Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T13:18:01.642Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Back to the future. How scenarios of future globalisation, biotechnology, disease and climate change can inform present animal genetic resources policy development

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2011

A.G. Drucker ,
S.J. Hiemstra ,
N. Louwaars ,
J.K. Oldenbroek ,
M.W. Tvedt ,
I. Hoffmann ,
K. Awgichew ,
S. Abegaz Kehedé ,
P.N. Bhat  and
A. da Silva Manante
A.G. Drucker
Affiliation:
School for Environmental Research, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Australia
S.J. Hiemstra
Affiliation:
Centre for Genetic Resources, the Netherlands (CGN) of Wageningen, University and Research Centre, Wageningen, The Netherlands
N. Louwaars
Affiliation:
Centre for Genetic Resources, the Netherlands (CGN) of Wageningen, University and Research Centre, Wageningen, The Netherlands
J.K. Oldenbroek
Affiliation:
Centre for Genetic Resources, the Netherlands (CGN) of Wageningen, University and Research Centre, Wageningen, The Netherlands
M.W. Tvedt
Affiliation:
The Fridtjof Nansen Institute, P.O. Box 326, 1326 Lysaker, Norway
I. Hoffmann
Affiliation:
Animal Production Service (AGAP), FAO, Rome, Italy
K. Awgichew
Affiliation:
Institute of Biodiversity Conservation, P.O. Box 30726, Ethiopia
S. Abegaz Kehedé
Affiliation:
Ambo College, P.O. Box. 19, Ambo, Ethiopia
P.N. Bhat
Affiliation:
World Buffalo Trust (WBT), 201 303 Noida, (UP) India
A. da Silva Manante
Affiliation:
EMBRAPA Cenargen, Brasilia DF, Brazil
Get access

Summary

With the aim of assessing how exchange practices regarding Animal Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (AnGR) affect the various stakeholders in the livestock sector and to identify policies and regulatory options that could guide the global exchange, use and conservation of AnGR, an exploration of future scenarios was used as a complementary approach to reviewing the current situation, as well as to identify stakeholders’ views on AnGR policy development.

Four 2050 future scenarios were developed and included:

1. Globalization and regionalization.

2. Biotechnology development.

3. Climate change and environmental degradation.

4. Diseases and disasters.

Having developed the scenarios, these were then used as an input point for a wide range of stakeholder consultations.

The findings show that such an approach has been a useful analytical tool. The ‘far’ future perspective appeared to make people less defensive, especially in a situation where current exchange problems were not yet particularly visible or well documented. Many interviewees broadly considered that it was not a question of ‘if’ the scenarios would happen, but rather a question of ‘when’. This implies that we might do well to consider the need to respond to future challenges through the proactive development of new policies or regulations. Such a finding is partly in contrast with the general perception of the current regulatory situation being broadly acceptable.

Résumé

On a réalisé une enquête sur les possibles futur scénarios comme approche complémentaire pour revoir la situation actuelle et identifier l'avis des intéressés au secteur de l'élevage sur le développement politique des Ressources Génétiques Animales (AnGR) afin d'évaluer comment les modalités d'échange de AnGR dans le domaine de l'alimentation et de l'agriculture ont un effet sur les éleveurs et pouvoir ainsi identifier les politiques et réglements qui peuvent servir de guide dans ces échanges, l'utilisation et la conservation de AnGR au niveau mondial.

On a identifier quatre possibles scénarios futurs qui comprennent:

1. La globalisation et régionalisation.

2. Le développement biotechnologique.

3. Les changements climatiques et dégradation de l'environnement.

4. Les maladies et calamités.

Une fois établis ces scénarios, ils ont été utilisés comme point de départ pour la consultations auprès des éleveurs. Les résultats montrent que cette approche a été un outil utile.

Les perspectives de futur “lointain” montrent la population avec moins de protection, spécialement dans les situations où les problèmes dus aux échanges n'étaient pas visibles ou connus. La How future scenarios inform AnGR policy development plupart des consultés ont considéré que le problème n'était pas tellement “si” mais plutôt “quand” ces scénarios pourraient se présenter. Ceci implique qu'il faudra très bien considérer la capacité de réaction aux défis dans le futur à travers des initiatives de développement de nouvelles politiques ou règlements. Ce résultat contraste en partie avec la perception générale sur la grande acceptation de la situation réglementaire actuelle.

Resumen

Se ha realizado una exploración de futuros escenarios como enfoque complementario para revisar la situación actual, así como identificar la visión de las partes interesadas del sector ganadero, sobre el desarrollo político de los Recursos Zoogenéticos (AnGR) con el fin de evaluar cómo las modalidades de intercambio de AnGR en la alimentación y agricultura afectan a los propietarios del sector ganadero e identificar políticas y reglamentos que puedan servir de guía en los intercambios, utilización y conservación de AnGR a nivel mundial.

Se establecieron cuatro escenarios futuros que incluyen:

1. Globalización y regionalización.

2. Desarrollo biotecnológico.

3. Cambios climáticos y degrado ambiental.

4. Enfermedades y calamidades.

Una vez establecidos estos escenarios, se utilizaron como punto de partida para una mayor consulta con los propietarios. Los resultados muestran que este enfoque ha sido una herramienta útil.

Las perspectivas del futuro “lejano” hicieron la gente menos protegidas, especialmente en situaciones en que los problemas debido a los intercambios no eran particularmente visibles o bien documentados. Muchos de los entrevistados consideraron que el problema no era tanto “si” sino “cuando” estos escenarios podían darse. Esto implica que tendremos que considerar muy bien la capacidad de respuesta a los futuros desafíos a través iniciativas de desarrollo de nuevas políticas o reglamentos. Este resultado se contrapone en parte a la percepción general de la situación reglamentaria actual ampliamente aceptada.

Keywords

AnGRPolicy developmentRegulatory optionsFuture scenarios
Type
Research Articles
Information
Animal Genetic Resources/Resources génétiques animales/Recursos genéticos animales , Volume 41 , April 2007 , pp. 75 - 89
Copyright
Copyright © Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

List of References

Almekinders, C.M.J. 2002. Incentive measures for sustainable use and conservation of agrobiodiversity. Experiences and lessons from Southern Africa. Proceedings of a workshop, Lusaka, Zambia, 11-14 September 2001, pp. 175.Google Scholar
FAO. 2003. Community based management of animal genetic resources. Proceedings of the workshop held in Mbabane, Swaziland, 7-11 May 2001, pp. 180.Google Scholar
Hiemstra, S.J., Drucker, A.G., Tvedt, M.W, Louwaars, N., Oldenbroek, J.K., Awgichew, K., Abegaz Kebede, S., Bhat, P.N. & da Silva e Mariante, A.. 2006. Exchange, use and conservation of animal genetic resources: policy and regulatory options. Report 2006/06. Centre for Genetic Resources, the Netherlands (CGN), Wageningen University and Research Centre, the Netherlands. www.cgn.wur.nl/UK/CGN+Animal+Genetic+Resources/Policy+advice.Google Scholar
Koehler-Rollefson, I. 2004. Farm animal genetic resources - Safeguarding national assets for food security and trade. Summary of four Workshops held in the Southern African Development Community. GTZ/BMZ/FAO/SADC/CTA. Eschborn.Google Scholar
Delgado, C., Minot, N. & Wada, N.. 2001. High value agriculture: shaping globalization for poverty alleviation and food security. IFPRI 2020 Focus 8 (Shaping Globalization for Poverty Alleviation and Food Security), August. Washington D.C. USA.Google Scholar
Delgado, C., Rosegrant, M., Steinfeld, H., Ehui, S. & Courbois, C.. 1999. Livestock to 2020 - The next food revolution; Food, Agriculture, and the Environment Discussion Paper 28, FAO. Rome, www.fao.org/ag/againfo/resources/documents/lvst2020/20201.pdfGoogle Scholar
Delgado, C.L. & Narrod, C.. 2002. Impact of changing market forces and policies on structural change in the livestock industries of selected fast-growing developing countries. Final Research Report of Phase I - Project on Livestock Industrialization, Trade and Social-Health-Environment Impacts in Developing Countries, FAO, www.fao.org/WAIRDOCS/LEAD/X6115E/x6115e00.htm#ContentsGoogle Scholar
Dirven, M. 2001. Dairy clusters in Latin America in the context of globalization. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 2(3/4): 301–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dudley, J. 2004. Global zoonotic disease surveillance: an emerging public health and biosecurity imperative. BioScience Vol 54 (11) pp. 982–983, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
FAO. 1997. Long-Term Scenarios of Livestock-Crop-Land Use Interactions in Developing Countries. FAO Land and water bulletin 6. Rome, ItalyGoogle Scholar
FAO. 2005. The Globalizing Livestock Sector: Impact of Changing Markets. 19thCOAG, April 2005, Rome, ftp://ftp.fao.org/unfao/bodies/coag/coag19/j4196e.docGoogle Scholar
FAO. 2007. Managing Livestock -Environment Interactions. 20thCOAG, April 2007, ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/meeting/011/j9421e.pdfGoogle Scholar
Gill, M. 1999. Meat production in developing countries. Proceedings of the nutrition society. Vol. 58 (2). Natural Resources International Ltd., Chatham Maritime, UK.Google Scholar
Hobbs, J. & Kerr, W.. 1998. Structural Developments in the Canadian Livestock Subsector: Strategic Positioning Within the Continental Market. In Loyns, R.M.A., et al. (Eds), Proceedings of the Fourth Agricultural and Food Policy Systems Information Workshop, Economic Harmonization in the Canadian/U.S./ Mexican Grain-Livestock Subsector. University of Guelph and Texas A&M University, pp. 125–143.Google Scholar
Kouba, V. 2003. Globalization of communicable diseases and international trade. Proceedings of the 10th international symposium for veterinary epidemiology and economics. Vina del Mar, Chile.Google Scholar
Nin Pratt, A., Lapar, L. & Ehui, S.. 2003. Globalization, trade liberalization and poverty alleviation in Southeast Asia: the case of the livestock sector in Vietnam. 6th annual conference on global economic analysis, Scheneningen, The Hague, Netherlands.Google Scholar
Popkin, B. & Duy, S.. 2003. Dynamics of the nutritional transition toward the animal foods sector in China and its implications. The American Society for Nutritional Sciences, Journal of Nutrition. UN Population Division. 2003 and 2004, http://esa.un.org/unppGoogle Scholar
Vinkyl, N. & Kleynhans, T.. 2002. Trade liberalization, the livestock revolution and the impact on South African rangelands. University of Stellenbosch, South Africa.Google Scholar
Weatherspoon, D. & Reardon, T.. 2003. The rise of supermarkets in Africa: implications for agrifood systems and the rural poor. Development Policy Review Vol. 21 pp. 333–355. Michigan State University, USA.Google Scholar
AEBC. 2002. Animals and Biotechnology. A report by the AEBC. Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission. September 2002.Google Scholar
Andersson, L. & Georges, M.. 2004. Domestic animal genomics: deciphering the genetics of complex traits. Nature Reviews Genetics. Volume 5, March 2004.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
European Commission. 2003. Genomics Research in Livestock, What does it offer? EUR: 21031.Google Scholar
Gibson, J.P. & Pullin, S.V.. 2005. Conservation of Livestock and Fish Genetic Resources. Science Council Secretariat, FAO.Google Scholar
Hiemstra, S.J., van der Lende, T. & Woelders, H.. 2005. The potential of cryopreservation and reproductive technologies for animal genetic resources conservation strategies. Proceedings, Workshop on Biotechnology and Conservation, Turin, Italy, March, 2005Google Scholar
Hoffmann, I. & Scherf, B.. 2005. Managemei of farm animal genetic diversity: opportunities and challenges. WAAP Book of the Year 2005, pp. 221–245.Google Scholar
Makkar, H.P.S. & Viljoen, G.J. (Eds). 2005. Applications of gene-based technologies for improving animal production and health in developing countries, The Netherlands, Springer.Google Scholar
Meuwissen, T.H.E. 2005. Use of genomic information for genetic improvement of livestock. Proceeding of the Annual Meeting of the European Association for Animal Production, Uppsala, Sweden, 5-8 June 2005.Google Scholar
Boa-Amponsem, K. & Minozzi, G.. 2006. The state of development of biotechnologies as they relate to the management of animal genetic resources and their potential application in developing countries. Background Study Paper no. 33. Rome, FAO, ftp://flp.fao.org/ag/cgrfa/BSP/bsp33e.pdfGoogle Scholar
Rothschild, M.F., Plastow, G. & Newman, C. 2003. Patenting in animal breeding and genetics. WAAP Book of the Year 2003, pp, 269–278.Google Scholar
Anderson, S. 2004. Environmental effects on animal genetic resources. Background Study Paper 28, Rome, FAO, ftp://ftp.fao.org/ag/cgrfa/BSP/bsp28e.pdfGoogle Scholar
AGO (Australian Greenhouse Office). 2004 Agricultural Impacts and Adapation) Department of the Environment and Heritage, Australian Government, http://www.greenhouse.goO.au/impacts/agriculture.html.Google Scholar
ABS (Austalian Bureau of Statistics). 2004. Measures of Austalias Progress. www.abs.goO.au/Ausstats/[email protected]/0/d994d50fc56e79e3ca256e7d0000264e?OpenDocument.Google Scholar
CCAA (Climate Change and Agriculture in Africa). 2002. Facts about Africa Agriculture Climate. http://www.ceepa.co.za/climate_change/index.htmlGoogle Scholar
Charron, D. 2002. Potential impacts of global warming and climate change on the epidemiology of zoonotic diseases in Canada. Canadian Journal of Public Health. www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3844/is_200209/ai_n9132821#continueGoogle Scholar
FAO. 2004. Impact of climate change on agriculture in Asia. 27th FAO Regional Conference for Asia and the Pacific. Beijing, China, 17-21 May. APRC/04/INF/9. Rome.Google Scholar
FAO. 2006. Breed diversity in dryland ecosystems. Information document no. 9, www.fao.org/ag/againfo/subjects/en/genetics/documents/ITWG-AnGR4/CGRFA-WG-AnGR-4-06-inf9.pdfGoogle Scholar
FAO. No date. Extensive pastoral livestock systems: issues and options for the future. www.fao-kyokai.or.jp/edocuments/docement2.htmlGoogle Scholar
Frank, K., Mader, T., Harrington, J. & Hahn, G.. No date. Potential Climate Change Effects on Warm-Season Livestock Production in the Great Plains. Journal Series no. 14462, Agric. Res. Div., University of Nebraska.Google Scholar
MAFF (Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries). 2000. Climate Change and Agriculture in the United Kingdon. www.defra.gov.uk/environ/climate/climatechange/index.htm.Google Scholar
IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change). 2001. Climate change 2001: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. CUP.Google Scholar
Kenny, G. 2001. Climate Change: Likely Impacts on New Zealand Agriculture: A report prepared for the Ministry for the Environment as part of the New Zealand Climate Change Programme.Google Scholar
Kristjanson, P.M., Thornton, P.K., Kruska, R.L., Reid, R.S., Henninger, N., Williams, T.O., Tarawali, S., Niezen, J. & Hiernaux, P.. 2001. Mapping livestock systems and changes to 2050: implications for West Africa. Sustainable crop-livestock production for improved livelihoods and natural resource management in West Africa. Proceedings of an international conference.Google Scholar
Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T., Castel, V., Rosales, M. & de Haan, C.. 2006. Livestock's long shadows. Environmental issues and options. FAO, www.Oirtualcentre.org/en/library/key_jpub/longshad/A0701E00.pdf.Google Scholar
Tisdell, C. 2003. Socioeconomic causes of loss of animal diversity genetic: analysis and assessment. Ecological Economics 45 (3), 365–376.Google Scholar
UN Population Division. 2003 and 2004. http://esa.un.org/unpp.Google Scholar
WRI (World Resources Institute). 2000. Pilot Analysis of Global Ecosystems: Agroecosystems.Google Scholar
Charron, D. 2002. Potential impacts of global warming and climate change on the epidemiology of zoonotic diseases in Canada. Canadian Journal of Public Health. www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3844/is_200209/ai_n9132821#continue.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heffernan, C. & Goe, M.R.. 2006. The impact of disasters and emergencies on animal genetic resources. Rome, FAO, Background Study Paper no. 32 ftp://ftp.fao.org/ag/cgrfa/BSP/bsp32e.pdf.Google Scholar
Ingressia, A., Manzella, D. & Martyniuk, E.. 2005. The legal framework for the management of animal genetic resources. FAO Legislative Study 89. ISSN 1014-6679. ISBN 92-5-105433-9, Rome.Google Scholar
Kouba, V. 2003. Globalization of communicable diseases and international trade. Proceedings of the 10th international symposium for veterinary epidemiology and economics. Viña del Mar, Chile.Google Scholar
McDermott, J., Coleman, P. & Randolph, T.. 2001. Methods for assessing the impact of infectious diseases of livestock - their role in improving the control of Newcastle disease in Southern Africa. Alders, R.G. & Spradbrow, P.B. (Eds). Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, Canberra. SADC planning workshop on Newcastle disease control in village chickens. Proceedings of an international conference. ACIAR Proceedings. no.103. p. 118–126. Canberra (Australia): ACIAR.Google Scholar
McLeod, A., Morgan, N., Prakash, A., & Hinrichs, J.. 2005. Economic and social impacts of Avian Influenza, FAO, www.fao.org/ag/againfo/resources/en/pubs_ah.html#4.Google Scholar
Otte, J.et al. 2004. Transboundary Animal Diseases: Assessment of socio-economic impacts and institutional responses Livestock Policy Discussion paper no, 9, www.fao.org/ag/againfo/resources/en/publications/sector_discuss/PP_Nr9_Final.pdfGoogle Scholar
Springbett, A.J., MacKenzie, K., Woolliams, J.A. & Bishop, S.C.. 2003. The contribution of genetic diversity to the spread of infectious diseases in livestock populations. Genetics, 165(3): 1465–1474.Google Scholar