Posts

Posted on

Genetic erosion gets worse

We get hours of amusement from poking holes in the many ways in which statements about the loss of 75% of agricultural biodiversity are likely to be less than accurate any way you slice them. But here’s an entirely new wrinkle. A friend recently wrote asking for some moral support for a grant proposal, which included a forceful justificatory phrase to the effect that 75% of agricultural diversity has been lost since 1990. 1

I twitted him gently about this, something snitty to the effect of “interesting statistic, have you got a source for that?” And blow me down if he didn’t. Not just any old source either. A communication from the [European] Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, no less, entitled Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020, aka COM(2011) 244 final.

And there it is, on page 1 of the Introduction.

[A]ccording to the FAO … 75% of the genetic diversity of agricultural crops has been lost worldwide since 1990.

I wonder where they got that figure? Not from FAO. The same year is present in at least one other language, so if it is a typo it entered the proceedings early. But honestly, did nobody find it just the least little bit odd? Then again, my friend didn’t either. I suppose we’re the odd ones.

Posted on

Climate change and agrobiodiversity seminar report online

IISD’s report on the special information seminar that was held last Saturday at FAO headquarters in Rome, under the title “Climate Change and Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture: State of Knowledge, Risks and Opportunities,” is out.

I must say I just don’t know what to make of stuff like this:

On conservation, several participants called for stronger focus on in situ conservation, with panelists noting that ex situ and in situ conservation are complementary strategies. Cock added that conservation must also ensure accessibility to realize appropriate deployment.

Surely we had that debate twenty years ago? Anyway, here’s the bottom line, in case you don’t want to plough through the whole pdf:

…Hodgkin said the morning session had shown that there is increasing acceptance of the ecosystem approach and the concept of ecosystem services in addressing linkages with climate change. Other messages included the: importance of accessibility of genetic resources and availability of information, especially in developing countries; different roles of in situ and ex situ conservation in addressing risks and enabling responses; need for an inter-sectoral approach to adaptation and mitigation; and recognition that climate change leads to the movement of agricultural biodiversity and creates a need for informed decisions of deliberate movements of germplasm.

The key messages from the afternoon session were: while climate change is being embedded in many agricultural strategies and plans, agriculture still needs to be embedded in climate change measures; there is a need for institutions and mechanisms to supply seeds to users; and there is a great need for capacity building activities for adaptation, such as evaluation and characterization.

Chair Mozafari added that participants had recognized the need: for the agriculture community to take action to ensure that GRFA are properly reflected in climate change efforts; to improve the knowledge base, in particular national knowledge on wild crop relatives and wild species; to reconcile efforts in all aspects of food security to ensure coherence; for global partnerships in research, evaluation and characterization; to prioritize the needs of the most vulnerable; and for financial resources. He suggested that CGRFA 13 reflect on how to communicate these needs to the UNFCCC and other instruments to put GRFA on the global climate change agenda.

LATER: And the report on day 1 of the regular session is out too now.

Posted on

Heat vs Water: the death match

Although we write about the impact of climate change on agricultural biodiversity, and the need for biodiversity in plans to adapt agriculture to climate change, this is not a climate change blog. If it were, I’d be writing at length about some strange stuff going down.

Drought versus heatwave past 30 days

The US is facing both a drought and a heatwave. The drought is getting a lot of attention, the heatwave, not so much. The thing is, as Michael J. Roberts points out, the drought isn’t as bad as it looks, partly because there is irrigation where it seems worst, and partly because “standard drought indicators don’t predict crop outcomes especially well”.

The heat may be far more important for crop yields especially coming, as it is, at a sensitive time, as the corn (maize) begins to blossom.

Roberts, an economist, is thus “much more bullish” about corn prices. That is, he expects them to go up, not because of speculation but because the supply is likely to fall short.

All of which raises some questions.

Is there a reliable heat danger index or forecasting tool for any crop?
Is anyone in the US breeding maize to withstand higher extremes of temperature?
How about switching to something more heat tolerant, like sorghum or a millet?
Especially for biofuel, if they really think that’s a good use for maize?
If they did switch, would people eat it?

I don’t want to belabour the point, but all the things we say people in Africa ought to think about doing, people in the US might want to consider too.