Cary Fowler’s acceptance speech for Frank N. Meyer Medal

It turns out we do know what Cary Fowler had to say when he received the Frank N. Meyer Medal for Plant Genetic Resources. It’s not on the relevant website, but it is here below, courtesy of Cary himself.

Last spring, I received an email from a graduate student at UC-Davis I had never met or communicated with before. Jorge Carlos Berny informed me that he had nominated me for the Meyer Award. Needless to say, the letter came as a surprise. So does the award.

I am so fortunate to have been mentored and befriended by many past recipients: Erna Bennett, Daniel Debouck, Geoff Hawtin, Jaap Hardon, Jack Harlan, Cal Qualset, Henry Shands, Calvin Sperling, and others. Joining their ranks is humbling. I am deeply touched and grateful.

Our crops are beginning to face dramatically new combinations of conditions for which there are few, if any, historical analogues. It’s not going to get easier for them. Our agricultural systems are likely to experience more uncertainty and surprises, and heightened risk. Plant genetic resources will be essential in facilitating the adaption of our crops to the challenges of the future. While progress has been made in conserving and making these resources available, would anyone want to argue that the genetic resources and crop breeding communities are fully prepared for what’s coming?

Too many genebank collections are poorly maintained, documented and managed today. Few are firmly connected with users. None are adequately or sustainably funded. Many cannot provide access to their materials, and more than a few simply refuse to provide access. Some of our crop collections – particularly those of minor crops – are dreadfully inadequate in size and breadth. Many crops have few if any professional breeders, making the path to adaption and improvement highly problematic unless something changes. In-situ efforts to conserve crop diversity and promote breeding are similarly challenged.

Our current genebank system is largely a creation of the 1970s, and a different political and scientific world. From a global perspective, it needs rethinking and redesign. Can we streamline conservation and reduce its costs? Can we cooperate on a division of labor amongst genebanks? Can we strengthen the link between conservation and use? Can we be more creative in promoting use?

When I joined the Global Crop Diversity Trust as its Executive Director years ago, the task as I saw it was to identify the most critical and strategic steps we could take to help create a working global system for plant genetic resources.

We first set about rescuing threatened accessions in genebanks – saving about 80,000 accessions globally. We supported the development of information systems for genebank management, as well as GRIN-Global. We built an endowment and began to make the first long-term – essentially perpetual – grants to selected international genebanks. We launched a global program to collect and conserve crop wild relatives. And, we promoted safety duplication of existing collections, most notably in the Svalbard Global Seed Vault, which now provides protection to more than 880,000 unique samples.

In my life and work, I have tried to make a contribution to the creation of a rational, efficient, effective and sustainable global system for conserving and providing plant genetic resources. That’s a mouthful to be sure! It was the aspiration; it is not yet the reality.

To achieve that global system we will need to create trust. In the context of trust, we will be able to realize that our goal is to conserve diversity, not institutions. It’s to share not hoard resources. No country is independent in terms of the genetic resources they need, and the changing climate ensures they will be even less so in the future. In the interdependent world in which we live, and in the more cooperative and peaceful world I want to see, one does not lose by sharing. Global and national food security depends on it.

Plant genetic resources really are a common heritage of humankind. This is the only scientifically and historically valid way to think of them, and the only basis upon which countries can come together to ensure their conservation and availability.

I wish to thank the Crop Science Society of America and the Frank Meyer Award Committee for this honor. It is considered the highest recognition one can receive in this field. That it comes from colleagues in the plant genetic resources community means more to me that I can possibly convey.

Thank you.

Nibbles: Royal Soc discussion, Meyer Medal, Adopt-a-seed, Organic coffee, Seed book, CGIAR genebanks, Open source seeds, EUCARPIA conference, Vegetables, Geographic indications

Choosing the right things to measure in agriculture

How do you “shift the focus from feeding people to nourishing them”? According to a recent short article in Nature, there are ten things to do, and one of the, fixing metrics,

Take, for example, maize (corn). The trend is to convert much of what is (over-)produced into starch and sugar. In conventional agricultural analysis, the improvements in yield per hectare per year in intensive maize-production systems are usually presented as the main indicator of success. More maize for fewer dollars up-front is also considered an important contribution to food security.

The shortcomings of such a narrow focus is something we’ve talked about here before.

Calories are, of course, part of nutrition, but by no means the most important part over the long run. We have tables of recommended daily allowances for macronutrients like Calories (or their proxies) and for micronutrients. We could calculate nutrients per Calorie for different kinds of produce. We could even try to express productivity as the percentage of the RDA for all nutrients that would be provided by some area of land. We could do lots of things more sensible — and more difficult — than Calories per hectare.

Indeed we could.

Biodiversity from Cancun to London

The 13th Conference of the Parties (COP) to the Convention on Biological Diversity in going on right now in Cancun, Mexico, and the theme is mainstreaming biodiversity for well-being. The CGIAR centres are there both collectively and individually, mainstreaming away like mad, for example, on the agricultural side. But as I browsed through the draft decisions, what I was struck by was the repeated mention of biodiversity in cities:

6. [The COP] [a]lso encourages Parties, other Governments, relevant organizations and funding agencies to promote and support further research on health-biodiversity linkages and related socioeconomic considerations, including, inter alia, on the following issues:

(e) The contribution of biodiversity and the natural environment, including protected areas, in promoting mental health, particularly in urban areas

I’m not sure if urban biodiversity is a relatively new focus for the CBD, but it must offer lots of opportunities for mainstreaming. Cities are, after all, where most people live, so if you were going to make biodiversity part of as many people’s lives as possible, cities would be a good place to start. I bet crop wild relatives are not often seen as one such opportunity, and yet a website I’ve recently come across would suggest otherwise.

The London Tree Map shows the location of 700,000 street trees all over that particular metropolis. That includes a number of wild relatives of cultivated fruits, such as apples and pears.

screen-shot-2016-12-06-at-1-14-45-pm

I don’t know about you, but a street lined with different wild apple species would do wonders for my mental health.

Anyway, there’s more coming out of Cancun every day, including a Declaration, and there’s a whole Twitter account for you to follow if you want to keep up to date.

Nibbles: Diversification, Street food, Forest genetic units, Citrus greening, COP22 roundup, Australian breeding, Temperate Orchard Society, Quinoa conference