Just a quick note on two books on subjects close to our hearts here at the Agricultural Biodiversity Weblog: climate change and agriculture, and mapping species distributions. We’ll be trying to get hold of them for review. Preferably for free. Hint hint.
Genetic Engineering discussion continues
Ewan R takes up the cudgels on genetic engineering:
If the western world would invest 1/100th of the amount it blows on new methods of killing people into transgenics developed by the public sector for specific small scale problems the world would likely be a far better place (and the requirement for the other 99/100ths of that arms budget would also probably fall off dramatically)
Not sure why he singles out the western world, but let that slide. To which James responds:
As I see it corporate research is a separate pot of money. If it doesn’t get spent on genetic engineering it’ll get spent on marker assisted breeding for similar traits in similar crops. If for some reason it couldn’t be spent on crop improvement at all, it’d probably be spent on… I don’t know… advertising. … [M]oney spent in commercial research isn’t at the expense of humanitarian projects so it isn’t (or shouldn’t be) begrudged. (And when/if nitrogen use efficiency and drought resistant traits make it to market they’ll be worth every penny of that price tag.)
Which neatly encapsulates several of the ideas swirling around. Ewan is probably right that 1% of the “death” budget would improve life for billions of people. And James is right that the many pots of money simply aren’t fungible. What strikes me is that these kinds of points are discussed at our level, but the high-ups just don’t seem interested. In my naiveté I’d have thought that world leaders, business titans and gung-ho philanthropists would be more interested in finding out whether different approaches to their concerns might in fact be worthwhile. I guess they have more important things to think about.
Featured: Genetic Engineers
James raises a thought on the discussion of genetic engineers he precipitated:
I think there are many traits that could be generated by the non-profit sector and freely introgressed into lots of different cultivars and landraces which would materially improve the lives of people around the world. It’s much harder (if not impossible) to think of genetically engineered traits that would generate more good than $150 million dollars spent on other projects.
Costs, meet benefits.
Law of unintended consequences: Piracy edition
Pirates off the coast of Somalia have apparently claimed that they are “coastguards” and that their ransom demands are more in the nature of “fines” on foreign fishing fleets come to steal Somalia’s marine resources. So far, so much fish soup. But according to a study reported by the Associated Press, fishing folk in Somalia have seen increased catches:
“I remember some days I used to go to the sea early to catch fish and would return with no fish, but nowadays there are plenty. You can catch it everywhere,” said fisherman Bakar Osman, 50. “I do not know the reason but I think the foreign fishing vessels, which used to loot our fish, were scared away by pirates.”
Not only that, but the effects are being felt way down the coast in Kenya, where sport fishing is enjoying a boom.
Angus Paul, whose family owns the Kingfisher sports fishing company, said that over the past season clients on his catch-and-release sports fishing outings averaged 12 or 13 sail fish a day. That compares with two or three in previous years.
Somali pirates, Paul said, are a group of terrorists, “but as long as they can keep the big commercial boats out, not fishing the waters, then it benefits a lot of other smaller people.”
Not that that justifies piracy, no sirree. But it does suggest that some countries should borrow a gunboat or two and kick the pescopirates out of their waters. h/t Resilience Science.
Farmers embrace the International Year of Biodiversity
Conserving biodiversity is a shared responsibility of stakeholders worldwide, and farmers are willing to do their part.
So says the International Federation of Agricultural Producers, “the farmers’ voice at the world level, representing 600 million family farmers grouped in 120 national organizations in 80 countries”.
“The main issue for farmers is gaining recognition for the multiple roles that agriculture is expected to fulfil and identifying appropriate mechanisms in order to achieve them. We need to help and encourage farmers to improve their current practices, while ensuring they can sustain their families and remain competitive in the markets. These efforts all need be undertaken simultaneously, otherwise you will have food security problems or a compromised ecosystem,” said Ajay Vashee, IFAP President.
No response yet from conservation-wallahs.