Stanford University

Agriculture

Conservation of Crop Genetic Resources in the Face of Climate Change

Conference report

Agriculture is the human enterprise most dependent on climate and natural resources, and is thus the sector that has the most to gain or lose from short- or long-run changes in the level or variability of climate. A growing literature seeks to understand the probable effects of climate change on agriculture, and improvements in our understanding of climate dynamics and crop response has begun to reduce some of the uncertainties inherent in projecting future impacts on agriculture. Nevertheless, there has been scant research conducted on the climate impacts on various crops and agroecosystems of central importance to the global poor. Furthermore, much of the existing literature assumes that farmers will automatically adapt to climate change and thereby lessen many of its potential negative impacts, taking for granted the monumental past efforts at the collection, preservation, and utilization of plant genetic resources on which much of farmer adaptation has historically depended.

Given potentially large changes in global temperature, regional precipitation patterns, and extreme weather events, we believe it is dangerous to assume that adaptation of cultivars will happen automatically. Extensive crop breeding that relies on access to genetic resources will almost certainly be required for crop adaptation under conditions of global climate change. Furthermore, substantial knowledge and insight is needed to gauge what types of diversity now exist in the gene banks, and what will be needed in the future. Fundamental questions remain to be addressed, for example: How are regional patterns of climate expected to change in the future, and how will these changes affect agro-ecosystems around the world? There are also several strategic investment issues to consider--which traits, which crops and which regions should be central to strategic decisions on ex situ genetic conservation? What steps should be taken to conserve the genetic diversity of the important but neglected minor crops where the number of accessions is currently low? Answers to these questions will be critical for promoting food security and ensuring human survival, and to date have received little or no attention in the scientific literature or broader policy arena.

This conference will seek to answer three main questions:

1) What and where are the largest threats to agro-ecosystems under future climate change? Here we will seek to identify both the nature and the location of the largest probable threats, a topic that to date has not been systematically undertaken for certain areas of interest.

2) Taken individually and together, what do these threats imply for crop genetic diversity on a regional or global level? I.e. which traits, which crops and which regions appear central to strategic decisions on ex situ genetic conservation?

3) What is the current state of genetic conservation with respect to these threats, and what does this imply about the sequencing of future efforts at ex situ conservation focus? For example, are there a set of minor crops important to food security that are both poorly represented in the gene banks and under great threat from future climate change?

Particular attention will be paid to those crops and cropping systems on which food insecure populations currently depend, and who would be least able to adapt in the absence of concerted public action to the contrary. We expect that this effort will be the first serious attempt to link crop genetic resource conservation to climate change and variability.

» A news article on recent investments being made by the Global Crop Diversity Trust, decisions which were informed by the Bellagio meeting.

Bellagio, Italy

Conferences
Climate and Agriculture: Models, Impacts, and Adaptation Strategies

Labeling Products of Food Biotechnology: Panacea or Hidden Trade Barrier?

In the debates surrounding genetically modified organisms in the food supply, the issue of labeling has become ever more salient. The EU is developing regulations to require labeling and traceability for all foods containing or derived from GMOs. Other countries, including Australia, Brazil, Japan, New Zealand, Russia, South Korea and Thailand are also in the process of developing voluntary labeling guidelines. In January of 2000, 130 countries adopted the Cartagena Protocol on Bio-safety which calls for bulk shipments of GMO commodities, such as corn or soybeans that are intended to be used as food, feed or for processing, to be accompanied by documentation stating that such shipments "may contain" living modified organisms and are "not intended for intentional introduction into the environment." Will these labeling systems prevent trade disruptions and enhance the international trading system established by the WTO? Or will they act as non-tariff barriers that obfuscate consumer decisions and lead to greater expense, confusion and ultimately to new trade wars?

Any GMO labeling debate must take into consideration the political, economic, legal, operational and administrative aspects of such labeling. The political considerations include the maintenance of confidence in the food system and how policy makers balance the demands of domestic constituencies against their various international obligations, such as under WTO Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement. The economic questions focus on a cost/benefit analysis of segregation and identity-preservation and whether labels provide information or capture a premium for producers. The legal issues include the possible challenge of discrimination in trade and the extent of liability under domestic law for misleading or incorrect labels. Operational adn administrative questions center on whether to make labels mandatory, whether to take a product or process approach, how feasible and costly are particular approaches and whether it is necessary it is necessary to require full traceability.

The workshop will be hosted by the European Forum of the Institute for International Studies at Stanford University. The goal of the workshop is to make a significant contribution to the ongoing policy debate. Participants will include academic, government and private sector specialists and bring expertise in economics, law and political science.

Seminars

Natural Gas in the Energy Futures of China and India

The role of natural gas in Chinese and Indian economies is of critical import both domestically and for global energy and environmental issues. The competition between coal and natural gas in these two markets has tremendous implications for local air pollution and for climate change. Rising demand for imported gas in China and India will also shape the LNG market in the Pacific Basin and could lead to the construction of major international pipeline projects to monetize gas supplies in Russia and the Middle East.

PESD has partnered with leading regional research centers in both China and India to construct detailed assessments of the key drivers for future gas demand in both countries. Papers are available on requests and presentations for download below.

Download pdf

Bechtel Conference Center

Conferences

South East Asia: Gearing Up For Economic Integration

Authors
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

WASHINGTON, May 24 (IPS) - This year the Association of Southeast Asian Nations celebrates its 40th birthday, and it has big plans. After four decades of being largely a political and security alliance, ASEAN is accelerating its plans for economic integration.

ASEAN leaders are so eager to pull together into an economic community that they recently decided to move the goalposts. The economic benchmarks originally planned for 2020 have been moved up to 2015.

"The mission of this economic community is to develop a single market that is competitive, equitably developed, and well integrated in the global economy," says Worapot Manupipatpong, principal economist and director of the office of the Secretary-General in the ASEAN Secretariat. He was speaking last week at an Asian Voices seminar in Washington, DC, sponsored by the Sasakawa Peace Foundation.

The single market of 2015 would encompass all ten members of ASEAN: Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar (Burma), Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. According to the projections of the ASEAN Secretariat, the single market will be accomplished by removing all barriers to the free flow of goods, services, capital, and skilled labor. Rules and regulations will be simplified and harmonised. Member countries will benefit from improved economies of scale. Common investment projects, such as a highway network and the Singapore--Kunming rail link, will facilitate greater trade.

Although there will not be a single currency like the European Union's euro, the ASEAN countries will nevertheless aim for greater currency cooperation.

"ASEAN's process of economic integration was market-driven," says Soedradjad Djiwandono former governor of Bank Indonesia, and it was influenced by the "Washington consensus" favoring increased liberalisation. "It is a very different framework from the closed regionalism of the Latin American model," he continues. With multilateral talks on trade liberalisation stalled, efforts have largely shifted to bilateral negotiations. "There has been a proliferation of bilateral agreements that developed countries use as a way to push a program for liberalising different sectors," Djiwandono concludes.

So far, ASEAN points to increased trade within the ten-member community as an early sign of success. But, overall trade share -- 25 percent -- pales in comparison to the 46 percent share of the North American Free Trade Agreement countries or the 68 percent share of EU countries. And with intra-ASEAN foreign direct investment rather low -- only 6 percent in 2005 -- financial integration lags behind trade integration.

The ASEAN approach differs in several key respects from the EU model, which originated in a 1951 coal and steel agreement among six European nations. ASEAN's origins, in contrast, have been primarily political and security-oriented, observes Donald Emmerson, director of the South-east Asia Forum at the Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center at Stanford. "The success attributed to ASEAN is that it presided over an inter-state peace ever since it was formed. There's never been a war fought between ASEAN members."

Also distinguishing ASEAN from EU is the latter's institutionalisation. "ASEAN is radically different," Emmerson continues. "The much discussed ASEAN way is consultation, not even voting, since if they vote, someone will lose. Sometimes the consultation goes on without result. Sometimes decisions are reduced to the lowest common denominator. It also means that rhetoric predominates." This consultative process will be tested in November, when ASEAN leaders gather to adopt a charter, something that the EU has so far failed to accomplish.

Another difference with Europe is the enormous economic disparities among the ASEAN members, with Singapore and Brunei among the richest countries in the world and Laos among the poorest. These economic disparities are reproduced within the countries as well.

Worapot Manupipatpong points to two ASEAN initiatives for closing the gap. There is help for small and medium-sized enterprises. And the Initiative for ASEAN Integration,"basically provides technical assistance to Cambodia, Laos, and Myanmar so that they can catch up with the rest of the ASEAN members," he says. "Attention will be paid to where these countries can participate in the regional networks, what comparative advantage they have, and how to enhance their capacities to participate in the regional development and supply chain."

Then there are ASEAN's efforts to address "public bads," according to Soedradjad Djiwandono. "When there is a tsunami or a pandemic," he argues, "the worst victims are the marginalised or the poor. Addressing that kind of issue has some positive impact on reducing inequality."

"The gap between the early joiners and the later joiners will continue to be substantial because ASEAN has always been more of a forum and less of a problem-solving organisation," observes Karl Jackson, director of the Asian Studies Program at the School for Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. "As a result one would expect that these gaps would be closed only as individual countries increase their rates of growth." He attributes the inequality within countries to the middle stage of growth experienced by almost all societies: "Inequality increases before the state becomes strong enough to redivide some of the pie and take care of the gross inequalities caused by rapid economic growth."

ASEAN is banking on financial and trade liberalisation increasing the overall regional pie. On paper it is an ambitious project. But "the low hanging fruit have been plucked," says Donald Emmerson. Tariffs on the "easy commodities" have already been reduced to less than 5 percent. But non-tariff barriers to trade remain, and member countries are very protective of certain sectors.

Also tempering the region's optimism is the memory of the Asian financial crisis. The crisis began in Thailand in 1997 and spread rapidly to other countries in the region. One school of thinking holds that capital mobility -- "hot money" -- either caused or considerably aggravated the crisis. Since the ASEAN integration promises greater capital mobility, will the region be at greater risk of another such crisis?

"One consequence of the economic dynamism of the Asia-Pacific region," notes Donald Emmerson, "is that the accumulation of vast foreign exchange reserves -- obviously in China, but in other countries too -- more than anything else represents an asset that can be brought into the equation as a stabilising factor in the event of a financial crisis." Also, he continues, as a result of the ASEAN plus Three network, which adds China, South Korea, and Japan to the mix, the 13 countries have "made serious headway toward establishing currency swap arrangements that would come into play in an emergency on the scale of an Asian financial crisis."

Karl Jackson also looks to currency reforms as a hedge against future crisis. The Thai baht and the Indonesian rupiah are now unpegged currencies. "You will not have a situation in which the central bank of Thailand loses 34 billion US dollars defending the baht," Jackson argues. "Instead, the baht will appreciate or depreciate according to market forces."

But Jackson still remains cautious about the future. He points to the large number of non-performing loans in the Chinese banking sector. Also, there is "this anomaly of the U.S. absorbing two-thirds of the savings coming out of Asia, plugging it mostly into consumption rather than direct investment," he observes. "Eventually there has to be some kind of readjustment. The real value of the dollar must fall." (END/2007)

Reprinted by permission from IPS Asia-Pacific.

All News button
1
Subscribe to Agriculture