Posts

Posted on

First winner of agricultural biodiversity competition announced

For immediate release
Rome, Italy, 22 April 2008

The No. 1 web site for agricultural biodiversity, the Agricultural Biodiversity Weblog, today announced the winners of the first annual agro.agro.biodiver.se competition.

On being told the news by email Miss Hathorn, creator of My Favorite Things, a video tribute to backgarden biodiversity, wrote: “Well, (blush), I don’t know what to say. I want to thank …”

“We think this is as fitting a way to mark Earth Day as any we’ve seen,” said Luigi Guarino, beer enthusiast and co-blogger.

Miss Hathorn, working at her allotment, trumped the multi-million dollar International Rice Research Institute by 23 votes to 6.

“The people have spoken. Who am I to argue, some sort of aging African tyrant?” Robert Hijmans, IRRI researcher, asked rhetorically.

Being a cutting-edge sort of person Miss Hathorn already owned an iPod, the competition’s munificent prize. She asked that the prize money be donated to Association Kokopelli, recently fined for having the temerity to place unregistered crop varieties on the market, thus encouraging agrobiodiversity where it isn’t wanted.

“Kokopelli has no easy way to donate money,” said co-blogger and aesthete Jeremy Cherfas, “so we decided to buy a year’s membership for Miss Hathorn. There was enough left over to get membership for Robert Hijmans, runner up.”

There will almost certainly be a new competition announced soon, according to Cherfas and Guarino.

“We also have something up our sleeves for 22 May, the International Day of Biodiversity,” they said, in unison, “so stay tuned.”

Posted on

How much would Kenyans pay for yellow maize?

We’ve blogged a few times about the preference for white maize in Africa, despite the nutritional advantages of the yellow kind. A recent paper in Food Policy puts some numbers on that. It also gives an historical explanation for the preference, at least for Kenya:

The high demand for maize for the war industry and the support of strong lobbying efforts by European settlers, combined with pest problems in millet and sorghum, made maize the major food crop in Kenya by the time of the First World War. A major turning point was when the marketing board started to refuse to buy yellow maize. From then on, only white maize was grown in the central highlands. The maize research program in Kenya, one of the most successful in the region, produced many improved varieties but, given the established market preferences and focus on the highlands, all those were white. It can thus be argued that the dominance of white dent varieties in East Africa was a case of path dependency, caused by a range of favoring factors ([Rubey et al., 1997] and [Smale and Jayne, 2003]). Furthermore, once people are used to a particular food with particular characteristics these characteristics easily become preferred traits.

The numbers are striking. In a survey conducted at small mills, kiosks and supermarkets, 600 consumers asked for a price discount of a third to a half for yellow maize. They were willing to pay a premium for fortified maize, but of only 6-7%. The adoption of biofortified varieties clearly faces a daunting challenge:

We conclude that substantial efforts will be needed to make biofortified, yellow maize varieties acceptable to the urban consumers. A reduction in price would clearly help, and lower income consumers would be more responsive, but the price difference would have to be substantial. Formal education seems to increase the preference for white maize and has no effect on the preference for fortified. Therefore, special educational and awareness programs seem indicated. Further research is, however, needed to assess what information and awareness is needed for consumers to change their behavior. To develop appropriate awareness campaigns, the sources of this type of information need to be assessed.

What price leafy greens?

Posted on

The EU and “geographic indications”

CTA’s Brussels Office has a useful blog tracking relations between the EU and ACP countries in the fields of agriculture and fisheries. There was an interesting entry yesterday, but unfortunately it doesn’t have a permalink, so I’ll quote it in full:

In its March 2008 issue, ICTSD Trade negotiations insight indicates that EPA negotiations include discussions on intellectual property rights (IPRs). Within the chapters on intellectual property rights, the draft EU texts enclose detailed provisions on ‘geographical indications’. Geographical Indications (GI) is a designation which identifies certain qualities, characteristics or the reputation of a particular product to a specific geographical locality. For centuries communities across Africa have produced goods with a quality associated to a special area and which enjoy a strong reputation with national and international consumers, such as Nile Perch from Lake Victoria, Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda. Geographical indications are by essence a collective right. They allow for the protection of existing products and traditional methods of production and knowledge. GIs encourage variety and diversity of production and allow for a better redistribution of ‘added value’ in the production chain – from the raw material producer to the manufacturer. Yet, GIs come at a certain price: it can take time and effort to build a strong quality product including labelling and marketing. Moreover, a legal framework allowing for registration of indications needs to be put into place, which covers production methods, the technical standards of the product and a verification process safeguarding the specifications set. ACP countries or regions must begin by evaluating the potential benefits GIs could bring to key products such as fish. These must be weighed against the potential costs they could generate. But in the long term, if ACP countries can focus on developing, identifying and protecting GIs on the domestic market, the system could be a valuable tool for sustainable development and economic growth.

Source: ICTSD