From the conservation of genetic diversity to the promotion of quality foodstuff: can the French model of 'Appellation d'Origine Contrôlée' be exported?

"Building on ongoing research, this paper aims at suggesting alternative ways to conventional IPR systems to promote local varieties and related knowledge in developing countries. Many attempts to protect genetic diversity and local knowledge through IPR are in jeopardy because of misunderstanding on the terms of the debate and misrepresentation of the claims and interests of the various stakeholders. The paper then suggests that to improve rural livelihood conditions and promote genetic diversity conservation, it would be more efficient and satisfactory for the parties involved to build on local perceptions of foodstuff production and associated knowledge. It is easier and more feasible to stress the importance of a given know-how in the processing of products from genetically diversified or highly specific resources, than to isolate indigenous or local contributions in the conservation of genetic resources. This simplifies the remuneration issue and reinforces the legitimacy of local claims. Finally the paper discusses the feasibility, expected advantages and drawbacks of an adaptation of the French system of Appellation d'Origine Contrôlée (AOC) — a type of geographical indication of origin — for developing countries.." Author's AbstractGenetic diversity, Food quality, Genetic resources, Conservation, breeders rights, Appellation of origin, Intellectual property rights, TRIPS Agreement,

L'idéologie marchande au service de la biodiversité ?

International audienc

Valuing Nature to Save It? The Centrality of Valuation in the New Spirit of Conservation

For thirty years, advocates of the economic valuation of nature have been claiming that it contributes to making the ecological crisis more tangible. The valuation framing fosters a shared vision of nature as capital amenable to management and protection. Yet, this approach has scarcely been applied in practice and has therefore not yielded tangible conservation outcomes. Why is economic valuation of nature consistently presented as a panacea in the absence of the slightest evidence to that effect? Beyond conventional answers—policy path dependency, alignment with the dominant balance of power—we propose to analyze the centrality of nature valuation in conservation discourses using the notion of valuation-centrism forged from Gibson-Graham’s capitalocentrism. By valuation-centrism, we mean a system of discourse and knowledge that subverts all exit strategies from the ecological crisis into valuation practices, that reinforces hegemonic capitalist representations of nature, and that thwarts the imagining of “other natures.

Performing Nature’s Valuation: The art of natural capital accounting

Accounting for nature as capital is touted as a promising way of aligning environmental conservation with global capitalism by valuing nature like economic assets. Both its proponents and detractors speculate on what its promises might achieve if they were fully realized, i.e., if nature were actually accounted for, capitalized or commodified. There is, however, an enduring disjunction between vision and execution in this field: the promises simply do not materialize. Economizing nature proves to be extremely complex, raising not only technical hurdles but also intractable conceptual and ontological issues. We suggest taking a critical realist approach to natural capital accounting, acknowledging the inherent resistance of nature to being treated as capital. We consider the arenas dedicated to natural capital accounting as the sites of singular dramaturgical performances, whose effects extend beyond the integration of nature into economic decision making. Drawing on documents, interviews and observations at events dedicated to natural capital accounting, we highlight their theatrical character and reveal the effects they produce. This article aims to contribute to the investigation of environmental governance arenas by emphasizing their significance as venues for symbolic performance and achievement, extending beyond the traditional emphasis on regulatory and hoped-for environmental transformations

Les marchés de la biodiversité

Depuis la fin des années 1980, l’essor des biotechnologies et l’extension des brevets sur le vivant ont laissé entrevoir des possibilités d’utilisations lucratives des substances naturelles, notamment dans les secteurs de la pharmacie, de la cosmétique, de l’agroalimentaire... Pour concilier la conservation de la biodiversité et les revendications des populations autochtones gardiennes de ces ressources, la Convention sur la diversité biologique, signée lors du Sommet de Rio en 1992, a préconisé l’institution de marchés. Il s’agissait aussi d’en finir avec la bio-piraterie et d’assurer « le partage juste et équitable des avantages tirés de l’exploitation des ressources génétiques ». Ces « marchés de la biodiversité », soutenus par la vague du libéralisme économique, ont été l’objet de toutes les spéculations. Mais au-delà du slogan, qu’en est-il aujourd’hui de la marchandisation du vivant ? Comment se décline-t-elle du Nord au Sud ? Le cadre juridique et politique de la Convention n’est-il pas déjà dépassé par l’évolution des connaissances et des techniques, et peu adapté à la complexité des situations observées ? Pour répondre à ces questions, économistes, juristes, sociologues, anthropologues et biochimistes apportent ici un éclairage nouveau, documenté et critique, sur le modèle de conservation de la biodiversité fondé sur son exploitation commerciale

Superweed amaranth: metaphor and the power of a threatening discourse

This paper analyses the use of metaphor in discourses around the “superweed” Palmer amaranth. Most weed scientists associated with the US public agricultural extension system dismiss the term superweed. However, together with the media, they indirectly encourage aggressive control practices by actively diffusing the framing of herbicide resistant Palmer amaranth as an existential threat that should be eradicated at any cost. We use argumentative discourse analysis to better understand this process. We analyze a corpus consisting of reports, policy briefs, and press releases produced by state extension services, as well as articles from professional and popular magazines and newspapers quoting extension specialists and/or public sector weed scientists or agronomists. We show how the superweed discourse is powered by negative metaphors, and legitimizes aggressive steps to eradicate the weed. This discourse reinforces the farmers’ techno-optimism master frame, contributes to deskilling of farmers and sidelines ethical concerns