Who Owns Nature?

There is a new report, “Who Owns Nature? Corporate Power and the Final Frontier in the Commodification of Life” from the ETC group.

It talks of corporate concentration in:

  • farm input (from thousands of seed companies and public breeding institutions three decades ago, 10 companies now control more than two-thirds of global proprietary seed sales);
  • food output (supermarkets);
  • pharmaceuticals; and
  • the New Post-Petroleum sugar industry (“the so-called ‘sugar economy’ will be the catalyst for a corporate grab on all plant matter –- and destruction of biodiversity on a massive scale”).

Their (not so new) bottom line on seeds:

So-called climate-ready genes are a false solution to climate change. Patented gene technologies will not help small farmers survive climate change, but they will concentrate corporate power, drive up costs, inhibit public sector research and further undermine the rights of farmers to save and exchange seeds.

Climate Change Gabfest

Our colleagues at the Agrobiodiversity Platform will next week launch an intense debate on how communities make use of agricultural biodiversity to deal with changing climates. But, mindful of their duty not to exacerbate the problem, they’re doing the whole thing online, with a moderated discussion forum. The discussions will take place over about three weeks, with an initial focus on sharing knowledge about what communities are doing, followed by ideas on awareness raising and finally some wrap-up and the preparation of a first-draft position paper.

I know I don’t have time to participate, but I’m sure we’d be willing to host summary reports from the group here.

Big cheer for the terraces

People work the Ifugao rice terraces. Photo PPDO Ifugao.Is this old news or not? The Global Environment Facility (GEF) in concert with FAO’s Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems, is funding the restoration and maintenance of the Ifugao rice terraces in the Philippines. My confusion arises because when I last nibbled Ifugao, ((And of course I never did do that longer post, mea culpa.)) I don’t recall seeing anything about FAO’s involvement, and yet it seems to have been going since 2002. The “news” is announcing a second phase, which I think started in 2007. So perhaps my confusion is justified. In any case, it does seem important that these astonishing human impacts on the environment are used, rather than pickled, and that seems to be the goal of the project.

I’m rather hoping that someone in the Philippines, or who knows more about the project, will be along soon to enlighten me further.

Combining intervention and research

By Jacob van Etten.

ResearchBlogging.orgDo you know the PLEC Serv List? Harold Brookfield and Helen Parsons select a peer-reviewed article on agrobiodiversity management and write a fairly long, but always interesting, summary of it, placing it in its wider context. Even though the agrobiodiversity project after which the list is called ended several years ago, Brookfield and Parsons faithfully continue it. Subscription highly recommended.

Harold Brookfield and Edwin A. Gyasi now write in Geoforum about geographical action research. They argue it is time for geographers to get their hands and boots dirty. PLEC and the Wageningen-led Convergence of Sciences (CoS) project illustrate that research and service can and should go hand in hand. Geographers are late to recognize this, and in sister-discipline anthropology there is a far longer tradition of activism.

PLEC started by making inventories of farmers’ practices and knowledge in the areas they worked. As a result, the researchers got to know the most knowledgeable and innovative farmers. These farmers, they write, are likely to be hiding in the corners.

They cite Kojo Amanor’s poetic comment that “rather than sitting under the fig tree at the chief’s palace with dignitaries, [indigenous environmental knowledge] is best explored by taking off along the winding paths and discovering the extremities of the village, the chop bars with their bush-meat soup, the drinking spots, the jokers, the old women with their pithy comments, and the young women carrying water.”

The contacts with innovative farmers helped to set up networks in which knowledge was exchanged and new things were tried. Projects like this demonstrate how much academic scientists have to offer to the people among whom they work, and how research interests can be both broadened and deepened in so doing. There is profit in combining a measure of intervention with research.

I agree with the main thrust of the article, but I also think there are many thorns on the road. Many of the problems encountered by the Wageningen researchers lay in the institutional domain, leading to frustrated comments like “the only dependable institution in the West African rural scene is the market trader with her sense for business and entrepreneurship.”

The other problem is that working with farmers takes time, more time than normal project cycles. Only toward the end of the project did the full value of combining service with research begin to become apparent.

PLEC was discontinued. Even so, PLEC and similar projects continue to live on in other incarnations. Brookfield and Gyasi encourage others to set up similar research projects. And share their experiences.

Nibbles: Bees, Millennium Villages, Oaks, Wolf, CWR