That list of suggestions to CGIAR from David Lobell last week in Food Policy? It turns out to be one a trio of “viewpoints” on what the new, improved One CGIAR should do. Just to remind you, Dr Lobell said breeding (including of hitherto neglected crops) and precision agronomy.
Dr Rebecca Nelson of Cornell University has somewhat different advice for CGIAR:
- “…break definitively with fossil energy-based intensification and to dedicate itself to agroecological intensification.”
- “…expand its mandate and its networks to support equity, food systems health, and sustainable productivity in agricultural systems around the world.”
- “…bring the power of scientific research to local communities in a networked fashion that builds the global and local evidence base for agroecological intensification.”
- “… tackle agricultural challenges in their larger context… This is necessary because food and agriculture are inseparable from the larger ecological, meteorological, social, and political systems.”
And, finally, there’s Dr Lawrence Haddad of GAIN. According to him, CGIAR needs to:
- “…understand the terrain between farm and fork much better than it does now.”
- fill the gap in “…research on private sector actors” in the food system.
- have “…a greater focus on foods like vegetables, fruits, fish, pulses, nuts, eggs, dairy, and meat.”
- help “…create a safe space to break out of the disciplinary and subject specific silos.”
Do please read all three articles in their entirety, if you can (they’re behind a paywall, I’m afraid), and let us know what you think here. Each is coming from a very different place, and yet they do have one thing in common: a recognition of the importance of agricultural biodiversity. Too bad none of them actually mentioned genebanks.
But then I would say that, wouldn’t I.
LATER: No wait, there’s another one.