The trouble with quinoa

Worldwide Evaluation of Quinoa: Preliminary Results from Post International Year of Quinoa FAO Projects in 9 Countries.” The title sounded promising enough. At last, something scientifically worthwhile emerging from one of those international years. Nineteen sites, 21 genotypes, a few winners: well worth having.

But have a look at the materials part of the materials and methods section. Read it and weep.

Due to the difficulties to access quinoa germplasm at global level, each country made specific requests through its networks. FAO has mobilized various partnerships to collect different quinoa accessions to carry out the study. First, through a collaboration with the International Center for Biosaline Agriculture (ICBA, a non-profit International Organization) — a research center based in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) — FAO could access specific varieties of quinoa. Seeds of the three varieties under development (Q1, Q2 and Q3) were obtained from ICBA to be made available for the trials in Yemen. FAO has also received seeds from the Centro di Ricerca per la Cerealicoltura (CRA-CER) in Italy which helped to expand the genotypes proposed in the tests. The seeds of nine accessions of landraces (Q12 to Q31) were obtained from CRA-CER who has been working and selecting these accessions in Italy after accessing them from the United States Department of Agriculture genebanks (USDA). These seeds had Chilean origin. Seeds were supplied to FAO-RNE which has distributed them to eight countries in the region. The two quinoa varieties (Sajama and Santamaria) were provided by PROINPA in Bolivia to the Seed & Plant Improvement Institute (SPII) in Iran. Selected seeds of early matured plants from the genotype “Sajama” have produced a new variety that was called “Iranshahr”. Giza1 and Giza2 have been selected in Egypt from preliminary quinoa lines furnished by the University of Copenhagen in Denmark. Finally, Puno and Titicaca are two varieties of the Quinoa Quality Enterprise linked to the University of Copenhagen (Denmark). Regalona is the only quinoa variety with PVP developed by Von Baer Seeds for the Southern part of Chile (Von Baer et al, 2009). Finally, each country could choose from over 21 fairly differentiated genotypes.

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, no less, tries to put together an international multilocational quinoa evaluation trial during the International Year of Quinoa, no less, and it has to go through all these hoops, and in the end this is the best it can do in terms of putting together a diverse set of landrace and improved germplasm for testing? There may be up to 3000 quinoa varieties out there, and 15,000 accessions in genebanks.

It’s better than nothing, you’ll say. And you’d be right. But still. It does make you grateful for the International Treaty on PGRFA. Quinoa is not on Annex 1 of the Treaty, so not covered by the “facilitated access” that would presumably have made the assembling of an international collection of asparagus, say, a bit easier. And it also make you grateful for global collections, such as those managed by the CGIAR centres under Article 15 of the Treaty. All the transaction costs implied by that paragraph above — not to mention the heartache — magically disappear. Well, most of them anyway.

Explore where our food comes from by clicking on the image.
Explore where our food comes from by clicking on the image.
Of course, Annex 1 is being looked at again now. New estimates of countries’ interdependence, which formed a part of the background documentation for the Treaty’s deliberations on this issue, and have now just been formally published, do suggest that everybody’s interests would be served by an expansion of the Multilateral System to include crops such as quinoa. And lots of others too.

LATER: I guess a lot of this could be discussed later this year in Dubai… I wonder if there will be a call for inclusion of quinoa in Annex 1?

Nibbles: Climate smart trifecta, Interdependence, Herbs trifecta, Rare breeds, Mexican maize, Ethiopian barley

  • What the Pacific islands need to do about climate change. What, nothing about conserving and using crop diversity? My friends at CePaCT will be pissed.
  • What West African farmers are doing about climate change.
  • Yeah, I guess it’s not always and only about crop diversity. But would it kill them to mention it?
  • And if you’re interested where the Pacific (and West Africa, and everywhere else) gets its food from
  • Peruvian black mint is a thing. But not a relative of coriander.
  • Yaupon is also a thing. Though it won’t go far with that scientific name.
  • Recreating a Renaissance herb garden. Because we can. Where’s the Peruvian black mint, though?
  • Eat rare breeds to conserve them. Not rare advice.
  • No wall can keep out landrace maize.
  • Ethiopian beer gets a boost.

Brainfood: Agricultural heritage, Unique maize, B4N, Flax core evaluation, Oca conservation, Ag expansion, Rose wild relative, Quinoa evaluation, Nepal seed systems, Amazonian domestication, Analysing germplasm data

The road to agroecology

The International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES-Food), led by Olivier De Schutter, former UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food, released its findings today in a report entitled ‘From Uniformity to Diversity: A paradigm shift from industrial agriculture to diversified agroecological systems.’ The report was launched at the Trondheim Biodiversity Conference (Norway) by lead author Emile Frison, former Director General of Bioversity International.

I guess you all saw that last week. There’s an executive summary. And key messages. If you don’t have the time to wade through the 100 pages of the full report. But actually the message can be summarized even further: agroecology, everywhere. And there’s a handy diagram for how to get us there:

Screen Shot 2016-06-03 at 12.31.56 PM

And even that can be summarized. It’s all down to the right indicators, getting away from the tyranny of kilograms of cereals per unit land area. Measure things that are more important to people, and in ways that take proper account of sustainability, and you can’t help but produce a shift to agroecological production, the report seems to suggest.

Which is of course something we have occasionally suggested here. Well, at least the first part of that statement is something we’ve said. Not least in the context of the Sustainable Development Goals. Which reminds me to link to CIAT’s latest policy brief on progress towards defining indicators for Target 2.5, also out last week.

As the SDGs, CBD Strategic Plan for Biodiversity, and other global agreements struggle to find tangible indicators for achieving their stated targets, we propose that the results of our global analysis of crop wild relatives can be directly used to assess the current state of conservation of these wild species ex situ. Moreover, the methods used in the “gap analysis” can be adapted for assessments of crop landraces and livestock breeds. Furthermore, the tools can be used iteratively to assess progress over time.

There’s nothing in the IPES report on the SDGs in general (which I found strange, but anyway), let alone Target 2.5 specifically, but I am somewhat heartened by this passage (p. 71):

Support for diversity fairs, community genebanks and seed banks is likely to be a crucial element in strengthening social movements and unifying them around diversified, agroecological systems.

It could, I suppose be read as excluding “formal” genebanks from the equation, but I choose to interpret it as saying that national and international genebanks need to work together with community-level efforts to conserve and use crop diversity. Which I’d buy even if the calculus did not lead inexorably to agroecology, everywhere.