Category: Commodity

Posted on

Promotion of new crops and its effects

Following on from yesterday’s post, which looked at the UNEP-WCMC report on the ecosystem services provided by biodiversity, including agricultural biodiversity, I wanted today to signal the publication by the International Centre for Underutilised Crops (ICUC) of a new position paper which is somewhat related, and of which I am a one of the authors. ((Dawson, I.K., Guarino, L. and Jaenicke, H. (2007) Underutilised Plant Species: Impacts of Promotion on Biodiversity. Position Paper No. 2. International Centre for Underutilised Crops, Colombo, Sri Lanka.)) This looks at the impact of promoting underutilised plant species (UPS) on overall levels of biodiversity in farming systems.

ICUC’s position on biodiversity is that its promotion should not be viewed as an “end in itself.” Rather, diversity needs to be “conserved through use,” or the livelihood opportunities it presents and the other services that it provides to the poor, both primary producers and local product processors, now and for the future. The significant nutritional and other health benefits received by consumers further afield in, e.g., urban areas and in other countries, through being able to access a more diverse range of foods, medicines and other products, should, however, also not be neglected.

Clearly, there are significant benefits that can accrue to poor families and communities, as well as others, through the promotion of one or more UPS — better nutrition, health, income etc. However, such promotion can result in the erosion of diversity in other crops, and in the agricultural landscape as a whole. If that happens, any benefits which UPS promotion delivers in the short term could be outweighed by long-term negative effects on the provision of the sorts of ecosystem services the WCMC paper discussed. ((We also discuss in our paper the complexity of the linkages between diversity, productivity and stability.))

In the ICUC paper, we look at the possible methods that can be used to promote UPS and suggest a number of conditions that should be met if such interventions are not to have undesired effects on biodiversity and the services it provides:

  • Possible consequences of promotion for agricultural and natural biodiversity should be described in advance, in order to assess potential livelihood and conservation risks.
  • Specific incentives that support diversification should be included when promotion of a UPS carries significant risks for biodiversity.
  • Particular actions that are known to support biodiversity should be used during promotion, e.g. improving germplasm access and supporting “intelligent markets” for products.
  • The consequences of promotion activities for biodiversity, and the linked impacts on livelihoods, should be monitored.

“Intelligent markets” are ones that improve both incomes and environmental management. Developing such markets “will involve educating producers and microprocessors in how to diversify their activities, encouraging value chain development, and supporting DO [denomination of origin] and related initiatives.” I particularly wanted to highlight this point because, coincidentally, FAO has just published a report on “Approaches to linking producers to markets” which looks at how best to help farmers organize themselves to supply identified markets. ((Andrew W. Shepherd (2007) Approaches to linking producers to markets: A review of experiences to date. Agricultural Management, Marketing and Finance Occasional Paper 13. FAO, Rome.))

We’ve had a few examples of this on the blog lately, haven’t we? They have ranged from the Ojibwa and their wild rice to the “under the sun” cheeses of Italy just in the past few days. Is it a zeitgeist thing?

Posted on

Ethiopia goes for decaf

Reuters reports that Ethiopian coffee farmers will soon be able to grow a variety which is naturally low in caffeine. Details are sketchy. The whole thing seems to be based on the following statement by Mr Abera Deressa, State Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, at an unnamed coffee research conference:

“Coffee research centres are in the process of planting seedlings of natural coffee with low caffeine varieties, to enable Ethiopia to supply the world market within the shortest possible time.”

The article mentions the 2004 controversy between the Ethiopian government and Brazilian researcher Paulo Mazzafera, who

declared he had discovered a variety of naturally decaffeinated coffee from 6,000 specimens collected in Ethiopia in the 1980s. The find sparked a dispute with Ethiopian authorities who accused him of taking the bushes without permission.

However, it is not clear whether the low-caffeine variety now being planted in research centres has anything to do with the one Mazzafera identified.

Decaffeinated coffee accounts for 10 percent of total coffee sales in the world, a multibillion-dollar industry. Natural decaf brews could dominate over the current chemically caffeine-reduced options in today’s health-conscious market.

The story has been picked up all over the place. It should run and run. Hopefully we’ll get some more details soon.

Posted on

Legalize it?

We’ve blogged before about poppy-growing in Afghanistan. We have here a well-adapted, traditional crop whose cultivation is being — let us say — actively discouraged in its place of origin and highest diversity because of the illicit trade in its product. Meanwhile, the large legal demand for the product is serviced — but by no means fully met — by countries which are much better off and have lots of other options. Legalization and regulation, possibly combined with new varieties with a truncated biosynthetic pathway for morphine, would seem to be an attractive option, at least worth exploring.

Well, a long piece in the website of the US Department of State says no, emphatically. It seems that:

  • the licit market is not lucrative enough
  • there is not sufficient world demand
  • regulation is not feasible in Afghanistan
  • past experience in other countries is not encouraging, and
  • legalization is conterproductive anyway

Even the technological fix is no such thing, apparently. My first thought is that if all the money being poured into interdiction was directed at establishing a regulatory framework, and perhaps even providing subsidies, the whole thing might not perhaps seem so hopeless. Also, if historical experience of legalization is not particularly encouraging, is the experience of prohibition any more so? But it would definitely be worth getting to the bottom of whether there is a worldwide shortage of medical opiates or not. Anyway, see what you think.

Posted on

Cacao and conservation

A whole issue of the journal Biodiversity and Conservation looks at how cocoa production landscapes can contribute to biodiversity conservation. There are several papers on specific case studies and also an overview. Most of the discussion is — predictably — about what cacao cultivation can do for biodiversity, but, what about the other way around? The overview does suggest that

it is important to understand trade-offs between productivity and conservation and the economic costs of conservation friendly practices to land users so that more effective policies can be designed… Quantifying the benefits (both short and long-term) of biodiversity within agroforestry landscapes to farm productivity, for example via pest and disease control … requires attention.

What are these biodiversity-friendly practices? Here’s a few ideas, again from the overview:

  • eco-friendly certification
  • research and extension to increase productivity while maintaining diverse tree canopies
  • development of markets for non-cocoa products
  • payment for environmental services

As far as certification is concerned, the Fair Tracing Project may suggest solutions:

The Fair Tracing project believes that attaching tracing technology to Fair Trade products sourced in developing countries will enhance the value of such goods to consumers in the developed world seeking to make ethical purchasing choices.

I’ve just come across this project, and I don’t know much about it. A piece on its web site — basically a blog — about the ICT being used to trace fair trade coffee in Haiti did point me to a rather interesting example of a corporation trying to bridge the digital divide.