Is more always better? Of course not. The Western Farm Press ((West of where, you might well ask, largely in vain, so I’ll tell you: the US.)) had an intriguing headline a couple of days ago: “Genebanks increase in importance, number 1,700 worldwide”. The bulk of the article wasn’t really about the number of genebanks, but rather about the Crop Genebank Knowledge Base put together by the System-wide Genetic Resources Programme of the CGIAR. ((Strictly speaking it wasn’t so much about the CGKB as a copy of the SGRP’s launch statement, very slightly rejigged.)) The one thing that Western Farm Press did do was to conflate an increased number of genebanks with their increased importance. I found this particularly odd given a recent piece by Cary Fowler, Executive Director of the Global Crop Diversity Trust, which argued forcefully that 1700 genebanks was almost certainly about 1694 too many. Here’s a taste:
In the early 1970s, the grand old men and women associated with the International Board for Plant Genetic Resources suggested that the world needed 6-7 international genebanks to conserve crop diversity and supply the needs of plant breeders and researchers. This, presumably, was in addition to a few good genebanks already operating. Today, FAO’s registry of genebanks lists 1700 facilities! Were the experts off by a factor of 250? Or do we have a bubble?
It is tempting to equate more genebanks with more and better conservation. But in the case of genebanks, the establishment of more and more facilities has not automatically translated into expanded conservation because (a.) many of those facilities were stocked with samples already being stored elsewhere, and/ or (b.) professional and financial capacity were insufficient to ensure effective conservation over time.
The motivations for establishing so many facilities were certainly positive. Scientists and administrators realized crop diversity was endangered and wanted to save it. But, as political interest heightened, saving something important evolved into shielding it from others. Sharing between farmers, scientists and countries – the very act that lay at the heart of the establishment of the banks – morphed into a negative.
Today, the tiny “network” of genebanks to which the early experts referred provides the overwhelming majority of samples distributed to farmers and breeders. Very little escapes from other collections. Dozens of “important” genebanks have not conveyed samples even to domestic researchers, much less foreign ones in recent years.
Of course I tried to ask the Western Farm Press whether they really thought that the number of genebanks was a measure of their importance, rather than, as Fowler suggests, evidence that people are not taking them seriously. Unfortunately, the WFP website is badly broken, asking me to verify a word that doesn’t appear in at least three browsers on two different platforms. Honestly. Ho hum.
Frankly, it’d be nice if WFP mended its site, although it isn’t exactly a matter of life and death. It’d be much nicer if the global genebank community (for that is what it is, as Fowler reminds us) cleaned up its own act and moved towards the rationally organized system that future food security requires, which is a matter of life and death.