Transforming food systems with trees and forests.

The global food system is failing to deliver sufficient and nutritious food to all, while damaging the earth and unsustainably drawing down its resources. We argue that trees and forests are essential to solving these challenges. We outline the current contributions of trees and forests to the global food system and present recommendations to leverage these contributions as part of the efforts to reshape food systems to better support healthy diets and environmental sustainability. Trees and forests provide nutrient-rich foods, incomes for food security, ecosystem services for food production, and add resilience to food systems. At the same time, trees and forests protect biodiversity and mitigate climate change through carbon sequestration. We recommend four approaches to realise the full potential of trees and forests to contribute to healthy and sustainable food systems: scaling up current tree-based food production, reorientating some agricultural investments towards nutrient-dense food production, repurposing production incentives from support of calorie-rich but nutrient-poor foods to support nutrient-dense foods, and integrate nutrition objectives into forest conservation and restoration programmes. Trees and forests have important roles to play in the transformation of our food systems, but more needs to be done to ensure that these roles are realised.

Sustainable diets within sustainable food systems.

Sustainable diets and sustainable food systems are increasingly explored by diverse scientific disciplines. They are also recognised by the international community and called upon to orient action towards the eradication of hunger and malnutrition and the fulfilment of sustainable development goals. The aim of the present paper is to briefly consider some of the links between these two notions in order to facilitate the operationalisation of the concept of sustainable diet. The concept of sustainable diet was defined in 2010 combining two totally different perspectives: a nutrition perspective, focused on individuals, and a global sustainability perspective, in all its dimensions: environmental, economic and social. The nutrition perspective can be easily related to health outcomes. The global sustainability perspective is more difficult to analyse directly. We propose that it be measured as the contribution of a diet to the sustainability of food systems. Such an approach, covering the three dimensions of sustainability, enables identification of interactions and interrelations between food systems and diets. It provides opportunities to find levers of change towards sustainability. Diets are both the results and the drivers of food systems. The drivers of change for those variously involved, consumers and private individuals, are different, and can be triggered by different dimensions (heath, environment, social and cultural). Combining different dimensions and reasons for change can help facilitate the transition to sustainable diets, recognising the food system's specificities. The adoption of sustainable diets can be facilitated and enabled by food systems, and by appropriate policies and incentives.

Setting priorities for land management to mitigate climate change.

BACKGROUND: No consensus has been reached how to measure the effectiveness of climate change mitigation in the land-use sector and how to prioritize land use accordingly. We used the long-term cumulative and average sectorial C stocks in biomass, soil and products, C stock changes, the substitution of fossil energy and of energy-intensive products, and net present value (NPV) as evaluation criteria for the effectiveness of a hectare of productive land to mitigate climate change and produce economic returns. We evaluated land management options using real-life data of Thuringia, a region representative for central-western European conditions, and input from life cycle assessment, with a carbon-tracking model. We focused on solid biomass use for energy production. RESULTS: In forestry, the traditional timber production was most economically viable and most climate-friendly due to an assumed recycling rate of 80% of wood products for bioenergy. Intensification towards "pure bioenergy production" would reduce the average sectorial C stocks and the C substitution and would turn NPV negative. In the forest conservation (non-use) option, the sectorial C stocks increased by 52% against timber production, which was not compensated by foregone wood products and C substitution. Among the cropland options wheat for food with straw use for energy, whole cereals for energy, and short rotation coppice for bioenergy the latter was most climate-friendly. However, specific subsidies or incentives for perennials would be needed to favour this option. CONCLUSIONS: When using the harvested products as materials prior to energy use there is no climate argument to support intensification by switching from sawn-wood timber production towards energy-wood in forestry systems. A legal framework would be needed to ensure that harvested products are first used for raw materials prior to energy use. Only an effective recycling of biomaterials frees land for long-term sustained C sequestration by conservation. Reuse cascades avoid additional emissions from shifting production or intensification.