The reaction by the Association of International Research and Development Centers for Agriculture (AIRCA) to the communiqué put out by G20 chief agricultural scientists after their latest meeting in June in Australia brings up some good points, but also reminds me that we probably didn’t give that event the space it warranted. Just a Nibble, if memory serves.
Anyway, good to see diversity highlighted in a couple of places. ((As you read the thing, do keep these points in mind :) )) The participants “agreed that diverse farming systems will require a broad range of innovations and approaches,” which seems to imply that they think those diverse farming systems are a good thing, and worth striving for. And here’s another interesting excerpt from their communiqué: they
…recognised the importance of biodiversity of plants, animals and micro-organisms in an agricultural setting, and noted with interest the global and stakeholder driven DivSeek initiative. We recognised the importance of the next generation genetic resources, open access information system — that will enable the speeding up of crop improvement processes and thereby enhance resilience, food and nutritional security.
Nice enough, but am I the only one to find that comma after “genetic resources” problematic. I think they meant “next generation, open access information system on genetic resources” there. Who says punctuation is not important.
Susan McCouch, who’s been involved in DivSeek, was on youtube recently, by the way. She doesn’t mention DivSeek directly, but her talk does suggest why something like it is needed.
DivSeek seems to be a very bad idea politically. The foundation meeting in Asilomar was of 63 mainly high tech. institutions including the CGIAR. Apart from the CG all were from developed countries except two from Thailand and one from Brazil, including some entities that developing countries love to hate – Monsanto, Bayer, Du Pont and Syngenta. Alarm bells will be ringing in those developing countries sitting on national genetic resources and expecting ABS under the ITPGRFA. They will see DivSeek as yet another way of searching through, adding value to, and using PGR currently outside of the country of origin. In effect, an alternative to depending on new collections from their countries that should be, but are not, available under the Treaty. The impasse will continue.
The lack of useful public information about DivSeek is problematic and will increase suspicions, deserved or not. There’s a little bit of airbrushed garbage on divseek.org, but it’s long on rhetoric and short on specifics. It also avoids access and benefit sharing issues. DivSeek is not unfolding in a way that inspires confidence.