World Bank supports cacao diversity project

Good news from our friend Hannes Dempewolf, of the University of British Columbia. Congratulations to all involved!

Last Friday was the day of the big decision on whether we had made the cut and would be pronounced a winner at this year’s Development Marketplace competition of the World Bank. An event geared towards innovative approaches to agricultural development, the competition was very tough. Nevertheless, the jury seemed to like our idea of establishing a DNA-fingerprinting based system of traceability for ancient cacao varieties and declared this Bioversity International-led project a winner, together with 21 others, including another on cacao that dealt more specifically with organoleptic assessments of Ecuadorian cacao diversity. Generally, agricultural biodiversity featured big time at the competition, with several project proposals on neglected and underutilized species as well as diversity driven value chain development approaches for coffee, or in our case cocoa.

After the excitement of the award ceremony had settled, some World Bank staffers approached me and told me that one representative of our project, as well as of two other projects, had been selected to meet the president of the World Bank, Robert B. Zoellick, for lunch. ((Photo from the World Bank Development Marketplace Blog.)) This certainly came as a big surprise and all three of us were somewhat unsure what to expect, since the World Bank staffers had made clear to us that this would be a meeting of utmost rarity since the president usually never does lunchtime meetings and he only this morning had arrived from the UN’s annual general assembly meeting in New York City. After such a build-up, I was quite nervous and had eaten way too many cocoa nibs from my display stall before the president eventually arrived at my booth to learn from me about our proposal. He seemed very keen to hear about our project idea and to my surprise was particularly interested in the more technical details, which I had not expected from an economist of his stature. He asked me how we came up with our idea and what had lead us to submit the proposal, which I had no problem explaining with my enthusiasm on agricultural biodiversity and my belief in a “conservation through use” philosophy. We were then guided upstairs to his office facilities where we were offered lunch with the president as well as a few other World Bank staffers and past winners. He seemed very keen in the Development Marketplace competition per se, since it is one of the rare occasions that the World Bank offers direct assistance to more grassroots organizations rather than big government ones.

The table conversation was largely focussed on our proposed projects and he asked everyone in turn quite detailed questions on the wider framework and relevancy of the problem, which they were trying to solve with their proposals. At the end of the lunch he asked us whether anyone had any final remarks, at which point I mentioned that I was very impressed by the diversity and high quality of the project ideas that had been presented by the 100 finalists of the competition and whether there wouldn’t be a way to increase the funding pool in future years to give more finalists the chance to implement their great ideas. He seemed to think it might be possible with the help of additional donors, which everyone was happy to learn. We then all returned from the executive level high up in one of the wings of the World Bank building down to the inner courtyard of the bank and proceeded to join the other finalists at a special policy dialogue on “Cultivating Innovation: A Response to the Food Price Crisis” that had been offered as final event of these exciting four days.

Harlan II, day 4

From a very tired and emotional Robert Hijmans. Previously….

No domestication without relaxation. Today was excursion day at the Harlan II symposium.  All to the Napa wineries you’d think, but no, there were not enough registrants for that. ((Editor’s note: Excuse me?)) But there was a  tour of  the Charles Rick Tomato Genebank and a “Native Biodiversity and Plant/Pollinator Interactions”  tour, visiting field sites used by Claire Kremen’s group. But I had my own program. Before I get to that, which I will do in a separate post, allow me to make to parting comment on the Harlan II symposium.

On day 1, I mentioned that molecular biology rules. The increased understanding of the relatedness of populations of different crop taxa and their wild relatives is having a tremendous effect on our understanding of domestication and dispersal of agrobiodiversity. The flurry of recent papers on this subject has probably not escaped the attention of readers of this blog.

Be that as may, I should also have mentioned the explosion of archaeological data and analysis. Compared to 10 years ago, there are now many more late Pleistocene to early Holocene settlements that have been analyzed. This is providing a much more refined insight into early agriculture and domestication than was previously possible.

I do not know why there has been such an increase, all of a sudden. More people and money thrown at it, no doubt, but why now? At the same time, and perhaps not unrelated, there appears to have been an important increase in the sophistication of the methods used to study agricultural origins. Extracting charred starch particles from pot fragments or mortars. Determining minor differences in grain sizes to classify them as one type or the other. Tallies of bone sizes to determine whether the animals were hunted or farmed. And then there is the analysis of ancient DNA. And so forth. Not much Indiana Jones in it, but it is quite safe and more intellectually rewarding.

Most insights about agricultural origins still come from the Levant. While other areas are much less explored, they are also moving along. For many places and periods, we now have a good idea about what plants and animals were eaten. That is why we now know that there was a long transition from cultivation to domestication. This is why Dorian Fuller was able to show us graphs with changes in crop characteristics over time for multiple crops (wheat, barley, rice).

The origins of agriculture and the domestication process that took place about 10,000 yrs ago are fascinating and fundamental to the understanding of the history of humans. But domestication has never stopped, and will not stop, despite EU regulations. There are many other stories, from other regions, from other (not cereal) crops that have been much less explored.

Jared Diamond is convinced that no more crops or animals of major importance will be domesticated. He says that crop and animal domestication happened where there were species predisposed to be domesticated. We found them millennia ago. That is why agriculture originated where it did, and this is one of the reasons why some places are richer than others.

I wonder whether we can be more imaginative about what domestication could do to some wild plant or animal. We now know what it takes and can engage it what Melinda Zeder calls “directed domestication”. Perhaps something for an X-Prize.  A hundred million dollars for anyone who can develop a crop that is now insignificant (say less than 10,000 ha) to an area of at least 10 million ha. I agree that it is hard to image that  this will happen with staple food crops, but it is bound to happen with an energy crop.

Nibbles: Art, Fish, Nut, Potato, Mellow fruitfulness, Camels, DNA chips, Agroecotourism, Urban ag