 My name is Sylvain Satie, I'm a journalist who focuses on the environment and is currently writing a book on the loss of that very many diversity. And I'm very honored to have been invited by C4 to moderate this high level panel discussion on the role of forest landscapes for food and diversity. We are incredibly fortunate to have a diverse group representing various stakeholders on the panel. This includes Andrea Speckerman, Counselor and Head of Development Cooperation for the Embassy of Germany for Indonesia. David Cardin, Partner in Charge of Asia at Jones Day and former U.S. Ambassador to ASEAN. David Cooper, Director for the Scientific Assessment and Monitoring Branch for the Convention on Biological Diversity. Christina Egghunter, Deputy Director for Social Development at the World Wildlife Fund. And Leslie Potter, Visiting Fellow of the Resource Management Department, Resource Management and Asia Pacific Program at the Crawford School of Public Policy at Australia National University. I'm going to take a few minutes now to address the question of food security that undergirds this discussion and then open it up to what I will assure you will be a very dynamic and honest session. And then I have a few questions, but we'll be encouraging dialogue amongst the panelists and we'll then open up to questions from the audience after that time. The urgent need to feed our growing population is a question that some businesses, policymakers, scientists, NGOs, even nations would have you believe has a silver bullet answer. Make more food by any means necessary. Unfortunately, very often cited refrain of doubling global food production by 2050, taken from the 2006 FAO report World Agriculture Towards 2030-2050, has been taken out of context. This report assumed a shift in commodity crops away from staple foods, excluded fruits and vegetables and did not account for food waste or the lack of purchasing power parity. Despite this, it has become part of the dominant narrative on food and agriculture and has informed policy recommendations and land use changes. This has resulted in the clearing of forests in the name of agriculture or in the name of planting non-edible crops that may allegedly increase purchasing power. The reduction of diversified land use in favor of non-cropping, an increased use of hybrid and transgenic seeds, and an increased and cheap processed foods. All in the name of feeding people. But feeding people as we will further explore today requires more than inexpensive cork intake. Food security is defined with reference to the 1996 World Food Summit definition as existing when all people at all times have access to sufficient, safe, nutritious food to maintain a healthy and active life. So let's unpack that dominant refrain about our hungry planet. Between 1968 and 2008, the percentage of the world living in hunger actually shrank from 26 to 13%. So now, for the first time in human history, overweight people outnumber underweight ones. But both groups suffer from micronutrient malnutrition, including vitamin A, iron, or iodine deficiency. As a global population, we are what author Raj Patel calls both stuffed and starved. But we are not hungry because of a lack of food. For the past 20 years, the rate of global food production has increased faster than the rate of global population growth. The world already produces more than one and a half times enough food to feed everyone on the planet, which is enough to feed the population of 9 million that we anticipate by 2050. Global agriculture produces 17% more calories per person than it did 30 years ago, despite a 17% population increase. The question is, are these calories nutritious? Are these diets diversified? Are genetically engineered foods like golden rice are all clean and best solution? The abundance of food is not equally distributed. An increased production will not achieve the goal of food security without improved distribution, and a reduction in the 1.3 billion tons of food wasted in both the industrialized north and global south. More than 60% of underfed people live in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, what is known as hunger's center of gravity. The irony is that fully half of these food insecure people are small farmers living on less than 2 US dollars a day. Because even though they grow food, they lack the means to meet all their nutritional needs through producing or buying food. This undernourishment is caused by poverty and inequality, not scarcity. And this is why forest biodiversity is so critical. Research by C4 on dietary quality and tree cover in Africa discovered in their study of 21 demographic, 211 demographic health surveys of 93,000 children across Africa, a positive correlation between nutrition and forests. Living areas with more tree cover have more diverse and nutritious diets, and this holds independent of income level. So today, we will address the importance of biodiversity in forest-based ecosystem services and their role in food security and improved nutrition, including the ways in which forest biodiversity can help mitigate the effects of the nutritional transition from traditional diets to industrialized diets. We'll also look at the factors shaping and eroding agro-biodiversity, addressing not only genetic erosion but corresponding cultural transformations and exploring how local communities value forests and what impacts their valuations might have on future forest management, and the 1.6 billion people who are forest dependent. An integrated landscape approach will need to not only advance research, support sustainable investments, and offer continued dialogue on the importance of forests, but ensure that drivers of deforestation are engaged and those actors are motivated to change. And that those independent from forest landscapes for food and biodiversity have not only food security, but food sovereignty. Now this is no small task, and I am really glad we have experts who can shed light on how best to achieve this. I'd like to start by inviting each panelist to share for five minutes opening remarks on these topics, starting with Leslie Potter, visiting fellow at Australia National University. I'm glad that we are having this session in the Kalimantan region. Most of my research in Indonesia has in fact been in Kalimantan. This is an area which always had very large amounts of forest. It is also an area where the forest species would be shrunk very considerably. It is now an area where opum is growing very rapidly. I want to focus particularly in dealing with these topics on a panel with Kalimantan. I'm going to just give you a sort of a case study of the district of Sangau, which is where I've done quite a lot of work, and where these issues are very pertinent. Before, when we got the first Dutch reports about what was going on with dialect agriculture, the big emphasis was on the biodiversity of the available resources. People were planting not just rice, but all sorts of other things, like tubers and so on, pumpkins and cassava and these sorts of things. They had huge amounts of fruit surrounding their longhouses. These were called tabaoan. A great variety of resources of all kinds. When you come down to the 1970s, when opum was first introduced into Kalimantan, it was introduced into Sangau. And there, people were saying, oh, this shifting cultivation system in Sweden, there's too many people already that can't feed themselves. When they started to look into it, they discovered that in fact, they weren't quite food secure. There was enough rice. There was enough vegetables that they could collect from their planted forests. The forests in these areas were a human artifact. There were things that people had planted themselves of useful trees, and they had a big tradition of planting things which were going to be useful. Not just food, but all sorts of other trees, and trees that could be used for building houses, for example. There were also some natural forests. These were shrinking, but they were being carefully maintained. People had a communal interest and were able to take the products from these forests. So that although they had their swimmings and although they had their rice production, both upland and also their land rice, they were able to still contain corn diversity. Now, opum began in this area and has increased remarkably, so that by 2008, Sangau had the largest amount of opum and of rubber. In the whole of Alimentum. And in 2009, of course, the prices of everything collapsed. So that opum was no longer, they were no longer able to get much money from that. And the government was suggesting more culture began to say, you better diversify. You better have some people starting to grow other things, to grow fruit crops. But there was no longer much land left for that. Since 2009, opum has increased very markedly across Alimentum and in Sangau. Now, the prices of opum have been decreasing over the last year. There are some problems with people no longer having land. They've sold their land. Everything has become much more inequitable. You get a very diverse landscape. Some villages have refused to take any opum. Others are completely into opum. But they can no longer very often get sufficient income, especially if they're just working as contentional workers. Back in 2009, there was a government survey on districts which were suffering from food insecurity. Surprisingly, maybe Sangau was the most rubber, the most opum was also one of the most insecure. And the reason for that was that people who were working not as opum small holders necessarily who own land, those who no longer had land or were working as landless laborers. This situation continues and there are now more people in that situation. So what I would just like to say is that there is a strong need for encouraging more diversity, encouraging even among the companies the provision for allowing people to spend some of their land growing their own food and also encouraging independent small holders to do the same thing. It may not be bringing them in necessarily as much money as opum and the opum prices are high. But when the opum prices get low and those in rubber as well, then you have to be very worried about food insecurity in this situation. Thank you. I'm really surprised that the people are giving just a moment. And thank you to the moderator. You're introducing remarks that really set the stage but also set most things that weren't saying about this topic. I would like to... Sorry, excuse me. I would like to... I would only like to stress two words or two terms, two concepts, whatever, food security and scarcity. And I'd like to bring in a little bit more complexity into both because the issues are very complex and depending on from which perspective and from which point of view from whose rights and whose access these are not there. And it's good to bring in complexity because solutions might be more difficult but at the same time solutions should be sustainable. I think it's a critical point. So I'm not trying to exhaust on food security or scarcity but I think they're useful if looked at from a multiple point of view. Particularly scarcity, we're talking about consumption going up, development needs going up, population going up, everything going up. Of course, when you look at planetary boundaries or ecological boundaries of our planet, just one. Of course, the issue is one of scarcity at one point or whose scarcity, who has actually a whom, doesn't. So, yeah, when it comes to food another time we're talking about an increase in supply because the demand increases but that's just one way to look at it and as you said previously, distribution is a key issue here. The other one is how to bring together or what brings together the producers and the suppliers producers, suppliers and the consumers. Is that the market is usually this within this framework or is the people bringing together the producers and the consumers. This is a critical point. It doesn't have to be either one solution but it's one aspect that we need to look at. So when we come back to food security food security is not enough to just talk about security. We need to talk about resilience. We need to talk about the food system. That's why at the end of last year called the World Food Day on October 2013 was about food system. Brazilian food system is not the same thing. But the system issue, the connection, the linkages that need to be seen and identified and even resilient. And the other big issue is food sovereignty. And food sovereignty is keep the political aspect of it which for which some have strong sentiment or whatever for political reasons, not for interest or for substance issues. But then we're talking about things that the document in Rio Plus 20, the future who won't address to some extent doesn't say we need food, we need nutrition and safe food. Another aspect of it which food sovereignty talks about is we also need culturally approach it. That's another interesting aspect. So and then the linkages again the connection between food that brings together supplied producers with consumers. And this is a lot of movements now look at this connection or to rebuild this connection bringing closer together the consumers with the producers. And this is all very important because food is after all not about the apologies that we've been telling the stories about this. It's identity, it's our culture and it's our people's identity. And some of it is already gone. Coming all this together at the practical level, landscape level I just want to look at what the traditional productive landscapes is about. And addresses a lot of these issues and I'm just referring like like I said earlier about Kalimantan case this is the highlands of Krayan in the heart of Borno in what is now North Kalimantan. And what do we see? We see a lot of genetic diversity a lot of cultivars with the food production that is now most of the rice that is a lot of varieties of rice planted regularly more than 10, 15 for each village. Food diversity we're talking about local prices, yes but with local solutions so they don't go beyond the values of what is addressable. And all of this is important the last point that I would like to raise is are there solutions is that maintaining traditional productive landscape the solution to put security in the future? Yes and no in the sense that we need also to look for innovative solutions bringing in private partnerships linking them up with communities finding premium value for a lot of these products and looking at these products and these products as products of a particular landscape of a particular cultural history not just a biological biodiversity product to resolve the problem so I close here for the moment thank you I just want to make three points really the first that biodiversity is essential for food production and also for the nutrition food is biodiversity if we look even at stable crops such as rice studied by a fear of showing us that the nutrient content beyond the calories can vary by orders of magnitude between one variety and the next so maintaining these local varieties can be really important but then there's a whole range of species that we have to talk on and many of these do come from the forest so you mentioned in your introductory remarks the C4 study that showed in a very strong correlation between health of children and tree cover and if we look at some of these foods and trees they're high nutritious so we need to make sure that we're not just looking at food production in terms of calories the production research and so on is tended to focus on perhaps too much but to look at the quality some they all have foods for example just 100 grams of those also provide 100% close to 100% of the whole range of micronutrients if you look on the other side of the bush meat in Madagascar for instance if the local people there did not have access to the bush meat that they have and there were not replacements found the study showed that you get an increase in child anemia by about 30% so these are important biodiversity in these respects and important for health and then of course we need the biodiversity to support the services that enable the production of food both in agriculture and in the wider landscape this water that aqua don't only produce they are interested in protecting the forest because they know that the water supply is dependent on that in Southeast Asia I think the economic value of crops depending on insect pollination is something around 16 billion dollars a year there's been a lot of experience here in Indonesia looking at rice production of making use of the natural enemies of rice pests through integrated pest management and active pharma in gold and from the here pharma field sports program so these are just different ways in which biodiversity supports ecosystem services the second point though is that we will only succeed in conserving biodiversity and conserving the forest if we also take care of people's livelihood needs and their socio-economic aspirations and this means that we don't have to recognize it's going to be competing demands for land use the auto-pharm as we've heard can lead to nutritional problems developing at the same time we know that a lot of economic development in this country in Southeast Asia depends on auto-pharm development last week we had a workshop in Jambi province for the Asian countries and traveled to one remaining fragment of forest and to get there we went through a sea of auto-pharm we also see the economic development in those villages can we do better than that can we also perhaps introduce home gardens can we address biodiversity in the auto-pharm plantations and can we have spatial planning that allows those forest fragments to remain also so we need to look at these things in a landscape perspective the ecosystem approach principles developed under the conventional biological adversity and the landscape approach principles developed by C4 I think give us some good guidance in how we can manage these multiple demands and involve and negotiate among multiple stakeholders finally we have the international community has goals for poverty reduction for food security for climate and for biodiversity on the land for instance the Aichi biodiversity target agreed by all countries in the Goya and in the United Nations look or halve in deforestation rates at least by 2020 increasing restoration of degraded lands at least 15% of degraded land under restoration by 2020 also maintaining genetic diversity and the like question is how do we achieve all these goals simultaneously how do we achieve the goals for poverty reduction, food security biodiversity conservation and climate change the models that have done have shown that this is possible but as many have said there is no single solution to this we do have to recognize as Christine said that we are dealing with complex systems and so we will need complex answers with many elements to those as the president said in his opening remarks yesterday morning key part of this will be equity we will not be able to reconcile all of these demands without equities being a key part of sustainable development we heard this morning about the call for a forest development goal and I think we certainly would like to see biodiversity and forests well integrated into the sustainable development framework perhaps as a goal in their own rights but perhaps even more importantly following the theme of this panel to see biodiversity in ecosystems, biodiversity and forests reflected in the goals dealing with food production water provision and the like thank you pass the mic to the gentleman is it my turn? it's your turn, oh you've got a mic in your hand I will have traveled 45 hours and almost 20,000 miles to get here to spend an hour with you so I want to come down with you I'm not an expert in anything I got pretty good after three years of being US ambassador and one thing however which is competing conversations and so I'm assuming that all of you are experts in something but I'd like to ask you a baseline question are there any economists in the room? are there any experts in infectious diseases? anybody build infrastructure? is there a tax lawyer here? I want to promise you that all of those people much more have a lot to say about whether we can solve the problems that we're faced with the question is why aren't they in the room? and that's an interesting question and I can tell you that one of the things I did as a US ambassador ASEAN is I always insisted that there were young people in the room I never spoke without young people in the room so thank you for being here and I've also proposed recently that every corporation in the world have a youth board and young people change conversations so is there anybody in the room that doesn't think we should take a landscape approach to nutritional security? show me hands I didn't think so so we're sitting here and we're talking about a landscape approach and we all already agree that we should take it out of those I think the one thing I could contribute after having come so far and I'm not sure if I have anything to contribute but I don't want to come so far and fail the one thing I can maybe help with is how do we do the landscapes of the conversations how do we decide who needs to be in the room as I said, not an expert in anything but I can promise you the most important person who's not here is a tax lawyer I wanted to think about that for just a little bit I asked myself the question a lot of times why aren't we winning? why are we losing so badly? and I have no real wisdom on that but I will offer the following we are all prisoners of our own lenses I'm a lawyer that's not why I'm a tax lawyer by the way I'm not a tax lawyer but we see the world through our experience in our education and that causes us to see quite narrow we also have trouble seeing the big things the many forces the cause and effects how things are connected to each other we know they are we know that if we de-forest over Jakarta Jakarta is going to flood us we know that and we know other things are connected we know that if there are no fish in the South China Sea something I worked hard on that communities along the oceans in Southeast Asia will fail and there will probably be more fundamental as a consequence it's part of an answer to their problems we know these things yet we don't do anything about it and there's another reason those that have power and prestige and prerogative are the adaptive adversaries that are trying to build the world to suit their interests and let's just call it out because that's what's happening actually to build the alliances to win the future for the young people in the room because I'm 62 years old I'm not coming this far because this is my world I'm not getting paid to come here there are no appearance fees and I came here on my own so how do we do that well I can only tell you we've had a little bit of success doing it recently but I offer the following thoughts let me give you a specific example as you think I'm talking at 50,000 feet because while I'm not an expert in anything I have studied every one of these topics in the region deeply so the average size of a farm in Java is 0.4 hectares and if you ban 10 of those farms together that gives you 4 hectares if 10 families farm take 4 hectares by my calculations just to spare you the math one growing cycle will feed all those families in rice the other growing cycle they can raise beef high-value products and a lot of them they'd have a cash crop it would help with poverty it's a pretty simple solution why is that happening why isn't anybody in the Department of Agriculture here proposing this idea why is there no infrastructure to rural parts of Java and why is there no electricity and there's no revenue or that's the tax lawyer so we need to think about these things as being connected I'm going to run out of time but I'll offer one story before I left the post of U.S. Ambassador to Hacien in December of last year I went home for Christmas and been home for a long while I was in the Department of the Board of a Fortune 50 company to come see him to talk about what he called food security which I call nutritional security he wanted to know what I thought it was happening in San Francisco and I talked to him for over a couple hours on a snowy Saturday morning and I offered him some of these views and he looked at me and said, you know Mr. Ambassador I absolutely accept what you're saying as to how we approach this but it's hard to be optimistic and then he looked at me after a moment of hesitation dead in the eye and he said you know, we're all haunted by the truth and I told him you know where the word haunt comes from and he didn't the root of the word haunt is home haunted home is redundant and what I said to him was that I have found in my brief experience in Southeast Asia that the people that see what needs to happen are allies to change and that we need to empower them my favorite poet is a man named Wendell Berry and Wendell Berry said the following we have lived our lives we've lived our lives based on the assumption that what was good for us was good for the world we have been wrong we must learn to live our life by a contrary assumption that what is good for the world is good for us and we must learn what is good for the world thank you thank you very much when you ask whether there's any converse in the room no we got one so I have the role to represent a development partner and I would give some ideas on two levels first on the global level how we answered the question of forest landscapes for food and biodiversity so we are a secretary of the convention of islander diversity and our chancellor in 2008 made the commitment that from 2013 we commit 500 million a euro for a year for this biodiversity project and we and my colleagues have to put this into practice and we have a wealth of lessons learned on our agricultural and on our forestry projects and of course we bring this together and already on the global level without citing those specific levels from Kallimantan where we extensively traveled in the last four years we find that management of protected areas and sustainable management of natural resources can only be done if we improve the living conditions of the local people and this topic will come back a second time and I go to the project level so we affected the three big tropical forests regions of the world the Amazon, the Corvo Basin and here in Southeast Asia and my other regions also in southern and eastern Africa the Andes and Malaya all this to put the connection which has been shown between biodiversity and put security into practice and how do we answer these challenges on the project level so our government has commissioned international research institutions and international NGOs to test the landscape approach in a number of pilot countries including Indonesia and then we have portfolio of forest projects and we introduce these ideas into the project side what we have learned is that we have to address the issues on the policy level on the regional level and on the local level so our programs and now I come to Indonesia they are all forest food in the concrete villages where we have the pilots and also in Sumatra and in the future in the north of Southeast and when I traveled I noticed that these projects which are red projects use the approach to enable people to give them the rights because they get, they prove their food security when they know that the area is there in the sense that their property rights to these areas and we prove this by organizing but I said in the disputes between the villages and by organizing the disability level and we see already an improvement when they identify this or so to say of their villages and to prepare how you do we invest in their life for example through non-timber forest products improvement of traditional food gardens food tree and other food production so we invest here about 80 million worth of forest project every year and but we still work only in pilot where we are in the state our partner is to do most of the work and we are also there to assist them in national work to bring innovations together with others and they are not the only one by financing two ecosystem restoration concessions and to power plan and innovations in finance which is very important and with establishing sustainable financing and financing mechanisms this applies here but also in Vietnam we have forest recommendations combined with financial incentives for communities to maintain forest givers some of the things that we do as an answer to the challenge of forest density for food and piloters thank you very much I'd like to jump right into a few questions and just so we're clear we'll talk here on the panel and then we'll open it up to questions for 25 minutes and then 5 minutes and concluding comments I'd like to build on what Mr Kardon was really expressing and that is we are facing such staggering losses in terms of deforestation and the loss of agricultural biodiversity and I would like each person on the panel to address this question of which actors need to be engaged what are the biggest obstacles that we're facing and you don't have to address all of these points but some of them please and how does forest governance and land use policies and market opportunities shape what we're seeing right now and shape what we can create for the future so we are losing biodiversity we're losing forests but this isn't happening in the same way all over the world in many parts of the world we've seen forests come back quite a while ago you we've seen 20 years ago the big headlines on deforestation was not about Indonesia it was about the Amazon Amazon is burning, it's hopeless everyone said it's impossible to do anything about it and getting over 10 years previous the rates of deforestation in the Amazon by 80% why? there is no civil bullet certainly law legislation plays a part in that there is a law in Brazil the forest code that says that 8% of the land in the Amazon must be animated that's 80% in any land of course that's outside protected areas another thing that was done during that period was a massive increase in protected areas and in indigenous lands given to the indigenous communities to manage which by the way were the most effective of the protected areas there's also investment in enforcement but that could only work because they also have very good water ball monitoring so the one map that we've heard a lot right here is critical we need good monitoring, we need data it has to be owned by the country and it needs the near real time as well as accurate and that is in place in Brazil all that information is in the public domain that's another important aspect that information must be in the public domain so that everyone can see it everyone can question it as Christopher said this morning everyone can prove it so you need this whole mixture do you also need economic incentives you can have a law but you'll only get compliance with that law if it's economically socio-economic possible to do that and so there are credits for farmers in Brazil municipalities with high rates of deforestation are denied access to those credits so there's a whole mixture of positive and negative incentives just one thing is that the forest code applies to the whole country it applies it's called the forest code it covers agricultural lands as well as forest lands so as well as a one map what we need is a one law that covers spatial planning and it covers basic requirements for maintenance of native vegetation for example to protect against erosion and minimum levels of native vegetation applied not just in forest lands but in all maps thank you for the experts our partners other governments and in the example of Indonesia we are helping the Ministry of Forestry innovations with international expertise which we can bring in and I've mentioned on the local level that the partners are actually the communities and empowering them is very important but of course the scene of the actors is much more which we have learned in this room is of course the dialect but I mentioned just those two groups some recent interesting initiatives among the companies that work in Indonesia as well as other places like Ga and Roma saying no deforestation no clearance of peat and so forth and these things are very useful together with government attempts now to look much further towards a sustainable forestry in terms of the overall situation in terms of landscape I would like to just reintroduce the idea of designer landscapes which was brought up a few years ago by people who are working in C4 and they suggested that in fact if the plantations could concentrate on improving their yields to a very considerable extent and that is possible genetically then it might be possible it would be possible for small holders to engage in a more organic forestry sort of system whereby they have mixed cultivation with quite a lot of food crops as well as the oil palm and other crops they might want to grow such as rubber and that would give them a much more diverse economy while at the same time the plantations would produce sufficient oil palm to enable the actual needs of the country to be fulfilled if these small holders wish to produce more oil palm they were able to do that by that stage the genetics would be sorted out to the point that the high production would be possible I think the problem with Indonesia today is that there has been a lot of expansion about mainly looking at extending the situation into more and more lands rather than concentration so much on improving yields it's coming but there needs to be much more of that and if you can do that then you need not perhaps pressure the small holders to quite the same extent and it would be possible particularly for independent small holders who now have the choices to what they grow to be able to produce a much more a much more varied kind of agriculture it's possible to do these things in Brazil for example and you are mentioning Brazil there are some projects there in the state of Kala where it's been shown that oil palm can be grown in an agriculture system whereby if you look at the combinations of ground covers and other crops that you plant with the oil palm you can get in fact more productivity with fewer oil palm trees and this has been shown to be quite profitable so that there are certainly other ways of doing things and I would suggest it's a good idea to look at the landscape and think we don't have to have all ways just the same landscape in small areas with small holders and perhaps the forest dwindling because we want to just expand more and more it's possible to do things differently and I think people should be starting to look into that in 1776 there were 600 million acres of forests in the United States today there are 700 million acres of forests in the United States how did that happen? it happened because George Marsh who wrote his work in 1867 called it Man in Nature who was the longest serving American diplomat in American diplomatic history something I'm proud about George Marsh understood the relationship between human health and forests and he thought it was terrible what happened in the United States but in 1880 the life expectancy in the United States was 40 years old it was 40 years old in 1776 40 years old in 1880 what happened what happened were economics and the movement of people from rural economies to manufacturing and service economies and the creation of wealth it took pressure off of the agricultural sector didn't have to expand and it was also true of course there was an aggregation of land I mentioned before the example of leather in jollet and one cycle would feed them and the other cycle they would have cash crops why doesn't that happen? land use there's no land use laws in the life that sort of make that possible and so the question is that how do we move from an agrarian economy to a manufacturing and service economy which takes the pressure off of the agricultural sector 40% of Thailand's economy is agrarian 15% of Indonesian's economy is agrarian in both countries 40% of the people work in the agrarian of the agricultural sector 40% how do you move 40% of Indonesians or some significant percentage of Indonesians into the manufacturing sector how do you move ties into the manufacturing and service sector so they can create wealth how do you do that education, that's a start what's happened here they've withdrawn English language instruction in the rural areas of Indonesia when I read that that was like a canary in the cave why are they withdrawing English language instruction in Indonesia in the rural areas the people that need it the most in order to sort of move out of the places they're in because they're worried about food security all of us need food shocks and now the policy has to be we need to make certain we don't have a shortage of food I understand that that's very destabilizing you see what happens when that happens there's other ways to do it other than keeping people on 4.4 hectare farms to raise enough rice to feed themselves a little bit more give them the land so that they can aggregate give them the opportunity with infrastructure and with electrification and education to move to other centers in the economy create spaces for them in Jakarta where they can actually do that kind of work I'm not just talking about Indonesia this could be applied to any other country in the region I want to make certain that's clear I'm just talking about Indonesia because we're here right now I can do this in any in any ASEAN country including Singapore those are my reasons to work here thank you coming back to small examples but good examples I would say that focusing on traditional productive landscapes and there are many a multiplicity of it in Indonesia, Indonesia and elsewhere it's good start to learn from and then innovate from there coming back to your questions and what I'm saying is because productive traditional productive landscapes have a lot of experience with multi-uses multi-actors so it's not just one force never they have a lot of traditional knowledge that is very associated with the ecological basis of that particular landscape so they know where to cut and where not to cut, what to use and where not to use there is a lot of regulations built around that knowledge to protect and maintain resilient landscapes and there is a lot of integration between forest and fields something that we have heard before also agroforestry agroecology blending the landscapes into multi-uses that's all very important but then we need to step this up a little bit innovation is important bringing in private sector is important as long as this is built around community and private partnerships where community still have a say and control at local level of what kind of innovation they want and they can use because there is no point in input from external input remaining external input there is a lot of need for investment investment upstream otherwise you force economy, the local economy to be extractable in the time because they need to bring their produce somewhere else which is going to be sold which is going to have a higher market value so this needs to be reversed and innovation yes but built on tradition because there is a lot of tradition that can be upheld, maintained and highlighted, amplified to be more used so I would conclude by saying market yes but people focus markets are important for food security and productive landscapes thank you this is so right for so many different directions but I'll end with one final question and open up to the audience and that is what's really coming up for me is also the question of sort of what is what is the story, what are the messages that we're getting out because David you just mentioned this indigenous knowledge that is often not discussed that should be discussed David you were talking earlier about kind of the transformation of the Amazonian rainforest in part that was due to consumer awareness that had not perhaps been there before and I'm wondering as we move forward you know Naveen Sharma from the World Agroforestry Center said agroforestry has a complete nutritional pyramid this is the high level panel on food and nutrition and biodiversity and I wonder if you could just talk a bit about not only the role of biodiversity but this value that's often overlooked is community perception of the forest and the value that we of course count in ecosystem services and accounting but I'm also curious to know how we transform the conversation around status and identity and meaning because this also plays into it this evolution is one oriented toward economic prosperity but it's also one oriented toward a different kind of identity as we see an evolution in what will grow and what we eat so if you could please address in your experience and anyone on the panel who feels comfortable talking about this what we can do to transform this conversation from consumers, from producers from the people involved throughout the chain you know governance structures as well as or I should say government officials and policy makers who are in the room as well as those who who simply want to have more agency and participate in this conversation I think there's a problem in terms of nutrition and agroforestry and so forth I think everybody recognises that there is huge biodiversity in the forest and in the agricultural systems in Indonesia if you start to look into it Kristina mentioned the areas in Kainanthan there are some amazing examples of biodiversity not only in rice varieties but in varieties of everything else in Kalimantan huge varieties of durian for example of mango these things are hardly recognised there are lots of fruits and vegetables there that don't make it to the market these things are fantastic and they ought to be more encouraged but I think there's a big problem with indomitisation everybody is just eating indomit which has basically very little to do and I think this is one of the huge problems in terms of diet you find people in the diet long hats and what do they eat indomit and they're surrounded by this amazing biodiversity and yet somehow it's easy to buy this packet of noodles from the local shop it has a little bit of flavour it has very little else and I think this whole question of identity and what sort of food is good food there is a need for maybe more education at school level and other levels to say what kind of foods do you really need to eat what do you need to feed your young children these sorts of things need to be learned more you don't feed them indomit so following on the key aspect here is doing what we can to promote and protect food cultures cultures that each country community has around their food if we look at South Korea for instance it's transformed from a poor country after the the Korean War into now one of the rich countries and yet it's maintained it's food culture that's what they eat but also have a eat it affects therefore not just nutrition but food waste and you referred at the beginning to the problem of malnutrition and obesity among those that have plenty or access to them and again food cultures are important in preventing that so I think you know you can look at the examples and try and learn from the examples of like Korea or like the Mediterranean also to a large extent compared to North America or Northern Europe maintaining the food culture certainly public policy can help there school meals, public procurement around those protection of traditional indigenous diets and also perhaps recognising the value of the family farm so this 2014 is the international year of the family farm most of the income most of the export earning is agricultural countries comes from big farms but most of the food and nutrition that they eat actually still comes from family farms and again in Brazil there are two ministries for agriculture they have a ministry of agriculture which deals with agribusiness and that generates a lot of money for the country that is important in supporting some of the social programs but they also have a ministry for more development that supports the small farms they did a survey show that still most of the food that the entity comes from the small farm I think that's another part of the culture I'm not a big fan of food culture the culture has cultures of food that change throughout time and I think it's critical that we change the food culture around the world now so we resort to food culture because people are comfortable with it and in an uncomfortable world food is comfort we all have our comfort foods I accept that many years ago there was a U.S. Senator who was very focused on saving the family farm in America and he had a conversation with a friend of mine and he said I want to save the family farm and this friend of mine said define family farm for me you said 20 cows how much income does this family farm need my friend asked this was some years ago $20,000 my friend who was very gifted calculated in front of the senator that would increase the price of milk in the location in question 50% and the senator looked at him and said do it for 40 cows meaning change the definition of family farm to suit the economic output that was necessary to sustain the economic price of milk this is a very fast moving world right of the 2 billion additional people that are on their way before 2050 does anybody in the room know where they're going to live what's your guess the entire population growth of the world going forward essentially obviously some give and take it Africa now everybody's talking about Africa being the next great thing with regard to agriculture who's going to be buying that food from Africa Africans in some respect I was guest at the milken institute speaking on Myanmar and ASEAN and philanthropy in southeast Asia and in the food security conversation no one no one raised perennial crops and I said why aren't you talking about perennial crops and of course the answer to that is because seed companies want to sell seeds there are lots of things we're going to need to do and lots of ways we're going to have to think about food that we've never thought about it before including things like perennials by the way and eating different things and stressing certain things and creating the opportunity for farmers to grow something other than what they've been growing so they generate some revenue so they can get out of the places that you may all think they want to live and the family farm but which is not a place where their children can secure the future where they can't compose a life of consequence and beauty and if we fail to do that we don't always we don't only fail them we fail ourselves and we fail the future thank you because of what was raised by the other panelists before it came the intermediate thing reminding me of something which is simple tastes and preferences so full preferences are also important and coming to the picture because in a traditional landscape what we see in multi-use landscapes is that diversity is not only at the level of what you plant and where but it's also in the food that you cook at home and that you serve and clearly because of different courses because of TV because of advertisement because of the economy as it works people have been growing more and more a shade of their own food and their own food preferences and this is very true for many rural parts of Indonesia and other countries and so now there are government efforts which I think they are very good to try to move away from a strictly rice diet because rice was not necessarily the most culturally appropriate food for all of Indonesia so there is a lot of that can be done can be restored, can be revived it's quite staggering the amount of and there have been interesting studies conducted on the diversity of food of cultural traditional menus in one area and other places using products from the forest from the rice fields from the fields from the edges of the rivers from the multitude of places and that is important to maintain because it comes down to why is it that people, farmers plant more than one variety of rice which is might be enough you have a higher yield you have enough to feed yourself is it because they like certain varieties so they want to maintain them and they keep planting but it's also because rice is in the same area because it takes good in the past when you cook them and they like to enjoy that meal on their table that way so it's as simple as this if we can then I'd like to move on to the audience for questions are there microphones that are being passed around I'm not going to run them forth actually if you can would you now, if you have questions if you don't mind raising your hand pass it first to the gentleman I saw his hand first and then to the woman to this right thank you very much first, Leslie you are living in the village they should be naming one one product actually in the city we eat also more McDonald's so that is the reality we are now basically being influenced by the global food market that is the first but that is my comment today to you Leslie but actually to Ambassador Sir, I translate the film of the greatest good the one that you mentioned is actually no one film is the greatest good the story of 100 years of conversion of forests in the US and after 100 years they packed the forest is packed even more than before that is in the US in the case of Indonesia in the US you need 100 years but here we need only 20 years believe it or not because we use tractors in the greatest good movie you use still X and so the speed of the forest destruction is much much higher so I am really sure I am really convinced that improved productivity is important thankfully I am now working for April the plantation forest where for half a million hectares we can produce about 9 million cubic meters but for 24 million hectares of our natural forest we already produce less than 5 million cubic meters so big difference isn't it so actually if we use the land properly we can have up to 10 million of plantation forest we can have 30 million of what you call it natural plants do you have a question yes ok thank you so in my preference here is actually we are forgotten only looking at the deforestation but we are forgotten for degradation the degradation of forest in Indonesia is alarmingly alarmingly very much the question is actually why there is still a big problem of big issue related to plantation in Indonesia if it is improving the productivity we should support improving the productivity this is addressed to all of you let me just simply say that the science of the same kind of benefit as forest is not as complete as we want but there is no support for the equivalency of palm oil plantations and for natural forest no support the fact is that the great forest provides much more than in terms of climate change than palm oil the sense that palm oil provides in terms of CO2 isn't even close so I don't know if your question was Gene why aren't we in the same place we just plant a lot of trees in America because we have a northern deciduous forest which is not as much of a sin half the year the US forest don't have leaves and that's a problem in terms of oxygen or CO2 sequestration that's why the rainforest in the tropic is so incredibly important in terms of climate change so I'm not sure I understood your premise but if your premise was that they're the same thing they're not please have the microphone, thank you thank you very much my name is Linda Howard and I am the director of the food program here in Indonesia the food program is a UN organization that works on food security together with the failure and EFAT what I found very interesting was the correlation that you were mentioning between nutrition and forest cover and indeed it is a fact that there is a huge difference among nutrition in amongst forest populations because they have access to a wealth of food commodities that we hardly know so there is a challenge really about more knowledge about the nutritional contribution that forests bring to people if you make a pattern between this situation and then the obesity that you see in urban areas you can see that there is something which is called distance and for the World Food Program which is mainly a logistics organization also it's called the supply chain with growing organization there is a need to reduce the cost of food and reducing the cost of food means also reducing the cost of transport and this means standardizing a lot do you see the possibility of developing more local markets developing more local knowledge about what forest can contribute so that you can address food security and availability of good quality food and good nutrition in a decentralized way rather than according to the current very heavily urbanized model thank you thank you I like your question but I'm not sure I can give you an answer I could only join into your question by saying that I would like to see a lot more accurate mapping on the issue of food security in its complexity because I don't think when we look at the maps as they exist in the statistics office they basically lump together big areas that are highly dangerous and say high risk of food security why? because of the lack of infrastructure because of the lack of the distance from the market and all of that which is true this is why also earlier I said we need to reverse this trend at the same time these are areas where we know nothing because there is no very little research done not enough about what is being used as food the vibrant sources of food the landscape the landscape that can provide food for which there is hardly ever any food security per se issue so I think that a good mapping of this would bring in staggering questions answers to this thank you in the interest of timing I think we're just going to have a few questions asked at once and then open it up to the panel to ask a few so I see one, two, three hands over here and I'm afraid if you can save your questions for after the session or beyond that thank you so if you could just ask your question please no comments my question is you brought up the word Indigenous and I'm curious I don't think that giving farmers cows or intensifying crops is a necessary solution but I'm curious if scientists are trying to incorporate Indigenous knowledge into sustainable landscapes to integrate forests with agroforestry so we can maintain the ecosystem services of the forests and at the same time provide nutritious food that traditionally supported Indigenous cultures thank you I have a question in the front from the messages from all the panelists it appears that there is something called knowledge which has a solution to the problems we have identified but it may not be so and there are many texts on which we are closing our eyes for example the UNFCC decision to promote GM3s as legal in a resolution approved by the COP there are many other settings and your question to me we are changing definitions of forests, there are new terminologies coming up like mosaic forests don't you think we are retreating and closing our eyes on many facts thank you and the last question was for you just bear with me for one second because this I'd like to get a response from David Carr and this relates to the future and this is really important I work for WWF in Singapore I'm a vegan, ultra endurance athlete and I know about the importance of nutrition and I think one of the most pertinent things that has been said this summer over two days perhaps the most pertinent is what you said about understanding what's important for the planet and then we'll understand what's important for ourselves but we also don't understand what's important for ourselves in terms of nutrition what are we going to do to educate not just the countries we're in right now but the whole world about the importance of nutrition because right now we're totally misguided we're consuming palm oil at crazy amounts deforestation is occurring at levels that are just completely unsustainable and by 2050 we're looking at 60% increase in reproduction how are we going to teach people the importance of nutrition because I believe the importance of nutrition is the crux of everything we're addressing here thank you great we can open back up to the panel we have ten minutes before we're closing I'm sorry we can reserve it for after the discussion now we just have a few minutes left to talk to people so if you can fold your free foodie comments into the questions that were asked you have two minutes left thank you I think that one of the things that I've learned since my opening remarks it's very difficult to convince anyone of anything I can sit with my best friends and we can agree on the conclusion and have no agreement after a day about how to get there one of the challenges that we have is that people select the facts that suit their worldview they select the things that support what it is they already believe and what your question raises one of these very important concerns that we have seen over the course of the last twenty years when we began to look more at nutrition are facts good for you it turns out now maybe they're not so bad right? are eggs good for you how much protein do you need and on and on and on and the answer is flip back and forth and so people pick the answer they like right? I don't eat red meat that somebody else says there's no evidence I'm looking at the last study I'll tell you off this in two minutes Stanford has just opened up a center which is going to look at research and how inaccurate it is the law of small numbers and you might want to pay attention to what's happening there it's opening up soon and what they're going to do is look at studies particularly medical studies and essentially prove why they really are invalid and the statistics that's in the middle of these studies is stunning like 85% are really just not on point we've got to get better data we've got to be better at what the research really shows us and there are some things happening I think good things happening with regard to that we need to look at the evidence there's tend to be quite often policy based evidence of the other way around we also have to be careful about the way we're asking these questions and what sort of research and evidence we're looking for so I think in nutrition there is a sort of history of asking simple questions and reductionist approach and getting simple answers and we I think we do have to still look back at yes food cultures traditional knowledge or more broadly traditional knowledge you know cultures and practices that have taken the test of time that's not to say we should close our eyes to the latest scientific information but we I think a little bit of humility in how we address those issues is important we're learning now that it's not just a matter of the nutrients it's not just calories it's now not just nutrients it's also the interaction of those nutrients with the biodiversity we have inside us our microbiome inside us there's more and more evidence that's related not only to things like nutrition directly but to allergies and all sorts of non-communicable diseases and in turn we're just beginning to understand the things between that biodiversity and the biodiversity in the environment are simple solutions and I think this being careful about simple solutions is the same when we're looking at non-management work we're looking at industrialisation whether the land sharing versus land sparing debate is another misguided dichotomy I think we need to there will be different situations in different places they have to come from the bottom up and they have to involve everybody's type of knowledge also a little bit pessimistic educating people and when you see the history of agricultural extension services we wanted to educate the farmers in this in that direction they were 5 years different and they were already reluctant and the ones who kept to their own often came better out so I would say we can reduce the influence of the lifestyle messages from the television that this is the one high consumption high protein or high diet lifestyle and people respect for their own diets and their own good countries that unfortunately can take instead of sending this one message which might be then to thank you I'd like to say that there are certain foods where people seem to feel these are the sorts of things that you must food which you should eat in order to adopt the sort of modern middle class if you like upper class if you want lifestyle you should maybe change your food from rice based food to based on potato chips these sorts of things but if you talk just about Indonesia there is a tremendous amount of nutritional knowledge among indigenous people among other people about foods which are produced locally which can easily be produced locally if you look at Brazil and you've mentioned Brazil there they eat a lot of foods which come from the forest which have been made very popular if you think of one in particular called assai in the forest and the fact that that has now become extremely popular in Brazil because it is a very good source of visual it's become popular in America in other places important people on television have picked it up but because that's been picked up the forest which produces that crop has come back has expanded and there is now much more production of that particular crop than the other from the forest so those sorts of things can work together but you can have a forest which people will replant will use important nutritional substances can come from those forests in Brazil they do it they take the local traditional foods they make them popular people want to eat them and then they can expand to even people like Altruc and Fri and so they can become popular but they are very good nutritional foods and I think it's time that perhaps people in Indonesia and other parts of Southeast Asia looked at what their forest can produce what the indigenous foods are and the value of them because they have a immense value for ordinary people to produce a good nutritious diet and a good lifestyle and that's been adopted by people at all sorts of levels thank you it is being very quick in my case you can take it I will be quick because I think there are two words complexity and connectivity and I think these are two key concepts for sustainable landscapes there are also key concepts for us to find all of us to find sustainable solutions for the future thank you my thanks to the panel to all of you I have two quick announcements