As some other contributors have pointed out before, the report in its current form is quite hard to read although it contains many important lines of thought. It should be condensed and given a clear structure and coherent argument. There are two main points we would like to emphasize: the importance of local knowledge, and the value of extensive pastoralism.
Importance of local knowledge:
• p.84, Environmental Recommendations. A recommendation should be added: to take local knowledge into particular consideration. Its strategies are known to work for a specific place. Moreover, any measure that is based on local knowledge will be more readily accepted by local stakeholders.
Value of extensive pastoralism:
• p.52, ll.40-42: Have a look and cite: IIED, 2013. Global public policy narratives on the drylands and pastoralism (http://pubs.iied.org/10040IIED.html), which discusses inconsistent narratives with regard to pastoralism.
• p.82, ll.3-4 could be expanded to: “Transforming feedstuffs that are otherwise inedible to humans and utilizing land that is unsuitable for crops in an efficient and sustainable way, on much of the world’s terrestrial land area.”
• p.84, ll.32-34. This point should be specified with examples: “e.g. by giving support to mobile, extensive livestock breeding in dryland areas.”
• For the value of pastoral systems, see Krätli, S., 2014. If Not Counted Does Not Count? A programmatic reflection on methodology options and gaps in Total Economic Valuation studies of pastoral systems. Issue Paper. IIED: London. http://pubs.iied.org/10082IIED.html
• Two more references to be considered in this regard: Krätli, S., Huelsebusch, C., Brooks, S., Kaufmann, B., 2013. Pastoralism: A critical asset for food security under global climate change. Animal Frontiers 3(1) 42-50, and: Reid, R.S., Fernández-Giménez, M.E., Galvin, K.A., 2014. Dynamics and resilience of rangelands and pastoral peoples around the globe, Annual Review of Environment and Resources, pp. 217-242.
Miscellaneous comments:
• p.11, l.48 “most people are hungry because they cannot afford food.” Consequently, continued global efforts to reduce poverty should be a main recommendation in the latter parts, but is only mentioned in the narrow context of agricultural development (as a means to lift producers out of poverty). Alleviating the poverty of non-producers is an important challenge that should not be forgotten.
• p.51, ll.37-38 “The experience over many years and many countries demonstrates that the benefits of trade liberalization and globalization clearly outweigh the risks.” Such a sweeping generalization should at least cite a convincing source, otherwise it is mere ideology.
• p.60, Conclusions. This paragraph is very unspecific and vague so far.
• p.85, ll.4-5 “Increase farmers’ access to markets, focusing especially on non-distorting measures such as capacity building, credit and market infrastructure.” Here, mentioning the provision of adequate (agricultural) insurance instruments would be a valuable addition.
Birgit Müller, David Kreuer
Helmholtz Center for Environmental Research – UFZ, Leipzig, Germany
Junior Research Group POLISES: www.polises.de
Birgit Müller