation currently affects hundreds of
millions of hectares of agricultural lands and forests and
woodlands, and an estimated 1.5 billion people who live
in these landscapes (Zomer et al., 2009). Land degradation is the long-term result primarily of poor agricultural
management (both historic and ongoing) associated with
the expansion of extensive and intensive agricultural
production practices into lands that are only marginally
suitable for such activities. Without adequate organic or
fossil fuel-derived fertilisers or other agricultural inputs
(e.g. irrigation, pesticides, etc.) agricultural productivity
typically declines in such areas, jeopardising food security for producers and those who depend on them.
In this chapter, we provide an overview of forests and
tree-based systems and their role in enhancing food security and nutrition in rural communities. Our discussion
includes not only management of forests, woodlands,
agroforests and tree crops for direct food provisioning,
but also the management of forested landscapes for the
conditions they create that in turn affect other agricultural systems. The continuum of systems included in our
analysis covers managed forests to optimise yields of wild
foods and fodder, shifting cultivation, a broad spectrum
of agroforestry practices, and single-species tree crop
production (see Figure 3.1). We consider the variability
and applicability of these management systems within
3.2 Forests and Tree-based Systems

An Overview
3.2.1 Historical Overview and the Role of
Traditional Knowledge
Most of the forest and tree-based systems found in the
world today have deep historical roots, developed and enriched over generations through experimentation and adaptation to changing environmental conditions and societal needs. While the scientific community, development
economists and policymakers have generally disregarded
and under-valued local and indigenous knowledge, such
knowledge and associated management practices continue
to serve communities living in or near forests in meeting their food security, nutrition and other health needs
(Altieri, 2004; Cairns, 2007; Cairns, 2015; Johns, 1996;
Kuhnlein et al., 2009; Parrotta and Trosper, 2012).
Traditional knowledge includes such things as weather forecasting, the behaviour, ecological dynamics, and
health values of countless forest food species. It has been
used to develop techniques for modifying habitats (as
discussed in Section 3.2.2), enhance soil fertility, manage water resources, in the breeding of agricultural crops,
domesticated trees and animals, and management of habitats and species assemblages to increase their production of food, fodder, fuel, medicine and other purposes
(c.f., Altieri, 2004; Feary et al., 2012; Lim et al., 2012;
Figure
3.1
The forest-tree-landscape continuum
Managed forests
Agroforestry
Photo PJ Stephenson
Photo Liang Luohui*
Photo Miguel Pinedo-Vasquez*
Single species tree

crop production
* Photos 2 and 3 originally published as Figs. 4.6 and 10.2 in Parrotta and Trosper (2012) reprinted with kind permission from Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
53

Oteng-Yeboah et al., 2012; Parrotta and Agnoletti, 2012;

Pinedo-Vasquez et al., 2012; Ramakrishnan et al., 2012).
An often-cited example of the sucessful application of
traditional knowledge on a massive scale is the re-greening
of the Sahel in Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger (Reij, 2014)
where hundreds of thousands of poor farmers have turned
millions of acres of what had become semi-desert by the
1980s into more productive land. Traditional knowledge
regarding shea nut (from the shea tree, Vitellaria paradoxa)
harvesting and processing among women engaged in shea
butter production in Ghana and Burkina Faso has led to
local selection of trees for desired fruit and nut traits and
culling of other trees for fuel or construction. This is enabling the expansion of intensively-managed shea parklands
to meet growing export markets (Carney and Elias, 2014).
The local and indigenous knowledge that underpins
traditional forest- and tree-based systems is eroding in
most parts of the world (Collings, 2009; Maffi, 2005; Parrotta and Trosper, 2012) as a result of a number of pressures, notably shifts to a market-based economy, cultural
homogenisation, and dramatic changes in governance arrangements related to forest lands and trees outside of forests in favour of state (or colonial) ownership and control
(Garcia Latorre and Garcia Latorre, 2012; Jarosz, 1993;
United Nations, 2009). Development and conservation
policies that discourage the traditional forest management
practices that have historically ensured food security within indigenous and local communities have inevitably led to
the loss of the traditional knowledge underpinning these
practices (Collings, 2009; Parrotta and Trosper, 2012).
There is, however, a growing recognition of the value of
traditional knowledge and innovation underpinning the management of forests and tree-based systems by indigenous
and local communities worldwide. Beyond its importance
for food security and nutrition, the forested landscapes that
traditional management practices have produced can be appreciated for their provision of ecosystem services (including
carbon sequestration), as well as conservation of biological
and cultural diversity (Cairns, 2015; De Foresta and Michon,
1997; Fox et al., 2000; Palm et al., 2005; Swift et al., 1996).
Agroecology and ethnoecology are complementary approaches for understanding

and systematising the ecological rationale inherent in traditional agriculture and
enhancing sustainability of forest and tree-based systems
Figure
3.2
ENVIRONMENT
RESOURCES
(soil, vegetation, insects)
Farming
knowledge
Knowledge about
adaptation of
species
PERCEPTION
MODIFICATION
ETHNOECOLOGY
Folk taxonomies
(soils, plants,
animals)
CONSTRAINTS
(slope, pests, marginal soils, etc.)
FA
R
AGROECOLOGY
Multiple land use
strategies
TRADITIONAL FARMERS
ME
RS
RA
TIO
NA
Knowledge about
potential uses
of plants, soils,
environment
SC
LE
IEN
C
IFI
BA
SIS
Traditional
resource management techniques
Local cropping
system design and
management
Uses of local
resources, for
pest control
Peservation of culture
and ethnoscience
Improvement of local
agroecosystems and development
of appropriate technologies
In-situ management and conservation of local

varieties
Conservation of local resources

(soil, water, biodiversity)
Risk aversion from

pests and other
constraints
54
Source: Altieri (2004)
Enhanced food
self-sufficiency
and sustainability
Lower
dependence on
external inputs
Adaptability
to environmental
heterogeneity
and contraints
Survival under
conditions of
economic
uncertainty

Only recently have the scientific community and

decision-makers in dominant societies begun to appreciate the limitations of land use policies and the often
unsustainable agricultural intensification practices that
they have encouraged (c.f. Altieri, 2002; Sanchez, 1995).
Part of this reassessment is a growing awareness of the
value of forest-based food production systems and the
traditional knowledge and wisdom that underpins them.
Today, an increasing number of scientists in universities,
research organisations and networks are involved in efforts to better understand and apply knowledge of forests
and tree-based systems to help farmers and communities
to maintain, further develop, and extend the use of these
management practices to meet current and emerging
challenges (such as land and forest degradation, climate
change adaptation, and market changes). A useful framework for evaluating sustainability issues associated with
these systems and the roles that agroecology, traditional
knowledge and farmer innovation can all play in understanding and enhancing the resilience of forests and treebased systems is presented in Figure 3.2 (Altieri, 2004).
3.2.2 Managed Forests, Woodlands and

Parklands
People living in and near forests have, for millennia, been
altering forests in many ways and on many levels. Although
precise estimates are difficult to obtain, as many as 1.5 billion people are thought to be dependent on forests (Chao,
2012; Agrawal et al., 2013). Paleobotanical research in New
Guinea by Hladik et al. (1993) has shown that people as early
as the late Pleistocene (30,000-40,000 years ago) were manipulating the forest by trimming, thinning and ring-barking
in order to increase the natural stands of taro, bananas and
yams. Throughout the world, people have changed the diversity and density of edible plant and animal species, modified
the structure of forest stands and populations of food trees,
made gaps in forests to plant crops in temporary clearings,
introduced new species, burned understories, transplanted
seedlings, changed watercourses, and substantially altered
the nutritional, economic and biodiversity value of many if
not most, forests we see today (c.f. Boerboom and Wiersum,
1983; Sauer, 1969; Wiersum, 1997).
Fire is probably the most frequently cited and most
effective management tool that past generations as well
as todays small farmers wield for changing and enriching forests and other areas with food and other useful
plants. Fire is still widely used in shifting cultivation (or
swidden) systems to temporarily increase soil fertility
(through release of nutrients from standing vegetation),
and in the management of both forests and grasslands
around the world to enhance game production. Fire
not only affects standing vegetation but also the soils
upon which those forests stand and thus their potential
productivity when cleared and planted to crops (Blate,
2005; Hammond et al., 2007; Hecht, 2009; McDaniel et
al., 2005; Nepstad et al., 2001).
Many forms of traditional and contemporary forest management for food (including the creation of
multi-storied agroforests, the planting of diverse forest

gardens or the management of shifting cultivation fallows for food) have remained, with few exceptions, either invisible to researchers and planners or condemned
by governments and conservationists (Hecht et al., 2014).
Even the many contributions that woodlands make to agricultural production outside of forests have been largely
overlooked (Foli et al., 2014).
There is little doubt that many of the forests that are
now found throughout the tropics and elsewhere show the
marks of management by people whether in the past or
present (Bale, 2006). Often different types and patterns
of forest manipulation have been superimposed in complex patterns whose histories and even purposes are not
easily deciphered or understood. These patterns of forest
disturbance, management, or manipulation continue to be
developed and adapted to emerging needs and changing
environmental and socio-economic conditions (PinedoVasquez et al., 2012; Hecht et al., 2014). Rural communities living in and near forests around the globe and
throughout history, and belonging to various communities, have not only enhanced the nutritional and economic
value of their environments by increasing the supply of
plant-based foods, they have also changed and often
increased the availability of favoured animal species.
Simple categories of hunting, gathering and agriculture,
simply do not fit the realities of many of these livelihood
strategies, while forest management does not adequately describe the multifaceted nature of these processes and
practices. Some examples are outlined in Box 3.1.
The examples cited above give only a glimpse of how
tropical forests have been and continue to be managed for
food in complex and subtle ways that defy conventional
categorisation. Even these few examples, however, challenge the ahistorical view held by many that old forests,
particularly those of the tropics are primordial (Bale,
2006; Denevan, 1992) and question the facile dichotomisation of forests into pristine and degraded.
3.2.3 Shifting Cultivation Systems

Shifting cultivation, also known as swidden (or, more
pejoratively, slash-and-burn), encompasses a highly
diverse range of land use practices that human societies
worldwide have used to manage forests for food over
the past 10,000 years. Shifting cultivation is practised
in a variety of landscapes, from steeply sloped hilly areas to flat lands and low-lying valleys, and in a variety
of ecosystems ranging from tropical moist forests to dry
tropical forests and savannahs, grasslands, and seasonal
floodplains (Thrupp et al., 1997). Until the 19th and even
into the 20th century, shifting cultivation was common in
the temperate zones of the Mediterranean and Northern
Europe as well as in the southwestern and northeastern
pine woodlands of North America (Dove, 1983; Dove et
al., 2013; Warner, 1991). Currently, shifting cultivation is
practised in over 40 countries in tropical regions of Africa, South and Southeast Asia, and Latin America under
a variety of environmental, social and political conditions
55

Contemporary examples of forest management systems employed to enhance

food security and nutrition in Southeast Asia and Amazonia
Box
3.1
The Forest Gardens of West Kalimantan

On the island of Borneo there are significant forest stands that resemble natural forests but are in fact largely planted
and are all heavily managed by farmers. A good example of such forests are the forest gardens that are commonly termed
tembawang across the interior of the island. These complex forest gardens are largely found in what were once village
sites and were originally formed by planting fruit trees and other trees around houses, by preserving useful species that
came up spontaneously and by periodically weeding the areas selectively. When villages moved to other sites the gardens
remained and grew, exhibiting an impressive tree diversity. For example in the village of Tae, an area of just one-fifth of
a hectare was found to contain 224 trees belonging to 44 different species; 30 of which produce edible fruits, leaves or
other edible products (Padoch and Peters, 1993; Padoch and Peluso, 1996). The most important fruits commonly found in
tembawang include the especially prized durian (Durio zibethinus), as well as langsat (Lansium domesticum), jackfruit (Artocarpus
heterophyllus), rambutan (Nephelium lappaceum), mangosteen (Garcinia mangostana), sugar palm (Arenga spp.) and the illipe nut
(Shorea macrophylla) which produces an edible oil that also has industrial uses.
Managed forests of the Amazon estuary
The fruit of the aai palm (Euterpe oleracea) in the forests of the Amazon estuary has long been a staple of rural diets in
Amazonian Brazil. It has recently also become an important source of cash, as consumption of the nutrient-rich aai fruit
- once almost exclusively a local, rural food - has expanded to urban areas and into markets well beyond Amazonia. It is
now highly prized and sold processed into a variety of products in North America, Europe and elsewhere (Brondizio, 2008;
Brondizio et al., 2002; Padoch et al., 2008). The application of diverse management and planting practices and strategies is
increasingly transforming the tidally-flooded forests of the estuary and beyond into aa agroforests, locally called aaizais
(Hiraoka, 1994; Brondizio, 2008). Aai agroforests include stands under different types and intensities of management, with
varying population densities, structures, species diversity and composition. These practices range from selective weeding
of existing aai-rich stands to further increase the production of the palm fruit, to enrichment planting and management
of shifting cultivation fallows in the area. Often aai is not the only product that aai forest managers seek to promote, as
aaizais contain other useful products including timbers, game and other fruits. Brondizio (2008) suggests that while at
the plot level one may observe a decline in tree species diversity in managed aaizais (avg 17 species) when compared to
unmanaged floodplain forest (average 44 species), a broader landscape view (combining data from plots in different parts
of the landscape) shows an increase of [native and exotic] tree species diversity (total 96 species).
Building upon the management of others in the Amazon
Amazonian forests far from the estuary also abound in patches and plots that stand out from surrounding forests because
of their richness in fruits and other foods. Many of these forest patches are almost certainly remnants of gardens, perhaps
not unlike Borneos tembawang, that may have once been intensively managed but have since been largely abandoned. Other
food-rich plots scattered throughout Amazonia include planted or protected vegetation along footpaths and rivers that are
periodically manipulated by passersby, including indigenous groups that continue to seasonally trek following the changing
availability of animals or fish, as well as other forest travellers or migrants (Alexiades, 2009; Anderson and Posey, 1989; Kerr
and Posey, 1984; Rival, 2002). Many of these patches are further enriched and casually maintained by fruit harvesters, who
often take the time to do some selective weeding, cut back intruding vines, or occasionally transplant new seedlings. In Brazil
and Peru most of these forests are named after their most abundant and valuable tree species. In the Peruvian Amazon,
zapotales (rich in the zapote fruit (Quararibea cordata)) are frequently found along paths used for centuries by indigenous
and non-indigenous people. The exact origin of these stands is unknown, but many are believed to have originated centuries
ago, and been maintained up to this day either intentionally or accidentally by people dispersing the seeds (while eating
or processing food), protecting the seedlings and juveniles in the forests through selective weeding, and occasionally by
transplanting seedlings from forests to the edges of pathways, agricultural fields or fallows. People not only value zapotes as
a tasty fruit, but also as an attractor of game animals ranging from monkeys to tapirs.
56
(Mertz, 2009). It remains the dominant form of agriculture in many rural upland areas where it contributes to the
creation of complex landscapes and livelihoods (Mertz et
al., 2008; Raintree and Warner, 1986; Spencer, 1966).
While the importance of shifting cultivation for food
security and nutrition in many tropical regions is indisputable, the numbers of people who depend on shifting
cultivation and the land areas involved remain unclear.
This is due to a general lack of useful demographic data,
ethnographic studies, and explicit knowledge about the
location and intensity of these practices, a failure of land
cover/land use maps to identify these practices from the
global to the sub-national scale (Mertz et al., 2009a;
Padoch et al., 2007; Schmidt-Vogt et al., 2009). Earlier
empirically-based assessments have yielded estimates
of the numbers of people dependent on shifting cultivation ranging from 40 to more than 500 million worldwide
(Russell, 1988; Goldammer, 1988; Kleinman et al., 1996;
Sanchez et al., 2005). A more systematic study by Mertz
et al. (2009a) provided conservative estimates of between
14 and 34 million people engaged in shifting cultivation
in nine countries in Southeast Asia alone. Similarly, accurate estimates of land areas involved in shifting cultivation
are also lacking, although it can be assumed that they include a significant proportion of the 850 million hectares
of tropical secondary forests in Africa, Latin America and
Asia (Mertz et al., 2008). There is a clear need for further
research to provide more accurate estimates of shifting
cultivator populations and land areas involved using a
combination of remote sensing data, ethnographic studies

and special information databases. Promising steps are

being taken by scientists in this direction, for example by
Hett et al. (2012) in their work in northern Laos.
These management systems usually begin with the formation of a gap in the forest, frequently a secondary forest. The forest gaps or clearings made by shifting cultivators may range from several hectares in size, especially in
Southeast Asia when several households choose to farm
contiguously, to only a few square metres. This phase of
the cycle which usually, but not always, involves the use of
fire, and creates a space to plant agricultural crops ranging from the dryland rice and vegetable combinations frequent in montane zones of Southeast Asia (Cairns, 2007;
Conklin, 1957; Condominas, 1977; Padoch et al., 2007;
Mertz et al., 2009b), to assemblages of cassava, banana,
and a variety of tubers and herbs representative of Amazonian fields (Denevan et al., 1984; Denevan and Padoch,
1987; Padoch and de Jong, 1992). The agrobiodiversity
of some of these systems is extremely high (Rerkasem
et al., 2009). For example, the pioneering study of shifting cultivation fields in the Philippines by the Hanunoo
people of Mindoro Island (Conklin, 1957) found over 280
types of food crops and 92 recognised rice varieties, with
several dozen usually showing up in any particular field.
Intensive cropping of annual species usually lasts for only
a year or two after which management generally becomes
less intensive, allowing for a more or less spontaneous or
natural vegetation to gradually dominate the site.
In the past, the change in types or intensity of management was commonly characterised as abandonment
of the field; more recently there has been considerable
recognition that much of the natural or forest fallow
can be and often is manipulated or managed by shifting
cultivators for a variety of economic and food products
(Cairns, 2007; Alcorn, 1981; Denevan and Padoch, 1987,
Colfer et al., 1997; Colfer, 2008a; Padoch and de Jong,
1992). The less intensive management phase, or fallow,
often relies heavily on the regrowth of forest vegetation
for the provision of many of the environmental qualities
necessary for efficient food production, including restoration of soil fertility and structure. The accumulation of
biomass in the regrowing vegetation and the suppression
of pests, diseases and weeds make agricultural production, especially in the tropics, a difficult and labour-demanding activity. Fallows or young regrowth also often
feature many useful species that households collect and
rely upon for food and the preparation of food. Thus
shifting cultivation is increasingly seen and described as
a complex and dynamic form of swidden-fallow agroforestry (Denevan and Padoch, 1987).
The complexity of alternating forest and field phases
is further enhanced by other practices that result in the
mixture of planted and spontaneous vegetation in swidden fields. When fields are first cleared, any useful
tree species found in the plot are generally spared, left
standing, and even protected from fire. These plants, frequently fruit trees, then become integral parts of the field
together with planted crops and any spontaneous vegetation that survives weeding and further fires. Selective
weeding is the norm; plants valuable for food or other
purposes are again spared while those that are not valued are cut and removed. Especially in the later stages
of the fallow phase, spontaneous or forest vegetation
tends to predominate in shifting cultivators fields, the
boundaries between forests and fields disappear, although
the food value of these plots is often far higher than that
of less disturbed forests (Rerkasem et al., 2009). Many
areas of regrowth in these systems continue to be heavily managed for economic and other products, including
such nutritionally valuable resources as bushmeat (Wadley and Colfer, 2004). Garden hunting is often carried
out in shifting cultivation fields and fallows that can be
rich in animals (Linares, 1976; Hiraoka, 1995) as they
are attracted by the fruits that are frequently planted or
spared. In summary, many shifting cultivation landscapes
are largely forests that have been enriched with crops and
a broad array of species by diverse management practices
that are often applied iteratively and are difficult to classify or even see.
The dynamics of shifting cultivation have changed
over time, and in some regions these changes have been
rapid particularly since the mid-20th century. Many
shifting cultivators have intensified their land use practices over time, including through the introduction of
new crops and technologies that are not always wellsuited to local agroecological conditions. While such
changes can sometimes increase the cultivators immediate incomes, the agricultural results have often been
adverse or unsustainable, especially if unsuitable land
is overused or inappropriate inputs or crops are used.
These changes have often resulted in instabilities in previously well-adapted shifting cultivation and resource
use, jeopardising their ecological and in some cases
economic sustainability (Raintree and Warner, 1986;
Warner, 1991). For example, shortened cropping cycles
or other management practices have in many situations
contributed to soil fertility and productivity declines
(Borggaard et al., 2003; Cairns and Garrity, 1999; Ramakrishnan, 1992). Destabilisation of traditional shifting
cultivation systems is usually the result of a combination
of socioeconomic and political changes, demographic
pressures, and biophysical factors that force cultivators to change their practices (Table 3.1). Factors that
commonly contribute to these changes include government restrictions of forest use, changes in land tenure
systems, demographic pressures including large-scale
migration and resettlements, and policies that promote
cash crop production (Nair and Fernandes, 1984).
While such unstable conditions are not found in all
shifting cultivation systems, they have reinforced negative perceptions of shifting cultivators and their practices
(Fox et al., 2009; Mertz et al., 2009b). Arguments typically used to condemn shifting cultivation have included
its low productivity, negative impacts on soils, hydrology
and biodiversity conservation. However, broad generalisations regarding shifting cultivation are not helpful and
obscure the fact that environmental impacts of shifting
cultivation are diverse, and depend not only on farmers
management practices, but the environmental, social,
economic and political contexts in which they occur (c.f.,
57

Table
3.1
Causes of destabilisation and degradation in shifting cultivation systems

(adapted from Thrupp et al., 1997)
Outcomes of Destabilisation
and Degradation
Shortening or ceasing fallows

Over-exploitation of land/soils
Declining soil fertility
Decreasing yields
Increasing deforestation
Loss of biodiversity
Proximate Causes
Development of roads and

other infrastructure
Expansion of monoculture
agriculture and timber industries
Scarcity of land and other resources available to cultivators
Changing demographic trends, e.g.
migration and population growth
Lack of alternatives for production
and income for rural people
Resettlement of new groups in
frontier areas
Lack of access to stable markets
for shifting cultivators
Underlying Causes
Inequitable political-economic
structures affecting use of
resources
International/national economic
policies, especially trade liberalisation, structural adjustment
Disrespect for, or neglect of, the
rights of shifting cultivators
Lack of knowledge of
environmental factors in agriculture
Lack of sustained economic development and employment for poor
Lack of political commitment for
poverty alleviation
Inadequate attention to social needs
in environmental policies
58
Thrupp et al., 1997; Lambin et al., 2001). Efforts to ameliorate the perceived shortcomings or negative impacts of
shifting cultivation can be counter-productive, particularly in relation to food security and nutrition. For example, recent studies on land use change in the Lao Peoples
Democratic Republic (also see Chapter 5), found that policies aimed at increasing forest cover, protecting wildlife,
and promoting more intensive, commercial farming have
had significant negative impacts on the well-being of rural community members and especially on their ability to
adapt to change and respond to a variety of shocks that
economic and environmental change may bring (Hurni et
al., 2013; Castella et al., 2013).
A growing body of research indicates that in many areas where shifting cultivation is still practised, particularly
where traditional knowledge regarding fallow management
is well-developed and applied, these systems can be managed sustainably without undermining soil fertility and
jeopardising productivity - while conserving biodiversity
and maintaining provision of an array of forest ecosystem services (c.f. Cairns, 2007; Cairns, 2015; Colfer et
al., 2015; Cramb, 1993; Finegan and Nasi, 2004; Kleinman et al., 1996; Mertz et al., 2008; Palm et al., 2005; Parrotta and Trosper, 2012; Ramakrishnan, 1992; Swift et al.,
1996). With respect to efforts to mitigate climate change
through REDD+ programmes, it is important to note that
while the secondary forest-dominated landscapes created
through shifting cultivation do not store as much carbon as
primary forests, their carbon sequestration potential is far
greater than those dominated by alternative agricultural or
single species tree crop management systems (c.f. Bruun et
al., 2009; Chazdon, 2014; Martin et al., 2013). Such findings have important implications for REDD+ policies and
programmes, particularly where they may exclude shifting
cultivation areas (and their practitioners) from REDD+

funding consideration, or use REDD+ policies as a lever
to eradicate shifting cultivation practices (Angelsen, 2008;
Brown et al., 2011; Ziegler et al., 2012).
Finally, although shifting cultivation is a prominent
feature of food production in forested areas in many tropical regions, the food values of forest mosaics that result
from shifting cultivation systems have to date been little
researched as they fall between conventional farm and
forest categories. Shifting cultivation landscapes are
often illegible to outsiders (Scott, 1999), are frequently
devalued and labelled degraded. Yet what research there
is suggests that these landscapes that harbour a great variety of plants and animals in fields and food-rich fallows
and forests, and create multiple and diverse edges, have
been the larders of human communities around the globe
and throughout millennia (Andrade and Rubio-Torgler,
1994). As shifting cultivation systems disappear around
the world (van Vliet et al., 2012; Padoch et al, 2008), being replaced by other forms of production that yield more
food calories per area, it is important to understand what
is being lost in micronutrient output, food diversity and
resilience to shocks when these practices vanish.
3.2.4 Agroforestry Systems

Agroforestry encompasses a vast array of food production systems in which woody perennials are deliberately
integrated in spatial mixtures or temporal sequences with
crops and/or animals on the same land unit. These systems involve careful selection of species and management
of trees and crops to optimise productivity and positive
interactions among their components and minimise the

need for chemical fertilisers and other inputs to maintain

their productivity.
Like managed forests and shifting cultivation systems,
most agroforestry practices are based on the traditional
knowledge of people in local and indigenous communities.
A staggering variety of agroforestry systems have been developed and modified by farmers in tropical, subtropical and
temperate regions worldwide over centuries, or even millennia in some regions. The systematic study of agroforestry by
the scientific community, which began only a few decades
ago, has sought to understand the accumulated knowledge
and wisdom of agroforestry practitioners using established
theoretical bases from ecology and agroecology. This knowledge is being used to promote and in some cases modify
these traditional systems in ways that will enhance their applicability, relevance and adaptability to changing environmental, economic and social conditions (Sanchez, 1995).
Overview of agroforestry systems

and their variability
Agroforestry systems are typically classified on the basis
of their structure, i.e., the nature and spatial and/or temporal arrangement of tree and non-tree components. Three
broad classes are generally distinguished, based on the inclusion of agricultural crops and/or livestock in these systems: agrisilvicultural systems involving combinations
of agricultural crops and trees or shrubs; silvopastoral
systems that include combinations of trees and pasture
for grazing livestock; and agrosilvopastoral systems
combining crops, pastures and trees (Nair, 1993).
Agrisilvicultural systems include a very diverse array
of agroforestry subsystems and practices, all of which
involve the cultivation and management of trees and/
or shrubs for food and/or non-food values (such as soil
conservation or providing shelter for crops), generally in
combination with agricultural crops. These subsystems
and practices include for example, improved fallows,
multilayer tree gardens and alley cropping. In some cases
agrisilvicultural systems also combine the production of
timber with agricultural crops, as is the case with Taungya which was originally used to promote teak plantations
by the British colonial government in Burma in the late
19th century and which is widely practised today thoughout much of the tropics. Other agrisilvicultural systems
include different plantation crop combinations, notably for
fuelwood but also homegardens with fruit trees.
Silvopastoral systems include plantation crops with pastures and animals; trees on rangeland or pastures; and
protein banks, involving concentrated production of protein-rich tree fodder outside of grazing areas.
Agrosilvopastoral systems include homegardens with
domesticated animals; multipurpose woody hedgerows,
involving fast-growing and coppicing fodder trees and
shrubs in woody hedges for browse, mulch, green manure
and soil improvement; apiculture with trees; aquaforestry
where selected trees and shrubs line fish ponds, and multipurpose woodlots.
Within and across these broad categories, agroforestry

systems vary in the functional characteristics of their
components (especially of their tree and shrub components), including both productive functions (food, fodder,
fuelwood, timber and other non-timber forest products)
as well as protective functions (windbreaks and shelterbelts, soil conservation and fertility improvement, moisture conservation, and shade for crops, livestock and people). Considerable variation exists within all categories of
agroforestry systems with respect to management intensity and the level of inputs used (such as labour, fertilisers
and other agricultural inputs) which affect their adoption
by farmers (Bannister and Nair, 2003; Franzel, 1999;
Mercer, 2004; Scherr, 1995; see also discussion below in
3.4.4). They also differ in the predominant end uses of
their products ranging from subsistence (directly contributing to household food security and nutrition) as in
the case of homegardens, to predominantly commercial,
as in the case of cocoa, coffee, tea, rubber and oil palm
agroforestry systems.
Regional and global patterns

in agroforestry practice
Agroforestry systems serve a major role in food security
and nutrition for their practitioners (and consumers of commercialised products) within a number of agroecological
zones on all continents although the exact extent of these
practices is difficult to quantify (notably because of a lack
of standardised definitions and procedures for delineating
the zone of influence of trees in mixed tree/crop systems
(Nair et al., 2009)). Of particular importance to this report
are those regions where food security is considered to be
a more significant challenge. These include extensive areas where agroforestry systems also have a long history,
i.e., the majority of tropical and sub-tropical humid, subhumid, semi-arid and highland regions. The prevalence of
different agroforestry systems in these regions, and their
actual or potential contributions to enhanced food security
and nutrition, are influenced by climate, natural vegetation
and soils, and dominant land use systems, as well as a host
of other socio-economic factors (Nair, 1993).
In humid and sub-humid tropical lowland regions,
agroforestry is practised extensively in Southeast and
South Asia, Central and West Africa, and Central and
South America. In these regions, agroforestry can help
to reduce deforestation and forest degradation, and overcome productivity constraints on conventional agriculture
related to soil degradation caused by unsustainable forest
management, poorly managed shifting cultivation (including reduction of fallow lengths), overgrazing, soil acidity,
low soil fertility and high rates of soil erosion (Nair, 1993).
Tropical and sub-tropical highlands (over 1000m in elevation) with agroforestry potential include humid and subhumid regions in the Himalayan region, parts of southern
India and Southeast Asia, the highlands of east and central
Africa, Central America and the Caribbean, and the Andes.
Dominant land uses in these regions include shifting cultivation, arable farming, plantation agriculture and forestry,
and ranching (in Central and South America). Agricultural
productivity and food security in these regions may be
59

Global estimates of tree cover (percent) on agricultural land

in the years 20082010 (averaged)
Figure
3.3
Source: Zomer et al. (2014)
60
constrained by soil erosion, shortening of fallows in shifting cultivation, overgrazing, deforestation and forest degradation, and fodder and fuelwood shortages (Nair, 1993).
Semiarid and arid regions where agroforestry systems
are common include the cerrado of South America, savannah and sub-Saharan zones of Africa, drier regions of the
Mediterranean, North Africa and the Near East, and parts
of South Asia (Nair, 1993).
Parklands, one of the most extensive farming systems
in the tropics and the dominant farming systems in semiarid West Africa, cover the vast majority of cultivated area
in Sahelian countries. This includes an estimated 90 percent (5.1 million ha) of all agricultural lands in Mali (Ciss 1995; Boffa, 1999) where scattered multipurpose trees
such as baobab (Adansonia digitata L.), detar (Detarium
microcarpum), nr (Parkia biglobosa), tamarind (Tamarindus indica), shea tree or karit (Vitellaria paradoxa)
and ber (Ziziphus mauritiana) are managed on farmlands.
A recent geospatial analysis by Zomer et al. (2014) estimated the extent and recent changes in agroforestry practices at a global scale, based on remote sensing-derived global
datasets on land use, tree cover and population. Agroforestry systems (defined in their study as agricultural lands
with greater than 10 percent tree cover) were found to comprise 43 percent (over 1 billion ha) of all agricultural land
globally (Figure 3.3). These lands include 320 million ha in
South America, 190 million ha in sub-Saharan Africa, and
130 million ha in Southeast Asia. In Central America, 96
percent of agricultural lands were classified as agroforestry,
as were over 80 percent of agricultural lands in Southeast
Asia and South America. Globally, the amount of tree cover
on agricultural land increased substantially between 2000
and 2010, with the area of >10 percent tree cover increasing
from 40 to 43 percent (+82.8 million ha). The proportion
of agricultural lands with varying levels of tree cover and
proportions of people living in these landscapes in different
regions of the world are presented in Table 3.2.
Zomer et al. (2009) found a strong relationship between aridity and tree cover in Southeast Asia, Central
America and South America, although there are many
exceptions to this rule (i.e., high tree cover found in
more arid zones and low tree cover found in more humid
zones) that must be explained by other factors, such as
tenure, markets or other policies and institutions that affect incentives for tree planting and management, as well
as context-specific historical trends (Zomer et al., 2014;
Zomer et al., 2007; Zomer et al., 2009). Further, although
patterns in the relationship between tree cover and human population densities in agricultural landscapes exist
within aridity classes and continents, these correlations
are neither consistently positive nor negative except in the
very low or high range of tree cover, and there appears to
be no general trade-off between human population density and tree cover in these landscapes. Additional work is
needed to refine estimates of land cover (versus land use)
in agricultural landscapes and the extent of agroforestry
practice in its varied forms, both at the global level and at
finer spatial scales, as well as their relationship with factors other than climate and population density.
3.2.5 Single-Species Tree Crop

Production Systems
Single-species tree crop production systems can be found
in forest and agricultural landscapes in tropical, sub-tropical and temperate regions worldwide. They involve a wide
variety of designs and management practices that have
evolved over time in response to local, regional and global
commoditization of domesticated forest species.
The domestication of forest tree species is rooted in
antiquity. Genetic selection, vegetative propagation (including grafting) and cultivation of tree crops such as
date palm (Phoenix dactilifera), olive (Olea europaea),

sycamore fig (Ficus sycomorus), pomegranate (Punica

granatum), apple (Malus x domestica), pear (Pyrus communis), apricot (P. armeniaca), almond (P. dulcis), sweet
cherry (P. avium), peach (P. persica), mango (Mangifera
indica) before avocado (Persea americana) all date back
4,000 to 6,000 years (Janick, 2005). In the case of the
common fig (Ficus carica) its domestication may have
begun at the time when wild grains such as rice, wheat
and other staple crops were first cultivated in North Africa and Southwest Asia 11,000-12,000 years ago (Kislev
et al., 2006).
Worldwide, many hundreds of tree species are cultivated today by farmers for household and local consumption, a lesser number for sale in urban markets, and still
fewer for international markets. These cultivated species
include beverage and confectionery crops (e.g. coffee,
cocoa, tea), fruits, oils (e.g. oil palm, coconut), staples
(e.g. bananas, plantains, breadfruit, peach palm and sago
palm), spices (e.g. cinnamon, clove) and nuts. The diversity of forest species cultivated by farmers in tropical
and subtropical regions is impressive; an indicative list
presented by Smith et al. (1992) of domesticated tropical
moist and wet forest trees for their edible fruits or nuts includes over 170 species. Production from these tree crop
systems contributes significantly to the food security and
nutrition of farmers - either directly for their nutritional
value, or indirectly by providing income, as discussed in
Chapter 2.
Tree crop systems are managed on large, medium or
small scales either as single-species or multi-strata systems with other woody or herbaceous species. They may
also be intercropped in agroforestry systems with annual or perennial crops in temporal or spatial sequences. For example, coffee production in Ethiopia mainly
involves agroforestry-based systems, although there are

both natural coffee forests and single-species plantations (Muleta, 2007). Similarly, cocoa is cultivated under the canopy of shade trees in traditional agroforests,
although single-species plantations are also cultivated
(Obiri et al., 2007). Weeding, fertiliser application, pest
and disease control, and branch pruning are among the
cultural practices used in tree crop systems for enhancement of yield (Table 3.3).
The introduction of new hybrids of some species
with large international markets has led to a rapid expansion in acreage in producing countries. A number
of major tree crops are listed in the FAO database, FAOSTATS, on agricultural commodities traded globally.
These include: cocoa (Theobroma cacao), coffee (Coffea arabica, Coffea robusta), tea (Camellia sinensis), oil
palm (Elaeis gineensis), coconut (Cocos nucifera), date
palm (Phoenix dactylifera), mango (Mangifera indica),
avocados (Persia americana), orange, tangerine, lemon,
grapefruit (Citrus spp.), shea (Vitellaria paradoxa),
guava (Psidium guajava), fig (Ficus carica), banana and
plantain (Musa spp.), apple (Malus domestica), peach,
plum, and apricot (Prunus spp.), olive (Olea europaea),
cashew (Anacardium occidentale), walnut (Juglans spp.)
and hazelnut (Corylus spp.). Information on a number of
these tree crop species, their management and contributions to food security and nutrition, are summarised in
Table 3.3 (see also Chapter 2).
Production of some tree crops with major global markets has been organised on a large scale with smallholder
participation, making significant contributions to local and
national economies (Watson, 1990). While smallholder
farmers typically earn the least profit margin in tree crop
commodity value chains, single-species tree crop systems
Table
3.2
Percentage of land area and population living in agricultural areas with greater than
10%, 20% and 30% tree cover in 2008-2010 (adapted from Zomer et al., 2014)
(% of all land area/persons
in agricultural area)
Region
>10% tree cover
>20% tree cover
>30% tree cover
% land area
% population
% land area
% population
% land area
% population
North America
42.4
66
26.3
46
15.5
30
Central America
96.1
95
79.0
78
54.8
54
South America
65.6
74
31.8
35
17.7
19
Europe
45.0
46
20.4
19
11.6
10
North Africa/Western Asia
11.0
13
5.5
3.3
sub-Saharan Africa
30.5
39
15.0
16
8.4
Northern and Central Asia
25.3
23
9.7
4.3
South Asia
27.7
34
7.8
3.6
Southeast Asia
79.6
73
62.9
46
49.9
30
East Asia
47.5
57
22.1
21
11.8
Oceania
33.3
80
23.8
67
17.0
52
Global average
43.4
46
23.1
19
14.2
10
Change since 2000-2002
+3.7
+5
1.8
+2
+1.1
+2
61
62
Southeastern Mexico to Amazon Basin
Cocoa
(Theobroma cacao)
Middle East and western Asia
Common fig
(Ficus carica)
Mexico and Central America
Avocado
(Persia americana)
Tropical South and Southeast

Asia
Mango
(Mangifera indica)
Central Asia in southern Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan,

and Xinjiang, China.
Apple
(Malus domestica)
Most likely Southeast Asia
Sweet orange
(Citrus x sinensis)
Common (and
scientific) name &
centre of origin
Cultivated in humid tropics. Top 10 producing countries (in 2005): Cote dIvoire,
Ghana, Indonesia, Nigeria, Brazil, Cameroon,
Ecuador, Colombia, Mexico, Papua New
Guinea.
Cultivated in many temperate and subtropical countries worldwide, particularly in

the Middle East and areas with a Mediterranean climate. Major producers include:
Turkey, Egypt, Iran, Morocco, Algeria, Syria,
USA, Greece, Spain, Afghanistan, Brazil,
Tunisia and Italy.
Cultivated worldwide in tropics, subtropical and Mediterranean climates. Largest

producer is Mexico, followed by Indonesia,
Chile, USA, Dominican Republic, Colombia,
Brazil, Peru, China and Kenya.
Cultivated throughout the tropics and subtropics. Largest producer is India, followed
by China, Thailand, Indonesia, Pakistan,
Mexico, Brazil, Philippines, Egypt, Kenya.
Cultivated worldwide in temperate and

some subtropical regions. Largest producer
is China, followed by USA, Turkey, Iran,
Poland, Italy, France, India, Russia, Chile,
Argentina and Brazil.
Cultivated worldwide in tropical, subtropical and Mediterranean climates: Largest

producer is Brazil, followed by USA, India,
Mexico, China, Spain, Italy, Egypt, Iran, Indonesia, Turkey, Pakistan and South Africa.
Major producing countries
Grown both in large agroindustrial plantations and

by small producers, the bulk of production coming
from millions of small producers; Planted under forest
shade or in monocrop plantations; propagated from
seeds/seedlings. Pruning, ferti liser application, pest,
disease and weed control, pod harvesting and bean
processing are main cultural practices for managing
cocoa plantations.
Propagated from seeds, but more commonly by vegetative methods, i.e., cuttings, air-layering or grafting.
Grown in agroforestry systems with food crops and

in orchards; propagated from seeds/seedlings or asexually from grafted seedlings. Weed control, insect pest
and disease control, fertiliser application, irrigation and
branch pruning required to sustain productivity.
Grown in smallholder agroforestry systems and in

large scale monocrop plantations; propagated from
seeds, seedlings and grafted seedling. Weed control,
insect pest and disease control, fertiliser application,
irrigation and branch pruning required to sustain
productivity.
Grown in orchards and agroforestry systems. Generally propagated by grafting, although wild apples grow
readily from seed. Apple trees highly susceptible
to fungal and bacterial diseases and insect pests.
Intensive programme of chemical sprays important to
maintain high fruit quality, tree health, and high yields
in commercial plantations.
Grown in agroforestry systems with food crops and

in monocrop plantations; propagated from seeds/
seedlings or vegetatively from grafted seedlings. Weed
control, insect pest and disease control, fertiliser
application, irrigation and branch pruning required to
sustain productivity.
Establishment and
management
Geographical distribution, management and nutritional values of

selected tree crops with international markets
Seeds or beans contain 40-50% fat as cocoa butter used for chocolate, cocoa
mass and powder; pulp used for juice, smoothies, jelly and nata; fermented pulp
distilled into alcoholic beverages.
Figs are consumed fresh or dried and are often processed as a paste for
pastries or canned. The fruit can be fermented and distilled into alcohol. Dried
figs are a rich source (> 20% of the daily value) of dietary fibre and the essential mineral, manganese, while vitamin K and numerous other minerals are in
moderate content. Figs contain diverse phytochemicals, including polyphenols
such as gallic acid, chlorogenic acid, syringic acid, (+)-catechin, ()-epicatechin
and rutin.
The fruit is eaten fresh and for preparation of various recipes; it is a major
ingredient in vegetarian diets. A typical serving of avocado (100 g) is a very
good source of several B vitamins and vitamin K, and a good source of vitamin
C, vitamin E and potassium. Avocados also contain phytosterols and carotenoids, such as lutein and zeaxanthin, and diverse fats, mostly oleic acid but also
palmitic acid and linoleic acid, among others.
Fruits are eaten fresh or used to prepare juices, smoothies, sherbets or other
desserts. Also used (dried or fresh) in cooking, preparation of chutneys and
preserves. Both green and ripe mango fruits are rich in carbohydrates, minerals
and vitamin C. Fruits and sometimes leaves used as livestock fodder.
Fruit often eaten fresh but also cooked in prepared foods (especially desserts)
and drinks. Used for juice, vinegar and other beverages and confectionery. Fruit
contains significant dietary fibre and modest vitamin C content, with otherwise
a generally low content of essential nutrients compared to other fruits. Apple
peels contain various phytochemicals with unknown nutritional value, including
quercetin, epicatechin, and procyanidin B2.
Fruit is eaten fresh, or processed for its juice or fragrant peel for marmalade.
Orange juice is a rich source of vitamin C; the edible peel has significant contents of vitamin C, dietary fibre, total polyphenols, carotenoids, limonene and
dietary minerals, such as potassium and magnesium.
Principle food uses and nutritional value
CacaoNet. (2012); FAOSTAT Statistical Database: faostat.fao.org/;

Figueira et al. (1993)
FAOSTAT Statistical Database: faostat.

fao.org/; Janick (2005); USDA Nutrient
Database: http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/
search/list;
Veberic et al. (2008)
Chen et al. (2008); Dreher and Davenport (2013); FAOSTAT Statistical

Database:
faostat.fao.org/;
NutritionData.com. 2013.
FAO (1982); FAOSTAT Statistical

Database: faostat.fao.org/;
Mukherjee (1972).
Boyer and Liu (2004);

fao.org/; Lauri et al. (2006);
USDA Nutrient Database: http://ndb.
nal.usda.gov/ndb/search/list
Barros et al. (2012);

fao.org/
References
Table
3.3

Southeastern Mexico to
Amazon Basin
Cocoa
(Theobroma cacao)
Middle East and western Asia
Common fig
(Ficus carica)
Tropical West and Southwest

Africa, between Angola and the
Gambia.
Oil palm
(Elaeis guineensis)
Central Asia, including Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan,

Turkmenistan and southern
Kazakhstan.
Cultivated in mixed cropping with food crops in
smallholder systems and increasingly in large scale
monoculture plantations. Propagated by seeds. Weed
control, insect pest and disease control, fertiliser
application, irrigation and branch pruning required to
sustain productivity.
Cultivated in humid tropics. Top 10 producing countries (in 2005): Cote dIvoire,
Ghana, Indonesia, Nigeria, Brazil, Cameroon,
Ecuador, Colombia, Mexico, Papua New
Guinea.
Hall et al. (1996); Masters et al. (n.d.);

PROTA database: http://database.prota.
org/PROTAhtml/Vitellaria%20paradoxa_En.htm

fao.org/; Opeke (1982); Parrotta
(1993)
Figs are consumed fresh or dried and are often processed as a paste for pastries
or canned. The fruit can be fermented and distilled into alcohol. Dried figs are a
rich source (> 20% of the Daily Value) of dietary fibre and the essential mineral,
manganese, while vitamin K and numerous other minerals are in moderate
content. Figs contain diverse phytochemicals, including polyphenols such as gallic
acid, chlorogenic acid, syringic acid, (+)-catechin, ()-epicatechin and rutin.
An edible oil derived from the mesocarp (reddish pulp) of the fruit kernels is used
for household cooking (especially in tropical Africa and Southeast Asia) and industrial
food and non-food applications worldwide (e.g. margarine, cosmetics, soaps, toothpaste, waxes, lubricants and ink).
From a nutritional and health perspective, palm oil has an especially high concentration of saturated fat, specifically of palmitic acid, as well as the monounsaturated
oleic acid. While palm oil is an important source of calories and a food staple in
poor communities, its overall health impacts, particularly in relation to cardiovascular
disease, are controversial. Much of the palm oil that is consumed as food is to some
degree oxidised rather than in the fresh state, and this oxidation appears to be
responsible for the health risk associated with consuming palm oil.
Walnuts are eaten raw, toasted, pickled or cooked in various recipes; also
processed for oil. 100 grams of walnuts contain 15.2 grams of protein, 65.2
grams of fat, and 6.7 grams of dietary fibre. They are rich in vitamins, particularly
thiamine (B1), B6, folate (B9), and in trace metals, particularly manganese, but
also magnesium, phosphorus, iron, and zinc. Unlike most nuts that are high in
monounsaturated fatty acids.
CacaoNet. (2012); FAOSTAT Statistical

Database: faostat.fao.org/;
Figueira et al. (1993)

fao.org/; Janick (2005); USDA Nutrient
Database: http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/
search/list;
Veberic et al. (2008)
Edem (2002); USDA Foreign Agricultural Service: http://apps.fas.usda.gov/

psdonline/; USDA Nutrient Database:
http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/search/list

fao.org/; Molnar et al. (2011); USDA
Nutrient Database: http://ndb.nal.usda.
gov/ndb/search/list
Nut (kernel) eaten as a snack food or used in cooking.They are a rich source of pro- FAOSTAT Statistical Database: faostat.
fao.org/; Johnson (1973); Ohler (1979);
tein, carbohydrate and fat and contains minerals such as Ca, P, Na, K, Mg, Fe, Cu, Zn
Saroj and Rupa (2014)
and Mn. Cashew kernel lipids are rich in unsaturated fats, mainly oleic acid. It is also
a good source of antioxidants.The spongy, juicy, pear shaped stalk (cashew apple)
contains sugars, tannins, phenols, amino acids, ascorbic acid, riboflavin, minerals and
fibre. It is used to prepare juices or distilled into a liqueur (feni);also used to prepare
pickle and other food products.
Shea butter extracted from the seeds widely used in cosmetics as a moisturiser,
salve or lotion. It is one of the most important sources of vegetable oil in rural
areas of the savannah zone of West Africa, used in food preparation in many
African countries, and occasionally (mixed with other oils) in the chocolate
industry as a substitute for cocoa butter. Shea butter is composed of five principal fats mostly stearic, oleic but also palmitic, linoleic, and arachidic; it is a rich
source of vitamins A and E, and contains phenolic compounds known to have
antioxidant properties.
Fruit (nut) contains water suspended in the endosperm with an outer hard shell
(mesocarp) and fibrous husk(exocarp).Water from immature fruits consumed as
a refreshing beverage rich in vitamins and trace minerals; Endosperm when mature
contains 35-40% oil, 10% carbohydrate and 3% protein; oil extracted from dried
endosperm (copra) used as a cooking oil, in margarine, cocoa butter, beverages and
numerous non-food products; dried endosperm used in confectionery, cooking, and
may be ground into flour for baking.
Grown both in large agroindustrial plantations and by

Seeds or beans contain 40-50% fat as cocoa butter used for chocolate, cocoa
small producers, the bulk of production coming from
mass and powder; pulp used for juice, smoothies, jelly and nata; fermented pulp
millions of small producers; Planted under forest shade or distilled into alcoholic beverages.
in monocrop plantations; propagated from seeds/seedlings. Pruning, fertiliser application, pest, disease and weed
control, pod harvesting and bean processing are main
cultural practices for managing cocoa plantations.
Cultivated in many temperate and subtropical Propagated from seeds, but more commonly by vegcountries worldwide, particularly in the Middle etative methods, i.e., cuttings, air-layering or grafting.
East and areas with a Mediterranean climate.
Major producers include:Turkey, Egypt, Iran,
Morocco, Algeria, Syria, USA, Greece, Spain,
Afghanistan, Brazil,Tunisia and Italy.
Cultivated in many countries in the humid

tropics outside of its African range since
the mid-20th century when large-scale
plantations were established in Malaysia. At
present (2014-2015), Indonesia is the major
producer, followed by Malaysia and Nigeria.
Smaller producer countries include Thailand,
Colombia, Benin, Cameroon, Kenya and
Ghana. Largest importers of palm oil include
India, the European Union and China.
Commonly propagated from seeds. Insect pest and

disease control, fertiliser application, branch pruning
required to sustain productivity.
Largest producer is China, followed by Iran,

USA, Turkey, Mexico, Ukraine, India, Chile,
France and Romania.
Walnut (Juglans regia)
Northeastern Brazil
Grown in smallholder agroforestry systems and in

large scale monocrop plantations from seeds, seedlings
and grafted seedling. Weeding, mulching of young
plants, fertiliser application and pruning of branches
enhance growth and yield.
Cultivated in many tropical countries worldwide. Major producers include: India, Cte
dIvoire, Brazil, Indonesia, Vietnam, Nigeria,
Benin, Guinea-Bissau, Mozambique
and Philippines.
Cashew
(Anacardium occidentale)
Cultivated in a variety of agroforestry systems and in

monocrop plantations; propagated from seeds (nuts)
and seedlings.
Throughout its range it is managed in natural stands

and in agroforestry systems (parklands), either involving livestock and/or staple crop production. Control of
bush fire, insects and parasites and drought are major
management activities.
Coastal regions throughout humid tropics

and subtropics. Major producers include:
Indonesia, Philippines, and India, followed
by Brazil, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, Papua New
Guinea, Mexico, Thailand, Malaysia and
Tanzania.
Managed in natural stands near human

settlements, as well as planted throughout
its African range. Major producers include
Guinea and Sudan savannah zone Nigeria, Mali, Burkina Faso, Ghana, Cte
dIvoire, Benin and Togo.
from Senegal to Sudan, and to
western Ethiopia and Uganda.
Shea
(Vitellaria paradoxa)
Asia-Pacific
Coconut
(Cocos nucifera)

63

Shade-grown cocoa
Box
3.2
Although it has been argued that the perennial nature of tree crop systems makes them inherently
more sustainable and less environmentally damaging in
comparison with annual food crop systems (Watson,
1990), their biodiversity impacts, particularly for the
production of cocoa and coffee, have increased with the
expansion of plantations in many producing countries.
In the case of cocoa, the total area under cultivation
worldwide increased by 3 million ha (4.4 million to 7.4
ha) in the last 50 years (Clough et al., 2010), contributing
to the ongoing transformation of many lowland tropical
forest landscapes in Latin America, Africa and Southeast
Asia that began centuries ago (Schroth and Harvey, 2007).
Expansion of cocoa farms accounts for much of the
deforestation in lowland West Africa (Gockowski and
Sonwa, 2011) where intact tropical forests have been
converted for this purpose. This transformation has been
expedited by the development and introduction of highly
productive cocoa hybrid varieties that require little or
no forest tree shade. However, since open-grown cocoa
requires increased investments in agro-chemical inputs to
support optimum productivity, it has a shorter productive
period with deleterious effects on soil fertility and plantation health (Ruf and Schroth, 2004). In contrast, cocoa
traditionally grown under filtered shade of forest trees
often results in a multi-strata agroforestry system that is
considered to be one of the best examples of permanent
agriculture that preserves a forest environment and
biodiversity (Ruf and Schroth, 2004; Rice and Greenberg,
2000). Under optimal soil conditions and rainfall regimes,
shade grown cocoa may produce good yields for 60-100
years whereas optimum production may last for 20 or
less years without shade (Ruf and Schroth, 2004; Obiri
et al., 2007; Obiri et al., 2011).
on a subsistence basis or as a sole source of income. The

industry plays a fundamental role in both the cultural and
socio-economic life of the nation (Muleta, 2007). In Uganda the coffee industry employs over 5 million people and
the sector contributes 20-30 percent of the countrys foreign
exchange earnings (Kiyingi and Gwali, 2013).
Climate change and its potentially devastating effects
on crop production threaten the productivity of tree crop
systems in many regions. For example, it is predicted that
rising temperatures will dramatically reduce cocoa production between 2030 and 2050 in Cte dIvoire and Ghana, the
worlds first and second cocoa producers accounting for 53
percent of the worlds cocoa output (CTA, 2012). This has
necessitated a critical analysis of promising multi-purpose
tree-based systems that have the potential for ensuring sustainable income and food security while mitigating climate
change effects. Shade-grown cocoa and coffee are also being advocated in response to certification schemes and also
the increasing demand for specialty products (Afari-Sefa
et al., 2010; WOCAT, 2007). Generally, growing tree crops
under the shade of upper canopy forest trees is considered
to be more ecologically and economically sustainable than
open-grown systems (WOCAT, 2007). However, the value
of such systems for biodiversity conservation is very much
context-specific, and has been questioned in the case of
shade coffee (Tejada-Cruz et al., 2010).
3.3 The Influence of Forest Landscape

Configuration, Management and Use
on Food Security and Nutrition
Forests and associated food production systems do not exist in isolation. They are part of broader economic, political, cultural and ecological landscapes. Such landscapes
usually comprise diverse patches of different land use
types, which may include forest and non-forest, different
food production systems, and numerous other land uses.
The following discussion considers the ways in which different land use-patches interact with each other in space
and time to influence the productivity and sustainability
of forests and tree-based systems.
3.3.1 Interactions between

Landscape Components
Theobroma cacao (cocoa) pods.
Photo sarahemcc, Wikimedia Commons
64
do create employment and income opportunities locally and

internationally as well as improved trade and foreign exchange balances for producing nations. For example, Ethiopia, the oldest exporter of coffee in the world, is the largest
coffee producer and exporter in Africa. The cultivation, processing, trading, transportation and marketing of coffee provide employment for 15 million Ethiopians who depend on
the industry for at least a significant part of their livelihood
Positive contributions of forests to

agricultural productivity
Forests provide an array of direct and indirect contributions
to agriculture at different scales (MA, 2005). At the broad
scale, forests contribute to the recycling of nutrients, suppression of agricultural pests, detoxification of noxious
chemicals, control of hydrological processes and genetic
resources for future adaptation to climate change (Foley
et al., 2005; MA, 2005; Plantegenest et al., 2007). In a
study carried out in 56 countries in Africa, Asia and Central/South America it was found that a ten percent increase
in deforestation would result in a 4-28 percent increase in
flood frequency (Bradshaw et al., 2007), with large impact

on rural and agrarian populations (FAO and CIFOR, 2005;

Jonkman, 2005). Forests also contribute to climate change
mitigation, having the capacity to absorb a significant fraction of global carbon emissions which could have positive
impacts on food production (FAO, 2012).
At the local scale, forests and trees outside forests
are essential for ecosystem services such as pollination
(Ricketts, 2004; Ricketts et al., 2008), pest regulation and
regulation of the microclimate (Kort, 1988), as discussed
in Chapter 2. They can also preserve genetic diversity
of domesticated and wild food species and enhance soil
fertility and agricultural productivity (Tscharntke et al.,
2005a; Bianchi et al., 2006; Ricketts et al., 2008; Boyles
et al., 2011). For example, 75 percent of the most important crop species benefit from pollination services (Klein
et al., 2007) accounting for 153 billion Euros annually
(Gallai et al., 2009). In many African countries farmermanaged forest regeneration programmes are estimated
to have doubled the agricultural yields over nearly five
million hectares with significant potential for the future
(World Bank, 2013). Green foliage collected from forests
can also represent an important resource for compost to
enhance productivity of field crops, such as areca nut
plantations in India (Sinu et al., 2012).
As discussed in Chapter 2 and earlier in this chapter,
forests are also a direct source of food, fuel, fodder and
medicines, benefiting not only people living within forested landscapes (c.f. Colfer, 2008a; Kuhnlein et al., 2009),
but those living elsewhere, including urban areas. For example, it is estimated that about 2.4 billion people, or 40
percent of the population of low- and middle-income countries, rely on woodfuel for cooking, with some 746 million
people boiling their water with wood (FAO, 2014).
The provision of such forest benefits can be dependent
on the spatial configuration of the landscape and proximity to forests. For example, Ickowitz et al. (2014) found
that after controlling for confounding factors (such as
distance to market and road density) childrens dietary diversity increased with tree cover across 21 African states.
Wild harvested meat also provides a significant source of
food in many regions, including for example in Central
Africa where a critical portion of protein and fat often
comes from this source (Nasi et al., 2008). Forests can
also contribute to nutrition by providing sources of income that can be spent to buy food in markets.
Negative effects of forests on agricultural

productivity
Forests can also have negative impacts on nearby agricultural production, for example by harbouring agricultural
pests and diseases that reduce agricultural yield, and others that more directly harm human health. New insect
pests can be introduced into an area through the transportation of wood or nursery stock associated with forestry
and horticultural activities (Cock, 2003). Forest wildlife
species and arthropods (insects, ticks, etc.) can spread disease pathogens and parasites to livestock and humans, such
as malaria, encephalitis, rabies, Ebola, SARS, and several
others (Bengis et al., 2002; Belotto et al., 2005; Colfer,
2008b; Olson et al., 2010; Tomalak et al., 2011; Wilcox
and Ellis, 2006). In light of the recent West African Ebola

crisis, it has been argued that these risks create an opportunity to conserve forest animal species by emphasising
the dangers involved in consuming wild meat (Williams,
2014). However, this argument has been rejected by others,
who emphasise the complex relationship between people,
forests and hunting practices that produce the risk of
disease transmission (Pooley et al., 2015).
Forests are a critical habitat for wildlife species but can
also be a source of human-wildlife conflict, particularly
where agroforestry buffers between forests and farms provide suitable habitat for wild species (Naughton-Treves et
al., 1998). When agricultural fields, agroforestry systems
or homegardens are raided by wild animals, crop damage can result in significant economic losses on farms
and during post-harvest stages of food production, and in
some cases total crop devastation (Ntiamoa-Baidu, 1997;
Hockings and McLennan, 2012). Around Kibale National
Park (Uganda) - a large forested reserve harbouring crop
raiding species such as baboons and chimpanzees - average financial losses for farmers in a six month period
were estimated at USD 74 with more severe crop damage
closer to the park boundary (Mackenzie and Ahabyona,
2012). In the struggle to protect crops, both humans and
wildlife can be put in danger, undermining conservation efforts due to increased human-wildlife conflict and
increasing farm labour costs (Hill, 2000; Prez and Pacheco, 2006). In India, elephants kill over 400 people and
destroy crops valued at two to three million USD every
year (Bist, 2006; Rangarajan et al., 2010).
Impacts of other land use patches on forests

Forests can be impacted positively or negatively by other
nearby or distant land uses in ways that affect their own
role as food production systems, as habitat for biodiversity, or their structure and function more generally. Forests located near farming and urban areas may be more
exposed to air, water and other types of pollution. Forests
are vulnerable to emissions of reactive pollutants such as
SO2, NOx, HNO3 and NH3 as well as elevated levels of
ozone and excessive mineral salts (Fowler et al., 1999;
Likens et al., 1996). These potentially phytotoxic pollutants, largely studied in the northern hemisphere, are
damaging to forest health although it is difficult to identify specific pollutant effects given the high level of interactivity between pollutants, and between pollutants and
climate change (Bytnerowicz et al., 2007; Paoletti et al.,
2010). Atmospheric pollutants can also severely damage
forests through acid rain (Likens et al., 1996).
Proximity to human settlements and roads can increase the likelihood of invasive species being introduced
to, and perhaps damaging, forest environments (Bradley
and Mustard, 2006; Bartuszevige et al., 2006). In most
cases the introduction of non-native species may have little impact since they often fail to survive in a new habitat. However, those that do become established and thrive
can cause severe and widespread economic and ecological losses, such as a reduction in forest and agricultural
productivity, species population declines and even extinctions (Holmes et al., 2009). For example, in Canada
65

the Asian longhorned beetle (Anoplophora glabripennis)

threatens the hardwood and maple syrup industries, while
the impacts of yellow star thistle (Centaurea solstialis) on
cattle production have cost Californian ranchers and the
state an estimated USD 17 million (Eagle et al., 2007).
In French Polynesia and other Pacific islands, Miconia
calvescens (an introduced tropical American tree), has
shaded out native plant species in some areas and, due to
its shallow rooting habit, increased erosion and frequency
of landslides (Meyer and Malet, 1997; Environment Canada, 2004; Moore, 2005).
Scale and fragmentation issues
66
Many of the interactions described above are influenced

by the scale and spatial configuration of different land use
patches. The process of forest fragmentation, occurring
when formerly forested lands are converted permanently
to pastures, agricultural fields, or human-inhabited developed areas, can result in changes in ecosystem functions that alter the supply and distribution of ecosystem
services vital for agriculture (Tscharntke et al., 2012).
Reduced connectivity of forest patches affects the ability
of pollinators, pest predators (Tscharntke et al., 2005b;
Kremen, 2005), water and nutrients (Brauman et al.,
2007; Power, 2010) to move across a landscape. However, there is growing evidence that in agricultural landscapes forest fragments continue to provide ecosystem
services, including pollination and pest control services
(Ricketts, 2004; Ricketts et al., 2008; Holzschuh et al.,
2010), water regulation and purification services (Foley
et al., 2005). Forest fragments in agricultural landscapes
can also change dispersal patterns for fungi and soil organisms that affect decomposition (Plantegenest et al.,
2007). In some cases, managing landscape configuration
to enhance forest fragment connectivity may be a more
effective tool for optimising agricultural landscapes for
multiple ecosystem services rather than simply limiting
further forest loss (Mitchell et al., 2014). It is however
important that sufficiently large forest patches and connectivity are maintained, as high levels of forest loss can
result in abrupt landscape-scale loss of native forest specialist species in the long term (Pardini et al., 2010).
In many parts of the world, traditional agricultural
landscape management approaches have been developed
to more closely link agricultural and forest (or woodland)
management and ensure continuity in the provision of ecosystem services from forests. For example, Japans traditional socio-ecological production landscapes, known as
satoyama (sato =home village; yama =wooded hills
and mountains), comprise integral social and ecological
networks of villages and their surrounding agricultural
lands, open forestlands and forests, in which forests are
managed for multiple values, including biodiversity conservation and the ecosystem services that forests and woodlands provide to agriculture (Indrawan et al., 2014). Similar landscape management systems are found throughout
Asia and elsewhere in forms that are adjusted to regional
biophysical conditions (e.g. Agnoletti, 2006; Blair et al.,
2010; Johann et al., 2012; Kumar and Takeuchi, 2009;
Ramakrishnan et al., 2012; Youn et al., 2012).
3.3.2 The Influence of Landscape Use and

Management of Forests and Tree-based
Systems on Nutrition
Many factors influence the actual or potential contributions of forests and tree-based systems to food security
and nutrition of producers, their families and other consumers. These include the productivity of these management systems, the resilience of these systems to withstand shocks (weather and other events), the choice of
food species cultivated and managed, and the extent to
which the food products are utilised for household or
local consumption, or marketed to earn income which
may then be used to purchase other foods. The variety
of forest and tree management practices that typically
co-exist within rural landscapes may contribute to the
broader food system in varying degrees, since a substantial portion of peoples diet is often traded or purchased
(Powell et al., 2015).
Two main types of studies can be used to evaluate how
different landscape, forest and tree management approaches may impact nutrition. The first type involves studies that
compare the diets of one or more ethnic groups at different stages of transition from one livelihood strategy to another, with the different livelihood strategies having different land use patterns. A selection of such studies and their
main results are summarised in Table 3.4.
Other studies that have compared the capacity of different forests and tree-based systems to produce nutritionally-important foods such as fruits and vegetables and
animal sources of foods (usually done by modelling) offer
insights as to their relative contribution to diet and nutrition. Differences in the diets of traditional hunter-gatherer
communities and neighbouring agricultural ones in India
seem to be very context specific (sometime better, sometimes worse). In many places more traditional subsistence groups had more meat in their diets, based on studies from India (Gupta, 1980), Cameroon (Koppert et al.,
1993), Borneo (Colfer, 2008a; Dounias et al., 2007) and
Botswana (Hausman and Wilmsen, 1985). Comparing
primary forests with secondary or heavily modified forest
systems, the latter provide a greater number and quantity
of useful plant species (but not always animal species)
than primary forests, based on studies from the Brazilian
(Parry et al., 2009), Bolivian (Toledo and Salick, 2006)
and Peruvian Amazon (Gavin, 2004) and from Panama
(Smith, 2005). Considering shifting cultivation, the abandonment of this practice may be associated with less use
of wild foods including wild meat and vegetables (and
uptake of micronutrients such as iron and vitamin A), but
the few existing studies have not demonstrated that shifting cultivation is associated with better dietary intake,
based on studies in the Philippines (Schlegel and Guthrie,
1973) and India (Gupta, 1980). Complex agroforests
have been found more likely to provide enough fruits
and nutrients per unit of land than less diverse agroforestry systems, based on results of farm modelling studies
from Central America and West Java) (Cerda et al., 2014;
Marten and Abdoellah, 1988). Regarding home gardens, four separate reviews of the impacts of agricultural

Studies examining differences in diet between groups during

livelihood and land use transitions
Transition/Location
Shifting cultivation to
plough-farming in the
Philippines
Findings related to diet

Two Tiruray communities at opposite poles of this transition were studied.
Hunting, fishing, and gathering of wild resources have virtually disappeared.
Reliance on wild food resources diminished, with greatly increased
dependence on market foods.
Table
3.4
Study
Schlegel and
Guthrie (1973)
The traditional communities had lower average intake of energy, protein, fat,
calcium, iron, vitamin A and higher average intake of thiamine and riboflavin (B
vitamins) compared to those in sedentary agriculture.
Comparison of diets
of tribes with settled/
paddy-based agriculture,
to those with shifting
cultivation and those
with hunting and
gathering, in India
Gupta (1980)
A comparison of tribes from northeast India shows that those that engaged in
the most hunting (Padams) had highest percent energy from protein, highest
iron, calcium and vitamin A intake. The tribe with least animal source foods
(Noktoe) had second highest vitamin A intake, likely due to greater dependence on wild and cultivated vegetables. The tribes practising mixed shifting and
paddy cultivation (Padam, Minyong and Galongs) had better diets than those
without paddy cultivation (Nokte). In central and western India, a hunter-gatherer forest dwelling tribe (Marias) had lowest calcium, iron and vitamin A intake.
Forest dwelling subsistence agriculture tribe (Baiga) had highest iron, vitamin A,
compared to settled rice-based agricultural tribe (Gonds), despite much higher
energy intake by Gonds.
Hunter-gatherers in
transition to settled
agro-pastoralism;
San of /ai/ai, in Botswana
Traditional (hunting and gathering): Percentage of caloric intake from:

vegetables (85), meat (12), milk (1), maize (2).
Mixed (diet of wild and domestic food): Percentage of caloric intake from:
vegetables (65), meat (11), milk (17), maize (7).
Hausman
and Wilmsen
(1985)
Settled (agro-pastoralism): Percentage of caloric intake from: vegetables (10),

meat (10), milk (29), maize (43), sugar (9).
Settled communities have much lower contribution to diet from vegetables
and meat and much greater intake of milk, maize meal and sugar.
Comparing huntergatherers to neighbouring
agricultural communities
in Cameroon
Yassa: Agriculture and fish-based subsistence. Average daily per capita intake:
34g of vegetables; 199g fish; 24g meat.
Koppert et al.
(1993)
Mvae: Subsistence based on agriculture and hunting (in forest and on coast).
Average daily per capita intake: 100g vegetables; 62g fish; 129g meat.
Bakola: hunter-gatherer based subsistence. Average daily per capita intake:
54g vegetables; 22g fish; 216g meat.
Much higher intake of meat and high animal source food intake in hunter-gatherer group, higher vegetable consumption in agricultural community.
Hunter-gatherer to
sedentary urban/
agriculture in Borneo
Remote/traditional communities had more diverse diets with more meat,

better nutritional status and physical fitness and greater contribution of forest
resources to diet compared to sedentary agricultural or urban communities.
Dounias et al.
(2007)
Hunter-gatherer to
market-oriented rice
cultivation in Borneo
People in resettled area with better access to markets, where peoples livelihood strategies focus on market-oriented rice production had poorer diets
compared to those in a remote area (possibly due to lower use of wild foods
and less time for production of non-staples)
Colfer (2008a)
Agricultural community
in forested landscape
mosaic, transition after
introduction of payments
for ecosystem services
(PES ) in Mexico
Community perceived loss of food security, and greater dependence on

purchased food. They perceived lower maize yields due to shorter fallows (less
agricultural land / no new land available), lower meat consumption (no more
hunting, all meat now has to be purchased and the money from PES cannot
fully compensate for loss of hunting).
Ibarra et al.
(2011)
67

Village near Corbett National Park, India.

Photo PJ Stephenson
interventions on nutrition outcomes all concluded that

there is convincing evidence for the positive impact of
home garden interventions on nutrition, especially access
to fruits and vegetables and intake of vitamin A (Berti et
al., 2004; Girard et al., 2012; Masset et al., 2012; Powell
et al., 2015; Tontisirin et al., 2002).
More research is needed into the detailed contribution of different forms of forest and tree management
systems to nutrition.
3.4 The Socio-Economic Organisation

of Forests and Tree-based Systems
3.4.1 Introduction
68
The viability of production system options available to

farmers, including forests and tree-based systems, is influenced by an array of biophysical and socio-economic
factors. Understanding both the opportunities and constraints on the retention or adoption of these production
options is of prime importance to all concerned with enhancing the food security and nutrition of farmers and
rural communities as well as the urban and increasingly
globalised populations whose food they produce.
Challenges faced by families and communities that
rely on forests and tree-based systems for their food security and nutrition include heterogeneous and unpredictable environmental conditions (e.g. unpredictable
weather exacerbated by climate change, fragile and/or
marginal soils), forest degradation, deforestation and associated biodiversity losses. Production systems are also
embedded in underlying invisible social, economic and
political structures, and are influenced by social and cultural norms, values, beliefs, customs and traditions. Such
factors determine social and gender relations and their

interaction within production systems, and shape the cultural identities of different ethnic and social groups and
communities and indigenous peoples, and their food and
livelihood preferences and choices. Social, economic and
political structures also embody power relations which
determine access to land, trees and other productive resources, and participation by different stakeholders in
forest and natural resource governance mechanisms and
the resulting outcomes in terms of resource appropriation
or sharing and conflict resolution.
The socio-economic organisation in the four production systems identified earlier in this chapter is highly diverse and complex, with considerable variations between
and within continents and countries. Even a single landscape often comprises peoples or social groups of different ethnic or religious affiliation, class, caste, political
ideology or agricultural profession (pastoralists, sedentary farmers, foresters, plantation managers, hunters and
gatherers) who may have overlapping, complementary or
quite distinct production systems.
This section concentrates on the three factors directly
affecting the socio-economic organisation of production:
land and tree tenure, gender relations, human capital and
financial capital (including credit), with a focus at the
community and household level. These factors and their
interrelationships are constantly evolving in response to
external changes that include: shocks (such as drought,
disease, food price hikes), longer-term climate change
trends, public action (policies, laws, administrative procedures), infrastructrure development, innovations and
new technologies, improved extension services, changes
in governance frameworks and institutions, popular demand voiced through protest and social movements, and
new opportunities brought about by changes in markets
for land, labour, agricultural and tree products, and forest
sub-soil resources (such as minerals, fossil fuels). While
the drivers of these changes are discussed in Chapter 4,
the implications for the socio-economic organisation
of production in forests and tree-based systems are addressed in this section, with particular focus on the livelihoods, food security and nutrition of the poor.
3.4.2 Land, Tree and Related Natural

Resource Tenure
The four forest- and tree-based systems described earlier
in this chapter (Section 3.2) are governed by a web of
highly complex land tenure systems in which rights to
land, trees and other natural resources such as water are
commonly categorised as: private, communal, open access and state (Box 3.3). The related tenure rights can be
defined through formal or statutory legal arrangements
(de jure), which predominate in private or state land, or
by customary practices (de facto) which are prevalent in
communal and open access regimes.
Forests and tree-based systems are characterised by
different land right regimes (defined in Table 3.5), though
there are marked context-specific variations in practice.

Shifting cultivation is practised generally on land that

is not privately owned while agroforestry is commonly
practised on private land in South Asia, parts of North Africa, and Europe and on communal land in sub-Saharan
Africa. Plantations and smaller tree crop stands grown by
corporations/large farmers and smallholders respectively
are usually on private land which provides the tenure security needed to protect costly, long-term investments.
However, in countries where communal tenure is fairly
secure, smallholder tree crops are also found on communal land (for example, cocoa trees in Ghana (Quisumbing
et al., 2003), or oil palm on collectively-held customary
land in Indonesia (Li, 2014)). Corporations quite commonly lease state land for tree plantations, for example,
in Indonesia for oil palm (Li, 2014) and in many countries
in Southeast Asia, Africa and Latin America for industrial
timber concessions (c.f. Hatcher and Bailey, 2010). Finally, all four types of tenure can apply to managed forests,
with the actual distribution by tenure varying by region
and country.
Bundles of rights, incentives and

food security
In practice, different tenure regimes can co-exist in the
same landscape, and even within some tenure regimes
two or more individuals or groups can have different
rights to a specific area of land or related natural resources (such as trees), either simultaneously or in
different seasons. Thus it is useful to think of bundles of rights that can be held by different holders of
the rights (FAO, 2002a; Bomuhangi et al., 2011). A
frequently-used classification, developed by Schlager
and Ostrom (1992), distinguishes: access, withdrawal,
management, exclusion and alienation rights. Access
rights enable entry to the land, such as the right to walk
in a forest. Withdrawal rights include the right to take
something from the land, such as forest foods, firewood, timber. While in many countries communities
have withdrawal rights for subsistence or small scale
commercial activities, in some cases such as Thailand, legislation does not recognise customary rights
of forest communities, rather criminalising extraction
Land tenure categories
Box
3.3
Representing the relationship, whether

legally or customarily defined, among people, as individuals or groups, with respect to land (including land-related
natural resources such as water and trees), land tenure is
commonly categorised as:
Private: the assignment of rights to a private party who
may be an individual, a married couple, a group of people,
or a corporate body such as a commercial entity or
non-profit organisation. For example, within a community,
individual families may have exclusive rights to agricultural
parcels and certain trees. Other members of the community can be excluded from using these resources without
the consent of those who hold the rights.
Communal: a right of commons may exist within a community where each member has a right to use independently the holdings of the community. For example,
members of a community may have the right to graze
cattle on a common pasture.
Open access: specific rights are not assigned to anyone
and no-one can be excluded.
State: property rights are assigned to some authority in
the public sector. For example, in some countries, forest
lands may fall under the mandate of the state, whether at
a central or decentralised level of government.
Source: FAO, 2002a.
Note: The rights to subsoil resources such as minerals,
natural gas and oil are almost always reserved for the
state (RRI, 2012).
of forest products and land occupation (RRI, 2012).

Management rights cover the right to use or change the
land, such as to plant trees or crops or to graze animals,
or to make improvements to the land, such as better water management. In many countries, traditional management systems developed by local communities and
indigenous people to regulate access and withdrawal
rights by community members have been replaced by
government-authorised systems, subject to certain conditions. These can bring benefits, for example, in reducing deforestation and increasing community access
Table
3.5
Generalised overview of types of tenure rights associated with forests

and tree-based systems
Rights
Forest/Tree-based system
Private
Managed forest
Communal
Open Access
State
Agroforestry
Single-species tree crop systems
69

Table 3.6 illustrates the complexity of these bundles of

rights for the four forest- and tree-based systems. While
not compatible with systems of shifting cultivation, private tenure permits all five rights (i.e. full ownership)
in the other three systems. Communal right regimes operate in all four systems, and are particularly extensive
in Latin America and Africa. They are usually managed by (informal) community mechanisms (sometimes
to fuelwood and fodder and control over NTFPs, but

they can also weaken a communitys capacity to function flexibly and effectively to meet community needs
for food and other livelihood requirements (Larson et
al., 2010; RRI, 2012; Barry and Meinzen-Dick, 2014).
Exclusion rights prevent others from using the land or
resource, while alienation rights enable the transfer of
land to others, by sale, lease or bequest.
Table
3.6
Bundles of rights typically associated with

different forest- and tree-based systems
Forest/Tree based
Systems and Tenure*
Rights
Access
Withdrawal
Management
Exclusion
Alienation
Managed forest
Private
Communal
CG
CG
Open Access
State
SB / CG (CO)
Communal
CG
CG
Open Access
State
CG (CO)
Private
Communal
CG
CG
State
SB (CO)
Private
Communal
CG
CG
SB / CB
SB / CB
SB / CB
SB / CB
SB
Agroforestry
Single-species Tree Crop systems
State
Source: Adapted by authors from FAO, 2002b and Schlager and Ostrom, 1992
(CG) Traditional Community Groups;

(CB) Corporate Bodies; (SB) State Body;
(CO) Community Organisation with formal/legal rights and obligations.
X = Not permitted
70
* The tenure categories are taken from FAO, 2002b, given in Box 3.3, and also used in Table 3.5

government-authorised under specific conditions) and

enjoy some exclusion rights. Importantly, they do not
have alienation rights. Open access regimes are confined
to shifting cultivation and, in a few countries, some managed forests, where users only have access and withdrawal
rights. Finally, in most countries the state owns the major
share of managed forests and tree plantations, commonly
delegating management rights to state bodies and/or formal community organisations under strict conditions, or
leasing land for tree plantations to corporate bodies with
all rights except alienation.
More recently, the Schlager and Ostrom (1992) classification has been expanded (RRI, 2012; Stevens et al., 2014)
to include the dimensions of duration and extinguishability.
Duration considers whether the rights are held in perpetuity or for a limited time period. Permanent rights are
vital to safeguard the sovereignty and autonomy of indigenous peoples, (RRI, 2012) and because indigenous peoples right to food is inseparable from their right to land,
territories and resources, culture and self-determination
(Damman et al., 2013). Often, in customary systems the
duration of rights is determined by evidence of continuous use (e.g. in Meghalaya, India (Kumar and Nongkynrih, 2005); and in Gambia (Dey, 1981)). Long-term rights
provide security and incentives to invest and maintain
sustainable forest and tree management practices (RRI,
2012). In Viet Nam, for example, long term (50 years or
more) use rights to forest lands have been secured through
Land Use Certificates, with a total of 1.8 million certificates having been issued by December 2010 (FAO, 2014).
The right of extinguishability ensures due process
and compensation when governments exercise their
universal right of eminent domain to expropriate lands
for the public good. While private land owners as well
as communities and indigenous peoples with de jure use
rights to state or communal forest land generally have legal entitlements to due process and compensation, communities with de facto rights are vulnerable to losing
their land and their livelihoods (RRI, 2012). For example,
herders in Mongolia protested at government issuance of
gold mining rights to national and foreign companies, as
they lost pastures and forests and their water was polluted
by the mines (New Zealand Nature Institute, 2006). Logging concessions as well as illegal logging on indigenous
peoples land in Indonesia and Peru, have displaced thousands of people from forests on which they depend for
their food and livelihoods (United Nations, 2009). Even
with official de jure rights, in many instances weak government protection may make it difficult for communities to assert their rights. For example, Peru and Colombia have ratified various international conventions and
covenants regarding indigenous peoples and the right to
adequate food for all, and have demarcated and titled a
large part of indigenous and community land, yet they
have authorised hydrocarbon and mining companies to
operate on this land, without consultation or consent by
the indigenous peoples and communities concerned.
Multiple rights to a specific parcel of land or to specific
natural resources on it can be held simultaneously or successsively by several people or groups (Bruce, 1999; Fuys
and Dohrn, 2010). These complex rights mean that even a

single landscape that might contain forests, agroforestry
with trees, crops, pastures and animals, and lakes/rivers,
would be subject to a web of different property rights
regimes or, as conceptualised by Bruce (1999), tenure
niches. For food security and livelihoods, it is important
to recognise that these bundles of rights can be further
broken down, with different individuals, families, kinship
and other groups (cross-cut by gender, class and agricultural specialisation) accessing different rights to the
same resources. The exercise of these rights can be complementary, for example, where some people (especially
men) may have ownership or usufruct rights to trees, and
others (especially women) to certain products from these
trees such as fruit and small branches for fuel (Rocheleau
and Edmunds, 1997). In Zimbabwe for example, in communal tenure systems among the Baganda, only men use
fig trees (Ficus natalensis) to produce bark cloth, hang
beehives and create boundaries while only women use
figs for soil improvement and as shade for other crops. In
northern Thailand upland residents have rights to collect
bamboo on individually-owned lowland farms (Fuys and
Dohrn, 2010).
Rights to trees may be different from rights to the land
on which they grow, particularly in the case of customary tenure systems (Howard and Nabanoga, 2007). However, even under private tenure, they may be different, for
example, in Morocco the state owns argan trees even if
they are grown on private land (Biermayr-Jenzano et al.,
2014). Under customary tenure, an individuals rights to
trees may depend on his/her rights to the land on which
they are grown, while planting trees can also establish
rights to land. However, bundles of rights to trees and their
products can also be held by different individuals (with or
without the land ownership or use rights), simultaneously
or at different times, for different purposes (Fortmann and
Bruce, 1988). These rights are often nested and layered
in space as well as among rights holders, creating differential entitlements to benefits that are also related to the
broader social structures (Howard and Nabanoga, 2007),
and the social and religious/spiritual norms, values and
practices of the concerned communities.
The exercise of multiple rights can cause conflicts
despite the existence of mediation mechanisms (Bruce,
1999). For example, in the state-owned argan forest areas in southwestern Morocco, tensions are rife between
nomadic camel and goat herders with grazing rights and
local residents with rights to exploit the argan fruit (Biermayr-Jenzano et al., 2014). In Senegal, disputes between
Wolof farmers and Peul herders over the use of branches
from the baobab trees for fodder undermined the Peuls
food security and livelihoods. These disputes were exacerbated by a government decree protecting the baobab
tree (Rose, 1996).
As Schlager and Ostrom observe (1992) Different
bundles of property rights, whether they are de facto or
de jure, affect the incentives individuals face, the types of
actions they take, and the outcomes they achieve. These
rights are ultimately critical for ensuring food security
and nutrition.
71

3.4.3 Gender, Rights to Land and Trees,

and Food Security
72
Reviewing country-level statistics and a large number of

field studies, Lastarria-Cornhiel et al. (2014) conclude
that most land tenure systems are gender-biased, allocating primary rights to land to male members of the community and family. Gender differences in ownership or
use rights to trees are particularly complex and vary by
culture. In many countries, trees on state, community or
open access land belong to the state. Women in matrilineal systems often have stronger rights, though sometimes these are controlled by their brothers or maternal
uncles. Gender differences in the way land is accessed
also contribute to differences in tenure security. In subSaharan Africa, men often acquire use and management
rights to land through inheritance or allocation by their
clan or lineage, while women more commonly acquire
temporary use rights (and occasionally permanent rights)
through marriage and to a considerably lesser extent
through fathers and brothers (Rocheleau and Edmunds,
1997; Howard and Nabanoga, 2007; Kiptot and Franzel,
2012; Meinzen-Dick et al., 2014; Lastarria-Cornhiel et
al., 2014). In such customary systems, women frequently
lose their land use rights if their marriages are dissolved
(through separation, divorce or death of their spouse),
particularly if they do not have sons. In Latin America,
women are more likely to acquire land through inheritance (so their rights are not affected if their marriages
dissolve) and men through purchases in land markets
(Doss et al., 2008). Paradoxically, the emergence of land
rental markets in customary systems, particularly in subSaharan Africa, can facilitate womens access to land as
male owners are more ready to rent to women because
they are prohibited from acquiring permanent land rights
(Giovarelli, 2006; Lastarria-Cornhiel et al., 2014).
Rural men and women often acquire different types of
assets (Meinzen-Dick et al., 2014). Men are more likely
to own large livestock such as cattle and buffaloes and
women small livestock such as poultry and goats (Kristjanson et al., 2014). In rural Philippines women tend to
have higher educational levels (and thus better access to
non-farm work) while their brothers are more likely to
inherit family land (Quisumbing et al., 2004). In Asia,
women are more likely to own jewellery, and men are
more likely to own land and assets such as farm equipment and vehicles (Agarwal, 1994b; Antonpoulos and
Floro, 2005, cited in Meinzen-Dick et al., 2014).
Where the state owns trees, the use rights are either vested in the community, which exercises management responsibilities or in the male leaders of the lineage or households
(Rocheleau and Edmunds, 1997). Often the effectiveness
of womens rights depends on their voice in local institutions that are commonly male-dominated (Agarwal, 2010;
Lastarria-Cornhiel et al., 2014). In the case of communityowned land and state land managed by communities, women often have secondary rights legitimised through their
relationship to men. Howard and Nabanoga (2007) found
highly complex gender-differentiated rights to trees and
their products among the Baganda in Uganda that varied
according to their location in homesteads, croplands, common lands or state forests. While only men owned trees on
private land, womens customary rights to plant resources
in gendered spaces on common or state land were as strong
as mens. Rocheleau and Edmunds (1997) review of studies in Africa also found that womens rights are substantial,
particularly in customary systems where they have rights
to fuelwood, medicinal plants and wild foods in the bush
or forests, in in-between spaces not valued by men, such
as bush along roadsides, fences, and boundaries between
mens trees and crops, as well as home gardens near their
houses, and also to certain tree products (e.g. fruit, fuelwood, leaves, fodder) growing on mens land. Agarwal
(1994b) found that in Sri Lanka women sometimes received coconut trees as dowry and their brothers would
periodically send them a share of the harvest.
However, these cases cannot be generalised, even in
customary systems. For example, in Ghana, women have
been able to acquire their own trees, through acquisition of
private land through the market and sale of cash crops such
as cocoa (Berry, 1989, 1993 cited in Rocheleau and Edmond, 1997; Lastarria-Cornhiel, 1997) or as gifts of cocoa
trees from their husbands in compensation for their labour
on the mens cocoa trees (Quisumbing et al., 2003). In the
Colombian Pacific region, Afro-Colombians have highly
complex tenure systems that permit both men and women
to own trees that they have planted or inherited, and their
products such as fruit and tree snails (Asher, 2009).
The nature and security of womens rights to land,
trees and their products are of central importance to ensuring household food security. Gender differences in the
types and relative sizes of productive assets and control
of income are critical for food security as a large body of
evidence shows that women are more likely to spend their
income (from their own production or wage labour) on
Forest and agriculture mosaic landscape, Cat Ba,Vietnam.


food, healthcare and education of their children (Haddad

et al., 1997; Agarwal, 1997; Njuki et al., 2011; FAO,
2011; Kennedy and Peters, 1992; Duflo and Udry, 2004;
Meinzen-Dick et al., 2014).
The interrelationships between womens rights to trees
and their products and household food security and nutrition raise two major issues. The first is the need for
womens security of tenure. This is clearly demonstrated
by Fortmann et al. (1997), who found in their study of two
Zimbabwe villages in the communal areas that women
were much less likely than men to plant fruit and other
trees within the homestead or on household woodlots because the trees and their produce belonged to their husbands (as household head), and they lost their use rights
to the produce if he died or they divorced (even if they
still lived nearby). However, both men and women were
equally likely to plant trees on community woodlots
where the duration of their rights to the trees was secure
as long as they remained village residents. Furthermore,
while richer men planted considerably more trees than
poor men, indicating a greater ability to engage in commercial production, this was not the case for richer women who planted a few trees for subsistence and had less
risky ways of earning, such as producing annual crops for
sale, beer brewing and handicraft sales.
The second issue is the complementarity between mens
and womens access to different products from the same
trees, sometimes in different seasons, and from different
tenure systems. For example, in Uganda, jackfruits located
in different areas are used differently by men and women.
Women reported 60 percent of uses in homegardens, which
were mainly for subsistence especially during periods of
food shortage (they use leaves for fodder and medicine)
while men reported over 80 percent of uses on croplands
that were for sale and subsistence, as well as fuel. Jackfruits on common land and in state forests were only used
for subsistence fuel (Howard and Nabanoga, 2007).
Land ownership or use rights may not be sufficient to
exercise control over the use, management and the products of trees on their land (Agarwal, 1994a; Rocheleau
and Edmunds, 1997; Deere et al., 2013). Even where
women have land ownership rights, research in the Gender Asset Gap Project in Ecuador, Ghana and the state
of Karnataka in India found that land did not automatically translate into decision-making on what to grow, how
much of the crop to sell, and over the use of the income
generated from crop sales (Deere et al., 2013).
3.4.4 Human Capital, Control and Decisionmaking in Forests and Tree-based Systems
Rights to forests and trees and their products are embedded in the broader social systems that also determine access to human and financial capital, decision-making processes and control of the products or income from their
sale, thus affecting the way in which these property rights
are used. Since social systems are not static, these rights
can be negotiated or changed over time (Meinzen-Dick et
al., 1997; Rocheleau and Edmunds, 1997).
In many customary and open access tenure systems,

the notion that individuals own their labour power and the
products of their labour is widespread. Rights to forest land
and trees are commonly established by the act of clearing
primary forest. For example, the Lauje in Sulawesi, Indonesia, considered that the person who invested labour in
clearing land or planting trees owned the land and the trees,
and could alienate these through gift, sale or exchange (Li,
1998). Similarly, in sub-Saharan Africa, rights to land are
derived from the labour expended to clear or cultivate the
land. Land is commonly held under lineage-based systems,
in which a male lineage member is entitled to land to support his family, and can use this as long as it is being cultivated. His heirs would normally be given the land that
was cultivated at the time of his death (Platteau, 1992).
Women are sometimes prevented by men from clearing
land, for example, in The Gambia, as this would make the
land womens property and their husbands or other male
relatives would have no control over it if their husbands
died or they divorced (Dey, 1981).
In open access and communal forest systems (including local and indigenous communities formal or informal
use of state land), the availability of human capital (commonly proxied as labour and education (Meinzen-Dick
et al., 2014), though also covering traditional knowledge
and skills and health that are less easily quantified) is one
of the main factors affecting the ability of an individual,
household or community to clear, maintain, and use forests and tree products. While labour is a key factor, specialised knowledge and skills that are often gender- and
age-specific are also critical. For example, women often
specialise in forest medicinal plants and fuelwood, and men
in hunting wild animals for food, while either may have
rich knowledge of other foods and fodder, depending on
their cultures.
Often very poor families with few resources except
their labour are highly dependent on forest products for
their food security and livelihoods (Jodha,1986; Fisher,
2004; Adhikari, 2005; Narain et al., 2008). However,
the literature indicates that while resource dependence
(defined by Narain et al., 2008, as the share of resource
income in overall income) tends to decline with overall
income, the relationships are complex and there is no
consistent trend. For example, Fisher (2004) and Narain
et al. (2008) found that forest income declined with the
household heads level of education in Malawi and Madhya Pradesh (India); similarly, Adhikari (2005) found that
in Nepal, forest income declined with the households average level of education. Both Adhikari and Narain et al.
found that forest income increased with household livestock holdings as such households required more fodder.
The results were also affected by the availability and type
of labour, and by education/skills.
More remote villages may have higher dependence
on forest resources as they have fewer opportunities for
off-village labour, and are likely to have higher costs
for purchasing resources and food (Narain et al., 2008).
Duchelle et al. (2014) found that in the more remote communities in Pando (Bolivia) forest income made up 64
percent of total household income compared with only
73

74
12 percent in the region of Acre in Brazil, just across the

border, which is better connected to markets and towns,
and off-farm work opportunities.
Agroforestry systems (on private or communal land),
woodlots and small tree stands are becoming an increasingly important smallholder livelihood strategy in many
countries for a variety of reasons (see Section 3.2.4) of
which a critical one is labour. Trees demand less labour
than most field crops and are attractive where labour is
scarce, expensive or difficult to manage. Households with
sufficient income from non-farm sources, which therefore may not need to cultivate their land intensively, may
also plant trees to provide food and other products, or to
retain surplus land as an alternative to renting out or selling the land (Arnold and Dewees, 1998).
Shortages of labour (especially male labour) as well as
land are leading to shorter fallows and longer cultivation
periods in many shifting cultivation systems (Hunt, 1984;
AIPP and IWGIA, 2014). Land shortages, for example, in
the uplands of Southeast Asia, are the result of increasing
population densities from endogenous growth and in-migration by large numbers of lowlanders, as well as loss of
access to land taken over by the governments (Cairns and
Garrity, 1999). Analyses of studies from across Southeast
Asia have shown that increasing returns to labour is usually much more important than increasing yields per unit
of land area (Cairns and Garrity, 1999).
The intrahousehold division of labour and control of
the product, by gender and age, is highly complex across
and within forests and tree-based systems, regions, countries and cultures. In many cases women provide substantial labour and management of particular forest/tree products but men control the disposal or marketing of these
products and the distribution/use of the benefits (World
Bank et al,. 2009; Rocheleau and Edmunds, 1997). Case
studies in seven Asian countries showed that indigenous
women perform about 70 percent of the work in shifting
cultivation. Men identify suitable land and do the hard
physical work in land preparation. Women also help in
clearing the land, selecting seeds and weeding, while both
men and women harvest and conduct the rituals during
the cultivation cycle together (AIPP and IWGIA, 2014).
In some parts of Africa, women are involved in small
retailing of forest products and men in wholesale trade
(Kiptot and Franzel, 2012). This may affect incentives
to increase production and sustainable resource management, with negative implications for improving food security and livelihoods. Based on her field work in Africa,
Whitehead (1985) distinguishes between sex-sequential
labour processes on a single product and sex-segregated
labour processes on similar or different products. She
considered womens claim on the product of their labour
to be weaker in the first case, as their contributions were
submerged in the conjugal role. In contrast, in Southeast
Asia, Li (1998) found that the key issue was not the division of labour itself but the extent to which labour investment is directly connected to the creation of the property.
Women are often disadvantaged in access to and control of agricultural labour (Dey Abbas, 1997; FAO, 2011;
Hill and Vigneri, 2014). Kumar and Quisumbing (2012)
found that in Ethiopia, female-headed households tended

to be smaller than male-headed households, and have a
larger proportion of female members which disadvantaged them as many agricultural operations are maleintensive. This is particularly the case for ploughing, a
task which cultural norms proscribe for women. Similar constraints were reported for Botswana (Fortmann,
1983; Peters, 1986) and Zambia (Feldstein and Poats,
1990). In many sub-Saharan African countries, women
are also obliged by custom to provide labour, food and
sometimes cash crops for male-controlled households.
These obligations often take precedence over womens
rights to work on their personal fields, trees or other income-generating activities (Dey Abbas, 1997; van Koppen, 1990; Hill and Vigneri, 2014). Women also have
heavy domestic demands on their labour, which limits
the time they can spare for their agricultural work (Quisumbing and Pandofelli, 2009).
Interestingly, despite womens labour and cash/credit
constraints, female-managed cocoa farms in Ghana were
as productive as male-managed farms (Hill and Vigneri,
2014). Women were able to compensate by using labour
exchange groups and relying more on labour-intensive
production methods rather than the use of purchased
modern inputs. This balancing of labour and non-labour
inputs confirms the review of evidence in FAO (2011)
that women are as productive as men, if they have the
same level of inputs.
3.4.5 Financial Capital and Credit: Using and

Investing in Forests and Trees
Financial capital includes savings/debt (including in
banks, credit unions, cooperatives, informal savings
clubs or tontines), gold/jewellery income, credit, insurance, state transfers and remittances (Carloni, 2005;
IFPRI, 2013). Savings are often in the form of livestock assets, for example, as is the case in Acre (Brazil)
(Duchelle et al., 2014).
It is frequently argued that poor households (especially those headed by women) are more dependent on
forest resources for food and income than richer households although the evidence is mixed (Adhikari, 2005).
A growing body of evidence suggests that the role of
capital and/or credit is critical in enabling households
or individuals to exploit forest resources. For example, a
study by Adhikari (2005) in Nepal found that households
with land and livestock assets gained more from community forests because they were able to make greater use
of intermediate forest products such as leaf litter, fodder
and grass products. Female-headed households benefitted less than male-headed households, as they had fewer
livestock and had minimal involvement as office bearers
in the forest user groups. These findings are consistent
with those of Velded (2000) who found that the benefits
from common grazing land among the Fulani in Mali
were exclusively related to capital, technology and skill
levels, and those of Narain et al. (2008) in relation to
complementarity of asset ownership in Jhabua (India).

For the majority of smallholders in local or indigenous

communities, forest income is often insufficient to support investment in forest and tree resources. A number of
countries have introduced small grants and microcredit
schemes for smallholders, sometimes through the mechanisms of producer cooperatives or, particularly in Latin
America, by facilitating relations beween banks and small
forestry producers (FAO, 2014). In Viet Nam, through its
2007 Decision 147 on the promotion of forests for productive purposes, the government encouraged households
to engage in the plan to establish 250,000 ha of new plantations per year till 2015 by providing low credit rates for
smallholders (FAO, 2014).
These schemes seem to neglect earlier evidence (Arnold and Dewees, 1998) which showed that tree planting
only requires low inputs of capital and that subsidies can
lead to adoption of inappropriate tree species or lead to
distortions in land use. Arnold and Dewees (1998) also
refer to widespread evidence that seedling distribution,
fertiliser and cash subsidies tend to be captured by larger
farmers, who are not food insecure.
The adaptation of shifting cultivation systems to dual
economies among many indigenous communities in Asia
reflects also the importance of improved market access as
well as greater opportunities to access credit or wage labour
to invest earnings in farming and improve food security and
livelihoods (AIPP and IWGIA, 2014). The report by AIPP
and IWGIA (2014) provides examples of resulting innovative combinations of shifting cultivation with agroforestry
(e.g. fruit and cashew orchards in Cambodia, rubber gardens
in Indonesia), growing high value cash crops in shifting cultivation fields (e.g. vegetables, herbs, ginger, turmeric in India and Bangladesh), establishing separate, permanent fields
for cash crops (e.g. tobacco, maize, flowers, pineapple, vegetables in Thailand, India, Bangladesh) and improving fallow
management by planting specific trees in India.
Numerous studies cite evidence that women generally
have less access to capital than men. They are often prevented by social norms or their heavy domestic and caring work from engaging in paid work outside the home
or community (where wages are generally lower than in
more distant, urban, jobs) and have less capacity to establish or buy tree gardens (Li, 1998). Womens lack of
financial capital is often cited as a reason for their greater
dependence on common property resources, as in Ethiopia (Howard and Smith, 2006).
3.5 Conclusions
Forests and tree-based systems have historically played
a major role in supporting livelihoods as well as meeting the food security and nutritional needs of people
worldwide. These systems, including natural forests that
are managed to optimise yields of wild foods and fodder, shifting cultivation, a wide variety of agroforestry
systems and single-species tree crops, are still dominant
components of rural landscapes in many parts of the
world, and remain critical to food security and nutrition
of hundreds of millions of people worldwide.
Women selling mangoes in a roadside market in Guinea.

They offer a number of advantages over permanent

(crop) agriculture given their adaptability to a broader
range of environmental conditions (e.g. soils, topography
and climate) and changing socio-economic conditions
and the diversity of food products derived from them.
Most forests and tree-based systems we see in the
world today particularly managed forests, shifting
cultivation and agroforestry systems - are underpinned
by the accumulated traditional knowledge of local and
indigenous communities. This knowledge has been
crucial to the development and modification of these
systems over generations under diverse and variable
environmental conditions and to meet changing socioeconomic needs.
Only rarely and relatively recently have agricultural
and forest scientists, extension agents and development
organisations begun to understand the importance and
relevance of many of these systems, and begun to work
with farmers to combine the best of traditional and formal scientific knowledge to enhance their productivity
and direct (food security and nutrition) and indirect (income) benefits to their practitioners.
Despite their widespread use, particularly in regions
of the world where food security and nutrition are of particular concern, the data needed for decision-makers to
make informed choices is quite limited, especially at the
global and national level. Further research is needed on:
the actual extent of most of these systems, the numbers
of people who rely on one or more such systems to meet
their household food and/or income needs, and the relative value of different forests and tree-based systems on
the diets and health of those who manage them. Such information is of great importance to policymakers, planners and development agencies seeking to improve the
lives of food-insecure populations.
Differences in diets and nutrition associated with different subsistence strategies/different forms of land use
(e.g. managed forests, shifting agriculture, agroforests,
75

and single-species tree crop systems) are not widely documented. Studies comparing hunter-gatherers and lowpopulation-density forest communities to more sedentary and urbanised groups have generally shown that the
former consumed more meat but their diets were not necessarily better. The few existing studies suggest that the
impact of transitions from one form of subsistence and
land use to another is context-specific and influenced by
social, cultural and economic factors.
A number of studies have shown a link between tree
cover and dietary diversity and consumption of nutritious
foods. Although we do not yet understand the pathways
of this relationship, it suggests that maintenance of tree
cover around rural homes and communities may lead to
more nutritious diets.
Forests and tree-based systems are part of broader economic, political, cultural and ecological landscapes that
typically include a mosaic of different food production
systems and other land uses. How these different land use
patches interact with each other in space and time can
profoundly influence the productivity and sustainability
of forests and tree-based systems as well as their food
security and nutrition outcomes.
Tenure regimes in all four forest and tree-based systems are highly complex, and rights to trees may be different from rights to the land on which they are grown.
Different bundles of rights are nested and overlap in
these different systems, varying by geographical, social,
76
cultural, economic and political factors, and affecting the

access of different population groups to the trees and their
products for food, income and other livelihood needs.
Most tenure systems are gender-biased, allocating primary rights to men. Since women represent 43 percent of
the global agricultural labour force, and there is evidence of
feminisation of agriculture in numerous developing countries, womens weak and often insecure rights of access to
land, forests and trees is undermining their engagement in
innovation in forests and agroforestry systems with huge
costs for the food security and nutrition of their families.
Rights to land, forests and trees in customary systems
are commonly based on labour expended in clearing land
or planting trees. Richer households with more assets (including livestock) are able to claim or make greater use
of forest common property resources. However, poorer
households often have a higher dependence, as a proportion of their total income, on forest resources for food
security and livelihoods.
Tree planting and management requires low inputs of
capital, mainly for labour, fertilisers and pesticides, and
subsidies can lead to adoption of inappropriate trees or
lead to distortions in land use. Such subsidies are often
captured by larger farmers, who are not food insecure.
Thus policies and incentives that improve demand and
market prospects for trees rather than subsidising the establishment phase are more effective in promoting food
security and improved livelihoods for the poor.

References
Adhikari, B., 2005. Poverty, property rights and collective action:
understanding the distributive aspects of common property
resource management. Environment and Development
Economics 10: 731.
Afari-Sefa,V., Gockowski, J., Agyeman, N. F and Dziwornu, A.K.,
2010. Economic cost-benefit analysis of certified sustainable
cocoa production in Ghana. Poster presented at the Joint 3rd
African Association of Agricultural Economists (AAAE) and
48th Agricultural Economists Association of South Africa
(AEASA) Conference, Cape Town, South Africa, September
19-23, 2010
Agarwal, B., 1994a. Gender and command over property: a critical
gap in economic analysis and policy in South Asia. World
Agarwal, B., 1994b. A field of ones own: gender and land rights in
South Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bannister, M.E. and Nair, P.K.R., 2003. Agroforestry adoption in

Haiti: the importance of household and farm characteristics.
Agroforest Systems 57: 149157.
Barros, H.R., Ferreira, T.A. and Genovese, M.I., 2012. Antioxidant
capacity and mineral content of pulp and peel from commercial
cultivars of citrus from Brazil. Food Chemistry 134(4): 18928.
doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2012.03.090. PMID 23442635.
Barry, D. and Meinzen-Dick, R., 2014. The invisible map:
community tenure rights. In: The social lives of forests: past,
present and future of woodland resurgence, edited by S. Hecht,
K. Morrison and C. Padoch. Chicago and London: University
of Chicago Press.
Bartuszevige, A.M., Gorchov, D.L. and Raab, L., 2006. The
relative importance of landscape and community features in
the invasion of an exotic shrub in a fragmented landscape.
Ecography 29: 213222.
Agarwal, B., 1997. Bargaining and gender relations: within and

beyond the household. Feminist Economics 3(1): 151.
Blair, C., Ichikawa, K., Wong, B.Y. L. and Mulongoy K.J., (eds.),
2010. Sustainable use of biological diversity in socio-ecological
production landscapes, Technical Series no. 52. Montreal:
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
Agarwal, B., 2010. Gender and green governance: the political

economy of womens presence within and beyond community
forestry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Belotto, A., Leanes, L.F., Schneider, M.C., Tamayo, H. and Correa,

E., 2005. Overview of rabies in the Americas. Virus Research
111: 512.
Agnoletti, M. (ed.), 2006. The conservation of cultural landscapes.

Wallingford, UK: CAB International.
Bengis, R.G., Kock, R.A. and Fischer, J., 2002. Infectious animal
diseases: the wildlife/livestock interface. Revue Scientifique et
Technique (International Office of Epizootics) 21: 5365.

Background Paper to UNFF tenth Session, Istanbul, 8-19 April
2013.
AIPP and IWGIA, 2014. Shifting Cultivation, Livelihood and Food
Security. New and Old Challenges for Indigenous Peoples in
Asia. Chiang Mai: Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact (AIPP) and
the International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA).
Alcorn, J.B., 1981. Huastec noncrop resource management:
implications for prehistoric rain forest management. Human
Ecology 9(4): 395-417.
Alexiades, M.N., 2009. Mobility and migration in indigenous
Amazonia: contemporary ethnoecological perspectives. Oxford:
Berghahn.
Altieri, M.A., 2002. Agroecology: the science of natural resource
management for poor farmers in marginal environments.
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 93: 1-24.
Altieri, M.A., 2004. Linking ecologists and traditional farmers in
the search for sustainable agriculture. Frontiers in Ecology and
the Environment 2(1): 3542. Available at: http://agroeco.org/
wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Link-ecolandTradFarmers.pdf
[Accessed on 8 September 2014].
Anderson, A.B. and Posey, D.A., 1989. Management of a tropical
scrub savanna by the Gorotire Kayapo. Advances in Economic
Botany 7: 159173.
Anderson, K., 2006. Tending the wild: Native American knowledge
and the management of Californias natural resources.
Berkeley, CA, USA: University of California Press.
Andrade, G.I. and Rubio-Torgler, H., 1994. Sustainable use
of the tropical rain forest: evidence from the avifauna in a
shifting-cultivation habitat mosaic in the Colombian Amazon.
Conservation Biology 8(2): 545-554.
Berkes, F., Colding, J. and Folke, C., 2000. Rediscovery of

traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management.
Ecological Applications 10: 12511262.
Berti, P.R., Krasevec, J. and Fitzgerald, S., 2004. A review of the
effectiveness of agriculture interventions in improving nutrition
outcomes. Public Health Nutrition 7(5): 599609.
Bianchi, F.J.J., Booij, C.J. and Tscharntke, T., 2006. Sustainable
pest regulation in agricultural landscapes: a review on landscape
composition, biodiversity and natural pest control. Proceedings
of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 273: 17151727.
Biermayr-Jenzano, P., Kassam S.N. and 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.
Bist, S.S., 2006. Elephant conservation in India - an overview.
Gajah 25: 2735.
Blate, G.M., 2005. Modest trade-offs between timber management
and fire susceptibility of a Bolivian semi-deciduous forest.
Ecological Applications 15: 16491663.
Boerboom, J.H.A. and Wiersum, K.F., 1983. Human impact on
tropical moist forest. In: Mans impact on vegetation, edited by
W. Holzner, M.J.A. Werger and I. Ikusima. The Hague: W. Junk.
Boffa, J.-M., 1999. Agroforestry parklands in sub-saharan
Africa. FAO Conserv. Guide 34. Rome: Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations.
Bomuhangi, A., Doss, C. and Meinzen-Dick, R., 2011. Who owns
the land? Perspectives from rural Ugandans and implications for
land acquisitions. IFPRI Discussion Paper 01136. Washington
DC: IFPRI.
Angelsen, A., 2008. Moving ahead with REDD: Issues, options

and implications. Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International
Forestry Research.
Borggaard, O.K., Gafur, A. and Petersen, L., 2003. Sustainability

appraisal of shifting cultivation in the Chittagong Hill Tracts
of Bangladesh. Ambio 32(2):118-123. doi: http://dx.doi.
org/10.1579/0044-7447-32.2.118
Arnold, M. and Dewees, P. 1998. Rethinking Approaches to Tree

Management by Farmers. Overseas Development Institute
(ODI) Natural Resource Perspectives, No. 26.
Boyer, J. and Liu, R.H., 2004. Apple phytochemicals and their

health benefits. Nutrition Journal 3 (1): 5. doi:10.1186/14752891-3-5.
Asher, K., 2009. Black and Green: Afro-Colombians, development,

and nature in the Pacific lowlands. Durham, NC: Duke
University Press.
Boyles, J.G., Cryan, P.M., McCracken, G.F. and Kunz, T.H., 2011.
Economic importance of bats in agriculture. Science 332:
4142.
Bale, W., 2006. The research program of historical ecology. Annu.

Rev. Anthropol. 35:7598
Bradley, B.A. and Mustard, J.F., 2006. Characterizing the landscape

dynamics of an invasive plant and risk of invasion using remote
sensing. Ecological Applications 16: 11321147.
77

Bradshaw, C.J.A., Sodhi, N.S., Peh, K.S.-H. and Brook, B.W., 2007.
Global evidence that deforestation amplifies flood risk and
severity in the developing world. Global Change Biology 13:
23792395.
Chen, H., Morrell, P.L., Ashworth, V.E.T.M., De La Cruz, M.

and Clegg, M.T., 2008. Tracing the geographic origins of
major avocado cultivars. Journal of Heredity 100(1): 5665.
doi:10.1093/jhered/esn068. PMID 18779226.
Brauman, K.A., Daily, G.C., Duarte, T.K. and Mooney, H.A.,

2007. The nature and value of ecosystem services: an
overview highlighting hydrologic services. Annual Review of
Environment and Resources 32: 132.
Ciss, M.I., 1995. Les parcs agroforestiers au Mali. Etat des

connaissances et perspectives pour leur amlioration. AFRENA
Rep. 93. Nairobi: ICRAF.
Brondizio, E.S., 2008. The Amazonian caboclo and the aa palm:

forest farmers in the global market. New York: New York
Botanical Garden Press.
Brondizio, E.S., Safar, C.A.M. and Siqueira, A.D., 2002. The urban
market of aa fruit (Euterpe oleracea Mart.) and rural land use
change: ethnographic insights into the role of price and land
tenure constraining agricultural choices in the Amazon estuary.
Urban Ecosystems 6(1-2): 6797.
Brown, H.C.P., Smit, B., Sonwa, D.J., Somorin, O.A. and Nkem, J.,
2011. Institutional perceptions of opportunities and challenges
of REDD+ in the Congo Basin. Journal of Environment &
Development 20(4) 381-404.
Bruce, J., 1999. Legal bases for the management of forest resources
as common property. Forests, Trees and People Community
Forestry Note 14. Rome: FAO.
Bruun, T.B., de Neergaard, A., Lawrence, D. and Ziegler, A.,
2009. Environmental consequences of the demise in swidden
agriculture in Southeast Asia: carbon storage and soil quality.
Human Ecology 37: 375388.
Bytnerowicz, A., Omasa, K. and Paoletti, E., 2007. Integrated
effects of air pollution and climate change on forests: a northern
hemisphere perspective. Environmental Pollution 147: 438445.
CacaoNet, 2012. A global strategy for the conservation and use
of cacao genetic resources, as the foundation for a sustainable
cocoa economy (B. Lalibert, compiler). Montpellier, France:
Bioversity International.
Cairns, M.F. (ed.), 2007. Voices from the forest: integrating
indigenous knowledge into sustainable upland farming.
Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
Cairns, M.F., (ed.), 2015. Shifting cultivation and environmental
change: Indigenous people, agriculture and forest conservation.
London: Earthscan Publications (Routledge).
Cairns, M. and Garrity, D.P., 1999. Improving shifting cultivation in
Southeast Asia by building on indigenous fallow management
strategies. Agroforestry Systems 47: 3748.
Carloni, A. 2005. Rapid guide for missions. Analysing local
institutions and livelihoods. Institutions for Rural Development
1. Rome: FAO.
Carney, J and Elias, M., 2014. Gendered knowledge and the
African shea-nut tree. In: The social lives of forests: past,
present and future of woodland resurgence, edited by S. Hecht,
K. Morrison and C. Padoch. Chicago and London: University
of Chicago Press.
Castella, J.-C., Lestrelin, G., Hett, C., Bourgoin, J., Fitriana, Y.R.,
Heinimann, A. and Pfund, J.-L., 2013. Effects of landscape
segregation on livelihood vulnerability: moving from extensive
shifting cultivation to rotational agriculture and natural forests
in Northern Laos. Human Ecology 41.1 (Feb 2013): 63-76.
Cerda, R., Deheuvels, O., Calvache, D., Niehaus, L., Saenz, Y.,
Kent, J., Vilchez, S., Villota, A., Martinez, C. and Somarriba,
E., 2014. Contribution of cocoa agroforestry systems to
family income and domestic consumption: looking toward
intensification. Agroforestry Systems 88(6): 1-25.
Chao, S., 2012. Forest peoples: Numbers across the world.
Moreton-in-Marsh, UK: Forest Peoples Programme. Available
at www.forestpeoples.org.
Chazdon, R. L. 2014. Second growth: The promise of tropical forest
regeneration in an age of deforestation. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
78
Clough, Y., Abrahamczyk, S., Adams, M.-O., Anshary, A.,

Ariyanti, N. [and 23 others], 2010. Biodiversity patterns and
trophic interactions in human-dominated tropical landscapes
in Sulawesi (Indonesia): plants, arthropods and vertebrates. In:
Tropical Rainforests and Agroforests Under Global Change,
edited by T. Tscharntke, C. Leuschner, E. Veldkamp, H.
Faust, E. Guhardja and A. Bidin. Environmental Science and
Engineering Series. Berlin: Springer Verlag.
Cochrane, M.A., 2003. Fire science for rainforests. Nature 421:
913919.
Cock, M.J.W., 2003. Biosecurity and forests: an introduction - with
particular emphasis on forest pests. FAO Forest Health and
Biosecurity Working Paper FBS/2E. Rome: FAO.
Colfer, C.J.P., 2008a. The longhouse of the tarsier: changing
landscapes, gender and well being in Borneo. Phillips, Maine:
Borneo Research Council, in cooperation with CIFOR and
UNESCO.
Colfer, C.J.P., 2008b. Human health and forests: a global overview
of issues, practice and policy. London: Earthscan.
Colfer, C.J.P., Colchester, M., Joshi, L., Puri, R.K., Nygren, A.,
Lopez, C., 2005. Traditional knowledge and human well-being
in the 21st century. In: Forests in the global balancechanging
paradigms, IUFRO World Series Volume 17, edited by G. Mery,
R. Alfaro, M. Kanninen. and M. Lovobikov. 2005. Helsinki:
International Union of Forest Research Organizations.
Colfer, C.J.P., Minarchek, R.D., Cairns, M., Aier, A., Doolittle,
A., Mashman, V., Odame, H.H., Roberts, M., Robinson, K.
and Van Esterik, O., 2015. Gender analysis and indigenous
fallow management. In: Shifting Cultivation and Environmental
Change: Indigenous People, Agriculture and Forest
Conservation, edited by M. Cairns. London: Earthscan.
Colfer, C.J. P., Peluso, N.L. and Chin, S.C., 1997. Beyond slash and
burn: building on indigenous management of Borneos tropical
rain forests. Bronx, NY: New York Botanical Garden.
Collings, N., 2009. Environment. In: The state of the worlds
indigenous peoples. United Nations. Department of Economic
and Social Affairs, Division for Social Policy and Development,
Secretariat of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues
Report No. ST/ESA/328.
Condominas, G., 1977. We have eaten the forest: the story of a
Montagnard village in the central highlands of Vietnam. New
York: Hill and Wang.
Conklin, H. C., 1957. Hanunoo agriculture: a report on an integral
system of shifting cultivation in the Philippines. Rome: FAO
Cramb, R.A., 1993. Shifting cultivation and sustainable agriculture
in East Malaysia: a longitudinal case study. Agricultural
Systems 42: 209-226
CTA, 2012. Climate change: concerns for cocoa. SPORE No. 159: 9.
Damman, S., Kuhnlein, H.V. and Erasmus, B., 2013. Human rights
implications of Indigenous Peoples food systems and policy
recommendations. In: Indigenous Peoples food systems and
well-being. Interventions and policies for healthy communities,
edited by H.V. Kuhnlein, B. Erasmus, D. Spigelski and B.
Burlingame. Rome: FAO and CINE (Centre for Indigenous
Peoples Nutrition and Environment).
De Foresta, H. and Michon, G., 1997. The agroforest alternative to
Imperata grasslands: when smallholder agriculture and forestry
reach sustainability. In: Agroforestry innovations for Imperata
grassland rehabilitation, edited by D.P. Garrity. Dordrecht,
Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers and Nairobi:
International Centre for Research in Agroforestry.

DeFries, R.S., Rudel. T., Uriarte, M. and Hansen, M., 2010.

Deforestation driven by urban population growth and
agricultural trade in the twenty-first century. Nature Geoscience
3, 178-181. doi:10.1038/ngeo756
FAO, 2002a. Land tenure and rural development. FAO Land Tenure
Studies 3. Rome: FAO.
Deere, C.D., Boakye-Yiadom, L., Doss, C., Oduro, A.D.,

Swaminathan, H., Twyman, J. and Suchitra, J.Y. 2013. Womens
land ownership and participation in agricultural decisionmaking: evidence from Ecuador, Ghana and Karnataka, India.
The Gender Asset Gap Project Research Brief Series: No. 2.
Bangalore: Indian Institute of Management.
FAO, 2010. Global forest resources assessment 2010: main

report. FAO Forestry Paper 163. Rome: Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (available at http://www.fao.
org/docrep/013/i1757e/i1757e.pdf).
Denevan, W.M., 1992. The pristine myth: the landscape of the

Americas in 1492. Annals of the Association of American
Geographers 82(3): 369-385.
Denevan, W.M. and Padoch, C., 1987. Swidden-fallow agroforestry
in the Peruvian Amazon. New York: New York Botanical
Garden.
Denevan, W.M., Treacy, J.M., Alcorn, J.B., Padoch, C., Denslow, J.
and Paitan, S.F., 1984. Indigenous agroforestry in the Peruvian
AmazonBora Indian management of swidden fallows.
Interciencia 9: 346357.
Dey, J. 1981. Gambian women: unequal partners in rice
development projects? Journal of Development Studies, Vol. 17,
No. 3: 109-122.
Dey Abbas, J., 1997. Gender asymmetries in intrahousehold
resource allocation in Sub-Saharan Africa: some policy
implications for land and labor productivity. In: Intrahousehold
Resource Allocation in Developing Countries: Methods, Models
and Policy, edited by L. Haddad, J. Hoddinott and H. Alderman.
Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, for IFPRI.
FAO, 2002b. Gender and access to land. FAO Land Tenure Studies
4. Rome: FAO.
FAO, 2011. State of food and agriculture. Women in agriculture:

closing the gender gap for development. Rome: FAO.
FAO, 2012. Roles of forests in climate change. http://www.fao.
org/forestry/climatechange/53459/en/ [Accessed on 17 August
2014].
FAO, 2014. State of the Worlds Forests. Enhancing the
socioeconomic benefits from forests. Rome: FAO.
FAO and CIFOR, 2005. Forests and floods: drowning in fiction or
thriving on facts? Bangkok: Centre for International Forestry
Research, Bogor and Food and Agriculture Organisation of the
United Nations.
FAOSTAT Statistical Database, 2010. Rome: Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations. http://faostat.fao.org/
Feary, S.A., Eastburn, D., Sam, N. and Kennedy, J., 2012. Western
Pacific. In: Traditional forest-related knowledge: sustaining
communities, ecosystems and biocultural diversity, edited by
J.A. Parrotta and R.L. Trosper. Dordrecht, the Netherlands:
Springer.
Feldstein, H.S. and Poats, S.V., 1990. Working together. Gender
analysis in agriculture. West Hartford, CT, USA: Kumarian.
Doss, C., Grown, C. and Deere, C.D., 2008. Gender and asset
ownership: a guide to collecting individual level data. Policy
research working paper 4704. Washington DC: World Bank.
Figueira, A.; Janick, J. and BeMiller, J.N., 1993. New products

from Theobroma cacao: seed pulp and pod gum. In: New
Crops, edited by J. Janick and J.E. Simon, New York: Wiley.
Dounias, E., Selzner, A., Koizumi, M. and Levang, P. 2007.

From sago to rice, from forest to town: The consequences of
sedentarization for the nutritional ecology of Punan former
hunter-gatherers of Borneo. Food and Nutrition Bulletin 28(2,
suppl.): 294S-302S(9).
Finegan, B. and Nasi, R., 2004. The biodiversity and conservation

potential of swidden agricultural landscapes. In: Agroforestry
and biological conservation in tropical landscapes, edited by
G. Schroth, G.A.B. da Fonseca, C.A. Harvey, C. Gascon, H.L.
Vasconcelos and A.-M.N. Izac, Washington, DC: Island Press.
Dove, M., 1983., Theories of swidden agriculture, and the political

economy of ignorance. Agroforestry Systems 1:85-99.
Fisher, M., 2004. Household Welfare and Forest Dependence in

Southern Malawi. Environment and Development Economics
9(2): 135-54.
Dove, M.R., Smith, D.S., Campos, M.T., Mathews, A. S.,

Rademacher, A., Rhee, S. and Yoder, L.M., 2013. Globalisation
and the construction of Western and non-Western knowledge.
In: Local science vs global science: approaches to indigenous
knowledge in international development, edited by P. Sillitoe.
Oxford and New York: Berghan Books
Dreher M.L. and Davenport, A.J., 2013. Hass avocado composition
and potential health effects. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 53 (7):
73850. doi:10.1080/10408398.2011.556759. PMID 23638933.
Duchelle, A., Almeyda Zambrano, A.M., Wunder, S., Brner, J. and
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
Duflo, E. and Udry, C., 2004. Intrahousehold resource allocation
in Cte dIvoire: Social norms, separate accounts and
consumption choices. NBER working paper no. 10498.
Cambridge MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Eagle, A.J., Eiswerth, M.E., Johnson, W.S., Schoenig, S.E. and
Cornelis van Kooten, G., 2007. Costs and losses imposed on
California ranchers by yellow starthistle. Rangeland Ecology &
Management 60: 369377.
Edem, D.O., 2002. Palm oil: Biochemical, physiological,
nutritional, hematological and toxicological aspects: A
review. Plant Foods for Human Nutrition 57 (3): 319341.
doi:10.1023/A:1021828132707.
Environment Canada, 2004. An invasive alien species strategy for
Canada. Ottawa: Environment Canada.
FAO, 1982. Fruit-bearing forest trees: technical notes. FAO
Forestry Paper 34. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations.
Foley, J.A., DeFries, R., Asner, G.P., Barford, C., Bonan, G.,
Carpenter, S.R., Chapin, F.S., Coe, M.T., Daily, G.C., Gibbs,
H.K., Helkowski, J.H., Holloway, T., Howard, E.A., Kucharik,
C.J., Monfreda, C., Patz, J.A., Prentice, I.C., Ramankutty, N.
and Snyder, P.K., 2005. Global Consequences of Land Use.
Science 309: 570574.
Foli, S., Reed, J., Clendenning, J., Petrokofsky, G., Padoch, C.
and 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 3:15. http://www.environmentalevidencejournal.org/
content/3/1/15
Fortmann, L., 1983. Who plows? The effect of economic status on
womens participation in agriculture in agriculture in Botswana.
Mimeo.
Fortmann, L., Antinori, C. and Nabanne, N., 1997. Fruits of
their labors: gender, property rights, and tree planting in two
Zimbabwe villages. Rural Sociology 62(3): 295-314.
Fortmann, L. and Bruce, J. W. (eds.), 1988. Whose trees?
Proprietary dimensions of forestry. Boulder and London:
Westview Press.
Fowler, D., Cape, J.N., Coyle, M., Flechard, C., Kuylenstierna, J.,
Hicks, K., Derwent, D., Johnson, D. and Stevenson, D., 1999.
The global exposure of forests to air pollutants. In: Forest
growth responses to the pollution climate of the 21st century,
edited by L.J. Sheppard and J.N. Cape. Dordrecht, Netherlands:
Springer.
79

Fox, J., Truong, D,M., Rambo, A.T., Tuyen, N.P., Cuc, L.T. and
Leisz, S., 2000. Shifting cultivation: a new old paradigm for
managing tropical forests. BioScience 50 (6): 521-528.
doi: 10.1641/0006-3568
Fox, J., Fujita, Y., Ngidang, D., Peluso, N., Potter, L.,
Sakuntaladewi, N., Sturgeon, J. and Thomas, D., 2009. Policies,
Political-Economy, and Swidden in Southeast Asia. Human
Ecology 37 (3): 305322. http://link.springer.com/article/
10.1007%2Fs10745-009-9240-7
Franzel, S., 1999. Socioeconomic factors affecting the adoption
potential of improved tree fallows in Africa. Agroforestry
Systems 47: 305321, 1999.
Fuys, A. and Dohrn, S. 2010. Common property regimes: taking
a closer look at resource access. In: Beyond the Biophysical.
Knowledge, Culture and Power in Agriculture and Natural
Resource Management, edited by L. German, J. Ramisch and R.
Verma. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York: Springer
Gallai, N., Salles, J.-M., Settele, J. and Vaissiere, B.E., 2009.
Economic valuation of the vulnerability of world agriculture
confronted with pollinator decline. Ecological Economics 68:
810821.
Galloway-McLean, K., 2010. Advance guard: climate change
impacts, adaptation, mitigation and indigenous peoplesa
compendium of case studies. Darwin, Australia: United Nations
University-Traditional Knowledge Initiative. Available at http://
www.unutki.org/news.php?doc_id=101&news_id=92.
Garca Latorre, J. and Garca Latorre, J., 2012. Globalization, local
communities, and traditional forest-related knowledge. In:
Traditional forest-related knowledge: sustaining communities,
ecosystems and biocultural diversity, edited by J.A. Parrotta and
R.L. Trosper. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
Gavin, M.C., 2004. Changes in forest use value through ecological
succession and their implications for land management in the
Peruvian Amazon. Conservation Biology 18(6):1562-70.
Giovarelli, R., 2006. Overcoming gender biases in established and
transitional property rights systems. In: Land Law Reform:
Achieving Development Policy Objectives. Law, justice, and
development series, edited by J.W. Bruce, R. Giovarelli, L.
Rolfes, D. Bledsoe and R. Mitchell. Washington, DC: World
Bank Publications.
Girard, A.W., Self, J.L., McAuliffe, C. and Olude, O., 2012.
The effects of household food production strategies on the
health and nutrition outcomes of women and young children:
a systematic review. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology
26:205-22.
Gockowski, J. and Sonwa, D., 2011. Cocoa intensification
scenarios and their predicted impact on CO2 emissions,
biodiversity conservation, and rural livelihoods in the Guinea
rain forest of West Africa. Environmental Management
48:307321 321
Goldammer, J.G., 1988. Rural land-use and wildland fires in the
tropics. Agroforestry Systems 6: 235252.
Gupta, P.N S., 1980. Food consumption and nutrition of regional
tribes of India. Ecology of Food and Nutrition 9(2): 93-108.
Haddad, L. Hoddinott, J. and Alderman, H. (eds.), 1997.
Intrahousehold Resource Allocation in Developing Countries:
Methods, Models and Policy. Baltimore: John Hopkins
University Press, for IFPRI.
Hall, J.B., Aebischer, D.P., Tomlinson, H.F., Osei-Amaning, E. and
Hindle, J.R., 1996. Vitellaria paradoxa: a monograph. Bangor,
UK: University of Wales.
Hammond D.S., ter Steege, H. and van der Borg, K., 2007. Upland
soil charcoal in the wet tropical forests of central Guyana.
Biotropica 39: 153160.
Hatcher, J. and Bailey, L. 2010. Tropical Forest Tenure Assessment:
Trends, Challenges and Opportunities. Washington DC and
Yokohama: RRI and ITTO.
80
Hausman, A.J. and Wilmsen, E.N., 1985. Economic change and

secular trends in the growth of San children. Human Biology
57(4): 563-71.
Hecht, S.B., 2009. Kayap savanna management: fire, soils, and

forest islands in a threatened biome. In: Amazonian dark earths:
Wim Sombroeks vision, edited by W.I. Woods, W.G. Teixeira, J.
Lehmann, C. Steiner, A.M.G.A. WinklerPrins and L. Rebellato.
Heidelberg: Springer.
Hecht, S.B., Morrison, K.D. and Padoch, C. (eds.), 2014. The
social lives of forests: Past, present, and future of woodland
resurgence. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hett, C., Castella, J.-C., Heinimann, A., Messerli, P. and Pfund,
J.-L., 2012. A landscape mosaics approach for characterizing
swidden systems from a REDD+ perspective. Applied
Geography 32: 608-618.
Hill, C.M., 2000. Conflict of interest between people and baboons:
crop raiding in Uganda. International Journal of Primatology
21: 299315.
Hill, R.V. and Vigneri, M. 2014. Mainstreaming gender sensitivity
in cash crop market supply Chains. In: Gender in agriculture.
Closing the knowledge gap, edited by A. Quisumbing, R.
Meinzen-Dick, T. Raney, A. Croppenstedt, J. Behrman and A.
Peterman. Rome and Dordrecht: FAO and Springer.
Hiraoka, M., 1994. Mudanas nos padres econmicos de uma
populao ribeirinha do esturio do Amazonas. In: Povos das
guas: realidade e perspectivas na Amaznia, edited by L.
Furtado, A.F. Mello and W. Leito. Belm, Para, Brazil: MPEG/
Universidade Federal do Par.
Hiraoka, M., 1995. Aquatic and land fauna management among the
floodplain riberenos of the Peruvian Amazon. In: The fragile
tropics of Latin America: sustainable management of changing
environments, edited by T. Nishizawa and J.I. Uitto. Tokyo:
United Nations University.
Hladik, C.M., Linares, O.F., Hladik, A., Pagezy, H. and Semple,
A., 1993. Tropical forests, people and food: an overview. In:
Tropical Forests, People and Food. Biocultural Interactions
and Applications to Development, Man and Biosphere Ser. 13.,
edited by C.M. Hladik, A. Hladik, O.F. Linares, H. Pagezy,
A. Semple and M. Hadley. Paris: UNESCO and New York:
Parthenon.
Hockings, K.J. and McLennan, M.R., 2012. From forest to
farm: systematic review of cultivar feeding by chimpanzees
management implications for wildlife in anthropogenic
landscapes. PLoS ONE 7, e33391.
Holmes, T.P., Aukema, J.E., Von Holle, B., Liebhold, A. and Sills,
E., 2009. Economic impacts of invasive species in forests.
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1162: 1838.
Holzschuh, A., Steffan-Dewenter, I. and 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: 491500.
Howard, P.L. and Smith, E., 2006. Leaving two thirds out of
development: Female headed households and common property
resources in the highlands of Tigray, Ethiopia. Livelihood
Support Programme (LSP) Working Paper 40. Rome: FAO.
Howard, P. L. and Nabanoga, G., 2007. Are there customary rights
to plants? An inquiry among the Baganda (Uganda), with
special attention to gender. World Development 35(9): 15421563.
Hunt, D., 1984. The Labour Aspects of Shifting Cultivation in
African Agriculture. Rome: FAO.
Hurni, K., Hett, C., Heinimann, A., Messerli, P. and Wiesmann, U.,
2013. Dynamics of shifting cultivation landscapes in northern
Lao PDR between 2000 and 2009 based on an analysis of
MODIS time series and Landsat images. Human Ecology 41(1):
21-36.
Ibarra, J.T., Barreau, A., Del Campo, C., Camacho, C.I., Martin,
G.J. and McCandless S.R., 2011. When formal and marketbased conservation mechanisms disrupt food sovereignty:
impacts of community conservation and payments for
environmental services on an indigenous community of Oaxaca,
Mexico. International Forestry Review 13(3): 318-337.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1505/146554811798293935

Change 24, 287294.
Indrawan, M., Yabe, M., Nomura, H. and Harrison, R., 2014.
Deconstructing satoyama The socio-ecological landscape
in Japan. Ecological Engineering 64: 7784. doi:10.1016/j.
ecoleng.2013.12.038
IFPRI, 2013. Reducing the Gender Asset Gap through Agricultural
Development. A technical Resource Guide. Washington DC:
IFPRI.
ITTO, 2002. ITTO guidelines for the restoration, management
and rehabilitation of degraded and secondary tropical forests.
ITTO Policy Development Series No. 13. Yokohama, Japan:
International Tropical Timber Organization.
Janick, J., 2005. The origins of fruits, fruit growing, and fruit
breeding. Plant Breeding Review 25: 255-320.
Kremen, C., 2005. Managing ecosystem services: what do we need

to know about their ecology? Ecology Letters 8: 468479.
Kristjanson, P., Waters-Buyer, A., Johnson, N., Tipilda, A., Njuki,
J., Baltenweck, I., Grace, D., MacMillan, S., 2014. Livestock
and womens livelihoods. In: Gender in agriculture. Closing the
knowledge gap, edited by A. Quisumbing, R. Meinzen-Dick,
T. Raney, A. Croppenstedt, J. Behrman and A. Peterman. Rome
and Dordrecht: FAO and Springer.
Kuhnlein, H.V., Erasmus, B. and Spigelski, D., 2009. Indigenous
peoples food systems. Rome: Food and Agriculture
Kumar, B.M. and Takeuchi, K., 2009. Agroforestry in the Western
Ghats of peninsular India and the satoyama landscapes of
Japan: a comparison of two sustainable land use systems.
Sustain. Sci. 4(2): 215232
Jarosz, L., 1993. Defining and explaining tropical deforestation:

shifting cultivation and population growth in colonial
Madagascar (1896-1940). Economic Geography 69 (4): 366379.
Kumar, C. and Nongkynrih, K. 2005. Customary tenurial forest

practices and the poor in Khasi Jaintia Society of Meghalaya.
Case study submitted for the joint study Rural common property
in a perspective of development and modernization. Delhi:
CIFOR and North Eastern Hill University.
Jodha, N.S., 1986. Common Property Resources and Rural Poor in

Dry Regions of India. Economic and Political Weekly 21:116981.
Kumar, N. and Quisumbing, A., 2012. Policy reform toward gender

equity in Ethiopia: little by little the egg begins to walk. IFPRI
discussion paper 1126. Washington DC: IFPRI.
Johann, E., Agnoletti M., Blni, J., Erol, S.Y., Holl, K., Kusmin,
J., Garca Latorre, J., Garca Latorre, J., Molnr, Z., Rochel,
X., Rotherham, I.D., Saratsi, E., Smith, M., Tarang, L., van
Benthem, M. and van Laar, J., 2012. Europe. In: Traditional
forest-related knowledge: sustaining communities, ecosystems
and biocultural diversity, edited by J.A. Parrotta and R.L.
Trosper. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
Landscan, 2010. Landscan Global Population Database. Available

at: http://www.eastview.com/online/landscan.
Johns, T., 1996. The origins of human diet and medicine: Chemical
ecology. Tucson AZ, USA: University of Arizona Press.
Johnson, D., 1973. The botany, origin, and spread of the cashew
Anacardium occidentale L. Journal of Plantation Crops 1(1-2):
1-7.
Jonkman, S.N., 2005. Global perspectives on loss of human life
caused by floods. Natural Hazards: 34: 151175.
Kennedy, E. and Peters, P. 1992. Household food security and child
nutrition: The interaction of income and gender of household
head. World Development 20(8): 1077-1085.
Kerr, W.E. and Posey D.A., 1984. Notas sobre a agricultura dos
ndios Kayap. Intercincia 9(6): 392400.
Kiptot, E. and Franzel, S., 2012. Gender and agroforestry in Africa:
a review of womens participation. Agroforestry Systems 84:
35-58. DOI 10.1007/s10457-011-9419-y.
Kislev, M.E, Hartmann, A. and Bar-Yosef, O., 2006. Early
domesticated fig in the Jordan Valley. Science 312 (5778):13721374 (2 June 2006 ). DOI: 10.1126/science.1125910
Kiyingi, I. and Gwali, S., 2013. Productivity and profitability of
robusta coffee agroforestry systems in central Uganda. Uganda
Journal of Agricultural Sciences 13(1): 85-93.
Klein, A.-M., Vaissire, B.E., Cane, J.H., Steffan-Dewenter, I.,
274: 303313.
Kleinman, P.J.A., Pimentel, D. and Bryant, R.B., 1996. Assessing
the ecological sustainability of slash-and-burn agriculture
through soil fertility indicators. Agronomic Journal 88:
122127.
Kort, J., 1988. Benefits of windbreaks to field and forage crops.
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 22-23: 165190.
Koppert, G.J.A., Dounias, E., Froment, A. and Pasquet, P., 1993.
Food consumption in three forest populations of the southern
coastal areas of Cameroon: Yassa - Mvae Bakola. In:
Tropical forests, people and food. Biocultural interactions and
applications to development. Man and Biosphere Series 13.
Paris: UNESCO/The Parthenon Publishing Group.
Lambin, E.F., Turner, B.L., Geist, H.J., Agbola, S.B., Angelsen,

A., Bruce, J.W., Coomes, O.T., Dirzo, R., Fischer, G., Folke,
C., George, P.S., Homewood, K., Imbernon, J., Leemans,
R., Li, X., Moran, E.F., Mortimore, M., Ramakrishnan, P.S.,
Richards, J.F, Sknes, H., Steffen, W., Stone, G.D., Svedin, U.,
Veldkamp, T.A., Vogel, C. and Xu, J., 2001. The causes of landuse and land-cover change: moving beyond the myths. Global
Environmental Change 11: 261269
Larson, A.M., Barry, D. and Dahal G.R., 2010. New rights for
forest-based communities? Understanding processes of forest
tenure reform. International Forestry Review 12(1): 78-96.
Lastarria-Cornhiel, S., 1997. Impact of privatization on gender and
property rights in Africa. World Development 25(8): 1317-1333.
Lastarria-Cornhiel, S., Behrman, J., Meinzen-Dick, R. and
Quisumbing, A., 2014. Gender equity ann land: toward secure
and effective access for rural women. In: Gender in agriculture.
Closing the knowledge gap, edited by A. Quisumbing, R.
Meinzen-Dick, T. Raney, A. Croppenstedt, J. Behrman and A.
Peterman. Rome and Dordrecht: FAO and Springer.
Lauri, P.-., Maguylo, K. and Trottier, C., 2006. Architecture
and size relations: an essay on the apple (Malus x domestica,
Rosaceae) tree. American Journal of Botany 93 (93): 357368.
Li, T.M., 1998. Working separately but eating together: personhood,
property and power in conjugal relations. American Ethnologist
25(4): 675-694.
Li, T.M., 2014. Social impacts of oil palm in Indonesia. A gendered
perspective from West Kalimantan. Toronto: University of
Toronto, for CIFOR.
Likens, G.E., Driscoll, C.T. and Buso, D.C., 1996. Longterm effects of acid rain: response and recovery of a forest
ecosystem. Science 272: 244246.
Lim, H.F., Liang, L., Camacho, L.D., Combalicer, E.A. and Singh,
S.K.K., 2012. Southeast Asia. In: Traditional forest-related
knowledge: sustaining communities, ecosystems and biocultural
diversity, edited by J.A. Parrotta and R.L. Trosper. Dordrecht,
the Netherlands: Springer.
Linares, O.F.,1976. Garden hunting in the American tropics.
Human Ecology 4(4): 331-349.
Mackenzie, C.A. and Ahabyona, P., 2012. Elephants in the
garden: financial and social costs of crop raiding. Ecological
Economics 75: 7282.
81

Maffi L., 2005. Linguistic, cultural, and biological diversity.

Annual Review of Anthropology 29: 599617. DOI: 10.1146/
annurev.anthro.34.081804.120437.
Marten, G.G. and Abdoellah, O.S., 1988. Crop diversity and nutrition
in west java. Ecology of Food and Nutrition 21(1):17-43.
Martin, P.A., Newton, A.C. and Bullock, J.M., 2013 Carbon
pools recover more quickly than plant biodiversity in tropical
secondary forests. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 280:
20132236. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.2236
Masset, E., Haddad, L., Cornelius, A. and Isaza-Castro, J., 2012.
Effectiveness of agricultural interventions that aim to improve
nutritional status of children: systematic review. BMJ (British
Medical Journal) 344: d8222. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.d8222
Masters, E.T., Yidana, J.A. and Lovett, P.N. (n.d.). Reinforcing
sound management through trade: shea tree products in Africa.
Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization. Available at: http://
www.fao.org/docrep/008/y5918e/y5918e11.htm
McDaniel, J., Kennard, D. and Fuentes, A., 2005. Smokey the tapir:
traditional fire knowledge and fire prevention campaigns in
lowland Bolivia. Society and Natural Resources 18: 921931.
Meinzen-Dick, R., Brown, L., Feldstein, H. and Quisumbing, A.,
1997. Gender, property rights, and natural resources.
World Development 25(8): 1303-1315.
Meinzen-Dick, R., Johnson, N., Quisumbing, A., Njuki, J.,
Behrman, J., Rubin, D., Peterman, A. and Waithanji, E., 2014.
The gender asset gap and its implications for agricultiral and
rural development. In: Gender in agriculture. Closing the
knowledge gap, edited by A. Quisumbing, R. Meinzen-Dick, T.
Raney, A. Croppenstedt, J. Behrman, and A. Peterman. Rome
and Dordrecht: FAO and Springer.
Mercer, D.L., 2004. Adoption of agroforestry innovations in the
tropics: a review. Agroforestry Systems 61-62(1-3): 311-328.
Mertz, O., 2009. Trends in shifting cultivation and the REDD
mechanism. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
1(2): 156-160.
Nair, P.K.N., 1993. An introduction to agroforestry. Dordrecht,

Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Nair, P.K.R. and Fernandes, E.,1984. Agroforestry as an alternative
to shifting cultivation. FAO Soils Bulletin. No 53: 169-182.
Nair, P.K.R., Kumar, B.M. and Nair, V.D., 2009. Agroforestry as a
strategy for carbon sequestration. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 172:
1023.
Narain, U., Gupta, S. and 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.
and Christophersen, T., 2008. Conservation and use of wildlifebased resources: the bushmeat crisis. In: CBD Technical Series
no. 33, Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological
Diversity.
Naughton-Treves, L., Treves, A., Chapman, C. and Wrangham, R.,
1998. Temporal patterns of crop-raiding by primates: linking
food availability in croplands and adjacent forest. Journal of
Applied Ecology 35: 596606.
Nepstad, D., Carvalho, G., Barros, A.C., Alencar, A., Capobianco,
J.P., Bishop, J., Moutinho, P., Lefebvre, P., Silva, U.L. and Prins,
E., 2001. Road paving, fire regime feedbacks, and the future of
Amazon forests. Forest Ecology and Management 154: 395407.
New Zealand Nature Institute, 2006. Rural livelihoods and access
to forest resources in Mongolia. LSP Working Paper 32. Rome:
FAO, Livelihood Support Programme (LSP).
Njuki, J, Kaaria, S., Chamunorwa, A. and Chiuri, W., 2011. Linking
smallholder farmers to markets, gender, and intrahousehold
dynamics: does the choice of commodity matter? Eur J Dev Res
23(3): 426-443.
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. and Potter, L., 2009a. Who counts?
the demography of swidden cultivators. Human Ecology 37:
281-289. doi:10.1007/s10745-009-9249-y.
Ntiamoa-Baidu, Y., 1997. Wildlife and food security in Africa.

Rome: FAO.
Mertz, O., Padoch, C., Fox, J., Cramb, R.A., Leisz, S.J., Lam, N.T.
and Vien, T.D., 2009b. Swidden change in Southeast Asia:
understanding causes and consequences. Human Ecology
37(3):259264.
Obiri, D.B., Depinto, A. and 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. 56pp.
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. and Magid, J., 2008. A fresh look at
shifting cultivation: fallow length an uncertain indicator of
productivity. Agricultural Systems 96: 7584. doi:10.1016/j.
agsy.2007.06.002.
Ohler, J.G., 1979. Cashew processing. Tropical Abstracts 21(9):

1792-2007.
Meyer, J.-Y. and Malet, J.-P., 1997. Study and management of the
alien invasive tree Miconia calvescens DC. (Melastomataceae)
in the Islands of Raiatea and Tahaa (Society Islands, French
Polynesia): 1992-1996. Report, Cooperative National Park
Resources Studies Unit. Honolulu: University of Hawaii at
Manoa, Department of Botany.
Mitchell, M.G.E., Bennett, E.M. and Gonzalez, A., 2014. Forest
fragments modulate the provision of multiple ecosystem
services. Journal of Applied Ecology 51: 909918.
Molnar, T.J., Zaurov, D.E., Capik, J.M., Eisenman, S.W.,Ford, T.,
Nikolyi, L.V. and Funk, C.R, 2011. Persian Walnuts (Juglans
regia L.) in Central Asia. In: Northern Nut Growers Association
(NNGA) 101st Annual report. Available online at: www.ippfbe.org.
Moore, B.A., 2005. Alien invasive species: impacts on forests
and forestry. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organisation of the
United Nations.
Mukherjee, S.K., 1972. Origin of mango (Mangifera indica).
Economic Botany 26(3): 260-264.
82
Muleta, D., 2007. Microbial inputs in coffee (Coffea arabica L.)

production systems, southwestern Ethiopia - implications for
promotion of biofertilizers and biocontrol agents. Doctoral
thesis. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences/Uppsala.
Obiri, D.B., Bright, G.A., McDonald, M.A., Anglaaere, L.C.N. and

Cobbina, J., 2007. Financial analysis of shaded cocoa in Ghana.
Agroforestry Systems 71 (2): 139-149.
Olson, S.H., Gangnon, R., Silveira, G.A. and Patz, J.A., 2010.
Deforestation and malaria in Mncio Lima County, Brazil.
Emerg Infect Dis. 16(7): 1108-1115.
Opeke, L.K., 1982. Tropical tree crops. Chichester, UK: John
Wiley & Sons.
Oteng-Yeboah, A., Mutta, D., Byarugaba, D. and Mala, W.A., 2012.
Africa. In: Traditional forest-related knowledge: sustaining
Springer.
Padoch, C., Coffey, K., Mertz, O., Leisz, S., Fox, J., Wadley, R.L.,
2007. The demise of swidden in Southeast Asia? Local realities
and regional ambiguities. Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal
of Geography 107: 2941.
Padoch, C., Brondizio, E., Costa, S., Pinedo-Vasquez, M., Sears,
R.R. and Siqueira, A., 2008. Urban forest and rural cities:
multi-sited households, consumption patterns, and forest
resources in Amazonia. Ecology and Society 13(2): 2. Available
at: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art2/.
Padoch, C. and de Jong, W., 1992. Diversity, variation, and change
in ribereo agriculture. In: Conservation of neotropical forests:
working from traditional resource use, edited by K. Redford and
C. Padoch. Columbia University Press: New York.

Padoch, C. and Peluso, N., 1996. Borneo in transition: people,

forests, conservation and development. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford
University Press.
Padoch, C. and Peters, C., 1993. Managed forest gardens in West
Kalimantan, Indonesia. In: Perspectives on Biodiversity: Case
Studies of Genetic Resource Conservation and Development,
edited by C. S. Potter, J.I. Cohen and D. Janczewski.
Washington, DC: AAAS.
Palm, C.A., Sanchez, P.A., Ericksen, P.J. and Vosti, S.A. (Eds.),
2005. Slash-and-burn agriculture: the search for alternatives.
New York: Columbia University Press.
Paoletti, E., Schaub, M., Matyssek, R., Wieser, G., Augustaitis, A.,
Bastrup-Birk, A.M., Bytnerowiczg, A., Gnthardt-Goergb,M.S.,
Mller-Starckc, G. and Serengilh, A., 2010. Advances of air
pollution science: from forest decline to multiple-stress effects
on forest ecosystem services. Environmental Pollution 158:
19861989.
Pardini, R., Bueno, A.A., Gardner, T.A., Prado, P.I. and Metzger,
J.P., 2010. Beyond the fragmentation threshold hypothesis:
regime shifts in biodiversity across fragmented landscapes.
PLoS ONE 5: e13666.
Parrotta, J.A., 1993. Cocos nucifera L. Coconut, palma de coco.
Res. Note SO-ITF-SM-57. New Orleans, LA: USDA Forest
Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station.
Parrotta, J.A. and Agnoletti, M., 2012. Traditional forest-related
knowledge and climate change. In: Traditional forest-related
Parrotta, J.A. and Trosper, R.L. (eds.), 2012. Traditional forestrelated knowledge: sustaining communities, ecosystems and
biocultural diversity. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Parry, L., Barlow, J. and Peres, C.A., 2009. Hunting for
sustainability in tropical secondary forests. Conservation
Biology 23(5):127080.
Prez, E. and Pacheco, L.F., 2006. Damage by large mammals to
subsistence crops within a protected area in a montane forest of
Bolivia. Crop Protection 25: 933939.
Perfecto, I., Vandermeer, J., Mas, A. and Soto Pinto, L., 2005.
Biodiversity, yield, and shade coffee certification. Ecological
Economics 54: 435 446.
Peters, P.E. 1986. Household management in Botswana: Cattle,
crops and wage labor. In: Understanding Africas rural
households and farming systems, edited by J.L. Moock.
Boulder and London:Westview.
Pinedo-Vasquez, M., Hecht, S. and Padoch, C., 2012. Amazonia.
In: Traditional forest-related knowledge: sustaining
Springer.
Plantegenest, M., Le May, C. and Fabre, F., 2007. Landscape
epidemiology of plant diseases. Journal of the Royal Society
Interface 4: 963972.
Platteau, J-P. 1992. Land reform and structural adjustment in subSaharan Africa: controversies and guidelines. FAO Economic
and Social Development Paper 107. Rome: FAO.
Pooley, S., Fa, J.E. and Nasi, R., 2015. No conservation silver lining
to Ebola. Conservation Biology 00(0): 13. DOI: 10.1111/
cobi.12454
Posey, D.A. (ed.), 1999. Cultural and spiritual values of biodiversity.
London: Intermediate Technology Publications, UNEP.
Powell, B., Thilsted Haraksingh, S., Ickowitz, A., Termote, C.,
Sunderland, T. and Herforth, A., 2015. Improving diets with
wild and cultivated biodiversity from across the landscape.
Food Security, in press.
Power, A.G., 2010. Ecosystem services and agriculture: tradeoffs
and synergies. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society
B: Biological Sciences 365: 29592971.
Quisumbing, A.R., Payongayong, E., Aidoo, J.B. and Otsuka, K.,

2003. Womens land rights in the transition to individualized
ownership: implications for the management of tree resources
in western Ghana. In: Household Decisions, Gender, and
Development. A Synthesis of Recent Research, edited by A.
Quisumbing. Washington DC: IFPRI.
Quisumbing, A.R., Estudillo, J.P. and Otsuka, K., 2004. Land and
schooling: transferring wealth across generations. Baltimore:
John Hopkins University Press, for IFPRI.
Quisumbing, A.R. and Pandofelli, L,. 2009. Promising approaches
to address the needs of poor female farmers: resources,
constraints, and interventions. IFPRI Discussion Paper 00882.
Washington DC: IFPRI.
Raintree, J. and Warner, K., 1986. Agroforestry pathways for the
intensification of shifting cultivation. Agroforestry Systems
4(1), 39-54.
Ramakrishnan, P.S., 1992. Shifting agriculture and sustainable
development: an interdisciplinary study from north-eastern
India. Man and Biosphere Book Series. 10. Paris: UNESCO
and Caernforth, Lancaster, UK: Parthenon Publishing.
Ramakrishnan, P.S., Rao, K.S., Chandrashekara, U.M., Chhetri, N.,
Gupta, H.K., Patnaik, S., Saxena, K.G. and Sharma, E., 2012.
South Asia. In: Traditional forest-related knowledge: sustaining
Springer.
Rangarajan, M., Desai, A., Sukumar, R., Easa, P.S., Menon, V.,
Vincent, S., Ganguly, S., Talukdar, B.K., Singh, B., Mudappa,
D., Chowdhary, S. and Prasad, A.N., 2010. Securing the future
for elephants in India. The Report of the Elephant Task Force.
New Delhi: Ministry of Environment and Forests.
Reij, C., 2014. Re-greening the Sahel: linking adaptation to climate
change, poverty reduction, and sustainable development in
drylands. In: The social lives of forests: Past, present and future
of woodland resurgence, edited by S. Hecht, K. Morrison and
C. Padoch. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
Rerkasem, K., Lawrence, C., Padoch, D. Schmidt-Voght, D.,
Zeigler, A D. and Bruun, T.B, 2009. Consequences of swidden
transitions for crop and fallow biodiversity in Southeast Asia.
Human Ecology 37: 347360.
Rice, R.A. and Greenberg, R., 2000. Cacao cultivation and the
conservation of biological diversity. Ambio. 29(3): 81-87, 167
173.
Ricketts, T.H., 2004. Tropical forest fragments enhance pollinator
activity in nearby coffee crops. Conservation Biology 18:
12621271.
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. and Viana B.F., 2008. Landscape effects on crop pollination
services: are there general patterns? Ecology Letters 11:
499515.
Rival, L.M., 2002. Trekking through history: the Huaorani of
Amazonian Ecuador. New York: Columbia University Press.
Rocheleau, D. and Edmunds, D., 1997. Women, men and
trees: gender, power and property in forest and agrarian
landscapes.World Development 25(8): 1351-1371.
RRI, 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. Available at: http://www.
rightsandresources.org/
Rose, L., 1996. Disputes in Common Property Regimes. Land
Tenure Center Paper 154. Madison: Land Tenure Center,
University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Rudel, T.K., DeFries, R., Asner, G.P. and Laurance, W.F., 2009.
Changing Drivers of Deforestation and New Opportunities for
Conservation. Conservation Biology 23(6): 1396-1405.
83

Ruf, F. and Schroth, G., 2004. Chocolate forests and monocultures:

a historical review of cocoa growing and its conflicting role in
tropical deforestation and forest conservation. In: Agroforestry
and biodiversity conservation in tropical landscapes, edited by
G. Schroth, G.A.B. Da Fonseca, C.A. Harvey, C. Gascon, H.L.
Lasconcelos and A.N. Izac. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Russell, W.M S., 1988. Population, swidden farming and the
tropical environment. Population and Environment 10: 7794.
doi:10.1007/BF01359134.
Sanchez P.A., 1995. Science in agroforestry. Agroforest Systems
30: 555.
Sanchez, P.A., Palm, C.A., Vosti, S.A., Tomich, T. and Kasyoki, J.,
2005. Alternatives to slash and burn: challenges and approaches
of an international consortium. In: Slash-and-burn agriculture:
the search for alternatives, edited by C.A. Palm, S.A. Vosti, P.A.
Sanchez and P.J. Ericksen. New York: Columbia University Press.
Saroj, P.L. and Rupa, T.R., 2014. Cashew research in India:
achievements and strategies. Progressive Horticulture 46(1): 1-17.
Sauer, C.O., 1969. Agricultural origins and dispersals, 2nd edn.
Cambridge and London: MIT Press.
Scherr, S.J., 1995. Economic factors in farmer adoption: patterns
observed in Western Kenya. World Development 23: 787804.
Schlager, E. and Ostrom, E., 1992. Property rights and natural
resources: a conceptual analysis. Land Economics 68(3): 249-62.
Schlegel, S.A. and Guthrie, H.A., 1973. Diet and the tiruray shift
from swidden to plow farming. Ecology of Food and Nutrition
2(3):181-91.
Schmidt-Vogt, D., Leisz, S.J., Mertz, O., Heinimann, A., Thiha, T.
Messerli, P., Epprecht, M., Cu, P.V., Chi, V.K., Hardiono, M.
and Dao, T.M., 2009. An assessment of trends in the extent of
swidden in Southeast Asia. Human Ecology 37: 269280.
Schroth, G. and Harvey, C., 2007. Biodiversity conservation in
cocoa production landscapes: an overview. Conservation and
Biology 16 (8): 2237-2244
Scott, J., 1999. Seeing like a state: how certain schemes to improve
the human condition have failed. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Sinu, P.A., Kent, S.M. and 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: 702709.
Smith, D.A., 2005. Garden game: shifting cultivation, indigenous
hunting and wildlife ecology in western Panama. Human
Ecology 33(4):505-37.
Smith, N.J.H., Williams, J.T., Plucknett, D.L. and Talbot, J.P., 1992.
Tropical forests and their crops. Ithaca and London: Cornell
University Press.
Spencer, J.E., 1966. Shifting cultivation in Southeastern Asia.
Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Stevens, C., Winterbottom, R., Springer, J. and Reytar, K., 2014.
Securing rights, combating climate change: How strengthening
community forest rights mitigates climate change. Washington
DC: World Resources Institute. Availible at www.wri.org/
securing-rights.
Swift, M.J., Vandermeer, J., Ramakrishnan, P.S., Anderson,
J.M., Ong, C.K. and Hawkins, B., 1996. Biodiversity and
agroecosystem function. In: Functional Roles of Biodiversity:
A Global Perspective, SCOPE Series, edited by H.A. Mooney,
J.H. Cushman, E. Medina, O.E. Sala and E.-D. Schulze.
Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Tejeda-Cruz, C., Silva-Rivera, E., Barton, J.R. and Sutherland,
W.J., 2010. Why shade coffee does not guarantee biodiversity
conservation. Ecology and Society 15: 13.
84
Thompson, I.D., Ferreira, J., Gardner, T., Guariguata, M., Koh, L.P.,
Okabe, K., Pan, Y., Schmitt, C.B., Tylianakis, J., Barlow, Kapos,
V., Kurz, W.A., Spalding, M. and van Vliet, N., 2012. Forest
biodiversity, carbon and other ecosystem services: relationships
and impacts of deforestation and forest degradation. In:
Understanding Relationships between Biodiversity, Carbon,
Forests and People: The Key to Achieving REDD+ Objectives,
IUFRO World Series Volume 31, edited by J. A. Parrotta, C.
Wildburger and S. Mansourian.Vienna: International Union of
Forest Research Organizations.
Thrupp, L.A., Hecht, S.B. and Browder, J.O., 1997. The diversity
and dynamics of shifting cultivation: myths, realities and policy
implications. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.
Toledo, M. and Salick, J. 2006. Secondary succession and
indigenous management in semideciduous forest fallows of the
Amazon Basin. Biotropica 38(2):16170.
Tomalak, M., Rossi, E., Ferrini, F. and Moro, P.A., 2011. Negative
aspects and hazardous effects of forest environments on
human health. In: Forests, trees and human health, edited by
K. Nilsson, M. Sangster, C. Gallis, T. Hartig, S. de Vries, K.
Seeland and J. Schipperijn. New York: Springer.
Tontisirin, K., Nantel, G. and Bhattacharjee, L., 2002. Food-based
strategies to meet the challenges of micronutrient malnutrition
in the developing world. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society
61(2):243-50.
Tscharntke, T., Klein, A.M., Kruess, A., Steffan-Dewenter, I.
and Thies, C., 2005a. Landscape perspectives on agricultural
intensification and biodiversity ecosystem service
management. Ecology Letters 8: 857874.
Tscharntke, T., Rand, T.A. and Bianchi, F.J.J.A., 2005b. The
landscape context of trophic interactions:insect spillover across
the crop-noncrop interface. Annual Zoology Fennici: 421432.
Tscharntke, T., Tylianakis, J.M., Rand, T.A., Didham, R.K.,
Fahrig, L. and Batry, P., Bengtsson, J., Clough, Y., Crist,
T.O., Dormann, C.F., Ewers, R.M., Frnd, J., Holt, R.D.,
Holzschuh, A., Klein, A.M., Kleijn, D., Kremen, C., Landis,
D.A., Laurance, W., Lindenmayer, D., Scherber, C., Sodhi,
N., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Thies, C., van der Putten, W.H. and
Westphal, C., 2012. Landscape moderation of biodiversity
patterns and processes - eight hypotheses. Biological Reviews:
87: 661685.
Turner, N.J., uczaj .J., Migliorini P., Pieroni A., Dreon A.L.,
Sacchetti, L.E. and Paoletti, M.G., 2011. Edible and tended
wild plants, traditional ecological knowledge and agroecology,
Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 30:1-2, 198-225. DOI:
10.1080/07352689.2011.554492
United Nations, 2009. The State of the Worlds Indigenous People.
New York: UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs,
Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.
Uriarte, M., Pinedo-Vasquez, M., DeFries, R. S., Fernandes, K.,
Gutierrez-Velez, V., Baethgen, W. E. and Padoch, C., 2012.
Depopulation of rural landscapes exacerbates fire activity in
the western Amazon. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences 109(52): 21546-21550.
Van Koppen, B., 1990. Women and the design of irrigation
schemes: Experiences from two cases in Burkina Faso.
Paper presented at the International Workshop on Design for
Sustainable Farmer-Managed Irrigation Schemes in SubSaharan Africa. Wageningen Agricultural University, The
Netherlands, 5-8 February.
van Vliet, N., Mertz, O., Heinimann, A., Langanke, T., Pascual,
U., Schmook, B., Adams, C., Schmidt-Vogt, D., Messerli, P.,
Leisz, S., Castella, J.-C., Jrgensen, L., Birch-Thomsen, T.,
Hett, C.,Bech-Bruun, T., Ickowitz, A., Vum, K.C., Yasuyuki,
K., Fox, J., Padoch, C., Dressler, W. and Ziegler, A.D., 2012.
Trends, drivers and impacts of changes in swidden cultivation
in tropical forest-agriculture frontiers: A global assessment.
Global Environmental Change 22: 418429.

Veberic, R., Colaric, M. and Stampar, F., 2008. Phenolic acids

and flavonoids of fig fruit (Ficus carica L.) in the northern
Mediterranean region. Food Chemistry 106(1): 153157.
doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2007.05.061.
Velded, T., 2000. Village politics: heterogeneity, leadership and
collective action. Journal of Development Studies 36: 105-134.
Wadley, R L. and Colfer, C.J.P., 2004. Sacred forest, hunting, and
conservation in West Kalimantan, Indonesia. Human Ecology
32: 313-338
Warner, K., 1991. Shifting cultivators: Local and technical
knowledge and natural resource management in the humid
tropics. Community Forestry Note 8. Rome: FAO.
Watson, G.A., 1990. Tree crops and farming systems development
in the humid tropics. Experimental Agriculture 26: 143-159.
DOI:10.1017/S0014479700018147
Whitehead, A. 1985. Effects of Technological Change on Rural
Women: A Review of Analysis and Concepts. In:Technology
and Rural Women: Conceptual and Empirical Issues, edited by
I. Ahmed. London: George Allen and Unwin.
Wiersum, K.F., 1997. Indigenous exploitation and management of
tropical forest resources: an evolutionary continuum in forestpeople interactions. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment
63 (1997) 1-16.
Wilcox, B.A. and Ellis, B., 2006. Forests and emerging infectious
diseases of humans. Unasylva 57: 1118.
Williams, T., 2014. Ebolas silver lining. New Scientist 223: 2627.
WOCAT, 2007. SWC Technology: shade-grown coffee. San Jos,
Costa Rica: Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadera.
World Bank, FAO and IFAD, 2009. Gender and Forestry, Module
15. Gender in Agriculture Sourcebook. Washington DC: World
Bank.
Youn, Y.-C., Liu, J., Daisuke, S., Kim, K., Ichikawa, M., Shin, J.-H.
and Yuan, J., 2012. Northeast Asia. In: Traditional forest-related
Ziegler, A.D., Phelps, J., Yuen, J.Q., Webb, E.L., Lawrence, D.,
Fox, J.M., Bruun, T.B., Leisz, S.J., Ryan, C.M., Dressler, W.,
Mertz, O., Pascual, U., Padoch, C. and Koh, L.P., 2012. Carbon
outcomes of major land-cover transitions in SE Asia: great
uncertainties and REDD+ policy implications. Global Change
Biology 18(10): 3087-3099.
Zomer, R. J., Bossio, D. A., Trabucco, A., Yuanjie, L., Gupta,
D. C. and Singh, V.P., 2007. Trees and Water: Smallholder
Agroforestry on Irrigated Lands in Northern India. IWMI
Research Reports, no. 122. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International
Water Management Institute.
Zomer, R.J., Trabucco, A., Coe, R. and Place, F., 2009. Trees on
Farm: Analysis of Global Extent and Geographic Pattern of
Agroforestry. ICRAF Working Paper no. 89. Nairobi: World
Agroforestry Centre.
Zomer, R.J., Trabucco, A., Coe, R. Place, F., van Noordwijk,
M. and Xu, J.C., 2014. Trees on farms: an update and
reanalysis of agroforestrys global extent and socio-ecological
characteristics. Working Paper 179. Bogor, Indonesia: World
Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) Southeast Asia Regional
Program. DOI: 10.5716/ WP14064.PDF
World Bank, 2013. Forest, trees and woodlands in africa.

An action plan for World Bank engagement. Washington,
DC: World Bank.
85
Chapter 4
Drivers of Forests and Tree-based
Systems for Food Security
and Nutrition
Coordinating lead author: Daniela Kleinschmit
Lead authors: Bimbika Sijapati Basnett, Adrian Martin, Nitin D. Rai and Carsten Smith-Hall
Contributing authors: Neil M. Dawson, Gordon Hickey, Henry Neufeldt,
Hemant R. Ojha and Solomon Zena Walelign
CONTENTS
Abstract88
4.1 Introduction
88
4.2 Environmental Drivers
88
4.3 Social Drivers
91
4.4 Economic Drivers
95
4.5 Governance
98
4.6 Conclusions
102
References104
87
4 DRIVERS OF FORESTS AND TREE-BASED SYSTEMS FOR FOOD SECURITY AND NUTRITION
Abstract: In the context of this chapter, drivers are considered to be natural or anthropogenic developments affecting forests and tree-based systems for food security and nutrition. They can improve and
contribute to food security and nutrition, but they can also lead to food insecurity and malnutrition.
For analytical purposes, drivers are separated here into the following four interconnected categories: (i)
environmental, (ii) social, (iii) economic and (iv) governance. When reviewing scientific findings twelve
major drivers (i.e. population growth, urbanisation, governance shifts, climate change, commercialisation
of agriculture, industrialisation of forest resources, gender imbalances, conflicts, formalisation of tenure
rights, rising food prices and increasing per capita income) were identified within these four categories.
They affect food security and nutrition through land use and management; through consumption, income
and livelihood; or through both. These drivers are interrelated and can have different consequences
depending on the social structure; for example, they can support food security for elite groups but can
increase the vulnerability of other groups.
4.1 Introduction
Drivers of change are the subject of a vast scholarly literature. In the context of this report, drivers are understood as
natural or anthropogenic developments affecting forests
and tree-based systems1 for food security and nutrition.
This chapter aims to provide a structured and comprehensive overview of major findings from this literature
in an effort to better understand the interrelations among
these drivers and how they impact on food security and
nutrition. It covers drivers that improve and contribute
to food security and nutrition as well as those leading to
increased food insecurity and poor nutrition. Changes to
improve food security and nutrition result for example in
an increased availability of food and better nutrition. In
contrast, changes that lead to food insecurity increase the
vulnerability of both ecosystems and humanity. Identifying drivers and understanding their impact pathways is
essential to determine options for effective interventions
by enhancing positive and minimising negative effects
(see Chapter 6).
Driving forces can originate at different spatial scales
and can be distant or proximate. In this chapter, attention
is paid in particular to those drivers constraining forests
and tree-based systems for food security and nutrition in
vulnerable regions, i.e. the tropics, neo-tropics and subSaharan Africa. Both the environmental and the human
components of forests and tree-based systems for food
security and nutrition are subject to changing dynamics
presenting a different picture over time. These dynamics
also imply that drivers and effects are strongly interrelated and can mutually affect each other. Consequently
a simplified classification as driver or effect sometimes
falls short in addressing this complex relationship.
The chapter builds on a framework (see Figure 4.1)
to categorise drivers and trace their impact pathways.
According to their content, drivers can be separated for
analytical reasons into the following four interconnected
categories: (i) environmental, (ii) social, (iii) economic,
and (iv) governance. Environmental drivers refer to developments in nature (many of which have themselves
anthropogenic causes) that change food security. Social
88
drivers include the role of patterns of social differentiation, inequalities and changes in influencing forests and
tree- based systems for food security and nutrition. Economic drivers relate to direct and indirect impacts from
economic activities that are both economy-wide and site
specific. Governance refers to those institutions setting
the rules of the game, differentiating between state and
non-state governance. The drivers identified in these four
groups mainly impact food security and nutrition through
two major pathways: changes in land use and (forest)
management or changes in consumption, incomes and
livelihoods (see Figure 4.1). Both pathways determine
food availability, access and stability that ensure food
security and nutrition.
This chapter presents findings from available scholarly
literature for each category of driver and ends with a summary of major results. Literature about drivers referring to
the interrelation between forests and tree-based systems
on the one hand, and food security and nutrition on the
other, is rare. For this reason, the authors of this chapter
reviewed literature on the subject of change from both scientific areas - forests and food security - and linked them
to present a comprehensive overview of relevant drivers.
4.2 Environmental Drivers

Before reviewing different environmental drivers it
should be highlighted once again that environmental and
anthropogenic developments are marked by a complex,
mutual relationship. Environmental drivers are themselves consequences of human action, policies and societal processes. Consequently the underlying interactions
between social, political, economic and ecological processes are difficult to isolate from each other. The effect
of human activities on ecosystems has been large enough
to warrant the call to rename the current geological era as
the Anthropocene (Crutzen, 2006). Many critical thresholds of the earths biophysical systems have already been
crossed as a result of human activity (Rockstrm et al.,
2009). These processes have uneven impacts on different
sections of humanity (Mohai et al., 2009). People living
directly off production from the earths ecosystems are

particularly affected by these changes. Factors such as
increasing temperatures, variable precipitation, fragmentation, deforestation, invasive species and loss of biological diversity affect not only the extent of forest but also
the structure and species composition within forests (and
therefore, forest products) thus impacting on the availability of food and nutrition.
Three significant larger scale environmental drivers
that impact directly on the forests-food nexus will be discussed in this section: climate change, deforestation and
forest transitions, and invasive species. The identification
of larger scale drivers of forest change and food security
is important given the conventional understanding that
forest degradation is often the result of local processes
such as conversion to agriculture, grazing and harvest of
forest produce. While these local practices do have impacts they are generally small-scale, reversible and are often regulated by local bodies. The larger drivers listed below however call for action at national and global scales.
Climate change
Climate change is affecting global and local ecological processes in many ways. Though the consequences
are complex, there is enough evidence that ongoing and
future changes are going to be drastic. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) notes that by the
end of this century rates of climate change as a result of
medium to high emission levels pose high risk of abrupt
and irreversible regional-scale change in the composition,
structure, and function of terrestrial ecosystems. There is
widespread evidence that the poorest regions in the world,
such as sub-Saharan Africa, will be affected the hardest
by climate change. The IPCC report notes that increased
tree mortality and associated forest dieback is projected

to occur in many regions over the 21st century, due to increased temperatures and drought (IPCC, 2014). The effects of climate change, combined with land cover change
such as reduced forest cover and fragmentation, exacerbate impacts (Afreen et al., 2010). These climate-induced
changes affecting forest cover imply both direct and indirect consequences for food security and nutrition: direct
consequences result from changes in the availability and
quality of food and nutrition, while indirect consequences
result from changes in income and livelihoods related to
forest products. The consequences of climate change for
forests and tree-based systems for food security and nutrition, however, are not well understood although comprehensive reviews of climate and agricultural food systems
have been published (Vermeulen et al., 2012).
The IPCC more specifically forecasts the following
changes concerning forests: a decrease in tree densities
in parts of North Africa, range shifts of several southern plants and animals, changes in plant phenology and
growth in many parts of Asia (earlier greening), distribution shifts of many plant and animal species upwards in
elevation and an increase in tree mortality and forest fire
in the Amazon. Climate-induced effects will interact with
ongoing landscape changes to produce a range of synergistic outcomes with significant effect on plant and forest
health (Pautasso et al., 2010). Studies have demonstrated
that climatic impacts interact with other landscape level
drivers of change to affect biological assemblages and ecosystems. For instance, some landscapes might hinder the
dispersal of species and thus prevent species from shifting
range (adapting) as climate regimes change (Garcia et al.,
2014). Tropical tree species are going to be the most affected by climate change as they are already close to their
Figure
4.1
Framework of drivers directly and indirectly impacting on forests and tree-based

systems for food security and nutrition
Environmental
Social
Landuse and Management
Economic
Policy
Consumption, Incomes
and Livelihoods
Forest and tree-based

food security and nutrition
89
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.
There is a shared understanding in the literature that
climate change will affect the most vulnerable groups,
especially women (Brody et al., 2008). An indirect effect
of climate change is expected from increasing world food
prices with harsh consequences for the poorest, including
women. Literature dealing with gender imbalances of climate change impacts mainly refers to food security and
agriculture. However, findings could be transferred to forests and tree-based food systems and food security and nutrition. In particular, the literature identifies a number of
reasons for the gender-differentiated vulnerability of climate change impacts. Amongst these, are different coping
and adaptive abilities of men and women (UNDP, 2012)
depending on the inequalities in access to assets as well as
legal socio-cultural barriers preventing women from effectively responding to climate change (UNDP, 2012).
Deforestation and forest transition
90
Deforestation and forest transitions interact with food

security and nutrition in many ways, directly impacting
on the extent of forest available for the harvest of fruit
and other forest- and tree-based diets. In particular, deforestation and forest degradation affect biodiversity and the
variety of food available through habitat loss and forest
transformation.
The process of deforestation is complex and goes beyond the simple removal of trees; there is a continuum of
forest structures that complicates what is understood as
forests, and is accompanied often by rapid regrowth. The
relationship between deforestation and forest dependence
is neither inverse nor linear. It has been demonstrated that
forests with intermediate levels of diversity are as viable
for livelihoods as diverse forests, and secondary forests
have been shown to provide more forest products than
highly diverse forests (Saw et al., 1991). There is increasing evidence that in some instances areas that were deforested are now indistinguishable from primary forests
(Willis et al., 2004). The conventional understanding that
current forested landscapes are remnants of past deforestation and degradation has been revisited by studies that
have shown that these forests might have been raised by
people through active management and customary practice (Fairhead and Leach, 1996; Virah-sawmy, 2009).
While during the past decade deforestation rates have
decreased globally, some countries are showing increasing rates of reforestation (Meyfroidt and Lambin, 2011).
Reforestation is occurring due to a host of factors such
as flows of labour, capital, conservation policies, and the
valuation of and markets for ecosystem services (Hecht et
al., 2006). The valuation of ecosystem services and reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation,
enhancing forest carbon stocks, sustainable management
and conservation of forests (REDD+) has implications
for the governance and local use of forests (Phelps et al.,

2010) (see Section 4.5). Consequently, policies that encourage reforestation risk having equally adverse impacts
on local communities - by preventing access to forest resources - as those that encourage deforestation. Equally,
policies that are aimed at reducing deforestation and degradation by local communities often lead to deprivation
and livelihood insecurity (DeFries et al., 2010).
Studies have shown that there is a direct relationship
between tree cover, tree species diversity and food security especially of vulnerable groups (Ickowitz et al., 2014;
van Noordwijk et al., 2014). Changes in the extent and
type of forest have implications for the provisioning of
food, and for food security and nutrition of local and distant human populations.
Global rates of deforestation have been high for the
last few centuries and have been driven by such factors
as agriculture (commercial and subsistence), mining, urbanisation and infrastructure expansion (Hosonuma et al.,
2012; Williams, 2003) (see also Chapter 3). Globalisation and urbanisation trends starting in the 1980s have
changed the agents of deforestation from local population
use to capital-intensive commercial farming that supplies
distant markets (Rudel et al., 2009). In a review of the history of forest clearing, Williams (2008) concludes, on the
basis of four estimates, that the total area of forest that has
been lost is between 19 and 36 percent which, while still
a large area, is not as devastating as commonly perceived.
Recent trends show that agriculture is the biggest driver
of deforestation accounting for 73 percent of deforestation worldwide, while mining accounts for seven percent,
infrastructure for 10 percent and urban expansion for 10
percent (Hosonuma et al., 2012). Agri-businesses such as
cattle ranching, soybean farming and oil palm plantations
are now the most important drivers of forest loss globally (Boucher et al., 2011; Rudel et al., 2009). There are
regional variations in the significance of drivers of deforestation, with urban expansion for example, being the
most important in Asia. Commercial agriculture accounts
for 68 percent of forest loss in Latin America and 35 percent in Africa and Asia (Hosonuma et al., 2012). DeFries
et al. (2010) show that forest loss is strongly correlated
with urban population growth and the export of agricultural products. Furthermore, the interrelation between
forests and water has been highlighted in many studies
(e.g. Malmer et al., 2010). Rainfall does not provide sufficient water supply in many countries so households depend on sources of groundwater that are often found in or
near forested land. Deforestation affects water supply in
different ways depending on local conditions.
Invasive species
Another ecological driver of local forest change is invasive species which are often a result of altered management. Plants and animals have been constantly moved to
new areas for a range of purposes and have been agents
of positive as well as adverse change (Kull and Rangan,
2008; Robbins, 2004). Managing landscapes for the control of invasive species has implications for food security
through the increase in resources such as fodder, game
Ginger or Kahili lily (Hedychium gardnerianum) is a plant

native to the Himalayas that has become an invasive species
in the Azores where it was introduced as an ornamental
plant in the 19th century. Photo PJ Stephenson
and tree species. The change in composition of forests or

the dominance of certain species has ecological determinants but as has been often recorded these follow from
changes in management regimes and policy contexts
(Dove, 1986; Robbins, 2004). While there has been some
effort in defining and identifying invasive species, what
is equally important is to identify the reasons that species
were introduced and what social, economic and ecological contexts enabled their spread. Often the introduction
of species has had positive impacts on food systems such
as with many tropical agroforestry systems (Ewel, 1999),
while at other times it has had negative impacts, such as
with forestry tree species for fuelwood and timber that
have had adverse impacts on food species and water availability (Richardson and van Wilgen, 2004).
The incursion of non-native species into terrestrial
ecosystems has a long history through the exchange of
plants and animals as a result of human movement. Some
of these species become invasive and lead to structural
and species changes in the forest as well as altering ecological processes, ultimately affecting food availability.
Recent research shows that invasive species are resulting in biodiversity loss and low regeneration rates of
other native species (Ticktin et al., 2012). The ecological
consequences of invasive species are high, as are socioeconomic outcomes (Pysek and Richardson, 2010). For
example, in South Africa, the value of native fynbos ecosystems has been reduced by over USD11.75 billion because of invasive species (van Wilgen et al., 2001).
Furthermore, the changes induced by climate change
encourage certain species to move into forest habitats.
The increase in energy availability in forests as a result
of the shift in ranges of native species enables invasive
species to fill the available capacity in these areas (Chown

et al., 2013). In a study of the impacts of an invasive species on a non-timber forest product species in India, Ticktin et al. (2012) have demonstrated that Lantana camara
suppresses the regeneration of seedlings of the forest tree
species and leads to drastic changes in population growth
of this species.
A strong relationship exists between governance regimes and ecological outcomes. Forest areas that have
seen recent incursions of invasive species are also areas in
which customary practice has been suspended as a result
of territorial governance regimes. Management regimes
that have banned fires have seen significant increases in
densities of invasive species (Debuse and Lewis, 2014)
leading Robbins (2004) to assert that it is not species,
but sociobiological networks that are invasive. Zero burn
policies that are practised in India and Brazil have resulted in a range of adverse outcomes due to policies not being socially contextualised (Carmenta et al., 2011). The
continued narrative of the degradation caused by local
practices such as fire has been shown to be unfounded in
many forest types. For example, Welch et al. (2013) have
shown how indigenous burning in the Cerrado savannah
of Brazil has assisted vegetation recovery. Ensuring that
the management of landscapes for forest regeneration or
to control invasive species is consistent with historical
practices promotes both local culture and food security.
The effects of invasive species on livelihood and food
security are not uniform within or across communities.
As Shackleton et al. (2006) have shown in South Africa,
invasive species that have adverse impacts on some sections of the local population are being used to considerable advantage by other sections of the community.
While ecological studies have highlighted the impact of
invasive species on biological diversity and provisioning
of resources, it should be noted that humans have historically relied on such species for food and other requirements. Equally, as forests are being transformed by species introductions and by changed management regimes,
people are evolving coping strategies to maintain their
livelihood systems. Many communities have optimised
the use of introduced species to their benefit and enhanced their livelihood options through the use of such
species whether directly for food (e.g. fruits of Opuntia
sp. in South Africa) or through the sale of products derived from these species (e.g. charcoal from Prosopis juliflora in India). The outcomes of environmental changes
on food security are complex and require context-specific
responses and strategies.
4.3 Social Drivers

This section discusses conflict, relative poverty and
inequality, and demographic changes as social drivers
that influence forests and tree-based systems for food
security and nutrition. It highlights the role of deeplyrooted patterns of social differentiation and inequalities in influencing forests and food systems, both in
terms of land use and management as well as income
91
and livelihood. Conflict is considered since forests are

often at the centre of conflicting interests, whereas the
sheer movement of people from rural, urban and transnational spaces are some of the defining characteristics
of the contemporary era with considerable effects on
tropical forests and forest-dependent communities.
Donkey cart crivers, Senegal.

Conflicts in and about forests
92
About 243 million hectares of the worlds closed forests

are located in areas affected by conflicts since 1990 (De
Koning et al., 2008). A substantial body of scholarly and
grey literature has been devoted to conflicts that emerge
from competing claims and interests - commercial, subsistence and cultural - over resources in forested landscapes.
This section focuses on how conflicts, spill over into forested landscapes as well as on conflicts that are endemic to
forests themselves. The impact of such conflicts on forests
and food security can be understood in terms of direct access to foods sourced from forests and indirect effects on
food security, for example, via wood for fuel which is essential for cooking in many countries of the world.
During the past 20 years, armed conflicts have struck
forest areas in more than 30 countries in the tropics. The
prominent examples include Cambodia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia, Myanmar and Sierra Leone
where rebel warfare largely played out in remote cross-border forest areas (De Koning et al., 2008). Africa is home to
most of the forest at risk whereas Asia has the highest number of forest dwellers at risk (De Koning et al., 2008). An
estimated three-quarters of Asian forests, two-thirds of African forests and one-third of Latin American forests have
been affected by violent conflict (de Jong et al., 2007). The
mere overlap between forest and conflict areas does not
necessarily mean that the forest or forest rights have any
role to play in motivating or perpetuating conflicts. However, because of the risks involved due to instability and
insecurity, it can be assumed that these areas only serve in
a limited way as a source of food.
Studies on the correlation between countries forest
cover and the emergence and duration of civil conflict
show contradictory results (e.g. Collier and Hoeffler,
2001; Lujala, 2003; Rod and Rustad, 2006). Nevertheless, different studies identified that forests can facilitate
or prolong conflicts, for example through flows of finances to competing parties, use of forests for patronage,
transport of weapons by loggers, agriculture and hunting
pressures, and social and economic buffers. For instance,
forests and forest products have been exploited by armed
groups, (e.g. military and rebels) to strengthen their fighting capacities (see for example, Baral and Heinmen, 2006,
for Nepal; Dudley et al., 2002; de Merode et al., 2007, for
the Democratic Republic of the Congo). General implications of such conflict on food security of forest dependent communities are difficult to predict. Armed conflict
can weaken pre-existing institutions governing access to
forest food but it can also offer new and extra-legal channels. Effects on food security and nutrition depend on the
larger political economy in which the conflict is situated
and the interaction with the formal and informal institutions that govern the forests. For instance, de Merode et
al. (2007) note that there was a fivefold increase in illegal trade of bushmeat for local consumption and sale
during the civil war in the Democratic Republic of the
Congo. In contrast Baral and Heinmen (2006) highlight
that the Maoist movement and ensuing civil conflict in
Nepal between 1996 and 2006 largely undermined both
conservation efforts and the livelihoods of local people by
hampering their ability to derive income from forests and
limiting households access to food and nutrition.
Conflicts can also be more endemic to forested landscapes (de Jong et al., 2007). These tend to be localised
and non-violent, though some may escalate to violent
armed conflicts. Through an analysis of forest-related
conflicts in five Asian countries, De Koning et al. (2008)
classify such conflicts as emerging from the following,
interrelated factors: (a) contested statutory and customary tenure, (b) exclusionary conservation and economic
development policies, and (c) poor coordination between
land use planning agencies. For example, conflict between local communities and oil palm plantation corporations in Indonesia due to overlapping claims over land
and weak protection for customary land rights, illustrates
the first type of conflict (Colchester and Chao, 2013; Li,
2014; Sheil et al., 2009). The implications of such conflicts over oil palm expansion (as is the case of large-scale
land acquisition for other agricultural commodities such
as soy) are ambiguous from a food security perspective.
On the one hand, the rapid expansion of oil palm is driven, to a large part, by demand for cooking oil among poor
and middle class households in Indonesia domestically
(26 percent) and internationally (73 percent) (Obidzinski et al., 2012). On the other hand, such expansion is
displacing local people and undermining their source of
food and income through loss of direct access to landscapes that were previously used for food provisioning
and thus changing incomes and livelihoods. Similar conflicts can be observed in other countries where industrial
use of forestry and weak forest tenure interplay, affecting in particular indigenous peoples. These issues are not
only prevalent in the tropics, such as in South America
where forests have been replaced with forest plantations
by global forest enterprises (Krger, 2012), but also in

temperate regions such as in the north of Scandinavia,
where there are reindeer herding conflicts (Raitio, 2008).
From a gender perspective, conflicts over forest products are often covert and confined to the intra-household level due to different preferences for forest and tree
products and unequal access to them (Agarwal, 2010;
Rocheleau and Edmunds, 1997; Sarin, 2001; Schroeder,
1999). In their seminal research in sub-Saharan Africa,
Rocheleau and Edmunds (1997) find that although
property rights are gender exclusive and women lack
formal titles to individual or communal land, women
still enjoy de facto rights to fuelwood, certain plants and
animals. However, in areas that have undergone commercialisation of forest products, a remapping of the
boundaries often occurs. Men as strategic actors bypass
womens micro-rights and maintain their privilege in the
landscape. Similarly, Elias and Carneys (2007) study
of the shea tree (Vitellaria paradoxa) in Burkina Faso
shows that rural women have historically collected, marketed and transformed shea nuts into multi-purpose butter for consumption and sale. The growing global trade
in shea butter supplied to food and cosmetic industries
represents an opportunity to further poor womens incomes, although such international sales have also led
to a re-configuration of rights and claims over shea tree
with many women losing access as a consequence. Both
these studies suggest that women contest their loss of
access at the household level but this does not amount to
substantive changes in tenure regimes.
Relative poverty and inequality

This sub-section mainly focuses on social and gender balance questions concerning relative poverty and inequality.
The relationship between poverty and food security from
the perspective of per capita income will be described in
Section 4.4 on economic drivers.
A wide range of studies note that rural poverty and
remaining natural forests tend to share overlapping spaces. A significant proportion of people suffering from extreme poverty live in forest-based ecosystems (Mehta and
Shah, 2003 for India; Sunderlin and Huynh, 2005 for Viet
Nam; World Bank, 2003; Zhou and Veeck, 1999 for China). Sunderlin et al. (2005) posit that these are likely to
be a product of some of the following interrelated factors:
(a) most forests and extremely poor people are located in
remote areas and out of the reach of the market economy
and technological processes; (b) forests are often a refuge
for poor and powerless peoples; (c) forests have pro-poor
characteristics because they are open access or have low
barriers to access. Nevertheless, communities who either
live in forested landscapes and/or who rely on forests
are neither homogeneous nor uniformly-dependent on
forests. Existing distribution of power and the structure
of incentives mediate who can access, use and control
forest products for consumption, income and livelihoods
(see also Section 4.5 in this chapter).
Research on the equity dimensions of community
forestry in Nepal demonstrates that poor and rich households do not have symmetric opportunities to benefit
Livestock feeding, Labe, Guinea.

from forest resources. Adhikari et al. (2004) present an

econometric analysis of the impact of the private endowments of forest user group member households on forest access for consumption purposes. Using data from
the Middle Hills they find that poorer households face
more restrictions in accessing forest products than less
poor or relatively better off households (see also Chapter
3). In the Terai region of Nepal where societal inequalities are even more pronounced and forest products are
of higher value, Iversen et al. (2006) found that households that belong to the richer echelons of user groups
have a vested interest in maintaining the widely observed
practice of charging a subsidised member price for highvalue products such as timber. By being required to pay
in advance, poorer households are excluded from accessing high-valued products. Richer households on the other
hand, derive considerable income by ensuring that there
is a high margin between member price and market price
when re-selling high-valued products in the local market,
and thereby, siphoning off disproportionate benefits from
communal resources. Similar findings of elite capture
and the spill over of pre-existing societal divisions in the
allocation of forest products for consumption, income
and livelihoods have also been observed by other analysts
in the context of sub-Saharan Africa, such as by Coulibaly-Lingani et al. (2009) for Burkina Faso, and Jumbe and
Angelsen (2006) in Malawi.
Most analysts agree that increasing womens active
participation in the institutions established to govern
access and command over forests would support both
womens empowerment and household food provisioning
(UN Women, 2014). This is particularly relevant since
both unpaid care work (cooking, taking care of children
and the elderly etc.) and collection of food, firewood and
93
fodder from forests are acknowledged as highly feminised tasks across the world (UN Women, 2014). Research
findings show that womens participation in forest governance is lagging behind in many different contexts from
South and East Asia to Latin America and sub-Saharan
Africa (Agarwal, 1997; Agarwal, 2001; Mai et al., 2011;
Mairena et al., 2012; Mukasa et al., 2012; Nightingale, 2002; and Sarin, 2001). Agarwal (2001) attributes
womens limited voice and influence in forest governance regimes to gender inequalities in men and womens
personal and household endowments. These inequalities
manifest themselves in terms of womens low bargaining power vis--vis men in negotiating for their interests
in forests at the household and community levels. Coleman and Mwangis (2013) cross-country study in Bolivia,
Mexico, Kenya and Nicaragua has identified two main
determinants affecting womens participation in forest
governance: education of household heads and institutional exclusion, which in turn supports Agarwals analysis from South Asia (for more information about governance and gender inequalities see Chapter 3 and Section
4.5 in this chapter).
Demographic change: migration,

urbanisation and agrarian transformation
94
In 2013, the world population totalled 7.2 billion and

it is projected to reach 9.6 billion by 2050, with most
growth in developing regions, especially Africa (UN,
2013). Consequently the demand for food, feed and fibre
will increase and the land area per capita to feed all the
people will decline. Some analysts such as Vanhanen et
al. (2010) conclude that without improved agricultural
productivity, rising food demands will result in increasing deforestation and forest degradation to make way
for agriculture. But others point out that trade-offs between agricultural intensification and food production
are also equally possible. Through a review of historical and cross-country studies, Angelsen and Kaimowitz
(2001) concluded that the impact of intensification, is
dependent on technology type (labour-intensive or capital-intensive); farmer characteristics (income and asset
level, resource constraints); and context (policy incentives, market conditions etc.) (Angelsen and Kaimowitz,
2001). While of high relevance, population growth is not
the only demographic driver pressuring on the forestfood system; interrelated drivers include changes in
consumption patterns (see Section 4.4 in this chapter),
migration, urbanisation and agrarian transformation.
Although migration of people is by no means a new
phenomenon, the sheer number of people moving between rural and urban areas and transnationally is unprecedented. The UNs Economic and Social Council
(ECOSOC) (2013) estimated that in 2010 alone, the
number of international migrants was approximately
214 million, while internal migrants totalled 700 million. These were merely documented figures and are
likely to be far surpassed. While international migration
has become one of the defining features of globalisation, the worlds population is also increasingly becoming urban. To date 54 percent of the worlds population
resides in urban areas with an expected increase of 11

percent by 2050 (UN, 2014). North America, Latin
America and the Caribbean, and Europe are considered
the worlds most urbanised regions. Although Africa
and Asia remain mostly rural, urbanisation is expected
to be faster in these regions than in the others (UN,
2014). Small cities and towns in Asia, Africa and Latin
America that lie in or near tropical forest areas are likely to experience the greatest magnitude of urbanisation
(UN, 2011).
From a food security perspective, these trends have
important implications for availability of, access to and
relative dependence on forest products for food and income. However, research on the nexus between migration, urbanisation and forests remains very limited, let
alone from a food security perspective. Forest governance
involves territorialisation and the bounding of people to
specific geographies. Hecht (forthcoming) calls for going beyond the conventional wisdom that sees migration
as either disruptive to forest systems or as a livelihood
failure. Instead, rural communities are increasingly multisited and dispersed, continuing rural production even as
they depend also on other sources of off-farm income.
Major mechanisms through which migration and urbanisation affect rural communities and forests include:
land abandonment, remittances, changes in rural labour
availability, variations in the gender composition of
households, and shifting demands of urban consumers
on agricultural land and rural resources (Brondizio et al.,
2014; Padoch et al., 2008; Parry et al., 2010). Much of
this research is focused on forest cover and income and
has not yet been concerned with implications for food
security and nutrition more directly, although potential implications can be inferred. For instance, research
in the state of Amazonas in Brazil is showing that the
persistent marginalisation of remote, forest-based communities (due to a combination of long distances from
markets, persistent under-investment in infrastructure and
educational facilities) is compelling these communities to
migrate to peri-urban areas. While such an exodus might
present opportunities from a conservation perspective, it
is likely to be changing their use of forests for food and
fuel, and rendering them more dependent on market vagaries for food provisioning (Parry et al., 2010). Findings
from scholarly literature suggest that migration and associated remittances are reducing relative dependence on
forests for consumption, income and livelihoods. This is
in turn, leading to a decline in land change from forest to
agricultural land (Eloy et al., 2014 for Brazilian Amazon;
Hecht and Saatchi, 2007 for El Salvador; and Schmook
and Radel, 2008 for Southern Yucatan, Mexico) as remittances are being used to buy food rather than to produce
and source food from forests.
Urbanisation can have contradictory implications on
forests and tree-based systems for food security and nutrition. On the one hand, urbanisation can lead to a reduction
in forest food consumption patterns, with more emphasis
on processed products and food safety (see Section 4.5).
On the other hand, research also shows that urban populations can maintain their rural consumption patterns with
considerable effects on land use and management. In subSaharan Africa, for instance, the rate of urbanisation is
level with rising demand for fuelwood consumption. In
other words, urbanisation has not accompanied a decline
in fuelwood consumption patterns as previously expected
(e.g. Zulu, 2010 for Malawi). These findings are also supported by research in Amazonia showing that rural-urban
migrants keep their forest product consumption patterns
in cities and continue to play a role in rural land use decisions (Padoch et al., 2008 for the Amazon; Tritsch et al.,
2014 for French Guiana). Arnold et al. (2006) undertook
a global analysis of woodfuel demand and supply which
showed that there is no need for large-scale forestry interventions devoted to the provision of fuelwood for urban
consumers as was hypothesised in the 1970s due to steady
supplies from rural areas. But the growing urban demand
for charcoal is likely to impact on tropical forests and
poor, rural users in Africa in particular as they compete
with urban consumers.
Migration and urbanisation have led to profound
changes in socio-economic systems and have contributed
to the feminisation of rural landscapes in many contexts
(Deere, 2005; DeSchutter, 2013). Agarwal (2012) is careful not to insinuate that migration is causing feminisation,
rather that the agrarian transition or the shift of workers
to industry and services, and from rural to urban areas in
developing countries, has been gendered. The proportion
of women workers in agriculture increased across developing countries, in particular in South America and Oceania. According to Agarwal (2012), women farmers lack
access and command over credit, land, production inputs,
technology and markets. Hence, she argues that effects
of volatile food prices and projected effects of climate
change will very likely have a disproportionate impact
on women as farmers and providers of household food.
Scholarly literature focusing on the nexus of gender, migration and forest governance yields contradictory results
in terms of whether male out-migration can empower
women to play a bigger role in forest decision-making
and enjoy greater access to forest products for themselves
and their families. In Nepal, for example, transnational
migration and remittances are emerging as major sources
of employment. Migrants in Nepal are exclusively men
due to a combination of intra-household constraints and
governmental restrictions on women migrating. Giri and
Darnhofer (2010) understand male out-migration as an
opportunity for increasing womens access to forest resources and power over forest governance. An ethnographic study by Basnett (2013) indicates that this opportunity very much depends on interlocking gender and
social differentiation.
While many countries are experiencing a disappearing of peasantries with declining contribution of agriculture to national economies and labour allocation to
agriculture, others are witnessing a repeasantrisation
as is evident in tropical forested landscapes (Rigg and
Vandergeest, 2012). The latter trends are particularly
evident in Southeast Asia and the Amazon in the face
of commodity booms and large-scale, agro-industrial
plantations of oil palm, rubber, pulp etc. (Kaimowitz and
Smith, 2001; Wunder, 2001) and the resultant absorption

of labour back to rural areas. For instance, Li (forthcoming) points out that rapid expansion of oil palm plantations in West Kalimantan (Indonesia) has accompanied
significant deforestation, the dispossession of indigenous peoples access to rubber and rice smallholdings
and a casualisation of employment of plantation workers.
Migrant labourers are compelled to bear all risks associated with migrating and being apart from their families;
they have limited control over their work environment
and scant means to negotiate for change. Indigenous
Dayaks in comparison, lose access to forests and trees
on which they had relied for direct food provisioning,
income and livelihood. Food security amidst declining
mosaic landscapes is therefore a challenge for both migrants and indigenous people alike.
4.4 Economic Drivers

This section provides an overview of the main economic
drivers affecting the relationships between on the one
hand, forests and tree-based systems, and on the other,
food security and nutrition, documenting and illustrating the main points using materials featuring a range
of products (e.g. bushmeat, fruit, nuts etc.) at different
scales (global, regional, national, local). It does not include related general topics, such as the identification of
economic drivers that contribute to increased urbanisation which affects general food consumption patterns. We
distinguish two types of driver impacts: (i) economy-wide
derived impacts, such as the impact of a new national
food safety policy on bushmeat trade and consumption;
and (ii) site specific indirect impacts from economic activities that only influence food security through other
mechanisms, such as the construction of roads into forest
areas supplying forest foods.
As is the case for food security more broadly, there are
no generally accepted indicators to measure the diverse
and contextually variable forest and food security relationships (Carletto et al., 2013; Coates, 2013). Economic
drivers may hence impact differently across locations, actors and time. This is illustrated and exemplified in the
forest-food security reliance continuum in Figure 4.2
Forest foods contribute to food security in two main ways:
(i) directly through the provision of nutrients, and (ii) indirectly through generation of income, typically through
cash sales (see also Chapter 2).
While it has long been recognised that forest foods can
be important for food security (e.g. Bharucha and Pretty,
2010; FAO, 1989; Pimentel et al., 1997) there is scant
quantitative information on the economic importance of
forest foods in most locations and at all scales, including household and nationally. Angelsen et al. (2014), in
a study of around 8,000 households in 24 developing
countries found that, in terms of household incomes, food
products constituted the second most important group of
forest products and the most important from non-forest
environments. Forests have also been found to provide
famine foods in response to multiple adverse events
95
Figure
4.2
The forest food security reliance continuum, with examples

(based on Smith-Hall et al., 2012)
Isolated hunter-gatherer
communities
Small-scale farmers
engaged in cash cropping
No reliance
Consumers in urban areas
Full reliance
Small-scale subsistence farmers
(covariate shocks) and income in response to isolated

adverse events (idiosyncratic shocks) (Dewees, 2013;
Ngaga et al. 2006; Wunder et al., 2014). Forest foods are
mostly traded locally or sub-nationally in non-transparent
markets marred by problems including inefficiencies
leading to high losses, seasonal supplies, lack of credit
facilities and rudimentary knowledge of consumer preferences (e.g. Grote, 2014; Jamnadass et al., 2011; Vinceti
et al., 2013).
There appears to be a continuum of forest food product
commercialisation (see also Chapter 2): from products that
are occasionally bartered in villages, to small-scale trade
in regional markets along informal chains, to national and
international trade along formal chains. The private sector
appears to play a prominent role everywhere. Furthermore,
products move along the continuum in response to changes
in demand and supply; for example, cashew and shea nuts
have moved from wild collection to domestication and cultivation in West Africa as has grasscutter farming. Homma
(1992) provides an overview of domestication processes.
Products and actors at different points on the continuum are
impacted differently by economic drivers. For example, the
impact of sustainable harvest certification initiatives will
have a larger impact on internationally-traded spices than
on locally-bartered fruits. In addition, there will be variations in data availability; for instance, there is usually no
national data available on products that are harvested and
traded in informal markets, such as forest foods in West Africa (Bertrand et al., 2013) and spices from the Himalayas
(Olsen and Helles, 2009). The nature of appropriate public
policy responses will also vary along the continuum. In the
following sub-sections, we review state-of-knowledge on
four key economic drivers.
Income per capita
96
Global per capita gross domestic product (GDP) is steadily increasing, except for a short downturn in 2008-09 due
to the global financial crisis, and has been termed a global
mega-trend driving per capita demand for food (Cassman, 2012). As income increases, households demand
for food increases less than proportionally (Engels Law,
see Cirera and Masset, 2010) and there is generally a dietary shift with decreasing importance of starchy staples
(e.g. rice, wheat) and increased consumption of meat,

fish, fruits and vegetables (Cassman, 2012; MEA, 2005).
It has been noted, however, that higher incomes may not
lead to improved food security if the additional income
is spent on other items such as clothes, cell phones or tobacco (Dewees, 2013). In their above-mentioned survey,
Angelsen et al. (2014) found forest food income to range
from USD 49 (in purchasing power parity) in Africa (five
percent of total household income) to 717 (15 percent) in
Latin America, with a global average of 128 (six percent).
There are few examples of how price changes impact forest food resources and their management; in an excellent
study of timur (Zanthoxylum armatum, a small tree yielding fruits used for spices and condiments), Hertog and
Wiersum (2000) show how increasing market prices drive
intensification of forest management including a shift of
production from public to private lands.
There are four main issues to note in relation to rising incomes and forest foods. First, many forest foods are
likely, in economic terms, to be inferior goods (demand
decreases with rising incomes and increases with declining incomes) and rising incomes would thus mean less
forest food production extraction and reliance. Delang
(2006) notes, however, that forest food gathering is important in many rural communities with low economic
growth, and likely to remain so. It is also noteworthy
that forest food consumption is increasing in some high
income countries, e.g. in northern Europe apparently
in response to perceptions that food should be locally
grown, organic and aesthetic, indicating that we need to
understand the dynamics of forest food consumption better. Second, rising per capita income is one of the factors driving the expansion of supermarkets in much of
the global south (e.g. Humphrey, 2007; Reardon and
Hopkins, 2007). This is likely to have long term impacts
on traditional markets and outlets for forest foods, such
as fresh fruit, including through a shift away from spot
purchasing and introduction of grades and standards; all
changes indicating an ongoing fundamental restructuring
of many forest food markets. It may also potentially lead
to impacts on nutrition. Third, there is large variation geographically and along the commercialisation continuum.
For instance, per capita GDP in Africa grew from USD
1,400 in 1991 to USD 1,700 in 2008 (Groningen Growth

and Development Centre: Total Economy Database) and
the level of per capita income appears to be too low for
households to make the transition to consumption of industrially-processed products, meaning that forest food
products still play a key role in calorie intake and dietary
composition in poorer households (Okojie and Shimeles,
2006). Fourthly, with rising incomes and urbanisation,
people tend to eat more meat and milk products, for example, increasing the demand for crops as feed (Grote,
2014). This may also impact forest foods, notably demand
for bushmeat. Urbanisation may also increase demand for
semi-processed foods as the opportunity costs increase as
women find employment which could increase processing of forest foods, and is also likely to lead to more focus on food safety and labelling, which could challenge
small-scale producers of forest foods.
Absolute and relative food prices

Absolute food price levels directly affect household-level
food consumption choices. Recent spikes in key agricultural food commodity prices in 2008-09 and 2010-11
affected the livelihoods and food security of millions of
people (Akter and Basher, 2014; Brown et al., 2009; FAO,
2008) and led to riots (Berazneva and Lee, 2013). Studies
indicate that country and regional agricultural food prices
behave differently from international food prices (Brown
et al., 2012; Minot, 2014) due to low integration of local
and regional markets into international markets. Data on
forest food prices appear very limited; it is difficult to
collect, due to the high number of products and the frequency of informal trading, and thus not systematically
monitored. Such data deficiencies impede our ability to
analyse and understand forest food price dynamics.
There is also a price volatility difference within regions or countries. For instance, Minot (2014) observed
higher agricultural food price volatility in main cities than
in secondary cities, indicating different effects of price
changes on different segments of society. Assuming that
forest foods are mainly traded outside main cities, this
would indicate less price volatility for such products.
Agricultural food price increases impact most severely
on the poorest households and particularly so if they are
female-headed (Akter and Basher, 2014; Benfica, 2014;
Drimie and McLachlan, 2013); the reason may be that
such households do not have the asset base required to
smooth income or consumption shortfall. A recent study
specifically found that asset-poor households are most
likely to use forests as part of their coping strategies
(Wunder et al., 2014). It has also been observed that fluctuating agricultural food prices can decrease local food
production and reduce employment opportunities (Tiwari
and Joshi, 2012) and that price spike patterns and associated inadequate public policy responses may follow a
repeating pattern in some countries (Ellis and Manda,
2012). Balancing national food availability with affordable food prices can be challenging (Haug and Hella,
2013). In terms of household-level food security, however, it has been noted that households can respond to
rising agricultural food prices in different ways, such as
downgrading food quality to maintain quantity, that serve

to limits the nutritionally harmful effects of higher prices
(Gibson, 2013).
There are close linkages between food, energy and financial markets that may explain much of the recently observed agricultural food price spikes and volatility (Grote,
2014; Tadesse et al., 2014). In particular, rising fossil fuel
prices and biofuel policies may be a key driver of high
grain and oilseed prices as biofuel production becomes financially more attractive (Gorter et al., 2013; Grote, 2014;
Tokgoz et al., 2012), a situation that may be exacerbated by
increased speculation on agricultural commodity markets
(Grote, 2014). These processes, in combination with insecure property rights (Godfray et al., 2010), could contribute to land grabbing the process of appropriating land and
resources to produce commodities and accumulate wealth
(Nevins and Peluso, 2008) in the global south, with differential geographical impacts on forest food products. For
instance, economic growth in China and the associated demand for wood fibre has arguably led to state-sanctioned
corporate land grabbing in Lao PDR that has negatively
affected local peoples access to forest food products (Barney, 2008) while the same economic growth has simultaneously improved the possibilities for high altitude Himalayan communities to sell wild harvested products on new
markets (Shrestha and Bawa, 2014).
Training tree nursery workers in Zaraninge Forest Reserve,

Tanzania. Photo PJ Stephenson
Markets and policies

The linkages between forests and food security reflect a
wide range of policy interests related to health, development, human rights, biodiversity conservation, forests,
food, trade and agriculture. Forest foods present a highly
complex challenge to public policy institutions at different scales due to the wide range of potential user groups,
the diverse motivations that drive collection and the lack
of reliable data and information on trade flows, nutritional
values and consumer preferences (Johns and Eyzaguirre,
2006; Toledo and Burlingame, 2006; Vinceti et al., 2013).
There is also a high degree of variability in the levels of
97
98
product collection, processing and marketing in different forest food product value chains making monitoring
and regulation difficult. According to the FAO (1997),
the non-timber forest product (NTFP) sector is generally
dominated by the rural poor and labour-intensive smallscale industries, making it important for policy mechanisms to carefully differentiate between subsistence
and commercial forest food activities. Here, equitably
managing resource access becomes a key challenge for
policy due to the generally low barriers to market entry
and broad participation by both women and men in forest
food collection (Arnold, 2008). While the subsistencebased forest food sector tends to have less impact on forest resources than the commercial sector (Neumann and
Hirsch, 2000), it is often difficult for policy frameworks
to effectively separate these activities due to the dynamic
nature of forest food markets, which are often highly seasonal, and where products classified as traditionalcan
quickly become commercial and where commercial
products can be replaced by substitutes (FAO, 1997).
When considering the ongoing structural transformations that have been occurring in the agricultural sector
(in a wide sense), other important policy issues affecting
commercial forest food production and trade include the
urban demand for safe, responsibly-produced and high
quality foods that is driving processes of certification and
labelling (Grote, 2014) and the need to simplify regulatory regimes to reduce transaction costs for producers and
develop a framework supporting producer organisations
(Dewees, 2013).
International bodies of particular importance to forest food markets include the Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
(CITES) which limits and regulates the trans-border trade
of many wild food species also in relation to forest foods
such as bushmeat (e.g. Bennett, 2011); the Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs) which seek to reduce hunger
and poverty while maintaining ecosystem services, inter
alia leading to more focus on the green economy including
the importance of forest food products to livelihoods (e.g.
Rasul et al., 2012); the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) which assures the protection of genetic, species
and ecosystem diversity and the World Trade Organization
(WTO) which regulates the trade policies of nations and
products, requiring clear and agreed standards and definitions to enable commercialisation (Precillia Ijang et al.,
2011). The impacts of these global institutions are contested in scholarly literature as they might lead to perverse
effects. For example, critics of the WTO argue that the liberalisation of commodity trade and reduction of farm protection resulted in food dependency of substantial areas in
the global South (Lawrence and McMichael, 2012).
Recognising that forest ecosystems are likely to play
their most important role in household food security
through diversifying diets and providing essential sources
of nutrients, a number of observers have called for greater
policy integration focused around meeting the nutritional
and health needs of local resource users (Arnold, 2008;
Bharucha and Pretty, 2010; Johns and Eyzaguirre, 2006).
Improving the sustainable utilisation of diverse forest
foods to support food security and nutrition likely will involve engaging local users in research and decision-making processes, facilitating information flows, enabling access to credit and markets, developing community-based
education programmes, supporting the development of
user/producer organisations and improving efficiency
by reducing transaction costs or encouraging technology
adoption and innovation (King, 2008; Shumsky et al.,
2014; Tontisirin et al., 2002).
Production system changes

Production systems refer to the general production structure in a country that influences land use patterns. The
type, size, location, and dynamics of production systems
are inter alia determined by economic incentives, for
example, in response to new or collapsing markets influenced by processes of globalisation, certification or
changes in market efficiency. Two examples in relation
to forest food products are: (i) formerly subsistence bushmeat products being commercialised and entering informal value chains as new demands and urban bushmeat
markets were created by processes of urbanisation in Benin (Bertrand et al., 2013), and (ii) the currency devaluation in Brazil in 1999, combined with an international
price increase of soybeans and beef, and control of hoof
and mouth disease, leading to large scale soybean and
cattle production in central-west Brazil (Chomitz, 2007),
replacing forest food producing savannah woodland (de
Souza and Felfili, 2006). Predicting rates of change for
individual production systems is difficult, as is quantifying the impact of changes on forest food production.
4.5 Governance
Governance includes traditional state-centric decisionmaking as well as broader-based processes at a range of
different scales. These broader systems of governance
are not just driven by states and their domestic ambitions,
but also by global markets and by a range of non-state actors that include civil society, businesses and international non-governmental and governmental organisations.
This section explores the role of governance as a driver
of forest-related goals and policies, and the implications
for food security and nutrition of different stakeholders.
In recent years, three main drivers can be identified in
the shift from state to more broad-based decision-making
regimes in the forest sector: globalisation, ecosystem
service thinking and economic valuation. Firstly, regarding globalisation, forest governance has historically been
driven by social, economic and environmental imperatives of states (Sikor et al., 2013; Vandergeest and Peluso,
1995), but the interests and influence of global and nonstate actors have progressively widened and deepened
due to both expanding and new frontiers of financial investments (Muradian et al., 2013; Murray Li, 2007; Sullivan, 2013). These local to global stakeholders are connected across scales by value chains and their incipient
public and private producer and trade standards regimes
(McDermott et al., 2012), by civil society mobilisations
for forest and food justice (Martinez-Alier, 2014; Schlosberg, 2013; Sikor and Newell, 2014), and by emerging
global socio-ecological narratives such as that on planetary boundaries (Rockstrm et al., 2009).
Secondly, regarding ecosystem services thinking, this
framework has gained enormous buy-in as a means of (re)
conceiving the relationship between humans and ecosystems, including the view of humans as separate to nature,
and nature as a provider of services to humans. The ecosystem services framing has influenced thinking about
the relationship between forests and food security (Poppy
et al., 2014a; Poppy et al., 2014b) and has been successfully promoted by important science-policy platforms,
including the recently formed Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES),
and major conservation non-governmental organisations
(NGOs) (Turnhout et al., 2013).
Thirdly, regarding valuation, there has been a revalorisation of rural landscapes, in terms of financial, political
and cultural values attached to particular goals and practices (Sikor et al., 2013). For example, in the wake of food
price inflation in the late 2000s, crop yield narratives received a boost and there was a re-emphasis on highlighting lands that were considered underutilised or producing
only a fraction of their yield potential (e.g. in statistical
databases, maps, World Bank reports). It has been argued
that this shift in how lands were valued globally has contributed to governments supporting policies that facilitated the global land rush (Li, 2014). Similarly, use of the
ecosystem services framework has generated financial
valuation of forest hydrological and carbon storage services. Such new forms of valuation provide legitimacy to
particular forms of governance such as state regulation to
protect downstream and global citizens, or public-private
partnerships to market forest carbon offsets. However, the
incorporation of new, global values as drivers of forest
governance also pose risks, with some stakeholders under
threat of losing control over previous ways of valuing and
governing forests (Hunsberger et al., 2014; Martin et al.,
2013b; Pascual et al., 2014).
State-focused governance
Although the rising influence of global discourses, institutions and markets has created significant shifts in governance regimes over tropical forest-agrarian landscapes,
there are numerous instances in which the influence of
national states and sub-national actors has been retained
and even reinforced. Some states still exercise considerable control over the way land is allocated to different uses
(Sunderlin et al., 2008; White and Martin, 2002), and the
way in which property rights and tenure are regulated,
including public versus private and commercial use, the
establishment of protected areas and the exploitation of
land for agriculture (Sikor et al., 2013).
There is considerable variation amongst countries
which continue to adopt a state-centric approach to
governance. The dominant discourse and scope of state
interests differs dramatically. Instruments may range
from top-down implementation of policies to delineate the landscape into categories with associated rules,
to participatory land use planning exercises or even the

designation of indigenous lands for decentralised governance. Hence the impacts of such approaches on the food
security of forest-adjacent populations are varied.
State-focused approaches to governance of forests and
surrounding landscapes endure particularly in certain
circumstances: where states seek to maintain political
control over economic activity and development; in circumstances in which tenure and land use are considered
by central governments to be related to issues of internal
security; where the state seeks to reconcile the interests
of different ethnic and minority groups; and where land
management is part of the process of defining citizenship
itself (Beswick, 2011; Lestrelin et al., 2012; Li, 2010).
Under these conditions, rapid modernisation of agriculture is commonly promoted and traditional practices such
as shifting cultivation and inter-cropping are disincentivised or even discriminated against (Fox et al., 2009;
Padoch and Pinedo-Vasquez, 2010). For example, in Lao
PDR participatory land use planning has been employed
by the national government with the explicit purpose of
ending shifting agricultural practices and stabilising cultivation among ethnic minorities in mountainous outlying
regions (Lestrelin et al., 2012). Some, or even many, people may benefit from formalisation of tenure and modernisation of farming methods.
However, rapid, state-driven agrarian change can also
have detrimental impacts on food security and nutrition
among poor or minority local actors, including indigenous communities whose livelihoods and culture have
been particularly tied to forest habitats, and who are least
able and willing to adapt (Baird and Shoemaker, 2005;
Dounias and Froment, 2011). Even where policies appear to decentralise forest governance and grant additional local powers, women or minority groups may be
further excluded from decision-making processes or suffer from restricted access to food from forests (Sikor and
Ngoc Thanh, 2007). Similarly, formalisation of property
rights does not always equate to maintained or improved
access to resources because negotiation processes both
formal and informal - involve many actors, and the effects on access within local food systems are uncertain
(Andersson, 2004). Where ultimate control of tenure is
exercised by the state, smallholder tenure over farmland
and forests (and associated subsistence needs) may also
be undermined by decisions made by powerful non-local
actors, such as private corporations granted government
concessions for industry, infrastructure or energy projects
(Agrawal et al., 2008). This can occur through not only
large scale land grabs but also control grabs which may
involve the imposition of state-influenced contract farming arrangements to the exclusion of poor local actors and
a reduced ability to grow or to buy food (Huggins, 2014).
State-focused governance regimes often create zones for
different land uses which tend to partition the landscape (de
Groot et al., 2010). This division of land is often mirrored
in states institutional structures, with separation of responsibilities across different government departments. The
separation of forestry from agricultural decision-making is
generally detrimental to integrated landscape management.
99
However, national scale approaches are not without their

merits and may protect local populations from adverse effects of global market forces. Without state intervention,
global markets and agendas can drive increased inequality and dispossession, through which local perspectives
can easily be given lower priority than global goals such as
carbon sequestration or biodiversity conservation (Arts and
Buizer, 2009). Bolivias approach represents a good example where the movement for indigenous rights has supported the granting of substantial autonomy over indigenous
land rights as an ethno-environmental fix (Anthias and
Radcliffe, 2013; Cronkleton et al., 2011). However, in many
developing countries there is poor capacity to effectively
decentralise environmental management (Tacconi, 2007).
State-focused governance can include renegotiation or
even rejection of internationally-designed conservation
instruments, to better fit the national context. While international discourses and influences are far from absent
in these situations, they are instead transformed or negotiated to serve state interests. By such means, payments for
ecosystem services (PES) and Reducing Emissions from
Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD/REDD+)
schemes have been demarketised into tax and subsidy
arrangements. These may promote increased participation including of stakeholders with limited productive
assets, for whom potential impacts on land and forest tenure, and associated food access may be averted (Bennett,
2008 and Sikor, 2013 for China; Cronkleton et al., 2011
and Uberhuaga et al., 2011 for Bolivia; Milne and Adams,
2012; Phelps et al., 2010). The development of REDD+
is also connected with fears about recentralisation (e.g.
Phelps et al., 2010) affecting the use and dependence of
local people on forests. Greater state and non-local control, for instance through the designation of protected areas directly impacts livelihoods and decreases access to
food from the forest (West et al., 2006).
Governance beyond the state: markets and

non-state actors
100
Multi-sectoral and multi-scale forms of governance do

not replace state-focused governance of forests and treebased systems for food security and nutrition, but become
integrated in different ways, as noted above with reference to PES and REDD+. Systems for certifying ethical
and sustainable forest management took off in the early
1990s after it became clear that a global forest governance
convention was not going to emerge from the UN process
(Strassburg et al., 2012). Certification is a market-based intervention typically involving standards that are established
and monitored through networks of producers, NGOs and
private sector partners. Some certification schemes like
the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) particularly stress
their independence from governments whilst others prefer
to have state government involvement. Even in the former
case, governments remain influential through their control
of the legal and policy levers that provide the operational
context for forestry and food production (Hysing, 2009).
In Tanzania, for example, the state maintains some control
over price setting for commodities across the forest-farm
landscape, including for tree food crops such as cashews.
Payments for ecosystem services were also originally

promoted as non-state forms of governance, using market-based approaches to reducing deforestation and forest degradation (Ferraro and Kiss, 2002; Wunder, 2005).
In practice, however, states have either been significant
gatekeepers, determining what kind of PES is legitimate,
or have actually instigated PES schemes as federal programmes for transferring resources to rural forest management (McAfee and Shapiro, 2010; Milne and Adams,
2012; Shapiro-Garza, 2013). Payments for ecosystem services exemplify the growing presence of hybrid governance approaches, operating across scales and with public,
private and civil society involvement. Other key forestry
sector examples include REDD+ and the EUs Forest Law
Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) initiative
(Glck et al., 2010).
The past ten years have seen considerable optimism
for the potential opportunities presented by these new
governance configurations. In some cases, new market
and network-based governance approaches are explicitly
targeted at generating synergies between forest conservation and food security. For example, Brazils Sustainable
Agricultural Network is reported to be a rigorous system
for ensuring that the Brazilian cattle supply chain is managed to reduce deforestation (Newton et al., 2014). This
has a very high potential to achieve synergies between
food security and reduced deforestation (Strassburg et al.,
2014). More generally, forest certification, PES, REDD+
and FLEGT are not promoted as directly addressing relationships between forests and food security. However, it
is probably fair to argue that managing this relationship
has often been part of their rationale. First and foremost,
these forms of governance respond to past concerns that
state-based forest management has not often succeeded in
linking forest conservation with local livelihood and food
security (Adams et al., 2004; Ferraro, 2001; Salafsky and
Wollenberg, 2000; Wunder, 2001). Secondly, PES schemes
in particular respond to ecosystem services research that
provides evidence of forest-food security linkage, such as
the role that landscape biodiversity plays in achieving more
productive and stable agricultural systems (Cardinale et al.,
2012). Thirdly, concern about tropical deforestation has led
global consumers to reflect more on how global food systems impact on both environmental sustainability and the
livelihood needs of southern producers (Schlosberg, 2013).
Whilst optimism has been high, evaluations of the
effects of certification and PES-based forms of governance present a mixed picture. There are already a number
of reviews of the state of knowledge about the impacts
of certification (Blackman and Rivera, 2011; Romero,
2013; Romero et al., 2013; SCR, 2012) and the impacts
of PES (Miteva et al., 2012; Pattanayak et al., 2010; Samii
et al., 2013; Wunder, 2013). These reviews highlight that
evidence for both environmental and social outcomes remains quite weak, in part because of the difficulties and
costs involved in undertaking robust impact evaluations,
but also highlighting that these market-based approaches
do not provide easy and readily scalable ways of improving sustainability across forest-food landscapes. The
evidence base for fledgling REDD+ and FLEGT is even
more limited, whilst specific evidence relating forestry

policies with food security outcomes is almost absent.
Often, market or incentive-based governance interventions are ill-suited to bringing about synergies between environmental and social goals, as shown by a growing body
of research. One reason stated is that the logic of market
efficiency stands in opposition to the need for equity that
is so fundamental to distribution of basic needs such as
food security. There is a specific literature related to forest
and agricultural carbon markets that identifies constraints
on achieving synergies between carbon mitigation and
local livelihoods. Firstly, policy-making and funding for
mitigation and adaptation tend to be separate (Klein et
al., 2005; Locatelli et al., 2011), meaning that livelihoods
and food security are not integrated with thinking about
landscape carbon. Secondly, there is uncertainty about
the effects of different carbon mitigation interventions
on food security, partly due to lack of adequate monitoring (Harvey et al., 2014). Thirdly, there are factors that
constrain communities and individuals from taking part
in mitigation-oriented carbon and agricultural projects.
Such access problems can result from unsuitable financing (Siedenburg et al., 2012), problems of tenure (Robledo
et al., 2012), local inequalities arising from, for example,
wealth and gender constraints (Brown and Corbera, 2003;
Lee et al., forthcoming), and discrimination based on ethnicity or social histories (Martin et al., 2013a).
There remains considerable disagreement about
whether market and incentive-based approaches to forest governance can overcome such problems and deliver
synergies with local livelihood and food security. Some
scholars argue that they have the potential to bring new
streams of revenue to rural communities as well as enhancing ecosystem services that support food security in
the longer term (Harvey et al., 2014; Smith et al., 2013).
There is also some evidence that PES and certification
improve land tenure security for local people. Despite
being market-based, FSC certification can contribute to
more rather than less democratic governance of forests
(Dare et al., 2011; Meidinger, 2011). Furthermore, a major review of the effects of certification found cases where
it enhances land tenure security for local people (SCR,
2012). Improvements in land security are also noted for
PES schemes (Tacconi et al., 2013) and in some REDD+
pilot projects (Hoang et al., 2013; Maraseni et al., 2014).
In contrast, there are also many studies that highlight the
risks associated with market- and incentive-based approaches. Studies of FSC and Rainforest Alliance operations have
found that the costs of accessing certification outweigh the
benefits, meaning low uptake of FSC in developing countries (Marx and Cuypers, 2010) and among smallholders
(Auer, 2012; Gullison, 2003; McDermott et al., 2015), and a
bias towards large producers (McDermott et al., 2015; Pinto
and McDermott, 2013). Scholars show that in order for PES
and REDD+ schemes to target those who are most able to
(competitively) provide services, access to schemes has often been restricted to those with appropriate assets such as
land (Porras et al., 2008) or education (Zbinden and Lee,
2005), favouring larger operations and wealthier farmers
(Pagiola and Platais, 2007) and reducing opportunities for
Local market, Chittagong, Bangladesh.

women (Boyd, 2002; Lee et al., forthcoming). The fact that

certification and PES schemes tend to offer small returns
also means that those who sign up tend to have low entry
costs, suggesting that they are already at or near to achieving
the required practices with very little management change
required (Arriagada et al., 2009; Blackman et al., 2014;
Gmez-Zamalloa et al., 2011; Honey-Roses et al., 2009).
One particular concern, expressed primarily in theoretical
works, is that the economic valuation of ecosystem services,
and their incorporation into global commodity markets, enhances the risk of local and indigenous communities being
dispossessed of land and related rights and access (Bscher
et al., 2012; Li, 2014; Matulis, 2014; McAfee, 2012). This is
an important concern because it suggests that recently popular approaches to governing forests could directly threaten
local conditions for food security. Careful research is required and it is important to note that empirical evidence to
date is limited and suggestive that risks and outcomes vary
considerably according to context. Studies of some certification processes, such as on the Roundtable on Sustainable
Palm Oil (Silva-Castaeda, 2012) and the Roundtable on
Responsible Soy (Elgert, 2012), find a democratic deficit
that leads to marginalisation of smallholder concerns for
food and livelihood security. In these cases, certification
legitimises new partnerships between environmentalists,
private sector agro-industrialists and recent migrant populations, threatening land security for indigenous and peasant
communities and weakening their pre-existing relationship
with NGOs (Elgert, 2012). In similar fashion, Ibarra et al.
(2011) describe how an indigenous community in Mexico
withdrew from a PES scheme because of growing concerns
about loss of self-determination over its own food systems.
The role of market-based mechanisms in the provision
of food security and nutrition from forests and tree-based
systems is complex and ambiguous. It remains impossible to generalise and as with broader governance effects,
context is essential to understanding the relationships.
101
Figure
4.3
Major drivers affecting forests and tree-based systems

for food security and nutrition
Multiple Effects
Population
growth
Urbanisation
Land use
and Management
Governance
Climate
change
Commercialisation
Armed
food prices
Increasing
per
capita income
of forest
resources
Gender
Consumption, Incomes
and Livelihoods
Rising
of agriculture
Industrialisation
shifts
Formalisation
imbalances
of
tenure rights
conflicts
Forests and tree-based systems for food security and nutrition
4.6 Conclusions
This chapter aimed to provide an overview of natural
and anthropogenic drivers affecting forests and treebased systems, to understand how they affect food
security and nutrition and to identify interrelations
among them. For analytical reasons, these drivers were
categorised as environmental, social, economic and
governance.
Following our framework introduced at the beginning of this chapter forest- and tree-based drivers can
affect food security and nutrition through changes in
land use and management or through changes in consumption, income and livelihood. Some drivers affect
food security in both ways (Figure 4.3).
102
The effects of the following drivers on food security and

nutrition travel through land use and management as well
as through consumption, income and livelihood:
Population growth places pressure on forests and
tree-based systems for food security and nutrition
by changing consumptions patterns and by reducing
the relative availability of food. Furthermore, population growth leads to changes in land use management forms, resulting in, for example, commercialisation of agriculture and industrialisation of forest
resources;
Urbanisation leads to changes in forest food consumption patterns, with more emphasis on processed
products and food safety issues. These changes in demand also lead to changes in land use management,
e.g. commercialisation of agriculture. When combined
with male migration, urbanisation can lead as well to a
change of gender balance in rural areas.
Governance shifts from state-focused government
to multi-sectoral and cross-scale governance present
better prospects for integration of different interests
and goals related to forest and food systems. The
resulting (global) emphasis on ecosystem services
can also bring opportunities for improved synergies
between forest and food systems, changing management forms and changes of income and livelihood
structures. However, when governed by market logics, such valuation poses risks to local control and
access over resources.
Climate change can directly affect the availability and
quality of food and nutrition by the appearance of new
species. It furthermore impacts forests and tree-based
systems for food security and nutrition through forcing changes in land-use and adoption of management
forms, and through changes in income from forest
products. Climate change consequences are considered not to be gender-balanced and affect vulnerable
groups the most.
The following indirect drivers lead to increased food

insecurity and poor nutrition by forcing changes in land
use and management:
The increasing commercialisation of agriculture to feed
a growing (urbanised) population is accelerating forest
loss and thereby reducing the availability of forests and
tree-based products for food security and nutrition.
The industrialisation of forest resources (e.g. in plantations) leads to the displacement of local people and
undermines the availability of and access to food and
nutrition. This change of production format is often
based on, and enabled by, weak forest tenure rights.
Gender imbalances, with male domination, lead to
the prioritisation of land uses involving commercial/
timber products at the expense of food.
Conflicts, and in particular armed conflicts, in forest
landscapes can lead to exploitation of forest resources
and undermine conservation issues. These conflicts
often detach households from forests and tree-based
food and nutrition. However, armed conflicts weaken
institutionalised rules of the game and can also open
new (illegal) access to food.
Another set of drivers impacts on forests and tree-based
food security and nutrition by changing incomes and
livelihoods:
Formalisation of tenure rights fosters benefit sharing
amongst those living in and with the forest. On the other hand, increased formalisation of tenure rights can
contribute to increase vulnerability and reduce food
security, in particular for the poorest.
Rising food prices may be less pronounced for many
forest foods than for agricultural foods as the former
are primarily traded and consumed outside major cities. Data on forest food markets is, however, scant.
Increasing per capita income changes households food
consumption patterns. This needs to be better understood
in relation to ongoing changes in structure and operation
of national and regional forest food markets. However,
the gathering of forest food will remain important in rural communities with low economic growth.
The range and diversity of drivers demonstrate the interconnectedness between drivers and effects; for example,
networked governance leading to gender imbalance can
lead to the prioritisation of timber over food. Responding
to these messy, interrelated sets of drivers with effective
options is a major challenge of our time. This challenge is
further exacerbated as the drivers of forests and tree-based
systems for food security and nutrition do not allow for
a generalisation of causal effects. Social structure influences whether the consequences lead to improvements for
food security and nutrition or lead instead to increasing
vulnerability. Determining factors are, for example, localities, with urban and rural situations gaining and suffering
differently from changes; drivers of change might strive
for and achieve positive effects for food security for some
groups but result in contradictory effects for the poorest.
Hence, responses to drivers need to ensure that they do
not only address a relatively small number of elite, but
also to find ways to incorporate the aggregated impacts
of local, informal responses to drivers. Local stakeholders are in fact not only the most vulnerable, but it can be
assumed that they are also the most sensitive to new and
innovative response options. The challenge is to maintain
the balance to ensure food security and nutrition, and at
the same time ensure the sustainability of forests and treebased systems.
103
References
Adams, W. M., Aveling, R., Brockington, D., Dickson, B.,
Elliott, J., Hutton, J., Roe, D., Vira, B. and Wolmer, W., 2004.
Biodiversity conservation and the eradication of poverty.
Science 306:1146-1149.
Adhikari, B., Di-Falco, S. and Lovett, J.C., 2004. Household
characteristics and forest dependency: evidence from common
property forest management in Nepal. Ecological Economics
48: 245 257.
Afreen, S., Sharma, N., Chaturvedi, R. K., Gopalakrishnan, R.,
and Ravindranath, N. H., 2010. Forest policies and programs
affecting vulnerability and adaptation to climate change.
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change
16(2):177197.
Agarwal, B., 1997. Environmental Action, Gender Equity and
Womens Participation. Development and Change 28 (1): 1-44.
Agarwal, B., 2001. Gender and forest conservation: The impact
of womens participation in community forest governance.
Ecological Economics 68 (11): 2785-2799.
Agarwal, B., 2010. Gender and Green Governance: The Political
Economy of Womens Presence Within and Beyond Community
Forestry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Agarwal, B., 2012. Food Security, Productivity and Gender
Inequality. IEG Working Paper No. 320. Delhi: Institute of
Economic Growth, University of Delhi.
Basnett, B.S., 2013. Taking Migration Seriously What Are the

Implications for Gender and Community Forestry? InfoBrief,
65. Bogor: CIFOR.
Benfica, R., 2014. Welfare and distributional impacts of price
shocks in Malawi: a non-parametric approach. Food Security 6:
131-145.
Bennett, E.L., 2011. Another inconvenient truth: the failure of
enforcement systems to save charismatic species. Oryx 45(4):
476-479.
Bennett, M.T., 2008. Chinas sloping land conversion program:
Institutional innovation or business as usual? Ecological
Berazneva, J. and Lee, D.R., 2013. Explaining the African food
riots of 2007-2008: an empirical analysis. Food Policy 39:
28-39.
Bertrand, A., Agbahungba, G.A. and Fandohan, S., 2013.
Urbanization and forest foods in Benin. Unasylva 241 (64):
30-36.
Beswick, D., 2011. Democracy, identity and the politics of
exclusion in post-genocide Rwanda: The case of the Batwa.
Democratization 18: 490-511.
Agrawal, A., Chatre, A. and Hardin, R., 2008. Changing

governance of the worlds forests. Science 320: 1460-1462.
Bharucha, Z. and Pretty, J., 2010. The roles and values of wild
foods in agricultural systems. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society B Biological Sciences 365 (1554): 2913-2926.
Akter, S., and Basher, S.A., 2014. The impacts of food price and
income shocks on household food security and economic wellbeing: Evidence from rural Bangladesh. Global Environmental
Change 25: 150162.
Blackman, A. and Rivera, J., 2011. Producer level benefits of

sustainability certification. Conservation Biology 25: 11761185.
Andersson, K. P., 2004. Who talks with whom? The role of

repeated interactions in decentralized forest governance. World
Angelsen, A. and Kaimowitz, D. (eds.), 2001. Agriculture
Technologies and Tropical Deforestation. Bogor: Centre for
International Forestry Research.
Angelsen, A., Jagger, P., Babigumira, R., Belcher, B., Hogarth, N.,
Bauch, S., Brner, B., Smith-Hall, C. and Wunder, S., 2014.
Environmental income and rural livelihoods: a globalcomparative analysis. World Development. 64: S12-S28.
Anthias, P., and Radcliffe, S.A., 2013. The ethno-environmental fix
and its limits: Indigenous land titling and the production of notquite-neoliberal natures in Bolivia. Geoforum (2013).
Arnold, J.E.M., 2008. Managing ecosystems to enhance the food
security of the rural poor. Gland: IUCN.
Arnold, M.J.E., Kohlin, G., and Persson, R., 2006. Woodfuels,
livelihoods and policy interventions: changing perspectives.
Arriagada, R. A., Sills, E. O., Pattanayak, S. K. and Ferraro, P.
J., 2009. Combining qualitative and quantitative methods to
evaluate participation in Costa Ricas program of payments
for environmental services. Journal of Sustainable Forestry
28:343-367.
Blackman, A., Raimondi, A., and Cubbage, F., 2014. Does Forest
Certification in Developing Countries Have Environmental
Benefits? Insights from Mexican Corrective Action Requests.
Washington DC: Resources for the Future.
Boucher, D.H., Elias, P., Lininger, K., May-Tobin, C., Roquemore,
S. and Saxon, E., 2011. The Root of the Problem: Whats
Driving Tropical Deforestation Today? Cambridge, MA: Union
of Concerned Scientists.
Boyd, E., 2002. The Noel Kempff project in Bolivia: gender,
power, and decision-making in climate mitigation. Gender &
Development 10:70-77.
Brody, A., Demetriades, J. and Esplen, E., 2008. Gender and
Climate Change: Mapping the Linkages. A Scoping Study on
Knowledge and Gaps. Brighton: Institute of Development
Studies.
Brondizio, E. S., Siqueira, A. D. and Voght, N., 2014. Forest
resources, city services: Globalisation, Household Networks
and Ubranisation in the Amazon Estuary. In: The Social Lives
of Forests: Past, Present and Future of Woodland Resurgence,
edited by S. Hecht, K. Morrisson and C. Padoch. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Brown, K. and Corbera, E., 2003. Exploring equity and sustainable
development in the new carbon economy. Climate Policy
3:S41-S56.
Arts, B. and Buizer, M., 2009. Forests, discourses, institutions: A

discursive-institutional analysis of global forest governance.
Forest Policy and Economics 11: 340-347.
Brown, M.E., Hintermann, B. and Higgins, N., 2009. Markets,

climate change and food security in West Africa. Environmental
Science and Technology 43: 80168020.
Auer, M.R., 2012. Group forest certification for smallholders in

Vietnam: an early test and future prospects. Human Ecology
40: 5-14.
Brown, M.E., Tondel, F., Essam, T., Thorne, J.A., Mann, B.F.,
Leonard, K., Stabler, B. and Eilerts, G., 2012. Country and
regional staple food price indices for improved identification of
food insecurity. Global Environmental Change 22: 784794.
Baird, I. G. and Shoemaker, B., 2005. Aiding or abetting?: internal

resettlement and international aid agencies in the Lao PDR.
Toronto: Probe International.
Baral, N. and Heinmen, J.T., 2006. The Maoist Peoples War and
Conservation in Nepal. Politics and the Life Sciences 24(1-2):
2-11.
104
Barney, K., 2008. China and the production of forestlands in Lao

PDR a political ecology of transnational enclosure. In: Taking
Southeast Asia to market, edited by J. Nevins and N.L. Peluso.
Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Bscher, B., Sullivan, S., Neves, K., Igoe, J. and Brockington, D.,
2012. Towards a synthesized critique of neoliberal biodiversity
conservation. Capitalism Nature Socialism 23:4-30.
Cardinale, B. J., Duffy, J. E., Gonzalez, A., Hooper, D. U., Perrings,
C., Venail, P., Narwani, A. Mace, G. M., Tilman, D. and Wardle,
D. A., 2012. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity.
Nature 486:59-67.
Carletto, C., Zezza, A. and Banerjee, R., 2013. Towards better

measurement of household food security: harmonizing
indicators and the role of household surveys. Global Food
Security 2: 30-40.
Debuse, V. J., and Lewis, T., 2014. Long-term repeated burning

reduces lantana camara regeneration in a dry eucalypt forest.
Biological Invasions 16(12): 2697-2711.
Cassman, K.G., 2012. What do we need to know about global food

security? Global Food Security 1: 81-82.
Deere, C.D., 2005. The Feminization of Agriculture? Economic

Restructuring in Rural Latin America. Policy Report on Gender
and Development: 10 Years after Beijing. United Nations
Research Institute for Social Development.
Available at: http://www.unrisd.org/unrisd/website/document.nsf/
(httpPublications)/20024EBC6AB9DA45C1256FE10045B101?
OpenDocument. [Accessed on 25 February 2015].
Chomitz, K.M., 2007. At loggerheads? Agricultural expansion,

poverty reduction and environment in the tropical forests. Policy
Research Report. Washington DC: World Bank.
Delang, C.O., 2006. The role of wild food plants in poverty

alleviation and biodiversity conservation in tropical countries.
Progress in Development Studies 6 (4): 275-286.
Chown, S.L., le Roux, P.C., Ramaswiela, T., Kalwij, J.M., Shaw,

J.D. and McGeoch, M.A., 2013. Climate change and elevational
diversity capacity: do weedy species take up the slack?
Biological Letters 9: 20120806. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/
rsbl.2012.0806
DeSchutter, O., 2013. Gender Equality and Food Security

Womens Empowerment as a Tool against Hunger. Manila:
Asian Development Bank.
Cirera X. and Masset, E., 2010. Income distribution trends and

future food demand. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society B Biological Sciences 365 (1554): 2821-2834.
Dounias, E. and Froment, A., 2011. From foraging to farming

among present-day forest hunter-gatherers: consequences on
diet and health. International Forestry Review 13: 294-304.
Coates, J., 2013. Build it back better: deconstructing food security

for improved measurement and action. Global Food Security 2:
188-194.
Dove, M.R., 1986. The practical reason of weeds in Indonesia:

Peasant vs. state views of Imperata and Chromolaena. Human
Ecology 14(2):163190.
Colchester, M., and Chao, S., 2013. Conflict or Consent? The Oil
Palm Sector at a Crossroads. Moreton-in-Marsh: Forest Peoples
Programme, Sawit Watch and Transformasi untuk Keadilan
Indonesia.
Drimie, S. and McLachlan, M., 2013. Food security in South

Africa first steps toward a transdisciplinary approach.
Food Security 5: 217-226.
Carmenta, R., Parry, L., Blackburn, A., Vermeylen, S. and Barlow,

J., 2011. Understanding human-fire interactions in tropical
forest regions: a case for interdisciplinary research across the
natural and social sciences. Ecology and Society 16(1): 53
Coleman, E. A. and Mwangi, E., 2013. Womens participation

in forest management: A Cross-Country Analysis. Global
Environmental Change 23 (1): 193205.
Collier, P. and Hoeffler, A., 2001. Greed and Grievance in Civil
War. Policy Research Working Paper 2355. Washington DC:
World Bank.
Coulibaly-Lingani, P., Tigabu, M., Savadogo, P., Oden, P.-C. and
Ouadba, J.-M., 2009. Determinants of access to forest products
in southern Burkina Faso. Forest Policy and Economics 11(7):
516-524.
Dewees, P., 2013. Forests, trees and resilient households. Unasylva

241 (64): 46-53.
Dudley, J. P., Ginsberg, J. R., Plumptre, A. J., Hart, J. A. and

Campos, L.C., 2002. Effects of war and civil strife on wildlife
and wildlife habitats. Conservation Biology 16: 319-329.
Elgert, L., 2012. Certified discourse? The politics of developing
soy certification standards. Geoforum, 43: 295-304.
Elias, M. and Carney, J., 2007. African shea butter: a feminized
subsidy from nature. Journal of the International African
Institute 77(1): 37-62.
Ellis, F. and Manda, E., 2012. Seasonal food crises and policy
responses: a narrative account of three food security crises in
Malawi. World Development 40 (7): 1407-1417.
Cronkleton, P., Bray, D.B. and Medina, G., 2011. Community forest
management and the emergence of multi-scale governance
institutions: lessons for REDD+ development from Mexico,
Brazil and Bolivia. Forests 2: 451-473.
Eloy, L., Brondizio, E.S. and Do Pateo, R., 2014. New Perspectives
on Mobility, Urbanization and Resource Management in
Riverine Amazonia. Bulletin of Latin American Research 34
(1): 3-18.
Crutzen, P.J., 2006. The Anthropocene. In: Earth System Science

in the Anthropocene, edited by E. Ehlers and T. Krafft. Berlin
Heidelberg: Springer, 1318.
Ewel, J.J., 1999. Natural systems as models for the design of

sustainable systems of land use. Agroforestry Systems 45:121.
Dare, M.L., Schirmer, J., and Vanclay, F., 2011. Does forest
certification enhance community engagement in Australian
plantation management? Forest Policy and Economics 13:
328-337.
DeFries, R.S., Rudel, T., Uriarte, M. and Hansen, M., 2010.
Deforestation driven by urban population growth and
agricultural trade in the twenty-first century. Nature Geoscience
3(3): 178181.
De Groot, R.S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L. and Willemen,
L., 2010. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem
services and values in landscape planning, management and
decision making. Ecological Complexity 7: 260-272.
De Jong, W., Donovan, D. and Abe, K.I. (eds.), 2007. Extreme
Conflict and Tropical Forests. Dordrecht: Springer.
De Koning, R., Capistrano, D., Yasmi, Y. and Cerrutti, P.O., 2008.
Forest-related conflicts: Impacts, Links and Measures to
Mitigate. Washington DC: Rights and Resources Initiative.
de Merode, E., Hillman Smith, K., Homewood, K., Pettifor, R.,
Rowcliffe, M. and Cowlishaw, G., 2007. The impact of armed
conflict on protected-area efficacy in central africa. Biology
Letters 3 (3): 299-301.
de Souza, C.D. and Felfili, J.M., 2006. Uso de plantas medicinais
na regio de Alto Paraso de Gois, GO, Brasil. (Use of
medicinal plants in the region of Alto Paraso de Gois, GO,
Brazil). Acta Botanica Brasilica 20:135142.
Fairhead, J. and Leach, M., 1996. Misreading the African

landscape: Society and ecology in a Forest-Savanna mosaic.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
FAO, 1989. Forestry and food security. Forestry Paper No. 90.
Rome: FAO.
FAO, 2008. The state of food insecurity in the world 2008. Rome:
FAO.
FAO, 1997. Technology scenarios in the Asia-Pacific forestry
sector. Working Paper No: APFSOS/WP/25. Rome and
Bangkok: Forestry Policy and Planning Division and Regional
Office for Asia and the Pacific.
Ferraro, P. J., 2001. Global habitat protection: Limitations
of development interventions and a role for conservation
performance payments. Conservation Biology 15:990-1000.
Ferraro, P.J. and Kiss, A., 2002. Direct payments to conserve
biodiversity. Science, 298: 1718-1719.
Fox, J., Fujita, Y., Ngidang, D., Peluso, N., Potter, L.,
Sakuntaladewi, N., Sturgeon, J. and Thomas, D., 2009. Policies,
Political-Economy, and Swidden in Southeast Asia. Human
Ecology 37(3): 305-322.
Garcia, R. A., Cabeza, M., Rahbek, C., Arajo, M. B., 2014.
Multiple dimensions of climate change and their implications
for biodiversity. Science 344. DOI: 10.1126/science.1247579
105
Gibson, J., 2013. The crisis in food price data. Global Food
Security 2: 97-103.
Giri, K. and Darnhofer, I., 2010. Outmigrating men: a window of
opportunity for womens participation in community forestry?
Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 25 (9): 5561.
Glck, P., Angelsen, A., Appelstrand, M., Assembe-Mvondo,S.,
Auld, G., Hogl, K., Humphreys, D. and Wildburger C.,
2010. Core components of the international forest regime
complex. In: Embracing complexity: Meeting the challenges of
international forest governance, edited by J. Rayner, A. Buck
and P. Katila. Vienna: IUFRO World Series 28.
Godfray, H.C.J., Beddington, J.R., Crute, I.R., Haddad, L.,
Lawrence, D., Muir, J.F., Pretty, J., Robinson, S., Thomas, S.M.
and Toulmin, C., 2010. Food security: the challenge of feeding
9 billion people. Science 327 (5967): 812-818.
Gmez-Zamalloa, M.G., Caparrs, A. and Ayanz, A.S.M., 2011.
15 years of forest certification in the European Union. Are we
doing things right? Forest Systems 20: 81-94.
Gorter, H. de, Drabik, D., and Just, D.R., 2013. How biofuels
policies affect the level of grains and oilseed prices: theory,
models and evidence. Global Food Security 2: 82-88.
Grote, U., 2014. Can we improve global food security? A socioeconomic and political perspective. Food Security 6: 187-200.
Gullison, R.E., 2003. Does forest certification conserve
biodiversity? Oryx 37: 153-165.
Harvey, C. A., Chacn, M., Donatti, C. I., Garen, E., Hannah, L.,
Andrade, A., Bede, L., Brown, D., Calle, A. and Char, J., 2014.
Climate smart landscapes: opportunities and challenges for
integrating adaptation and mitigation in tropical agriculture.
Conservation Letters 7:77-90.
Haug, R. and Hella, J., 2013. The art of balancing food security:
securing availability and affordability of food in Tanzania. Food
Hecht, S.B. and Saatchi, S.S., 2007. Globalization and Forest
Resurgence: Changes in Forest Cover in El Salvador.
BioScience 57(8): 663-672.
Humphrey, J., 2007. The supermarket revolution in developing

countries: tidal wave or tough competitive struggle? Journal of
Economic Geography 7: 433-450.
Hunsberger, C., Bolwig, S., Corbera, E. and Creutzig, F., 2014.
Livelihood impacts of biofuel crop production: Implications for
governance. Geoforum 54:248-260.
Hysing, E., 2009. From government to governance? A comparison
of environmental governing in Swedish forestry and transport.
Governance 22:647-672.
Ibarra, J. T., Barreau, A., Campo, C. D., Camacho, C. I., Martin,
G. and McCandless, S., 2011. When formal and market-based
conservation mechanisms disrupt food sovereignty: impacts
of community conservation and payments for environmental
services on an indigenous community of Oaxaca, Mexico.
International Forestry Review 13:318-337.
Change, 24: 287294.
IPCC, 2014. Summary for policymakers. In: Climate Change 2014:
Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and
Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, edited by 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 and L. L. White. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1-32.
Iversen, V, Chhetry, B., Francis, P., Gurung, M., Kafle, G., Pain, A.
and Seeley, J., 2006. High value forests, hidden economies and
elite capture: Evidence from forest user groups in Nepals Terai.
Ecological economics 58 (1): 93-107.
Hecht, S.B., Forthcoming. Trends in migration, urbanization, and

remittances and their effects on tropical forests and forestdependent communities. CIFOR Working Paper. Bogor:
CIFOR.

in smallholders agroforestry systems: a review. International
Forestry Review 13 (3): 338-354.
Hecht, S.B., Kandel, S., Gomes, I., Cuellar, N. and Rosa, H., 2006.
Globalization, forest resurgence, and environmental politics in
El Salvador. World Development 34 (2): 308323.
Johns, T., and Eyzaguirre, P.B., 2006. Linking biodiversity, diet

and health in policy and practice. Proceedings of the Nutrition
Society 65: 182-189.
Hertog, W.H. den, and Wiersum, K.F., 2000. Timur (Zanthoxylum

armatum) production in Nepal dynamics in nontimber forest
resource management. Mountain Research and Development
20(2): 136-145.
Jumbe, C.B.L. and Angelsen, A., 2006. Do the poor benefit from
devolution policies? Evidence from Malawis forest comanagement program. Land Economics 82(4): 562-581.
Hoang, M.H., Do, T.H., Pham, M.T., van Noordwijk, M. and

Minag, P.A., 2013. Benefit distribution across scales to reduce
emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+)
in Vietnam. Land Use Policy 31: 48-60.
Homma, A.K.O., 1992. The dynamics of extraction in Amazonia: a
historical perspective. Advances in Economic Botany 9: 23-31.
Hoang, M. H., Do, T. H., Pham, M. T., van Noordwijk, M. and
Minang, P. A., 2013. Benefit distribution across scales to reduce
emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+)
in Vietnam. Land Use Policy 31:48-60.
Honey-Roses, J., Lopez-Garcia, J., Rendon-Salinas, E., PeraltaHiguera, A. and Galindo-Leal, C., 2009. To pay or not to pay?
Monitoring performance and enforcing conditionality when
paying for forest conservation in Mexico. Environmental
Conservation 36:120-128.
Hosonuma N., Herold, M., De Sy V., DeFries R.S., Brockhaus M.,
Verchot L., Angelsen A. and Romijn, E., 2012. An assessment
of deforestation and forest degradation drivers in developing
countries. Environmental Research Letters 7(4): 044009.
106
Huggins, C.D., 2014. Control Grabbing and small-scale

agricultural intensification: emerging patterns of statefacilitated agricultural investment in Rwanda. Journal of
Peasant Studies 41(3): 365-384.
Kaimowitz, D. and Smith, J. 2001. Soybean technology and the

loss of natural vegetation in Brazil and Bolivia. In: Agricultural
Technologies and Tropical Deforestation, edited by A. Angelsen
and D. Kaimowitz. Wellington: CABI/CIFOR 195-212.
King, C.A., 2008. Community resilience and contemporary agriecological systems: reconnecting people and food, and people
with people. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 25 (1):
111124.
Klein, R. J., Schipper, E. L. F. and Dessai, S., 2005. Integrating
mitigation and adaptation into climate and development policy:
three research questions. Environmental Science & Policy
8:579-588.
Krger, M., 2012. The expansion of industrial tree plantations and
dispossession in Brazil. Development and Change 43: 947973.
Kull, C. A. and Rangan, H., 2008. Acacia Exchanges: Wattles,
Thorn Trees, and the Study of Plant Movements. Geoforum 39
(3): 12581272.
Lawrence, G. and McMichael, P., 2012. The question of food
security. International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture &
Food 19 (2): 135-142.
Lee, J., Martin, A., and Wollenberg, E., Forthcoming. Implications

on equity in agricultural carbon market projects: a gendered
analysis of access, decision-making, and outcomes.
Environment and Planning A, under review.
McDermott, C.L., Irland, L.C. and Pacheco, P., 2015. Forest

certification and legality initiatives in the Brazilian Amazon:
Lessons for effective and equitable forest governance. Forest
Policy and Economics 50: 134-142
Lestrelin, G., Castella, J.-C. and Bourgoin, J., 2012. Territorialising

sustainable development: The politics of land-use planning in
Laos. Journal of Contemporary Asia 42: 581-602.
MEA, 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis report.

Washington DC: World Resources Institute.
Li, T.M., 2010. Indigeneity, capitalism, and the management of

dispossession. Current Anthropology 51: 385-414.
Li, T. M., 2014. What is land? Assembling a resource for global
investment. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers
39:589-602.
Li, T.M., Forthcoming. Social Impact of Oil Palm: A Gendered
Perspective from West Kalimantan. CIFOR Occasional Paper.
Bogor: Center for International Forestry Research.
Locatelli, B., Evans, V., Wardell, A., Andrade, A. and Vignola, R.,
2011. Forests and climate change in Latin America: linking
adaptation and mitigation. Forests 2:431-450.
Lujala, P., 2003. Classification of Natural Resources for Armed
Civil Conflict Research, Paper presented for the European
Consortium for Political Research Joint Session of Workshop,
Edinburgh, U.K.
Mai, Y.H., Mwangi, E. and Wan, M., 2011. Gender analysis
in forestry research: looking back and thinking ahead.
International Forestry Review 13(2):245-258.
Mairena, E., Lorio, G., Hernndez, X., Wilson, C., Mller, P.
and Larson, A.M., 2012. Gender and forests in Nicaraguas
Autonomous Regions: Community Participation. CIFOR
Infobrief no. 57. Bogor: CIFOR.
Malmer, A., Ard, J., Scott D. Vignola R. and Xu, J., 2010. Forest
water and global water governance. In: Forests and Society
Responding to Global Drivers of Change, edited by G. Mery P.
Katila G. Galloway, I. Alfaro M. Kanninen, M. Lobovikov and
J. Varjo. Vienna: IUFRO World Series 25, 75-93.
Maraseni, T., Neupane, P., Lopez-Casero, F. and Cadman, T., 2014.
An assessment of the impacts of the REDD+ pilot project on
community forests user groups (CFUGs) and their community
forests in Nepal. Journal of environmental management 136:
37-46.
Mehta, A.K. and Shah, A., 2003. Chronic poverty in India:

incidence, causes and policies. In: Special issue on Chronic
Poverty and Development Policy edited by D. Hulme and A.
Shepherd. World Development 31(3): 491-511.
Meidinger, E., 2011. Forest certification and democracy. European
Journal of Forest Research 130: 407-419.
Meyfroidt, P. and Lambin, E. F., 2011. Global forest transition:
prospects for an end to deforestation. Annual Review of
Environment and Resources 36: 343371. doi:10.1146/annurevenviron-090710-143732.
Milne, S., and Adams, B., 2012. Market Masquerades: uncovering
the politics of community level payments for environmental
services in Cambodia. Development and Change 43: 133-158.
Minot, N., 2014. Food price volatility in sub-Saharan Africa: Has it
really increased? Food Policy 45: 4556.
Miteva, D.A., Pattanayak, S.K. and Ferraro, P.J., 2012. Evaluation
of biodiversity policy instruments: what works and what
doesnt? Oxford Review of Economic Policy 28: 69-92.
Mohai, Paul, David P. and Roberts, J. T., 2009. Environmental
Justice. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 35:
405430.
Mukasa, C., Tibazalika, A., Mango., A. and Muloki, H.N., 2012.
Gender and forestry in Uganda: policy, legal and institutional
frameworks. CIFOR Working Paper 89.
Muradian, R., Arsel, M., Pellegrini, L., Adaman, F., Aguilar, B.,
Agarwal, B. Corbera, E., Ezzine de Blas, D., Farley, J., Froger,
G., Garcia-Frapolli, E., Gomez-Baggethun E. Gowdy, J.,
Kosoy, N., Le Coq, J.F., Leroy, P. May, P., Meral, P., Mibielli,
P., Norgaard, Ozkaynak, B., Pascual, U., Pengue, W., Perez, M.,
Pesche, D., Pirard, R., Ramos-Martin, J., Riva, L, Saenz, F., Van
Hecken, G., Vatn, A., Vira, B. and Urama, K., 2013. Payments
for ecosystem services and the fatal attraction of win-win
solutions. Conservation Letters 6(4): 274-279.
Martin, A., Gross-Camp, N., Kebede, B., McGuire, S. and

Munyarukaza, J., 2013a. Whose environmental justice?
Exploring local and global perspectives in a payments for
ecosystem services scheme in Rwanda. Geoforum 28 (2014):
216-226.
Murray Li, T., 2007. Practices of assemblage and community forest

management. Economy and Society 36:263-293
Martin, A., McGuire, S. and Sullivan, S., 2013b. Global

environmental justice and biodiversity conservation. The
Geographical Journal 179:122-131.
Nevins, J. and Peluso, N.L., 2008. Introduction: commoditization in

Southeast Asia. In: Taking Southeast Asia to market, edited by J.
Nevins and N.L. Peluso. London: Cornell University Press, 1-24.
Martinez-Alier, J., 2014. The environmentalism of the poor.

Geoforum 54:239-241.
Newton, P., Alves Pinto, H.N. and Pinto, L.F.G., 2014.

Certification, forest conservation, and cattle: theories
and evidence of change in Brazil. Conservation Letters.
DOI:10.1111/conl.12116
Marx, A. and Cuypers, D., 2010. Forest certification as a global

environmental governance tool: What is the macro effectiveness
of the Forest Stewardship Council? Regulation & Governance,
4: 408-434.
Matulis, B. S., 2014. The economic valuation of nature: A question
of justice? Ecological Economics 104:155-157.
McAfee, K. and Shapiro, E.N., 2010. Payments for ecosystem
services in Mexico: Nature, neoliberalism, social movements,
and the state. Annals of the Association of American
Geographers 100: 579-599.
McAfee, K., 2012. The Contradictory Logic of Global Ecosystem
Services Markets. Development and Change 43:105-131.
McDermott, C. L., van Asselt, H., Streck, C., Assembe Mvondo,
S., Duchelle, A. E., Haug, C., Humphreys, D., Mulyani,
M., Shekhar Silori, C. and Suzuki, R., 2012. Governance
for REDD+, forest management and biodiversity: existing
approaches and future options. In: Understanding Relationships
between Biodiversity, Carbon, Forests and People: The Key to
Achieving REDD+ Objectives, IUFRO World Series Volume
31, edited by J. A. Parrotta, C. Wildburger and S. Mansourian.
Vienna: International Union of Forest Research Organizations.
Neumann, R.P. and Hirsch, E., 2000. Commercialisation of nontimber forest products: Review and analysis of research. Bogor
and Rome: CIFOR and FAO.
Ngaga, Y.M., Munyanziza, E., and Masalu, H.E., 2006. The role of
wild mushrooms in the livelihoods of rural people in Kiwele
village, Iringa, Tanzania: implications for policy. Discovery and
Innovation 18: 246-251.
Nightingale, A. J., 2002. Participating or just sitting in?
The dynamics of gender and caste in community forestry.
Journal of Forestry and Livelihoods 2(1): 17-24.
Obidzinski, K., Andriani, R., Komarudin, H. and Andrianto, A.,
2012. Environmental and social impacts of oil palm plantations
and their implivations for biofuel production in indonesia.
Ecology and Society 17 (1):1-19.
Okojie, C. and Shimeles, A., 2006. Inequality in sub-Saharan
Africa. The Inter-Regional Inequality Facility. London:
Overseas Development Institute (ODI).
Olsen, C.S. and Helles, F., 2009. Market efficiency and benefit
distribution in medicinal plant markets: empirical evidence
from South Asia. International Journal of Biodiversity Science
& Management 5 (2): 53-62.
107
Padoch, C. and Pinedo Vasquez, M., 2010. Saving slash and burn to
save biodiversity. Biotropica 42:550-552.
Padoch, C., Brondizio, E., Costa, S., Pinedo-Vasquez, M., Sears,
R.R. and Siqueira, A., 2008. Urban forest and rural cities:
multi-sited households, consumption patterns and forest
resources in amazonia. Ecology and Society 13 (2): 2.
Pagiola, S. and Platais, G., 2007. Payments for Environmental
Services: From Theory to Practice. Washington DC: World
Bank.
Parry, L., Peres, C., Day, B. and Amaral, S., 2010. Ruralurban
migration brings conservation threats and opportunities to
Amazonian watersheds. Conservation Letters 3(4): 251-259.
Pascual, U., Phelps, J., Garmendia, E., Brown, K., Corbera, E.,
Martin, A. Gomez-Baggethun, E. and Muradian, R., 2014.
Social equity matters in payments for ecosystem services.
BioScience 64:1027-1036.
Pattanayak, S.K., Wunder, S. and Ferraro, P.J., 2010. Show me
the money: Do payments supply environmental services in
developing countries? Review of Environmental Economics and
Policy 4: 254-274.
Pautasso, M., Dehnen-Schmutz, K., Holdenrieder, O., Pietravalle,
S., Salama, N., Jeger, M.J., Lange, E. and Hehl-Lange, S.,
2010. Plant health and global change some implications for
landscape management. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge
Philosophical Society 85:729-755.
Phelps, J., Webb, E.L. and Agrawal, A., 2010. Does REDD+
Threaten to Recentralize Forest Governance? Science, 328:
312-313.
Pimentel, D., McNair, M., Buck, L., Pimentel, M. and Kamil,
J., 1997. The value of forests to world food security. Human
Ecology 25 (1): 91-120.
Pinto, L.F.G. and McDermott, C., 2013. Equity and forest
certificationA case study in Brazil. Forest Policy and
Poppy, G., Chiotha, S., Eigenbrod, F., Harvey, C., Honzk, M.,
Hudson, M., Jarvis, A., Madise, N., Schreckenberg, K. and
Shackleton, C., 2014a. Food security in a perfect storm: using
the ecosystem services framework to increase understanding.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological
Sciences 369:20120288.
Poppy, G., Jepson, P., Pickett, J. and Birkett, M., 2014b. Achieving
food and environmental security: new approaches to close
the gap. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B:
Biological Sciences 369:20120272.
Porras, I.T., Grieg-Gran, M. and Neves, N., 2008. All that glitters:
A review of payments for watershed services in developing
countries. London: IIED.
Precillia Ijang, N.T., Sven Walter, S. and Ngueguim, J.R., 2011.
An overview of policy and institutional frameworks impacting
the use of non timber forest products in central Africa.
International Journal of Social Forestry 4 (1): 63-85.
Pysek, P., and Richardson, D. M., 2010. Invasive species,
environmental change and management, and health. Annual
Review of Environment and Resources 35:2555
Raitio, K., 2008. You cant please everyone: Conflict management
cases, frames and institutions in Finnish state forests. Joensuu,
Finland: PhD Dissertation.
Rasul, G., Choudhary, D., Pandit, B.H. and Kollmair, M., 2012.
Poverty and livelihood impacts of a medicinal and aromatic
plants project in India and Nepal: an assessment. Mountain
Research and Development 32(2): 137-148.
Reardon, T. and Hopkins, R., 2007. The supermarket revolution
in developing countries: policies to address emerging tensions
among supermarkets, suppliers and traditional retailers. The
European Journal of Development Research 18 (4): 522-545.
Richardson, D.M. and van Wilgen, B.W., 2004. Invasive alien plants
in South Africa: how well do we understand the ecological
impacts? South African Journal of Science 100:4552.
108
Rigg, J. and Vandergeest, P., 2012. Revisiting rural places:

Pathways to Poverty and Prosperity in Southeast Asia.
Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Robbins, P., 2004. Comparing Invasive Networks: Cultural and
Political Biographies of Invasive Species. Geographical Review
94 (2): 139156.
Robledo, C., Clot, N., Hammill, A. and Rich, B., 2012. The role
of forest ecosystems in community-based coping strategies to
climate hazards: Three examples from rural areas in Africa.
Forest Policy and Economics 24:20-28.
Rocheleau, D. and Edmunds, D., 1997. Women, men and trees:
gender, power and property in forest and agrarian landscapes.
Rockstrm, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, ., Chapin,
F.S.III, Lambin, E.F., Lenton, T.M., Scheffer, M., Folke, C.,
Schellnhuber, H.J., Nykvist, B., de Wit, C.A., Hughes, T., van
der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., Srlin, S., Snyder, P.K., Costanza,
R., Svedin, U., Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L., Corell, R.W.,
Fabry, V.J., Hansen, J., Walker, B., Liverman, D., Richardson,
K., Crutzen, P. and Foley, J.A., 2009. A safe operating space for
humanity. Nature 461: 472-475. doi:10.1038/461472a.
Rod, J.K. and Rustad, S.C.A., 2006. Forest Resources and Conflict
and Property in Southeast Asia from India. International
Conference on Polarization and Conflict, Nicosia, Cyprus, 2629 April 2006.
Romero, C., 2013. Evaluation of forest conservation interventions;
the case of forest management certification. New Frontiers in
Tropical Biology: The Next 50 Years (A Joint Meeting of ATBC
and OTS), 20-30 June 2013.
Romero, C., Putz, F.E., Guariguata, M.R., Sills, E.O., Cerutti, P.O.
and Lescuyer, G., 2013. An overview of current knowledge
about the impacts of forest management certification: a
proposed framework for its evaluation. CIFOR Occasional
Paper. Bogor: CIFOR.
Rudel, T.K., Bates, D. and 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.
Salafsky, N. and Wollenberg, E., 2000. Linking livelihoods and
conservation: A conceptual framework and scale for assessing
the integration of human needs and biodiversity. World
development 28:1421-1438.
Samii, C., Lisiecki, M., Kulkarni, P., Paler, L. and Chavis, L.,
2014. Effects of Payment for Environmental Services (PES)
on Deforestation and Poverty in Low and Middle Income
Countries: A Systematic Review. Campbell Systematic
Reviews 11.
Sarin, M., 2001. Disempowerment in the name of participatory
forestry? Village forests joint management in uttarakhand.
Forests, Trees and People Newsletter, No. 44.
Saw, L. G., LaFrankie, J. V., Kochummen, K. M. and Yap, S. K.,
1991. Fruit trees in a Malaysian rain forest. Economic Botany
45:120-136.
Schlosberg, D., 2013. Theorising environmental justice: the
expanding sphere of a discourse. Environmental Politics
22:37-55.
Schmook, B. and Radel, C., 2008. International labour migration
from a tropical development frontier: globalizing households
and an incipient forest transition. Human Ecology 36: 891-908.
Schroeder, R. A., 1999. Shady Practices: Agroforestry and Gender
Politics in the Gambia. Oakland, CA: University of California
Press.
SCR, 2012. Toward sustainability: The roles and limitations of
certification. Washington, DC: RESOLVE, Inc.
Shackleton, C.M., McGarry, D., Fourie, S., Gambiza, J.,
Shackleton, S. E. and Fabricius, C., 2006. Assessing the effects
of invasive alien species on rural livelihoods: case examples and
a framework from South Africa. Human Ecology 35:113127.
Shapiro-Garza, E., 2013. Contesting the market-based nature of

Mexicos national payments for ecosystem services programs:
Four sites of articulation and hybridization. Geoforum 46: 5-15.
Sheil, D., Casson, A., Meijaard, E., Noordwijk van, M., Gaskell, J.,
Sunderland-Groves, J., Wertz, K. and Kanninen, M., 2009. The
Impacts and Opportunities of Oil Palm in Southeast Asia: What
do we know and what do we need to know? Occasional Paper
No 51. Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR.
Shrestha, U.B. and Bawa, K.S., 2014. Economic contribution
of Chinese caterpillar fungus to the livelihoods of mountain
communities in Nepal. Biological Conservation 177: 194-202.
Shumsky, S., Hickey, G.M., Johns, T., Pelletier, B. and Galaty, J.,
2014. Institutional factors affecting wild edible plant harvest
and consumption in semi-arid Kenya. Land Use Policy 38:
48-69.
Siedenburg, J., Martin, A. and McGuire, S., 2012. The power
of farmer friendly financial incentives to deliver climate
smart agriculture: a critical data gap. Journal of Integrative
Environmental Sciences 9(4): 201-217.
Sikor, T. and Newell, P., 2014. Globalizing environmental justice?
Geoforum 54:151-157.
Sikor, T. (ed.), 2013. The justices and injustices of ecosystem
services. London and New York: Routledge.
Sikor, T. and Ngoc Thanh, T., 2007. Exclusive versus inclusive
devolution in forest management: Insights from forest land
allocation in Vietnams Central Highlands. Land Use Policy 24:
644-653.
Sikor, T., Auld, G., Bebbington, A.J., Benjaminsen, T.A., Gentry,
B.S., Husberger, C., Izac, A.-M., Margulis, M.E., Plieninger,
T. and Schroeder, H., 2013. Global land governance:
from territory to flow? Current Opinion in Environmental
Silva-Castaeda, L., 2012. A forest of evidence: third-party
certification and multiple forms of proofa case study of oil
palm plantations in Indonesia. Agriculture and Human Values
29: 361-370.
Smith, P., Haberl, H., Popp, A., Erb, K. h., Lauk, C., Harper,
R., Tubiello, F. N., Siqueira Pinto, A., Jafari, M. and 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-Hall, C., Larsen, H.O. and Pouliot, M., 2012. People, plants
and health: a conceptual framework for assessing changes in
medicinal plant consumption. Journal of Ethnobiology and
Ethnomedicine 8: 43.
Strassburg, B., Vira, B., Mahanty, S., Mansourian, S., Martin, A.,
Dawson, N. Gross-Camp, N., Latawiec, A. and Swainson, L.,
2012. Social and economic considerations relevant to REDD+.
Understanding relationships between biodiversity, carbon,
forests and people: The key to achieving REDD+ objectives.
In: Understanding Relationships between Biodiversity, Carbon,
Forests and People: The Key to Achieving REDD+ Objectives,
IUFRO World Series Volume 31, edited by J. A. Parrotta, C.
Wildburger and S. Mansourian. Vienna: International Union of
Forest Research Organizations.
Strassburg, B.B.N., Latawiec, A.E., Barioni, L.G., Nobre, C.A.,
Da Silva, V. P., Valentim, J.F., Viana, M. and 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.
Sullivan, S., 2013. Banking nature? The spectacular financialisation
of environmental conservation. Antipode 45:198-217.
Sunderlin, W.D. and Huynh, T.B., 2005. Poverty Alleviation and
Forests in Vietnam. Bogor: Center for international forestry
research.
Sunderlin, W.D., Angelsen, A., Belcher, B., Burgers, P., Nasi, R.,
Santoso, L. and Wunder, S., 2005. Livelihoods, Forests and
Conservation in Developing Countries: An Overview.
Sunderlin, W.D., Dewi, S., Puntodewo, A., Mller, D., Angelsen,
A. and Epprecht, M., 2008. Why forests are important for
global poverty alleviation: a spatial explanation. Ecology and
Society 13(2): 24.
Tacconi, L., 2007. Decentralization, forests and livelihoods: theory
and narrative. Global Environmental Change 17: 338-348.
Tacconi, L., Mahanty, S. and Suich, H., 2013. The livelihood
impacts of payments for environmental services and
implications for REDD+. Society & Natural Resources 26:
733-744.
Tadesse, G., Algieri, B., Kalkuhl, M. and Braun, J. von, 2014.
Drivers and triggers of international food price spikes and
volatility. Food Policy 47: 117-128.
Ticktin, T., Ganesan, R., Paramesha, M. and Setty, S., 2012.
Disentangling the effects of multiple anthropogenic drivers on
the decline of two tropical dry forest trees. Journal of Applied
Ecology 49(4): 774-784.doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2012.02156.x.
Tiwari, P.C. and Joshi, B., 2012. Natural and socio-economic
factors affecting food security in the Himalayas. Food Security
4: 195-207.
Tokgoz, S., Zhang, W., Msangi, S. and Bhandary, P., 2012. Biofuels
and the future of food: competition and complementarities.
Agriculture 2: 414-435.
Toledo, I. and Burlingame, B., 2006. Biodiversity and nutrition:
A common path toward global food security and sustainable
development. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 19:
477-483.
Tontisirin, K., Nantel, G. and Bhattacharjee, L., 2002. Food-based
strategies to meet the challenges of micronutrient malnutrition
in the developing world. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society
61: 243-250.
Tritsch, I., Marmoex, C., Davy, D., Thibaut, B. and Gond, V., 2014.
Towards a Revival of Indigenous Mobility in French Guiana?
Contemporary Transformations of the Waypai and Teko
Territories. Bulletin of Latin American Research 34(1): 19-34.
Turnhout, E., Waterton, C., Neves, K. and Buizer, M., 2013.
Rethinking biodiversity: from goods and services to living
with. Conservation Letters 6:154-161.
Uberhuaga, P., Larsen, H.O. and Treue, T., 2011. Indigenous forest
management in Bolivia: potentials for livelihood improvement.
International Forestry Review 13: 80-95.
UN, 2011. Population, Distribution, Urbanization, Internal
Migration and Development: An international Perspective. New
York: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social
Affairs Population Division.
UN, 2013. World Population Prospects: the 2012 Revision. New
York: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social
Affairs, Population Division.
UN, 2014. World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision
- Highlights. New York: United Nations, Department of
Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division.
UN ECOSOC, 2013. New Trends in Migrations: demographic
aspects. Report of the Secretary General, United Nations
Economic and Social Council.
UN Women, 2014. World Survey on the role of women in
development 2014: Gender Equality and Sustainable
Development. United Nations report of the Secretary. New
York: UN.
UNDP, 2012. Gender, climate change and food security, policy
brief. New York: UNDP.
H. L., Villamor, G. B. and Leimona, B., 2014. Tree cover
Security 3(3-4):200208.
109
van Wilgen, B.W., Richardson, D.M., Le Maitre, D.C., Marais,

C. and Magadlela, D., 2001. The economic consequences of
alien plant invasions: examples of impacts and approaches
for sustainable management inSouth Africa. Environment,
Development and Sustainability, 3:14568.
Williams, M., 2003. Deforesting the Earth: From Prehistory to

Global Crisis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Vandergeest, P. and Peluso, N. L., 1995. Territorialization and state

power in Thailand. Theory and Society 24:385-426.
Willis, K J, Gilson, L. and Brncic, T. M., 2004. How Virgin Is

Virgin Rainforest? Science 304(5669): 402403.
Vanhanen, H., Rayner J. Yasmi, Y. Enters, T. Fabra-Crespo, M.

Kanowski, P., Karpinnen, H., Mainusch, J, and Valkeap, A.,
2010. Forestry in Changing Social Landscapes. In: Forests
and Society Responding to Global Drivers of Change, edited
by G. Mery P. Katila G. Galloway, I. Alfaro M. Kanninen, M.
Lobovikov and J. Varjo. Vienna: IUFRO World Series 25.
World Bank, 2003. World Development Report 2003: Sustainable

Development in a Dynamic World: Transforming Institutions,
growth and quality of life. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Vermeulen, S.J., Campbell, B.M. and Ingram, J.S.I., 2012. Climate

Change and Food Systems. Annual Review of Environment and
Resources 37:195222.
Vinceti, B., Termote, C., Ickowitz, A., Powell, B., Kehlenbeck, K.
and Hunter, D., 2013. The contribution of forests and trees to
sustainable diets. Sustainability 5: 4797-4824.
Virah-sawmy, M., 2009. Ecosystem Management in Madagascar
during Global Change. Conservation Letters 2:163170.
doi:10.1111/j.1755-263X.2009.00066.x.
Welch, J. R., Brondzio, E.S., Hetrick, S.S. and Coimbra Jr, C.
E. A., 2013. Indigenous burning as conservation practice:
neotropical savanna recovery amid agribusiness deforestation
in central brazil. PLOS One 8(12): e81226.
West, P., Igoe, J. and Brockington, D., 2006. Parks and peoples:
the social impact of protected areas. Annual Review of
Anthropology 35:251277.
White., A. and Martin, A., 2002. Who owns the worlds forests?
Forest tenure and public forests in transition. Washington, DC:
Forest Trends and Center for International Environmental Law.
110
Williams, M., 2008. A New Look at Global Forest Histories of

Land Clearing. Annual Review of Environment and Resources
33: 345367.
Wunder, S., 2001. Poverty alleviation and tropical forests-what

scope for synergies? World Development 29:1817-1833.
Wunder, S., 2005. Payments for environmental services: some nuts
and bolts. Bogor: CIFOR.
Wunder, S., 2013. When payments for environmental services will
work for conservation. Conservation Letters 6(4): 230-237.
Wunder, S., Brner, J., Shively, G. and Wyman, M., 2014. Safety
nets, gap filling and forests: a global-comparative perspective.
World Development 64:29-42.
Zbinden, S. and Lee, D.R., 2005. Paying for environmental
services: an analysis of participation in Costa Ricas PSA
program. World development 33: 255-272.
Zhou, L. and Veeck, G., 1999. Forest Resource Use and Rural
Poverty in China. Forestry Economics 4 (1): 80-92.
Zulu, C.L., 2010. The forbidden fuel: charcoal, urban woodfuel
demand and supply dynamics, community forest management
and woodfuel policy in Malawi. Energy Policy 38 (7): 37173730.
111
Chapter 5
Response Options Across
the Landscape
Coordinating lead author: Terry Sunderland
Lead authors: Frdric Baudron, Amy Ickowitz, Christine Padoch,
Mirjam Ros-Tonen, Chris Sandbrook and Bhaskar Vira
Contributing authors: Josephine Chambers, Elizabeth Deakin, Samson
Foli, Katy Jeary, John A. Parrotta, Bronwen Powell, James Reed, Sarah
Ayeri Ogalleh, Henry Neufeldt and Anca Serban
CONTENTS
Abstract114
5.1 Introduction
114
5.2 The Role of Landscape Configurations
116
5.2.1 Temporal Dynamics within Landscapes
116
5.2.2 Trade-offs and Choices at the Landscape Scale
116
5.3 Land Sparing and Land Sharing
117
5.4 Landscapes and Localised Food Systems
118
5.5 Nutrition-sensitive Landscapes
119
5.6 Landscape Governance
120
5.7 Conclusions
121
References123
113
5 RESPONSE OPTIONS ACROSS THE LANDSCAPE
Abstract: This chapter presents potential landscape-scale responses that attempt to reconcile the oftcompeting demands for agriculture, forestry and other land uses. While there is no single configuration
of land-uses in any landscape that can optimise the different outcomes that may be prevalent within a
particular landscape, there are options for understanding and negotiation for the inherent trade-offs that
characterise such outcomes. With increasing pressure on biodiversity and ecosystem services across
many landscapes from the growing impact of human activities, hard choices have to be made about how
landscapes could and should be managed to optimise outcomes. In a context where views on landscapescale management options are often deeply entrenched and conflicts of interest are difficult to reconcile, consensus on what constitutes success may be difficult to achieve. Political economy and wider
governance issues have often meant that a theoretically optimal landscape is unrealistic or unachievable
on the ground. However, in this chapter we attempt to provide an over-arching framework for landscape
approaches and how such approaches can contribute to both conservation and the achievement of food
security and nutrition goals.
5.1 Introduction
Habitat loss, largely driven by agricultural expansion, has
been identified as the single largest threat to biodiversity1
(Newbold et al., 2014) worldwide. Agricultural activities
are intensifying, and particularly in the tropics (Laurance,
et al., 2014; Shackelford et al., 2015) due to increasing
global demands for food, fibre and biofuels (OECD/FAO,
2011). As such, global food security is increasingly trading off food for nature Lambin (2012). This habitat loss
is further compounded by land degradation and competition from other land uses such as urbanisation (Ellis et al.,
2010). Between 2000 and 2010, in the developing world
alone, it is estimated that land degradation and urbanisation consumed between 2.6 and 6.2 million hectares of
arable land (Lambin and Meyfroidt, 2011).
The tropics host the majority of biodiversity-rich areas on the planet (Myers et al., 2000), and the realisation
that we may be witnessing a sixth mass extinction (Barnosky et al., 2011) has been answered by a call to expand
the extent of protected areas, particularly in tropical regions. Consequently tropical land is increasingly subject
to competing claims (Giller et al., 2008) and reconciling
these claims presents what are sometimes referred to as
wicked problems (Rittel and Webber, 1973). A range
of concepts and frameworks for implementation are now
being discussed which aim to consider land-use change
in forested landscapes in such a way that competing demands for food, commodities and forest services may
be, hopefully, reconciled (e.g. Pirard and Treyer, 2010).
There is abundant theory to underpin the desirability of
establishing landscape mosaics (Naveh, 2001; Sunderland et al., 2008), where such competing demands are addressed in a more holistic, integrated manner.
Landscape approaches to achieving food production, natural resource conservation and livelihood security goals seek to better understand and recognise interconnections between different land uses and the stakeholders
that derive benefits from them (Milder et al., 2012). Such
approaches also aim to reconcile competing land uses and
to achieve conservation, production and socio-economic
114
outcomes (Sayer et al., 2013) and as such are now ubiquitous paradigms in the natural resource management discourse (DeFries and Rosenzweig, 2010). Furthermore, the
environmental services that support the sustainability of
agriculture are also sought through landscape approaches
(Scherr and McNeely, 2008; Brussaard et al., 2010; Foli
et al., 2014). However, the very complexity of landscape
approaches defies definition (Reed et al., 2015), despite
the clarion calls for such clarification.
In parallel, both in the North and in the South, industrial agriculture, the ultimate legacy of the Green Revolution, is being questioned as a model to achieve global
food security sustainably (McLaughlin, 2011). This model
may have been appropriate to the context of the 1960s and
1970s, when reducing hunger was the main goal, when
water and nutrients were abundant, energy was cheap, and
when ecosystems were able to detoxify agricultural pollutants. The global context today is very different with the
growing scarcity of cheap energy (Day et al., 2009), water
(Wallace, 2000) and nutrients (e.g. phosphorus, Cordell
et al., 2009). The adoption of large-scale industrial agriculture has resulted in negative impacts on the environment (Conway, 1997; Cassman et al., 2003), public health
(Fewtrell, 2004; Bandara et al., 2010) and even nutrition
(Ellis et al., 2015), suggesting the paradigm itself needs to
be challenged (Tilman and Clark, 2014).
In addition, industrial agriculture, with its narrow focus
on a few crops (Sunderland, 2013; Khoury et al., 2014), has
proven to be highly susceptible to shocks such as drought,
flooding, pests and disease outbreaks, and market vagaries (Holling and Meffe, 1996; Swinnen and Squicciarini,
2012). In response to these challenges, various approaches
have emerged using ecological concepts and principles
to design sustainable agricultural systems (Gliessman,
1997). These approaches are based on the assumption
that chemical and mechanical inputs can be replaced (at
least partially) by biological functions (Dor et al., 2011;
Cumming et al., 2014). Such functions are performed by
the planned biodiversity (e.g. managed diversity of crop
and livestock species), but also by the unplanned biodiversity (e.g. pollination or biological pest control), which
is often crucial in these agroecological systems (Klein et

al., 2007). The maintenance of unplanned biodiversity in
agricultural landscapes is often due to dispersion from
nearby (undisturbed) natural patches (Blitzer et al., 2012;
Tscharntke et al., 2012). Natural areas may also provide
nutrient subsidies to agricultural lands. For example, birds
can be important vectors of nutrient subsidies from natural areas to agricultural lands (Young et al., 2010). This
suggests the importance of landscape approaches not only
for biodiversity conservation, but also for the design of
sustainable agricultural systems.
Finally, non-intensive agricultural land may host significant biodiversity within a given landscape (Benton et al.,
2003; Clough et al., 2011). Multifunctional landscapes are
often described as patches of natural habitat embedded in
an agricultural matrix (Fischer et al., 2006). Implicitly, this
division assumes that patches are biodiversity-rich whilst
the matrix is depleted in biodiversity (Tscharntke et al.,
2005). However, the matrix may be part of the habitat of
several species (Wright et al., 2012). This is particularly
the case if the matrix is structurally similar to the native
vegetation, for example, tropical agroforests (Clough et
al., 2011). In addition, in human-dominated landscapes,
agriculture is often the dominant force maintaining open
patches on which many species depend (Arnold et al.,
2014). This is the case for example of open-habitat bird
species, which have become totally dependent on agricultural land in many areas (Wright et al., 2012). In tropical
forests, traditional shifting cultivation agricultural practices
create patches of open grassy fallow in an otherwise homogeneous forest cover. The resulting landscape mosaic may
be beneficial for several species. For example, shifting cultivation systems in Sri Lanka were found to provide a key
food source to populations of endangered Asian elephant
(Wikramanayake et al., 2004), but also led to serious issues
of crop raiding (Mackenzie and Ahabyona, 2012).
Despite the utility of landscape approaches for both
sustainable agriculture and biodiversity conservation, it
should however not be seen as a prescriptive approach to
spatial planning. Published principles for landscape approaches (Fischer et al., 2006; Lindenmayer et al., 2008;
Sayer et al., 2013) should not be seen as a set of boxes to be
ticked in the search for an agreed spatial plan but rather as
a framework of approaches from which practitioners may
draw in order to solve real problems on the ground. There
are fundamental difficulties in identifying and agreeing on
metrics to measure progress in solving wicked problems
particularly if opinions differ on the optimal solution to a
problem when no single metric can measure, or even define, success, particularly when trade-offs are the norm
(Sunderland et al., 2008). National level reviews of landscape and ecosystem approaches to forest management
have revealed that this is still very much work in progress
(Sayer et al., 2014). The application of landscape principles might eventually lead to a spatial plan accepted by
stakeholders but landscapes are constantly changing under the influence of multiple drivers and end points in the
form of long-term plans appear to be the exception rather
than the rule (Carrasco et al., 2014).
Much of the theory and practice of landscape approaches is underpinned by the assumption that facilitation and
negotiation will eventually allow for a consensus on a
desired outcome. However, in reality there are often entrenched views, conflicts of interest and power plays as a
result of which, true consensus is rarely achievable (Colfer
and Pfund, 2010). Conflict between agriculture, at both
industrial and small scales, conservation and other competing land uses (e.g. industry, urbanisation, tourism, recreation, dams, reservoirs) is often the subject of strongly
contested activism with highly polarised positions (Sunderland et al., 2008). Landscape approaches sometimes appear
to be advocated on the assumption that they can resolve
these fundamental differences in a way that will avoid conflict, particularly with regard to achieving both food and
nutritional security. In reality, any intervention will bring
winners and losers as any rural community including traditional societies living in or on the edge of forest
habitats is heterogeneous and characterised by various
internal conflicts. Ignoring this heterogeneity and these internal conflicts may weaken local communities against the
influence of new powerful stakeholders, for example logging and mining concessions (Giller et al., 2008).
Boys with Parkia biglobosa pods, Labe, Guinea.

This chapter seeks to highlight the options related to

the integration of agriculture, forestry and other land uses
(Sayer et al., 2013; Sunderland et al., 2013). The intention is to identify landscape-scale policies, interventions
and actions that may achieve this integration through land
use change, recognising subsequent implications of forest loss and degradation on food security and nutrition.
We also look at landscape configuration (including management systems, land sharing/sparing, intensification,
productive landscapes, eco-agriculture etc.) and necessary synergies and trade-offs between different land uses
(crops, livestock etc. but also other sectors), and forests
and tree-based systems. Finally, we look at integrated and
cross-sectoral options (that include forests and tree-based
systems) for food security.
115
5.2 The Role of Landscape

Configurations
5.2.1 Temporal Dynamics within Landscapes
Landscapes change over time and the spatial configuration
of land uses is rarely static. Such changes are not only a
result of anthropogenic pressures (such as deforestation),
but can also be caused by natural ecological dynamics (e.g.
Vera, 2000). Failure to understand these dynamics and their
origins can lead to misguided management interventions,
as in the case of Sahelian forest dynamics where it was
assumed incorrectly that people were responsible for forest
loss (Fairhead and Leach, 1996). Given this dynamism, in
many forest landscapes it may be inappropriate to permanently delineate land uses in fixed spatial patches often
referred to as zoning. However, finding workable alternative governance arrangements in such systems can be
very difficult (Scott, 1999).
Related to adaptive management is the concept of

resilience: the capacity of a system to continually
change and adapt yet remain within critical thresholds
(Stockholm Resilience Centre, 2014). Some landscape
configurations may be better able to cope with emerging
pressures in the future, such as anthropogenic climate
change. A considerable literature argues that landscapes
containing diverse social and ecological systems (multifunctional landscapes) are likely to be more resilient to
change than more simple systems (e.g. Elmqvist et al.,
2003; Tscharntke et al., 2005). Production landscapes
that are configured to maximise resilience by mimicking the structure of natural ecosystems are sometimes
referred to as eco-agricultural landscapes (Scherr and
McNeely, 2008). In addition, the numerous ecological
interactions between cultivated and natural patches of
vegetation in landscape mosaics (see above) result in
complex ecological networks and stabilise the functions
of these landscapes. In comparison, ecological interactions in more homogeneous landscapes are limited, and
the functions of such landscapes (including agricultural
productivity) are more vulnerable to shocks (e.g. extreme climatic events) (Loeuille et al., 2013). Forests
and tree-based landscapes also sustain the resilience of
social systems: forest products are consumed more frequently in times of food scarcity and can provide crucial livelihood safety nets (Johns and Eyzaguirre, 2006;
Powell et al., 2013)
5.2.2 Trade-offs and Choices

at the Landscape Scale
Mosaic of agriculture, agroforestry systems and forest in

Chittagong, Bangladesh.
116
In some cases, particular configurations of the landscape level social-ecological system, containing multiple different patches of land uses, may be more or less
sustainable in the long term. For example, the best configuration to maximise production of a particular commodity (such as a tree crop like oil palm) in the short
term may be a large monoculture, but this might degrade
the productivity of the land and other ecosystem services in the long term. Similarly, the best configuration to
maximise the abundance of a given species of interest
today may be very different from the best configuration
to maximise the abundance of the same species in a couple of decades, as climate change is driving shifts in species ranges (Parmesan and Yohe, 2003). The optimum
configuration to produce the same desired outcome in
the longer term might look very different. The fact that
multifunctional landscapes are moving targets with
multiple futures calls for adaptive management approaches (Holling and Meffe, 1996).
Landscapes are complex systems that generate a range

of social and ecological outcomes over time. These outcomes are not limited to food; they include biodiversity
conservation, sources of income, provision of cultural,
regulatory and social services and a host of other benefits. Different landscapes produce different combinations of these elements, dependent on biophysical (such
as soils and rainfall) and social conditions (such as who
has the right to manage and harvest what).
There is no single configuration of land-uses in any
landscape that can provide all the different outcomes
that people might find desirable. For example, the best
landscape configuration for biodiversity conservation
might include large areas of forest strictly protected
from human use, but this might support the livelihood
needs of only a very small human population or even
displace previously resident people (Brockington and
Igoe, 2006). This has often been the case in the establishment of protected areas in many parts of the world
(West et al., 2006). For example, in Madagascar the expansion of protected forest areas has alienated people
from previously common lands, a phenomenon that can
restrict community access to forest resources, including
food (Corson, 2011). In contrast, the best landscape
for cereal production might contain very little or no
forest at all. Other desirable outcomes, such as malaria
mitigation (Mendenhall et al., 2013) or food security
Box
5.1
Novel technologies
New applications of technologies such as remote sensing and mobile phones, also contribute
to improving the integration of agriculture and forest conservation within landscapes.
A few examples have been collected:

The recently launched Soil Moisture Active Passive Observatory (SMAP) will be used in designing global early-warning
systems and improving the precision of crop suitability maps (NASA website). This technology can improve climate
and weather forecasts, allowing scientists to monitor floods and droughts and therefore better predict crop yields.
In Kenya, through the Kilimo Salama initiative of Syngenta Foundation, farmers are able to purchase insurance via their
mobile phone messaging service, which lowers the cost of insurance provision. With their crops insured, farmers can
more readily experiment with higher-risk, higher-yield crops and stay assured that regardless of the weather, they will
be able to feed their families (Rojas-Ruiz and Diofasi, 2014).
In India, studies revealed that the introduction of mobile technology enhanced farmers awareness of markets and
prices and improved decision-making with regard to technology adoption. Challenges to further increase the adoption and utility of mobile technology include availability of content in local languages, compatibility of these languages
with the handsets, overall literacy, retrieval costs of voice messages and the lack of transmission masts in remote areas
(Mittal et al., 2010; Mittal, 2012).
In East Africa, researchers linked scientists with a private sector communications firm that produces Shamba Shape-Up
(SSU), a farm reality TV show broadcast in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda. The show seeks and presents climate-smart
agriculture (CSA) information, reaching an average monthly viewership of 9 million people across East Africa. Research
shows a trend of increasing uptake of CSA practices, with an average of 42 percent of SSU viewers changing their
practices, as well as benefitting Kenyas GDP through net soil fertility and net dairy production increase. In a further
development, the company is expanding CSA platforms by linking SSU to a mobile/SMS/internet service allowing farmers to ask questions and receive technical advice from experts. (http://ccafs.cgiar.org/blog/communicating-behaviorchange-how-kenyan-tv-show-changing-rural-agriculture)
(Thrupp, 2000; Chappell et al., 2013; Sunderland et al.,

2013) may be best provided by more diverse landscapes.
With increasing anthropogenic and biophysical pressures on biodiversity and ecosystem services across many
landscapes, choices have to be made about what is desirable and how landscapes should be managed (MEA,
2005; Laurance et al., 2014). Management regimes can
serve to optimise trade-offs and synergies among different outcomes (Naidoo et al., 2006; DeFries and Rosenzweig, 2010), but there are always likely to be some
trade-offs and opportunity costs (McShane et al., 2011;
Leader-Williams et al., 2011). To address this problem,
increasing attention has been given by researchers to the
question of how to resolve trade-offs at the landscape
scale to produce desirable outcomes for both biodiversity
and production goals (e.g. Polasky et al., 2008).
5.3 Land Sparing and Land Sharing

The land sharing / land sparing framework is potentially useful for considering trade-offs between agriculture
and biodiversity conservation (Balmford et al., 2005;
Green et al., 2005; Garnett et al., 2013). One rationale
for accepting the negative ecological consequences of
land-use intensification on existing farmland is that natural habitats can be spared from further expansion of
agriculture and as such will be sufficient for the maintenance of biological communities and ecosystem services. Meanwhile, integrating agricultural production and
conservation on the same land (land sharing or wildlife-friendly farming), coupled with the likelihood of
further expansion acts as an alternative solution for balancing trade-offs between production and conservation.
However, the central question in the land sparing / land

sharing debate is whether it is more favourable for biodiversity if desired increases in agricultural production are
met by increasing the area of low yield farmland (land
sharing) or by increasing the intensity of farming on existing farmland (land sparing).
To answer this question it is necessary to understand
the relationship between biodiversity and agricultural
production in landscapes. Empirical fieldwork in Ghana
and India (Phalan et al., 2011), Uganda (Hulme et al.,
2013) and Malaysia (Edwards et al., 2014) has consistently found that land sparing is the better strategy for
reconciling biodiversity and food production targets, because many species cannot survive in farming systems
of even the lowest management intensity (Ewers et al.,
2009; Phalan et al., 2011; Balmford et al., 2012). More
recently, it has been shown that with relatively modest
and sustainable increases in productivity on existing
farmland, Brazil could reduce deforestation caused by
agriculture to zero (Strassburg et al., 2014). Pretty and
Barucha (2014) also conclude that sustainable intensification can result in desirable outcomes both for enhanced food yields and improved environmental goods
and services, yet Phelps et al. (2013) suggest that with
intensification, productivity increases could incentivise
further clearance of forest for agriculture. The majority
of farmers in developing countries also lack the necessary capital to either intensify their farming systems or
spare land for nature (Bennett and Franzel, 2013). Box
5.1 highlights some examples of novel technologies applied to better integrate agriculture, forest and food security in a landscape.
The land sparing/sharing framework and associated
research have consequently generated some debate
117
(Perfecto and Vandermeer, 2010). Critics of the land

sparing approach argue that the intensification of agriculture has a negative impact on biodiversity and ecosystem services, and that for sparing to work, intensification of agriculture in one place must be explicitly
coupled with protection of natural habitat elsewhere,
which rarely happens in practice (Chappell and LaValle, 2009; Perfecto and Vandermeer, 2010; Angelsen,
2010; Tilman et al., 2011). Links between the intensification of agricultural systems (through increased
fertiliser application, pesticide use, animal stocking
rates and irrigation) and in situ declines of biodiversity
on farmland have been well documented (Green et al.,
2005; Kleijn et al., 2009), even though biodiversity loss
need not necessarily accompany increased agricultural
yields across all systems (Clough et al., 2011). Meanwhile, the potential ecological impacts of spillover
effects (Matson and Vitousek, 2006; Didham et al.,
2015), from the agricultural matrix into adjacent natural systems (e.g. inputs of nutrient subsidies through
fertiliser drift and down-slope leaching (Duncan et al.,
2008), livestock access (Didham et al., 2009) and the
spillover of predator or consumer organisms (Blitzer et
al., 2012)) could likely compromise the effectiveness
of land sparing strategies.
Proponents of land sharing advocate the creation of
multi-functional agricultural landscapes that generate and
utilise natural ecological processes within a social and
cultural context (Bolwig et al., 2006; Perfecto and Vandermeer, 2008; Knoke et al., 2009; Barthel et al., 2013).
In turn, this approach has been criticised for promoting
lower yields and therefore leading to further forest clearance for agriculture. It is also claimed that land sharing
is only suitable for conserving only those species able to
survive in human-dominated landscapes, namely generalist or common species (Kleijn et al., 2006; Jackson et al.,
2007; Phalan et al., 2011). Meanwhile, others have criticised the entire framing of land sparing/sharing on the
basis that it fails to consider broader social and ecological
complexities such as other ecosystem services, food security and poverty (Fischer et al., 2014).
In reality the choice and distinction between land
sparing and land sharing, while context dependent, is
unclear. For example, what appears to be sharing at the
landscape scale may look more like sparing at the local
scale (Grau et al., 2013; Baudron and Giller, 2014). The
framework offers a useful tool for thinking about choices in landscapes, but policymakers should recognise that
there are important limitations to its use in real world
situations (Perfecto and Vandermeer, 2010:, Fischer et
al., 2014). Furthermore, such landscape design thinking might be intuitively appealing, but it faces a number
of limitations in practice:

118
Trade-off analyses tend to be incomplete, meaning that

they neglect important issues (Fischer et al., 2014).
For example, the best landscape for balancing forest
conservation and food production may be very different from the best landscape to balance conservation,
food and space for urban expansion.
Results may be affected by the spatial scale of analysis. The best landscape configuration at one scale
may be different at a larger scale. Additionally, landscape analyses often fail to incorporate flows of people and materials between landscapes (Phalan et al.,
2011; Seto et al., 2012; Grau et al., 2013).
The concept of idealised landscape design ignores the
social and political realities on the ground (Fischer
et al., 2014). Who owns what within the landscape,
and who gets to decide what happens? Who benefits
or loses from particular choices? What is the history
and current status of the landscape? These political
economy issues may mean that a theoretically optimal
landscape configuration is unrealistic or unachievable
on the ground.
The research reviewed in this section demonstrates the importance of thinking beyond the site scale by taking into account broader interactions between land-uses within landscapes. However, it also highlights the inherent complexity
in any such analysis, and the trade-offs that are likely to
exist between the desired outcomes of different stakeholders. Research at this scale is in its infancy, and faces daunting data and analytical deficiencies. Addressing these challenges will be a priority for the coming years.
A broader question is how far research can go in providing useful information about relationships between forest
food systems and other land-uses at the landscape scale.
5.4 Landscapes and Localised

Food Systems
Landscape approaches offer promise for solving some
food-related problems that have proved to be more intractable than the basic task of producing more calories,
such as improving access to food and nutrition through
the provision of a diversity of products, and thus improving diets (Scherr and McNeely, 2008; Ickowitz et
al., 2014).
Landscape approaches, especially those that are developed locally, are often more suitable for lands where
previous agricultural intensification has been unsuccessful, for example on sloping lands and other areas
that are marginal for conventional approaches. The diverse production activities that such systems comprise
are often well adapted to the panoply of environmental,
demographic, social, political and economic changes
that is sweeping across much of the less-developed
world. Diverse, locally-adapted production and resource
management systems tend to increase the resilience of
rural households in the face of such changes (Padoch
and Sunderland, 2014).
It is estimated that 40percent of all food in the lessdeveloped world, and up to 80 percent if solely focusing
on Africa and Asia (FAO, 2012), originates from smallholder systems, and many of these systems depend essentially on diverse landscape systems (Godfray et al.,
2010). Smallholder farmers worldwide and throughout
history have managed landscapes for food and other
livelihood needs. Forests, woodlots, parklands, swidden-fallows and other tree-dominated areas are integral
parts of many smallholder landscapes and household
economies (Agrawal et al., 2013).
The greatest obstacle to including shifting cultivation
in the new landscape paradigm, in the eyes of both development professionals and conservationists, is not necessarily the illegibility of its patchy landscapes or the complexity of its management, but its inherent dynamism.
Change is what defines a system as shifting cultivation:
annual crops are moved from plot to plot every year or
two; as forests regenerate in one area, they are felled in
another. Can so much dynamic change be tolerated in
a sustainable landscape? (Scott, 1999). Can shifting
cultivation be considered sustainable if it includes slashing and burning woody vegetation? These questions are
inherent in complex socio-ecological systems and landscape dynamics and can only be addressed at a landscape
level through an adaptive approach that is based on continual learning two essential features of a landscape approach (Sayer et al., 2014; Holling and Meffe, 1996).
Many shifting cultivation systems worldwide have
adapted successfully to larger human populations, new
economic demands and the directives of anti-slashand-burn policies and conservation prohibitions. Such
adaptation has taken a large number of pathways, of
which the more active management of fallows has perhaps been the most important. Examples include the
management of rich mixtures of marketable fruits and
fast-growing timbers in Amazonia and the production
of rubber and rattans in Southeast Asia (Sears and
Pinedo-Vasquez, 2004; Cairns, 2007). These adaptations suggest that the sustainability of shifting cultivation systems emerges when it is seen at broader spatial and longer temporal scales: shifting cultivation,
in common with many smallholder-influenced landscapes, is constantly mutable.
As exemplified in the case study in Box 5.2, productive, complex and dynamic landscapes in the Lao
Peoples Democratic Republic and elsewhere, lend flexibility to household economies and contribute to appropriate responses to climatic and economic perturbations.
Programmes of directed change, such as the one promoted by the Lao government, attempt to create distinct
zones for agricultural intensification and forest conservation, but until now have failed to enhance sustainable
resource management or local livelihoods.
5.5 Nutrition-sensitive Landscapes

Nutrition-sensitive approaches to agriculture and food
security are gaining increasing acceptance as an important dimension of global food security policy (Ruel and
Alderman, 2013; Pinstrup-Andersen, 2013), recognising that the ultimate solution to malnutrition lies in the
consumption of sufficient quantities of nutritious foods
(Burchi et al., 2011). While protein and calorie deficiencies are still widespread, the prevalence of micronutrient deficiencies outweighs that of hunger, and should be
The long-term benefits of

shifting agriculture: a case study
from Lao PDR
Box
5.2
An important study (Castella et al., 2013) analysed changes in the patterns of field-forest landscapes that occurred
as environmental and socio-economic change transformed the territories of seven villages in the northern
uplands of the Lao Peoples Democratic Republic over
a period of 40 years. In this region, where a tradition of
shifting cultivation had created intricately-patterned landscapes of forest, fallows and farms, such landscapes are
now being radically altered by policies aimed at increasing forest cover and promoting intensive commercial
farming. Shifting cultivation, with its complex landscapes, is
deliberately being replaced with a land sparing model of
agriculture. This is because the segregation of land uses is
perceived as most efficient for achieving multiple objectives in the context of a growing population, and shifting
cultivation is widely viewed as primitive by government
and other institutions.
Based on extensive field research, however, Castella et al.
(2013) found that by imposing strict boundaries between
agricultural and forest areas, interventions in the name
of land-use planning have had significant negative impacts
on the well-being of rural communities and especially on
their ability to adapt to change. Farm and forest products
that previously were intricately linked at both landscape
and livelihood levels, are now found in specialized places,
managed by specialized households (i.e. the domestication of non-wood forest products) and collected by
specialised traders. The authors argued that this trend
may have negative consequences for the resilience of the
overall landscape as it reduces its biological and socioeconomic diversity and therefore increases vulnerability
to external shocks (Castella et al., 2013).
a public health, food security and agricultural priority

(Allen, 2002). Most of the discourse surrounding nutrition-sensitive approaches focuses on the role of monoculture agriculture, overlooking the role of agroecological systems, wild foods and forests in contributing to
nutrition and dietary adequacy (Powell et al., in press).
Some recent work, however, suggests that the contribution of forests and tree-based agriculture to nutrition in
particular may be substantial (Golden et al., 2011; Ickowitz et al., 2014; also see discussion in Chapter 2).
Malnutrition, including under-nutrition and overnutrition together with the concomitant increases of
non-communicable diseases in poor and middle-income
countries are key developmental and political challenges for donors, governments and smallholders (Frison et
al., 2011). Direct pathways to malnutrition include poor
diet and infection often combined with lifestyle factors,
which are determined by personal factors (e.g. physiology, psychology and knowledge), household factors
(such as quantity, quality, seasonality and use of own
food production, income and education), as well as
broader structural social, cultural, political and environmental factors (such as inequality and access to productive resources, information etc.). Indirect pathways to
malnutrition are important, operating through income,
119
5.6 Landscape Governance
Market sellers at the roadside, Nyimba, Zambia.

120
education, equity and other factors that can have sustained and longer-term impacts.
The best way to address the challenge of under-nutrition and malnutrition is to coordinate activities across different sectors and different levels of scale: a more holistic
systems approach (Frison et al., 2011; Powell et al., in
press). There is a bidirectional link: while landscapes have
an influence on the nutrition and health of the communities that depend on them (Golden et al., 2011; Ickowitz et
al., 2014), the behaviour of people can also have an influence on the very well-being and long-term sustainability
of integrated landscape systems themselves.
A number of landscape level factors lead to insufficient production, sale and use of nutritious food. These
include internal factors such as poor productivity of the
agricultural, aquatic and forestry systems; loss of agricultural biodiversity of the systems; access to markets and
lack of knowledge and awareness on healthy diets (e.g.
Powell et al., 2014); but also external drivers of land use
and landscape change including environmental, institutional, social and political factors. A better understanding
of these factors would help to reduce their impact on food
security and nutrition.
While there is evidence that increased income and improved food security are correlated at the national scale,
evidence is beginning to emerge showing that incomes
from diverse landscapes may be used in a nutritionallysensitive manner (Ickowitz et al., 2014). The interactions
between urban and rural populations have profound implications on livelihoods, markets and wellbeing. The
layers of these relationships need to be understood and
supported when positive, and mitigated when shown to
reduce resilience.
There are diverse uses and understandings across disciplines of the term governance (Kozar et al., 2014). At its
core, the term denotes the inclusion of multiple non-state
actors in deliberating and deciding societys most pressing issues and their solutions, and refers to new spaces
where increasingly complex problems can be solved by
multiple types of actors (Kozar et al., 2014). Landscape
governance is thereby concerned with the institutional
arrangements, decision-making processes, policy instruments and underlying values in the system by which
multiple actors pursue their interests in sustainable food
production, biodiversity and ecosystem service provision
and livelihood security in multifunctional landscapes.
As people living in and around a particular landscape
seek from it a wide range of qualities and benefits, the
divergent values and interests of multiple types of actors
at different levels create new challenges for landscape
governance. Throughout the world, innovative efforts are
being pursued to couple the sustainable governance of
ecological resources and human activity within a common framework. These efforts seek to realise multiple
ecosystem services and livelihood benefits for diverse
stakeholders within the same geographic location. At
the same time, advances in the study of socio-ecological
systems (Liu et al., 2007) and the corresponding practice of integrated landscape governance (FAO, 2005;
Scherr et al., 2013) is rooted in the growing recognition that nature conservation need not necessarily pose a
trade-off with development.
Rather, investments in conservation, restoration and
sustainable ecosystem use are increasingly viewed as potentially synergistic in generating ecological, social and
economic benefits and therefore providing solutions to
the wicked problems identified earlier in this chapter
(de Groot et al., 2010; see also discussion in Chapter 6).
As inhabitants of landscapes and other practitioners
continue to experiment and innovate with the scaling-up
of landscape approaches from their diverse entry points,
emerging institutional issues of multi-level and multiactor governance and their incongruity within administrative and jurisdictional boundaries pose an imminent
challenge to successfully realising multiple outcomes
from multi-functional landscapes.
Consensus across multiple fields, spanning ecological, political and geographical disciplines, concludes that
a core challenge for addressing complex problems bridging social and ecological systems is effective governance
at multiple levels. Yet the inhabitants of landscapes and
other practitioners struggling to implement landscape approaches often focus on one level, whether international,
national, regional or local (Nagendra and Ostrom, 2012).
Multilevel decision-making for the governance of landscapes helps to link actors and address the complex issues
that arise in governing social-ecological systems (Grg,
2007). However, the way in which the issues of scale and
multi-actor governance are conceptualised and the manner in which solutions for viable governance systems are
designed are both emergent and variant.
Effective governance structures in multifunctional

landscapes remain elusive, giving rise to questions such
as: what functions will be located where, what rules determine who has rights to what resources at what time,
and how to enforce those rules. Who decides such questions based on what values, and who is included and excluded from activities and benefits linked to different
functions are also key challenges within the management of complex landscapes.
Decision-making processes that can accommodate
diverse values, interests and knowledge while balancing
the influence and power among different types of actors
can help to formulate a common vision and maintain it in
the face of dynamic socio-ecological change in the landscape. Robust institutions capable of traversing scales and
levels can contribute to providing the mechanisms and incentives by which public, private and civic sector actors
can cooperate to realise their desired outcomes.
Colfer and Pfund (2010) identified recurring issues that are likely to impinge on any efforts to work
collaboratively with tropical forest communities and
landscapes. These include, governmental policies
with complex, diverse and often unpredictable effects,
varying interfaces between customary and formal legal systems, differences in the use and governance of
agricultural production and non-timber forest products
(NTFPs), and the potential even within collaborative
governance for harm (win-win solutions are unlikely
always to be an option and many argue that trade-offs
are the norm) (Giller et al., 2008).
Cattle grazing in Borassus aethiopium savannah, Senegal.

Based on a comparative study of pantropical landscapes, Colfer and Pfund (2010) conclude that there are
six key issues that represent governance constraints at
the landscape scale: 1. the powerful duo of government
and industry (for example, oil palm expansion); 2. risks
linked to national policies (for example, the focus on
men and timber in forest management, without complimentary income-generating and gender-balanced activities); 3. complexities of pluralistic governance (such
as differing relations between hinterland groups and
governments); 4. differences in cultural significance and

governance of NTFPs and other forest products, including differentiation in roles between sexes and among
social groups; 5. discontinuity between national laws
and swidden agroforestry systems; and 6. new potential
dangers for hinterland people from international sources
(such as risks of exclusion linked to international encouragement of proliferation of protected areas).
Most of these issues demonstrate the global variety
and variation over time in contexts, peoples, and regimes governing natural resources. Such diversity and
dynamism reinforces the desirability of: a) strengthening and supporting their involvement in their own
governance and b) tailoring any interventions to the
specificities of any locale. Indeed, implementation
of the latter probably requires the implementation of
the former. Thus formal governmental shortcomings
strengthen the argument for stronger citizen involvement, to serve as monitor and ultimately provide some
constraint on such power.
5.7 Conclusions
The ability to create change in policy and practice in the
context of landscape approaches to land management
is currently impaired by a dearth of scientific evidence.
While there is a growing body of evidence, our understanding of how forests and landscapes with tree cover
contribute to food security and nutrition and the provisioning of healthy and nutritious foods to local and global
food systems remains limited. Greater attention to the
production of and access to nutrient-dense foods is needed in the debate on the respective benefits of land sharing
versus land sparing which has focused to date on the impacts of staple crop yields (one important aspect of food
security) on biodiversity and forest conservation.
Future work on forests, and food security and nutrition should also focus on linking the health of forests and
landscapes to food sovereignty (which encompasses food
security, the right to food and healthy diets, as well as
the right to control over ones own food system (Pimbert,
2009) to help mitigate nutrition transitions while contributing to sustainable management of wildlands. The
concept of food sovereignty has been widely accepted
by many indigenous groups (e.g. http://www.indigenousfoodsystems.org/food-sovereignty), and it is seen as a potential mechanism and argument to enhance greater autonomy of indigenous communities over their local food
and agricultural systems as well as their wider landscapes
and bio-cultural environments.
The need for local food systems is clearly demonstrated by the fact that current global food production is
more than adequate to feed the entire global population,
at least in terms of calories (Stringer, 2000; Chappell and
LaValle, 2011), while more than 800 million people are
undernourished (FAO, 2009). Clearly, producing large
amounts of food in the North is not enough to guarantee
food security in the South. A main reason for this is that
the agricultural production from the North is subject to
121
multiple demands, not only from the food sector, but also
from the livestock (Goodland, 1997) and energy sectors
(OECD-FAO, 2011).
Enhanced food sovereignty will help ensure local people have control over their own diets and are engaged in
efforts to improve the nutritional quality of their diets.
Such community level engagement will be particularly
important for those people facing a nutrition transition
and the burden of malnutrition. Community level engagement with local food and agricultural systems additionally
creates a setting ideal for engaging communities for more
sustainable management of these food and agricultural
systems and the wider landscapes in which they reside.
Although food security is dependent on issues of sustainability, availability, access and utilisation, and not production alone, it is evident that a new agriculture (Steiner,
2011) needs to be found to feed the worlds population both
efficiently and equitably. It needs to produce food where it
is needed i.e. in areas where agriculture is dominated by
small farms (e.g. two thirds of African farms are smaller
than two hectares (Altieri, 2009)) and where negligible
quantities of external inputs are used (agriculture organic
by default, Bennett and Franzel, 2013). Thus, agroecology
(i.e. the application of ecological concepts and principles in
the design of sustainable agricultural systems, Gliessman,
1997) appears well suited to these geographies. As such,
the United Nations (2011) vision of an agro-ecological
approach that combines biodiversity concerns, along with
food production demands, provides a more compelling vision of future food production.
The integration of biodiversity conservation and agricultural production goals must be a first step, whether
through land sharing or land sparing, or a more nuanced,
yet complex, multi-functional integrated landscape
122
approach. However, conservation and restoration in human dominated ecosystems must strengthen connections
between agriculture and biodiversity (Novacek and Cleland, 2001). In such landscapes, characterised by impoverished biodiversity and in particular defaunated,
depopulated of their medium and large size vertebrates
(Galetti and Dirzo, 2013), agriculture may represent an
opportunity, and not necessarily a threat, for conservation
and ecosystem restoration. When native large vertebrates
are lost, several ecological functions such as the maintenance of habitat heterogeneity, nutrient cycling and seed
dispersion are impaired (Owen-Smith, 1988; Hansen and
Galetti, 2009). Domestic livestock may mimic ecosystem
functions once provided by wild herbivores (Wright et al.,
2012), and restore the ecological integrity of landscape
mosaics. In extreme cases, domestic livestock has been
used to restore biodiversity and ecosystem functions of
landscapes that previously lost large native vertebrates,
most famously in the Oostvaardersplassen in the Netherlands (Vera, 2009).
Managing landscapes on a multi-functional basis that
combines food production, biodiversity conservation
and the maintenance of ecosystem services should be at
the forefront of efforts to achieve food security (Godfray, 2011). In order for this to happen, knowledge from
biodiversity science and agricultural research and development need to be integrated through a systems approach at
a landscape scale. This provides a unique opportunity for
forestry and agricultural research organisations to coordinate efforts at the conceptual and implementation levels
to achieve more sustainable agricultural systems. As such,
a clear programme of work on managing landscapes and
ecosystems for biodiversity conservation, agriculture, food
security and nutrition should be central to development aid.
References
Agrawal, A., Cashore, B., Hardin, R., Shepherd, G., Benson,
C. and Miller, D., 2013. Economic contributions of forests.
Background Paper 1, United Nations Forum on Forests
(UNFF), 10th Session, Istanbul, Turkey. Available at: http://
www.un.org/esa/forests/pdf/session_documents/unff10/
EcoContrForests.pdf [Accessed on 22 February 2015].
Allen, L. H., 2002. Iron supplements: scientific issues concerning
efficacy and implications for research and programs. The
Journal of Nutrition 132: 813S-819S.
Altieri, M.A., 2009. Agroecology, small farms, and food
sovereignty. Monthly Review 61: 102-113.
Angelsen, A., 2010. Policies for reduced deforestation and
their impact on agricultural production. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the USA 107: 1963919644.
Balmford, A., Green, R. and Phalan, B., 2012. What
conservationists need to know about farming. Proceedings of
the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 279: 27142724.
Balmford, A., Green, R.E. and Scharlemann, J.P.W., 2005. Sparing
land for nature: exploring the potential impact of changes
in agricultural yield on the area needed for crop production.
Global Change Biology 11: 15941605.
Bandara, J.M.R.S., Wijewardena, H.V.P., Liyanege, J., Upul, M.A.
and Bandara, J.M.U.A., 2010. Chronic renal failure in Sri
Lanka caused by elevated dietary cadmium: trojan horse of the
green revolution. Toxicology Letters 198: 33-39.
Barthel, S., Crumley, C. and Svedin, U., 2013. Bio-cultural
refugiasafeguarding diversity of practices for food security
and biodiversity. Global Environmental Change 23: 1142
1152.
Baudron, F. and Giller, K.E., 2014. Agriculture and nature:
trouble and strife? Biological Conservation 170: 232245.
Barnosky A.D., Matzke, N., Tomiya, S., Wogan, G.O.U., Swartz,
B., Quental, T.B., Marshall, C., McGuire, J.L., Lindsey, E.L.,
Maguire, K.C., Mersey, B. and Ferrer, E.A. 2011. Has the
Earths sixth mass extinction already arrived? Nature 471:
51-57.
Bennett, M. and Franzel, S., 2013. Can organic and resourceconserving agriculture improve livelihoods? A synthesis.
International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 11 (3):
193-215.
Benton, T. G., Vickery, J.A. and Wilson, J.D., 2003. Farmland
biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends in
Ecology & Evolution 18: 182188.
Blitzer, E.J., Dormann, C.F., Holzschuh, A., Klein, A.M., Rand,
T.A. and Tscharntke, T., 2012. Spillover of functionally
important organisms between managed and natural habitats.
Agriculture Ecosystem and Environment 146: 3443.
Bolwig, S., Pomeroy, D., Tushabe, H. and Mushabe, D., 2006.
Crops, trees, and birds: biodiversity change under agricultural
intensification in Ugandas farmed landscapes. Geografisk
Tidsskrift, Danish Journal of Geography 106(2): 115130.
Brockington, D. and Igoe, J., 2006 Eviction for conservation: a
global overview. Conservation and Society 4: 424.
Brussaard, L., Caron, P., Campbell, B., Lipper, L., Mainka,
S., Rabbinge, R., Babin, D. and Pulleman, M., 2010.
Reconciling biodiversity conservation and food security:
scientific challenges for a new agriculture. Current Opinion in
Environmental Sustainability 2(1): 34-42.
Burchi, F., Fanzo, J. and Frison, E., 2011.The role of food and
nutrition system approaches in tackling hidden hunger.Int.
J. Environ. Res. Public Health8:358373 10.3390/
ijerph8020358
Cairns, M. (ed.), 2007. Voices from the forest: Integrating
indigenous knowledge into sustainable upland farming.
Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
Carrasco, R., T. Nghiem, R.A. Chisholm, T. Sunderland and

Koh, L.P., 2014. Mapping ecosystem service values in
tropical forests: a spatially explicit regression meta-analysis.
Biological Conservation 178: 163-170.
Cassman, K.G., Dobermann, A., Walters D.T. and Yang, H., 2003.
Meeting cereal demand while protecting natural resources and
improving environmental quality. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour.
28: 315-358.
Castella, J.-C., Lestrelin, G., Hett, C., Bourgoin, J., Fitriana, Y.R.,
Heinimann, A. and Pfund, J.-L., 2013. Effects of landscape
segregation on livelihood vulnerability: Moving from
extensive shifting cultivation to rotational agriculture and
natural forests in Northern Laos. Human Ecology 41(1):63
76. dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10745-012-9538-8
Chappell, M.J., Wittman, H., Bacon, C.M., Ferguson, B.G.,
Barrios, L.G., Barrios, R.G., Jaffee, D., Lima, J., Mndez,
V.E., Morales, H., Soto-Pinto, L., Vandermeer, J. and Perfecto,
I., 2013. Food sovereignty: an alternative paradigm for poverty
reduction and biodiversity conservation in Latin America.
F1000Research 2:235.
Chappell, M.J. and LaValle, L.A., 2009. Food security and
biodiversity: can we have both? An agroecological analysis.
Agriculture and Human Values 28: 326.
Clough, Y., Barkmann, Y., Juhrbandt, J., Kessler, M., Cherico
Wanger, T., Anshary, A., Buchori, D., Cicuzza, D., Darras,
K., Dwi Putrak, D., Erasmi, S., Pitopang, R., Schmidt, C.,
Schulze, C.H., Seidel, D., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Stenchly, K.,
Vidal, S., Weist, M., Christian Wielgoss, A. and Tscharntke,
T., 2011. Combining high biodiversity with high yields in
tropical agroforests. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the USA 108: 83118316.
Colfer, C. and Pfund, J.-L. (eds.), 2010. Collaborative
Governance of Tropical Landscapes. London: Earthscan.
Conway, G., 1997. The Doubly Green Revolution: Food for All
in the Twenty-First Century. Ithaca, New York: Comstock
Publishing Associates.
Cordell, D., Drangert, J.-O. and White, S., 2009. The story of
phosphorus: global food security and food for thought. Global
Environmental Change 19: 292-305.
Corson, C., 2011 Territorialization, enclosure and neoliberalism:
non-state influence in struggles over Madagascars forests.
Journal of Peasant Studies 38: 703726.
Cumming, G., Buerkert, A., Hoffman, E., Schlect, E., von
Cramon-Taubadel, S. and Tsharntke, T., 2014. Implications
of agricultural transitions and urbanization for ecosystem
services. Nature 515: 50-57.
Day, J. W. Jr., Hall, C. A., Yez-Arancibia, A. and Pimentel, D.,
2009. Ecology in times of scarcity. BioScience 59: 321-331.
DeFries, R. and Rosenzweig, C., 2010. Toward a whole-landscape
approach for sustainable land use in the tropics. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA. 107(46):
19627-19632.
De Groot, R. S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L. and Willemen,
L., 2010. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem
services and values in landscape planning, management and
decision making. Ecological Complexity 7(3): 260272.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.10.006
Didham, R.K., Barker, G.M., Bartlam, S., Deakin, E.L.,
Denmead, L.H., Fisk, L.M., Peters, J.M., Tylianakis, J.M.,
Wright, H.R. and Schipper, L.A., 2015. Agricultural
intensification exacerbates spillover effects on soil
biogeochemistry in adjacent forest remnants. PLoS ONE
10(1): e0116474. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0116474.
Didham, R. K., Barker, G.M., Costall, J.A., Denmead, L.H.,
Floyd, C.G. and Watts, C.H., 2009. The interactive effects
of livestock exclusion and mammalian pest control on the
restoration of invertebrate communities in small forest
remnants. New Zealand Journal of Zoology 36:135163.
123
Dor, T., Makowski, D., Malzieux, E., Munier-Jolain, N.,

Tchamitchian, M. and Tittonell, P., 2011. Facing up to the
paradigm of ecological intensification in agronomy: revisiting
methods, concepts and knowledge. European Journal of
Agronomy 34: 197-210.
Giller, K. E., Leeuwis, C., Andersson, J.A., Andriesse, W.,

Brouwer, A., Frost, P., Hebinck, P., Heitknig, I., Van Ittersum,
M. K. and Koning, N., 2008. Competing claims on natural
resources: what role for science. Ecology and Society 13(2):
34.
Duncan, D. H., Dorrough, J., White, M. and Moxham, C.,

2008. Blowing in the wind? Nutrient enrichment of remnant
woodlands in an agricultural landscape. Landscape Ecology
23: 107119.
Gliessman, S.R., 1997. Agroecology: Ecological Processes in

Sustainable Agriculture. New York: CRC Press, Taylor &
Francis.
Edwards, D.P., Gilroy, J.J., Woodcock, P., Edwards, F.A., Larsen,

T.H., Andrews, D.J.R., Derh, M.A., Docherty, T.D.S., Hsu,
W.W., Mitchell, S.L., Ota, T., Williams, L.J., Laurance,
W.F., Hamer, K.C. and Wilcove, D.S., 2014. Land-sharing
versus land-sparing logging: reconciling timber extraction
with biodiversity conservation. Global Change Biology 20:
183191.
Ellis, A., Myers, S. and Ricketts. T., 2015. Do pollinators
contribute to nutritional health? PLoS One 10(1): e114805.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0114805.
Ellis, E., Goldewijk, K., Siebert, S., Lightman, D. and
Ramankutty, N., 2010. Anthropogenic transformation of the
biomes, 1700-2000. Global Ecology and Biogeography 19:
589-606.
Elmqvist, T., Folke, C., Nystrm, M., Peterson, G., Bengtsson,
J., Walker, B. and Norberg, J., 2003. Response diversity,
ecosystem change, and resilience. Frontiers in Ecology and
the Environment 1: 488494.
Ewers, R., Scharlemann, J., Balmford, A. and Green, R., 2009. Do
increases in agricultural yield spare land for nature? Global
Change Biology 15: 1715-1726.
Fairhead, J. and Leach, M., 1996. Misreading the African
landscape: society and ecology in a forest savanna mosaic.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
FAO, 2012. Roles of forests in climate change. Rome:
FAO. Available at: http://www.fao.org/forestry/
climatechange/53459/en/ [Accessed 17 August 2014].
FAO, 2009. The State of Food Insecurity in the World. Economic
crisesimpacts and lessons learned. Rome: FAO.
FAO, 2005. An Approach to Rural Development: Participatory
and Negotiated Territorial Development (PNTD). Rome: FAO.
Fewtrell, L., 2004. Drinking-water nitrate, methemoglobinemia,
and global burden of disease: a discussion. Environmental
Perspective 112: 1371-1374.
Fischer, J., Abson, D.J., Butsic, V., Chappell, M.J., Ekroos, J.,
Hanspach, J., Kuemmerle, T., Smith, H.G. and von Wehrden,
H., 2014. Land sparing versus land sharing: moving forward.
Conservation Letters 7: 149157.
Fischer, J., Lindenmayer, D.B. and Manning, A.D., 2006.
Biodiversity, ecosystem function, and resilience: ten guiding
principles for commodity production landscapes. Frontiers in
Ecology and the Environment 4(2): 80-86.
Foli, S., Reed, J., Clendenning, J., Petrokofsky, G., Padoch, C. and
Sunderland, T., 2014. Exploring the dynamics between forests,
ecosystem services and food production: a systematic review
protocol. Environmental Evidence. Available at: http://www.
environmentalevidencejournal.org/content/3/1/15.
Frison, E., Cherfas, J. and Hodgkin, T., 2011. Agricultural
biodiversity is essential for a sustainable improvement in food
and nutritional security. Sustainability 3: 238-253.
Galetti, M. and Dirzo, R., 2013. Ecological and evolutionary
consequences of living in a defaunated world. Biological
Conservation 163: 1-6.
Garnett, T., Appleby, M., Balmford, A., Bateman, I., Benton,
T., Bloomer, P. Burlingame, B., Dawkins, M., Dolan, L.,
Fraser, D., Herroro, M., Hoffman, I. Smith, P., Thornton, P.,
Toulmin, C., Vermeulen, S. and Godfray, C., 2013. Sustainable
intensification in agriculture: Premises and policies. Science
341: 33-34.
124
Godfray, C.J. 2011. Food and biodiversity. Science 333: 12312132.

Godfray, H.C.J., Beddington, J.R., Crute, I.R., Haddad, L.,
Lawrence, D., Muir, J.F., Pretty, J., Robinson, S., Thomas,
S.M. and Toulmin, C., 2010. Food security: the challenge of
feeding 9 billion people. Science 327: 812818.
Golden, C., Fernald, L., Brashares, J., Rasolofoniaina, B. and
Kremen, C., 2011. Benefits of wildlife consumption to child
nutrition in a biodiversity hotspot. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the USA. 108(49): 1965319656
Goodland, R., 1997. Environmental sustainability in agriculture:
diet matters. Ecological Economics 23: 189200.
Grg, C., 2007. Landscape Governance: The politics of scale
and the natural conditions of places. Geoforum 38(5):
95466.
Grau, R., Kuemmerle, T. and 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: 477483.
Green, R.E., Cornell, S.J., Scharlemann, J.P.W. and Balmford,
A. 2005. Farming and the fate of wild nature. Science 307:
550555.
Hansen, D.M. and Galetti, M., 2009. The forgotten megafauna.
Science 324: 4243.
Holling, C.S. and Meffe, G.K., 1996. Command and control and
the pathology of natural resource management. Conservation
Biology 10: 328337.
Hulme, M.F., Vickery, J.A., Green, R.E., Phalan B., Chamberlain,
D.E., Pomeroy, D.E., Nalwanga, D., Mushabe, D., Katebaka,
R., Bolwig, S. and Atkinson, P.W., 2013. Conserving the Birds
of Ugandas Banana-Coffee Arc: Land Sparing and Land
Sharing Compared. PLoS ONE 8(2): e54597. doi:10.1371/
journal.pone.0054597
Ickowitz, A., Powell, B., Salim, A., and Sunderland, T., 2014.
Change 24: 287294. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.
com/science/article/pii/S0959378013002318.
Jackson, L.E., Pascual, U. and Hodgkin, T. 2007 Utilizing and
conserving agrobiodiversity in agricultural landscapes.
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 121: 196210.
Johns, T. and Eyzaguirre, P., 2006. Linking biodiversity, diet and
health in policy and practice. Proceedings of the Nutrition
Society 65: 182-189.
Khoury, C., Bkorkman, A., Dempewolf, H., Rimirez-Villegas,
J., Guarino, L., Jarvis, A., Rieseberg, L. and Struik, P., 2014.
Increasing homogeneity in global food supplies and the
implications for food security. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Science of the USA 111(11): 4001-4006. doi:
10.1073/pnas.1313490111.
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. and Verhulst, J.,
2009. On the relationship between farmland biodiversity and
land-use intensity in Europe. Proceedings of the Royal Society
B: Biological Sciences 276:903909.
Kleijn, D., Baquero, R.A., Clough, Y., Daz, M., De Esteban, J.,
Fernndez, F., Gabriel, D., Herzog, F., Holzschuh, A., Jhl,
R., Knop, E., Kruess, A., Marshall, E.J., Steffan-Dewenter, I.,
Tscharntke, T., Verhulst, J., West, T.M. and Yela, J.L., 2006.
Mixed biodiversity benefits of agri-environment schemes in
five European countries. Ecology Letters 9: 243254.
Klein, A.-M., Vaissire, B.E., Cane, J.H., Steffan-Dewenter, I.,

274: 303313.
Knoke, T., Calvas, B., Aguirre, N., Romn-Cuesta, R.M., Gnter,
S., Stimm, B., Weber, M. and Mosandl, R., 2009. Can tropical
farmers reconcile subsistence needs with forest conservation?
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7: 548554.
Kozar, R., Buck, L.E., Barrow, E.G., Sunderland, T.C.H.,
Catacutan, D.E., Planicka, C., Hart, A.K., and Willemen,
L., 2014. Toward Viable Landscape Governance Systems:
What Works? Washington, DC: EcoAgriculture Partners,
on behalf of the Landscapes for People, Food, and Nature
Initiative. Available at: http://peoplefoodandnature.org/wpcontent/uploads/sites/4/2014/06/Toward-Viable-LandscapeGovernance-Systems-What-Works.pdf [Accessed on 22
February 2015].
Lambin, E., 2012. Global land availability: Malthus versus
Ricardo. Global Food Security 1: 83-87.
Lambin, E.F. and Meyfroidt, P., 2011. Global land use change,
economic globalization, and the looming land scarcity.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the USA
108: 34653472.
Laurance, W.F., Sayer, J. and Cassman, K.G., 2014. Agricultural
expansion and its impacts on tropical nature. Trends in
Ecology and Evolution 29: 107116.
Leader-Williams, N., Adams, W.M. and Smith, R.J., 2011. Tradeoffs in Conservation: Deciding What to Save. Oxford: John
Wiley and Sons.
Lindenmayer, D., Hobbs, J.R., Montague Drake, R., Alexandra,
J., Bennett, A., Burgman, M., Cale, P., Calhoun, A., Cramer, V.
and Cullen, P., 2008. A checklist for ecological management
of landscapes for conservation. Ecology Letters 11(1): 78-91.
Liu, J., Dietz, T., Carpenter, S. R., Alberti, M., Folke, C., Moran,
E., Pell, A.N., Deadman, P., Kratz, T., Lubchenco, J., Ostrom,
E., Ouyang, Z., Provencher, W., Redman, C.L., Schneider,
S.H. and Taylor, W.W., 2007.Complexity of coupled human
and natural systems. Science 317 (5844): 15131516.
Loeuille, N., Barot, S., Goergelon, E., Kylafis, G. and Lavigne,
C., 2013. Eco-evolutionary dynamics of agricultral networks
for sustainable management. Advances in Ecological Research
49: 339-435.
Mackenzie, C.A. and Ahabyona, P., 2012. Elephants in the
garden: Financial and social costs of crop raiding. Ecological
Economics 75: 7282.
Matson, P.A. and Vitousek, P.M., 2006. Agricultural
intensification: will land spared from farming be land spared
for nature? Conservation Biology 20: 709710.
MEA, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Biodiversity
Synthesis. World Resources Institute: Washington, DC.
McLaughlin, D., 2011. Land, food and biodiversity. Conservation
Biology 6: 1117-1120.
McShane, T.O., Hirsch, P.D., Trung, T.C., Songorwa, A.N.,
Kinzig, A., Monteferri, B., Mutekanga, D., Thang, H.V.,
Dammert, J.L., Pulgar-Vidal, M., Welch-Devine, M., Brosius,
J.P., Coppolillo, P. and OConnor, S., 2011. Hard choices:
making trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and
human well-being. Biological Conservation 144: 966972.
Mendenhall, C.D., Archer, H.M., Brenes, F.O., Sekercioglu,
C.H. and Sehgal, R.N.M., 2013. Balancing biodiversity with
agriculture: land sharing mitigates avian malaria prevalence.
Milder, J. C., Buck, L.E., DeClerck, F. and Scherr, S.J., 2012.
Landscape Approaches to Achieving Food Production, Natural
Resource Conservation, and The Millennium Development
Goals. In: Integrating Ecology and Poverty Reduction, edited
by J.C. Ingram, F. De Clerck and C. Rumbaitis del Rio. New
York: Springer, 77-108.
Mittal, S., 2012. Modern ICT for Agricultural Development

and Risk Management in Smallholder Agriculture in India.
CIMMYT, Socioeconomics Working Paper no. 3. Mexico:
International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center.
Mittal, S., Gandhi, S. and Tripathi, G., 2010. Socio-economic
Impact of Mobile Phone on Indian Agriculture. ICRIER
Working Paper no. 246. New Dehli: International Council for
Research on International Economic Relations.
Myers, N., Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G., da Fonseca,
G.A.B. and Kent, J., 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for
conservation priorities. Nature 403: 853858.
Nagendra, H. and Ostrom, E., 2012.Polycentric governance
of forest resources. International Journal of the Commons
6: 104-133.
Naidoo, R., Balmford, A., Ferraro, P.J., Polasky, S., Ricketts,
T.H. and Rouget, M., 2006. Integrating economic costs into
conservation planning. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 21:
681687.
NASA website. Soil Moisture Active Passive. Available at: smap.
jpl.nasa.gov. [Accessed on 20 January 2015].
Naveh, Z., 2001. Ten major premises for a holistic conception of
multifunctional landscapes. Landscape and Urban planning
57(3): 269-284.
Newbold, T., Huson, L., Phillips, H., Hill, S., Contu, S., Lysenko,
I., Blandon, A., Butchart, S., Booth, H., Day, J., de Palma,
A., Harrison. M., Kirkpatrick, L., Pynegar, E., Robinson, A.,
Simpson, J., Mace, G., Scharlemann, J. and Purvis, A., 2014.
A global model of the response of tropical and sub-tropical
biodiversity to anthropogenic pressures. Proceedings of the
Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 281: 20141371.
Novacek, M. J. and Cleland, E. E.,2001.The current biodiversity
extinction event: scenarios for mitigation and recovery.PNAS
USA98:54665470.
OECD/FAO, 2011. OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2011-2020.
Paris: OECD Publishing. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/
agr_outlook-2011-en.
Owen-Smith, N., 1988. Megaherbivores; The Influence of
Very Large Body Size on Ecology. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Padoch, C. and Sunderland. T., 2014. Managing landscapes for
food security and enhanced livelihoods: building upon a
wealth of local experience. Unasylva 241(64) Available at:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/019/i3482e/i3482e01.pdf.
Parmesan, C. and Yohe, G., 2003. A globally coherent fingerprint
of climate change impacts across natural ecosystems. Nature
421: 3742.
Perfecto, I. and 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: 57865791.
Perfecto, I. and Vandermeer, J. 2008. Biodiversity conservation in
tropical agroecosystems: a new conservation paradigm. Annals
of the New York Academy of Sciences 1134: 173200.
Phalan, B., Onial, M., Balmford, A. and Green, R.E., 2011.
Reconciling food production and biodiversity conservation:
land sharing and land sparing compared. Science 333:
12891291.
Phelps, J., Carrasco, R., Webb, E., Koh, L.P. and Pascual,
U., 2013. Agricultural intensification escalates future
conservation costs. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the USA 10(19): 76017606.
Pimbert, M.P., 2009. Towards Food Sovereignty. Reclaiming
autonomous food systems. London: IIED. An E-book available
at http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/14585IIED.pdf [Accessed on 26
February 2015].
Pinstrup-Andersen, P., 2013. Can Agriculture Meet Future
Nutrition Challenges? Special Debate Section.European
Journal of Development Research 25(1): 5-12.
125
Pirard, R. and Treyer, S., 2010. Agriculture and deforestation:

What role should REDD+ and public support policies play?
Working Papers N10/2010. IDDRI. Available at: http://www.
iddri.org/publications/agriculture-and-deforestation-what-roleshould-redd+-and-public-support-policies-play [Accessed on
22 February 2015].
Polasky, S., Nelson, E., Camm, J., Csuti, B., Fackler, P., Lonsdorf,
E., Montgomery, C., White, D., Arthur, J., Garber-Yonts, B.,
Haight, R., Kagan, J., Starfield, A., and Tobalske, C., 2008.
Where to put things? Spatial land management to sustain
biodiversity and economic returns. Biological Conservation
141: 15051524.
Powell, B., Ickowitz, A., Termote, C., Thilsted, S., Sunderland, T.
and Herforth, A., [in press] Strategies to improve diets with
wild and cultivated biodiversity from across the landscape.
Food Security.
Powell, B., Ouarghidi, A., Johns, T., Tattou, M.I. and Eyzaguirre,
P., 2014. Wild leafy vegetable use and knowledge across
multiple sites in Morocco: a case study for transmission of
local knowledge? Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
10:34.
Powell, B., Ickowitz, A., McMullin, S., Jamnadass, R., Padoch,
C., Pinedo-Vasquez, M. and Sunderland, T., 2013. The role
of forests, tress and wild biodiversity for nutrition-sensitive
food systems and landscapes. Expert background paper for the
International Conference on Nutrition 2. Rome: FAO.
Pretty, J. and Barucha, Z.P., 2014. Sustainable intensification
in agricultural systems. Annals of Botany doi:10.1093/aob/
mcu205.
Reed, J., Deakin, L. and Sunderland, T., 2015. Integrated
Landscape Approaches: a systematic map of the evidence.
Environmental Evidence 4:2. Available at: http://www.
environmentalevidencejournal.org/content/4/1/2/abstract.
Rittel, H. W. and Webber, M.M., 1973. Planning Problems are
Wicked. Polity 4: 155-169.
Rojas-Ruiz, J. and Diofasi, A., 2014. Upwardly Mobile: How
Cell Phones are Improving Food and Nutrition Security. The
Hunger and Undernutrition Blog. Available at: http://www.
hunger-undernutrition.org/blog/2014/04/upwardly-mobilehow-cell-phones-are-improving-food-and-nutrition-security.
html. [Accessed on 20 January 2015].
Ruel, M., and Alderman, H., 2013. Nutrition-Sensitive
Interventions and Programs: How Can They Help Accelerate
Progress in Improving Maternal and Child Nutrition? The
Lancet 382 (9891): 536551.
Sears, R.R., and Pinedo-Vasquez, M., 2004. Axing the trees,

growing the forest: smallholder timber production on the
Amazon varzea. In: Working Forests in the American Tropics:
Conservation through sustainable management? Edited by D.
Zarin, J. Alavalapatti, F.E. Putz and M.C. Schmink. New York:
Columbia University Press, 258-275.
Seto, K.C., Reenberg, A., Boone, C.G., Fragkias, M., Haase,
D., Langanke, T., Marcotullio, P., Munroe, D.K., Olah,
B. and Simon, D., 2012 Urban land teleconnections and
sustainability. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the USA 109(2): 7687-7692. doi: 10.1073/
pnas.1117622109.
Steiner, A., 2011. Conservation and farming must learn to live
together. New Scientist. Available at: http://www.newscientist.
com/article/mg21028085.100-conservation-and-farmingmust-learn-to-live-together.html#.VOz9l7OsUT8 [Accessed
on 26 February 2015].
Stockholm Resilience Centre, 2014. What is Resilience? Available
at: http://www.stockholmresilience.org/21/research/what-isresilience.html. [Accessed 14 August 2014].
Strassburg, B.B.N., Latawiec, A.E., Barioni, L.G., Nobre, C.A.,
da Silva, V.P., Valentim, J.F., Vianna, M. and 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: 8497.
Stringer, R. 2000. Food Security in Developing Countries. Policy
Discussion Paper No. 11. Adelaide, Australia: Centre for
International Economic Studies, University of Adelaide.
Sunderland, T.C.H., Powell, B., Ickowitz, A., Foli, S., PinedoVasquez, M., Nasi, R. and Padoch, C., 2013. Food security
and nutrition: the role of forests. Discussion Paper. Bogor,
Indonesia: CIFOR. Available at: http://www.cifor.org/onlinelibrary/browse/view-publication/publication/4103.html
Sunderland, T.C.H., 2011. Food security: why is biodiversity
important? International Forestry Review 13(3): 265-274.
Sunderland, T.C.H., Ehringhaus, C. and Campbell, B.M., 2008.
Conservation and development in tropical forest landscapes:
a time to face the trade-offs? Environmental Conservation
34(4): 276-279.
Swinnen, J. and Squicciarini, P., 2012. Mixed messages on prices
and food security. Science 335: 405-406.
Sayer, J., Margules, C., Boedhihartono, A.K., Dale, A. and

Sunderland, T., 2014. Landscape approaches: what are the preconditions for success? Sustainability Science. DOI 10.1007/
s11625-014-0281-5.
Thrupp, L.A., 2000. Linking agricultural biodiversity and food

security: the valuable role of agrobiodiversity for sustainable
agriculture. International Affairs 76: 283297.
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. and 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 of the USA. 110(21): 83458348. Available at: http://www.pnas.org/content/110/21/8349.
full.pdf.
Tilman, D., Balzer, C., Hill, J. and Befort, B., 2011. Global food
demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 108(50):
20260-20264.
Shackelford, G., Steward, P., German, R., Sait, S. and Benton,

T., 2015. Conservation planning in agricultural landscapes:
hotspots of conflict between agriculture and nature. Diversity
and Distributions [early on-line publication]
Scherr, S. J. and McNeely, J.A., 2008. Biodiversity conservation
and agricultural sustainability: towards a new paradigm of
ecoagriculture landscapes. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 363(1491): 477-494.
126
Scott, J., 1999. Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to

Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.
Scherr, S., Shames, S. and Friedman, R., 2013. Defining

Integrated Landscape Management for Policy Makers.
Washington, DC: Ecoagriculture Partners. Available at:
http://www.ecoagriculture.org/documents/files/doc_547.pdf
Tilman, D. and Clark, M., 2014. Global diets link environmental

sustainability and human health. Nature 515: 518-522.
Tscharntke, T., Clough, Y., Wanger, T.C., Jackson, L., Motzke, I.,
Perfecto, I., Vandermeer, J. and Whitbread, A., 2012. Global
food security, biodiversity conservation and the future of
agricultural intensification. Biol. Conserv. 151: 5359.
Tscharntke, T., Klein, A.M., Kruess, A., Steffan-Dewenter, I.
and Thies, C., 2005. Landscape perspectives on agricultural
intensification and biodiversity ecosystem service
management. Ecology Letters 8: 857874.
United Nations, 2011. Report submitted by the Special
Rapporteur on the right to food, Olivier De Schutter.
Available at: http://www.srfood.org/images/stories/pdf/
officialreports/20110308_a-hrc-16-49_agroecology_en.pdf
Vera, F., 2000. Grazing Ecology and Forest History. West
Berkshire, UK: CABI Publishing.
Vera, F., 2009. Large-scale nature development the

Oostvaardersplassen. British Wildlife 20(5): 28-36.
Wallace, J.S., 2000. Increasing agricultural water use efficiency
to meet future food production. Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Environment 82: 105-119.
West, P., Igoe, J. and Brockington, D., 2006. Parks and Peoples:
The social impact of protected areas. Annual Review of
Anthropology 35: 251277.
Wikramanayake, E. D., Hathurusinghe, H. S., Janaka, H.
K., Jayasinghe, L. K. A., Fernando, R., Weerakoon, D.
K. and Gunawardene, M. D., 2004. The human-elephant
conflict in Sri Lanka: lessons for mitigation, management
and conservation from traditional land-use patterns. In:
Endangered elephants: past, present, and future: Symposium
on Human-Elephant Relationships and Conflicts, Sri
Lanka, September 2003 (p. 164). Biodiversity and Elephant
Conservation Trust.
Wright, H.L., Lake, I.R. and Dolman, P.M., 2012. Agriculture
a key element for conservation in the developing world.
Young, H.S., McCauley, D.J., Dunbar, R.B. and Dirzo, R., 2010.
Plant cause ecosystem nutrient depletion via the interruption
of bird-derived spatial subsidies. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the USA 107: 2072-2077.
127
Chapter 6
Public Sector, Private Sector and
Socio-Cultural Response Options
Coordinating lead author: Henry Neufeldt
Lead authors: Pablo Pacheco, Hemant R. Ojha,
Sarah Ayeri Ogalleh, Jason Donovan and Lisa Fuchs
Contributing authors: Daniela Kleinschmit, Patti Kristjanson,
Godwin Kowero, Vincent O. Oeba and Bronwen Powell
CONTENTS
Abstract130
6.1 Introduction
130
6.2 Governance Responses to Enhance Linkages between Forests and

Tree-based Systems and Food Security and Nutrition
131
6.2.1 Introduction
131
6.2.2 Reforms Related to Tenure and Resource Rights
131
6.2.3 Decentralisation and Community Participation in Forest Management
133
6.2.4 Regulating Markets
134
6.2.5 Catalysing Governance Reform
135
6.3 Private Sector-driven Initiatives for Enhancing Governance in Food Systems
136
6.3.1 Introduction
136
6.3.2 The Challenges of Sustainability and Inclusiveness in Food Supply
137
6.3.3 Global Initiatives to Support Sustainable Finance and Supply
137
6.3.4 Emerging Corporate Sustainability Initiatives
139
6.3.5 Hybrid Models for Sustainable and Inclusive Supply
140
6.4 Socio-Cultural Response Options
142
6.4.1 Introduction
142
6.4.2 Changing Urban Demand
142
6.4.3 Behaviour Change and Education to Improve Dietary Choices
143
6.4.4 Reducing Inequalities and Promoting Gender-responsive Interventions and Policies
143
6.4.5 Social Mobilisation for Food Security
144
6.5 Conclusions
146
References147
129
6 PUBLIC SECTOR, PRIVATE SECTOR AND SOCIO-CULTURAL RESPONSE OPTIONS
Abstract: This chapter focuses on political, economic and social response options at national to supranational scales to drivers of unsustainable management of forests and tree-based landscapes and their effects
on food security and nutrition. Three different angles are considered: a) policy responses to enhance linkages between food security and forests with a focus on setting up the right institutional and governance
structures and addressing the important issue of forest tenure reform; b) market-based response options
that focus on global processes for supporting sustainable supply, and innovative corporate and multi-actor
initiatives to support inclusive value chains of forest and tree products; and c) socio-cultural response
options to enhance food security where the focus is on: changing urban demand; education to change behaviour and improve dietary choices; reducing inequalities and promoting gender-responsive interventions;
and social mobilisation for food security.
For the public sector, a central governance issue is how and to what extent policy and regulatory frameworks help ensure that the most vulnerable groups, in particular the poorest members of society and
women, have equitable access and rights to food security and nutrition from forests and tree-based systems. To this end, it is important to include relevant actors, from local communities to government departments, and initiate tenurial reform, devolution of decision-making to sub-national levels and a strengthening
of institutional capacity at local levels.
For the private sector, sustainability standards supported by multi-stakeholder processes, complement
policy frameworks and offer opportunities for change on the ground, particularly if these can include smallholders. In addition, pledges by corporate actors to zero deforestation and sustainable supply will likely
have significant influence in shaping future production practices and business models if they include benefits
for smallholder rural populations. Co-regulatory approaches that involve both public and private sector
actors to achieve more inclusive food systems through innovations and greater valuation of local practices,
management systems and knowledge, may in the future further enhance the governance of food systems.
At the level of social responses, education plays a pivotal role in empowering rural populations and has
the potential to generate tangible benefits for households and communities in achieving food security and
nutrition, sustainable forest and landscape management, and improved health. Targeting women and other
vulnerable groups is particularly important to enable greater inclusiveness in decision-making and benefit
sharing in forests and tree-based systems. Behavioural change that is often driven by social movements
toward the consumption of food with lower environmental impact, particularly in growing urban areas, can
have significant positive impacts on rural populations if the value chains necessary to meet the demand are
set up to include smallholders and marginalised groups.
6.1 Introduction
Food security1 has become a matter of global concern,
in particular since the last food price spikes in 2008 and
2010 (Beddington et al., 2012). FAO projections suggest
that food production must rise by 60 percent by 2050 if
a growing and increasingly more affluent population of
over 9 billion is to be fed (Alexandratos and Bruinsma,
2012). At the same time, our environmental footprint
which is leading to large scale soil degradation, deforestation, loss of biodiversity, crop varieties and ecosystem services, must be reduced as our current mode of
operation is inconsistent with the planets long-term provisioning capacity (IAASTD, 2009). All current trajectories imply that humanity is moving farther away from
safe spaces (Rockstrm et al., 2009). Climate change is
further compounding the challenge, for instance by undermining gains in crop productivity through increased
floods and droughts, but also through longer-term shifts
in temperature and rainfall distribution (IPCC, 2014;
Nelson et al., 2010). This highlights the need for more
sustainable agricultural methods for food production
130
while knowledge gaps regarding trade-offs arising from

competing economic and environmental goals, and key
biological, biogeochemical and ecological processes
involved in more sustainable food production systems
remain (Tilman et al., 2002).
There is now growing recognition for the urgent need
to act more decisively against these trends (Beddington
et al., 2012). The revived attention to food security and
nutrition is already leading to more sustained national
and international efforts to increase food production and
productivity, particularly in developing countries. Several countries, such as Mexico, India and South Africa
have enshrined national food security in their constitutions and the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change is addressing issues related to the
sustainable management of land through a number of
frameworks such as REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from
Deforestation and forest Degradation, conservation and
sustainable management of forests, and enhancement of
forest carbon stocks), the Ad-Hoc Durban Platform, and
technology transfer (Campbell et al., 2014). At the same
time there is a better understanding that food production
must rise while enhancing climate resilience and lowering agricultures greenhouse gas emissions intensity
(FAO, 2013a). To provide national and international support to this idea the global Alliance for Climate-Smart
Agriculture, a voluntary association of national governments, intergovernmental organisations, development
banks, private sector, civil society and research organisations, was launched at the United Nations Climate
Summit in September 2014 (GACSA, 2014). It remains
to be seen if climate-smart agriculture can deliver on
the triple win, and this platform for action can indeed
mobilise the financial, political, social and research resources necessary to significantly influence our current
trajectories (Neufeldt et al., 2013).
The growing demand for food, fibre, energy and other
products from the land often leads to market pressures
for exploitation that can lead to forest destruction. Perverse incentives, for instance subsidies that have been
set up to address the demand for cheap food without
considering environmental externalities, may aggravate
these pressures. These and other drivers affect the contribution of forests and tree-based systems to food security and nutrition as many drivers of deforestation and
forest degradation lie outside the landscapes in which
they manifest themselves. For example, agriculture is
believed to be the driver of up to 80 percent of current
deforestation, which often is resulting from national
agricultural development policies intended to boost oil
palm, cattle or soybean production (Kissinger et al.,
2012). While an increase in agricultural productivity
can potentially reduce the pressure on forests and other
natural ecosystems, focusing on one outcome at the expense of others will often lead to sub-optimal results for
overall sustainability (Sayer et al., 2013). Taking a landscape perspective that integrates across agriculture, forests and other land uses rather than considering different
land use sectors in isolation is increasingly understood
as crucial to long-term sustainability and food security
and nutrition (Padoch and Sunderland, 2013; Scherr et
al., 2012; and see Chapter 5).
This chapter focuses on political, economic and social response options to drivers at national to supranational scales that lead to food insecurity and negative
nutrition outcomes due to the degradation of forests and
tree-based systems. While they often support the sustainable management of land-based natural resources at
landscape scales, many of these responses lie outside the
land sectors altogether. The chapter addresses the topic
from three different angles: a) policy responses to enhance linkages between food security and forests with
a focus on setting up the right institutional and governance structures and addressing the important issue of
forest tenure reform; b) market-based response options
that focus on global processes for supporting sustainable supply, and innovative corporate and multi-actor
initiatives to support inclusive value chains of forest
and tree products; and c) socio-cultural response options to enhance food security where the focus is on:
changing urban demand; education to change behaviour
and improve dietary choices; reducing inequalities and
promoting gender-responsive interventions; and social

mobilisation for food security. Together, they cover
a wide range of response options that are available to
governmental, corporate and social agents. While these
areas are presented separately here, they are strongly interlinked. For example, market forces require national
rules and regulations to govern them in ways that are
consistent with sustainable development goals but also
social and cultural norms and values, which in turn shape
the forms that institutions and governance structures
take. Therefore topics from different sections within the
chapter frequently touch upon each other. The chapter
concludes by summarising the different lessons drawn
from each of the three areas.
6.2 Governance Responses to

Enhance Linkages between Forests
and Tree-based Systems and Food
6.2.1 Introduction
Given the diverse roles of forests and tree-based systems for food security and nutrition (see Chapter 2),
governance responses need to be understood in the widest sense. In this section, we discuss three governance
response options: forest tenure reforms, decentralisation
and market regulation. This is followed by a review of
lessons on catalysing governance reform drawn broadly
from the field of innovation studies and governance reform experiences (see Figure 6.1).
Forest governance has historically been a highly contested field, often very different from the agriculture
sector which is governed in a more decentralised way
(Colfer, 2013). While the forest sector is conventionally
governed either for biodiversity conservation or timber
production (Kennedy et al., 2001), a shifting emphasis
on non-timber forest products and participatory conservation has given way to more food-friendly forest management practices (Belcher et al., 2005). A key manifestation of these shifts is rising concerns for food and
nutritional security, highlighting the need for more proactive measures to reorient forest governance to address
these livelihood priorities (Sunderland et al., 2013).
6.2.2 Reforms Related to Tenure

and Resource Rights
Who controls forests significantly determines what they
are managed for and who benefits from them, both outcomes having profound implications for food security.
For example, globally an estimated 13 percent of all forests are officially protected for conservation values (FAO,
2010), but nearly half of these legally protected areas are
heavily used (usually illegally) for agriculture and forest
product extraction (Scherr et al., 2004). Forest tenure is
also linked to land use policy that shapes how benefits
131
Figure
6.1
Governance responses linking forests and tree-based systems

with food security and nutrition
Forests and treebased system

Governance instruments
Tenure
Catalysing reform
reform
Adaptive
governance
and innovation pathways
Decentralisation
and
participatory resource
management
Regulating
Cross-scale
Multiple
linkages
planning
horizons
markets
Equitable
access
to knowledge
Engaged
research
practice
Food security
and nutrition
132
can be optimised at the level of land use. Such land ownership issues have gained prominence in the past two
decades, resonating Sens argument that entitlement is
more critical than production in reducing hunger at the
global scale (Sen, 1999). Over the past three decades,
forest tenure reforms have seen major strides globally, as
manifested in increased recognition of the rights of local communities and/or local governments. Such reforms
range from the titling of land parcels to indigenous communities to sharing timber revenues (Larson et al., 2010).
At least five forms of tenurial reform can be identified:
a) state-community collaborative or joint management,
empowering communities to secure their livelihood interests, including meeting their food and nutrition needs, in
forest management plans (Sundar, 2000; Bampton et al.,
2007); b) formal community rights supported by concurrent reforms in state institutions (Bray and Merino-Prez,
2002); c) national laws granting rights to communities for
forest management, but still focusing narrowly on subsistence use, as in the case of Nepal (Sunam et al., 2013);
d) pro-poor forest tenure reforms (leasehold forestry)
allowing poor households to grow annual and perennial
crops (Thoms et al., 2006); and e) institutional arrangements for enhancing the access of indigenous people to
land resources (e.g. indigenous forest rights in Mexico
(Toledo et al., 2003)).
However, tenure reforms are frequently insufficient
to secure livelihood benefits, including food security.
As Larson et al. (2010) argue, new statutory rights do
not automatically result in rights in practice, however,
nor do local rights necessarily lead to improvements in
livelihoods or forest condition. This can be seen for example in Nepal despite the country having granted clear
legislative rights to communities (Ojha et al., 2014; Sunam et al., 2013). A wave of recentralisation is reported
from cases elsewhere in the world (Ribot et al., 2006).
Even in areas with significant formal devolution of forest
authority, many communities have limited rights in practice (Larson et al., 2010).
Recognising the issue of intra-community equity, propoor tenure reforms have been initiated within community-based forest management, with explicit rights to grow
food and cash crops in forest areas granted to the poorest
members of society (Bhattarai et al., 2007). Nevertheless, even in countries promoting participatory or community-based forest management, many policy responses
and forest laws intended to support smallholders and the
poorest of society still contain restrictive provisions. As
such they fail to authorise food cultivation or other means
of enhancing food benefits from forests by smallholders,
as is the case for example with Indias Forest Right Act.
Equally, in Nepal, where community forestry has come
of age, with the establishment of successful local institutions, several forest ecosystem services are not yet defined in the tenure policy, thus creating a sense of tenurial
insecurity (Sharma and Ojha, 2013).
Overall, forest tenure reform has emerged as an important governance response in relation to linking forest management with food security, despite varied and
diverse experiences across the globe. The challenge is
often that, even when tenure is redefined, a supportive
institutional system including capacity and political
will to translate the reform into practice remains absent.
More attention is thus needed to how local innovations in
resource access and control are linked effectively to an
enabling policy and institutional environment.
6.2.3 Decentralisation and Community

Participation in Forest Management
Another important forest governance response with
profound implications on food security is decentralisation of authority (Colfer and Capistrano, 2004).
While tenure reforms seek to transfer resource rights,
decentralisation has involved much broader processes
including institutional reform, power sharing and accountability. Indeed, the past three decades have seen a
tidal wave of decentralisation in developing and transitional economies driven by diverse forces: loss of
legitimacy of the centralised state (Bardhan, 2002), demands for a greater role of the market and for deregulation (Mohan, 1996), escalating concerns for poverty
reduction (Crook, 2003), environmental conservation
(Agrawal, 2001) and heightened demands for citizen
participation in governance (Ribot, 2003; Ribot, 2007;
Fung and Wright, 2001). Decentralisation endeavours
entail a varying mix of activities aimed at empowering
either communities of citizens, elected local government bodies, or other forms of quasi-political and administrative institutions, and involve political, administrative and fiscal measures depending on the context.
Further, decentralisation responses are linked to a variety of ideas that have influenced governance practices
such as deliberation (Dryzek, 2010), interactive governance (Kooiman et al., 2008), empowered participation (Fung and Wright, 2001), as well as representation
and multi-stakeholder involvement (Hemmati, 2002;
Vallejo and Hauselmann, 2004).
Although practices vary, the idea underlying decentralisation is to engage local actors in decision-making
through locally-elected authorities to ensure accountable governance. In the forest sector, three forms of
decentralisation have been found: transfer of rights to
locally-elected government (democratic decentralisation), transfer of power to local offices of the national
government (deconcentration, as seen in Senegal for
example (Ribot, 2006)), and transfer of rights to local
communities (devolution, as seen in Nepal (Pokharel
et al., 2008)).
However, there is no consensus that decentralisation leads to better outcomes in terms of local livelihood impacts and environmental sustainability. Questions of accountability and legitimacy in the exercise
of power have become more critical than in the past
(Lund, 2006; Mwangi and Wardell, 2012), challenging
conventional forest governance authorities. Policies of
decentralisation, while intended to include communities in multi-level participation, are often distorted
in practice (Ribot et al., 2006; Head, 2007). Problems
of participatory exclusion persist even in pro-poor environment and development programmes (Agarwal,
2001), and development practice continues to remain
separated from politics (Hickey and Mohan, 2005).
Despite Ostroms seminal work refuting Hardins
tragedy of the commons (Ostrom, 1990) and promoting the evolution of common property institutions,
community action has tended to be smaller in scale,
involving face-to-face channels of communication and

coordination in practice. Such small-scale approaches
are perceived to provide easier solutions for countries
with weak and unaccountable governments (Blaikie,
2006). The limits of small-scale, community-based
approaches to decentralisation have manifested themselves in various forms. Field experiences demonstrate
that beyond a certain point, community effectiveness
cannot improve unless supported by larger systems
of local governance (Ojha, 2014). Communities may
not necessarily be inclusive and accountable internally
(Benjamin, 2008; Blaikie, 2006). In Nepal, the successful development of community forestry systems
is meeting challenges of internal exclusion, market
manipulation, elite domination and timber smuggling
issues that cannot be left entirely to communitylevel decision-makers (Mohan and Stokke, 2000). In
India, the Forest Rights Act aimed to empower local
forest-dependent people, but it was not effectively implemented due to inadequate local capacity (SpringateBaginski et al., 2013). In the Philippines, national policy entrusts local communities with rights to manage
forests, but actual implementation has remained ineffective due to bureaucracy (Pulhin et al., 2007; Dahal
and Capistrano, 2006).
Decentralisation responses should also be seen in
the context of the growing consensus that forest governance has become a multi-level process (Mwangi and
Wardell, 2012; Ojha, 2014). A multi-scale approach to
governance may help to enhance food security by overcoming policy barriers and ensuring policy coherence
from production to consumption, to eliminate poor
policies (e.g. distorting trade) and to put in place positive ones (e.g. overcoming food waste) (Brooks, 2014).
Decentralisation and community participation remain important tools of forest governance reform to
contribute to food security by: a) fostering local level
decision-making and land use planning; b) resolving conflicts among different types of forest users; c)
forging an effective interface between local knowledge and science; and d) enhancing the sustainability
of innovation processes. These are linked to inclusive,
accountable and transparent decision-making and equitable benefit sharing arrangements at the local level.
In particular, evidence suggests that womens presence
in decision-making has helped to improve forest conservation outcomes (Agarwal, 2009). Wider decentralised responses are important to address intra-community heterogeneity and equity issues, as people who
depend on forests for their livelihoods and for food are
also the ones who suffer the problems of inequity and
injustice most (Mahanty et al., 2006). This is particularly critical in view of the findings that despite significant rights offered to local communities across the
globe, inclusion remains elusive (Agrawal and Ribot,
1999). It is thus important to enhance decentralisation
in such a way that it has equitable impacts on the community, while making sure that there is a concurrent
reform in governance at multiple scales to support decentralisation.
133
6.2.4 Regulating Markets

Resource tenure reform is not enough to gain benefits
from the market, as illustrated by the case of Mexican
forestry wherein 80 percent of forest is owned by communities while they possess only five percent of total
processing capacity (Scherr et al., 2004). As Scherr et
al. (2004) argue, there is a need to re-think the potential
contributions of small-scale forest producers to commercial production and conservation goals, and ensure
that a much higher share of the profits needs to go to
local people rather than central governments or private
interests. Stringent regulatory reforms are needed on
the sale of forest products from production systems
managed by local communities, local governments or
state-community partnerships, such that significant incomes can reach poor rural households (Grieg-Gran et
al., 2005). Even when communities are given rights to
market forest products, the poor are not likely to benefit without regulatory arrangements to mandate community groups to spend the money for the benefit of
the poor (Iversen et al., 2006). In Nepals community
forestry for example, a government directive requires
community forestry groups to spend at least 35 percent
of community revenue in projects directly related to the
livelihoods of the poor (Nepal DoF, 2009).
Regulatory constraints to
community benefits from
marketing of forest products
134
Box
6.1
Tenure rights of local and

indigenous people remain weak
Use rights frequently limit harvested

products to those for subsistence use
Decisions to harvest products commercially

are limited by stringent requirements
Inhibitive regulatory requirements for

non-forest sectors (such as transport)
Policies tend to favour industrial scale logging

over community scale operations
Onerous taxes and fees for forest products

at various stages of the value chain
Requirement for special permits to

harvest forest products
Requirement for special permits to

transport goods to market
Weak governance often leads to lack

of transparency along the value chain
Uncertainty about how to address

legal issues including taxation
Resistance by government officials

to relinquish control over forests
Government officials demands for

unofficial incentives to provide permits
Source: (Gilmour, 2011)
As the markets for environmental goods and services

increase globally, benefit sharing has become a crucial
question for communities, generating a wide-range of
policy and practical responses (Antinori and Bray, 2005;
Pandit et al., 2009). At stake are the crucial questions of
whether and how communities interact and negotiate with
market players, and what agency they wield in these relationships of economic exchange and sometimes political
contestations (Pacheco and Paudel, 2010). Studies in forest markets show that communities can benefit only when
they have capabilities, necessary support services and
suitable regulatory arrangements in their favour (Pacheco
and Paudel, 2010). A recent review and analysis has identified several regulatory and governance constraints that
prevent communities from benefitting from the marketing of forest products (Box 6.1).
Small-scale producers flourish primarily where there
are fewer regulations and subsidies to large industry, and
where there are secure forest rights (Scherr et al., 2004).
For them, appropriate market regulations include: a) low
regulatory costs of market entry (e.g. no registration
fees, low cost management plans, no bribes required);
b) no producer / consumer subsidies (and hence greater
competitiveness for small-scale producers); c) a lowcost regulatory environment (e.g. few permits required);
and d) secure local rights for forest products and environmental services (Scherr et al., 2004). These factors
are critical in enhancing the commercial use of forest
resources for local livelihoods even in situations where
formal resource tenure exists.
In recent years, non-state market regulatory arrangements have also emerged such as certification mechanisms (Cashore, 2002; Durst et al., 2006) and payments
for environmental services (PES) (also see Section 6.3).
Certification chiefly consists in harnessing demand
for sustainably-harvested products (including timber
and food). In recent years, within both state and nonstate frameworks, a policy agenda to support PES has
emerged (Wunder et al., 2008) but challenges persist in
relation to monitoring and verification. Concerns have
also surfaced about ensuring the control of smallholders on genetic resources while encouraging the private
sector to deliver improved seeds and technologies. The
concern that markets do not favour the poor has inspired
a series of instruments such as safeguards and free, prior,
informed consent of indigenous peoples in commercial
projects (Pimbert, 2012).
Interactions with the market are now inevitable for
improving rural livelihoods, and the agenda of enhancing food security from forest cannot ignore this. It is also
clear that laissez faire approaches to market development neither ensure equitable access, nor are likely to
create sufficient conditions for the sustainable management of resources. Hence, regulated markets are an important governance response where a number of issues
such as capacity, equity, marketability, fund management
and planning, decision-making and others are directly
regulated through different forms of governance instruments, while also ensuring ample entrepreneurial freedom and incentives.
Box
6.2
Approaches to catalyse changes in governance

Innovation system approach (Hall, 2002) emphasises linking research, practice, policy together as
essential for improving systems and practices. The approach emerged with industrial innovations in the West,
followed by agricultural extension in the developing world, such as in India.
Social learning approaches (Schusler et al., 2003) emphasise open communication, engagement and co-learning
as necessary for changing systems. Examples can be found across both Western and developing countries.
Participatory research (Pretty, 1995) holds that research can make a difference when conducted in close
engagement with the subjects or local communities. This is applied widely in agriculture and natural resource
management in the developing world.
Critical action research (Ojha, 2013) emphasises the role of locally-engaged researchers in catalysing change
by acting at different levels to generate alternative and critical knowledge. Examples can be found in developing
countries mainly in South America and South Asia.
Knowledge brokering (Meyer, 2010) and using research as capacity building (Hall et al., 2003) are also emerging
tools of innovation. Here, the role of new and hybrid actors as knowledge brokers is important in linking policy,
practice and research groups. This idea has emerged in both the West and in the South.
Transformative innovation needs to give far greater recognition and power to grassroots innovation actors
and processes, involving them within an inclusive, multi-scale innovation politics (Leach et al., 2012).
Participatory technology development (Schot, 2001) emphasises that technology and institutions co-evolve over time.
Adaptive collaborative approaches (Colfer, 2005; Ojha and Hall, 2012) emphasise that management actions are
experiments for learning and conflict management, as problem systems are always emergent and dynamic. Evidence
is generated from across Asia, Africa and South America.
6.2.5 Catalysing Governance Reform

In effecting the required change in policy and practice,
quite often the issue is more about how a particular process of change emerges or is catalysed by some champions
of change, triggered by particular sets of drivers, and sustained by an effective interplay between science and policy
deliberations. Scholars and practitioners have considered
catalysing changes in governance in the fields of forestry, environment and development in a variety of ways, as
shown by a review of approaches (see Box 6.2).
In more practical terms, we identify the following
strategies to catalyse forest governance reforms so as to
enhance food security outcomes:
a) Reframing the facilitative regime. Learning and innovation can be seen as the property of a system to selforganise and evolve, but this can be catalysed much
faster and with much better results, in terms of fairness
and equity through appropriate mechanisms to inform,
support, nurture, enable, capacitate and strengthen relevant groups and organisations involved in innovation development. Such facilitative arrangements are particularly crucial in the forestry sector in which governance
has historically been organised around a command and
control model. Even decentralised systems of forest
governance face recentralisation threats (Ribot, 2006;
Sunam et al., 2013). Options for forest governance to
be more food-friendly include for example establishing
demonstration landscape sites, creating incentives and
offering subsidies for provisioning services.
b) Conceptualising cross-scale linking. Cross-scale linkages involve a diversity of transactions or interactions,
and require building coalitions that go beyond technological innovations (Biggs and Smith, 2003). Such
cross-scale forums can be harnessed for their potential
to generate innovation, enable negotiations, manage
conflicts etc. This means for example, inviting forest
and food actors together along with farmers and public
officials to open up informal spaces to explore and negotiate opportunities to enhance forest-food linkages.
The Rights and Resources Initiative (RRI), a researchpolicy group working on forest rights globally, also
promotes such policy fora at national, regional and
global levels (RRI, 2014).
c) Adopting multiple planning horizons. Conceiving,
facilitating and supporting multiple and overlapping
planning processes, including forests, landscapes, and
subnational and national levels, can help to facilitate
change simultaneously at different temporal and spatial scales (Biggs and Smith, 2003). For example, a
community forest user group can focus on a 3-5 year
planning cycle, while district or landscape level plans
traditionally require more time. Similarly, monitoring
systems can also be tailored to the needs of decisionmakers at different scales of governance, without overburdening local households and communities to gather
information that is not immediately relevant to them.
d) Cultivating local champions of change. Many success
stories in forest governance and more generally in
environment and development around the world
are linked to the strong role of a few passionately
engaged agents of change. Identifying and nurturing
such champions can be part of the broader strategy of
reaching transformative change in forest governance
for food security (World Bank, 2003).
135
6.3 Private Sector-driven Initiatives

for Enhancing Governance in
Food Systems
6.3.1 Introduction
The global food system is undergoing important changes
which are associated with a reorganisation of value chains
that are becoming increasingly global, the adoption of improved policy frameworks aimed at regulating food production and markets, and the emergence of private sectordriven initiatives to promote the adoption of sustainable
practices in the supply of agricultural commodities (e.g.
grains, palm oil, beef). The food system is characterised
by increased vertical integration from the local to the
global level and the development of large and complex
value chains. The architecture underpinning the global
food system is growing in complexity with an increasing role of the private sector, mainly large-scale corporate
and transnational groups, in organising value chains, as
well as multi-stakeholder processes with an active role of
civil society groups influencing the governance of value
chains at different levels (Margulis, 2013).
With growing foreign investment not only in processing but in upstream production, global value chains are
speeding up concentration and technological change. This
is stimulated by global traders and transnational companies that are seeking to enhance their economies of scale
in both supply and marketing, which ultimately tends to
displace local farmers who are integrated into more traditional food production systems (Page, 2013). Retailers and supermarkets also tend to impose higher quality
standards to suppliers in order to meet more demanding
consumption patterns, mainly in urban markets (Reardon
et al., 2003). Nonetheless, in spite of growing interconnections between rural economies and urban markets,
several market failures and asymmetries persist. These
failures often lead to undesired environmental and social
outcomes. Main environmental impacts relate to deforestation, soil erosion and water pollution, while social ones
are the exclusion of traditional farmers from the value
chains due to their more limited capacities to compete
in terms of costs and quality in more demanding markets leading to unequal distribution of economic benefits
from food markets (United Nations, 2014).
This section examines the main institutional initiatives aimed at building a more sustainable and inclusive
Figure
6.2
State and non-state instruments shaping food systems
STATE
REGULATIONS
HYBRID
MECHANISMS
RESPONSIBLE FINANCE
Code of conduct
NON-STATE
INITIATIVES
Company association
Equator principles
Multilateral organisations
IFC Performance standards
RESPONSIBLE
INVESTMENT
Guidelines
OECD Guidelines for

international enterprises
CFS-RAI PRINCIPLES
FAO Guidelines for
land governance
CORPORATE
INITIATIVES
Commitments and pledges
Transnational regulations
Public procurement
SUSTAINABLE SUPPLY
Labelling and certification
National regulations
Sustainability standards
Sectoral regulations
Environmental regulations
136
STATE REGULATIONS
Legal and policy frameworks
Corporate commitments
Codes of conduct
Zero deforestation
commitments
Multi-stakeholder platforms
Production standards
Third-party certification
food supply, with a focus on those driven by the private

sector that is expanding its influence in the governance
of value chains as part of new modes of governance that
increasingly adopt the form of hybrid institutional arrangements in which state regulations and market-based
mechanisms interact (Djama, 2011; Marsden et al.,
2009). It includes an overview of the main challenges to
achieve sustainability and inclusiveness in the global food
systems, as well as the scale, scope and potential of different governance instruments that are in place. Some of
the main global processes that are emerging in order to
support sustainable supply are examined. An overview is
included of corporate sector initiatives and commitments
towards sustainable supply while reducing deforestation
and protecting local peoples rights, including hybrid
models where both the public and private sectors collaborate to build sustainable value chains.
6.3.2 The Challenges of Sustainability and

Inclusiveness in Food Supply
Our analysis focuses on the mechanisms, initiatives and
processes, located at different levels and driven by nonstate actors that are aimed at promoting sustainable food
supply. Particular emphasis is given to large-scale investors and initiatives related to the corporate sector. Figure
6.2 shows the main mechanisms and processes in the institutional architecture that shape sustainable food supply,
with a focus on agro-industrial value chains. This diagram
is not exhaustive. It shows some of the main initiatives
undertaken at the global level, supported by company associations such as codes of conduct, and multilateral organisations such as guidelines for responsible investment
and land governance. It also refers to labelling and certification associated with specific production standards and
third-party certification to promote the adoption by companies, on a voluntary basis, of standards for sustainable
crop production, and other social safeguards. In addition,
there are emerging corporate initiatives expressed in the
form of commitments to adopt deforestation-free supply chains. Combinations of these different mechanisms
with specific state public policy lead to so-called hybrid
mechanisms which can take different forms in practice.
The most relevant instruments adopted to enhance private sector performance in food supply comprise responsible investment instruments, codes of conduct, sustainability standards, and certification and labelling (Candel,
2014). Some of these measures focus on finance and
investments, while others concentrate on the production
and trade realms (van Gelder and Kouwenhoven, 2011).
Incentives for adoption are related to managing social
risks by reducing civil society pressure and improving relations with communities, as well as reducing the implications that reputational risk can have on financial risks
for company operations (Campbell, 2007). In other cases,
adopting codes of conduct, sustainability standards and
certification schemes may enable access to more discerning and specialised markets as well as optimising harvesting and production processes (Page, 2013). While these
Processing shea butter (Vittelaria paradoxa), Lab, Guinea.

instruments provide little scope for public actors participation in their design, the implementation phase provides
more opportunities for achieving synergies and complementarities among different actors (Pacheco et al., 2011).
6.3.3 Global Initiatives to Support

Sustainable Finance and Supply
Different mechanisms and instruments have emerged in
order to create the conditions and mechanisms for upstream producers and downstream processors to target
markets which demand goods that are produced in sustainable ways. The most relevant initiatives are instruments
promoting responsible finance and large-scale investment
developed by multilateral organisations (e.g. the International Finance Corporation IFC) and multi-stakeholder
processes such as roundtables for certification and traceability of commodity supply. These instruments are explained in more detail below, with a particular focus on
what are the distinctive features that make them innovative. While the levels of adoption of these instruments are
limited, they tend to expand slowly over time.
Initiatives and processes to promote

responsible finance
The most important and well-known collective responsibility investment policy is the Equator Principles (EP),
which is a financial industry benchmark for determining, assessing and managing social and environmental
risk in project financing (Equator Principles, 2014). By
2014, 80 financial institutions had adopted the EP (Equator Principles, 2014). Signatories of the EP commit to
adhere to the environmental and social guidelines (Performance Standards) of the IFC when providing project
finance or related advisory services for projects costing
USD 10 million or more. The Performance Standards of
the IFC address a wide range of social and environmental risks, such as protection of human rights, protection
and conservation of biodiversity, use and management of
137
dangerous substances, impacts on affected communities

and indigenous peoples, labour rights, pollution prevention and waste minimisation. There is important variation
in the way in which these principles are implemented.
In practice, the IFCs actual policy prescriptions tend to
vary, such as happened in the palm oil sector (van Gelder
and Kouwenhoven, 2011). Nonetheless, knowledge of
the deficiencies in following IFC standards led the World
Bank to revisit its strategy for engagement in the palm oil
sector in 2011 (World Bank, 2011).
Initiatives shaping large-scale investments

Large-scale foreign direct investments (FDI) in land acquisition have expanded in developing countries, mainly
in sub-Saharan Africa, with negative impacts on local
livelihoods (Cotula et al., 2011; Deininger, 2011). While
these investments can contribute to economic development in hosting countries, they also take advantage of
relatively favourable economic and regulatory conditions,
thus mechanisms are needed in order to maximise their
benefits while minimising their adverse social and environmental impacts (Haberli and Smith, 2014). Several international initiatives, including statements of principles
and voluntary codes of conduct, have emerged in response
to the need for transparency, sustainability, involvement
of local stakeholders and recognition of their interests,
emphasising concerns about deforestation, domestic food
security and rural development (Hallam, 2011).
Among these initiatives the three most relevant ones
are all led by international organisations. There is a first
draft for negotiation of the World Committee on Food
Security (CFS) associated with the Principles for Responsible Agricultural Investment (CFS-RAI Principles)
(CFS, 2014). Two other initiatives include the FAO-led
Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance
of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context
of National Food Security endorsed by the CFS in 2012
(CFS-FAO, 2012), 2), and the OECDs Guidelines for
Multinational Enterprises (OECD, 2008). In addition to
those mentioned above, some human rights commitments
have been included in the voluntary guidelines on the
right to food (FAO, 2004). These different principles and
guidelines are all so-called soft law instruments and thus
not legally binding. The first two address adverse effects
associated with agri-FDI, while the others seek to prevent
human rights violations by investors.
Certification schemes and voluntary

sustainability standards
138
Voluntary sustainability standards provide assurance that a

project, process or service conforms to a set of criteria defining good social and environmental practices. Specific
schemes cover production (e.g. organic certification), the
relations between chain actors (e.g. Fairtrade), and some
cover both production and chain relations (e.g. the Forest
Stewardship Council FSC) (van Dam et al., 2008). In
some cases, downstream supply chain actors (e.g. retailers, processors) impose standards on their suppliers as a
way to inform consumers of their commitment to environmental and social objectives. In the case of Fairtrade,
Fairtrade coffee
certification in Nicaragua
Box
6.3
In Nicaragua, researchers have focused considerable energy on the issue of access to certified coffee
markets and related implications for coffee supplies
and rural development. In the late 1990s, governments
and donors supported certification in Nicaragua in
response to the dramatic and sustained reduction in
price for coffee, with the expectation that access to
markets for certified coffee would offer economic
benefits over the short and long term (USAID, 2003;
Varangis et al., 2003). Considerable investments were
made by NGOs and donors to build local capacities
for increasing coffee quality, obtaining certification
and enhancing smallholder supply capacity. In many
cases, cooperatives played a critical role in upgrading
production capacities and in building relations with
buyers and credit providers. However, in practice the
results have been mixed. Arguments explaining these
outcomes have centred on the persistence of low
yields and relatively high labour requirements (Valkila,
2009; Barham et al., 2011; Beuchelt and Zeller, 2011),
declining prices relative to conventional coffee (Weber,
2011) and the inability of smallholders to intensify
coffee systems given their livelihood insecurities and
rising production and household consumption costs
(Mendez et al. 2010; Wilson, 2010; Donovan and Poole,
2014). There appears to be a growing consensus that
smallholders in Nicaragua were probably too poor
to be able to respond to the demands of buyers and
certification systems.
for example, buyers have sought collaborative business

relationships with cooperatives in order to increase access
to high-quality coffee (Raynolds, 2009). In other cases,
upstream chain actors (e.g. cooperatives and privatelyowned businesses) seek out certification on their own
for the purposes of obtaining higher prices from the sale
of their raw material. Non-governmental organisations
(NGOs) and government agencies often support farmers
in their efforts to obtain certification under the assumption
that certification contributes to environmental and social
goals. In some cases, certification can become a prerequisite for producers to access markets (Donovan, 2011). Box
6.3 examines a case of coffee certification in Nicaragua.
An interesting case of voluntary sustainability standards is the so-called commodity roundtables, specifically
the Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) and the
Roundtable on Responsible Soy (RTRS), as mechanisms
for certification of supply based on agreed sustainable
production standards (Schouten and Glasbergen, 2011).
These roundtables have been established to include different stakeholders along the value chain such as government, NGOs, industry, importers and exporters. The
process has not been exempt from tensions, particularly
in the context of building the legitimacy of the certification mechanism in the eyes of affected private sector actors, including industry and traders (WWF, 2010). In the
case of RSPO, the adoption of sustainability standards by
company members has been relatively slow, but it tends to
expand over time. To date, 11.95 million tonnes of palm
oil are certified, covering a total of 3.16 million hectares,

and accounting for 18 percent of total global production
(RSPO, 2014). Potts et al. (2014) provide a comprehensive review of the status and progress achieved by the implementation of a diverse set of voluntary sustainability
standards including FSC, RSPO, Fairtrade, Bonsucro,
among several others.
6.3.4 Emerging Corporate Sustainability

Initiatives
The corporate sector has a decisive role in shaping social and environmental outcomes associated with food
supply in the context of current, globally-integrated food
systems (Magdoff et al., 2000). Transnational corporations are central actors in the development of the global
food system since they tend to dominate production and
trade, and constitute important players in the processing,
distribution and retail sectors (Clapp and Fuchs, 2009).
Financial institutions and investors are also key actors in
the food value chains. The most significant initiatives involving these actors are revised below.
Efforts towards the adoption of responsible

financial investments
The adoption of policies and practices for due diligence,
mandated and voluntary environmental and social risk
management, and preferential green investments, such as
those developed by IFC and a few commercial banks all
contribute to the adoption of responsible finance. Responsible investment policies need to contain well-defined,
verifiable criteria preferably derived from internationally-recognised standards that the financial institution can
use to evaluate the proposed investment. Many financial
institutions have set up their own benchmarks that meet
these criteria, but there are also collective responsible
investment policies undersigned by a group of financial
institutions. Over the past ten years, more and more financial institutions have developed their own responsible
investment policies for various sectors and sustainability issues (Perez, 2007). Leading this development was
the World Bank Group. Its private-sector subsidiary, the
IFC, has over two decades of experience with assessing
investment proposals against its Performance Standards
on Environmental and Social Sustainability, which define
criteria on a broad range of social and environmental issues (IFC, 2012). Some public banks have followed this
trend such as the Brazilian Development Bank (BNDES)
that has also adopted similar guidelines (BNDES, 2014).
As the issues and sectors for which banks have developed policies or benchmarks vary, the number of banks
that have developed benchmarks relevant to the agricultural sector is relatively more limited. A BankTrack
study comprising 49 large international banks indicated
that 16 institutions had developed a forestry policy and
nine had developed an agricultural policy (van Gelder et
al., 2010). This suggests that there is scope for adoption
of policies by financial institutions that can lead to more
responsible investments.
Voluntary commitments by the corporate

sector for sustainable supply
Many corporate groups involved in supply, processing
and retailing are adopting commitments, some with welldefined targets, for achieving their projected production
goals with lower negative social and environmental impacts. On the supply side, these are made by corporate
groups developing their operations in landscapes where
there is a high risk of environmental impacts (e.g. peatlands in Indonesia, tropical forests in Brazil). On the demand side, these commitments are made by consumer
goods companies that are well positioned in the markets
responding to social pressure on corporate social and environmental performance (Baron et al., 2009). For example,
the Consumer Goods Forum (CGF) has adopted a Global
Social Compliance Programme aimed at improving
social and environmental sustainability in the supply
chains by harmonising existing efforts (GSCP, 2014).
Specifically, Wilmar International Ltd., the largest
palm-oil trader, committed in late 2013 to ensure that
its plantations and suppliers protect certain forests and
abstain from using fire to clear land, and also banned
development on high-carbon-stock landscapes including peatlands (Wilmar International, 2014). Unilever,
the second-largest manufacturer of consumer goods,
also committed in late 2013 to purchasing all palm oil
from sustainable sources by 2015, and that all palm oil
would be certified and come from traceable sources
by 2020 (Unilever, 2014). Some end-user companies
of palm oil, notably Starbucks agreed in early 2013 to
source 100 percent of their palm oil from certified sustainable suppliers by 2015, which was a response to a
shareholder resolution filed by an environmental mutual fund (Starbucks, 2014). Additional commitments
to source sustainable palm oil have been made by some
other consumer goods companies such as McDonalds,
Walmart and Nestl.
On the supply and processing side, in part as a result
of the commitments made by consumer goods companies, five of the worlds largest palm oil companies
(Asian Agri, IOI Corporation Berhad, Kuala Lumpur
Kepong Berhad, Musim Mas Group and Sime Darby
Plantation) together with Cargill, subscribed to the
Oil Palm Manifesto in July 2014 (HCSS, 2014). This
manifesto aims to achieve three specific objectives: 1)
build traceable and transparent supply chains, 2) implement the conservation of high carbon stock (HCS)
forests and the protection of peat areas regardless of
depth, and 3) increase benefit sharing while ensuring a
positive social impact on people and communities. Furthermore, in September 2014, three companies (Cargill,
Golden Agri-Resources GAR and Wilmar) subscribed
to the Indonesian Palm Oil Pledge known also as the
KADIN pledge. These companies commit to achieving the following: 1) adopt and promote sustainable
production practices based on acceptable methods of
classifying HCS forests, and sustainable supply chain
management and processing, 2) work with the Indonesian Chamber of Commerce (KADIN) to engage the
Government of Indonesia to encourage development of
139
Linking international standards and national

regulations
Washing vegetables in the river in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso.

policy frameworks that promote the implementation of

the pledge, 3) expand the social benefits from palm oil
production, and 4) improve the competitiveness of Indonesian palm oil.
During the UN Climate Summit in New York City,
held in September 2014, about 150 different governments, businesses and NGOs joined forces to announce
The New York Declaration on Forests under which
these different groups committed to cutting forest loss
in half by 2020, and ending it by 2030. This declaration
also calls for eliminating forest loss from agricultural
commodity supply chains by 2020 and restoring at least
350 million hectares of degraded forestlands by 2030.
This declaration was signed by some of the major players of the palm oil industry, including palm oil traders
(APP, Cargill, GAR and Wilmar) and consumer companies (Kelloggs, General Mills, Nestl and Unilever),
which complements their no-deforestation commitments for palm oil sourcing.
6.3.5 Hybrid Models for Sustainable

and Inclusive Supply
140
Several initiatives have emerged in both consumer and

producer countries to promote trade of commodities in
national and international markets that originate from
more sustainable sources, or that place reduced impacts
on local people, which somehow adopt the form of hybrid models since they tend to articulate public regulations with private standards in different ways. Two such
experiences are described here. While these experiences are still in their infancy, they may have potential
to develop into more consolidated initiatives that could
lead to improved outcomes in both inclusiveness and
sustainability, which continues to be an elusive goal in
many cases.
In Indonesia, a mandatory government-led standard, labelled Indonesian Sustainable Palm Oil (ISPO) has been
issued for the production of palm oil in addition to the
RSPO, a relatively consolidated voluntary, market-based
certification system (described above). The main rationale
for setting up the ISPO is that only large-scale palm oil
companies are members of RSPO, whereas medium-scale
companies account for a large share of the palm oil sector
(Indonesia Ministry of Agriculture, 2012). Furthermore,
only a small portion of certified palm oil suppliers have
established markets in developed countries, which tend to
demand sustainably-produced palm oil, while a significant
portion of demand lies in less demanding markets, such
as China and India that received 38 percent of total crude
palm oil exports in 2013. When including other developing
countries this segment of the market makes up 70 percent
of the total (COMTRADE, 2014). The Indonesian government has acted carefully with regard to the RSPO (Rayda,
2012), and after initially joining the organisation, the Indonesian Palm Oil Association (GAPKI) withdrew its membership in 2011, stating its intention to fully support the recently announced ISPO. The latter is conceived as a way to
improve the adoption of standards in palm oil in Indonesia
by complying with existing regulations, which have been
hard to enforce. This may lead to reducing existing gaps
in the adoption of good practices in palm oil production.
Linking sustainable value chains to jurisdictional approaches

The Green Municipalities is an initiative emerging in the
state of Par in the Brazilian Amazon, associated with public-private arrangements to improve sustainable supply and
enhance landscape management, particularly in the cattle
beef value chains. This initiative has developed as part of
a broader, relatively complex, institutional arrangement involving the public sector to halt deforestation and promote
forest regeneration. The arrangements are enforced by the
federal government with the assistance of environmental
agencies (IBAMA) and contributions of municipal governments. In addition, banks have been mandated by state
regulations to limit commercial loans to farmers that are
not able to comply with environmental regulations, and to
voluntarily subscribe to a Rural Environmental Cadastre
(Whately and Campanili, 2014). This institutional scheme
now plays a crucial role in voluntary actions from supermarkets that are mainly located in the highly populated
urban centres of southern Brazil, which have thus banned
beef originating from illegally deforested lands in the Amazon (Pacheco and Poccard-Chapuis, 2012). Furthermore,
as a response to changes in demand, farmers have engaged
in improving practices of herd and pasture management by
implementing standards developed by the state research
agency (EMBRAPA) as a way to intensify cattle production and reduce pressures on conversion of forests. However, these practices are mainly adopted by medium- and
large-scale cattle beef systems, while smallholders with
more diversified farming systems face the risk of being left
behind with limited options.
Instruments with potential to contribute to sustainable commodity supply
Instrument
Market
Mechanism
Influence
on
Incentive
Stakeholders
Role of actors in
instrument design and/or
implementation
Public
Responsible
investment
instruments
Criteria selfdeveloped by
corporations
/ codes of
conduct
Sustainability
standards
Certification
and labelling
- Financiers
(design and
application of
instrument)
- None
Anticipated
Finance and
benefits asinvestments
sociated with a
good corporate
image encourages financiers
to invest only in
those corporate actors
whose practices
are considered
sustainable or
low-risk
- Reduced
civil society
pressure
Anticipated
Production
and
benefits associated with a processing
good corporate
image encourages practices
deemed to be
environmentally
and/or socially
beneficial or
benign by key
stakeholders
- Improved
relations
with local
communities
- Marketing
tool
- Shareholders
Mostly
Anticipated
production
benefits associated with a
good corporate
image encourages portfolio
of land uses to
shift to align
with standards
- Access to certain markets
- All actors along - Definition of

the supply chain
standards
Strict standards Production

for accessand markets
ing benefits
encourages
portfolio of
land uses to
shift to provide
uses or services
required by the
instrument
- Access to
niche markets
- Reduced risk
to operations
- Implementation of actions
to meet
criteria
- None
- Civil society
in developed
and developing
countries
- Establishing
and
implementing
policies
- Voluntary
reporting to
shareholders
- Government
in developing
countries
- Optimisation
of production
processes
- Price
premium
- Establishing
criteria
- Verification
of compliance
- Civil society
(lobbying for
responsible
investment
practices)
- Reduced
civil society
pressure
Private
- Application
of instrument
- Reduced risk
of investments - Corporate
actors (comply- Improved
ing with criteria
public image
so as to access
finance)
- Affected
communities
Table
6.1
- Negotiating
standards
- Sometimes
driven by
actors further
downstream
- All actors along - Identification

the supply chain
of effective
criteria
- Consumers
- Independent
verification
- Setting targets
Source: Adapted from Pacheco et al. (2011).
141
6.4 Socio-Cultural Response Options

6.4.1 Introduction
Social and socio-cultural response options to enhance
food security by influencing forest and tree-based systems are manifold. Addressing social drivers requires
a more nuanced approach as these drivers are strongly
influenced by cultural differences and, due to their frequently informal nature, are not always easy to grasp, to
categorise and to quantify. Macro-scale responses addressed in this section encompass opportunities and challenges of changing urban demand, nutrition education
and behavioural changes, reducing inequalities and promoting gender-responsive interventions and policies, as
well as social mobilisation for sustainable food security.
A homestead lunch, Cat Ba,Vietnam. Everything on the table is

sourced from the forest, farm or nearby water courses.
6.4.2 Changing Urban Demand
142
Cities are centres of creativity, power and wealth. Understanding the dynamics, growth and organisation of
cities, using a sustainability lens, is important for food
security and environmental sustainability (Bettencourt,
2013; Bettencourt et al., 2007). With more than half of the
worlds population currently living in cities with a continued rise predicted, securing adequate food supply for city
dwellers will be even more crucial than it is today. Growing urbanisation often calls for increased food production
in surrounding rural areas, but also raises pressures to
convert agricultural land in the wake of urban development. In order to address the complexity of divergent priorities, there is a need for planning alternatives, policies
and incentives that aim to reconcile growth, management,
food security and sustainable diets, and the enhancement
of agriculture (Forster and Escudero, 2014).
Urban consumers are increasingly aware of the fact that
modern agriculture can have negative environmental externalities, for example through the use of agricultural biocides and synthetic fertilisers and the concentration on few
crop varieties (Badgley and Perfecto, 2007). These have led

to eutrophication of aquifers, soil degradation, loss of biodiversity or reduction of genetic diversity, among others,
and highlight the need for more sustainable agricultural
methods for food production. However, knowledge gaps
regarding trade-offs arising from competing economic and
environmental goals, and key biological, biogeochemical
and ecological processes involved in more sustainable food
production systems remain (Tilman et al., 2002).
These negative environmental externalities have prompted environmentalists and others to support more sustainable
methods of food production and to advocate for a shift in
dietary choices (Halberg et al., 2005). In Western countries,
advocacy for organic agriculture and vegetarianism are two
of the most prominent responses to such criticism.
Organic agriculture has gained recognition as having
an important potential to help feed the world and restore
biodiversity and landscape richness at the same time
(Badgley and Perfecto, 2007; Fuller et al., 2005). Health,
ecology, care and fairness principles form the core of the
organic agriculture vision, all working towards supporting the health and integrity of ecological systems and cycles in a sustainable manner (IFOAM, 2005). Similarly,
urban (relatively wealthy) consumers actively seek and
pay more for food labelled or certified as environmentally-friendly or pesticide free, characteristics that attract them to organic foods (Dimitri and Greene, 2002).
Today, organic farming is practised in 162 countries, and
organic food and drink sales worldwide reached almost
USD 63 billion in 2011 (Soil Association, 2014). This has
been achieved through a change in perceptions of natural
food from being a prerogative for alternative lifestyles to
what is consensually understood as being healthy. Whereas in 1997 organically produced food was primarily sold
in natural food stores, almost half of it was purchased in
chain supermarkets in 2008. At the same time, the number of farmers markets, where organic farmers sell their
products directly to end-users quadrupled from less than
2,000 in 1994 to more than 8,000 in 2013 (Alkon, 2014).
The second shift in urban demand that we address here
concerns meat-free food choices. While full or partial vegetarianism is part of the history and culture of many people in the world, most vegetarians in Western societies are
not life-long practitioners but converts (Beardsworth and
Keil, 1992). European and North American campaigns
promoting a shift from meat consumption to vegetarian diets are nowadays often associated with a desire to reduce
the ecological footprint of food production. For example,
feed grains given to animals for human consumption in urban areas contribute largely to the overall urban footprint,
and the corresponding intensive livestock systems are often blamed for forest loss, reduced water quality and diseases (Forster and Escudero, 2014). Furthermore, through
feed, enteric fermentation manure management and postproduction processes, livestock production is among the
largest emitters of greenhouse gases in agriculture (Smith
et al., 2014). Modelling results suggest that dietary shifts
to lower meat consumption and a healthy diet could result
in agricultural emission reductions of 34 to 64 percent by
2050 (Stehfest et al., 2009).
Both vegetarianism and organic food production are

conducive to improving the livelihoods of rural populations. Many of the products that can supplement basic
staple foods and substitute meat are grown on trees (Jamnadass et al., 2013) providing significant opportunities
for agroforestry systems if appropriate value chains are
established (see Section 6.3). The lower demand for land
to feed livestock can also contribute to reduced deforestation (Smith et al., 2014). However, in spite of an increase
in vegetarianism and the perception that sustainable
forms of agricultural production are needed, and despite
widespread knowledge of the adverse effects of excessive
meat consumption (Bender, 1992), meat, dairy and poultry consumption continues to rise with growing affluence
(Alexandratos and Bruinsma, 2012), in turn aggravating the environmental impacts associated with livestock
production (Westhoek et al., 2014). Asia, in particular, is
among the regions with the highest increase in meat consumption and requires heavy investments in education to
change behaviours and improve dietary choices.
6.4.3 Behaviour Change and Education to

Improve Dietary Choices
Dietary choices depend on access, availability and affordability (Dibsdall et al., 2002) but also socio-cultural
and environmental factors (Sobal et al., 2014; Kuhnlein and Receveur, 1996; Fischler, 1988). Even small
changes in access or prices can have significant impacts
on diets (Glanz et al., 2005; Story et al., 2008). While
reformed political and market frameworks can enhance
access to food and stabilise its prices, malnutrition also
needs to be addressed on an interpersonal level. Better
knowledge about healthy diets through nutrition education can therefore play an important role (FAO, 1997;
Jamnadass et al., 2011). A revalorisation of knowledge
on the origins and properties of food items and effects
of these food items on human health can potentially lead
to increased interest in traditional ecological knowledge
about forest and tree foods. Such interest can be an important counter-movement to the rapidly progressing
loss of traditional and indigenous knowledge, widely attributed to social change and modernisation (Keller et
al., 2006; Lykke et al., 2002; Ogoye-Ndegwa and Aagaard-Hansen, 2003; also see Chapter 3).
Nutrition and health education in its broadest sense
has three components: providing information through
communication strategies (e.g. information campaigns,
dietary advice in health service settings), providing
skills that enable consumers to act on the information
provided (e.g. meat preparation, food preservation) and
providing an enabling food environment (e.g. marketing
to children, making different foods available) (Hawkes,
2013). Nutrition and health education can translate
greater food availability at the household level into
healthier diets by targeting women, men and children in
the households with tailored messages about improved
food choices (McCullough et al., 2004), for example,
through optimal feeding and care practices for infants,
young children and women of reproductive age. In terms

of agroforestry and food security, there is, for example,
a need to understand how best to educate consumers
on the benefits of eating fruits, many of which are tree
products (Jamnadass et al., 2013).
There are numerous examples documenting successful nutrition education campaigns. A particular nutrition
education programme in Thailands Kanchanaburi Province, for instance, considers children as effective agents
of change in societies and therefore, teaching them about
agriculture and nutrition is seen to be a wise investment
(Jamnadass et al., 2011; Sherman, 2003). In this example,
education for sustainable development involved teaching
school children how to sustainably harvest forest foods,
how to plant, cultivate and harvest their local traditional
agricultural crops in village areas, and prepare healthy
meals for their families. By targeting children from a
young age, foundations for behavioural changes in entire
communities are laid (Burlingame and Dernini, 2012).
Numerous forest conservation programmes also attempt
to introduce agroforestry practices and integrate dietary
concerns in their environmental conservation efforts. In
the Kenyan Mau Forest, for instance, a number of conservation projects promote the establishment of school
gardens, planting of fruit trees and integrated agroforestry practices alongside conventional tree planting drives
(NECOFA, 2013). Nutrition education has also gained
momentum in education systems of developed countries, mainly through practical application of knowledge
in school gardens, cooking classes and sometimes specialised students clubs (Alkon, 2014). In the USA and
other developed countries, apart from rising awareness
of malnutrition and hunger, nutrition education is popularly used to fight against obesity hunger and obesity
being two sides of the same coin (Patel and McMichael,
2009; Zerbe, 2010).
Despite important positive contributions, the effectiveness of education-based initiatives for sustainability
and food security needs to be further explored to ensure
that benefits have long-term impacts and do not promote
solutions that have negative side effects such as nutritional imbalances or unsustainable practices.
6.4.4 Reducing Inequalities and

Promoting Gender-responsive
Interventions and Policies
There is evidence around the world that greater involvement of women in forest management improves the condition and sustainability of forests (GEF, 2015). This
may be because women are responsible for a majority of
household chores that are related to forest products, especially firewood collection, and women are thus more
aware of the effects of deteriorating forest conditions.
Consequently, many women engage in conservation of
forest resources or in environmentally-friendly practices
in order to avoid or mitigate future hardship (Agarwal,
1997; Acharya and Gentle, 2006). Studies show, for
instance, that in parts of Asia where rural migration to
143
Woman pounding cassava for fufu, Senegal.

144
urban centres is widespread, women tend to plant more

trees on their lands than men as the intensity of agricultural management declines in response to rising incomes
through remittances (Agrawal et al., 2013). In other
places, the supposed positive influence of women on the
landscape is further encouraged by targeted legislation
and programmes, with vast effects at the local level. For
example, with support of the Forest Department of India, village forest committees (VFCs) were formed to
ensure equal participation of men and women in forest activities. The deliberate inclusion of women in the
VFCs provided incentives for women to manage, protect
and conserve their forests sustainably (WWF, 2012).
However, womens productive potential in natural
resource management is often constrained by sociocultural factors, particularly in rural areas in developing countries. Often, womens participation in natural
resource management is also restricted by land ownership and land tenure rights and agreements, as well as
distribution of decision-making powers that favour men
(see Chapter 3). As a result of complicated tenure arrangements, women often have to negotiate for rights
to land and associated resources. In some areas, women
thus engage in collective action to influence such decisions, for example by entering sharecropping arrangements, buying or accessing land collectively, often with
the help of NGOs (FAO, 2002; Agarwal, 2009). Many of
these NGOs use multilevel approaches by, for instance,
including training of leadership with best practice training in technology and innovation that are tailored to
womens tasks and needs (USDS, 2011). The potential
impact of more efficient land use by women is especially
interesting due to the fact that subsistence crops are often women crops, under the primary responsibility of
women (Das and Laub, 2005). Taking climate change
into account, the frequent exclusion of women from
technology and adaptive innovation is particularly counter-productive (Terry, 2009). Access and better use of
land are particularly important in light of study results
that show that food security might still be compromised
even in food secure households, often to the disadvantage of women and children (Hughes, 2010). Women
are often more inclined to reduce the number of meals
they take in a day or the quantity and/or quality of food
per meal for the benefit of other household members,
thereby exposing themselves to enormous health risk
(Nelson and Stathers, 2009). Altogether, if women had
the same access to productive resources as men, the FAO
estimates that women could increase the yields on their
farms by 20-30 percent, leading to a total increase of
agricultural output of 2.5 percent in developing countries and thus reducing the number of hungry people by
12-17 percent (FAO, 2011).
While this outlook is promising, increasing womens
contribution to enhanced food security and nutrition at
large scale will require a clear commitment for further
inclusion of women in decision-making processes concerning land use and land use planning. Although national legislation granting equal access to productive
resources is essential for social equity, socio-cultural
attitudes and practices that have evolved over decades
and centuries are not easily changed and often resist adaptation to new laws and transformation altogether. This
is particularly true in rural areas where local norms are
often enforced by older and respected, and thus more
powerful, (frequently male) community members (FAO,
2002). Because saliency, legitimacy and relevance of
more equitable laws and resource management rules
are critical for community buy-in and effective implementation, some organisations implement participatory
awareness campaigns, characterised by local community involvement in design and implementation (Clark
et al., 2011). Communication approaches that widely
disseminate information and education campaigns can
also help. At the same time, an in-depth understanding
is needed of the complex relationships between on the
one hand, land tenure, use and control and on the other,
their influence on food security, forests and tree-based
systems, in order to promote gender inclusiveness in decision-making and sustainable benefit sharing. Such an
understanding is also a prerequisite to external contribution to more inclusive land tenure policy frameworks
(see Section 6.2).
6.4.5 Social Mobilisation for Food Security

Social mobilisation seeks to foster change through awareness creation by engaging a wide range of actors in interrelated and complementary efforts (UNICEF, 2015; FAO,
2003). Engagement processes (historically face-to-face)
allow stakeholders to reflect on and understand their
situation, organise themselves and initiate action. Traditionally, social mobilisation is an endogenous process
through which like-minded persons attempt to exchange
ideas, define common purpose and strengthen their voices in order to be heard by their fellow citizens and authorities alike. In addition, social mobilisation has also been
used as a tool to increase legitimacy and sustainability
of externally encouraged activities in the context of community development.
In the USA and Western Europe popular interest in
food and agriculture has skyrocketed in recent years and
with it a multiplicity of social food movements. Some
even speak of a food revolution (Nestle, 2009). Most of
these movements critically assess modern food production technology and the entire heavily subsidised, chemically intensive and cheap labour dependent, industrial,
corporate food system. Many movements advocate for
and promote more humane and environmentally friendly
ways of producing, selling and consuming. The massive
disposing of unwanted or wasted food is yet another facet
of the same problem (Zerbe, 2010). The FAOs 2013 Food
Wastage Footprint report for instance specifies that 1.3
billion tonnes of edible food parts from 1.4 billion hectares of land (28 percent of the worlds agricultural area)
are wasted, leading to a direct economic loss of an estimated USD 750 billion per year (FAO, 2013b). In the same
vein, since the inclusion of almost all agricultural products
in trade liberalisation in 1994, under the auspices of the
World Trade Organization (WTO), developing countries
have been further encouraged to reorient their economies
towards export to the North and to neglect the production
of food for the domestic market. Also, a lack of democracy
in basic political institutions has favoured corporate interests of the food industry (Marshall, 2013). This critique has
largely informed the Right to Food, food justice and food
sovereignty movements (Hughes 2010), which have their
root in the fair trade movement (Zerbe, 2010). Globally, the
perhaps largest social mobilisation concerning food security and environmental sustainability concerns the regulation and restriction of genetically modified foods. While a
majority of the main food crops in the US continue to be
genetically modified, activists mobilisation has been very
successful in Europe (Alkon, 2014).
Due to its decentralised, often community-centred and
sometimes sporadic nature, a characterisation of contemporary food movements is difficult. For the United
States, Nestle suggests a separation between movements
that address the production side (such as the Slow Food,
the farm-animal welfare, the organic foods, or the locally grown food movements) and those that address the
consumption side (anti-marketing-foods-to-kids, school
food, anti-trans-fat, or the calorie labelling movement),
while others unite both purposes (community food security, better farm bill movement) (Nestle, 2009).
Social mobilisation for environmental sustainability and food security is also witnessed in the developing world. For example, the tree planting programmes
of the Green Belt Movement (GBM) provide incentives
for Kenyans to successfully improve their environments,
doubling as a sustainable land management approach
with a reliable source of income for women (Shaw, 2011).

By early 2015, the GBM published figures indicating that
it had planted over 51 million trees in Kenya through its
extensive network of over 50,000 female members. Using a multidisciplinary approach, the GBM integrates the
promotion of environmental conservation, with women's
and girls empowerment, and a focus on democracy and
sustainable livelihoods (GBM, 2015). Starting as a small,
local project, promoting gender inclusiveness and conservation, the GBM has become a nationally recognised and
internationally acclaimed movement. Its founder, the late
Wangari Maathai, received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2004
for her extraordinary contribution to awareness creation,
environmental conservation and social transformation.
Another interesting example is the food sovereignty
movement La Via Campesina (the Peasant Way), an
international organisation and platform that assembles
peasant farmers, small-scale farmers and activist groups
from 73 countries in Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas. In existence since 1993, La Via Campesina has
gained international recognition as a main actor in food
and agricultural debates and is heard by institutions such
as the FAO and the UN Human Rights Council (Hughes,
2010; La Via Campesina, 2011).
Garlic sellers, Kouana village, Guinea.

Social mobilisation is also a common tool in rural development and poverty alleviation programmes to strengthen
participation of the rural poor in local decision-making.
According to UN-HABITAT, communities and stakeholders that take ownership of their own problems, such as conflicts and environmental degradation, take better informed
decisions, are able to reach more sustainable solutions
and achieve results faster, while fostering their solidarity
and capacity to undertake development initiatives (UNHABITAT, 2014). Collective action has been successful
in many regards, for example improved access to social
and production services, greater efficiency in the use of
locally-available resources, and enhanced asset building by
the poorest of the poor (FAO, 2003; NRSP, 2005).
145
There are various examples in the world where social mobilisation has worked in favour of food security
and forest conservation. For example, through a UNDP
initiative in Tajikistan on agroforestry, communities
around the Gissar Mountains were mobilised to plant
salt-tolerant trees and other grafted new tree species to
alleviate the impacts of overutilisation and degradation
of natural resources, civil war and consequent socioeconomic hardships. As a result, pressure on forest resources was reduced and household incomes increased,
from the trees themselves, as well as from the establishment of tree nurseries. Local farmers also experimented
further, using grafting technology to cultivate fruit trees
(UNDP, 2015).
Urban dynamics, behavioural change, tackling inequalities and social mobilisation all represent different
options to address the drivers that affect forests and treebased systems, and thus their impacts on food security
and nutrition.
6.5 Conclusions
146
This chapter looked at options to improve food security

and nutrition in forests and tree-based systems through
governance and policies at national scales, market-based
approaches and socio-cultural responses. Based on examples from numerous developing but also developed countries we have shown how changes in policies, corporate
strategies, social norms and values, and technical developments can positively influence outcomes in livelihoods
and human wellbeing in forest contexts.
The section on governance innovations to better link
forests with food security discussed lessons from tenure reform, decentralisation of authority, market regulation and access to knowledge and technology. A central
governance issue is how and to what extent policy and
regulatory frameworks help ensure equitable access of
the poor, women and disadvantaged groups to forests and
tree-based systems, and to what extent these regulatory
arrangements recognise the rights to direct and indirect
benefits for food and nutritional security. On the process side of governance reform it is important to include
relevant actors, from local communities to government
departments, whereas on the substantive side, tenure security, decentralisation of decision-making and strengthening institutional capacity at local levels have shown to
be effective.
The section on private sector-driven reform emphasised initiatives aimed at enhancing the governance of
large-scale investors supporting sustainable practices in
the commodity value chain, improved benefit sharing and
protection of local peoples rights. In most cases, these
initiatives interact with the public sector and complement
policy frameworks. While guidelines and principles to
regulate large-scale investments are becoming increasingly important, it is unclear if they will change corporate behaviour toward greater sustainability. Sustainability standards supported by multi-stakeholder processes
may therefore foster greater changes on the ground but
their adoption is still limited and smallholders not able

to comply with more complex terms and conditions may
be excluded. The more recent commitments and pledges
by corporate actors to zero deforestation and sustainable
supply, as well as improving benefits for local people,
may therefore have significant influence in shaping future production practices and business models. To achieve
more inclusive food systems that not only use appropriate
innovations but also value local practices, management
systems and knowledge, it may be necessary to promote
more structural reform, involving greater intervention
from the state to harmonise regulatory regimes. Co-regulatory approaches that involve both public and private
sector actors may in the future enhance the governance
of food systems.
The section on socio-cultural responses focused on examples from gender research, behavioural change, social
mobilisation and urban dynamics to illustrate the importance of education, communication and access to information in achieving better food security and nutrition outcomes while preserving and improving forests and other
land-based natural resources. Education plays an important role in empowering rural populations and has the potential to generate tangible and fundamental benefits for
households and communities in achieving food security
and nutrition, sustainable forest and landscape management, and health. For women and other vulnerable groups
appropriate education and training programmes can improve the understanding of healthy and nutritious foods
and natural resource management practices, and support
traditional rural societies in understanding and incorporating necessary changes that enable gender inclusiveness in decision-making and benefit sharing in forests
and tree-based systems. Behavioural change to encourage
foods and diets with better environmental footprints, such
as low meat consumption diets and an increased use of
organically produced foods, can have significant positive
impacts on rural populations if the value chains necessary
to meet the demand are set up to include smallholders and
marginalised groups.
Overall, these public and private sector reforms and
social changes achieve greatest impact when they go hand
in hand. Whether or not innovation, reform and change
at the levels discussed in this chapter are sufficient to
transform food systems toward long-term sustainability
and food security and nutrition in forests and tree-based
landscapes requires continued scrutiny and assessment.
References
Alexandratos, N. and Bruinsma, J., 2012. World Agriculture
Towards 2030/2050: The 2012 revision. ESA Working paper
No. 12-03. Rome: FAO.
Benjamin, C. E., 2008. Legal pluralism and decentralization:

Natural resource management in Mali. World Development 36:
2255-2276.
Bettencourt, L. M. A., 2013. The origins of scaling in cities.
Science 340: 1438-1441.
Acharya, K. P. and Gentle, P., 2006. Improving the Effectiveness

of Collective Action: Sharing Experiences from Community
Forestry in Nepal. CAPRI Working Paper No 54. Washington
DC: IFPRI.
Bettencourt, L. M. A., Lobo, J., Helbing, D., Kuhnert, C. and West,

G. B., 2007. Growth, innovation, scaling, and the pace of life in
cities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107:
7301-7306.
Agarwal, B., 2009. Gender and forest conservation: The impact

of womens participation in community forest governance.
Beuchelt, T. and Zeller, M., 2011. Profits and poverty:

Certifications troubled link for Nicaraguas organic and
Fairtrade coffee producers. Ecological Economics 70: 13161324.
Agarwal, B., 2001. Participatory exclusions, community forestry,

and gender: An analysis for South Asia and a conceptual
framework. World Development 29: 1623-1648.
Agarwal, B., 1997. Bargaining and gender relations within and
beyond the household. Feminist Economics 3: 1-51.
Agrawal, A., 2001. The regulatory community: Decentralization
and the environment in the Van Panchayats (Forest Councils)
of Kumaon, India. Mountain Research and Development 21:
208-211.
Agrawal, A. and Ribot, J., 1999. Accountability in decentralization:
A framework with South Asian and West African cases. Journal
of Developing Areas 33: 473-502.
Background Paper 1, United Nations Forum on Forests.
Available at: http://www.un.org/esa/forests/pdf/session_
documents/unff10/EcoContrForests.pdf [Accessed on 21
February 2015].
Alkon, A. H., 2014. Food justice and the challenge to
neoliberalism. Gastronomica: The Journal of Food and Culture
14: 27-40.
Antinori, C. and Bray, D. B., 2005. Community forest enterprises as
entrepreneurial firms: Economic and institutional perspectives
from Mexico. World Development 33: 1529-1543.
Bhattarai, B., Dhungana, S. P. and Kafley, G. P., 2007. Poor-focused

common forest management: Lessons from leasehold forestry
in Nepal. Journal of Forest and Livelihood 6: 20-29.
Biggs, S. and Smith, S., 2003. A paradox of learning in project
cycle management and the role of organizational culture. World
Blaikie, P., 2006. Is small really beautiful? Community-based
natural resource management in Malawi and Botswana. World
BNDES, 2014. Social and Environmental Responsibility. Available
at: http://www.bndes.gov.br/SiteBNDES/bndes/bndes_en/
Institucional/Social_and_Environmental_Responsibility/
[Accessed on 16 August 2014].
Bray, D. B. and Merino-Prez, L., 2002. The Rise of Community
Forestry in Mexico: History, Concepts, and Lessens Learned
from Twenty-Five Years of Community Timber Production. New
York: Ford Foundation.
Brooks, J., 2014. Policy coherence and food security: The effects of
OECD countries agricultural policies. Food Policy 44: 88-94.
Burlingame, B. and Dernini, S. (eds.), 2012. Sustainable Diets and
Biodiversity: Directions and Solutions for Policy, Research and
Action. Rome: FAO.
Bampton, J. F., Ebregt A. and Banjade, M. R., 2007. Collaborative

forest management in Nepals Terai: Policy, practice and
contestation. Journal of Forest and Livelihood 6: 30-43.
Campbell, B., Wamukoya, G., Kinyangi, J., Verchot, L.,

Wollenberg, L., Vermeulen, S. J., Minang, P. A., Neufeldt, H.,
Vidal, A., Loboguerrero Rodriguez, A. M. and Hedger, M.,
2014. The Role of Agriculture in the UN Climate Talks. CCAFS
Info Note. Copenhagen: CGIAR Research Program on Climate
Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS).
Bardhan, P., 2002. Decentralization of governance and

development. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 16: 185205.
Campbell, J. L., 2007. Why would corporations behave in socially

responsible ways? An institutional theory of xorporate social
responsibility. Academy of Management Review 32: 94667.
Barham, B., Callenes, M., Gitter, S., Lewis, J. and Weber, J., 2011.
Fair trade/organic coffee, rural livelihoods, and the agrarian
questions: Southern Mexican coffee families in transition.
Candel, J. L., 2014. Food security governance: A systematic

literature review. Food Security 6: 585-601.
Badgley, C. and Perfecto, I., 2007. Can organic agriculture feed the
world? Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 22: 80-86.
Baron, D., Harjoto, M.A. and Jo, H., 2009. The Economics and
Politics of Corporate Social Performance. Research Paper
No. 1993. Stanford: Stanford University Graduate School of
Business.
Beardsworth, A. and Keil, T., 1992. The vegetarian option:
varieties, conversions, motives and careers. The Sociological
Review 40: 253293.
Cashore, B., 2002. Legitimacy and the privatization of

environmental governance: How nonstate marketdriven
(NSMD) governance systems gain rulemaking authority.
Governance 15: 503-529.
CFS, 2014. CFS Principles for Responsible Investment in
Agriculture and Food Systems First Draft. Committee on World
Food Security. Available at: http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/
templates/cfs/Docs1314/rai/FirstDraft/CFS_RAI_First_Draft_
for_Negotiation.pdf [Accessed on 16 August 2014].
Beddington, J., Asaduzzaman, M., Clark, M., Fernndez, A.,

Guillou, M., Jahn, M., Erda, L., Mamo, T., Van Bo, N., Nobre,
C. A., Scholes, R., Sharma, R. and 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).
CFS-FAO, 2012. Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible

Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the
Context of National Food Security. Available at: http://www.
fao.org/docrep/016/i2801e/i2801e.pdf [Accessed on 16 August
2014].
Belcher, B., Ruz-Prez M. and Achdiawan, R., 2005. Global

patterns and trends in the use and management of commercial
NTFPs: Implications for livelihoods and conservation. World
Clark, W. C., Tomich, T. P., van Noordwijk, M., Guston, D.,

Catacutan, D., Dickson, N. M. and McNie, E., 2011.
Boundary work for sustainable development: Natural resource
management at the Consultative Group on International
Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, (early edition). doi/10.1073/
pnas.0900231108.
Bender, A., 1992. Meat and Meat Products in Human Nutrition in

Developing Countries. Rome: FAO.
Clapp, J. and Fuchs, D., 2009. Corporate Power in Global Agrifood

Governance. Massachusetts: MIT Press.
147
Colfer, C. J. P., 2013. The Ups and Downs of Institutional Learning:

Reflections on the Emergence and Conduct of Adaptive
Collaborative Management at the Centre for International
Forestry Research. In: Adaptive Collaborative Approaches
in Natural Resource Governance: Rethinking Participation,
Learning and Innovation, edited by H. Ojha, A. Hall and V.
Rasheed Sulaiman. London: Routledge.
Colfer, C. J. P., 2005. The Complex Forest: Communities,
Uncertainty, and Adaptive Collaborative Management.
Washington DC: Resources for the Future.
Colfer, C. J. P. and Capistrano, D., 2004. The Politics of
Decentralization: Forests, Power, and People. London:
Earthscan.
COMTRADE, 2014. Trade Map: Trade Statistics for International
Business Development. Available at: http://www.trademap.org/
Index.aspx [Accessed on 16 August 2014].
Cotula, L., Vermeulen, S., Mathieu, P. and Toulmin, C., 2011.
Agricultural investment and international land deals: Evidence
from a multi-country study in Africa. Food Security 3: 99-113.
Crook, R. C., 2003. Decentralisation and poverty reduction
in Africa: The politics of localcentral relations. Public
Administration and Development 23: 77-88.
Dahal, G. R. and Capistrano, D., 2006. Forest governance and
institutional structure: an ignored dimension of community
based forest management in the Philippines. International
Forestry Review 8: 377-394.
Das, S. and Laub, R., 2005. Understanding links between gendered
local knowledge of agrobiodiversity and food security in
Tanzania. Mountain Research and Development 25: 218-222.
Deininger, K., 2011. Challenges posed by the new wave of
farmland investment. The Journal of Peasant Studies
38: 217-247.
Dibsdall, L. A., Lambert, N., Bobbin, R. F. and Frewer, L. J., 2002.
Low-income consumers attitudes and behaviour towards
access, availability and motivation to eat fruit and vegetables.
Public Health Nutrition 6: 159168.
Dimitri, C. and Greene, C., 2002. Recent Growth Patterns in the
U.S. Organic Foods Market. Agriculture Information Bulletin
No 777. Washington DC: USDA.
Djama, M., 2011. Regulating the Globalised Economy: Articulating
Private Voluntary Standards and Public Regulations.
Perspective No. 11. Montpellier: CIRAD.
Donovan, J. and Poole, N., 2014. Partnerships in Fairtrade coffee:
Close-up look at buyer interactions and NGO interventions.
Food Chain 4: 34-48.
Donovan, J., 2011. Value Chain Development for Addressing Rural
Poverty: Asset Building by Smallholder Coffee Producers and
Cooperatives in Nicaragua. PhD Thesis. London: School of
Oriental and African Studies, University of London.
Dryzek, J. S., 2010. Foundations and Frontiers of Deliberative
Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Durst, P., McKenzie, P., Brown, C. and Appanah, S., 2006.
Challenges facing certification and eco-labelling of forest
products in developing countries. International Forestry Review
8: 193-200.
Equator Principles, 2014. Members and Reporting. Available
at: http://www.equator-principles.com/index.php/membersreporting [Accessed on 16 August 2014].
FAO, 2013a. Climate-Smart Agriculture Sourcebook. Rome: FAO.
FAO, 2013b. Food Wastage Footprint: Impacts on Natural
Resources. Summary Report. Rome: Food and Agriculture
FAO, 2011. The State of Food and Agriculture 2010-11: Women in
Agriculture. Rome: FAO.
FAO, 2010. Global Forest Resources Assessment. Rome: FAO.
148
FAO, 2004. Voluntary Guidelines to Support the Progressive

Realization of the Right to Adequate Food in the Context of the
National Food Security. Available at: http://www.fao.org/3/ay7937e.pdf [Accessed on 16 August 2014].
FAO, 2003. A Handbook for Trainers on Participatory Local

Development. Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific
Publication 2003/07. Bangkok: FAO.
FAO, 2002. Gender and Law: Womens Rights in Agriculture.
Legislative Study No 76. Rome: FAO.
FAO, 1997. Agriculture Food and Nutrition for Africa: A Resource
Book for Teachers of Agriculture. Rome: FAO.
Fischler, C., 1988. Food, self and identity. Social Science
Information 27: 275-292.
Forster, T. and Escudero, A. G., 2014. City Regions as Landscapes
for People, Food and Nature. Washington DC: EcoAgriculture
Partners.
Fuller R. J., Norton, L. R., Feber, R. E., Johnson P. J., Chamberlain,
D. E., Joys, A. C., Mathews, F., Stuart, R. C., Townsend, M. C.,
Manley, W. J., Wolfe, M. S., Macdonald, D. W. and Firbank,
L. G., 2005. Benefits of organic farming to biodiversity vary
among taxa. Biology Letter 1: 431434.
Fung, A. and Wright, E. O., 2001. Deepening democracy:
Innovations in empowered participatory governance. Politics
and Society 29: 5-42.
GACSA, 2014. Framework Document. Global Alliance for
Climate-Smart Agriculture. Series Document 1. Available at:
http://www.fao.org/climate-smart-agriculture/41760-02b7c16
db1b86fcb1e55efe8fa93ffdc5.pdf [Accessed on 18 February
2015].
GBM, 2015. Green Belt Movement. Available at: http://www.
greenbeltmovement.org/ [Accessed on 23 January 2015].
GEF, 2015. Climate Change Calls for Greater Role of Women
in Forest Management. Available at: http://www.thegef.org/
gef/press_release/woman_and_forest_2011 [Accessed on 22
January 2015].
Gilmour, D., 2011. Unlocking the Wealth of Forests for Community
Development: Commercializing Products from Community
Forests. Rome: FAO.
Glanz, K., Sallis, J. F., Saelens, B. E. and Frank, L. D., 2005.
Healthy nutrition environments: Concepts and measures.
American Journal of Health Promotion 19: 330-333.
Grieg-Gran, M., Porras, I. and Wunder, S., 2005. How can market
mechanisms for forest environmental services help the poor?
Preliminary lessons from Latin America. World Development
33: 1511-1527.
GSCP, 2014. Global Social Compliance Programme. Available at:
http://www.mygscp.com/ [Accessed on 16 August 2014].
Haberli, C. and Smith, F., 2014. Food security and agri-foreign
direct investment in weak states: Finding the governance gap to
avoid land grab. The Modern Law Review 77: 189-222.
Halberg, N., Alre, H. F., Knudsen, M. T. and Kristensen, E.
S.(eds.), 2005. Global Development of Organic Agriculture:
Challenges and Promises. Wallingford: CAB International.
Hall, A., 2002. Innovation systems and capacity development: An
agenda for North-South research collaboration? International
Journal of Technology Management and Sustainable
Hall, A., Sulaiman, V. R., Yoganand, B. and Clark, N., 2003. Postharvest innovation systems in South Asia: Research as capacity
development and its prospects for impact on the poor in
developing countries. Outlook on Agriculture 32, 97-104.
Hallam, D., 2011. International investment in developing country
agriculture issues and challenges. Food Security 3: 591-598.
Hawkes, C., 2013. Promoting Health Diets Through Nutrition
Education and Changes in the Food Environment: An
International Review of Actions and their Effectiveness.
Rome: FAO.
HCSS, 2014. Oil Palm Manifesto. High Carbon Stock Study. Available
at: http://www.carbonstockstudy.com/Documents/SustainablePalm-Oil-Manifesto.aspx [Accessed on 16 August 2014].
Head, B. W., 2007. Community engagement: Participation on
whose terms? Australian Journal of Political Science 42,
441-454.
Hemmati, M., 2002. Multi-Stakeholder Proscesses for Goverance

and Sustainability: Beyond Deadlock and Conflict. London:
Earthscan.
Hickey, S. and Mohan, G., 2005. Relocating participation within a
radical politics of development. Development and Change 36,
237-262.
Hughes, L., 2010. Conceptualizing just food in alternative agrifood
initiatives. Humboldt Journal of Social Relations 33: 30-63.
IAASTD 2009. International Assessment of Agricultural
Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development.
Washington DC: Island Press.
IFC, 2012. IFC Performance Standards on Environmental and
Social Sustainability. Available at: http://www.ifc.org/wps/
wcm/connect/ c8f524004a73daeca09afdf998895a12/IFC_
Performance_Standards.pdf?MOD=AJPERES [Accessed on 16
August 2014].
IFOAM, 2005. The IFOAM Norms Version 2005. Bonn:
International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements.
Indonesia Ministry of Agriculture, 2012. Tree Crop Statistics of
Indonesia: 2011-2012. Jakarta: Directorate General of Estate
Crops.
IPCC, 2014. Summary for policymakers. In: Climate Change 2014:
Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and
Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth
Change, edited by 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 and L. L. White. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Iversen, V., Chhetry, B., Francis, P., Gurung, M., Kafle, G., Pain, A.
and Seeley, J., 2006. High value forests, hidden economies and
elite capture: Evidence from forest user groups in Nepals Terai.
Jamnadass, R., Place, F., Torquebiau, E., Malzieux, E., Iiyama,
M., Sileshi, G. W., Kehlenbeck, K., Masters, E., McMullin, S.
and Dawson, I. K., 2013. Agroforestry for food and nutritional
security. Unasylva 64: 23-29.
Jamnadass, R. H., Dawson, I. K., Franzel, S., Leakey, R. R. B.,
Mithfer, D., Akinnifesi, F. K. and Tchoundjeu, Z., 2011.
in smallholders agroforestry systems: A review. International
Forest Review 13: 338354.
Lund, C., 2006. Twilight institutions: Public authority and local

politics. Development and Change 37: 685-705.
Lykke, A, M., Mertz, O. and Ganaba, S., 2002. Food consumption
in rural Burkina Faso. Ecology of Food Nutrition 41: 119153.
Magdoff, F., Foster J. B. and Buttel, F.H. (eds.), 2000. Hungry
for Profit: The Agribusiness Threat to Farmers, Food, and the
Environment. New York: Monthly Review Press, 7-21.
Mahanty, S., Fox, J., Nurse, M., Stephen P. and McLees, L., 2006.
Hanging in the Balance: Equity in Community-Based Natural
Resource Management in Asia. Honolulu: East-West Centre.
Margulis, M. E., 2013. The regime complex for food security:
Implications for the global hunger challenge. Global
Governance 19: 5367.
Marsden, T., Lee, R., Flynn A. and Thankappan, S., 2009. The New
Regulation and Governance of Food Beyond the Food Crisis.
London: Routledge.
Marshall, K., 2013. Ten years of food politics: An interview with
Marion Nestle. Gastronomica: The Journal of Food and Culture
13: 1-3.
McCullough, F. S. W., Yoo, S. and Ainsworth, P., 2004. Food
choice, nutrition education and parental influence on British
and Korean primary school children. International Journal of
Consumer Studies 28: 235-244.
Mendez, V.E., Bacon, C.M., Olson, M., Petchers, S., Herrador, D.,
Carranza, C., Trujillo, L., Guadarrama-Zugasti, C., Cordon
A. and Mendoza, A., 2010. Effects of Fair Trade and organic
certifications on small-scale coffee farmer households in
Central America and Mexico. Renewable Agriculture and Food
Systems 25: 236-251.
Meyer, M., 2010. The Rise of the knowledge broker. Science
Communication 32: 118-127.
Mohan, G. and Stokke, K., 2000. Participatory development and
empowerment: the dangers of localism. Third World Quarterly
21: 247-268.
Mohan, G., 1996. Adjustment and decentralization in Ghana: A
case of diminished sovereignty. Political Geography 15: 75-94.
Mwangi, E. and Wardell, A., 2012. Multi-level governance of forest
resources. International Journal of the Commons 6: 79-103.
NECOFA, 2013. Network for Ecofarming in Africa, Kenya chapter.
Available at: https://necofakenya.wordpress.com/ [Accessed on
20 February 2015].
Keller, G. B., Mndiga, H. and Maass, B., 2006. Diversity and

genetic erosion of traditional vegetables in Tanzania from the
farmers point of view. Plant Genetic Resources 3: 400413.
Nelson, G. C., Rosegrant, M. W., Palazzo A., Gray, I., Ingersoll

C., Robertson, R., Tokgoz, S., Zhu, T., Sulser, T. B., Ringler,
C., Msangi, S. and You, L., 2010. Food Security, Farming, and
Climate Change to 2050: Scenarios, Results, Policy Options.
Washington DC: IFPRI.
Kennedy, J., Thomas, J. W. and Glueck, P, 2001. Evolving forestry

and rural development beliefs at midpoint and close to the 20th
century. Forest Policy and Economics 3: 81-95.
Nelson, V. and Stathers, T., 2009. Resilience, power, culture,

and climate: a case study from semi-arid Tanzania, and new
research directions. Gender and Development 17: 8194.
Kissinger, G., Herold, M. and De Sy, V., 2012. Drivers of

Deforestation and Forest Degradation: A Synthesis Report for
REDD+ Policymakers. Vancouver: Lexeme Consulting.
Nepal DoF, 2009. Community Forestry Implementation Guideline.

Kathmandu: Department of Forest.
Kooiman, J., Bavinck, M., Chuenpagdee, R., Mahon, R. and

Pullin, R., 2008. Interactive governance and governability: An
introduction. The Journal of Transdisciplinary Environmental
Studies 7: 1-11.
Nestle, M., 2009. Reading the food social movement. World

Literature Today 83, 36-39.
Kuhnlein, H. V. and Receveur, O., 1996. Dietary change and

traditional food systems of indigenous peoples. Annual Review
of Nutrition 16: 417-442.
Neufeldt, H., Jahn, M., Campbell, B., Beddington, J. R., DeClerck,

F., De Pinto, A., Gulledge, J., Hellin, J., Herrero, M., Jarvis, A.,
LeZaks, D., Meinke, H., Rosenstock, T., Scholes, M., Scholes, R.,
Vermeulen, S., Wollenberg, E. and Zougmor, R., 2013. Beyond
climate-smart agriculture toward safe operating spaces for
global food systems. Agriculture and Food Security 2:12.
La Via Campesina, 2011. La Via Campesina Available at: http://

viacampesina.org/en/index.php/organisation-mainmenu-44
NRSP, 2005. Social Mobilization. National Rural Support

Programme Available at: http://nrsp.org.pk/social_mobilization.
htm [Accessed on 3 February 2015].
Larson, A., Barry, D., Dahal, G. R. and Colfer, C. J. P. (eds.), 2010.

Forest for People: Community Rights and Forest Tenure Reform.
London: Earthscan.
OECD, 2008. OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.

Paris: OECD. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/investment/
mne/1922428.pdf [Accessed on 16 August 2014].
Leach, M., Rockstrm, J., Raskin, P., Scoones, I., Stirling, A. C.,
Smith, A., Thompson, J., Millstone, E., Ely, A., Folke, C. and
Olsson, P., 2012. Transforming innovation for sustainability.
Ecology and Society 17(2):11.
Ogoye-Ndegwa, C., and Aagaard-Hansen, J., 2003. Traditional

gathering of wild vegetables among the Luo of western Kenya
a nutritional anthropology project. Ecology of Food and
Nutrition 42: 69-89.
149
Ojha, H. R., 2014. Beyond the local community: the evolution

of multi-scale politics in Nepals community forestry regimes.
International Forestry Review 16: 339-353.
Rayda, N., 2012. Switch to Sustainable Palm Oil Just a Matter of

Time, Industry Figures Says. The Jakarta Globe. Available at:
www.thejakartaglobe.com [Accessed on 16 August 2014].
Ojha, H. R., 2013. Counteracting hegemonic powers in the policy

process: Critical action research on Nepals forest governance.
Critical Policy Studies 7: 242-262.
Raynolds, L.T. 2009. Mainstreaming Fair Trade Coffee: From

Partnership to Traceability. World Development 37: 1083-1093.
Ojha, H. R., Banjade, M. R., Sunam, R. K., Bhattarai, B., Jana, S.,
Goutam K. R. and Dhungana, S., 2014. Can authority change
through deliberative politics? Lessons from the four decades of
participatory forest policy reform in Nepal. Forest Policy and
Economics 46: 1-9.
Ojha, H. R. and Hall, A., 2012. Confronting Challenges in
Applying Adpative Collaborative Appraoches. In: Adaptive
Collaborative Approaches in Natural Resource Governance:
Rethinking Participation, Learning and Innovation, edited by H.
Ojha, A. Hall and V. Rasheed Sulaiman. London: Routledge.
Ostrom, E., 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of
Institutions for Collective Actions, Political Economy of
Institutions and Decisions. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Pacheco, P. and Poccard-Chapuis, R., 2012. The complex evolution
of cattle ranching development amid market integration and
policy shifts in the Brazilian Amazon. Annals of the Association
of American Geographers 102: 1366-1390.
Pacheco, P. and Paudel, N. S., 2010. Communities and Forest
Markets: Assessing the Benefits from Diverse Forms of
Engagement. In: Forest for People: Community Rights and
Forest Tenure Reform, edited by A. Larson, D. Barry, G. R.
Dahal and C. J. P. Colfer. London: Earthscan.
Pacheco, P., German, L., van Gelder, J.W., Weinberger, K. and
Guariguata, M., 2011. Avoiding deforestation in the context of
biofuel feedstock expansion: An analysis of the effectiveness of
market-based instruments. Working Paper 73. Bogor: CIFOR.
Padoch, C. and Sunderland, T., 2013. Managing landscapes for
greater food security and improved livelihoods. Unasylva 64:
3-13.
Page, H., 2013. Global Governance and Food Security as Global
Public Good. New York: New York University, Center for
International Cooperation.
Pandit, B. H., Albano, A. and Kumar, C., 2009. Communitybased forest enterprises in Nepal: An analysis of their role in
increasing income benefits to the poor. Small-scale Forestry 8:
447-462.
Ribot, J. C., 2003. Democratic decentralisation of natural resources:

Institutional choice and discretionary power transfers in subSaharan Africa. Public Administration and Development 23:
53-65.
Ribot, J. C., 2007. Representation, citizenship and the public
domain in democratic decentralization. Development 50: 43-49.
Ribot, J. C., Agrawal, A. and Larson, A. M., 2006. Recentralizing
while decentralizing: How national governments reappropriate
forest resources. World Development 34: 1864-1886.
Ribot, J.C., 2006. Authority over forests: Empowerment and
subordination in Senegals democratic decentralization.
Development and Change 40: 105-129.
Rockstrm, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin, F.
S. 3rd, Lambin, E. F., Lenton, T. M., Scheffer, M., Folke, C.,
Schellnhuber, H. J., Nykvist, B., de Wit, C. A., Hughes, T., van
der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., Srlin, S., Snyder, P. K., Costanza,
R., Svedin, U., Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L., Corell, R. W.,
Fabry, V. J., Hansen, J., Walker, B., Liverman, D., Richardson,
K., Crutzen, P. and Foley, J. A., 2009. A safe operating space for
humanity. Nature 461: 472475.
RRI, 2014. What Future for Reform? Progress and Slowdown in
Forest Tenure Reform Since 2002. Washington DC: Rights and
Resources Initiative.
RSPO, 2014. RSPO in numbers 2014. Available at: http://www.
rspo.org/ [Accessed on 16 August 2014].
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. and Buck, L. E., 2013. Ten
principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture,
conservation, and other competing land uses. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences 110: 8349-8356.
Scherr, S. J., Shames, S. and Friedman, R., 2012. From climatesmart agriculture to climate-smart landscapes. Agriculture and
Food Security 1:12.
Patel, R. and McMichael, P., 2009. A political economy of the food

riot. Review 32: 935.
Scherr, S. J., White, A. and Kaimowitz, D., 2004. A New Agenda for
Forest Conservation and Poverty Reduction. Washington DC:
Forest Trends and CIFOR.
Perez, O., 2007. The New Universe of Green Finance: From SelfRegulation to Multi-Polar Governance. Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan
University.
Schot, J., 2001. Towards new forms of participatory technology

development. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management
13: 39-52.
Pimbert, M., 2012. FPIC and beyond: Safeguards for powerequalising research that protects biodiversity, rights and culture.
Participatory Learning and Action 65: 43-54.
Schouten, G. and Glasbergen, P., 2011. Creating legitimacy in

global private governance: The case of the Roundtable on
Sustainable Palm Oil. Ecological Economics 70: 18911899.
Pokharel, B., Branney, P., Nurse, M. and Malla, Y., 2008.

Community Forestry: Conserving Forests, Sustaining
Livelihoods, Strengthening Democracy. In: Communities,
Forests and Governance: Policy and Institutional Innovations
from Nepal, edited by H. Ojha, N. Timsina, C. Kumar, B.
Belcher and M. Banjade. New Delhi: Adroit.
Schusler, T. M., Decker, D. J. and Pfeffer, M. J., 2003. Social

learning for collaborative natural resource management. Society
and Natural Resources 16, 309-326.
Potts, J., Lynch, M., Wilkings, A., Hupp, G., Cunnigham M. and
Vora, V., 2014. The State of Sustainability Initiatives Review
2014: Standards and the Green Economy. Winnipeg: IISD.
Pretty, J. N., 1995. Participatory learning for sustainable
agriculture. World Development 23: 1247-1263.
Pulhin, J. M., Inoue, M. and Enters, T., 2007. Three decades of
community-based forest management in the Philippines:
Emerging lessons for sustainable and equitable forest
management. International Forestry Review 9: 865-883.
150
Reardon, T., Timmer, P., Barrett, C. and Berdegu, J., 2003. The rise
of supermarkets in Africa, Asia and Latin America. American
Journal of Agricultural Economics 85: 1140-1146.
Sen, A., 1999. Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.
Sharma, N. and Ojha, H., 2013. Community Forestry, Ecosystem
Services and Poverty Alleviation: Evidence from Nepal. Digital
Library of the Commons.
Shaw, D., 2011. Interview with Wangari Maathai. In: Forests and
Gender, edited by L. Aguilar, A. Quesada-Aguilar and D. M. P.
Shaw. Gland: IUCN.
Sherman, J., 2003. From nutritional needs to classroom lessons:
Can we make a difference? Food, Nutrition and Agriculture 33:
4551.
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. and Tubiello,
F., 2014. Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU).
In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change.
Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
edited by 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. Schlmer, C. von
Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Sobal, J., Bisogni, C. A. and Jastran, M., 2014. Food choice is
multifaceted: Contextual, dynamic, multilevel, integrated, and
diverse. Mind, Brain, and Education 8: 6-12.
Soil Association, 2014. Organic Market Report 2013. Available at:
http://www.soilassociation.org/marketreport [Accessed on 18
February 2015].
Springate-Baginski, O., Sarin, M. and Reddy, M. G., 2013.
Resisting Rights: Forest Bureaucracy and the Tenure Transition
in India. Small-scale Forestry 12, 107-124.
Starbucks, 2014. Starbucks and Sustainable Palm Oil. Available at:
http://globalassets.starbucks.com/assets/85d80f17fae84fc9bb46
97e9edc38b74.pdf [Accessed on 16 August 2014]
Stehfest E., Bouwman, L., van Vuuren, D., den Elzen, M.,
Eickhout, B. and Kabat P., 2009. Climate benefits of changing
diet. Climatic Change 95: 83102.
Story, M., Kaphingst, K. M., Robinson-OBrien, R. and Glanz, K.,
2008. Creating healthy food and eating environments: Policy
and environmental approaches. Annual Review of Public Health
29: 253-272.
Sunam, R. K., Paudel, N. S. and Paudel, G., 2013. Community
forestry and the threat of recentralization in Nepal: contesting
the bureaucratic hegemony in policy process. Society and
Natural Resources 26: 1407-1421.
Sundar, N., 2000. Unpacking the joint in joint forest management.
Development and Change 31: 255-279.
Sunderland, T., Powell, B., Ickowitz, A., Foli, S., Pinedo-Vasquez,
M., Nasi, R. and Padoch, C., 2013. Food security and nutrition:
The Role of Forests. Bogor: CIFOR.
Terry, G. (ed.), 2009. Climate Change and Gender Justice. Rugby:
Practical Action Publishing.
Thoms, C. A., Karna, B. K. and Karmacharya, M. B., 2006.
Limitations of leasehold forestry for poverty alleviation in
Nepal. Society and Natural Resources 19: 931-938.
Tilman, D., Cassman, K. G., Matson, P. A., Naylor, R. and Polasky,
S., 2002. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production
practices. Nature 418: 671-677.
Toledo, V. M., Ortiz-Espejel, B., Corts, L., Moguel, P. and
Ordoez, M., 2003. The multiple use of tropical forests by
indigenous peoples in Mexico: A case of adaptive management.
Conservation Ecology 7:9.
UN-HABITAT, 2014. Social Mobilization. United Nations Human
Settlements Programme. Available at: http://www.fukuoka.
unhabitat.org/docs/publications/pdf/peoples_process/ChapterIISocial_Mobilization.pdf. [Accessed on 3 February 2015].
UNDP, 2015. Our Work. UNDP in Tajikistan. Available at: http://
www.tj.undp.org/content/tajikistan/en/home/ourwork/overview.
html [Accessed on 21 February 2015].
UNICEF, 2015. Social Mobilization. Communication for
Development (C4D). Available at: http://www.unicef.org/cbsc/
index_42347.html [Accessed on 2 February 2015].
Unilever, 2014. Our targets. Available at: http://www.unilever.
com/sustainable-living-2014/reducing-environmental-impact/
sustainable-sourcing/sustainable-palm-oil/our-targets/
United Nations, 2014. The Transformative Potential of the Right

to Food. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to
Food, Olivier De Schutter. Available at: http://www.srfood.org/
images/stories/pdf/officialreports/20140310_finalreport_en.pdf
USAID, 2003. USAIDs Response to the Global Coffee Crisis. Fact
Sheet. Available at: http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/ar
ticle/2003/03/20030305122512egreen@pd.state.gov0.0325281.
html#axzz3OP3gwSRB [Accessed on 16 Aug 2014].
USDS, 2011. Women and Agriculture: Improving Global Food
Security. Washington DC: US Department of State, Bureau of
Public Affairs.
Valkila, J., 2009. Fair trade organic coffee production in Nicaragua:
Sustainable development or a poverty trap? Ecological
Economics 68: 30183025.
Vallejo, N. and Hauselmann, P., 2004. Governance and MultiStakeholder Processes. Winnipeg: International Institute for
Sustainable Development.
van Dam, J., Junginger, M., Faaij, A., Jrgens, I., Best G. and
Fritsche, U., 2008. Overview of recent developments in
sustainable biomass certification. Biomass and Bioenergy 32:
749-780.
van Gelder, J.W. and Kouwenhoven, D., 2011. Enhancing
Financiers Accountability for the Social and Environmental
Impacts of Biofuels. Working Paper 60. Bogor: CIFOR.
van Gelder, J.W., Herder, A., Kouwenhoven, D. and Wolterink, J.,
2010. Close the Gap Benchmarking Investment Policies of
International Banks. Nijmegen: BankTrack.
Varangis, P., Siegel, P., Giovannucci, D. and Lewin, B., 2003.
Dealing with the Coffee Crisis in Central America: Impacts and
Strategies. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 2993.
Washington DC: World Bank.
Weber, J.G., 2011. How much more do growers receive for Fair
Trade-organic coffee? Food Policy 36: 678-685.
Westhoek, H., Lesschen, J. P., Rood, T., Wagner, S., De Marco, A.,
Murphy-Bokern, D., Leip, A., van Grinsven, H., Sutton, M. A.
and Oenema, O., 2014. Food choices, health and environment:
Effects of cutting Europes meat and dairy intake. Global
Environmental Change 26: 196205.
Whately, M. and Campanili. M., 2014. Green Municipalities
Program: Lessons Learned and Challenges for 2013/2014.
Belm: Government of the State of Par.
Wilmar International, 2014. Sustainability. Available at: http://
www.wilmar-international.com/sustainability/ [Accessed on 16
August 2014]
Wilson, B., 2010. Indebted to Fair Trade? Coffee and crisis in
Nicaragua. Geoforum 41: 8492.
World Bank, 2011. The World Bank Group Framework and IFC
Strategy for Engagement in the Palm Oil Sector. Washington
DC: World Bank.
World Bank, 2003. Scaling-Up the Impact of Good Practices
in Rural Development: A Working Paper to Support
Implementation of the World Banks Rural Development
Strategy. Washington DC: World Bank.
Wunder, S., Engel, S. and Pagiola, S., 2008. Taking stock: A
comparative analysis of payments for environmental services
programs in developed and developing countries. Ecological
WWF, 2012. Forest Management and Gender. Social Development
Briefing. Surrey: World Wide Fund for Nature.
WWF, 2010. Certification and Roundtables? WWF Review of
Multi-Stakeholder Sustainability Initiatives. Available at:
http://assets.wwf.org.uk/downloads/ wwf_certification_and
roundtables_briefing.pdf [Accessed on 16 August 2014].
Zerbe, N., 2010. Moving from bread and water to milk and honey:
Framing the emergent alternative food systems. Humboldt
Journal of Social Relations 33: 4-29.
151
Chapter 7
Conclusions
Lead authors: Ramni Jamnadass, Daniela Kleinschmit, Stepha McMullin, Stephanie Mansourian,
Henry Neufeldt, John A. Parrotta, Terry Sunderland and Christoph Wildburger
7.1 Forests and Trees Matter for Food

Close to one out of every six persons directly depends
on forests, with food being one essential aspect of this
dependence. An even greater number rely on the ecosystem services of forests notably soil and water protection
and pollination specifically for their food and nutrition.
Forests and tree-based systems are particularly critical for
food security and nutrition for the poorest and the most
vulnerable, including women.
Forests and tree-based systems have played a major
role throughout human history in supporting livelihoods
as well as meeting the food security and nutritional
needs of the global population. These systems, ranging
from natural forests that are managed to optimise
yields of wild foods and fodder, through shifting cultivation and a wide variety of agroforestry systems
to single-species tree crop systems and orchards, remain important components of rural landscapes in
most parts of the world.
There is increasing evidence of the importance of
forests and other tree-based systems for supporting
food production and contributing to dietary diversity
and quality, and addressing nutritional shortfalls as
underscored in this report. Additional products essential to food production, such as fuel, fodder or green fertiliser, are also provided by trees.
Non-timber forest products (NTFPs) and agroforestry
tree products (AFTPs), including tree commodity crops
within agroforestry systems, are important sources of
revenue to local people and governments, which can can
contribute to food supply. Tree-based incomes offer
a considerably more diversified livelihood portfolio
given the environmental and economic risks of relying
on cash incomes from single commodity crops. More
is known about the economic value of tree commodity
crops than of other products, although recent initiatives
have provided a clearer picture of the environmental
income from NTFPs.
Forests and tree-based systems also provide valuable ecosystem services that are essential for staple
crop production and that of a wider range of edible
plants. For instance, many globally important crops require pollinators that are supported by forests and diverse
tree-based cropping systems within landscape mosaics.
These systems offer a number of advantages over permanent (crop) agriculture given the diversity of food
products derived from them and their adaptability
to a broader range of environmental conditions (e.g.,
soils, topography and climate) and changing socioeconomic conditions.
7.2 Governing Multi-functional

Landscapes for Food Security
and Nutrition
Forests and tree-based systems are embedded within
broader economic, political, cultural and ecological landscapes that typically include a mosaic of different, and
often competing food production systems and other land
uses. How these different land use patches interact with
each other in space and time can profoundly influence
the productivity and sustainability of forests and treebased systems as well as their food security and nutrition
outcomes. The integration of biodiversity conservation and agricultural production goals must be a first
step, whether through land sharing or land sparing,
or more feasibly through a more nuanced, yet complex, multi-functional integrated landscape approach.
Greater attention to the production of and access to nutrient-dense foods is needed in the debate on the respective
benefits of land sharing versus land sparing which has
focused to date on the impacts of staple crop yields (one
important aspect of food security and nutrition) on biodiversity and forest conservation.
A range of diverse drivers environmental, social, economic and governance affect forests and tree-based systems for food security and nutrition, usually by influencing
153
154
land use and management or through changes in consumption, income and livelihood opportunities. These
drivers are often interrelated. Thus, designing appropriate and integrated responses to these complex influences
that are effective across multiple, nested scales is a major challenge. Managing resilient and climate-smart
landscapes on a multi-functional basis that combines
food production, biodiversity conservation, other
land uses and the maintenance of ecosystem services
should be at the forefront of efforts to achieve global
food security. In order for this to happen, knowledge
from biodiversity science and agricultural research and
development needs to be integrated through a systems
approach at the landscape scale.
Governance shifts from state-focused government
to multi-sectoral and cross-scale governance present
better prospects for integration of different interests
and goals related to forest and food systems. The resulting global emphasis on ecosystem services can also
bring opportunities for improved synergies between
forest and food systems, changing management forms
and changes in income and livelihood structures. To
maximise future potential, greater attention from the
scientific and development communities is required,
particularly to develop a supportive policy framework
that considers both the forestry and agriculture sectors in tandem.
Current governance arrangements are imperfect and
ambiguous. Complexity surrounding the forest-food
landscape interface dictates the need for different solutions on a case-by-case basis. Structural reforms involving greater intervention from the state to harmonise
regulatory regimes, may be required in some instances
to achieve more inclusive food systems that not only foster innovation but also value local practices, systems and
knowledge. Co-regulatory approaches that involve
both public and private actors also have the potential to enhance the effective governance of forest and
tree-based food systems. Initiatives aimed at enhancing the governance of large-scale investors supporting
sustainable practices in the commodity value chain, improved benefit sharing and protection of local peoples
rights complement state-led regulatory approaches and
policy frameworks.
A central governance issue is how and to what extent policy and regulatory frameworks help ensure
equitable access of the poor, women and disadvantaged groups to forests and tree-based systems, and
to what extent do these regulatory arrangements recognise the rights to direct and indirect benefits for
food and nutritional security. Richer households with
more assets (including livestock) are able to claim or
make greater use of forest common property resources;
yet, poorer households often have a higher dependence,
as a proportion of their total income, on forest resources
for food security and livelihoods.
The impacts of interventions are also felt differently, depending on social structures and local contexts, and could improve food security and nutrition for
some groups while increasing vulnerability for others.
Subsidies and incentives (for tree planting and management) are often captured by larger farmers who are,
usually, not food insecure in relative terms. Responses
must be sensitive to these differences, and ensure that
they meet the needs of the most vulnerable groups.
7.3 The Importance of Secure Tenure

and Local Control
Improving food sovereignty can help to ensure that
local people have better access to food, control over
their own diets and are engaged in efforts to improve the nutritional quality of their food intake.
Community level engagement with local food and agricultural systems will be particularly important for
those people facing a nutrition transition and the burden of malnutrition. It creates a setting ideal for more
sustainable management of these food and agricultural
systems and the broader landscapes in which communities reside and interact.
Tenure regimes in forests and tree-based systems
for food security and nutrition are highly complex, and
rights to trees or to their produce may be different from
rights to the land on which they are grown. Different
bundles of rights are nested and overlap in these different systems, varying according to geographical,
social, cultural, economic and political factors, and
affecting the access of different population groups
to the trees and their products for food, income and
other livelihood needs.
Policies that support communities access to forests and that encourage the cultivation of tree products are required. While there is a growing trend towards designating de jure land and management rights
to communities and indigenous peoples who traditionally hold de facto rights to forest, some 80 percent of
forest land worldwide remains under state ownership.
Improved security of tenure has significant potential
to enhance access to nutritious food.
Since women represent 43 percent of the global agricultural labour force, and there is evidence of feminisation of agriculture in numerous developing countries,
womens weak and often insecure rights of access to
land, forests and trees is undermining their engagement in innovation in forests and agroforestry systems with huge costs for their food security and nutrition, and that of their families.
7.4 Reimagining Forests and Food

Security
Applying an integrated landscape approach provides
a unique opportunity for forestry and agricultural research organisations to coordinate efforts at the conceptual and implementation levels to achieve more sustainable agricultural systems. As such, a clear programme
of work on managing landscapes and ecosystems for
biodiversity conservation, agriculture, food security
and nutrition should be central to development aid.

Agroecology (i.e. the application of ecological concepts
and principles in the design of sustainable agricultural
systems) appears well suited to these geographies, and
an approach that combines biodiversity concerns, along
with food production demands, provides a more compelling vision of future food production.
Conservation and restoration in human dominated ecosystems requires strengthening connections between agriculture and biodiversity. In such
landscapes, characterised by impoverished biodiversity
and in particular depopulated of their medium and largesized vertebrates, tree-based agriculture in particular
may represent an opportunity, and not necessarily a
threat, for conservation and ecosystem restoration.
Most forest and tree-based systems are underpinned
by the accumulated traditional knowledge of local
and indigenous communities. Traditional knowledge
has been crucial to the development and modification
of these systems over generations under diverse and
changing variable environmental conditions and to meet
changing socio-economic needs, and this contribution
needs to be acknowledged and incorporated into
management practices and policy.
Agricultural and forest scientists, extension agents
and development organisations have only recently begun to understand the importance and relevance of forests and tree-based systems, and the traditional knowledge that underpins many of these systems. Working
with farmers to combine the best of traditional and
formal scientific knowledge offers tremendous potential to enhance the productivity and resilience
of these systems and the flow of direct (food security and nutrition) and indirect (income) benefits to
their practitioners.
By targeting particular species for improved harvest and/or cultivation, more optimal portfolios of
species could be devised that best support communities nutrition year-round. An overall increase in production through cultivation of a wide range of foods,
including tree fruits and vegetables, is required to bridge
consumption shortfalls. There is further potential for
the domestication of currently little-researched indigenous fruit trees to bring about large production gains,
although more information is needed on the nutritional
value of many of these species.
The development of nutrient-sensitive value
chains is also needed, which means improving nutritional knowledge and awareness among value-chain actors and consumers, focusing on promoting the involvement of women, and considering markets for a wider
range of tree foods. By promoting tree food processing
and other value additions, the non-farm rural economy
can also be stimulated.
Dietary choices are complex and depend on more
than just what potential foods are available to communities in their environments. Rather than assumptions based on availability, assessments of actual diet
through dietary diversity studies and other related estimators are therefore crucial, to allow an exploration of
the reasons behind current limitations in usage. There

are multiple targets to improve food choices and nutritional knowledge and awareness, with women and
children being key targets, as well as actors across
the value chain.
Education and basic awareness play important
roles in empowering rural populations and have the
potential to generate tangible and fundamental benefits for their households and communities including food security, sustainable forest management,
health, education and general household nutrition.
For women and other vulnerable groups appropriate education and training programmes can improve their understanding of healthy and nutritious foods and natural
resource management practices. Such programmes can
also support traditional rural societies in understanding
and incorporating necessary changes that enable gender
inclusiveness in decision-making and benefit sharing
in forests and tree-based systems for food security and
nutrition. Technological innovation, in particular mobile
technology can help deliver relevant information to rural
populations and is seen as critical in improving existing
extension services, education and products to enhance
food security and nutrition, dietary choices and health.
7.5 Knowledge Gaps

Through the research of this Global Forest Expert
Panel, specific knowledge gaps have been identified
concerning the contribution of forests and tree-based
systems to food security and nutrition. Although
there is a growing body of evidence, much remains to
be understood as concerns the role of forests and treecovered landscapes in food security and nutrition and
the provision of nutritious diets.Accurately quantifying
the role of forests in food security and nutrition (including dietary diversity) is needed. In particular, better
quantification of the relative benefits received by rural
communities from different tree production categories
is required, supported by an appropriate typology for
characterisation. Further research is needed to assess
the complementarity and resilience of different crops in
agroforestry, particularly in the face of climate change
and the need for concomitant adaptation to such change.
Research should support food tree domestication options appropriate for meeting smallholders needs. To
support diverse production systems, genetic selection
for commodity crop cultivars that do well under shade
may be of particular importance. This may require returning to wild genetic resources still found in shaded,
mixed-species forest habitats, reinforcing the importance of their conservation. There are also opportunities to develop valuable new tree commodities that are
compatible with other crops and that therefore support
more agro-biodiversity.
Specific gaps that have been identified related to
the management of forests and tree-based systems to
enhance food security and nutrition include the need to
refine estimates of land cover in agricultural landscape
155
and the extent of agroforestry practices, including their

relationship with factors other than climate and population density. There is a need to assess the actual extent of
most management systems, the numbers of people who
rely on one or more such systems to meet their household food and/or income needs, and the relative value
of different forests and tree-based systems on the diets
and health of those who manage them. Further research
would also be needed to better understand the food values of forest mosaics from shifting cultivation systems.
There are gaps in our understanding of the inter-relations between drivers affecting the role of forests and
tree-based systems in food security and nutrition. In particular, improved understanding is needed on the link
between economic valuation of ecosystem services, and
their incorporation into global commodity markets, and
the ensuing risk of local and indigenous communities
being dispossessed of land and related rights and access.
Further research is required at the landscape scale
particularly when tackling trade-offs between different
stakeholders. There is a need to better understand the
economic, environmental and other trade-offs for the
different sectors of rural societies when the harvesting
of NTFPs is commercialised or they are planted (and
perhaps are converted to new commodity crops), as the
benefits and costs for different members of society vary.
The question of how far research can go in providing
useful information about relationships between forest
food systems and other land uses at the landscape scale
needs to be addressed. In the land sparing/land sharing
debate, greater attention is needed on food production
and access to nutrient-rich foods.
Gaps remain regarding ways to better link local innovations in resource access and control to a supportive
policy and institutional environment. The effectiveness
of education-based initiatives for sustainability and food
security need to be further explored. More attention is
needed on how to effectively link local innovations in relation to management practices, institutions and governance arrangements to an enabling policy environment.
Comprehensive information on the complex relationships between land tenure, use, control, ownership and
how these relationships impact on food security, forests
and tree-based systems is needed to help develop appropriate land tenure policy frameworks (which are also
gender sensitive).
156
7.6 Looking Ahead The Importance

of Forest and Tree-based Systems for
Food Security and Nutrition
This report has highlighted the important role that forests and tree-based systems play in complementing agricultural production systems for food security and nutrition. Forests and tree-based systems can contribute to the
Zero Hunger Challenge. To do this, however, requires a
much greater understanding of the forest-food nexus, the
effective management of landscapes and improved governance. Recognising the role of different configurations
of the landscape mosaic, and the ways in which forests
and tree-based systems can be managed to effectively
deliver ecosystem services for crop production, provide
better and more nutritionally-balanced diets, greater control over food inputs particularly during lean seasons
and periods of vulnerability (especially for marginalised
groups) are critical elements of response to global hunger. Through this report, the Global Forest Expert Panel
has identified important opportunities for greater harmonisation and synergy between policies and global commitments to secure more sustainable landscapes for a
hunger-free future for all.
157
Appendix 1
Glossary
Agricultural biodiversity: A broad term that includes all components of biological diversity of relevance to food and
agriculture, and all components of biological diversity that constitute the agricultural ecosystems, also named agroecosystems: the variety and variability of animals, plants and micro-organisms, at the genetic, species and ecosystem
levels, which are necessary to sustain key functions of the agro-ecosystem, its structure and processes (CBD, 2000).
Agrobiodiversity: see Agricultural biodiversity
Agroecology: The integrative study of the ecology of the entire food systems, encompassing ecological, economic and
social dimensions (Francis et al., 2003).
Agroforestry: A collective name for land use systems and practices in which woody perennials are deliberately integrated
with crops and/or animals on the same land management unit. The integration can be either in a spatial mixture or in a
temporal sequence. There are normally both ecological and economic interactions between woody and non-woody components in agroforestry (Leakey, 1996; Leakey and Simons, 1998).
Agroforestry tree products (AFTP): refers to timber and non-timber forest products that are sourced from trees
cultivated outside of forests. This distinction from the term non- timber forest products (NTFPs) for non-timber extractive resources from natural systems is to distinguish between extractive resources from forests and cultivated trees in
farming systems. (Nevertheless, some products will be marketed as both NTFPs and AFTPs (depending on their origin)
during the period of transition from wild resources to newly domesticated crops.) (Leakey et al., 2005; Simons and
Leakey, 2004).
Biodiversity [Biological Diversity]: The variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia,
terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes
diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems (CBD, 1992).
Climate change: Refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human
activity. This usage differs from that in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC),
which defines climate change as: a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that
alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over
comparable time periods (IPCC, 2007).
Deforestation: The conversion of forest to another land use or the long-term reduction of the tree canopy cover below
the minimum 10 percent threshold (FAO, 2010). Deforestation implies the long-term or permanent loss of forest cover
and implies transformation into another land use. Such a loss can only be caused and maintained by a continued humaninduced or natural perturbation. Deforestation includes areas of forest converted to agriculture, pasture, water reservoirs
and urban areas. The term specifically excludes areas where the trees have been removed as a result of harvesting or
logging, and where the forest is expected to regenerate naturally or with the aid of silvicultural measures. Deforestation
also includes areas where, for example, the impact of disturbance, over-utilisation or changing environmental conditions
affects the forest to an extent that it cannot sustain a tree cover above the 10 percent threshold (FAO, 2001).
159
APPENDIX 1: GLOSSARY
Degradation: see Forest degradation and Land degradation.

Dietary diversity: Dietary diversity defined as the number of different foods or food groups consumed over a given
reference period (Ruel, 2003) is increasingly recognized as a key element of high quality diets and a sustainable way to
resolve health problems such as micronutrient deficiencies.
Ecosystem: A dynamic complex of plant, animal and micro-organism communities and their non-living environment
interacting as a functional unit (CBD, 1992).
Ecosystem services: Ecosystem services are the benefits people obtain from ecosystems. These include i) provisioning
services such as food, water, timber, and fibre; (ii) regulating services that affect climate, floods, disease, wastes, and
water quality;(iii) cultural services that provide recreational, aesthetic, and spiritual benefits; and (iv) supporting services
such as soil formation, photosynthesis, and nutrient cycling (MA, 2005).
Food insecurity: A situation that exists when people lack secure access to sufficient amounts of safe and nutritious food
for normal growth and development and an active and healthy life. It may be caused by the unavailability of food, insufficient purchasing power, inappropriate distribution or inadequate use of food at the household level. Food insecurity, poor
conditions of health and sanitation and inappropriate care and feeding practices are the major causes of poor nutritional
status. Food insecurity may be chronic, seasonal or transitory (FAO, IFAD and WFP, 2014).
Food security: A situation that 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.
Based on this definition, four food security dimensions can be identified: food availability, economic and physical access
to food, food utilization and stability over time (FAO, IFAD and WFP, 2014).
Food sovereignty is the right of peoples to define their own food and agriculture; to protect and regulate domestic
agricultural production and trade in order to achieve sustainable development objectives; to determine the extent to
which they want to be self-reliant; to restrict the dumping of products in their markets; and to provide local fisheriesbased communities the priority in managing the use of and the rights to aquatic resources (Via Campesina website:
www.viacampesina.org).
Food systems: Food systems encompass the entire range of activities involved in the production, processing, marketing,
consumption and disposal of goods that originate from agriculture, forestry or fisheries, including the inputs needed and
the outputs generated at each of these steps. Food systems also involve the people and institutions that initiate or inhibit
change in the system as well as the socio- political, economic and technological environment in which these activities
take place. (Adapted from FAO, 2012b).
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 (FAO, 2010). Includes areas with young trees that have not yet reached but which are expected to reach
a canopy cover of 10 percent and tree height of 5 meters. It also includes areas that are temporarily unstocked due to
clear-cutting as part of a forest management practice or natural disasters, and which are expected to be regenerated within
5 years. Local conditions may, in exceptional cases, justify that a longer time frame is used (FAO, 2010).
Forest degradation: The reduction of the capacity of a forest to provide goods and services (FAO 2010b).
Forest fragmentation: Any process that results in the conversion of formerly continuous forest into patches of forest
separated by non-forested lands. (CBD website: http://www.cbd.int/forest/definitions.shtml).
Forest management: The processes of planning and implementing practices for the stewardship and use of forests and
other wooded land aimed at achieving specific environmental, economic, social and/or cultural objectives. Includes management at all scales such as normative, strategic, tactical and operational level management (FAO, 2004).
Forests and tree-based systems: for the purposes of this report, this includes the spectrum from management of forests
to optimise yields of wild foods and fodder, to shifting cultivation, to the broad spectrum of agroforestry practices and
to single-species tree crop management.
Fragmentation: see Forest fragmentation
160
Governance: refers to 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 (Hydn and Mease, 2004).
Greenhouse gas: Gaseous constituents of the atmosphere, both natural and anthropogenic, that absorb and emit radiation at specific wavelengths within the spectrum of infrared radiation emitted by the Earths surface, the atmosphere, and
clouds. This property causes the greenhouse effect. Water vapour (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O),
methane (CH4) and ozone (O3) are the primary greenhouse gases in the Earths atmosphere. As well as CO2, N2O, and
CH4, the Kyoto Protocol deals with the greenhouse gases sulphur hexafluoride (SF6), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and
perfluorocarbons (PFCs) (IPCC, 2007).
Hidden hunger: refers to vitamin and mineral deficiencies, or micronutrient deficiencies. Micronutrient deficiencies
can compromise growth, immune function, cognitive development, and reproductive and work capacity (FAO, 2012c).
Invasive species: Any species that are non-native to a particular ecosystem and whose introduction and spread causes,
or are likely to cause socio-cultural, economic or environmental harm or harm to human health (FAO website:
http://www.fao.org/forestry/aliens/en/).
Land degradation: Reduction or loss in arid, semiarid and dry sub-humid areas of the biological or economic productivity and complexity of rainfed cropland, irrigated cropland, or range, pasture, forest and woodlands resulting from land
uses or from a process or combination of processes, including processes arising from human activities and habitation
patterns, such as: (i) soil erosion caused by wind and/or water; (ii) deterioration of the physical, chemical and biological
or economic properties of soil; and (iii) long-term loss of natural vegetation (UNCCD, 1994).
Landscape: Drawing on ecosystem definitions, we define a landscape as an area delineated by an actor for a specific
set of objectives (Gignoux et al., 2011). It constitutes an arena in which entities, including humans, interact according to
rules (physical, biological, and social) that determine their relationships (Sayer et al., 2013).
Landscape approach: Aims to reconcile competing land uses and to achieve both conservation and production outcomes, while recognizing and negotiating for inherent trade-offs (Milder et al., 2012; Sayer et al., 2013).
Land-sparing: For the purposes of this report, defined as The promotion of agricultural techniques that encourage
the highest possible yields in a given area (even if it involves reduced in-farm biodiversity) with the goal of meeting
agricultural needs in the minimum possible area, so as to reduce the pressure over wild areas.
Land-sharing: For the purposes of this report, defined as The promotion of agricultural techniques, mainly
agroforestry, that are friendly to wild species, aimed at fostering the co-existence of managed (crops or livestock) and
wild species in the same area.
Livelihoods: The capabilities, assets both material and social resources and activities required for a means of living.
A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks, maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets, and provide net benefits to other livelihoods locally and more widely, both now and in the future, while
not undermining the natural resource base (Chambers and Conway, 1991).
Malnutrition. An abnormal physiological condition caused by inadequate, unbalanced or excessive consumption of
macronutrients and/or micronutrients. Malnutrition includes undernutrition and overnutrition as well as micronutrient
deficiencies (FAO, IFAD and WFP, 2014).
Managed forests: For the purposes of this report, managed forests are those whose structure, and the diversity and
density of edible plant and animal species, have been modified by various management practices to improve their
nutritional, economic and biodiversity values for people.
Non-timber forest products (NTFP): All biological materials other than timber, which are extracted from forests for
human use. Forest refers to a natural ecosystem in which trees are a significant component. In addition to trees, forest
products are derived from all plants, fungi and animals (including fish) for which the forest ecosystem provides habitat
(IUFRO, 2005).
Nutrition: the consequence of the intake of food and the utilization of nutrients by the body (CFS, 2012).
161
Nutrition security: A situation that exists when secure access to an appropriately nutritious diet is coupled with a sanitary
environment, adequate health services and care, in order to ensure a healthy and active life for all household members.
Nutrition security differs from food security in that it also considers the aspects of adequate caring practices, health and
hygiene in addition to dietary adequacy (FAO, IFAD and WFP, 2014).
Primary forest: Naturally regenerated forest of native species, where there are no clearly visible indications of human
activities [including commercial logging] and the ecological processes are not significantly disturbed (FAO, 2010b).
Resilience: Capacity of the system to cope with all kind of shocks and disturbances, and so be able to avoid crossing all
thresholds, known or unknown, to alternate regimes sometimes referred to as coping capacity and synonymous with
adaptive capacity (OConnell et al, 2015).
Secondary forest: forests regenerating largely through natural processes after significant removal or disturbance of
the original forest vegetation by human or natural causes 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 pristine primary
forests (FAO, 2003).
Shifting cultivation: Also referred to as slash-and-burn cultivation or swidden agriculture. A land use system that
employs a natural or improved fallow phase, which is longer than the cultivation phase of annual crops, sufficiently long
to be dominated by woody vegetation, and cleared by means of fire (Mertz et al., 2009)
Slash-and-burn cultivation: see Shifting cultivation
Sustainable intensification: where the yields of global agriculture are increased without adverse environmental impact
and without the cultivation of more land (The Royal Society, 2009).
Swidden agriculture: see Shifting cultivation
Tenure: Systems of tenure define and regulate how people, communities and others gain access to land, fisheries and
forests. These tenure systems determine who can use which resources, for how long, and under what conditions. The
systems may be based on written policies and laws, as well as on unwritten customs and practices (FAO, 2012a).
Traditional (ecological) knowledge: A cumulative body of knowledge, practice and belief, handed down through generations by cultural transmission and evolving by adaptive processes, about the relationship between living beings (including humans) with one another and with their forest environment (Berkes, 1999).
Tree crops: (also Tree commodity crops) Generally defined as food products from trees that are exported and
traded widely in international commodity markets. These crops may be produced by smallholder- and/or in plantationproduction systems. Examples include coffee, cocoa, tea and oil palm (Jain and Priyadarshan, 2004).
162
References
Berkes, F., 1999. Sacred Ecology. Traditional Ecological
Knowledge and Resource Management. Philadelphia and
London: Taylor and Francis.
CBD, 1992. Convention on Biological Diversity, Art. 2. Montreal:
UNEP.
CBD, 2000. Convention on Biological Diversity, Decision V/5,
Annex. Fifth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the
Convention on Biological Diversity, Nairobi, Kenya,
15 - 26 May 2000.
Jain, M.S, and Priyadarshan, P.M. (eds.), 2009. Breeding

plantation tree crops. Tropical species. New York: Springer
Science+Business Media.
Leakey, R., 1996. Definition of Agroforestry revisited. Agroforestry
Today. Vol 8(1) pp 5- 7
Leakey., R.R.B., Tchoundjeu, Z., Schreckenberg K., Shackleton,
S.E and Shackleton., C. M., 2005. Agroforestry Tree
Products (AFTPs): Targeting Poverty Reduction and
Enhanced Livelihoods. International Journal of Agricultural
Sustainability. 3(1):1-23.
CBD website: http://www.cbd.int/forest/definitions.shtml

[Accessed on 25 February 2015]
Leakey, R.R.B. and Simons, A.J., 1998. The domestication and

commercialization of indigenous trees in agroforestry for the
alleviation of poverty. Agroforestry Systems 38: 165176.
CFS (Committe on World Food Security), 2012. Coming To Terms

With Terminology. Rome: FAO.

Chambers, R., and Conway, G., 1992. Sustainable rural

livelihoods: practical concepts for the 21st century. London:
Institute of Development Studies (UK).
Mertz, O., Padoch, C., Fox, J., Cramb, R.A., Leisz, S.J., Lam, N.T.
and Vien, T.D., 2009.
FAO, 2012a. Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance

of Tenure of land, fisheries and forests in the Context of
national food security. Rome: FAO.
FAO, 2012b. Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture
Systems (SAFA) 2012. Rome: Food and Agriculture
FAO, 2012c. State of Food Insecurity in the World. Rome: FAO.
FAO, 2010. Global Forest Resources Assessment. Forestry Paper
163. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations.
Swidden change in Southeast Asia: Understanding causes and

consequences. Human Ecology
37(3):259264.
Milder, J. C., Buck, L. E., DeClerck, F. and Scherr, S. J., 2012.
Landscape approaches to achieving food production, natural
resource conservation and the millennium development goals.
In: Integrating ecology and poverty reduction, edited by J.C.
Ingram, F. DeClerck and C. Rumbaitis del Rio (pp. 77-108).
New York: Springer.
FAO, 2010b. Global Forest Resources Assessment, Terms and

definitions. Working paper 144. Rome: Food and Agriculture
OConnell, D., Walker B., Abel N., Grigg N., Cowie A., Durn,
G., 2015. An introduction to the Resilience Adaptation
Transformation Assessment (RATA) Framework. Working Paper
for the Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel of the Global
Environment Facility. February 2015.
FAO, 2004. Global Forest Resources Assessment Update 2005

Terms and Definitions. Final version. Rome: Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Ruel, M.T., 2003. Operationalizing Dietary Diversity: A Review

of Measurement Issues and Research Priorities. Journal of
Nutrition 133: 3911S- 3926S.
FAO, 2003. Proceedings of the Workshop on Tropical Secondary

Forest Management in Africa: Reality and Perspectives,
Nairobi, Kenya, 9-13 December 2002. Forestry Department.
Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations.
Sayer, J., T. Sunderland, J. Ghazoul, J.-L. Pfund, D. Sheil, E.

Meijaard, M. Venter, A.K. Boedhihartono, M. Day, C. Garcia,
C. van Oosten & L. Buck. 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
FAO, 2001. Global Forest Resources Assessment FRA 2000 Main

report. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations.
FAO website: Invasive species. Available at: http://www.fao.org/
forestry/aliens/en/. [Accessed on 25 February 2015].
FAO, IFAD and WFP. 2014. The State of Food Insecurity in the
World 2014. Strengthening the enabling environment for food
security and nutrition. Rome: FAO.
Francis, C., Lieblein, G., Gliessman, S., Breland, T.A., Creamer,
N., Harwood, R., Salomonsson, L., Helenius, J., Rickerl, D.,
Salvador, R., Wiedenhoeft, M. Simmons, S., Allen, P. Altieri,
M., Flora, C. and Poincelot, R., 2003. Agroecology: the ecology
of food systems. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 22 (3):
99-118.
Simons, A.J., and Leakey, R.R.B, 2004. Tree domestication in

tropical agroforestry. New Vistas in Agroforestry. Advances in
Agroforestry Volume 1, 2004, pp 167-181
The Royal Society, 2009. Reaping the Benefits Science and the
Sustainable Intensification of Global Agriculture. London:
Royal Society of London.
UNCCD, 1994. United Nations Convention to Combat
Desertification. Bonn: UNCCD.
Via Campesina website: http://viacampesina.org/en/index.php/
main-issues-mainmenu-27/food-sovereignty-and-trademainmenu-38/262-declaration-of-nyi [Accessed on 25 February
2015].
Gignoux, J., Davies, I., Flint, S., Zucker, J.-D., 2011. The ecosystem
in practice: Interest and problems of an old definition for
constructing ecological models. Ecosystems 14(7):10391054.
Hydn, G., and Mease, K., 2004. Making sense of governance:
empirical evidence from sixteen developing countries. Boulder
and London: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and
Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth
Change. Appendix 1: Glossary. Parry, M.L., Canziani, O.F.,
Palutikof, J.P., van der Linden, P.J. and Hanson, C.E. (eds.).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 976 p.
IUFRO 2005. Multilingual Pocket Glossary of Forest Terms and
Definitions, Compiled on the occasion of the XXII IUFRO.
World Congress August 2005, Brisbane, Australia. Vienna:
IUFRO.
163
Appendix 2
List of Panel Members,
Authors and Reviewers
Bina Agarwal
University of Manchester, UK
and Institute of Economic Growth,
Delhi, India
E-mail: bina_india@yahoo.com
Sarah Ayeri Ogalleh
Centre for Training & Integrated Research
in ASAL Development (CETRAD)
Nanyuki, Kenya
E-mail: sarahayeri@yahoo.com
Frdric Baudron
International Maize and Wheat Improvement
Centre (CIMMYT)
Hawassa, Ethiopia
E-mail: f.baudron@cgiar.org
Sammy Carsan
World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF)
Nairobi, Kenya
E-mail: s.carsan@cgiar.org
Paolo Cerutti
Center for International Forestry Research
(CIFOR)
Nairobi, Kenya
E-mail: p.cerutti@cgiar.org
Josephine Chambers
University of Cambridge
Cambridge, UK
E-mail: jc706@cam.ac.uk
Beatrice Darko Obiri
Forestry Research Institute of Ghana
Kumasi, Ghana
E-mail: bdobiri@csir-forig.org.gh
or bdobiri@yahoo.com
Ian K. Dawson
Nairobi, Kenya
E-mail: iankdawson@aol.com
Neil M. Dawson
University of East Anglia
Bunachton, Inverness, Scotland
E-mail: Neilm_dawson@yahoo.co.uk
Elizabeth Deakin
Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR)
Bogor, Indonesia
E-mail: L.deakin@cgiar.org
Ann Degrande
Yaound, Cameroon
E-mail: a.degrande@cgiar.org
Jennie Dey de Pryck
Senior Gender Adviser and Consultant
Brussels, Belgium
E-mail: jenniedeydepryck@yahoo.com
Jason Donovan
Lima, Peru
E-mail: j.donovan@cgiar.org
Samson Foli
(CIFOR)
Bogor, Indonesia
E-mail: s.foli@cgiar.org
Lisa Fuchs
Nairobi, Kenya
E-mail: L.Fuchs@cgiar.org
165
APPENDIX 2: LIST OF PANEL MEMBERS, AUTHORS AND REVIEWERS
Amos Gyau
Nairobi, Kenya
E-mail: a.gyau@cgiar.org
Stephanie Mansourian
Consultant, Environment and Development
Gingins, Switzerland
E-mail: smansourian@infomaniak.ch
Gordon Hickey
McGill University
Quebec, Canada
E-mail: gordon.hickey@mcgill.ca
Adrian Martin
University of East Anglia
Norwich, UK
E-mail: adrian.martin@uea.ac.uk
Amy Ickowitz
(CIFOR)
Bogor, Indonesia
E-mail: a.ickowitz@cgiar.org
Stepha McMullin
Nairobi, Kenya
E-mail: s.mcmullin@cgiar.org
Miyuki Iiyama
Nairobi, Kenya
E-mail: m.iiyama@cgiar.org
Ramni Jamnadass
Nairobi, Kenya
E-mail: r.jamnadass@cgiar.org
Katy Jeary
Cambridge, UK
E-mail: kew60@cam.ac.uk
Gudrun Keding
Bioversity International, Rome, Italy and
GeorgAugust-University, Goettingen, Germany
E-mail: g.keding@cgiar.org
Katja Kehlenbeck
Nairobi, Kenya
E-mail: k.kehlenbeck@cgiar.org
Daniela Kleinschmit
University of Freiburg,
Freiburg, Germany
E-mail: daniela.kleinschmit@ifp.uni-freiburg.de
Christophe Kouame
Abidjan, Cte dIvoire
E-mail: c.kouame@cgiar.org
Godwin Kowero
African Forest Forum (AFF)
Nairobi, Kenya
E-mail: g.kowero@cgiar.org
166
Patti Kristjanson
Washington, DC, USA
E-mail: p.kristjanson@cgiar.org
Henry Neufeldt
Nairobi, Kenya
E-mail: H.Neufeldt@cgiar.org
Mary Njenga
World Agroforesty Centre (ICRAF)
Nairobi, Kenya
E-mail: m.njenga@cgiar.org
Vincent O. Oeba
Kenya Forestry Research Institute (KEFRI)
Nairobi, Kenya
E-mail: V.Oeba@cgiar.org
Daniel Ofori
Nairobi, Kenya
E-mail: d.ofori@cgiar.org
Hemant R. Ojha
School of Social Sciences
University of New South Wales,
Syndey, Australia
E-mail: h.ojha@unsw.edu.au
Pablo Pacheco
(CIFOR)
Bogor, Indonesia
E-mail: p.pacheco@cgiar.org
Christine Padoch
(CIFOR)
Bogor, Indonesia
E-mail: c.padoch@cgiar.org
John A. Parrotta
U.S. Forest Service, Research & Development
Washington DC, USA
E-mail: jparrotta@fs.fed.us
Bronwen Powell
Research Consultant, Forests and Food Security
CIFOR
Marrakesh, Medina, Morocco
E-mail: b.powell@cgiar.org
Nitin D. Rai
Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology
and the Environment
Bangalore, India
E-mail: nitinrai@atree.org
Patrick Ranjatson
University of Antananarivo
Antananarivo, Madagascar
E-mail: pranjatson@yahoo.fr
James Reed
Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR)
Bogor, Indonesia
E-mail: j.reed@cgiar.org
Mirjam Ros-Tonen
University of Amsterdam
Amsterdam, Netherlands
E-mail: M.A.F.Ros-Tonen@uva.nl
Chris Sandbrook
Cambridge, UK
E-mail: cgsandbrook@gmail.com
GFEP Panel meeting in Cambridge, UK.

Photo Eva-Maria Schimpf
Jolien Schure
Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group
Wageningen University, Netherlands
E-mail: jolien@schure-research.com
Anca Serban
Cambridge, UK
E-mail: as2344@cam.ac.uk
Bimbika Sijapati Basnett
(CIFOR)
Bogor, Indonesia
E-mail: b.basnett@cgiar.org
Carsten Smith-Hall
University of Copenhagen
Copenhagen, Denmark
E-mail: cso@ifro.ku.dk
Barbara Stadlmayr
Nairobi, Kenya
E-mail: B.Stadlmayr@gmx.at
Terry Sunderland
(CIFOR)
Bogor, Indonesia
E-mail: t.sunderland@cgiar.org
167
Cline Termote
Bioversity International
Nairobi, Kenya
E-mail: c.termote@cgiar.org
Tran Nam Tu
Hue University of Agriculture and Forestry
Hue City, Vietnam
E-mail: trannamtu@gmail.com
Patrick Van Damme
Plant Production Department
Ghent University
Ghent, Belgium
E-mail: Patrick.VanDamme@UGent.be
Nathalie van Vliet
Wildlife and livelihoods expert, CIFOR
Bogota, Colombia
E-mail: vanvlietnathalie@yahoo.com
Barbara Vinceti
Bioversity International
Rome, Italy
E-mail: b.vinceti@cgiar.org
168
Bhaskar Vira
Department of Geography
Cambridge, UK
E-mail: bv101@cam.ac.uk
Solomon Zena Walelign
University of Copenhagen
Section for Global Development
Copenhagen, Denmark
E-mail: szw@ifro.ku.dk
Christoph Wildburger
Consultant, Environmental Policy and
Natural Resource Management
Vienna, Austria
E-mail: office@wildburger.at
List of reviewers
Eduardo Brondizio
Indiana University
Bloomington, IN, USA
E-mail: ebrondiz@indiana.edu
Carol Colfer
Visiting scholar, Cornell University
Ithaca, USA
E-mail: cjc59@cornell.edu
Martina Kress
Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO)
Rome, Italy
E-mail: Martina.Kress@fao.org
Eric Lambin
Stanford University
University of Louvain
Stanford, USA
E-mail: elambin@stanford.edu
Kae Mihara
Rome, Italy
E-mail: Kae.Mihara@fao.org
Sarah Milne
Australian National University
Canberra, Australia
E-mail: sarah.milne@anu.edu.au
Ellen Muehlhoff
Rome, Italy
E-mail: Ellen.Muehlhoff@fao.org
Ben Phalan
Cambridge, UK
E-mail: btp22@cam.ac.uk
Dominique Reeb
Rome, Italy
E-mail: Dominique.Reeb@fao.org
Patricia Shanley
People and Plants International
Bristol, VT, USA
E-mail: p.shanley@cgiar.org
Ingrid Visseren-Hamakers
Wageningen University & Research Centre (WUR)
Wageningen, the Netherlands
E-mail: ingrid.visseren@wur.nl
169
GFEP donors:
CPF members:
United Nations
Forum on Forests
IUFRO Headquarters
Marxergasse 2
1030 Vienna, Austria
Tel: + 43-1-877-0151-0
Fax: +43-1-877-0151-50
Email: office@iufro.org
www.iufro.org

Forests, Trees and Landscapes For Food Security and Nutrition

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Forests, Trees and Landscapes For Food Security and Nutrition

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Forests, Trees and Landscapes For Food Security and Nutrition

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Global Assessment Report

Editors: Bhaskar Vira, Christoph Wildburger, Stephanie Mansourian

IUFRO World Series Volume 33

Forests, Trees and Landscapes

IUFRO World Series Vol. 33

Forests, Trees and Landscapes

Recommended catalogue entry:

Language editor: Stephanie Mansourian

Acronyms, Units and Symbols

Coordinating lead author: Bhaskar Vira

2 Understanding the Roles of Forests and Tree-based Systems in Food Provision 

Coordinating lead authors: Ramni Jamnadass and Stepha McMullin

3 The Historical, Environmental and Socio-Economic Context of

Coordinating lead author: John A. Parrotta

Coordinating lead author: Daniela Kleinschmit

5 Response Options Across the Landscape

Coordinating lead author: Terry Sunderland

6 Public Sector, Private Sector and Socio-Cultural Response Options

Coordinating lead author: Henry Neufeldt

Lead authors: Ramni Jamnadass, Daniela Kleinschmit, Stepha McMullin,

 ppendices to the report:

Appendix 2: List of Panel Members, Authors and Reviewers

Acronyms, Units and Symbols

Agroforestry Tree Product

Reducing Emissions from Deforestation

Units and Symbols

1.1 Problem Statement: Can Forests

1 FORESTS, TREES AND LANDSCAPES FOR FOOD SECURITY AND NUTRITION

Source: RRI (2014)

1.2 Prevailing Paradigms about

associated with the Green Revolution of the 1960s and

1 FORESTS, TREES AND LANDSCAPES FOR FOOD SECURITY AND NUTRITION

there is little current appreciation of the diverse ways in

1.3 Policy Context for this Report,

on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; as well as the ILO

To clarify the different dimensions and the role that

1 FORESTS, TREES AND LANDSCAPES FOR FOOD SECURITY AND NUTRITION

Global maps of forest cover, hunger and undernourishment

FAO worlds forest map 2010

Source: FAO, 2010

Global Hunger Index 2014

Trinidad & Tobago

Name des Teilbereich | Chapter 1 | 2014 Global Hunger Index

Source: Von Grebmer et al., 2014

2014 Global Hunger Index | Chapter 1 | Name des Teilbereich

Extremely alarming 30.0 <

1 FORESTS, TREES AND LANDSCAPES FOR FOOD SECURITY AND NUTRITION

Although this report documents the role that forests

as producers (by enhancing access to land, technologies,

1.4 Structure of the Report

Prevalence of people undernourished (percent, 2012-14)

Source: FAO, 2014b

1 FORESTS, TREES AND LANDSCAPES FOR FOOD SECURITY AND NUTRITION

to be governed for their ability to provide food security,

trees (much of this collected by women and children) and

1.5.2 Drivers Affecting the Relationship

1 FORESTS, TREES AND LANDSCAPES FOR FOOD SECURITY AND NUTRITION

with populations moving between rural and urban areas,

Shifts to market-driven economies

Acronyms, Units and Symbols

2 Understanding the Roles of Forests and Tree-based Systems in Food Provision

3 The Historical, Environmental and Socio-Economic Context of

5 Response Options Across the Landscape

6 Public Sector, Private Sector and Socio-Cultural Response Options

ppendices to the report:

2.2 Food Security and Nutrition

2.3 The Direct Roles of Forests and Tree-based Systems

2.3.1 Foods Provided by Forests and Tree-based Systems

2.3.2 Dietary Choices, Access to Resources and Behavioural Change

2.4 The Indirect Roles of Forests and Tree-based Systems

2.4.1 Income and other Livelihood Opportunities

2.4.2 Provision of Ecosystem Services