Conserving and cultivating agricultural genetic diversity: Transcending established divides

Abstract

Did we wait for a discussion on conserving biodiversity before actually doing so? Clearly no: Various categories of farmers were conserving biodiversity well before scientists formulated the concept and became a global issue. The work of Vavilov in the 1930s and later that of Harlan in 1951, were seminal in their discussion on centers of origin and non centers of domestication. They raised awareness in the scientific community and also among influential agricultural sector groups of the existence and importance of feral or domesticated wild genetic resources. The fear of genetic erosion continues to prevail in debates on different and sometimes competing intellectual approaches for conserving agricultural genetic diversity, i.e., to prevent its loss and to maintain its availability. Private initiatives, governmental measures, non governmental actions, regional, national, or international actions for conservation have gradually appeared since World War II. They have encompassed both ex-situ conservation in different forms and in-situ conservation. In this chapter, we highlight the complexity and structural inequalities between mechanisms to conserve agricultural genetic diversity. It makes emphatically clear that the time has come for a paradigm shift: We have to stop thinking of in-situ or ex-situ in a binary way and try to contrast or combine the two approaches (Santonieri et al. 2011). The idea of cultivating biodiversity to transform agriculture appears already well advanced given the numerous debates on ensuring access to and control of agricultural genetic diversity. This shows a contrario that the part of biodiversity judged to be without economic value risks being inadequately conserved. We start with a historical analysis of the implementation of conservation mechanisms. We then take up the international political strategies that govern conservation and mobilization of agricultural genetic diversity, their shortcomings, and possible solutions. Finally, we describe the advances in the knowledge of this genetic diversity and its conservation, and the reasons for transcending the in-situ–ex-situ divide. We ultimately argue that we must rather define objectives of conserving/protecting agricultural biodiversity in terms of geographic levels (local, regional, North/South, global), social- management levels (individuals, human societies, mankind), and socio economic levels (individual income, local market, global trade). These objectives must lead to a real transformation of agriculture. An appropriate mix of conservation tools should be chosen in consultation with the actors involved in the maintenance of comparable biological objects.