Skip to content

Today I read an article published on the World Economic Forum's blog, entitled "Should Nature be Given Protective Rights?"

A view of the Kapawi river, in the Ecuadorean rainforest of Kapawi, some 165 miles (266 kilometers) southwest of Quito October 20, 2008. Kapawi is known for its eco-tourism and it is also home to the Ashuar Indians, the last indigenous group still residing the Ecuadorian rainforest, according to internet sources.    REUTERS/Guillermo Granja   (ECUADOR) - GM1E4AL0N2Y01
Photo: Reuters/Guillermo Granja.

The article shows a number of examples: Lake Erie in the United States, the Ganges and Yamuna Rivers of India, the Whanganui  River in New Zealand, all rivers in Bangladesh, the Amazon rainforest in Colombia, and nature in general in Ecuador and Bolivia.

To my mind, it makes sense to protect nature in this way - though I do agree with the article that legislation that protects nature is sometimes too vague or too flexible to be unambiguously useful, as I know from my own research into Bolivia's Madre Tierra ('Mother Earth') law.

What role does agrobiodiversity have to play in these laws? Do crop wild relatives count as 'nature'? What about traditional varieties, only grown in certain places - often surrounded by a wider biodiversity? What about genetically modified crops: have they crossed the Rubicon into un-naturalness? And what about highly integrated farming systems, such as the 'dehesa' that grow Iberian pigs? In short, what does 'nature' mean? And what role does agriculture have to play within it?

You can make the argument that anything a human modifies isn't nature anymore - though by this definition the only natural places we have left are at the very bottom of the sea in places that plastic waste does not gather.

I find it more useful to go back to the examples the article gives us. Many of the specific places that are protected under these pieces of legislation have been cradles of civilization for thousands of years: the Iroquois on Lake Erie, the Hindu on the Ganges, and the Maori of the Whanganui. No one can make the argument that humans have not changed them over time, and no one disputes their status as 'nature.'

Further, the bodies of water that have been protected have been protected for their use to humanity, either culturally or for the safety of drinking water. Agrobiodiversity serves similar cultural goods, either in preserving polycultural practices or niche crop varieties, and it serves food security in a changing climate.

Are these laws a way to protect agrobiodiversity? At the moment, I would hazard a guess that they are not, but it serves as a compelling precedent.

For more information, Vox made a good video that goes into detail on the Lake Erie legislation:

The International Association for the Study of the Commons (IASC) held a conference in Lima this past week. The title was: 'In Defense of the Commons: Challenges, Innovation, And Action.' They had a program with sessions Monday-Wednesday, field trips on Thursday, and a final day of sessions on Friday. The conference was held in the Pontifica Universidad Catolica del Peru, which has one of the nicest campuses I've seen:

The main sessions I attended were on Friday and were organized by Bioversity International, and focused on PACS, Payments for Agrobiodiversity Conservation Services.

Some of the audience at the conference; the men in the foreground of the picture are from Cusco, Peru. Every region of Peru - and particularly the Andes - has a different mode of dress; on top of this, in many places locals can tell which town people are from by their hats. (So don't assume everyone's traditional dress looks the same - there is as much cultural diversity as biodiversity in Peru. Also, these aren't their normal street clothes.)

PACS work with local communities to conserve threatened varieties, first by determining what the local varieties are, how much land is planted with these varieties (and by whom), and which varieties should be conserved. Locals have a say in each step of the process and there is competition to find out which communities will participate, building excitement and emotional investment in the scheme. Next, seed is collected; from what I have heard, this can be one of the hardest steps in the process, because there may only be a tiny amount of seed available in any one place. When enough seed is collected, farmers grow the crops; at harvest, a portion of the seed goes to a genebank and the rest the farmers can keep for themselves. In addition, the farmers receive payment of goods; the payment can be shared by the whole community or be parsed out to individual families, and it can be anything from mattresses to processing equipment to building materials: the participants of the program choose what they would like to receive.

In the morning on Friday we heard presentations from a number of speakers, showing how PACS had worked for them. There were examples from a number of places: quinoa in Puno in southern Peru, amaranth in Cusco, Peru, corn in Ecuador, corn in Guatemala, and potatoes in Apurimac in the southern Andes of Peru. In all these cases but one, representatives of the farming communities involved spoke about their experiences, either about the new passion they felt for conservation or the affirmation of their prior convictions. The farmer from Puno came with four samples of quinoa and spoke about how radically her life had changed for the better by conserving these varieties.

I have less blurry pictures, but this guy reminded me of Indiana Jones (it's not just the hat). He's a potato farmer and keen conservationist, key to the program in Apurimac.

After lunch, we broke into working groups of different categories, looking to build upon the experiences of PACS and to make them better. These groups focused on an array of topics: monitoring, conservation (including with traditional knowledge), development of value chains, access to seeds and seed banks, financing and regulation, and finally, public procurement programs.

I ended up leading that last group, considering that I was the one with the most current knowledge base of the four of us who were participating. However, one of the members was part of the administration of Qali Warma in Cusco, so no one in the group was green to the issue.

Public procurement may not at first blush seem like a logical transition from biodiversity conservation, but considering that bringing native varieties securely out of danger requires having enough land devoted to its cultivation and a market for its sale, public procurement makes sense. If a government prioritizes biodiversity, it provides a ready-made market for these varieties and products made with these varieties.

Our group spoke a lot about the twin routes for change in the system: producers need to be empowered and organized, linked with financing but also with small businesses that can make products of high quality that could be sold to the government for its programs. In return, the government must make sure that the door is open to these producers and these businesses.

Nasturtiums.

Of course, this is much easier said than done. Given the sheer number of receipts that the program has to manage, sourcing from places that would provide smaller quantities would bog down the bureaucracy, and sanitation requirements would incur costs of money and time for farmers. However, it was the consensus of the group that these changes are valuable and worth the trouble.

Yesterday I attended a symposium on anemia in Peru and how we could fight it by using the rich biodiversity of this country. There were many impassioned speeches about how people could use their local resources to combat this serious problem.

When I say that it is serious, you don't have to take my word for it:

MIDIS "Plan Multusectorial Contra La Anemia," 2018.

This shows the prevalence of anemia in all of the departments for children between 6-35 months. The most severe case appears to be in Puno (in the south, bordering Lake Titicaca), though many of the other departments are also staggering. It's noteworthy that even the places with lower incidences of anemia aren't under 30%.

However, it is encouraging that the government is taking this seriously and making an effort to include as many ministries as possible; one of the presentations yesterday was given by the Vice-minister of Policy and Social Evaluation of the Ministry of Develpoment and Social Inclusion (MIDIS, the ministry that also runs Qali Warma) - some of the concluding slides included tables that showed how each ministry could contribute to the overall efforts of the government.

I was struck by the passion with which everyone spoke, each with their own approach and range of foods that they proposed could advance the cause. There was a researcher from CIP (International Potato Center) who spoke about biofortified potatoes that contained more iron than usual; a professor from Ayacucho spoke about using traditional plants as a way of fighting anemia and regaining culture; another professor spoke about fortifying biscuits with quinoa, tarwi (Andean lupine), and moringa.

This is a scientist from the Institute of Investigations of the Peruvian Amazon; he spoke primarily about camu camu, but also took a moment at the end of his slideshow to highlight a couple of other rainforest fruits with high nutritional value.

There were also a great many people in the audience from the private sector, as well as people representing their municipalities; I spoke with a few of them during the cookies-and-juice phase of the event. Considering the level of concern, it's likely that the numbers of children with anemia will go down - not if, but when.

I asked a question at the end about how Qali Warma could be made better by adding more diversity to the food handed out, and was told by someone who works for MIDIS that from their perspective, more biodiversity would be great, but that the food included in the program needs to be available year round, in the right quantities, and above all, safe. I've noted this in my readings - food safety is a big issue - but it was interesting to see it emphasized in what he said.

The hard part about scientific articles is that most of them are pay-to-play, and therefore hard to share; it's easier to share reports from UN agencies and nonprofit institutions. Therefore, if you want to learn everything there is to know about biodiversity and health, look no farther than a 2015 report done by UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme), CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity), and the WHO (World Health Organization).

(Just a picture of the cover - the link is below)

The report is massive - 364 pages - but provides a solid base of knowledge. Considering that my research is focused on nutrition and agrobiodiversity, I focused on the sixth chapter.

For those of you who aren't convinced, this is a great place to start looking into the importance of biodiversity not just to human health but also for the planet as a whole.

Here's the link to the complete report:

https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10568/67397/SOK-biodiversity-en.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Nikolai Vavilov (1887-1943) was one of the founding scientists to champion agrobiodiversity; he was a Russian seed collector and scientist, and with his colleagues traveled much of the world looking for the genetic epicenters of different crops. Vavilov determined that there were eight ‘centers of origin’ for agrobiodiversity, which is illustrated in this diagram:

Sourced from:
http://scihi.org/nikolai-vavilov-cultivated-plants/ , Accessed 21 April 2019

Vavilov’s contribution to agriculture is astronomical, and his seed vault is still in operation today, now known as the Pavlovsk Experimental Station. (Much of what is available on the internet about the Station is from 2010, when its existence was threatened by real estate developers, but Wikipedia says that in 2012, the Russian government formally protected it.)

Vavilov, however, was living in an incendiary time in Russia; the Siege of Leningrad saw 28 of his colleagues starve to death rather than eat any of the specimens in the seed vault. Vavilov himself was condemned by the Russian government because Stalin identified with another scientist’s theories; Vavilov was brutally and extensively interrogated, sentenced to prison, and died of starvation behind bars. Vavilov didn’t back down on the strength of his convictions, which is good for the world, considering that his seed vault has gone on to save the lives of millions in the face of crop collapses.

This is all to say that agrobiodiversity is vitally important; it serves as a safeguard in case diseases or pests destroy crops, a manifestation of culture, and a source of varying and nutritious foods. Vavilov and his colleagues may have made the ultimate sacrifice, but it was in the noblest of causes.

The research I will conduct will not be so fraught with peril – but it’s good to start a blog with a bang.

The Decemberists, "When the War Came"
This song was written about the scientists in the vault during the Siege of Leningrad.