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:

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.