Ugandan minister of Agriculture Hilary Onek has been talking to Chinese officials about increased Chinese investment in modernizing Uganda’s agriculture. Onek’s main desire seems to be to increase the use of fertilizers and certain types of high-yielding seed. It sounds like the same old same old, with no thought for either traditional smallholder expertise or their approach to new technology. But maybe all that hi-tech investment really is what Uganda and China need.
EC wants a biodiversity database
The European Commission wants a Biodiversity knowledge base. I wonder whether it wants ag in there.
Marine genetic resources
Aside from the really lame joke — and she really should know better — Kathryn Garforth Mitchell has a good post on a marine genetic resources meeting.
Namibia examines Access and Benefit Sharing
A meeting in Windhoek, Namibia, is bringing together private sector and government in an effort to develop legislation and practices governing biotrade and bioprospecting, according to an article in allAfrica.com. Namibia is currently drafting a bill on Access to Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge.
According to the report, the private sector is unwilling to stand up and announce a clear approach to ABS.
“They are averse to any negative publicity and believe that prior to any such event it is essential for them to have a clear position and approach to benefit sharing, and for many this is still work in progress,” said Jonathan Laundrey, New Business Manager of Phyto Trade Africa.
The focus on medicinal products, where “benefits” can indeed be very large, is not surprising as Namibia is the primary source of Devil’s Claw, Harpagophytum procumbens, a therapy for inflammation — notably arthritis — and other ailments. The value of exports is estimated at N$10 million a year. That’s “only” US $140,000, but in a country where more than a third of the people live on less than a dollar a day, a bigger share would probably help. An old press release from WHO suggests that organic, sustainable Devil’s Claw is the way forward, but enforcing that requires more than a bill on ABS.
Later … I’ve done a little more digging, and discovered a study published at the end of 2006 that has this to say on the value of Devil’s Claw:
In answer to the question of whether Devil’s Claw is fairly traded analysis of the value chain indicated that harvesters receive only 1.1% of the final consumer price of the active ingredient of Devil’s Claw. Of the final shelfÂvalue, only 7% is retained within the range states, a disappointingly low figure.
Invasion of the agro-bread-heads
This blog — or more accurately the topic it covers — has seen a recent flurry of economic activity. And while that may not be attractive to all, the fact is that money does make the world go round. Make something cheaper or more profitable, and people are liable to do more of that thing.
Latest entrant is a Policy Forum piece in Science ((Jordan et al. (2007), Sustainable Development of the Agricultural Bio-Economy. Science 316:1570-1. DOI: 10.1126/science.1141700)) that argues that policies that favour “multifunctional production systems” — systems that produce standard commodities and ecological services — will be profitable and will support a more sustainable agriculture.
The argument is reasonably straightforward. First, the authors note the trend towards growing biomass. Then they note that monocultures of fuel are likely to be just as bad as monocultures of food and fibre. They look at the amount handed out in subsidies and the often perverse impacts that has on the environment and on societies.
Despite troubling implications of these current trends, research and development (R&D) and policy have focused on maximizing biomass production and optimizing its use, with far less emphasis on evaluation of environmental, social, and economic performance. This imbalance may provoke many interest groups to oppose growth of such an agricultural bio-economy.
After examples of the kinds of multifunctional production systems they have in mind they outline some of the various ways in such biodiversity delivers valuable benefits.
There is mounting evidence that these systems can produce certain ecological services more efficiently and effectively than agroecosystems based on annual crops. Examples include (i) soil and nitrogen loss rates from perennial crops are less than 5% of those in annual crops; (ii) perennial cropping systems have greater capacity to sequester greenhouse gases than annual-based systems; (iii) in certain scenarios, some perennial crops appear more resilient to climate change than annuals, e.g., increases of 3°to 8°C are predicted to increase North American yields of the perennial crop switchgrass (Panicum virgatum); and, among species of concern for conservation, 48% increased in abundance when on-farm perennial land cover was increased in European Union incentive programs.
The final plank in the argument is a rough and ready survey of the value of those benefits, which I won’t quote. Take it from me, they are large.
So much for the foundations. On them Jordan and colleagues build a solid policy suggestion. Build a couple of large projects — 5000 square kilometres — and put some of the government money that naturally flows farming’s way into establishing genuine multifunctional systems and assessing properly the pros and cons of this approach from a variety of perspectives.
Seems like a pretty sound idea, and one on which I feel comment is largely superfluous. If the US government really wants to burnish its green credentials, it should just do it.
Agricultural subsidies in 2005 exceeded $24 billion, and the 2007 farm bill deliberations should highlight how these federal dollars could better achieve national priorities. In particular, the new farm bill should provide the agricultural R&D infrastructure with incentives to evaluate multifunctional production as a basis for a sustainable agricultural bio-economy. We judge that this can be done with very modest public investments (~$20 million annually). A variety of strong political constituencies now expects a very different set of outputs from agriculture, and the U.S. farm sector could meet many of these expectations by harnessing the capacities of multifunctional landscapes.
Oscar Wilde said that “a cynic knows the price of everything and the value of nothing”. I say that those responsible for farm subsidies know neither costs nor values.