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 GarcĂ­a & 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.

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

A fifty-year Farm Bill

When we nibbled an article from The Land Institute’s Stan Cox a couple of days ago it prompted a heartfelt outburst against the “holier than thou organic only everyting else be dammed mindset”. So I’m wondering what Anastasia and others will make of a Q&A in today’s Washington Post. Three of the wisest men in “alternative” agriculture in the US — Wes Jackson, Wendell Berry and Fred Kirschenmann — were in Washington to promote an alternative Farm Bill, one that takes a long-term view and that “values not only yields but also local ecosystems, healthy food and rural communities”. The Post took the opportunity to get some answers to pressing questions, such as “Washington doesn’t think in 50-year increments. How do you sell this?”.

Jackson: You sell it the same way as global warming or population growth. Washington thinks it’s going to deal with the global warming problem in 50 years? We will have this if we get cracking.

Kirschenmann: Because of our election cycles, you’re right. People tend to think in terms of two-year, four-year or six-year cycles. But I think the effort to deal with climate change is starting to change with that, because they know they can’t deal with climate change on that timeline. They have to extend the horizon. So we think the time is right to add agriculture to that.

I’d like to think they can do it, but I’m not optimistic.