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.

China outbreeds India

A leader in The Hindu asks: “How did China manage to outstrip India in agriculture when the two countries were more or less on a par on most parameters 25 years ago?” It then goes on to list the reasons given by Prof. Huang Jikun, Director of the Centre for Chinese Agricultural Policy, for China’s superior agricultural performance

technological improvements accruing from research and development, investment in rural infrastructure and an increasingly liberalised agricultural policy.

That sounds plausible. But perhaps the most interesting comments were that

the Chinese authorities received and assessed as many as 2,046 applications for the registration of new plant varieties in the five years between 1999 and 2004

while

the number of field crop varieties released by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) actually fell by 50 per cent between 1997 and 2001, despite the fact that there was a sharp and sustained increase in funding for the organisation.

Well, the two statements are not really comparing like with like, but the implied equation of plant breeding output with the overall performance of the agricultural sector is intriguing. I wonder if there’s a worldwide dataset that could be used to test the connection.

Anyway, talking of Indian breeding, there’s an interview in India’s The Statesman with Tamil Nadu Agricultural University vice-chancellor C. Ramasamyan on the effort to improve — and thus revive — traditional rice landraces in that state.

Native potato marketing wins prize

It never rains but it pours. Peter Ballantyne from AgInfo News has sent us information on another attempt to forge “intelligent markets” linking small rural producers with urban consumers. T’ikapapa, “which packs and markets specially selected Peruvian native potatoes,” has just won a SEED Award. It is part of the Papa Andina Project coordinated by CIP and funded by Swiss Development Cooperation. The SEED initiative is Supporting Entrepreneurs for Environment and Development.