Posted on

Why Our View and Approach Towards Invasive Species is Wrong

Every gardener is annoyed by weeds in their garden, and different gardeners often have very different approaches for controlling them. It’s not unusual for gardeners to have strong disagreements over weeds.

The Reasons for Having Weeds

Weeds are actually an important part of your garden’s ecosystem, and it’s impossible to get rid of them completely without damaging your garden. Many people mistakenly look at weeds in their neighbors garden, and think if their neighbor would just take care of them their own weed problem would go away.

The truth is most weeds come from seeds that are already in the ground, and have been there a very long time. Studies have shown weed seeds can survive in the ground hundreds of years or longer. As gardeners disturb the ground in their garden, they bring seeds up to the surface, which in turn grow.

All gardeners know that weeds don’t grow randomly, and it’s generally possible to identify 4-5 different weeds that account for the majority in their garden, and also that weeds favor different areas of the garden. There’s a very important reason for this. Weeds actually repair your garden.

For example, if you have too much nitrogen or potassium in your garden, stinging nettles may grow. As they grow, they will consume the nitrogen and potassium, and try to bring your garden into a healthier balance. You will get particular weeds if your soil is compacted, too wet, lacking nutrients, and so on. In each case the weeds will work to correct the imbalance or problems. Gardeners who use weed killer like Round Up in their gardens will notice they get Mare’s Tail, and this is for the same reason, to repair the damage caused by the chemical.

Repairing your garden with weeds alone is usually impractically slow. They are however very good as indicators. Letting some weeds grow, together with other organic methods, can be a very effective way of keeping your garden in balance, and over time weed problems tend to go away on their own.

On the other hand, if you keep fighting the weeds, you end up damaging your garden and you end up being unaware of fundamental problems that could possibly be easily corrected.

The View With Chemicals

People who use chemicals to control weeds in their garden sometimes have a completely distorted view of the world. The often blame the seeds blowing into their garden from nearby weeds as the source of their problem. They believe the best state of affairs is for all weeds to be destroyed, and only their desired plants to be growing. They often look further and further away from their garden.

Some gardeners even think some weeds are worse than others. For example nettles because they sting, or thistles because they prick you. I even knew a gardener that thought all yellow flowered weeds were bad. I guess because there was Round Up ready rape(canola) growing wild, and he had to pull this out by hand.

Some farmers have a similar view. For example, on one hand using chemicals to destroy a disease on their own crop, then looking for the same disease on neighboring (organic) crops and blaming those gardeners or farmers for causing the problem.

Invasive Species

The arguments are often mixed with racism. In fact the Dutch language has a term ‘alloctone’, that can refer to either an invasive species or a person of foreign origin. Some people even think it’s possible or desirable to completely eliminate invasive species, maybe with gene drives.

Of course reasonable steps should be taken to prevent invasive species from spreading.

The reality is invasive species are an indicator of very serious environmental problems that need to be addressed. There are natural methods for control, like introducing natural predators or commercial harvesting. Attempting to remove them completely in an unnatural way can’t be done without further damage to the ecosystem, and shouldn’t be attempted.

Posted on

Why Access and Benefits Sharing is Neither

Access and Benefits Sharing

This is currently at the heart of The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). In principle, what it means is that the world’s genetic resources are available for everyone to use, and everyone is guaranteed access. In addition, there is a predefined mechanism that ensures people who work with biodiversity are paid fairly for what they do. While this sounds very laudable, it couldn’t be any further from reality.

The Collection

The first step was defining what exactly were the world’s genetic resources, and putting them in a central place. The place was the global seed vault in Svalbard, Norway. The plant materials were supposed to be donated by their owners, but this too was far from reality. Most countries just declared their genetic resources as owned by the treaty, so all that had to be done was find and seize them.

In other cases the person in possession was deemed the ‘owner’, and consent was all that was necessary was to obtain a sample. In almost all cases there insufficient information for informed consent. It was simply common practice to share samples of seeds with others. In addition, these often involved seeds bred hundreds of years before, and it was impossible to get the consent from the original owner(s).

In the US the head of the largest Seed Saving organization the Seed Savers Exchange refused to give his consent, so he was thrown out of the organization. In an equally unfriendly way, the largest European organization Arche Noah lost their collection. Organizations were infiltrated, seeds were seized or samples of everything obtained. Public and private seed collections were absorbed, and often every effort made to ensure unofficial seeds were put beyond use. In the first Golf war, Iraq’s seed collection was bombed, to put it out of use. It was really impossible for anyone to say no to having their seeds seized, and original contributors of seed samples to collections were not consulted.

Access

In principle, anyone who wishes to work with biodiversity can request a seed sample from a local genebank. It’s the assumption that the use of seeds will be monetized, so for example people suspected of just being simple gardeners may not have access. It is however a very firm principle that the seeds belong to the CBD, and those requesting a seed sample are only borrowing the genes inside the seeds. This is often established on the national level by treaty, and sometimes it’s necessary to also sign a written agreement so complicated that many lawyers could not say what the consequences of it might be. The use of the seeds come with administrative requirements beyond the ability of most seed savers, independent plant breeders or small businesses.

Many seeds currently in genebanks are degrading. All seeds need to be regenerated periodically, or they will die. In addition the methods used are the most cost effective and sometimes flawed, resulting in the loss of genetic information. In order to truly preserve seeds, regeneration needs to be done ‘in-situ’, that is on real farms or gardens. Seeds regenerated in geenbanks do not adapt to changes in climate or the emergence of new pests and diseases.

The principle behind obtaining seed samples from a genebank is that the genes inside the seeds will eventually be used commercially, and royalties will need to be paid for this. If the genetic material is eventually sold, for example to a home gardener, this person will only have a legal right to plant the seeds and use the products of this. The end user does not have the right to save seeds, replant them, share with others or otherwise use the biodiversity.

The proper use of biodiversity is enforced with DNA tests. Just like it’s possible to determine who your ancestors were with a DNA test, in the same way it’s possible to determine where your seeds came from. Since people plant seeds and use biodiversity, there are major privacy implications with these DNA tests.

In principle, ordinary seed savers and individuals do not have to follow these rules, but again the reality is something very different. Exactly who is a simple seed saver and who is an entrepreneur, or an actor, or a user of biodiversity is under intense discussion at the moment. It’s not clear who has to follow what rules. In addition, everyone is bound by the legality of obtaining seed samples from a genebank, and everyone is subject to a lawsuit or criminal prosecution.

In addition, since Access and Benefit Sharing amounts to privatization, someone owns the genes in the seeds you are using. That means, even if you are a seed saver or individual and not subject to the rules and administration of using those seeds, you still need to think about who is ultimately going to get the royalties, what conditions are going to be imposed on the end user, what the royalties are going to cost and so on. Plant breeding is difficult enough, and plant breeders often struggle to find the single gene they need for a particular trait. Combining all of these aspects makes things almost impossible.

There is the argument that yes, plant breeding and seed saving will become too complicated for an individual to manage, so what’s necessary is to joining an association or organization. The reality is everyone working with seeds needs to involve themselves with hard core capitalism.

Benefit Sharing

The benefit sharing part are the royalties someone pays. In theory you, or the organization you belong to, can negotiate a cut of the profits. This is assuming you produce a commercially product. Since the seeds are ultimately owned by the worlds wealthiest families and individuals, they will certainly benefit the most.

In theory, all the world’s biodiversity has been collected and cataloged as part of the CBD. The reality is the US is not a formal part of this treaty, but in fact offers a great deal of cooperation. This means under some circumstances, some biodiversity in the US is still ‘free’. This offers some possibilities to work around the CBD, but as a result countries all over the world cracking down on importing ‘illegal’ seeds, creating a cat and mouse game that’s adding another layer of complexity on everything else.

Unworkable

This entire approach is unworkable. The world has changed since the idea of Access and Benefit Sharing first came about, and it’s not necessary to fund biodiversity in this way anymore. There is a huge amount of damage caused by the collection of biodiversity and storing in genebanks. There are many flawed assumptions about the level of cooperation people will offer, and what technology is capable of achieving.

Our house is on fire, and it’s time to move on from all of this.

Simply maintaining all seeds as public domain was a viable solution for hundreds of years, and people are able to find their own motivation for working with biodiversity on these terms.