Nibbles: Kenyan drought, Ugandan agroforestry, American foodways, Beans, Forages, Bees to the nth, Indigenous farming, Brazilian and Cuban farming, Chinese aquaculture, Nigerian seedlings, Belgian dukes, IFPRI climate change study, Phytophthora

  • Internets all aglow today, so hang on to your hats, here we go. Drought forcing Kenyans out of maize, towards indigenous crops, wheat and rice. Wait, what?
  • Making money from tree seedlings in Uganda. Including indigenous stuff. Damn you, allAfrica, why are you so good?
  • ‘Turkey’ Hard Red Winter Wheat, Lake Michigan Whitefish, the Hauer Pippin Apple, and the St. Croix sheep, among others, added to Ark of Taste. Ok, I’m gonna have to see some explanation for that wheat one.
  • Singing the praises of pulses. Even Virgil gets a namecheck.
  • Tall Fescue for the Twenty-first Century? Seriously, who writes these titles?
  • nth study on bees announced. And n+1st reports. And n+2nd called for. CABI does a bit of a roundup. Bless you.
  • Declaration calls for “…the creation of democratic spaces for intercultural dialogue and the strengthening of interdependent networks of food producers and other citizens.” Interesting.
  • Small scale farmers produce most of what Brazilians eat. And no doubt manage most of the country’s agrobiodiversity. And Cuba?
  • Chinese aquaculture goes green? Riiiiight.
  • “Earlier this year, farmers from the north who had benefitted from previous improved seedling activities by the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) demanded for more improved seed varieties from scientists.” Oh come on, gimme a clue. What crop? Improved how?
  • Medieval Bruges palace cesspit reveals dukes ate Mediterranean honey. Sybarites even then, the Belgians.
  • Scientific American says IFPRI says “traditional seed varieties and livestock breeds that might provide a genetic resource to adapt to climate change are being lost.”
  • Late Blight 101.

Nibbles: WFP and Millennium Villages, Agroecotourism squared, Mango, Wild pollinators, CGIAR change process, Grape breeding, Landraces and climate change, Mau Forest, Eels

Nibbles: Non-wood forest products, Landraces and climate change, Brewing, IRRI, Agroforestry, Borlaug, Mutant

  • New NWFP Digest is out. Bamboo, bamboo and more bamboo. You all have subscribed, right?
  • Your indigenous seeds will set you free. Not if you don’t have a breeding programme and decent seed companies they wont. Or not only.
  • College students to evaluate hop varieties. What could possibly go wrong?
  • “The IRRI is not involved in any projects on land acquisition for rice production, nor do we provide advice on land acquisition.”
  • Agroforestry professor interviewed by Mongabay.
  • Edwin Price vs Vandana Shiva on Borlaug on Oz radio. Let the games begin.
  • Cool chimeric apple.

Indications of failure

ResearchBlogging.orgA group of over 20 biodiversity experts from a slew of international conservation agencies have a paper out in Science bemoaning the state of the biodiversity indicators agreed in 2006. ((Walpole, M., Almond, R., Besancon, C., Butchart, S., Campbell-Lendrum, D., Carr, G., Collen, B., Collette, L., Davidson, N., Dulloo, E., Fazel, A., Galloway, J., Gill, M., Goverse, T., Hockings, M., Leaman, D., Morgan, D., Revenga, C., Rickwood, C., Schutyser, F., Simons, S., Stattersfield, A., Tyrrell, T., Vie, J., & Zimsky, M. (2009). Tracking Progress Toward the 2010 Biodiversity Target and Beyond Science, 325 (5947), 1503-1504 DOI: 10.1126/science.1175466)) These indicators are important because they are supposed to be used to track progress towards fulfillment of the promise made by Parties under the Convention on Biological Diversity to reduce the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010. They have also been incorporated into the Millennium Development Goals.

The authors point to problems with the “availability, consistency, and relevance” of data on even the indicators that are reasonably well-developed at the global scale. Some indicators — 5 of the 22 — “are not being developed at a global scale” at all, such as the one on access and benefit sharing. ((It occurs to me that, with the International Treaty in place, at least the agricultural biodiversity community has a pretty solid, ready-made indicator for ABS. But consider that “are not being developed” for a minute. Aren’t the authors’ organizations supposed to be leading the development of these indicators? What am I missing here? Is the paper a coded plea for less political interference?)) The next Conference of the Parties of the CBD (which meets in Japan in October 2010) “will review progress and agree on a new set of targets and a revised indicator framework.”

I hope one of the things it will consider in the new set of targets is crop genetic erosion. There are currently two indicators under the “Trends in genetic erosion” rubric, covering ex situ crop collections and livestock diversity respectively. Here’s what the indicators website has to say about the ex situ collections indicator:

Currently, studies are being undertaken to measure the dynamics of genetic diversity of collections from selected genebanks (EURISCO, USDA, SINGER, ICRISAT and CIAT), in order to develop a model to be applied more systematically worldwide. Based on data from these sources, the evolution over time in quantitative and qualitative terms (number of species; number of accessions/species; geographic origin and distribution of newly added accession versus existing ones) of collected samples was investigated.

I’m ashamed to say I know no more about it than that, but will try to find out the latest. Or maybe someone out there can bring us up to date. Anyway, there is no indicator that I can see on trend of genetic diversity in farmers’ fields, although there is one on sustainable management of agroecosystems.

We all know this is a fraught subject, not least politically, and we should perhaps be grateful that there is anything at all on agrobiodiversity among the indicators ((A tribute to our friends at Bioversity International and FAO, no doubt.)), but we cannot go on quoting at best anecdotal, at worst dubious, figures on loss of crop diversity and expect to be taken seriously. To say, as the authors of the Science paper do, that

…indicators of genetic biodiversity are slowly being compiled for domesticated and cultivated varieties but not yet for wild relatives.

is frankly not hugely reassuring.