Who knew? Via The Lubin Files, news that FAO has a channel on YouTube.
Oliver Stone unavailable for comment.
On the ground in West Bengal
In West Bengal, a penniless activist is preserving 542 local varieties of rice on a teeny farm. It’s an amazing story, as Josh Kearns tells it. He visited Debal Deb’s research station and blogged about it here.
Folk traditions that were widely practiced until just a few generations ago, such as valuing seeds in non-monetary terms and freely sharing resources, have been sacrificed under market culture. Since Debal gives his seeds away for free, he runs the risk of their not being appropriately valued; whereas, if a farmer takes out a huge loan to buy Monsanto’s HYV seeds and they fail to produce a satisfactory yield (or fail altogether, which happens frequently), he blames himself for being a lousy farmer rather than Monsanto for ripping him off.
Just one of the problems of taking care of crop biodiversity outside the mainstream. Kearns does not say that Deb is no ordinary agroconservationist. He’s a friend of a friend, as it happens, and has a PhD from Calcutta University and several published papers and a book to his name.
Still, Kearns reports that against the odds, Debal Deb is succeeding. And while that is good news, I do wonder what the next stage is. OK, so he and his crew are conserving and describing the varieties (to forestall a rights-grab). But there must be ways both to support that work and to make use of the biodiversity to improve lives.
IPM worth a fortune in New Zealand vineyards
NZ grape growers discover value of local biodiversity: NZ$1000 per ha per year.
Kenyan community ranch wins UN award
A community ranch dedicated to wildlife and conservation has won the UN’s Equator Initiative prize of US$30,000. The Shompole Group Ranch offers a five-star eco-tourist experience and has made great efforts to increase wildlife on its 62,000 hectares, spreading the benefits to community members. But does the ranch also grow the food to feed all those wealthy tourists locally? The story does not say, and nor do the many web sites that tout Shompole ranch as a resort. OK, it is a dry area, but there is freshwater in two permanent rivers.
Meanwhile, just across the border in Tanzania, the President of Sacramento State University apparently pulled strings to enable wealthy benefactors to hunt animals — including endangered species — as trophies.
The common thread, of course, is that wildlife has value — dead and alive — and cashing in on that value may be the most important way for local people to benefit directly.
The services of agricultural biodiversity
The latest (number 18) Biodiversity and Society Bulletin of the Poverty and Conservation Learning Group discusses a new UNEP-WCMC publication ((Ash, N. and Jenkins, M. (2007). Biodiversity and Poverty Reduction: The Importance of Ecosystem Services. United Nations Environment Programme-World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge.)) entitled “Biodiversity and Poverty Reduction: The Importance of Ecosystem Services.”
It’s a very good assessment of the services provided by biodiversity, in particular to the poor. These services include:
- fresh water quality
- protection from natural hazards
- regulation of infectious diseases
- regulation of climate and air quality
- waste processing and detoxification
- nutrient cycling
- medicines
- timber, fibres and fuel
- cultural services
But food provision and food security are right up front, and that discussion doesn’t just deal with species diversity in farming systems (although this is somewhat underplayed, I think), landraces (though not, unfortunately, wild crop relatives, to any great extent) and wild foods. It also ranges over the wider agricultural biodiversity which supports food production. That means soil micro-organisms, pollinators and the natural enemies of pests:
Although some or all these functions can in theory be replaced by artificial, technologically-derived substitutes, these are often expensive and increase the dependency of poor people on industries and producers beyond their control.
The document ends with some implications for policy. I guess this is the bottom line:
The medium and long-term interests of the poor are likely to be best served by the maintenance of a diverse resource base at the landscape (i.e. accessible) scale, at the very least as a vital risk mitigation measure. This does not, of course, mean that all forms of intensification and adoption of new technologies should be avoided – far from it. Judicious application of new technologies and techniques, use of improved varieties (not necessarily excluding those developed with gene transfer technologies) in agriculture, and appropriate levels of inputs such as nitrogen and phosphate-based fertiliser, can increase productivity and help towards eliminating poverty. Increasing the efficiency of use of existing agricultural lands can actually reduce environmental degradation by reducing the incentive to convert marginal lands. The key is that such development should not be at the expense of the existing natural resource base and should be planned to ensure delivery of medium and long-term benefits, rather than maximising short-term gains.
Pity that the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture is not mentioned in the section on international obligations, though.