Category: In situ

Posted on

Fermentation in the Himalayas

The recent post on fermentation clearly struck a chord with our friend and colleague Bhuwon Sthapit of Bioversity International. Here’s his contribution to the discussion.

It is interesting to note the myriad different ways in which locally available cereals and other sources of food are fermented by local people through the action of microorganisms, either naturally or by adding a starter culture, which modifies the substrate biochemically and organoleptically into and edible product, generally nutritious, tasty and safe. These inexpensive, culturally acceptable traditional foods provide basic diets and sources of nutrition. In the Hindu-Kush Himalayan region alone more than 20 varieties of ethnic fermented food are found and more than 10 types of fermented beverages are consumed in Nepal, Sikkim and Bhutan. Most of them are common, while other fermented foods are less familiar and confined to particular communities and locations.

Continue reading “Fermentation in the Himalayas”

Posted on

Draft 2nd State of the World’s PGR is out

I should really have pointed to this earlier. The draft Second Report on the State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (SOTW2) was presented for review to the Fourth Session of the Intergovernmental Technical Working Group (ITWG) on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture held at FAO headquarters, Rome on 15-17 July 2009. The First State of the World’s PGRFA report is of course more than ten years old.

All the documents relevant to the ITWG meeting are online, including the draft SOTW2 report, as a large pdf. The idea is that, after whatever changes the ITWG recommended are taken into account, the final version of the SOTW2 will be presented to the Twelfth Session of the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (Rome, 18-23 October 2009) for endorsement.

The process of developing SOTW2 has been tortuous, and no doubt far from perfect, but this does constitute the best data we have on what’s happening in plant genetic resources conservation and use worldwide.

I’m afraid I can’t resist quoting some headline numbers on the ex situ side, but there are also chapters on in situ, use, national programmes and legislation, regional and international collaboration, access and benefit sharing the full monty.

Chapter 3 shows that the total number of accessions conserved ex situ world-wide has increased by approximately 20% (1.4 million) since 1996, reaching 7.4 million. It is estimated, however, that less than 30% of this total are distinct accessions (1.9 – 2.2 million). During the same period, new collecting accounted for about 220,000 accessions.

And again:

There are now more than 1,750 individual genebanks worldwide, about 130 of which hold more than 10,000 accessions each. There are also substantial ex situ collections in botanical gardens, of which there are over 2,500 around the world. Genebanks are located on all continents, but there are relatively fewer in Africa compared to the rest of the world. Among the largest collections are those that have been built up over more than 35 years by the CGIAR and are held in trust for the world community. In 1994 the Centres signed agreements with FAO bringing their collections within the International Network of Ex Situ Collections. These were subsequently brought under the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture in 2006 (ITPGRFA – see Chapter 7).

Still a lot of room for rationalization. Here’s a map of the localities of those 130 large genebanks, which is also available on the WIEWS website (click to enlarge).

gbanks130

Posted on

Ex situ redux

After a period in which ex situ conservation has been downplayed by the conservation community (except for agrobiodiversity where it is still the main conservation strategy) ex situ conservation is now widely accepted as an increasingly necessary complement to in situ forms of conservation (IUCN 2002; BGCI 2000), especially protected areas (e.g. Abanades García & al. 2007).

That’s from a new report for the Council of Europe entitled “The impacts of climate change on plant species in Europe,” prepared by Prof. Vernon Heywood of the School of Biological Sciences, University of Reading, with contributions by Dr Alastair Culham. You’ll find it on p. 39 after a very thorough review of the issues. Nice to see such a bold statement. The report is one of several prepared for the Group of Experts on Biodiversity and Climate Change of the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats. Thanks to Danny for the tip.

Posted on

Nibbles: Camel sweets, UG99, British woods, Rice, India and climate change, Soay sheep, Fish, Seed fair, Barn owls, Food maps, Earthworms

Posted on

Monitoring plants of “Community interest” in Europe

There’s been an item in the news the last couple of days to the effect that “[a] report by the European Commission shows that habitat and wildlife protection targets across Europe will be missed…” Digging a bit deeper into that seemingly simple statement led me to a hitherto unknown (to me) world of EU rules and regulations and reporting requirements.

Let’s start at the beginning. There’s a thing called the Habitats Directive (1992). This requests all Member States “to monitor habitat types and species considered to be of Community interest.” It’s unclear to me how they were selected (perhaps someone out there can tell us), but these species are listed in various annexes to the Directive, though that sounds more simple than it is:

Where a species appears in this Annex but does not appear in either Annex IV or Annex V, the species name is followed by the symbol (o); where a species which appears in this Annex also appears in Annex V but does not appear in Annex IV, its name is followed by the symbol (V).

Anyway, Article 17 provides for regular reports on implementation of the Directive, and the report “for the period 2001-2006 for the first time includes assessments on the conservation status of the habitat types and species of Community interest.”

The website which houses the Article 17 reports is, well, complicated, but well worth exploring. The most interesting bit from an agrobiodiversity perspective is the page from which you can get species reports. These include all kinds of information about the status of those “species considered to be of Community interest,” country by country (there’s also an overall summary). Some of these species “of interest” are crop wild relatives such as Allium grosii, an endemic to the Balearic Islands (click the map to enlarge it).

allium1

There’s a few more CWRs in those annexes, though not all that many. A Hungarian Pyrus, for example. Any chance to get a few more on there? The bureaucratic infrastructure and mechanism for regular monitoring and early(ish) warning of any threats would seem to be well and truly in place, European Union-style.