Mainstreaming agrobiodiversity for nutrition

A new discussion paper from GAIN, the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition, looks at some indicative Policies and financing to spur appropriate private-sector engagement in food systems. “Appropriate” meaning conducive to the production and consumption of more agrobiodiverse diets. It’s not long, so you should probably read the whole thing. But here are the take-home messages, to whet your appetite, as it were:

  • reduce taxes and increase subsidies on nutritious crops and foods (eg fruits and vegetables)
  • amend policies which encourage biofortification and industrial fortification to also include encouraging the increased production and consumption of existing nutritious species and varieties
  • make the case for diverse farming systems to impact investors and blended finance practitioners
  • nudge business sustainability strategies to include biodiversity and ecosystem considerations (eg, via the Agrobiodiversity Index)

Not a comprehensive list, of course, but a pretty good start.

PGR training needs identified

There’s an open access Crop Science Special Issue out under the title: Connecting Agriculture, Public Gardens and Science. Well worth having a look at. There’s great stuff on crop wild relatives, plant awareness, chefs, and trans-situ conservation, just to give you a flavour. There’s also a summary of the symposium that gave rise to the special issue. Our friend Colin Khoury was closely involved.

I’ll just highlight here the paper by Gayle Volk and others on training needs in plant genetic resources conservation. ((Volk, G. M., P. K. Bretting, and P. F. Byrne. 2019. Survey Identifies Essential Plant Genetic Resources Training Program Components. Crop Sci. 59:2308-2316. doi:10.2135/cropsci2019.05.0324.)) The authors sent out a survey and analyzed the feedback from 425 respondents by type of institution: academia, NPGS, CGIAR, national genebanks, NGOs and the private sector. There were, fortunately, some topics which a majority across all institutions considered high priority areas for training:

  • accessing information
  • crop wild relatives
  • genotyping
  • phenotyping
  • intellectual property and regulatory issues

But there were also some differences.

The respondents from academia were also interested … in prebreeding, which is not surprising because many of these respondents were plant breeders. Respondents from the private sector were also interested … in requests/distributions and prebreeding, and respondents from NGOs were also interested … in collection gap analyses, explorations, germplasm preservation, intellectual property, and regulations. The genebank respondents (NPGS, CGIAR, non-NPGS government) considered germplasm preservation, intellectual property, and general concepts in plant genetic diversity as priority topics. These differences among the institutional types are not surprising due to their different missions.

This all came out of an initiative from the NPGS that started back in early 2018. Training materials of various types are being developed. Will keep you posted.

Brainfood: Cereal grains, Cerrado threats, Potato conservation, Maize rhizosphere, Coconut diversification, Lombard landraces, Lupinus evaluation, Genetic markers, Pathogen evolution, PAs & productivity, Agricultural expansion, Trade & obesity, ILRI genebank

A bit more on what happened at GB8

I did suggest a couple of days ago that I’d have more to say about the Eighth Session of the Governing Body of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. And here it is, over at the work blog.

If you think I got anything wrong, or missed anything out, or you want further details or clarifications, you can leave comments here if you like, and I’ll try to reply, or get others to do so if I can’t.