Firstly, congratulations to this HLPE team for an excellent report. It is no small feat to produce the V0!
I am happy to see attention to trees and forests in this report. However, I would note that our recent HLPE report “Sustainable Forestry for Food Security and Nutrition” includes quite a bit on agroforestry, including some of the material covered in the report (work by Ickowtiz, Kehlenbeck, Jamnadass, Dawson and others). It might be helpful to have a quick look at our report and seek ways to further develop some of these ideas and avoid too much repetition.
I am not an expert on agroecology and one of the things that has always be difficult for me to understand is what counts as an agroecology practice / approach and what doesn’t, as well as who decides. I have not read the whole report in detail, but I wondered if this could be even more explicit in your section “1.1.2 Agroecology as a set of practices”. Finally, for me (according to my limited understanding) “diversification of agriculture” is a central aspect of agroecology. I am not convinced that sustainable intensification, in cases when it leads to large-scale monoculture, still counts as agroecology. Simialrly, agroforestry that doesn’t include a diversity of crops and trees (such as large-scale monoculture of cacao or rubber) maybe shouldn't "count" as agroecolgoy. I had expected to see a separate section of agrobiodiversity as one of the subsections in your “innovations for sustainable food systems” section, but upon closer examination I see it woven throughout each or most sections in an excellent way. I hope as you continue to refine and edit that you work to make sure the importance of diversity continues to be central to your report. Thank you so much for all your hard work!
Firstly, congratulations to this HLPE team for an excellent report. It is no small feat to produce the V0!
I am happy to see attention to trees and forests in this report. However, I would note that our recent HLPE report “Sustainable Forestry for Food Security and Nutrition” includes quite a bit on agroforestry, including some of the material covered in the report (work by Ickowtiz, Kehlenbeck, Jamnadass, Dawson and others). It might be helpful to have a quick look at our report and seek ways to further develop some of these ideas and avoid too much repetition.
I am not an expert on agroecology and one of the things that has always be difficult for me to understand is what counts as an agroecology practice / approach and what doesn’t, as well as who decides. I have not read the whole report in detail, but I wondered if this could be even more explicit in your section “1.1.2 Agroecology as a set of practices”. Finally, for me (according to my limited understanding) “diversification of agriculture” is a central aspect of agroecology. I am not convinced that sustainable intensification, in cases when it leads to large-scale monoculture, still counts as agroecology. Simialrly, agroforestry that doesn’t include a diversity of crops and trees (such as large-scale monoculture of cacao or rubber) maybe shouldn't "count" as agroecolgoy. I had expected to see a separate section of agrobiodiversity as one of the subsections in your “innovations for sustainable food systems” section, but upon closer examination I see it woven throughout each or most sections in an excellent way. I hope as you continue to refine and edit that you work to make sure the importance of diversity continues to be central to your report. Thank you so much for all your hard work!
Dr. Bronwen Powell