“Reinforcing the resilience of poor rural communities in the face of food insecurity, poverty and climate change through on-farm conservation of local agrobiodiversity”

This is the title of the new Project Bioversity and its partners in India, Nepal and Bolivia, will be launching in June 2011.

Threshing minor millets in India: traditional operations which are currently poorly effective can be improved with great benefits for the farmers who are encouraged to use these resources and contribute to their on farm conservation (Credit: S. Padulosi)

The 2010 FAO State of the World Report II on PGRFA depicts an alarming and worrying situation with regard to the conservation and use of agrobiodiversity: despite considerable progress made on ex situ conservation, very limited efforts are on record for curbing the genetic and cultural erosion taking place on farm and severely affecting the sustenance of local crops and varieties. Furthermore, international policy instruments in support of agrobiodiversity, such as the Global Crop Diversity Trust, are currently focusing mainly on crops of Annex I of the International Treaty for PGRFA, thus excluding de facto thousands of other nutritious (and in many cases endangered) crops and varieties from being properly safeguarded, conserved and promoted for their effective use.

The Programme will be implemented in Latin America (Bolivia) and in South Asia (Nepal and India) and will be pursuing three main objectives:

1. the development of tools to map out diversity and assess values, threats and competitiveness of local crops of relevance to the rural poor within a climate change context;
2. the dissemination of tools, mechanisms, approaches to enhance capacities of stakeholders in conserving diversity on farm and
3. the exploration of policy options and collaborative frameworks at national and international levels aimed at strengthening pro-poor on-farm conservation. Ultimately, these efforts will aim at mainstreaming agro-biodiversity into conservation and use practices and in so doing enhance the preparedness of farmers and value chain actors against climate change.

For more information contact email hidden; JavaScript is required and to read a more extensive write up see the post on PAR web site

The latest of the very useful newsletters from , of which Crops for the Future is a member, provided a link to this report on “The protection of Geographical Indications (GI): Generating Empirical Evidence at Country and Product Level to Support African ACP Country Engagement in the Doha Round Negotiations”.

The report describes the legal infrastructure, motivating factors and trade/IPR environment deemed conducive to successful GI use in several Sub-Saharan countries, as well as costs and benefits. It notes that “in the absence of international agreements providing for the protection of traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions, [……..] GIs can provide a legal structure to affirm and protect the unique cultural values embodied in traditional artisanal and agricultural skills that are valued forms of expression for a particular community”.

Aside from the usual candidate products for GI protection such as coffee, cocoa, tea, raw sugar and honey, which account for most of the report, there is also mention of a number of less well-known products with potential for GI protection: yams in Nigeria (presumably Dioscorea spec.), a sea shell providing the “Yett” condiment (Senegal), Argane oil (Morocco), Shea butter, tree bark cloth, etc. While focusing on the economics and markets for GIs, the report also deals with sustainable exploitation of the biological resources used for GI products.

Starting on p. 51, the report lists a number of limitations and difficulties associated with GIs. It notes that a GI protection will not be able “to radically change the situation and solve all problems faced by the farmers or producers concerned. Putting too much expectation on the GI protection only and neglecting other key aspects or strategies could even constitute a risk to the development of a given branch of activity or region. […] It should be underlined in particular that, in the absence of democratic governance structures, the value added brought about by a GI may not be capitalised by regional interests or small farmers”. We believe such caveats should not be misunderstood as a vote against GIs, but rather as a very balanced discussion of an under-utilised instrument of rural development. As other tools, methods and activities, GIs may entail trade-offs rather than the elusive “win-win” situation.

Breadfruit tree in Palmira, Valle del Cauca, Colombia

• Beyond the Bounty: Breadfruit (Artocarpus altilis) for food security and novel foods in the 21st Century
• Diversity of breadfruit (Artocarpus altilis, Moraceae) seasonality: A resource for year-round nutrition
• Nutritional and morphological diversity of breadfruit (Artocarpus, Moraceae): Identification of elite cultivars for food security