More about food and farming from bookforum.com, including links to reviews of books on the history of citrus and of beans. Meanwhile, iafrica.com has features on the potato in history and the potato and politics to remind us that 2008 will be the International Year of the Potato.
Mapping hunger
FAO animated map of undernourishment. Via CABI.
Another bad joke
“Conserving Biodiversity – The UK Approach” has just been launched, and very worthy it is too. There are many sensible suggestions, including about what individuals can do. And there’s much talk of “joined up working across the public, voluntary and business sectors,” and of “a more holistic or ecosystems approach” which recognizes “the interconnections between living things, their environment, and the services they provide.” In fact, the press release kinda reminded me of a recent article about buzzwords whose whole first paragraph consisted of one buzzword after another.
The one buzzword that’s missing, of course, is agrobiodiversity. But you knew that.
Despite all the hand-waving about joined-up holistic interconnected strategic partnerships, in 24 pages there is one — oblique — reference to traditional farming, and one sentence on the desirability of something called “agri-environment schemes.” There’s also a weird table on the implementation of the strategy in the four countries that make up the UK, which is supposed to outline the biodiversity duty of public bodies as determined by legislation (p. 10). The word “agriculture” appears in the sections on England and Northern Ireland, but it really is very difficult to understand what that actually means. And that’s it.
Maybe somebody who knows more about this document — and the process which gave rise to it — can help us out here. Was the exclusion of agricultural biodiversity from the national strategic framework for biodiversity conservation in the UK a matter of conscious choice? Or did it just fall through the cracks, as usual?
Scots forget agricultural biodiversity
Scotland has published figures on trends in a set of biodiversity indicators developed by the Scottish Biodiversity Forum. The indicator of “vascular plant diversity” does include consideration of agricultural landscapes: “although not statistically significant, the survey pointed to possible declines among already low numbers of wild plants present” on arable and horticultural land. Otters are doing better, however, which is good. But what about native livestock breeds, crop wild relatives, landraces? There doesn’t seem to be anything about agrobiodiversity in these indicators. Of course. Pity.
Rising food prices threaten on-farm biodiversity
Back in the 1990s the European Union, concerned about over-production of poor-quality cereals, introduced set-aside. Farmers were required to not grow food on a percentage of their land, currently 8%, and were paid to do so. The result was an increase in biodiversity; wildflowers, insects, birds, that sort of thing. Now, with rising food prices, there’s a proposal to reduce the area of set-aside to 0%, and conservationists are unhappy.
This is an old argument. Grow more food more intensively and you spare some “wild” habitat. I suppose the question is, how long will high food prices last? Until rain returns to Australia? Or until the world wakes up from its ethanol binge?