Biopolicy Journal Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso ISSN: 1363-2450 Vol. 1, Num. 1, 1996

SAVING "WILD" FOOD: notes on issues needing policy development

Margaret I. Evans^1

Received October 21st 1996
Accepted December 10th 1996

Code Number: PY96004
Size of Files:
    Text: 41K
    Graphics: No associated graphics files

^1 Research Associate of the French CNRS UMR 9935 Anthropologie et Ecologie de l'Alimentation, and project leader for the "in-situ conservation of wild food species", funded by the Darwin Initiative of the UK.

ABSTRACT

The paper first outlines the importance of food species which are "intrinsically wild", and justifies the urgency of the need for effective conservation policies to save them. Ten separate issues recommended for consideration by policy makers in this field are pinpointed in note form, ranging from the dietary benefits of using wild food and the threats they can bring, to ethical issues including the need for standards for the humane treatment of these species. As well as drawing the attention of scientific policy makers to the urgency for action in this field, it aims to provoke awareness of the dangers of assuming that the western values-system should be taken as the "default mechanism" in conservation policy development. The important contributions which have been made by many individuals, and by both public and private organizations, from western cultures, are however acknowledged. Recommendations for debate and action are proposed alongside each issue raised, and consultative feedback, from "key stakeholders", is advocated.

Key words: food security; nature conservation policy; wild food; GPA FAO CBD; agricultural diversity; farmers' rights; indigenous peoples' rights.

BACKGROUND: WHAT IS MEANT BY WILD FOOD, AND WHY SAVE IT?

In an earlier paper (PY96003), a working definition and detailed discussion on the taxonomy for what I term "intrinsically wild" food species is given, together with an extensive bibliography on the subject. The definition can be summarized as follows:-

Intrinsically wild food is obtained from species which can, and normally do, live without the need for human intervention.

A framework to assess and compare the dynamic use in different cultures is also given there. Clarification is made that use of the words "wild" or "wildland" should in no way promote the concept of terra nullius (under which the rights of Indigenous Peoples and other communities embodying traditional lifestyles to their homelands could be prejudiced).

Possibly two-thirds of the world's rural population could not survive where they are now without the foods provided through indigenous knowledge of plants, animals, insects, microbes and farming systems ^2. Even so, there is still insufficient awareness of the local importance of some of the thousands of edible species in human diet today, and perhaps even less of their potentially wider importance for the future of food security.

One problem for international policy development is the lack of clarification of respective responsibilities between the FAO/GPA and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), vis-a-vis both agrobiodiversity in general, and food species which are intrinsically wild. There are no accepted clear cut definitions of the latter as yet in negotiating texts, which could mean that those species which are not necessarily wild relatives of existing crops, or not included under the umbrella of domesticated livestock or aquaculture, could be inadvertently left marginalised or ignored in some policy formulations.

The following notes pinpoint various issues which could be considered in policy development, and some are deliberately controversial. Given with the aim of provoking awareness and hopefully helping catalyse discussion, they are not in any particular order of priority, nor presume to represent anything more than personal experience and opinion.

Point I. Neglect of non-western cultural perceptions and priorities is still xenophobically undermining conservation policies.

1.1 Lack of understanding about the values or value-systems of cultures, which have as yet played a subordinate role in international policy-making, only reinforces two of the main causes of environmental degradation. These are the loss of power of traditional local authority structures, and the loss of Traditional Resource Rights ^3.

1.2 The rate of extinction of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, their knowledge systems, and the languages by which they communicate, is appalling. For example, perhaps one distinct Amerindian ethnic group has disappeared for each year of this century in the Amazon region. Apart from the evident moral and ethical issues raised by internal policies of some countries toward their aboriginal peoples, is the fact that traditional knowledge about local genetic material used for food and medicine is disappearing irretrievably^4.

1.3 If there were permanent representatives of Indigenous Peoples to the United Nations ^5, debate on policies for the conservation of non-human species and "natural" habitats would receive a welcome boost. Pressure for more holistic, equitable, and sustainable food policies already coming from the G77 group would be reinforced. Representation does not yet formally include delegates of First Nations (Indigenous Peoples). Their demand for permanent representation to the UN is complicated by the fact, among other reasons, that some of their homelands cross national boundaries, and by problems of language and adequate representation of many of the smaller ethnic groups.

1.4 Lack of locally based financial, legal, and other political and economic support mechanisms for "equitable extractivism" ^6, traditional agroecosystems, and compensation for indigenous knowledge will eventually have negative effects. If this omission is continued, it could be reflected not only in the loss of cultural diversity, but also in the psychologically effective human relationships and social stability which characterise many of these communities. It could eventually have negative implications for the evolution of sustainable food production, and for world food security and trade in foods.

1.5 Anglo-european society is well known as having cut down its own forests, polluted its air, soil and waterways, and limited its agrobiodiversity to a dangerously low level. Added to all this, we hoard or recycle to animals some of the large quantities of food produced, until the prices rise beyond the means of a large percentage of the population even in the North. Yet still we continue to export our role-model of agriculture to the South, reinforced by expert consultants, with some good intentions to help feed the world, but in a way which reinforces our own financial wealth while destroying soil, water, biodiversity and often human dignity. Perhaps it is time to have consultants from the South to advise us.

1.6 On the other hand, many specific scientific and technological advances in the North have already brought material benefits to many people, and the scope for further potentially beneficial advances is enormous. The central problem has lain in the linear, reductionist, and egocentric way in which this knowledge, built not only on developed aptitudes for innovative survival in adverse conditions, but in many cases from exploitation of resources from the South, has been used so far. Exploitation between different peoples in the South has taken other forms, and so far had less impact on the world food system.

1.7 Widespread transfer of biotechnologies and support systems for their use could enable more efficient exploitation of varieties of wild and traditional food species which have desirable genetic qualities, and could have a revolutionary effect on world food security and diversity. In a relatively short time this could reduce current economic manipulation of the South by the North. Widespread information transfer to the North about the social, psychological, and ecological benefits which can be obtained from Southern lifestyles (including diet) may not be packaged in a way acceptable to the North, or appreciated in time by influential policy makers.

1.8 The issue of equitable benefits to be received by communities, who agree to share with outsiders knowledge which is to them a "common property resource", is another fundamental and more complex problem. This is exacerbated as most food business corporations have western values-systems, where individual ownership and rights to private property are ingrained in the market system, and patenting of products is de rigeur.

1.9 Bioprospecting ^7 in the oceans now seems to be providing almost as many potentially useful genetic materials for a range of industries as it does in tropical forests, and with less risk to aboriginal peoples.

Recommendation R1: Anglo-european values ^8 should not be the "default mode" for developing biological conservation or food security policies.

. If they are to have long term sustainability, conservation policies must be made together with Indigenous Peoples and other local communities embodying traditional lifestyles which are still based on strong traditional ecological knowledge systems.

. More exchange of information about sustainable conservation management strategies and on legislation is needed, particularly between South and North.

. More information about biotechnologies to improve traditional food species, and other technologies which can help avoid the risks in modern agriculture from novicious pests, diseases, poor food storage methods and inadequate preparation of products for market is needed, particularly from North to South.

. More South-South information exchange and mutual support mechanisms are needed, including financial ones at local and regional levels.

Point 2. Food prestige and preferences: there is a reversion to the "wild and natural" in the North.

2.1 Middle and upper-income America, Europe, Japan, Australasia, and members of the Southern elites, are already willing to pay a premium for organically produced crops and for certain wild and allied traditional foods. Many northerners now look for the sort of quality that peasant farmers and indigenous peoples in the South still have in their food, but on a more secure and varied basis.

2.2 This is part of the "wild cycle of prestige" (Evans 1994^9). This phenomenon is indicative of the political and economic importance that wild foods can have. It is now expanding rapidly into middle income sectors as well, partly in response to consumer anxiety about high-input agricultural products.

2.3 Unfortunately, the rise in prestige of wild foods (or at least of those species falling in the group "wild luxuries" (Evans 1994, 1996a), also leads to heavy extraction and even extinction ^10.

2.4 There is almost no financial support for research programmes to address the latter phenomenon.

2.5 The above point in part reflects the fact that transnational corporations in the food industry have invested so heavily in maintaining high-input agriculture, and have such global political influence (greater than that of many G77 countries), that it may be difficult to convince them of the future advantages of change to policies which deliberately aim to "conserve biodiversity" in food.

2.6 Another part of the cycle linked to the prestige of foods from outside one's own culture, which have novelty, scarcity, sociocultural or monetary values, is the esteem given to processed foods by many indigenous and other remote rural communities (but see point 5).

Recommendation R2: Wild food policies and legislation are urgently needed at regional, national and international levels, to control unsustainable extraction and trade.

. TRIPs negotiations under WTO provides a key forum which could develop this.

. Transnational and other large business corporations have a prospectively important role to play in this recommendation together with regional and national governments, partly in view of the cyclic process of the latter. They therefore need to be educated into an awareness of the problem, so that their normally, and understandably, fiscal-based, altruistic or ethical investments, can be harnessed.

. Traditional self-regulatory mechanisms to control the unethical and ecologically damaging extractive industries should be encouraged, by undertaking and disseminating representative case studies of the dangers of over extraction, together with local communities, and by providing fiscal incentives to support sustainable management strategies.

. Loopholes in trading standards should be closed, especially for hotels, restaurants and wholesale suppliers who provide "luxury" wild foods, as local government bye-laws often vary from state to state even in one nation.

. Increased support should be given to organisations such as TRAFFIC/IUCN, to enable the strengthening of trade monitoring functions concerning already endangered species. In addition, their remit should be supported by policy tightening at both regional and international levels, to include more preventative actions to safeguard species under potential, as well as actual, threat (see point 7).

Point 3: High-input agriculture and industrial fisheries are reaching a "critical threshold", and urgent action is needed to counteract this process ^11.

3.1 Many scientific policy advisors from a wide range of specialities have already made serious warnings concerning the production of the necessary basic staple foods (grains, roots, livestock feed, marine produce) demanded to feed an exponential increase of humanity (which will perhaps be two-thirds urban by the end of the millennium) ^12.

3.2 The political and economic realities of both national government ^13 and transnational business interests in the food industry, in the fishing industry and in forestry, may mean that well-meaning phrases inserted into international agreements have restricted de facto effect, and delaying tactics ^14 to resist change may continue by G7 governments. In other words, important steps in the right direction are being made, but there are still conflictive political priorities and economic (often externally pressurised) realities.

3.3 If more effective conservation policies and legislation are not in place soon, some "wild farming" enterprises may prove to be as environmentally dangerous as are many "domesticated" arable and livestock farms. Agrobiodiversity per se is outside the subject of this paper ^15. Even so, the rise of poorly regulated and inadequately planned "wild" ranching, "wild" plantations and aquaculture of "wild" species raises an important subset of problems for the debate on degrees of domestication and the ex-situ v. in situ interface in species conservation.

Recommendation R3: Political action is imperative to provide enough financial and infrastructural support to carry through the fine sounding agreements made when ratifying international conventions to conserve biodiversity and to increase food- security.

. If a "reasonable" ^16 amount of the remaining cultural and biological diversity on Earth is to be conserved, it is vital that global agricultural and fisheries policies, and basic staple food production methods, change fundamentally and almost immediately ^17.

. Local participatory programmes which have a two-way learning process have been going on for more than a decade ^18. There now exist sufficient case studies, in both methodologies and programme development, for a wide range of sustainable farming practices to be supported financially. The results of these case studies (made under the auspices of several international organisations including the World Bank) should be made widely available in several languages.

Point 4. Change to agroecosystems compatible with environmental conservation is being neglected or blocked at various levels.

4.1 Intrinsically wild and allied traditional food species have an important role to play as food for a larger number of people than those generally using them now. They have so far been marginalised in food policy fora, such as the World Food Summit, the Food and Agriculture Organisation's Global Plan of Action (FAO/GPA), and the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture ^19. Their importance has been recognised in the CBD, but clarification of responsibilities between FAO/GPA and the CBD for the conservation of species used as food has still not been made.

4.2 Budgetary cuts in national ministries responsible for environmental conservation and for aboriginal affairs (both of which already are lowest in budgetary priority in most countries) are continuing, even as many countries officially ratify the CBD and agree to the GPA. One result of this is that both wild food species and knowledge about them is being lost. This is not helped by the fact that cooperation between ministries of agriculture, fisheries and forestry, and those of the environment, rarely appear to be adequate in any country, or on any subject.

4.3 High-input packages and monocultural plantations of cash crops on fertile land which could otherwise produce food staples for local use, are still being widely promoted by the North to the South, and this will continue at least while agrichemical stocks last and large profits can be made on export crops.

4.4 Most "wild" food diversity and use is in the South, and this is likely to be further eroded if the promotion of high-input agriculture advances. Juan Martinez-Alier's key work on ecological economics ^20, which has a different slant to that given by influential British and American academics, presents one analysis of the political history of food production which could usefully be borne in mind.

4.5 Farmers now in high-input systems who wish to convert back to organic food production, have to confront the investment costs of time, increased labour input ^21, loss of short-term income, restricted subsidies, new marketing procedures, the battle against pollution from surrounding high-input farms and conversely the antagonism of such farmers, as weeds and pests invade their crops until integrated pest management is achieved. Small-scale farmers are still penalised by economies of scale, heavy marginal costs and marketing cartels, and lack of social and infrastructural investment in rural regions.

4.6 A similar scenario faces those starting to invest in "wild farming" such as game-ranching and aquaculture, although better profit margins are likely now than are those which can be obtained in formal sector agriculture. In addition, unless more ecologically sustainable policies and coordinated production and trade mechanisms are developed and agreed, this type of exploitation of intrinsically wild species could spoil the chances for a truly well balanced use of a range of habitats and species for sustainable food production.

Recommendation R4: Integrated policies to promote the wider use of intrinsically wild food, in a sustainable, humane and equitable way, should be developed without further delay.

. . Urgent development of feasibility studies, improved marketing networks, and equitable trading standards (and the means to monitor these) is required so that enterprises based on equitable extractivism of wild food, or on wild farming projects, can be developed in the context of the market economy.

. Improved funding mechanisms are needed for collaborative research requested by local communities, to help avoid the complications which can arise from funding by business corporations whose principal aim is direct short term benefit.

. Direct incentives, some in the form of subsidies, are needed. Organic farmers and other low-input producers should not be penalized by lack of financial, technical and trading support mechanisms now available to high-tech, high-input farmers.

Point 5: "Wild" food species can provide the vital difference between malnutrition and good health, even in societies of over-consumption.

5.1 "Wild" food alone cannot of course provide basic calories for the still increasing human population today. However, it does provide many millions of people with adequate vitamins, trace elements, proteins and unsaturated fats. In poorer rural societies it supplements nutritionally inadequate staple food crops. In addition, where the opportunity cost of labour is virtually nil, wild species provide "food for free".

5.2 A high percentage of people in several of the richer countries of the North (notably in the USA and the UK) are suffering from obesity, heart disease, cancer and other health problems which have been shown to be linked to a diet high in additives, saturated fat, cholesterol-enhancing compounds and some other substances common in many processed or "junk foods". In depth studies of peoples who have changed from a diet based on wild and other traditional foods (e.g. aboriginal peoples in Australia, Polynesia and in Alaska) have linked deteriorating dietary status to the change to western food. In Japan, change towards a western diet is having similar effects.

5.3 Imbalanced diets among the poorer sectors of urban and peri-urban areas may in part reflect their lack of access to wild and other traditional foods, of which few are readily available. Those that are, tend to be more expensive than domesticated and processed foods (see point 2).

5.4 Coordinated data banks of the properties and uses of key species from the wild which are both nutritious and attractive as food, should not be expected to include information from Indigenous Peoples and other local communities whose traditional knowledge is sacred to them, without prior informed consent (PIC).

Recommendation R5: Analyses of the relative nutritional values, and socio-cultural acceptability of non-endangered "wild" food species are needed in a readily accessible and standardized format. Access to this information should be widely available to local communities, especially in the South, but also covered by legislation which safeguards traditional resource rights.

Point 6: Some of the vast areas of hot and cold deserts, and other habitats which as yet produce little food, could be made more productive, subject to the prior informed consent and participation of local communities and peoples whose homelands these areas include.

6.1 More intensive production of selected "wild" food species could be made, with in-built surveying and monitoring to determine scientifically sustainable off-take rates, and deliberate increase of natural populations where ecological and socioeconomically appropriate.

6.2 Current fisheries policies, and the debates on the use of marine and terrestrial mammals, have raised many unresolved issues.

6.3 In addition to questions of socio-cultural and moral attitudes, property rights, political and economic vested interests, there are less controversial basic management questions. These include how to develop sustainable conservation management strategies for the most biodiverse-rich habitats, and how to develop ecologically and ethically acceptable management systems deliberately to increase the production of selected "wild" food species both in situ in slightly modified natural habitats, (ranching, low-input aquaculture, traditional fishing and enrichment plantation) and completely ex-situ (eg. snail farms and mushroom caves).

Recommendation R6: Food production from non-tilled lands, and from oceans and other waterways, needs to be raised to a scientific and policy level equivalent to that now given to arable land and commercial fisheries.

Point 7: There are economically valid reasons, as well as sociocultural and ecological ones, for conserving and promoting the use of "intrinsically wild" food species.

7.1 Since financial investment in the conservation of biodiversity needs to compete with other national and international demands on restricted public sector budgets, policy makers should note that food species from the "wild" are not only important for the poorer majority of the world's population, or as keystone species to give local incentives for habitat conservation.

7.2 Wild food production has four interesting characteristics in terms of development economics:-

(a) low investment and running costs;
(b) low capital and maintenance inputs;
(c) low environmental pollution and low energy use;
(d) high rate of return and potentially high production levels.

7.3 One argument which can be used to promote conservation policies for the habitats of edible species, is that many of them have other economically valuable uses, for example the potential use of compounds analogous to the chitin from Crustacea in aeronautical engineering.

7.4 The critical potential role of each approach/system and its contribution for the whole food production effort still needs to be determined.

7.5 The in-depth knowledge and experience associated with the spiritually and culturally rich lifestyles of many economically poor people in the South, has lessons which the North appears to require urgently. Equally important is the need to respect traditional agroecological knowledge and ethnotaxonomies.

Recommendation R7: Co-ordinated comparative economic, sociocultural and ecological studies should be made on the use of various habitats for (a) high-input agriculture, (b) low-input (organic) agriculture and (c) "wild food" production.

. Strategic and comprehensive economic analyses should be undertaken to determine the potential role to be played by distinct food production systems, at regional and global levels, including food production as only one a by-product of ecosystem management. This should be undertaken in a way which is very sensitive to sociocultural differences and locally perceived realities and priorities for action.

. Highly developed technologies for ecological surveying and monitoring (eg. GIS, herbarium references and expertise in internationally standard scientific taxonomy) should be shared with countries which lack such facilities, and introduced when requested where this is economically and ecologically feasible.

. In any comparative studies at least equal weight should be given to traditional as to modern knowledge systems. This point is not yet taken on board by most environmental economists, but there are also leading conservationists who do not perceive that any system outside what they term "scientific" merits serious consideration.

Point 8: There are specific ecological threats from using wild food species.

8.1 The real dangers from introduction of exotic species into a habitat are well known ^23, but seem to be officially neglected in many countries except by nature conservationists, and over-ruled if this is deemed to be economically worthwhile in the short term.

8.2 Over-extraction of wild harvests is widespread but frequently accepted (de facto if not de jure) by local agencies in the official sector.

8.3 International (and national) trade in endangered species continues. Efforts of organisations such as TRAFFIC and CITES are limited not only by lack of financial support, but too often by lack of political will.

Recommendation R8: Improved strategies and methodologies for involving local communities in the sustainable conservation and management of threatened "wild" food species are needed, as well as the creation or enforcement of legislation (when existing).

. Collaboration and financial support to, and between ecological conservation and monitoring agencies is needed, together with pressure on national governments to help conserve their biological and environmental resources.

. "Wild farming" programmes should concentrate on indigenous species, and the introduction of exotics should be strictly controlled and monitored.

Point 9: There are potential health threats from using wild food species.

9.1 Insufficient information on the potential health-hazards from using intrinsically wild food is available, either to the scientific community or to the public. The same point also applies to agricultural produce and processed foods, but these are at least covered more extensively by formal legislation.

9.2 This point is scarcely applicable among peoples embodying traditional lifestyles.

9.3 However, increasing numbers of economic migrants (especially among younger age-sets) and political or environmental refugees, together with the concomitant breakdown of verbal ethnobiological teaching is leading to rapid loss of indigenous knowledge systems and has negative effects on the safe use of species in the new environment for food and medicinal purposes.

Recommendation R9: Research & analysis is needed of the potential health hazards which "wild" food can bring (eg. parasitosis; toxicity; radioactive contamination in marine produce), and legislation brought in to line with that on agricultural sector domesticated and processed foods.

Point 10: There are inadequate or non-existent national and regional policies to ensure the humane exploitation or paradomestication of wild food species.

10.1 Public attitudes to non-human species vary strongly from one culture to another, and also within nations. Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in particular have strong mystical and moral codes vis-a-vis not only individual kinds of plants and animals, but the habitat or home in which they live.

10.2 Some ways of hunting and fishing may seem cruel by western standards, but then western cruelty to the environment as a whole - to what most indigenous peoples' regard as Mother Earth - may seem unforgivable and incomprehensible to them. Some animal rights activists characterize extremist, unholistic viewpoints, but the sensitive topic of agreeing ethical standards of conducts for "wild" species exploitation needs addressing rationally, and should eventually include the treatment of plants and invertebrates too.

Recommendation R10. Ethical policy guidelines for the humane extraction, paradomestication and processing of food species which are intrinsically wild should be coordinated between local and national authorities.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Not all species or biodiverse rich habitats can be conserved. Given the need to prioritize, intrinsically wild food species (and the habitats to support them) deserve a high profile. Regional or national advisory commissions on wild food policies should have sufficient representation from all sectors of society, and in particular ensure a weighting of expertise from indigenous and other local communities which have in-depth knowledge. Their perception of the problems involved, ranking of priorities, and expression of knowledge systems, may be presented in terms which are difficult for some natural scientists and policy makers educated in the North to understand, but should no longer be dismissed as having no scientific validity. The complementary values and approaches of both sides working together provide the best hope for the future process of prioritisation and the success of local implementation.

Evidently clarification of the respective roles of the CBD, FAO/GPA and other agencies concerned with food is urgently needed if there is to be appropriate collaboration and development of conservation policies in this field. This will in turn help clarify realistic paths towards effective financial, legal and political mechanisms to support the sustainable use of food species which are intrinsically wild. The spiralling loss of unpolluted ecosystems, of indigenous cultures, and of biodiverse rich habitats, is resulting in the irreplaceable loss of many food species. Food is one thing that nobody on Earth can do without.

ENDNOTES

1.The opinions expressed are entirely the responsibility of the author, Research Associate of the French CNRS UMR 9935 Anthropologie et Ecologie de l'Alimentation, and project leader for the "in-situ conservation of wild food species", funded by the Darwin Initiative of the UK.

2. "In fact" section, People and Plants Handbook issue 2: July 1996 "Protecting Rights". UNESCO: Paris.

3. TRR are made up of a "bundle of rights", including those to local commonly held natural resources and intellectual rights to Traditional Ecological Knowledge (equivalent to intellectual property rights (IPR) as perceived in the North, but not individually owned.

4. A forthcoming publication by Charles Clements details the devastating effect that the process of colonization has had on indigenous peoples, traditional agroecosystems and local knowledge and preservation of rare genetic combinations of food crops and natural products, in the Brazilian Amazon.

5. The World Council for Indigenous Peoples, established in 1975, is only one example of the strength of some of their representative NGOs. An Indigenous Peoples' Biodiversity Network was set up by indigenous peoples who we observers at the First Session of the Intergovernmental Committee for the CBD (Nairobi 1993), and many observer NGOs to the GPA and to the Global Forum meetings before each session of the COP to the CBD, have provided inputs which have influenced recent events. In general, there are understandable problems in designating only a few representatives for so many different ethnic nations, whose languages and cultures are little understood by outsiders, who may be targeted by rather doubtful organisations with their own agenda, whose boundaries often cross those of sovereign states, and who have minimal infrastructural and financial support to coordinate their activities for policy making independently.

6. Evans, M.I. 1996b " La conservation de la nature par la commercialisation des ressources". In: L'alimentation en foret tropicale: interactions bioculturelles. Ed. Hladik et al. CNRS/UNESCO: Paris.

7. Sometimes called "biopiracy" when carried out without prior informed consent on land.

8. With the suffix -s, the word values implies a set of moral and cultural perceptions. Without the -s, it tends to have an economic implication unless otherwise specified (see Evans 1996a in Biopolicy, PY96003).

9. "What is wild about food?". Policy briefing paper, Green College Centre for Environmental Policy and Understanding, University of Oxford, June 1994.

10. Illustrations of this were given in a 1996 meeting of various African government representatives, held in the Cameroun, to discuss conservation policies to protect wildlife (and especially primates) being exploited as bushmeat as a cash crop for export to urban centres without controls for sustainable off-take rates, restriction of species or guidelines for humane slaughtering.

11. see Dennis Postle (1980) "Catastrophe Theory": Fontana. Based on work in the 1920s by Rene, Thom, and Leibig's late C19th work on the Law of the Minimum.

12. These include the dangers of further contamination and irreplaceable loss of soil and of fresh water; of marine pollution; of residues, additives and food processing methods which undermine human health; of loss of biodiversity in current and potential food, medicinal and other species which human society may need to rely on; of deforestation and degradation of key ecosystems in which species need to live and evolve; of inequality of entitlements (a term first proposed by A K Sen in "Famines as failures of exchange entitlements". 1976a, Economic and Political Weekly, No. 11, to denote the effective ability to acquire food, influenced principally by one's income, but also by market availability and sociocultural factors of trade/barter systems) to food and the negative effects of malnutrition on not only individuals, but on society as a whole as intellectual and physical potentials are diminished; of undue use of energy resources, and of building pressures on fertile land and in biologically important habitats.

13. An acknowledged problem of most governments is their constitutionally restricted term of office, and the short-term nature of their policies.

14. As seen in the 3rd extraordinary session of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, held in Rome in mid-December 1996, for example.

15. The fight to safeguard landraces and indigenous breeds of livestock is already well represented by NGOs such as GRAIN, by academic policy advisors such as Berg, Juma, Shiva and Swaminathan,. IPGRI has published a key overview, proceedings of a workshop in Wageningen in July 1995, entitled "Participatory Plant Breeding, eds. Eyzaguirre and Iwanaga, 1996. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute: Rome. An excellent analysis of "Anthropology and the conservation of biodiversity" is given by Orlove and Brush, Ann. Rev. Anthropol., 1996, 25, pp329-352.

16. Leading conservation scientists including Ghillean Prance, are reconciled to the idea that as it is evidently not possible to save all the biodiversity of species on Earth, priorities must be set. This point has been raised in the second meeting of SBSTTA (Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice to the CBD), Sept.1996.

17. The rush of advertising in the UK for investments even in the dubious enterprise of ostrich-farming in this climate, was only a blip in the reactions to the beef-scare (BSE/CJD), which may well turn more non-vegetarians to seek "wild" game meat and fish, as well as traditionally reared low-input beef.

18. Prompted by the ideas of concerned academics such as Robert Chambers, David Brokenshaw and Michael Cernea. Eg: Chambers, R. et al., eds. 1989, "Farmer First", reprinted 1990, 1993, Intermediate Technology Publications: London, and Cernea et al., eds., 1994, "Making development sustainable: from concepts to action", Environmentally Sustainable Development Occasional Paper Series No. 2, The World Bank, Washington DC, reprinted 1995.

19. This Commission will also start to consider animal genetic resources for food and agriculture in 1997.

20. see: Martinez-Alier, J. and Schluepmann, K. 1987. Ecological Economics. Blackwell: Oxford, and Martinez-Alier, J., 1994. "The merchandising of biodiversity" Etnoecologica vol.II no. 3 Abril. Jardin Botanico, UNAM: Mexico D.F.

21. With current high unemployment levels in many industrialised countries, and increasingly boring and repetitive work tasks for many people, incentives to return to agricultural and wild-harvesting jobs may become more attractive than policy makers imagine.

22. See Evans 1996b, Endnote 6 above.

23. Two examples related to edible species are the invasion by Procambus clarkii (the American signal crayfish) which is decimating the (better flavoured) indigenous northern European species, and the Japanese starfish Asterias amurensis, which has invaded Australia (probably via ballast). There it has become the top carnivore in its habitat, with no indigenous predators, and is devastating the bivalve populations (and thus the Australian shellfishery and aquaculture industries.

Copyright remains with the author.

Published by Bioline Publications
Editorial office: biopol@biostrat.demon.co.uk