 |
| About Bioline | All Journals | Testimonials | Membership | News |
|
||||||
|
||||||
Online Journal, URL - http://bioline.bdt.org.br/py A contextual classification of "intrinsically wild" food species. Margaret I. Evans # * # Research Associate, French CNRS UMR 9935 Anthropologie et Ecologie de l'Alimentation. Currently visitor at St. Hugh's College, University of Oxford, UK. * This text was written as part of a Darwin Initiative project on in-situ conservation of "wild" food species, funded by the UK Department of the Environment. The opinions expressed are entirely the responsibility of the author.
Code Number: PY96003 Size of Files: Text: 80K No associated graphics files SUMMARY Many thousands of "wild" species of plants, animals and lower organisms, both terrestrial and aquatic, are used to provide food and beverages. In a very wide range of human populations, some of these species provide important sources of protein, fats, vitamins and minerals. This is specially true for both the poorest and the richest socioeconomic groups in the world. Many of these species and their habitats are under threat. Only those which form the basis of a large-scale economy (notably Northern fish stocks) have received much publicity. As yet there is no internationally agreed definition to refer to these species, which are beginning at last to attract the attention of policy makers. This paper proposes the term "intrinsically wild". In essence this refers to species which can, and usually do, exist without the need for human intervention. Since human values systems are slower to change than are economically or politically expedient policies, and perceptions and use of "food" vary from one culture to another, a "contextual classification" is proposed and detailed. An analysis of other systems of taxonomy for "wild sources of food" is also given. The use of the term "wild" is discussed, without prejudice, and acknowledging the need to abandon any agreement to the concept of terra nullius. The taxonomy proposed for these species is put forward for discussion as a practical research, conservation and food-security policy tool, appropriate for use across a wide sociocultural range. Flexible sub-sets to the three main categories are given, and can be used to create dynamic classifications so that taxonomies put forward by one ethnic group or local society can be compared with those given by another, yet both refer to a normative basic framework. Variations in use of "intrinsically wild" food over time and space can also be incorporated into the simple model framework given. The point is made that more feedback and discussion from the South, in order to reach a consensus agreement is needed. It is not appropriate that the current paradigms of western culture are used as a "default mode" for the formulation of the policies which are essentially having most affect on peoples outside that culture, even though it is evident that the terms used must be defined in the main language used in international policy formulation, namely English. This classification could form a useful point of departure toward such a consensus, especially for future taxonomic work and policy formulation associated with the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the FAO's Global Plan of Action for the Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (GPA), IUCN 's CITES and TRAFFIC, and the World Trade Organization's TRIPs agreement. Key words: "wild" food, taxonomy, ethnotaxonomy, foodways, traditional resource rights, conservation policies. INTRODUCTION: WHY A TAXONOMIC TOOL IS NEEDED For the practical purposes of conservation and food-security policy making - for which 1996 has been a key year in the development of the Global Plan of Action for the Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (GPA) ^1 - there is as yet no standard nomenclature to refer to "wild" food species. No structural framework of reference to act as a normative base for "taxonomic" comparison, or even a simple generalised model to assess the local socio-ecological status and the dynamics of use of these species exists. This paper starts to address these gaps, and in a way which attempts to avoid undue imposition of the western values-system. The paper focuses on species outside formal agricultural systems whose use for human food (either directly or for income-generation) is locally acknowledged to be significant enough to cause concern about its potential loss. "Intrinsically wild" food includes a much wider range of species than is covered by the term 'wild and weedy relatives of food plants' used by FAO. Since the GPA Leipzig agreement (June 1996) these species are now included in the priority activities of the GPA, and listed as point 4 under the section on in-situ conservation and development as follows:- 'promoting the in-situ conservation of wild crop relatives and wild plants for food production'. As yet, FAO has not put animal species used as 'food from the wild' (including invertebrates, birds and fish) in its priority activities for the GPA. The 3rd Conference of the Parties (COPIII) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) held in November 1996 had, as agenda item no.9, the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Agricultural Biodiversity. In the indicative list of thematic areas to be included in future implementation of the CBD (see Annex 2 of UNEP/CBD/COP/3/L.12), intrinsically wild food is specifically mentioned in section 7. 'Wild sources of food', (i) wild relatives of domesticated species, and (ii) other wild species. It could also be an element of all the following sections: 1. Land resources (iii), (iv), (vi) and (vii); 3. Plant, animal and microbial genetic resources (i) and (iv); 4. Wildlife, (i) and (iv); 8. Traditional knowledge, 9. Marketing conditions for agricultural products, 10. Land-use pressures and 11. Agroforestry. Without commenting further here on the need for rapid clarification of the respective roles of the CBD and FAO vis-a-vis both agricultural biodiversity and the conservation of intrinsically wild food species, (including traditional knowledge about them, their habitats and the mechanisms for sustainable and equitable supply to markets where this is appropriate), it is evident that 'wild food' is still an emergent subject for policy makers in the fields of both agriculture and natural resource conservation. It is evident from the above paragraph alone, that policies for the conservation and sustainable use of edible species need to be cross-sectorial, and need therefore to have an appropriate, flexible, dynamic taxonomy. Consultation and feedback is needed, starting with the question of whether one basic reference classification can be appropriate for use over a wide range of cultures and habitats. I believe it can, and that whatever the finally agreed taxonomy, a definitive taxonomy is needed for use in the process of raising the prestige of wild and traditional allied foods in the international food-security and conservation debates. Cognitive perceptions of the terms "wild" and "food" both vary in different cultures and change over time. Discussions concerning the perception and use of these terms, and some other cultural aspects of foodways, can be followed for example in Sahlins (eg. 1976), Ingold (eg.1992), Croll and Parkin (1992), Harris (1985, 1987), de Garine (eg. 1972, 1990, 1993), and Vayda (eg. 1987), among western academics. The opinions of Indigenous Peoples and other communities from the South have less publicity (see below), but this is at last increasing. The definition of 'food' v. non-food, and the distinction between uses of a species as food, as medicine, or for spiritual purposes, is not necessarily made in the holistic cosmologies of First Nation peoples, and the concept of 'wild' species or 'wilderness' may be offensive, as explained later. The food-ritual continuum is illustrated, for example, by Hugh-Jones and Hugh-Jones (1993) with reference to manihot ^2 preparation and storage by Tukanoan speaking peoples in Colombia. This paper has a sociocultural slant, in which the dynamics of what I have called the wild prestige cycle is implicit (Evans 1994). The current rise in prestige of certain "wild" foods and "natural" remedies among the richer sectors of urban societies in many cultures, and its decline in status in many traditional rural communities, will be further analysed separately in relation to diets and trade. Other topics under revision from the 1994 work pinpoint policy aspects of the ethics of using wild species as foods, and potential ecological and health hazards from their use. The underlying premise to the present text is that differences in human value systems must be respected by policy makers if the medium to long-term conservation and sustainable use of any significant number of biodiverse habitats is to be achieved. Contributions from a range of cultures and disciplines are sought, to respond to the taxonomic suggestions given here, open an informed debate and help reach a working consensus ^3. A DEFINITION OF "INTRINSICALLY WILD" FOOD. The following broad definition is proposed.
Traditionally available from common land and waterways as free goods, these species are frequently affected by human activities, and include edible weeds, pests and other species incidental to arable land and human settlement, as well as certain paradomesticates ^4, particularly in forests. The shorter term, "wild food", may be used for convenience, but without implying the existence of terra nullius. Thousands of different species, from a wide range of habitats, are used for food and beverages. They include fish ^5, shellfish, and crustaceans, snails, frogs-legs, meat or eggs from birds, animals, turtles and other reptiles, insects, flowers and honey, algae, fungi, ferns, leaves, fruits, berries, seeds, nuts, tubers, roots, gums, herbs, condiments, colourings and preservatives, some yeasts and other unicellular organisms, and some liquids and flavourings for drinks ^6. Hunter-gather groups, fisherfolk and nomadic pastoralists will not have the same conception of "wildland" or "wilderness" as do settled agriculturalists or city dwellers. To some of them, the notion of "wild" food would be too reductionist and divisive, or even offensive. According to a Resolution from the 1995 Ecopolitics IX Conference in Darwin, Australia (quoted in Posey 1996): The term wilderness as it is popularly used, and related concepts as wild resources, wild food, etc., are unacceptable. These terms have connotations of terra nullius, empty or unowned land and resources, and as such all concerned people and organisations should look for alternative terminology which does not exclude indigenous history and meaning. This resolution is basically about terra nullius and Indigenous Property Rights. In the English language the word "wild" could also imply "uncivilised", as well as "untamed" or "undomesticated". The use of the term wild to refer to Indigenous Peoples who last century were openly called savages or termed natives in a derogatory way by the often uncivilised (in terms of their own society), and undoubtedly exploitative, colonials from the North, has left its mark, especially in Australasian, and to a lesser extent, North American, usage of the English language. However, whilst respecting the concern of peoples who prefer not to use the word "wild", language is dynamic. "Wild" - in the environmental sense - is now predominantly a prestigious prefix or adjective in the west. We need to promote positive, equitable, action, and today English - like it or not - is the principle language for formulating international conventions. "Wild" can have connotations of the fearful and the unknown - the French word sauvage reflects this - as well as derogatory connotations of unruliness and lack of discipline. However, it can also conjure up positive attributes such as unspoilt, free, wholesome, - psychologically positive balances nowadays in uprooted, disturbed urban societies. To reiterate: as an attribute, "wildness" is now much in vogue among many members of the middle and upper income groups in the richer industrialised societies, and increasingly among the poorer majority in these societies. A search for a more spiritual and meaningful life is leading to an increasing respect for the natural environment, and can include a desire to learn from Indigenous Peoples, whose civilisations have balanced the "wild" and the "tamed" aspects of the natural world in a more holistic way. Darrell Posey (pers.comm.) emphasizes the need to point out that the use of the word "wild" could imply that Indigenous Peoples and other groups living in a traditional way intend to "domesticate" so-called wild species they use for food, whereas this is rarely the case. I agree with Posey's comment that "...it makes no sense to make a plant dependent on your work, when with slight reductions in production you can let mother nature take care of it for you", but with the proviso that this harvesting strategy relates to societies which still have sufficient areas of First Nation homelands under their control to continue the traditional sustainable hunter- gatherer-fisherfolk or mixed production based lifestyle. The term "natural" may be preferred to that of "wild", but this may imply that all domesticates or paradomesticates are "unnatural", i.e. not in conformity with Nature or Mother Earth, and the linkage of this term "natural" to organically produced food, (i.e. without chemical inputs), has given, in industrialised society, a distinct, comprehensive meaning to the term "natural" food. Within this term, foods of both "wild" and "domesticated" origin can be contained or excluded, depending on social and cultural realities. Now the market jargon "clean-food" has been identified by the Trends Research Institute in the USA to denote the current mainstream search for safe food, and to avoid using "health-food", as it is associated with a minority niche market.
Table.1 Some current English language terms used generically
to describe food.
. organic food; free-range food; traditional food; indigenous food; local food; . wild food; bush tucker; bush food; game; wild harvest; natural harvest; . health food; natural food; clean food; life food; real food; whole-food; . non-organic food; farm food; . junk food; fast-food; home-made food; processed food; fresh food.
Note the implicit assumption that food from high-input (i.e.
chemical and mechanical) cultivation and intensive livestock
production, is the normal or default method -the only general
term for such foods is "non-organic" however, since
"domesticated" applies also to low-input and extensive
agricultural products otherwise termed "organically" or
"traditionally" produced. Neither the rough grouping nor the local meanings of the above terms are discrete, eg. products from high-input agriculture may be given wholesome names to improve their marketing image, and "fast-food" or "processed -food" may be based on low-input ingredients too. "Food" is vital, but is becoming debased, and its social and cultural function as an integral part of exchange, of individual definition and of community cohesion, is in danger of being lost in industrialised society. In any society, food may be categorised by its taste or texture; by its functional or cultural significance; by the intrinsic nature of the species or place from which it is obtained, or by how it was acquired or who provided it. Different ethnic groups may partly define themselves, or be referred to, by the food they eat (eg. French "frogs" and English "rosbifs" ^7). In addition, people almost always regard as non-food, or have low preference for, some things eaten by other groups in a similar environment. There are thousands of edible species, and only a few of them are normally eaten by international policy makers (and those are mostly what I term 'luxury foods' (see below). Rodents, for example, are key terrestrial vertebrate species which provide food for humans. Some are despised but eaten in default of anything better; others are quite prestigious; many are domesticated, or partially so. The importance of guinea pigs as food in the Andes continues from pre-Columbian times. Visitors to the cathedral in Cuzco can see that alone on the central silver platter on the painting of the Last Supper above the main altar, there is depicted one of these tough but tasty rodents ^8. Along the Malawi-Mozambican border, boys selling brochettes of house mice (some killed by soricides obtained from refugee relief supplies) supply beer-halls and travellers alike: their elder brothers may catch cane-rats from the fields of maize and millet for family consumption or local sale. There are many cultures today in which arable food still plays a minor part in the diet. A large, scattered, volume of literature on intrinsically wild food species exists, and of course a rich oral tradition. Some information may be sacred, or is otherwise scarcely known to outsiders. One study of special relevance to terminology is that of Bahuchet (see eg. 1990). His comparative linguistic studies between the Aka and Baka in Central Africa, which separated in the late 16th century after the arrival of a dominant farming-foraging culture, emphasized the very small percentage of common vocabulary linked to farming, but a wide one of shared hunting and gathering terms. Twenty four words connected with honey-gathering, and forty words with hunting activities are common to both. The choice of the policy term "farmer's rights" has, until revisions made during the last year, implied that only those people whose main livelihood strategy is based on cultivation and on livestock production pivoted around a settled homestead (based on the example of a farmer in the North or one in the South that can afford a high-tech production system), would be potential beneficiaries of negotiations to safeguard local knowledge and management of domesticated species. Negotiations still centre around plant breeders' rights, of special concern to the transnational companies who wish to protect their research investments, whilst continuing to control a wide sector of the food industry, from seeds and agrichemicals (including foodstuff for fish farms as well as other livestock), to food processing and wholesale retailing. Most local varieties, 'wild' foods, and nomadic herds of indigenous breeds, fall outside the business interests of these transnationals, five or six of whom have turnovers larger than the GNPs of several poor countries put together (see e.g. Tansey and Worsley 1995 pp. 104-141), and correspondingly powerful economic and political influence. However, the GPA and the Leipzig Declaration imply that 'farmers' rights' are loosely taken to include the rights of 'local communities' too, with particular emphasis on women farmers. Most references in the text refer simply to 'farmers' or to 'breeders', however. It is not clear whether the rights of fisher-folk, pastoralists, and hunter-gatherers is to be spelt out, particularly since the GPA concentrates on plants for food. The labels, including that of 'farmer', only indicate what may be the predominant food-production activity: most rural households have a multiple livelihood strategy which may combine several or all of these activities. Knowledge about which species are edible, how to gather, tend, hunt or fish them, and how to prepare them for human consumption, rests almost exclusively now with the small remaining populations of Indigenous Peoples, and other communities living 'traditional' lifestyles. Many of these peoples, their culture, their knowledge and their homelands are under imminent threat. Ideally, comparative case studies of the perceptions and functions of "wild food" in a wide range of different cultures should be made by members of the societies concerned, starting with folk taxonomies of edible species of all kinds, and including domesticates, which may not be distinguished from "wild" foods. The CBD has, since it came into force in December 1993, emphasized the need to conserve traditional knowledge and indigenous property rights as an integral part of its remit for the sustainable conservation and use of biodiversity. In its negotiations on IPR and bioprospecting, the conflicting interests of transnational companies (particularly in the pharmaceutical business) to gain patenting rights over 'wild' products, and those of Indigenous Peoples is very serious and as yet unresolved. Further discussion on these central issues and the proliferation of terms used is outside the scope of this paper. Readers are referred to recent documents of the GPA and COP-3, and to the work of authors such as Vandana Shiva in India, and Tewolde Gebre Berhan Egziaber in Ethiopia. Notes on policy issues related to the conservation of intrinsically wild food, and some recommendations for action, are given by Evans, Biopolicy, Vol1., Paper PY96004, 1996. A TOOL FOR "WILD FOOD" POLICIES: FUNCTIONAL USE-CATEGORIES RATHER THAN USE-VALUE. To introduce the taxonomic theme of this paper, a brief overview of angloeuropean thematic work on the culture- nature interface is needed, together with that of western ecological economics. Ingold, (1992) in Croll and Parkin, gave a new focus to the analysis of culture and the perception of the environment, when he suggested an alternative ecological anthropology to overcome the nature-culture dualism. Without going too deeply into the anthropological discussion here, research in this subject illustrates the need for improved cross-sectoral debate and consensus in the field of conservation policy making. Ingold uses some of Gibson's (1979) tools in ecological psychology, and argues that "... meanings embodied in environmental objects are 'drawn into' the experience of subjects. These meanings are affordances or use-values (author's emphasis). Hence the dialectics of the interface between persons and environment should be understood in terms of a dichotomy not between culture and nature, but between effectiveness and affordances - (i.e.) between the action capabilities of subjects and the possibilities of action offered by objects". However, according to Sahlins (1976) "the utility of a thing, at least for human consumers, will depend upon its incorporation within a system of symbolic values: all utilities are symbolic. Objects do not, in themselves, prescribe the nature or the context (author's emphasis) of their use..." (given in Ingold 1992 pp.48-49). Ingold's diagram illustrating the relationships culture/nature -production (action)/perception (consumption), and person (effectiveness)/environment (affordances) (1992 p.50) helps clarify these terms. The models used in the pathfinding text on economics for the wilds, edited by Barbier and Swanson (1992), are built within a much narrower and rigid conception of "use value" ^9. However, the economists' use-value v. non-use-value paradigm is implicitly based on capitalist value systems, and is likely to be confusing for people from cultures whose value systems are more holistic. An interesting exercise is to try and fit a honey-bee into the classification of wild resources given, for example, by Aylward in the above book. However this concept of use-value has been followed by many environmental policy makers, partly by default of alternatives. Thus adding the word "value" to that of "use" in policy tools or guidelines can be misleading and even xenophobic. It implies that there is only one set of human values. In addition, the distinctions existing between what different human societies, and indeed different individuals within societies, perceive to be useful, are simplified or even ironed out tBo fit a "normal" equation. For example, I disagree with Aylward's (1992) contention ^10 that "culturally defined values - whether use or non-use values - are not distinct from economic values since people's preferences depend on their cultural backgrounds". In the context of food alone, a great many people in the world are too poor - in cash terms - to be able to exercise their basic human right even to an adequate food supply, let alone to a preferred one - their cultural values often have to take second place to externally imposed economic or political values. Pearce puts "values" in terms of wealth, and variations in local preferences in terms of willingness-to-pay (#WTP). Writing on "whose values count" (1993 p.6-11) the double entendre in the subtitle continues explicitly in the text - no doubt an unwitting assumption that, for economists, only western value systems are worth considering. In the informative book on valuing biodiversity, Pearce and Moran (1994), give a section on modelling the economic value of medicinal plants. Without reliable quantitative data, and an acceptable normative sociocultural base for comparison, it is not possible to make hard and fast categories of values for wild food (or indeed most other wild resources) in terms of costs and benefits, of elasticity of demand and shadow price mechanisms, even though a blueprint based on these analyses would be easy to use for policy makers. Let us examine the economists' terms further. Direct use-values (eg. costs and benefits of sale or of consumption of wild foods) is an impracticable tool to use unless there are local measurements of cash-exchanges and a reliable index of nutritional status. To design a statistically significant sampling procedure for putting wild food on a unit-cost basis is not easy, and may well not be helpful in many cases, because of the dynamics of seasonal, and socioeconomic, use patterns. In developing methodologies to determine the quantitative parameters of food from the wild, an independent sample of people not using wild food would be needed, within the same ecological habitat and ethnic group, and in another one in which wild foods are bartered, not sold. Indirect use-values involve valuations of ecological parameters which are even more difficult to measure exactly. Non-use values include spiritual and cultural beliefs which are most difficult of all to categorise. People may believe that a species has an existence-value in terms of their own WTP to conserve or preserve that species. It is difficult to equate the Northern idea of estimating a sum of cash one would be WTP in order to conserve a species, with the low ability-to-pay of a Southern community, and for some species at least the idea would be offensive. Neither is it possible to put oneself in the shell of a crab for example, and pontificate about the intrinsic-value of a species in its own right. A CONTEXTUAL CLASSIFICATION OF "WILD" FOOD. I therefore propose that the local functional context is more suitable to the classification of wild foods than is the use- value concept. As it is convenient to have a label, the sets suggested here are termed use-categories. The categories given below are based on an anthropological "contextual explanation" which is not elaborated further here (Vayda 1983) ^11, i.e. contextual or situational analyses. They can provide a framework on to which dynamic classifications can hang. In this way, taxonomies put forward by one ethnic group can be compared with those given by another, without having to impose predetermined classes which might not only be inappropriate, but be misconstrued. Variations over time and space can also be incorporated. (Development of management strategies and conservation policies in general could similarly benefit from the local "contextual" rather than the western "use-value" approach). A contextual classification is still amenable to western analytical tools such as principal component analysis, ranking order techniques and catastrophe or chaos theories. People have distinct perceptions of what is edible, when, and how. These perceptions also change according to life-stage, and since socioeconomic, sociopolitical or sociocultural situations are dynamic, a linear, monistic, static model is not adequate. Different parts of species will be put in different categories by different groups of people or at different seasons. It is the relative degree of importance of their functional significance to different user groups in specific contexts which can provide a good basis for policy making appropriate to a specific society, and for specific ecosystems. The category sets proposed here are thus flexible. This enables differences in cultural customs and preferences, in economic and political power of acquisition, in seasonal availability and logistical variations in market forces and infrastructural realities, to be taken into account for conservation policies and practices over a wide variety of habitats. Yet here we have a structural framework on which to base periodic analyses, and the basic elements of these principles can also be extrapolated to form a taxonomic tool for use in international conventions. Mapes' work on the genus Amaranthus in Mexico (see eg.1993), is one which shows how within one genus of "useful" plants, species use varies in accordance with the contextual demands of society as well as the attributes of the plant (or animal). Natural evolution within and between species, and the formation of land races or varieties by human action, means that the scientific taxonomy may be complex - as Mapes states, Amaranthus really needs an interdisciplinary study. Local folk taxonomies on the other hand may group various species together in a contextual classification, in function of their use or other aspects of local cultural perception. Changes in the classification of such species reflect not only the degree of availability or superior function of alternative substitutes, but can also reflect social, economic, or political pressures. At least three species of Amaranthus were key grain staples for the Aztecs and the Incas, but after the Spanish conquest their use was apparently forbidden, as they gave too much strength and energy to the indigenous peoples. Now, British plant breeders are trying to develop grain amaranths as a "new" crop for Europe. The work of many British plant breeders (and their colleagues from other countries in the North) has undoubtedly led to many benefits, especially in helping increase the volume of basic food staples produced in the face of a spiralling urban-based world population and developing new varieties for industry. Technical innovations to help reduce the severity of risks from drought, disease and pests, poor storage methods and ineffective market mechanisms have similarly played a very important role in helping some of the world's poorest farmers. The framework contextual classification proposed in this paper covers the whole gamut of edible food species which are "intrinsically wild", some of which are now, or were formerly, in a stage of paracultivation or semi-domestication (paradomesticates). There is some overlap with landraces and indigenous breeds of livestock in their initial stages of domestication. For discussions on agrobiodiversity ^12 per se, see eg. Fowler and Mooney (1990), Berg (1991), Prescott-Allen (1983 and 1995), Juma (1989a), Wood (1993). Several of these authors however, still refer to "primitive" food varieties in a way which is not simply biological. Other work in agrobiodiversity, as opposed to intrinsically wild food, may be focused on particular areas - for example, the late Hernandez X. (1981, 1993), one of the world's greatest ethnobotanists, and who coined the term "agroecosystem", spent eleven years collecting maize varieties from peasant farmers in Latin America, but subsequently regretted donating his collection to CIMMYT (International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center) since they did not then abide by their agreement to use it to help breed improved drought-resistant varieties for rain-fed agriculture. Berhan G. Egziabher's work in Ethiopia has also had international influence. Edwards (1991) describes crops with wild and weedy relatives in that country. Nabhan (eg.1989) writes about native American agriculture in what is now NAFTA. Oldfield and Alcorn (1991) edited a volume with a range of examples of traditional conservation of biodiversity including agrobiodiversity. Here the term "intrinsically wild food" is used for members of species, sub-species, aggregates or varieties which can exist independently of direct human action. No doubt that technical advances in genetic mapping and engineering, in tissue culture, biotechnology and breeding techniques, mean that the above definition is too simplistic for biologists, but it could be adequate for the present purpose of policy development. In any case, as seen below, the categories are flexible, and paradomesticates are included in some classes. I continue to propose three main functional categories ^13. They are not mutually exclusive:-
(A) Hunger foods These use-categories of wild foods do have a strong degree of functional relevance in many societies. Each category requires different management strategies. As a broad generalisation, hunger foods may be seasonally important; unpalatable; labour- intensive and/or socially taboo. Wild staples are ingredients of everyday meals which are integral parts of cultural foodways or food patterns - many are common weeds and pests associated with arable land - and wild luxuries are rare, valuable or otherwise prestigious items of food from the wild. There has been a tendency among policy makers to think that food which is gathered rather than deliberately planted or tended in situ as a domesticate is only used as "hunger food" ^14 in times of crisis or seasonal food deficit, and that products of hunting, fishing, and gathering, are only opportunistic ingredients of meals, or leisure activities for those who can afford it and who seek an antidote to urban based activities. As well as the serious need for wild foods to supplement staple carbohydrates in many of the poorest and most vulnerable households in the world, they are frequently a key part of local income-generation (see eg. Scoones et al., International Institute for Environment and Development, 1992). There is now a spiralling market demand for wild foods among the rich. Many of the most prestigious food items in the world are wild: even with the increase of "wild-farming", of species such as salmon, boar and quail, consumers who can afford to still pay more for the taste and texture of free-ranging species. The realisation of the increasing economic value of food from the wild may lead policy makers to take more notice of it. Such notice is urgently needed, as over-extraction of foods such as caviar and is threatening biodiversity and local employment. Realistically it is such wild luxuries, which can generate the interest of big business and well-heeled bureaucrats alike, which may catalyse action to clean-up or protect habitats and conserve the range of species in them. The ecological dangers of introducing exotics such as ostriches to Europe, American crayfish to Kenya and African land snails to Polynesia, have not been adequately addressed; potential health hazards from parasitosis other cross-infections or toxicity are overlooked, and the ethical questions of humane treatment of wild species used as food are unresolved. ______________________________________________________________ Table 2. Some contrasting characteristics of classifications CONTEXTUAL REDUCTIONIST . dynamic . static . polythetic . monothetic . multi-dimensional . linear . non-hierarchical . hierarchical . functionally adaptable . functionally specific______________________________________________________________ A. Hunger foods. Used only when preferred alternatives are not available, and in situations where there is a real food crisis (readers are referred to Maxwell 1994 for an analysis of the complexity and diversity of what some now call food-insecurity). The periods of use can be generally divided into two: (i) seasonal pre-harvest hunger and (ii) periodic disasters such as drought and warfare, and other intermittent crises for individual households. These sub-divisions can be referred to as seasonal or periodic hunger foods. Hunger foods, often seeds or tubers, tiny grains or small insects and animals with flesh of dubious quality, may be excessively labour intensive for hungry women and children, in collection and preparation, and not prove very palatable. However they may enable a family to keep alive. Some contain toxins or require long soaking or repeated washing and long cooking, eg. the endocarps of the desert date Balanites aegyptiaca L., Boscia senegalensis L., and the baobab Adansonia digitata L. However, some staple crops, such as cassava, also need careful processing, and pulses including kidney beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) need long cooking too ^15. Lack of water or fuel makes the use of all these foods more problematic. Knowledge of how to obtain, prepare and use hunger foods - and of course which species to choose or to avoid - can be vital when crops fail. Poor choice or inadequate preparation can lead to poisoning, and to lack of incentive for trying other wild food. This is evident in experience of environmental refugees and other displaced people, including neocolonials. The collection, sale or consumption of hunger foods often has derogatory connotations. It is the poorest people who may have to subsist on trading and on consuming such food. B. Wild staples. "Staple" here denotes common, frequent additions to everyday diet. They can serve the function of relishes or snacks and there are also a few wild carbohydrate staples. Sauces are needed to make bland, usually domesticated, staple crops such as cassava, rice, ugali or tortillas literally more palatable. Studies have shown that children especially have difficulty in eating food enough to satisfy total calorie requirements unless there is some liquid sauce or stew to accompany these carbohydrate staples ^16. The variety of colour, smell and texture that intrinsically wild food can provide is wide, and its role in providing essential vitamins, minerals, trace-elements, proteins and fats is supported by both biochemical analysis and anthropological fieldwork. Everyday relishes are often made from arable weeds ^17, small rodents, insects, molluscs and fungi ^18 which are pests associated with cultivated land or with human settlements. Their consumption has a double benefit, directly as nutritious food and indirectly as a form of biological control to prevent damage to staple food crops. Although only a limited number of them are pests (and many are essential to tree and crop pollination, or to natural biological control of other pests), over 1,300 edible insect species alone have been recorded (Ramos-Elorduy and Conconi 1992), and there are interesting parallels in the way in which similar insects are used by different human societies. In her fascinating early book (1982) Ramos-Elorduy gives dry weight protein contents for Mexican insects from 36% to 76%, and fats from 30% to 45%. In Taxco, Mexico, there is a local regional holiday in November for the jumileros, who collect and sell the larvae of Atizies taxcoensis (Pentatomidae), a seasonal harvest which may bring in more annual income than does small-holder production of maize and beans (and may be classed as seasonal wild luxuries). My own earlier research (1978) noted the traditional importance of planting Distichlis spicata L. in the vast lake bed adjoining Mexico City in order to provide mats for ahuauhtle (eggs of flies of Corixidae and Notonectidae), the "Mexican caviar" which sells at a premium in luxury restaurants), as well as other wild food harvests even from this extreme saline-sodic seasonal lake. In the less industrialised countries wild snacks (gathered en route to school or while herding or playing) are particularly important for children. Berries, fruits, nuts, seeds, insects, snails and small game species may provide a key difference to a rural child's nutrient status, which may be lost if the family emigrates to a town. Other family members, especially women who may get less of the food at formal mealtimes, also benefit from wild snacks. Many wild staples have medicinal and sometimes mystical properties too. The wild staple category is very flexible, but also contains some of the most endangered species. This can be seen in middle-income Europe today, where the demand for game and for fish has not been met on a sustainably managed basis, and needs urgent attention before it all enters the luxury class. Staple wild foods are broadly distinguished from luxury wild foods by having a relatively low market price, and in being less scarce. C. Wild luxuries. In this category come foods which can be afforded now only by relatively rich people, or for special celebrations. It includes species on which an element of prestige has been conferred due to their scarcity value. In Europe only a decade ago this included such items such as caviar, oysters, lobster, crayfish and salmon, truffles, morilles and cepes, woodcock, pheasant, quail (and their eggs), grouse; wild boar and venison; filberts, and pine-kernels, blueberries and cranberries. Many species have recently become part of the staple diet of middle-income Europeans, as they are being "tamed" and farmed ^19. Some have become cheaper to buy than are meat or eggs from domestic livestock. With the health scare about beef in the UK, venison and other game may become more sought after. Many other species remain expensive seasonal luxuries, and are internationally prestigious. Cross-cultural trade in wild species has generated exotic luxury foods: palm-hearts, abalone and turtle soup are a few of the examples which may be causing local ecological depletion or even extinction of species. Some, such as ostrich meat in Britain, may be products of commercial ranching outside their countries of origin, and of dubious ecological or ethical status. Often wild foods which are staple in one place or society can be luxuries in another, but traditions can be relatively short lived and easily manipulated now by the advertising industry. Foods which have to be obtained by purchase or barter, such as rice and bottled drinks, may be regarded as luxuries by hunter-gatherer and pastoral groups, whereas peasant farmers who have lost their hunting rights may long to eat game. Wild luxuries are characterised by scarcity value, or high degree of effort in their acquisition (or, more rarely, in their preparation) ^20. These factors add to their prestige as well as their cost, but counterfeits are now often being substituted (eg. truffles) for those that cannot be "tamed" on ranches or have become almost extinct in the wild. ANCILLARY USE-CATEGORIES Eight ancillary use-categories are suggested, which can be used to form a secondary lattice to the three main contextual classes, since the perceived function of a species as human food in a specific context may well be subordinate to, or complemented by, other functions. Condiments, colourants, flavourings and foods with special therapeutic or medicinal values may not be readily classed in the three main wild food use-categories given here, or even regarded as foods at all. Sometimes wild foods will be first categorised as having an income-generating function, only the unsold or substandard produce being eaten. This multiple function of wild harvests is very common ^21. However, this does not mean that for policy development they should not be grouped into contextual management categories (eg. timber, food, pharmaceuticals, ornamentals, endangered species). Ancillary "wild" food categories suggested are:-
(a) Income generating products.
(b) Famine foods.
(c) Medicinal foods and hallucinogens.
(d) Foods also eaten by other vertebrates and by
invertebrates.
(e) Spiritually important foods, including that which is
taboo, sacred foods and foods for the spirit world.
(f) Wild foods used as baits, mulches, fertilisers, pesticides
and for other activities related to generating food
supply.
(g) Wild foods primarily used locally for non-food functions,
dyeing non-foods, timber, etc.
(h) Wild foods which are being locally tended to deliberately
increase their availability.SOME PRACTICAL CONUNDRUMS Various conundrums still exist. For example, the need may arise for agricultural development policy makers in organisations such as FAO and the gene-banks to define whether a species has more local nutritional importance as a domesticate, or as a "wild" or weedy species or arable pest. How can some weeds be protected as food in one area yet exterminated as detrimental to food crop yields nearby? The important advances in specific biological control mechanisms and integrated pest management during the last five years could help solve this problem by targeting only novicious weeds for destruction in arable fields. There are also social, dietary and cultural questions arising from the composite nature of food dishes. Where mixtures of domesticates and wild foods are eaten together, which is a common phenomenon worldwide, there can be anomalies if attempts are made to classify meals, rather than the individual ingredients of them. It is interesting to compare how different societies perceive this distinction of types of ingredients, if it is made. A dish of carne de puerco con verdolagas contains pork and chilis, but it is the agricultural weed, Portulaca oleracea ssp. sativa L., that makes the dish famous in Mexico. It is the weed (wild food), one which is common worldwide, and used in different ways by different cultures, (eg. as a salad in Crete), which is arguably the definitive or staple ingredient in the case of the Mexican dish: pork is traditionally part of this classic recipe, but may be replaced by small game or meat, or omitted altogether if it cannot be afforded. Similarly there are hierarchical associations in dishes based on more than one wild food, for example romeritos (Suaeda and Salicornia spp.) are cooked in a chili sauce in Mexico, and dried shrimp only added if available. A flexible, dynamic, taxonomic framework can try and accommodate even these distinctions of minor importance to conservation policy development, if the local context warrants. REDUCTIONIST CLASSIFICATIONS OF "WILD" FOODS There are other, more orthodox, ways of grouping species from the wild which are used as food. They are regarded as more orthodox simply because they comply to the western model or reductionist view of the cosmos. Even so, they may be used in conjunction with the three basic contextual categories proposed, depending on the end use to which the classification is to be put, and providing that the perceptions of local peoples, researchers and users are all satisfied. Species obtained from "the wild" can be grouped in an extractive classification by mode of acquisition. In addition, a transformative classification by degree of domestication, may help clarify their evolution. (a) Extractive classification: grouping by mode of acquisition. The simplest grouping is by a linear perception of how a species used as food was obtained. (i) Gathered or harvested. i.e. the rootstock or reproductive capacity of the species is not destroyed. Principally applied to parts of plants, insects, shellfish and eggs. Dangers of overharvesting are now common. (ii) Uprooted or felled. Individual plant usually destroyed. Dangers of overharvesting of population. (iii) Caught by individual fishing or hunting. i.e. although more than one individual might be caught by netting or trapping small species such as shrimp and termites, the process is carried out by individuals, or as a small-scale enterprise, traditionally in a sustainable way which respects the seasonal cycle and variation in volume of wild harvests available. (iv) Caught or otherwise extracted by large-scale activity, often mechanical. i.e. industrial fishing, uncontrolled hunting and seasonal harvesting of some species en masse including fungi. In spite of the tendency for over- exploitation by many commercial enterprises, there are exceptional companies which have a sustainable harvesting management policy. Group (iv) also includes seasonal exploitation for a traditional livelihood strategy, particularly in extreme environments eg. seal-hunting by some of the Inuit, and would traditionally be run on a sustainable off-take rate otherwise the future of the human society itself would be threatened. (v) Bartered. Game and fish are frequently bartered (i.e. where cash is not involved, or is only an ancillary part of the transaction) for grains and tubers, or vice-versa, particularly between settled agriculturalists and pastoralists, fisherfolk or the few remaining hunter- gatherers. (vi) Traded. Sale of foods which are intrinsically wild, which is based essentially on cash transactions, is now very widespread and can be a locally dominant livelihood strategy. Similarly their purchase may provide vital ingredients to household diets, but may also replace former availability of these foods as free goods, and result in diminished nutritional status for families with low purchasing power who have lost their rights of access to food from the wild. (b) Transformative classification: based on degree of domestication. Another grouping is based on the domesticated/wild disjunction. The following non-discrete categories may prove useful in underlining the global importance of wild and weedy species. This is an attempt to categorise the degree of domestication (including development of phenotypes, and of varieties which may lead to genotypes as subspecies evolve, but which still occur as distinct species which are intrinsically wild). Alone, it is illustrative for western policy makers, but not sufficient, as a taxonomic tool to help develop wild food policies. These flexible categories are based on the premise that a fully domesticated species of plant is dependent on humans for its continued survival (Harlan 1975), and also an acceptance of Hemmer's (1990) contention that domestication brings a change in the perceptual world of the animals concerned. 1. extracted, i.e. collected and hunted from the wild without deliberate attempts to increase natural populations, and sometimes involving a degree of biological control e.g. some arable weeds and fungi, desert dates, baobab leaves, wild grasses and rice, sea-cucumbers, herring and other marine fish, octopus, armadillos, wild-greens, termites, locusts, cockles, algae, frogs and tapir. 2. tended, i.e. in situ, (within their natural habitat): also called "paracultivation" ^22 (Bahuchet 1990), e.g. wild fruit, nuts, resins and fodder (all from woody species). Introducing the term paradomesticated would enable the inclusion of some insect larvae, oysters, truffles, grouse and deer. 3. semi-domesticated, usually ex situ, on a small-scale, (planted tree wildings, edible weeds, captured rodents and small mammals, elvers and smoult raised in fish ponds). 4. locally domesticated, i.e. deliberately genetically improved varieties of limited spatial distribution, the precursors of land races of agricultural crops and livestock. 5. commercially exploited, i.e. on a large scale, and sometimes in a modified habitat. (in game-ranches, fish-farms, mushroom-caves, snail-farms, etc.). This category includes many species which occur in categories 1 to 3 above, especially 3, but category 5 is given to be able to refer generically to those wild species which are farmed as modern business enterprises. SIMPLE MODELS TO ILLUSTRATE DYNAMICS OF WILD FOOD USE These simple matrices are given to indicate some likely patterns of change in the three main contextual use-categories of wild food proposed. A. Hunger foods
Social value increasing ------------------>
Ecological nutrition ritual income prestige
stability -----------------------------------------------
decreasing seasonall
y minimal seasonally very low
| vital vital to
| poorest
| -----------------------------------------------
| daily use ambivalent declining rising
| -----------------------------------------------
| famine may lost to acceptable
V foods increase poor
-----------------------------------------------
As explained above, different patterns will be found in different societies, and for different groups of people within those societies. The matrices can also be used as a template to be filled in together with local people in order to get a picture of the dynamics of any specific situation, using appropriate methods. Similar models can also be used in stratified random samples. In such detailed sampling, numbers can be used to denote relative degrees of perception of rank order position in each box for separate species; individually, or by distinct ethnic groups, life-stage, gender or socioeconomic status of individual respondents. Appropriate analysis can then be carried out depending on the desired end use of the process. B. Wild staples.
Social value increasing ----------------------->
nutrition ritual income prestige
------------------------------------------------
Ecological fundamental unimportant: important acceptable
stability component exotic goods for
decreasing may be sought vulnerable
| groups
| ------------------------------------------------
| important fluctuating declines increasing
| for with in urban
| vulnerable scarcity groups
| groups of variety
| and volume
| ------------------------------------------------
| nutrition may increase under variable
| may in profile threat but
| decline affecting tending
| purchasing to
V power for increase
basic with
livelihood scarcity
value
C. Wild luxuries
Social value increasing ----------------->
---------------------------------------------------
nutrition ritual income prestige
---------------------------------------------------
Ecological seasonal and important high in high
stability exceptional for major comparison
decreasing contribution ceremonies to other
| produce
| ---------------------------------------------------
| restricted variable increasingly increasing
| intra- controlled
| household by outsiders
| and socio-
| economic
V access
---------------------------------------------------
lost to diet only lost to exclusive
of poor afforded majority
by elitist of poor
groupsCONCLUSION Policy development and the implementation of management strategies to safeguard both the conservation of these important species and equitable access to them, would benefit from an agreed basic terminology and frame of reference. We need a consensus on the meaning of the terms used in discussions relating to biological conservation, food security and intellectual property rights, on equitable trade and on sustainable resource management. All these issues are currently interconnected in negotiations for which 1996 has been a crucial year to set the pattern of future developments. As well as clarification of responsibilities between the GPA and the CBD vis-a-vis intrinsically wild food species, and the need to include invertebrates and vertebrates as well as plants in the process of policy planning and legislation pertaining to 'wild' sources of food as soon as possible, the World Trade Organisation's TRIPs agreement for intellectual property rights should also include safeguards for intrinsically wild species used as foods. Neither the UN Law of the Sea Convention (UNCLOS) nor the European Common Fisheries Policy have dealt effectively with the problems either of equitable access to common property resources which are mobile, or of conservation of fish stocks. Other intrinsically wild foods are becoming important economic resources, and it is this fact that may be the decisive trigger to develop sustainable conservation policies for them. Both for the current contribution these species make to diets and livelihood strategies for the poorer majority of people in the rural tropics, but also for the future food security (and present food luxuries) of more affluent societies, food which comes from intrinsically wild species merits more serious, and urgent, attention. It is hoped that the suggestions made here will help build an agreed taxonomic base, and contribute to a change away from the implicit reliance on western value- systems and western foodways as the norm for international policy making in this field. NOTES: 1. This is a crucial and rather conflictive process and is discussed in Evans, Biopolicy, Vol.1, Paper PY96004, 1996. It includes a Report on the State of the World's Plant Genetic Resources initiated by UNCED at Rio, leading to an FAO Global Plan of Action on the Conservation and Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, negotiations on Farmer's Rights and access to genetic resources, Patents and Breeder's Rights, and negotiations in the Trade-related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs/WTO), and the World Food Summit in November. The FAO's 4th Technical Conference was negotiating the main elements of the Global Plan of Action in Leipzig from 17 to 23 June 1996, and the need for in-situ conservation policies at least for "wild relatives" of food and forage plants, as well as landraces and allied traditional foods was acknowledged. 2. Manihot esculenta: there are 98 spp. of this genus, used for a wide variety of products in different societies. 3. An annotated bibliography which illustrates the wide ranges in use of wild resources in basic livelihood strategies, is available from the International Institute of Environment and Development (Scoones et al. 1992). They have also developed some methodologies to study and assess the importance of this "Hidden Harvest", particularly rural communities and households in the South, and have produced an important summary on the value of wild resources in agricultural systems (IIED 1995), together with outline policy recommendations. 4. Proposed here as a generic term to cover the grey area of edible species of which some individuals may be actively tended, tamed, or otherwise manipulated both in situ and ex-situ, but are outside the generally accepted meaning of the term "domesticate". See later in text. 5. As the fishing industry is the main commercial use of wild food, fishing policies have been developed, and are widely reported on elsewhere. Policies are still inadequate, cause conflict and have very weak mechanisms to conserve fish stocks. Traditional small-scale coastal and inland fisheries which are basically household livelihood strategies should have distinct policies. Production of luxury "wild" foods such as tiger prawns and salmon by aquaculture are frequently causing local pollution and undermining local subsistence economies in both rich and poor nations. Tvedten and Hersoug (1992) illustrate this in an African context. 6. As an extreme example, freshwater itself could be classed as a "wild" beverage - in its pure form becoming seriously endangered - where it has not been "domesticated" into a recycled product. 7. Now frogs are an endangered species in Europe & cattle are becoming mad...... 8. When helping design appropriate local cook-stoves, to be made with local materials but to help conserve the use of dung as high-attitude fuel, one innovation was to provide a warm area for young cuyis to cut down on loss of litters from cold. 9. Societies have a set of values: with the suffix -s, the word denotes principally ethical, mural and spiritual attributes. By contrast, the value (without the -s suffix) of something may imply its worth in cash terms (see later text). 10. p 41, in 'Economics for the Wilds'; eds. Swanson and Barbier, 1992. 11. Another school of anthropologists, led by Harris, contested Vayda's approach, and proposed a more materialistic rationalisation. The debate continues in anthropology. 12. A term proposed by Wood, 1993. 13. These categories were first proposed in an ACTS conference in Nairobi in 1993 prior to the first COP meeting of the CBD. 14. de Waal (1989) used this term in preference to that of famine foods. 15. Management and preparation of potentially toxic or indigestible foods takes considerable time to learn. Currently in East and Southern Africa there are still problems related to the introduction of maize and kidney beans from Latin America (originally by the Portuguese and later by other colonials and reinforced by Food Aid programmes). 16. Ogle (see eg. 1988) emphasized this important point. Pagezy (1990) gives detailed empirical evidence of wild foods used (and food taboos) during pregnancy and weaning among the Ntomba in Zaire. 17. A few choice species are commonly eaten worldwide, such as Amaranthus, Chenopodium, Portulaca and Cleome: some may be weedy relatives of main crops. The best are gathered at the necessary weeding, uprooted ones often left as mulch and likely future specimens left, not too close to main-crop roots, but sometimes to provide shade and support. They provide food for some rodents and insects which would otherwise eat more of the crop, and in any case make good eating themselves. A crucial limiting factor is the local opportunity cost of labour (see eg. Evans 1987). Bye (1981) wrote an early classic on local edible weeds in Mexico. 18. In Mexico campesinos eat the larvae and fungi from the maize cobs, preferring to let some of them destroy some of the grain, but provide tasty wild food. Heliothis zea, a caterpillar, and huitlacochitl, a smut fungus (Ustilagio maydis), are especially appreciated, and the latter has recently been retailed at high cost in prestigious London restaurants. 19. However, there is still a premium on the wild product, and not just due to scarcity. Game salmon, since they have used their muscles to survive, and have had a varied diet, are tastier and more nutritious than farmed salmon. The Scottish Tourist Board announced that wild salmon bring in ten times the revenue, per unit fish, than do those from farms. Ironically, too much of a good thing palls. Resident farm-labourers in Norway early this century had a clause in their contract forbidding the inclusion of salmon in their diet for more than three meals a week! 20. Preparation tending to be women's work, whereas hunting and fishing is dominated by men. 21. A poor Ethiopian woman who gains much of her income by making and selling tala (beer often brewed from t'eff (Eragrostis teff) and flavoured with gesho, a wild shrub (Rhamnus sp.), which is now sold in markets by even poorer women), is likely to categorise both the beer, and the shrub which flavours, it as a means of livelihood, as well as a drink. 22. I have proposed the alternative term paradomesticate only because that of paracultivate invokes plants without including animals and aquatic species. REFERENCES Aylward, B. 1992. "Appropriating the value of wildlife and wildlands". In: Economics for the Wilds edited by Swanson, T.M. and Barbier, E.B. Earthscan: London. Bahuchet, S. 1990. Les pygmies Aka et Baka: contribution de l'ethnolinguistique … l'histoire des populations forestieres d'Afrique Centrale. These. ANRT, Univ. de Lille: Lille, France. Bahuchet, S. and Hladik, C.M.(eds.) 1990 Food and Nutrition in the African rain forest. CNRS/MAB/UNESCO: Paris. Berg. et al. 1991. Technology Options and the Gene Struggle. NORAGRIC Occasional papers in Development and the Environment no.8: As, Norway. Bye, Robert. 1981. "Quelites; ethnoecology of edible greens. Past, present and future". J. Ethnobiol. 1 (1): 109-123. Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Third meeting, November 1996. Draft decision submitted by the Chairman of the working group on agriculture. UNEP/CBD/COP/3/L.12 Croll, E. and Parkin, D. (eds.) 1992. Bush base: forest farm. Culture, environment and development. Routledge: London & New York. de Garine, I. 1972. "The socio-cultural aspects of nutrition". Ecology of Food and Nutrition, 1: 143-163 de Garine, I. 1990. "Organization of meals, food preferences and socioeconomic aspects". In: Bahuchet, S. and Hladik C.M. (eds.) Food and nutrition in the African rain forest, op cit. de Garine, I. 1993. "Contribution of wild food resources to the solution of food crises". In: H.-G Bohle et al. (eds.) Coping with Vulnerability and Criticality, Freiburg Studies in Development Geography: Frieburg. de Waal, A. 1989. Famine that kills; Darfur, Sudan, 1984-1985. Clarendon Press: Oxford. Edwards, S.B. 1991. "Crops with wild relatives found in Ethiopia". In: Engels, J.M.M., et al., Plant Genetic Resources of Ethiopia. CUP: Cambridge. Evans de Cuanalo, M.I. 1978. Factores limitantes para la colonizacion del ex-lago de Texcoco, Mexico. Unpublished thesis. Colegio de Postgraduados, Chapingo: Mexico. Evans, M.I. 1987. Change in domestic fuel consumption in central Mexico and its relation to employment and nutrition. World Employment Programme working paper no.44. ILO: Geneva. Evans, M.I. 1994. "What is wild about food?". Briefing paper, Green College Centre for Environmental Policy and Understanding: University of Oxford. Evans, M.I. 1996c. 'Saving "wild food": notes on issues needing policy development'. Forthcoming in Biopolicy (PY96004). (Based on an internal paper prepared for the Darwin Initiative, Department of the Environment, British Government, April). Evans, M.I. 1996b "La conservation de la nature par la commercialisation des ressources" In: Hladik, C.M. et al. L'alimentation en Forets Tropicales pp. 1277-1796. Paris: CNRS/UNESCO. (In press: an extensively re-written and updated text based on the 1993 version in English UNESCO/Parthenon.) FAO 1996. Global Plan of Action for the Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture and the Leipzig Declaration. June 1996, Rome. FAO 1996. Report on the State of the World's Plant Genetic Resources. International Technical Conference on Plant Genetic Resources, Leipzig. document ITCPGR/96/3 (see especially (Annex 2). May. Rome. Fowler, C. and Mooney, P. 1990. The threatened gene: food, politics, and the loss of genetic diversity. Lutterworth Press: Cambridge. Gebre Berhan Egziabher, T. (pers.comm.) Gibson, J.J. 1979. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Houghton Mifflin: Boston. Godoy, R.A. and Bawa, K.S. 1993. "The economic value and sustainable harvest of plants and animals from the tropical forest: assumptions, hypotheses, and methods". Economic Botany 47(3): 215-219. Godoy, R.A. et al. 1993. "A method for the economic valuation of non-timber tropical forest products". Economic Botany 47(3): 220-223. Harlan, J.R. 1975. Crops and Man. American Society of Agronomy: Madison, Wisconsin. Harlan, J.R. 1995. The living fields: our agricultural heritage. CUP: Cambridge. Harris, M. 1985. Good to eat: riddles of food and culture. Simon & Schuster: New York. Harris, M. 1987. "Comment on Vayda's review of Good to Eat: riddles of food and culture". Human Ecology 15(4):511-521 (incl. Vayda's reply). Hemmer, H. (1990). Domestication: the decline of environmental appreciation. Translation of 1983 German text. CUP: Cambridge. Hernandez Xolocotsi, E. 1977. Agroecosistemas de Mexico. Monograph. Chapingo, Colegio de Postgraduados: Mexico. Hernandez Xolocotsi, E. 1993 (p.h.) "Aspects of plant domestication in Mexico: a personal view". In: Ramamoorthy, T.P. et al.(eds.) Biological Diversity of Mexico: origins and distribution. OUP: Oxford. Hladik, C.M. et al. (eds.) 1993. Tropical Forests, Food and People. (Proceedings of a Sept. 1991 Symposium). Vol.13, MAB/UNESCO: Paris. Hugh-Jones, C. and Hugh-Jones, S. 1993. "The storage of manioc products and its symbolic importance among the Tukanoans". In: Hladik and Hladik (eds.) op cit. Ingold, T. 1986. The appropriation of nature: essays on human ecology and social relations. Manchester University Press: Manchester. Ingold, T. 1992. "Culture and the perception of the environment". In: Croll, E. and Parkin, D. (eds.) Bush base: forest farm. op cit. Interim Secretariat for the CBD, 1994. Text of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Geneva. Irvine, F. 1952. "Supplementary and emergency food plants of West Africa". Economic Botany. 6(1): 23-40. Juma, C. 1989 (a). The Gene Hunters: biotechnology and the scramble for seeds. Zed books: London. Jumelle, H. 1912. Les Cultures Coloniales. J-B. Baillere et Fils: Paris. Mapes, C. 1993. "Plantas promisorias: el Amaranto". Etnobotanica no.1 Marzo 1993. UNAM/GELA (Grupo Etnobot nico Latinamericano): Mexico. Maxwell, S. 1994. Food security: a post-modern perspective. Institute of Development Studies Working Paper no. 9. IDS: Sussex, UK. Nabhan, G.P. 1989. Enduring Seeds: native American agriculture and wild plant conservation. North Point Press: San Francisco. Oldfield, M.L. and Alcorn, J.B. 1991 (eds.) Biodiversity: Culture, Conservation and Ecodevelopment. Westview Press: Colorado USA and Oxford UK. Ogle, B. 1988. Nutrition in the Forests, Trees and People project in Zambia. Swedish University for Agricultural Science working paper no.99: Uppsala, Sweden. Pagezy, H. 1990. "Feeding the primiparous mother among the Ntomba of Zaire". In: Bahuchet, S. and Hladik, C.M.(eds.) Food and Nutrition in the African rain forest, op cit. Pearce, D. 1993. Economic values and the natural world. Earthscan: London. Pearce, D. and Moran, D. 1994. The economic value of biodiversity. Earthscan: London. Posey, D.A. 1984. "Importance of semi-domesticated species in post-contact Amazonia: effects of Kayapo Indian dispersal on the flora and fauna of the region". In: Hladik, C.M., et al. (eds.) Tropical Forests, Food and People, op cit. Posey, D.A. 1996. Provision and Mechanisms of the Convention on Biological Diversity for Access to Traditional Technologies and Benefit Sharing for Indigenous and Local Communities Embodying Traditional Lifestyles. Research paper no.6, April, Oxford Centre for the Environment, Ethics and Society, Mansfield College, Oxford. Prescott-Allen, R. and C. 1983. Genes from the Wild: using wild genetic resources for food and raw materials. Earthscan, International Institute for Environment and Development: London. Prescott-Allen, R. 1995. "Conservation of wild genetic resources". In: Kirkby, J. et al. (eds.) The Earthscan Reader in Sustainable Development. Earthscan: London. Ramos-Elorduy de Conconi, J. 1982. Los insectos como fuente de proteinas en el futuro. (second ed. 1987). UNAM/Editorial Limusa: Mexico. Ramos-Elorduy, J. and Conconi, M. 1992. "Resemblance of the techniques for exploiting some edible insect species in different ethnic groups all over the world". Paper presented to the Third International Congress of Ethnobiology, Nov. 10- 14, 1992, Mexico City. Rappoport, L. H. et al. 1992. "Reasons for Eating: an exploratory cognitive analysis". Ecology of Food and Nutrition 28:171-189. Sahlins, M.D. (1976). Culture and Practical Reason. University of Chicago Press: Chicago. Scoones, I. et al., 1992. The Hidden Harvest: wild foods and agricultural systems. A literature review and annotated bibliography. Sustainable Agriculture Programme, IIED: London. Swanson, T.M. and Barbier, E.B., Eds., 1992, Economics for the Wild, Earthscan: London. Tansy, G. and Worsley, T. 1995. The food system: a guide. Earthscan: London. Tvedten, I. and Hersoug, B. (eds.) 1992. Fishing for development: small scale fisheries in Africa. Nordiska Afrikainstitutet: Uppsala. Vayda, A.P. 1983. "Progressive contextualization: methods for research in human ecology". Human Ecology 11 (3): 265-281. Vayda, A.P. 1987. "Explaining what people eat: a review article". Human Ecology 15 (4): 493-510. Vayda, A.P. 1988. "Actions and consequences as objects of explanation in human ecology". Environment, Technology and Society. 51:2-7. Wood, D. 1993. "Agrobiodiversity in global conservation policy". Biopolicy International series no.11. African Centre for Technology Studies (ACTS): Nairobi. Copyright remains with the author.
Published by Bioline Publications 1996
|
| |||||||||
