save our seeds

On this page I will try to write texts about issues that are linkes to my project. Hopefully by the end of the year I will have some interesting content there.
Feel free to read it quite regularly, as I will keep editing the texts, and to contact me for proposing potential modifications.

——————————————-——————————————-—————————————–

CONTENTS

• thesis writing update 15/01/2008
• essay on biopiracy
• essay on giving nature a price
• essay on monocropping, present and future fleas

——————————————-——————————————-—————————————–
biopiracy.

Common sense would state that nature belongs to no one; yet the relationship between humanity and nature certainly regards those who established it more than anyone else. Farming, water management are human activities which have been developed by most civilizations on the planet, each one leading to the elaboration – under the specific constraints related to climatic or geologic conditions – of indigenous techniques. This reality involves collective developments of technique, with as only goal to be shared and implemented for common well-being.

The Intellectual Property Rights system, on the other hand, aims to stimulate creativity and invention by guaranteeing a financial profit out of it. Patenting an invention gives you exclusive ownership over it, as well as the right to sell – or not – licenses allowing its use. Is considered an invention any technique being new in the country where the it is submitted.
During colonization, imperialistic civilizations sent embassadors to every corner of the world; they discovered in these “primitive” cultures techniques that didn’t existed in their original country and which they imported. And patented, since the technique was considered new.
Nowadays Intellectual Property Rights are going world-wide, under the impulses of globalization. Patents become valid on the entire planet, included for imported inventions in their original country, where indigeneous populations still rely on their use. The latters are thus considered outlaws, since they didn’t pay the license to use the patented technique.

Biopiracy is the word which stands for this phenomenon. The pillaging by corporations and occidental “inventors” of indigeneous knowledge reversed by law into this by indigeneous populations of corporate research investment.

The political solution is to be found through the recognition of invention as a collective act, says Vandana Shiva, as it is now only conceived as a private effort. The problem is, the actual system is spreading at great speed. India resisted this scheme until recently, when by the national law both agricultural- and medical-related techniques couldn’t be patented; the country decided to stand as United Stats privilegiate ally in Asia though, and has had to abandon this law and to accept the Intellectual Property rights as they are defined in the texts of the GATT.

——————————————-——————————————-—————————————–

giving nature a price

Nature shouldn’t be given a price, in theory. Natural spaces are commons that can’t fit in merchant systems. Could you imagine having to pay for ground, water or air ?

Well, you do have to.

It would be far too easy to point at corporations and yell “they’re commercializing our environment !” This is true, but there’s more.
Garrett Hardin explains through his theory “the tragedy of commons” why giving a price to commons is necessary; the individualisation of behaviours together with an ever-increasing population. Colin Ward explains that people before the industrial revolution used to think that used water directly poured into the river got naturally cleaned after 15 kilometers; they were right. But nowadays ecosystems are getting saturated, and can’t bear our impact anymore.
Giving nature a price is the only way to regulate the impact on environment of human activities; this regulation can be performed in different ways though. This is a political issue to be addressed.
On the other hand, access to natural resources is a right for anyone on the planet.
The issue is about how to regulate the use of nature by the price without automatically making these vital resources inaccessible to the poorers.
It is considered that setting a counter decrease the water consumption from 10 to 15%; but counters are very expensive. And they imply that a proper water adduction exists.
Colin Ward defines 6 price politics regarding this issue. Prices can either be fixed (not linked to the actual consumption, therefore not suitable when resources go rare), determined according to an average cost price (everyone pays for an average consumption, same comments as before), degressive (first supply is expensive, extra supply cheap, this system doesn’t allow access to basic needs), progressive (basic supply is cheap, extra supply expensive: provides basic needs and might discourage over-consumption. This politic generates troubles with industry) or dispatched in two blocks (one fixed element regularly adapted to consumption, and an average-cost element; this keeps the idea of a common belonging). The last option requires the installation of prepayed counters (you have to automatically pre-pay the bill, then the left-overs are refund; this system denies the right to basic access as well).

This statement was made about politics related to water, but of course it can apply to any natural resources, ground or air. Air ?

——————————————-——————————————-—————————————–

monocropping, present and future fleas

Monocropping is a commercial technique applied in agriculture. It consists for a farm in specializing on one product that sells well and to produce only this item.
This model is directly linked to our consumption patterns, since it depends on sales volume; do we eat mainly wheat, wheat will be produced . Do we eat meat, soya will be produced.
This is also related to national politic, such as european restitutions in the frame of our common agriculture politics; this is a system aiming to make european product competitive on the international market by giving aids to the biggest producers – I will talk about it later on. These politics also set up quotas which directly influence the varieties that are produced.

Moncropping is, in a way, a logical way of producing, since it directly meets the consumers’ needs. In a way. This model doesn’t take into account the need for vegetal diversity, which is much as important as quantitative and financial aspects.
Crop diversity is a way to protect ourselves and the environment indeed. We all know that biggest famines were caused by major fleas – why did a third of northern Europe migrate to America ? Relying on few varieties for world-wide food supply makes us vulnerable to potential fleas.
This statement is the starting point for the elanoration of seed banks around the world; these institutions keep the seeds in safe places in order to be able to keep alternatives in case the most cultivates crops have to suffer and stop being productive.

There are other reasons to the creation of such banks; indeed, preserving genetical information might allow us later on to proceed to new cross-breeding, or to generate new medicines.

These initiatives are an answer not to a possible threat over diversity, but to actual depletion of ecosystems – hence the disappearance of varieties – by industry. Quite ironically, one of the main activities being considered responsible for this pillaging is intensive agriculture, using techniques such as logging, cultivating on burnt soil or monocropping.

——————————————-——————————————-—————————————–