Access and benefit sharing discussed… again

All too often it seems as if the “debate” on access to genetic resources (and the sharing of the benefits derived from access and use ((Together known as “access and benefit sharing,” or ABS.)) mostly consists of people talking past each other. Today we have, from the animal genetic resources conference at Interlaken, a statement to the effect that the talking is coming at the expense of urgent action on conservation. Meanwhile, we have more talking from an international workshop in Beijing on genetic resources and indigenous knowledge, ((Held in Beijing on 4 September, but I can’t find further information about it on the CBD website, or anywhere else for that matter! Maybe someone out there can educate me?)) where Gurdial Singh Nijar, a law professor at the University of Malaya in Malaysia, said that:

Developing countries are losing out because their laws do not specify which resources should be paid for and how… This is due to the lack of a legal definition of what constitutes payable genetic resources, and clarity on who owns these resources: national governments or local communities of origin.

Pigs didn’t fly, walked to Europe

We know that agriculture began in the Fertile Crescent about 12,000 years ago and then spread across Europe between 9,000 and 6,000 years ago. But what exactly was it that spread? Was it the idea of agriculture or agriculturalists themselves? Just-published work on the DNA of modern and ancient pigs says it was probably a bit of both. It seems that Middle Eastern farmers migrated into Europe carrying their agrobiodiversity with them — crops and domesticated animals. But, as far as the pig was concerned anyway, they soon adopted a locally domesticated version in preference to the Middle Eastern type they had brought along.