Nibbles: Lovely bunch of coconuts, Svalbard backlash backlash, ADAPTS, British food history, Artisanal backlash, NASA maps soils, Rock bee art

One Reply to “Nibbles: Lovely bunch of coconuts, Svalbard backlash backlash, ADAPTS, British food history, Artisanal backlash, NASA maps soils, Rock bee art”

1. Mike Jackson’s (excellent) comments of the Guardian report on Svalbard. My comments to Mike are awaiting moderation so you can read them here first.

   Mike: Thanks for the very well constructed analysis of the Guardian bit on Svalbard. I think we all appreciate the initial problem – the either/ or dichotomy on ex or in situ. I commented (as `oldmoss’) on it – I think the first to do so, but supported several times.

   Simon also quotes me: “Most seed resources for plant breeding come from farmers’ fields via national seed stores in developing countries: these countries are not depositing in Svalbard.” and then contradicts me, writing this: “…is wrong; more than 60% of the deposited material originates from developing countries.” So it does but I’m right — horribly so. Developing countries have themselves deposited in Svalbard only 21,166 samples (of a total deposit of 864,309). This is only 2.45% — not more than 60%. As most of the genebanks that are losing samples each year are in developing countries, this percentage is a disaster. As deposits by international genebanks (mainly CGIAR) have been given priority, as a consequence, developing countries have been hung out to dry.

   In contrast to the low percentage deposited by developing countries in Svalbard, the percentage of samples available under the Treaty SMTA from national genebanks in developing countries in around 6%. This shows the overwhelming value of the CGIAR both for the Treaty and for Svalbard.

   There are some interesting figures in an ACIAR 2011 report on rice in Asia looking at the value of IRRI breeding to each country’s rice production value related to number of samples from each country in the IRRI genebank — again, overwhelming figures.

   The Resolution 3 of the Nairobi Final Act of the CBD asked for a resolution on existing ex-situ collections: “…within the Global System for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Sustainable Agriculture…” This system — managed by FAO — included the CGIAR. FAO quickly reported “It was requested that these matters be addressed within FAO’s forum.” Wrong. It could readily have been done by what has turned out to be the preponderant part of the CBD request — the CGIAR genebanks seving CG and national crop improvement programmes.

   The CGIAR could still pull out from the Treaty its `material under development” as the Treaty allows an option not to include them. These samples also are vastly in demand. In 2011-2012 CIMMYT distributed 477,086 samples of materials under development (and CIMMYT is not one of the most expensive genebanks in the CGIAR to rum). CIMMYT could almost certainly go-it-alone with an endowment fund and direct rewards to `countries of origin’ samples incorporated in breeding material.

   Reply