Dear madam/sir,
Few considerations to the proposed draft:
- Regional based analysis (“context-specific solutions”) could be better addressed within case-studies from different regions, climatic types, vulnerabilities against climate change. Crteria should be defined.
- Several terms might need better description (refinement). For instance, “resource efficiency” if this is in terms of outcomes, it would be necessary to define the unit (calories, kg of biomass, proteins, economic value…). Additionally, intensities of the responses (in terms of production and services) could be calculated (e.g. scaling up yields to GHG emissions, N losses, etc.). This would be linked to the last bullet point (indicators). When “resilience” is mentioned, is this general, resilience to global change, climate change, socio-economic changes…general?
- “Decent jobs, in particular for youth”. Gender perspective needs to be included here.
- It is mentioned “risks”. It would be necessary to put focus on which type of risks.
- Barriers need to be linked with opportunities
- Impacts: side effects (agronomical, social, economic, and environmental) of agroecological practices should be included in any assessment.
Best wishes,
Alberto
--
ALBERTO SANZ COBEÑA
Universidad Politecnica de Madrid
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2119-5620
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alberto_Sanz-Cobena
http://scholar.google.es/citations?user=FXLsAMoAAAAJ&hl=es&oi=sra
Red Remedia
Alberto Sanz Cobeña