A few of us have been known to anguish over the term neglected and underutilized species, for a couple of reasons. First off, why use underutilized when underused will do? More importantly, though, it invites a couple of questions. Neglected by whom? Underused by whom? Neglected by science and research, usually, and underused by people who could make more use of them. But still, it’s an unsatisfactory phrase, because as soon as researchers have become interested and people have started making more use of it, the species in question is neither neglected nor underused. “Orphan crops” is lame. Nothing else quite captures it. All of which is somewhat by the by.
Except that I’ve just come across the phrase “uncultivated biodiversity” in a book recently published by the International Research Development Centre in Canada. Food Sovereignty and Uncultivated Biodiversity in South Asia: Essays on the Poverty of Food Policy and the Wealth of the Social Landscape promises to be a fascinating read.
Based on extensive field research in India and Bangladesh, with and by farming communities, the book offers both people-based and evidence-based perspectives on the value of ecological farming, the survival strategies of the very poor, and the ongoing contribution of biodiversity to livelihoods. It also introduces new concepts such as “the social landscape†and “the ethical relations underlying production systems†relevant to key debates concerning the cultural politics of food sovereignty, land tenure, and the economics of food systems. The authors are leading activists and accomplished researchers with a long history of engagement with farming communities and the peasant world in South Asia and elsewhere.
The whole book is available for download, but I might just have to spring for a printed copy because it comes with a DVD of farmer-made films that I’d love to see. Come to think of it, if anyone at IDRC is reading this, why not enter them in our competition?
Of course, “uncultivated biodiversity” doesn’t solve the problem of what to call those pesky species that are cultivated and used by people but remain neglected and underutilized by researchers. Suggestions?
Talking about the term neglected and underutilized species, the GFU has been engaged in the debate on what are underutilized species for some time. As we should expect, no universal definition exists especially when such an array of terms is available (e.g. Alternative, Cinderella, Lesser used, Local, Lost, Minor, Neglected, New, Niche, Orphan, Promising, Secondary, Traditional, Underdeveloped …)
We from the GFU, have developed a working definition for underutilized species making the point about the potential that is hidden within these plant species
In the context of this facilitation unit (GFU) underutilized species are considered to be those plant species that are in the hands of the poor who are their custodians and who are in charge of their conservation, crop improvement, development of technologies for their cultivation, processing and utilization applying the traditional knowledge that had been passed on from generation to generation. These species have the following common features:
Only locally important in consumption and hence in production systems
Represented mostly by wild species, ecotypes and landraces
Receive little attention from national policies and research
Distribution, biology, cultivation, uses are poorly documented
Non-existent/fragile seed supply systems
Non-existent/ poorly organized markets
Scarcely represented in ex-situ germplasm collections
Maintained mainly through in-situ/on-farm conservation
Adapted to agro-ecological niches and marginal areas
In addition, many of them possess high nutritional and/or medicinal values and offer multipurpose uses.
And to make another point, along the lines of a colleague of mine from Canada, he mentioned that in particular, AGRA (the new Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa) seems rather ‘anti’ the term ‘neglected and underutilized crops’ or even ‘orphan’ crops, as they seem to believe with big bucks mainly big projects on big crops should be supported. Proposals that use those terms, seem less likely to be supported. Furthermore, he seem to favour the term ‘indigenous’ crops, as it immediately refers to crops that are locally adapted.
Paul
http://www.underutilized-species.org
That’s very interesting about AGRA and orphan crops. But was the reason they gave for turning down the project that it was too small, or its impact likely to be too limited because of the nature of the crop(s) involved. It would be useful to know a bit more about their thinking. I’m not sure that “indigenous” is going to work though. Maize is indigenous to Mexico, for example. The word “phoenix” was suggested in this context at an IUCN meeting. Because of the connotation of rising again, but also because:
Plants for
Health
Occupation and
Environment, through
Networking (or kNowledge)
Information and
eXchange
What about crops that are not indigenous? How do you get support for crops that meet all the GFU’s characteristics but are not from around here?