China to protect biodiversity

China’s new National Strategy for Plant Conservation has just been launched, and Botanic Gardens Conservation International (BGCI) has a write-up about it. An introduction to the strategy is also available. Agricultural biodiversity gets quite a high profile, which is great, and unusual for such exercises. Here’s a few quotes to give you the flavour:

China is home to some of the world’s most important crop, medicinal and ornamental species, such as tea, rice, soy beans, ginseng, magnolias, camellias & peaches.

China is … keen to investigate novel methods of ‘eco-agriculture’, in a bid to introduce more sustainable land management practices to a country which is still largely agricultural.

The system known as the “3R Model” (Resources, Research, and Resolution) has recently produced a unique golden-fleshed kiwi fruit, bred from wild native kiwi vines that were conserved by the project.

A national Chinese seed bank (containing 340,000 accessions) and a network of regional seed banks ensures the long-term conservation of the genes of important crops, such as rice and soya beans.

Over 11,000 species are used in traditional Chinese medicine. Of the 600 plant species that are regularly used, sustainable cultivation systems have been developed for 200 species, thereby preventing their unsustainable harvesting from the wild.

One thing I didn’t understand, though. There’s a picture of a cultivated field in the introduction to the strategy, and also in the BGCI piece, with the following caption:

Fields of cultivated ‘wild’ barley, found only in the Chinese Himalayas, demonstrate the importance of local and ethnic crop varieties.

No doubt there are wild species of Hordeum in the Chinese Himalayas. But what does it mean to say that they are cultivated? Similarly, there is cultivated barley there. But what does it mean to say that it is “wild”?

Youth farmstands in the Garden State

Rutgers University’s New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station has something called a Youth Farmstand Program. Farmstands — market stalls selling local produce, often organically grown — offer “a hands-on entrepreneurial experience to youth in the mechanics of owning and operating a small business, based on the premise that experience really is the best teacher.” They also provide “a unifying framework for youth, farmers & communities to achieve success. Each needs the others’ support to grow and prosper, so everyone wins!” Sounds like a great idea to promote agricultural biodiversity, better nutrition and youth development all at the same time.

Battling risk

Here’s how Jeffrey Sachs starts a recent article in Scientific American:

Life at the bottom of the world’s income distribution is massively risky. Households lack basic buffers — saving accounts, health insurance, water tanks, diversified income sources and so on — against droughts, pests and other hazards. The bodies of the poor often lack enough nutrients to rebuff diseases. Even modest shocks, such as a temporary dry spell or a routine infection, can be devastating. 

He uses this platform to launch a plea for innovative forms of insurance, things like weather-linked bonds combined with other financial services for farmers. The Millennium Village of Sauri in Kenya has apparently been having some encouraging experiences with such instruments, and they certainly seem worth exploring and testing. Anything that helps farmers manage risk must be welcome.

But what about the best agricultural insurance policy of all? What about agricultural biodiversity, in all its guises? Not much — or any, in fact — talk about agrobiodiversity from Prof. Sachs, beyond that “and so on.”

Legalize it?

We’ve blogged before about poppy-growing in Afghanistan. We have here a well-adapted, traditional crop whose cultivation is being — let us say — actively discouraged in its place of origin and highest diversity because of the illicit trade in its product. Meanwhile, the large legal demand for the product is serviced — but by no means fully met — by countries which are much better off and have lots of other options. Legalization and regulation, possibly combined with new varieties with a truncated biosynthetic pathway for morphine, would seem to be an attractive option, at least worth exploring.

Well, a long piece in the website of the US Department of State says no, emphatically. It seems that:

  • the licit market is not lucrative enough
  • there is not sufficient world demand
  • regulation is not feasible in Afghanistan
  • past experience in other countries is not encouraging, and
  • legalization is conterproductive anyway

Even the technological fix is no such thing, apparently. My first thought is that if all the money being poured into interdiction was directed at establishing a regulatory framework, and perhaps even providing subsidies, the whole thing might not perhaps seem so hopeless. Also, if historical experience of legalization is not particularly encouraging, is the experience of prohibition any more so? But it would definitely be worth getting to the bottom of whether there is a worldwide shortage of medical opiates or not. Anyway, see what you think.

Cacao and conservation

A whole issue of the journal Biodiversity and Conservation looks at how cocoa production landscapes can contribute to biodiversity conservation. There are several papers on specific case studies and also an overview. Most of the discussion is — predictably — about what cacao cultivation can do for biodiversity, but, what about the other way around? The overview does suggest that

it is important to understand trade-offs between productivity and conservation and the economic costs of conservation friendly practices to land users so that more effective policies can be designed… Quantifying the benefits (both short and long-term) of biodiversity within agroforestry landscapes to farm productivity, for example via pest and disease control … requires attention.

What are these biodiversity-friendly practices? Here’s a few ideas, again from the overview:

  • eco-friendly certification
  • research and extension to increase productivity while maintaining diverse tree canopies
  • development of markets for non-cocoa products
  • payment for environmental services

As far as certification is concerned, the Fair Tracing Project may suggest solutions:

The Fair Tracing project believes that attaching tracing technology to Fair Trade products sourced in developing countries will enhance the value of such goods to consumers in the developed world seeking to make ethical purchasing choices.

I’ve just come across this project, and I don’t know much about it. A piece on its web site — basically a blog — about the ICT being used to trace fair trade coffee in Haiti did point me to a rather interesting example of a corporation trying to bridge the digital divide.