Author: Luigi Guarino

Posted on

The services of agricultural biodiversity

The latest (number 18) Biodiversity and Society Bulletin of the Poverty and Conservation Learning Group discusses a new UNEP-WCMC publication ((Ash, N. and Jenkins, M. (2007). Biodiversity and Poverty Reduction: The Importance of Ecosystem Services. United Nations Environment Programme-World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge.)) entitled “Biodiversity and Poverty Reduction: The Importance of Ecosystem Services.”

It’s a very good assessment of the services provided by biodiversity, in particular to the poor. These services include:

  1. fresh water quality
  2. protection from natural hazards
  3. regulation of infectious diseases
  4. regulation of climate and air quality
  5. waste processing and detoxification
  6. nutrient cycling
  7. medicines
  8. timber, fibres and fuel
  9. cultural services

But food provision and food security are right up front, and that discussion doesn’t just deal with species diversity in farming systems (although this is somewhat underplayed, I think), landraces (though not, unfortunately, wild crop relatives, to any great extent) and wild foods. It also ranges over the wider agricultural biodiversity which supports food production. That means soil micro-organisms, pollinators and the natural enemies of pests:

Although some or all these functions can in theory be replaced by artificial, technologically-derived substitutes, these are often expensive and increase the dependency of poor people on industries and producers beyond their control.

The document ends with some implications for policy. I guess this is the bottom line:

The medium and long-term interests of the poor are likely to be best served by the maintenance of a diverse resource base at the landscape (i.e. accessible) scale, at the very least as a vital risk mitigation measure. This does not, of course, mean that all forms of intensification and adoption of new technologies should be avoided – far from it. Judicious application of new technologies and techniques, use of improved varieties (not necessarily excluding those developed with gene transfer technologies) in agriculture, and appropriate levels of inputs such as nitrogen and phosphate-based fertiliser, can increase productivity and help towards eliminating poverty. Increasing the efficiency of use of existing agricultural lands can actually reduce environmental degradation by reducing the incentive to convert marginal lands. The key is that such development should not be at the expense of the existing natural resource base and should be planned to ensure delivery of medium and long-term benefits, rather than maximising short-term gains.

Pity that the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture is not mentioned in the section on international obligations, though.

Posted on

Transhumance in central Italy

gran-sasso-pano-1-1.jpg

Another interesting thing about the Gran Sasso (pictured above in a photo I took a few days ago) that is related to agricultural biodiversity, apart from the famous lentil I talked about earlier ((And thanks to Lorenzo for adding some useful details to the post.)), is that its grazing lands are at one end of a famous transhumance route.

Transhumance is the seasonal movement of livestock in search of pasture. The route in question, the Royal Shepherd’s Track, has been proposed as a World Heritage Site. Its other end is at Capitanata, near Foggia, almost 300 km away to the southeast.

The Track may have been in use for a thousand years, but until recently the future of this way of life in Europe was bleak:

…though transhumance seemed doomed a few decades ago, all of a sudden — thanks to the commitment of a number of dedicated players as well as support from people in high places (the EU, Slow Food) — it looks like it’s due for a reprieve…

A key player in the transhumance revival is Roberto Rubino of Anfosc, ((Associazione nazionale formaggi sotto il cielo, or the National Association of Cheeses Under the Sky.)) an Italian organisation devoted to quality cheeses made from the milk of animals that live outdoors (‘sotto il cielo’) in ancient pastures rich with hundreds of different grasses, wild flowers and herbs instead of being shut up in stables and pumped with artificial food…

Patrick Fabre of the Maison de la Transhumance in St Martin de Crau, Provence, is singing from the same hymn sheet. Like Rubino, he notes that animals fed naturally and grazing out in the open are healthier, while the meat (and/or cheese) they produce is of superior quality and distinctive flavour. Some of these regional products (Sisteron lamb, fromage d’alpage) enjoy Label Rouge and/or Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) status, and command a corresponding premium.

Posted on

The Ojibwa and wild rice

Smithsonian Magazine has a short article, photos and a video online about a Native American tribe called the Ojibwa, who live in northern Minnesota, and their close connection with wild rice, “manoomin,” or Zizania aquatica. ((Thanks to the Food Museum for pointing to the story.)) We talked about this before. Ricing is central to the Ojibwa’s founding story, and also a welcome source of income (unemployment is at 50%):

The White Earth Land Recovery Project, run by political activist and tribe member Winona LaDuke, was started 18 years ago to preserve the harvest and boost the tribe’s share of the proceeds. It operates a mill on the reservation and markets Native Harvest wild rice to specialty stores around the country (and through nativeharvest.com). Ojibwa wild rice is one of only five U.S. products supported by the Slow Food Foundation for Biodiversity, an international organization based in Italy that aims to preserve traditional or artisan foods.