This section features some of the top comments submitted on the Forest Solutions Platform. Share your own ideas here.
The greatest problem in protecting forests by regulations is met at implementation level, as in many countries existing laws are in principle quite adequate to assure protection. There are often many authorities in charge of land management, and forest and nature protection. That's good for assuring cross-control but it can generate conflict of authority and disperse resources. ... The solution proposed is to institutionalize a specialized corps within the police (or a new one endowed with full police power) in charge of control and enforcement of forest and environmental regulations, responding to the needs of the authorities in charge of forest and environmental policy, with direct responsibility and relation with the judiciary system.
Deforestation in Africa is due to necessity - people have no other source of fuel, so I think we need to invest in other sources of energy.
Investing in locally controlled forestry means investing in local people while empowering them to manage forests sustainable. Instead of making local people recipients of support it makes more sense to invest in their capacities directly so that they can proactively engage with other forestry actors stating their rights and contributions to forestry.
Empowering local people ensures they will manage forests because they can maintain and develop their livelihoods and build viable enterprises, which both protects forests and provides local employment, as well as a sense of ownership, confidence and respect from society.
Locally controlled forest and farm landscapes (that encompass indigenous, community and family smallholders) comprise the biggest rural private sector. Local people, living with the consequences of their land use decisions, are best placed to balance competing claims between local public goods (food, fuel, construction material, cosmetics, dyes, medicines, soil fertility, water flows etc.) and global public goods (carbon sequestration, biodiversity conservation etc.) across rural landscapes.
Evidence from comparative analysis suggests that locally controlled forests are generally better for the forest and people than either protected areas or large-scale industrial business models. But to unleash the economic potential of local controlled forestry, four basic preconditions are needed: secure forest tenure, technical support, business know-how and organisation to achieve scale efficiencies and voice in decision-making. Putting those conditions in place requires investment of different sorts by different actors: sweat (physical labour on the land by local producers), support (by Government and NGO service providers) and cash (from finance agencies and value chain partners).
It’s not ILCF or tenure; ILCF or landscape approaches, ILCF or Indigenous areas, ILCF or responsible forest management. ILCF makes the case that none of those ingredients its optional - and all of them have to be in the hands of and controlled by local people. It is when the control is NOT local (for protected areas, landscape decision-making, tenure reform, business development etc.) that the problems start.
Through proper planning and involvement of stakeholders, LCF could significantly support a bigger scale of livelihood for the poor communities, and could be a vibrant strategy to conserve the threatened coastal forests. However, proper production and supply chains should be established with affirmative market opportunities.
Protected Areas are the most important strategy to prevent deforestation and ecosystem degradation - contributing to climate change mitigation - and constitute a climate adaptation strategy due to their capacity to reduce risks and buffer impacts from extreme events and to maintain provision of ecosystem services.
Through supply chain management, Indian businesses can play a big role in responsible forest management. Read more.
The distribution of different forest benefits to different people (or their access to them), and the changes in these benefit flows, can stimulate public interest, provide critical insights, and inform difficult trade-offs.
Check out www.aboutvalues.net for a hands-on methods navigator guiding through a range of instruments for scoping, assessing or valuing ecosystem services.
There is no need for detailed studies where well-informed approximations can fully serve the purpose. In our experience, supporting administrators in working with an “ecosystem service lens” is often more effective than conducting monetary valuations and hoping that numbers would speak for themselves.
It is hard to imagine a solution that is at the same time good for your health, good for the planet, good for the hungry, good for forests and good for animals (yes, some people, including my kids, care about them too!). And it requires NO investments or big initiatives. You can do it now.