I welcome the opportunity to comment on this draft.
As the team leader for the HLPE report #10 on livestock (2016) I note that several of the areas covered in the draft report were also dealt with in the livestock report, including discussion of agroecology, sustainable intensification, and food sovereignty, as well as definitions and principles related to sustainable development. References are made to the livestock report and I would strongly advise that continues, with the rechecking of material where relevant.
The draft contains a wealth of useful information and analysis, with a very extensive list of references, and has the potential to become the definitive study on agroecology.
I am attaching some detailed comments, but would highlight here a number of concerns that I feel need to be addressed in the next stage of the work:
The draft Recommendations (which are in a constant state of revision until the final stages) are rather general and not specific to agroecology - they could well be relevant for many systems that can contribute to sustainable agricultural development. It would be helful to draw attention to those that are unique to agroecology.
In the Recommendations (drawing on the main report) some discussion of the dynamics involved is necessary: in the past there has been continual transformation of agricultural systems, scale, and resource implications. Some sense of scenarios or options for the future is warranted as at present I felt that there is a bias towards maintaining the structures of farming, and simply taking actions to ensure that continues (the status quo).
I felt that the report is weak on the economic dimensions, including the role of changing consumer food demand as it feeds back into production. For example, reducing food waste is noted but it should be recognized that - should waste be reduced - will lead to lower incentives to produce at current levels, with effects on prices and so on.
Another, key area where the economic dimension is important is in the discussion about whether agro-ecology can feed the world. That is not really the right question to ask: with enough resources of course any system (including agroecology) could "feed the world" so the relevant question is - at what cost?
I appreciate the suggestion to extend the 3 principles to 4 for sustainable agricultural development for FSN but I do not think that the 4th "enhance the ecological footprint" is the correct descriptor or is just an add on to the other three: it would be better, in my view, to cite the first three and then say something along the lines of ".....while maintaining the ecological basis on which agriculture depends" (incidentally, I'm not sure that the "ecological footprint" can be "enhanced" as increasing activity and population is surely going to put strains on the ecological base and risk reaching a number of critical tipping points?
In several places in the text assertions are made and empirical evidence is scarce. It is difficult to get comparative data but providing some sense of the extent of agroecological systems would be helpful - to complement case studies. That being said, there is a broad spectrum of systems both across and within countries, which are continually evolving.
I hope these comments are useful and I look forward to reading subsequent drafts.
Mr. Gustavo Cano Jiménez
I welcome the opportunity to comment on this draft.
As the team leader for the HLPE report #10 on livestock (2016) I note that several of the areas covered in the draft report were also dealt with in the livestock report, including discussion of agroecology, sustainable intensification, and food sovereignty, as well as definitions and principles related to sustainable development. References are made to the livestock report and I would strongly advise that continues, with the rechecking of material where relevant.
The draft contains a wealth of useful information and analysis, with a very extensive list of references, and has the potential to become the definitive study on agroecology.
I am attaching some detailed comments, but would highlight here a number of concerns that I feel need to be addressed in the next stage of the work:
The draft Recommendations (which are in a constant state of revision until the final stages) are rather general and not specific to agroecology - they could well be relevant for many systems that can contribute to sustainable agricultural development. It would be helful to draw attention to those that are unique to agroecology.
In the Recommendations (drawing on the main report) some discussion of the dynamics involved is necessary: in the past there has been continual transformation of agricultural systems, scale, and resource implications. Some sense of scenarios or options for the future is warranted as at present I felt that there is a bias towards maintaining the structures of farming, and simply taking actions to ensure that continues (the status quo).
I felt that the report is weak on the economic dimensions, including the role of changing consumer food demand as it feeds back into production. For example, reducing food waste is noted but it should be recognized that - should waste be reduced - will lead to lower incentives to produce at current levels, with effects on prices and so on.
Another, key area where the economic dimension is important is in the discussion about whether agro-ecology can feed the world. That is not really the right question to ask: with enough resources of course any system (including agroecology) could "feed the world" so the relevant question is - at what cost?
I appreciate the suggestion to extend the 3 principles to 4 for sustainable agricultural development for FSN but I do not think that the 4th "enhance the ecological footprint" is the correct descriptor or is just an add on to the other three: it would be better, in my view, to cite the first three and then say something along the lines of ".....while maintaining the ecological basis on which agriculture depends" (incidentally, I'm not sure that the "ecological footprint" can be "enhanced" as increasing activity and population is surely going to put strains on the ecological base and risk reaching a number of critical tipping points?
In several places in the text assertions are made and empirical evidence is scarce. It is difficult to get comparative data but providing some sense of the extent of agroecological systems would be helpful - to complement case studies. That being said, there is a broad spectrum of systems both across and within countries, which are continually evolving.
I hope these comments are useful and I look forward to reading subsequent drafts.