Uncultivated biodiversity

A few of us have been known to anguish over the term neglected and underutilized species, for a couple of reasons. First off, why use underutilized when underused will do? More importantly, though, it invites a couple of questions. Neglected by whom? Underused by whom? Neglected by science and research, usually, and underused by people who could make more use of them. But still, it’s an unsatisfactory phrase, because as soon as researchers have become interested and people have started making more use of it, the species in question is neither neglected nor underused. “Orphan crops” is lame. Nothing else quite captures it. All of which is somewhat by the by.

Except that I’ve just come across the phrase “uncultivated biodiversity” in a book recently published by the International Research Development Centre in Canada. Food Sovereignty and Uncultivated Biodiversity in South Asia: Essays on the Poverty of Food Policy and the Wealth of the Social Landscape promises to be a fascinating read.

Based on extensive field research in India and Bangladesh, with and by farming communities, the book offers both people-based and evidence-based perspectives on the value of ecological farming, the survival strategies of the very poor, and the ongoing contribution of biodiversity to livelihoods. It also introduces new concepts such as “the social landscape” and “the ethical relations underlying production systems” relevant to key debates concerning the cultural politics of food sovereignty, land tenure, and the economics of food systems. The authors are leading activists and accomplished researchers with a long history of engagement with farming communities and the peasant world in South Asia and elsewhere.

The whole book is available for download, but I might just have to spring for a printed copy because it comes with a DVD of farmer-made films that I’d love to see. Come to think of it, if anyone at IDRC is reading this, why not enter them in our competition?

Of course, “uncultivated biodiversity” doesn’t solve the problem of what to call those pesky species that are cultivated and used by people but remain neglected and underutilized by researchers. Suggestions?

Bee shortage? What bee shortage?

An article in the New York Times this week suggests that the current scare over colony collapse disorder is nothing extraordinary. It has happened before and will probably happen again. What has been missing from the debate, some scientists say, is historical context. Records show that colonies were vanishing in the 19th century, when the cause was seen as lack of moral fibre. Bees that weren’t returning to their hives had “weak character”. And it happened in the late 1970s, when it was called “disappearing disease”. The disease too disappeared, and no cause was ever isolated.

One day we may know, and extra money for long-term monitoring (none has been forthcoming) may help. In the meantime, if the “crisis” has helped people appreciate the importance of bees as pollinators, and prompted deeper investigations, then that is surely A Good Thing. To prove the point, two deeply fascinating papers have been published in the past month showing that genetic diversity in honeybees and other social insects is also A Good Thing.

This is counterintuitive, because the reason social insects are social is that they are genetically uniform.

Continue reading “Bee shortage? What bee shortage?”

Tomato tastefest

I used to do this:

Sometimes there seems to be a disconnect between the luxury consumption of diversity and the fundamental use of biodiversity for food security; I’d love to help show people at farmers’ markets, for example, that their taste treat is someone else’s survival mechanism.