View previous stories
	Conserving plant genetic diversity crucial for future food security by UN News & agencies Italy - Rome   Oct 2010   The world’s food security could be threatened by the failure to conserve the wild plant species that are genetically related to the crops grown by mankind for food, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) said in a new report.   In the report, FAO warns that the loss of biodiversity will have a major impact on the ability of humankind to feed itself in the future, with inhabitants of poorest regions of the world experiencing more shortages.   The report – “State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture” – covers topics ranging from gene bank collections to the effects of climate change on crop diversity, and is intended to highlight what is being done to protect biodiversity in food crops.   Genetic information held in certain crop varieties is crucial to the development of heat, drought, salinity, pests and diseases-resistant, fast-growing, high-yielding new varieties, necessary to reduce food insecurity in the face of climate change.   “Increasing the sustainable use of plant diversity could be the main key for addressing risks to genetic resources for agriculture,” said Jacques Diouf, the FAO Director-General. “There are thousands of crop wild relatives that still need to be collected, studied and documented because they hold genetic secrets that enable them to resist heat, droughts, salinity, floods and pests,” he added.   According to the report, 50 per cent of the increase in crop yields in recent years has come from new seed varieties. Irrigation and fertilizer account for the other 50 per cent. A recent example is the fast-maturing New Rice for Africa (NERICA) that has transformed local economies in several parts of Africa.   The study calls for action, especially generating farmers’ interest, and building capacities to conserve and use the genetic biodiversity that still exists.   It does not attempt to quantify biodiversity loss, but points out that empirical evidence shows continued extinction of crop biodiversity, reducing the diversity of traditional food crops that survived the past century. FAO estimates that 75 per cent of crop diversity was lost between 1900 and 2000.   May 2010 (IPS)   Traditional knowledge and culture are as important as research and investments to farmers, researchers and academicians who are gathered in Rome to celebrate International Day for Biodiversity.   "In the international year on biodiversity, we cannot forget agricultural biodiversity and the farmers who do the work of seed recovery and use agro-biodiversity", said Antonio Onorati of the International Planning Committee for food sovereignty.   Emile Frison, director-general of Bioversity International said “our focus is on food and agriculture which are "key for nutrition, to feed the world despite the impacts of climate change".   Bioversity International is dedicated to the conservation and use of agricultural biodiversity and is a part of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research. "We do so by highlighting the link between nature, food and culture, since the diversity of crops and livestock not only provides nutritional security but also assists in economic development and the struggle against climate change for everyone on the planet," Mr Frison said.   There are about 30,000 edible plant species of which three, rice, wheat and maize, provide 60 percent of calories for human beings. However, the true value of these staples is hardly recognised.   "When you talk about biodiversity people around the table are essentially from ministries of environment, and they come from a background of nature conservation and protection. For them, traditionally, agriculture has been the enemy, the one that encroaches on the environment," Frison told IPS.   "What we realise today is that there needs to be much greater attention paid to biodiversity in agricultural ecosystems and also to agricultural biodiversity itself. We can no longer just care about protected areas, but now we must look at how we can make the entire biodiversity more useful to people."   If the challenge is to acknowledge the cultural dimension of nutrition to achieve more sustainable and diverse agriculture, this can only be done with the direct involvement of farmers, says, Antonio Onorati of the International Planning Committee for food sovereignty.   Being not only the custodians but also the creators of biodiversity, farmers are "responsible for the diversity of what we plant, producing our seeds, creating new varieties. They need to be working in cooperation with researchers," Onorati said.   It is called participatory plant breeding, and many examples can be found in the world. These programmes are based on the dynamic collaboration between plant breeding institutions and farmers, and designed to ensure that research is directly relevant to farmers needs.   Such programmes can effectively maintain and improve agricultural biodiversity, Onorati said, and also empower farmers since seed production and the choice of variety are made in alliance with them.   Researchers now recognise that traditional knowledge is of great value. According to Frison, the traditional farmers system of exchanging seeds - now overwhelmed by the industrial production - is the key to maintenance of traditional varieties that can better adapt to new climatic conditions.   "We must give voice to the food communities," says Carlo Petrini, the founder of Slow Food International. Food communities - that is farmers and food producers who come from some 155 countries – are committed to defend and promote environmentally friendly modes of production, natural resources and biodiversity conservation, Mr Petrini said.   "The conservation practices of thousands of food communities can really compete with the big economic entities, and with the market, though they are not heard by decision-making powers".   Traditional farmers knowledge should be preserved and transmitted to future generations, according to Petrini who has a dream, the creation of the "granaries of memory", a documented collection of Elders - men and women and indigenous peoples who have dedicated their life to the land.   "The knowledge and the memory of these humble people are extraordinary, and they must be transmitted to future generations; because they will serve as a granary of knowledge when, one day, we will be affected by shortage of ideas." Visit the related web page
	British Fashion Victims by Paul Krugman New York Times United Kingdom   In the spring of 2010, fiscal austerity became fashionable. I use the term advisedly: the sudden consensus among Very Serious People that everyone must balance budgets now now now wasn’t based on any kind of careful analysis. It was more like a fad, something everyone professed to believe because that was what the in-crowd was saying.   And it’s a fad that has been fading lately, as evidence has accumulated that the lessons of the past remain relevant, that trying to balance budgets in the face of high unemployment and falling inflation is still a really bad idea. Most notably, the confidence fairy has been exposed as a myth. There have been widespread claims that deficit-cutting actually reduces unemployment because it reassures consumers and businesses; but multiple studies of historical record, including one by the International Monetary Fund, have shown that this claim has no basis in reality.   No widespread fad ever passes, however, without leaving some fashion victims in its wake. In this case, the victims are the people of Britain, who have the misfortune to be ruled by a government that took office at the height of the austerity fad and won’t admit that it was wrong.   Britain, like America, is suffering from the aftermath of a housing and debt bubble. Its problems are compounded by London’s role as an international financial center: Britain came to rely too much on profits from wheeling and dealing to drive its economy — and on financial-industry tax payments to pay for government programs.   Over-reliance on the financial industry largely explains why Britain, which came into the crisis with relatively low public debt, has seen its budget deficit soar to 11 percent of G.D.P. — slightly worse than the U.S. deficit. And there’s no question that Britain will eventually need to balance its books with spending cuts and tax increases.   The operative word here should, however, be “eventually.” Fiscal austerity will depress the economy further unless it can be offset by a fall in interest rates.   Right now, interest rates in Britain, as in America, are already very low, with little room to fall further. The sensible thing, then, is to devise a plan for putting the nation’s fiscal house in order, while waiting until a solid economic recovery is under way before wielding the ax.   But trendy fashion, almost by definition, isn’t sensible — and the British government seems determined to ignore the lessons of history.   Both the new British budget and the rhetoric that accompanied the announcement might have come straight from the desk of Andrew Mellon, the Treasury secretary who told President Herbert Hoover to fight the Depression by liquidating the farmers, liquidating the workers, and driving down wages. Or if you prefer more British precedents, it echoes the Snowden budget of 1931, which tried to restore confidence but ended up deepening the economic crisis.   The British government’s plan is bold, say the pundits — and so it is. But it boldly goes in exactly the wrong direction. It would cut government employment by 490,000 workers — the equivalent of almost three million layoffs in the United States — at a time when the private sector is in no position to provide alternative employment. It would slash spending at a time when private demand isn’t at all ready to take up the slack.   Why is the British government doing this? The real reason has a lot to do with ideology: the Tories are using the deficit as an excuse to downsize the welfare state. But the official rationale is that there is no alternative.   Indeed, there has been a noticeable change in the rhetoric of the government of Prime Minister David Cameron over the past few weeks — a shift from hope to fear. In his speech announcing the budget plan, George Osborne, the chancellor of the Exchequer, seemed to have given up on the confidence fairy — that is, on claims that the plan would have positive effects on employment and growth.   Instead, it was all about the apocalypse looming if Britain failed to go down this route. Never mind that British debt as a percentage of national income is actually below its historical average; never mind that British interest rates stayed low even as the nation’s budget deficit soared, reflecting the belief of investors that the country can and will get its finances under control. Britain, declared Mr. Osborne, was on the “brink of bankruptcy.”   What happens now? Premature fiscal austerity will lead to a renewed economic slump. As always, those who refuse to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. Visit the related web page
	View more stories