News

15.05.2020 |

Conventionally bred plants and animals are not patentable, EPO rules

Veg
Conventionally bred plants are not patentable (Photo: CC0)

Plants and animals derived from conventional breeding are not patentable in Europe. This is the conclusion of the Enlarged Board of Appeal, the highest judicial authority at the European Patent Office (EPO), which had repeatedly come under strong criticism for granting such patents. On May 14, the board issued its long-awaited opinion G3/19, which concludes that plants and animals exclusively obtained by means of an essentially biological process are excluded from patentability under the European Patent Convention. However, this does not apply to patents granted before 1 July 2017 and patent applications which were filed before that date and are still pending. “I strongly welcome the opinion of the Enlarged Board of Appeal. It will bring greater legal certainty for patent applicants, and the general public, on what is a sensitive and complex issue that has legal, societal and economic implications,” said António Campinos, President of the European Patent Office. He announced that the EPO will act in accordance with the clarifications provided in the Enlarged Board’s opinion and implement them in its examination practice in close consultation with stakeholders.

„No Patents on Seeds!“, a coalition of non-governmental organisations, rejoiced at the news. “For more than ten years we have been fighting against patents such as those on broccoli, tomatoes, peppers, melons and cereals. Therefore, we welcome this verdict in the name of the European public, gardeners, farmers and consumers,” said Martha Mertens from “Friends of the Earth Germany”. She stressed that plants and animals are not invented by industry. “Knowledge of methods of breeding plants and animals continues to evolve as a common good from the activities of farmers and breeders over centuries.” For this reason, conventionally bred plants and animals have to be kept available for further breeding, Mertens added. Katherine Dolan commented for the seed saving organisation ARCHE NOAH: “We hope the new verdict will help to put an end to a decade of complete legal absurdity and chaotic decision-making at the EPO. However, there is still a huge risk that big corporations, such as Bayer (previously Monsanto) will try to abuse patent law to take control of our daily food,” Dolan said. “The problem is not yet solved. Further political decisions still have to be taken to close the existing loopholes.”

The loopholes „No Patents on Seeds!“ is worried about refer to the distinction between patentable technical inventions and the random processes used in conventional breeding. Unless there are adequate definitions, ‘technical toppings’ such as those describing random mutations, can still be used to claim plants and animals as ‘inventions’. There are several examples which demonstrate how companies circumvent current prohibitions, such as European patents on barley and beer, melons or lettuce. In 2019, Carlsberg, one of the world’s largest breweries, filed further patent applications covering barley plants derived from conventional breeding, their usage in brewing as well as the resulting beer, research by ‘No Patents on Seeds!’ had shown. As with similar patents granted by the EPO, these patent applications for barley do not involve any technical inventions or the use of methods of genetic engineering which would justify patenting them. “Instead, well known processes were used to trigger random mutations: seeds from barley plants were brought into contact with chemicals to speed up the mutation rate and enhance genetic diversity. Afterwards, further crossing and selection was carried out to breed plants with desirable characteristics,” said „No Patents on Seeds!“. The NGO coalition therefore calls for further political decisions to close these existing loopholes. (ab)

07.05.2020 |

World food prices drop sharply in April, FAO

Cereal
Cereal prices dropped in April (Photo: CC0)

World food commodity prices declined for the third month in a row in April, largely due to the negative impacts on international food markets arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). The FAO Food Price Index averaged 165.5 points in April, down 5.7 points (3.4%) from March. This is the lowest level since January 2019. The index, which measures monthly changes in international prices of a basket of food commodities (cereals, oilseeds, dairy products, meat and sugar), was published on May 7. All sub-indices of the Food Price Index registered significant declines in April – except the cereal price index which declined only marginally, as international prices of wheat and rice rose significantly while those of maize dropped sharply. The UN food agency said that international rice prices increased by 7.2% from March, mainly due to temporary export restrictions by Viet Nam, and wheat prices rose by 2.5%. Contrary to this, prices of coarse grains, including maize, fell by 10%, driven by reduced demand for its use for both animal feed and biofuel production.

The FAO Sugar Price Index reached a 13-year low, declining 14.6% from the previous month. The FAO experts attribute this to collapsing international crude oil prices which reduced demand for sugarcane to produce ethanol. The FAO Vegetable Oil Price Index dropped 5.2% in April, driven lower by falling palm, soy and rapeseed oil values. The FAO Dairy Price Index fell by 3.6%, “with butter and milk powder prices posting double-digit drops amid increased export availabilities, mounting inventories, weak import demand and diminished restaurant sales in the northern hemisphere,” FAO informed. The downward trend also affects the FAO Meat Price index, which declined 2.7%. “The COVID-19 pandemic is hitting both the demand and supply sides for meat, as restaurant closures and reduced household incomes lead to lower consumption and labour shortages on the processing side are impacting just-in-time production systems in major livestock producing countries,” said FAO Senior Economist Upali Galketi Aratchilage.

On Thursday, FAO also released its monthly “Cereal Supply and Demand Brief” with includes estimates for global cereal supply and demand in 2019. FAO’s estimate for 2019 world cereal production stands at around 2,720 million tonnes, up 65.3 million tonnes (2.5%) from the reduced 2018 level, mainly due to increases in wheat, maize, and barley outputs. The forecast for world cereal utilization for 2019/20 has been reduced by 24.7 million tonnes compared to the previous edition of the Brief, as a result of COVID-19 impacts on economic growth, energy markets, and, to a lesser extent, feed demand. The reduction is largely a result of the downward revision of maize utilization, mostly in the United States of America and China, reflecting a sudden slowdown in feed and industrial demand. The report points out that lower utilization rates will lead to higher world cereal stocks at the close of 2020 seasons. Stocks are projected at 884 million tonnes by the close of the 2020 seasons, slightly up from 870 million tonnes in 2018. (ab)

24.04.2020 |

COVID-19 could almost double acute hunger, food agencies warn

Girl
Acute food insecurity will increase (Photo: CC0)

In 2019, 135 million people across the globe faced acute hunger, according to a report published on April 21 by an international alliance of UN and non-governmental agencies. In 2020, this figure could double to at least 265 million people being pushed to the brink of starvation due to the Covid-19 crisis, warns the World Food Programme (WFD), one of the publishers. The Food Security Information Network (FSIN) found that last year, almost 135 million people in 55 countries or territories experienced acute food insecurity, up from 113 million people in 53 countries in 2018. The key drivers which pushed people into acute food insecurity were conflict/insecurity, weather extremes and economic turbulence. More than half (73 million) of the 135 million people covered by the report live in Africa, followed by 43 million living in the Middle East and Asia and 18.5 million in Latin America and the Caribbean. The number of people facing acute hunger whose lives are in immediate danger is just the tip of the iceberg. Worldwide, 821 million people are chronically undernourished.

Additionally, in 2019, 183 million people in 47 countries were classified in “stressed condition” which means they are at the brink of acute hunger and at risk of slipping into crisis or worse if faced with a shock or stressor, such as the COVID-19 pandemic or extreme weather events. Just ten countries – Yemen, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Afghanistan, Venezuela, Ethiopia, South Sudan, Syria, the Sudan, Nigeria and Haiti – accounted for 65% of the total population of people already suffering from acute hunger. Of these 88 million people, 15.9 million were living in Yemen and 15.6 million in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In terms of prevalence, South Sudan was the country hit worst, with 61% of the population suffering from acute hunger, followed by 53% in Yemen. The figures in the report refer to 2019 and were prepared before the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and do not yet consider the potential impact of desert locust infestations on food security in East Africa. But according to new WFP projections, the COVID-19 pandemic will see more than a quarter of a billion people in low and middle-income countries suffering acute hunger by the end of this year.

“These new projections show the scale of the catastrophe we are facing,” warned WFP chief economist Arif Husain. “We must make sure that tens of millions of people already on the verge of starvation do not succumb to this virus or to its economic consequences in terms of loss of jobs and incomes.” He is most worried about people living in conflict zones and those forced from their homes and into refugee camps. “They did not need COVID-19. Even without it their lives were hanging by a thread. They literally depend on us for their lives. If we cannot get to them for any reason they end up paying the ultimate price,” Husain added. He said the situation in poor countries is too gruesome to comprehend. “We need to get ready for the second and the third wave of this disease,” he urged. “People are losing their livelihoods and their incomes and, at the same time, supply chains are disrupted. This translates into a double whammy which has both the breadth and the depth of hunger increasing around the world.” (ab)

16.04.2020 |

Carlsberg has once again applied for patents on barley and beer

Beer
Beer and barley: Carlsberg‘s invention? (Photo: CC0, Fine Mayer/Pixabay)

Carlsberg, one of the world’s largest breweries, has filed further patent applications covering barley plants derived from conventional breeding, their usage in brewing as well as the resulting beer, new research by the NGO coalition ‘No Patents on Seeds!’ shows. In 2016, the company had already faced severe criticism from civil society groups because, together with Heineken, Carlsberg successfully applied to the European Patent Office (EPO) in Munich for patents on barley plants from conventional breeding, which are used for the production of beer and other beverages. In 2017, together with 40 other organisations, ‘No Patents on Seeds!’ filed oppositions against the patents EP2384110 and EP2373154. Hearings were held in October 2018 and, as a result, the patents were restricted and reduced to certain plants with specific mutations concerning the flavour of the beer. ‘No Patents on Seeds!’ filed a complaint against the decision arguing that the patents have to be revoked completely. Even though no final decisions have been taken, Carlsberg in 2019 once again tried to claim seeds, barley and beer as its ‘invention’ and filed further applications (WO2019129736, WO2019129739, WO2019134962) for patents on barley.

This is strongly criticised by the member organisations of ‘No patents on seeds!’ which see a great danger in the increasing number of patents on plants, seeds and farm animals and their effects on farmers, breeders, innovation and biodiversity. They consider such patents as an abuse of patent law and fear that the basic resources in agriculture and food production will be threatened. “Patents create monopolies. If conventionally bred plants and animals are claimed in patents as ‘inventions’, they cannot be used for further breeding without the permission of the patent holder,” said Christoph Then, spokesperson for ‘No Patents on Seeds!’. “The patent holder can control, hinder and even block access to biological diversity in food plants and farm animals. As a result, a handful of big corporations can acquire far-reaching control over our daily food production.”

As with the patents already granted by the EPO, the three new patent applications for barley do not involve any technical inventions or the use of methods of genetic engineering which would justify patenting them. “Instead, well known processes were used to trigger random mutations: seeds from barley plants were brought into contact with chemicals to speed up the mutation rate and enhance genetic diversity. Afterwards, further crossing and selection was carried out to breed plants with desirable characteristics,” says a press release published by ‘No patents on seeds!’. According to the coalition, barley kernels with changed starch composition are supposedly more suitable for brewing beer. Even though there is nothing new or technical in the process described in the patent, Carlsberg is claiming the resulting seeds, plants, the harvest as well as food and beverages, such as beer, as its invention.

The patents granted on barley in 2016 are an example of the legal chaos and questionable patent granting practice of the EPO with its 38 member states. According to European patent law, plants and animals “obtained from essentially biological processes”, unlike genetically engineered crops, are not patentable. However, EPO continued to grant patents on conventionally bred plants and animals. In 2017, due to pressure from the EU and civil society, EPO adopted new rules in order to exclude from patentability plants and animals derived from conventional breeding using methods like crossing and selection. But legal loopholes remained since patents on random genetic variations were not excluded. In December 2018, the problems were exacerbated when the Technical Board of the EPO decided that plants and animals derived from conventional breeding should generally be considered to be patentable ‘inventions’. In 2019, the EPO president decided to suspend all the proceedings on patents and animals from essentially biological processes until EPO’s highest legal institution, the Enlarged Board of Appeal, decides. A decision is expected in the first half of 2020. (ab)

09.04.2020 |

Human impact on wildlife increases risk of virus spillover, study

Monkey
There must have been close contact with humans (Photo: S. Hermann & F. Richter, CC0)

Human impact on wildlife through activities such as hunting, farming and the destruction of habitats has increased the risk of viruses spilling over from animals to humans, new research shows. According to a study published in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society on April 8, there is a link between environmental change and the transmission of animal viruses to humans: “Exploitation of wildlife through hunting and trade facilitates close contact between wildlife and humans, and our findings provide further evidence that exploitation, as well as anthropogenic activities that have caused losses in wildlife habitat quality, have increased opportunities for animal-human interactions and facilitated zoonotic disease transmission,” the authors write in the abstract of the study. “Spillover of viruses from animals is a direct result of our actions involving wildlife and their habitat,” said lead author Christine Kreuder Johnson from the University of California, Davis. “The consequence is they’re sharing their viruses with us. These actions simultaneously threaten species survival and increase the risk of spillover,” she added.

For the study, the scientists assembled a large dataset of the 142 known viruses that are transmitted from animals to humans and the species that are involved as potential hosts. They used the Red List of Threatened Species, compiled by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), and examined patterns in those species’ abundance, extinction risks and underlying causes for species declines. The researchers found that the top 10 mammalian species with the highest number of viruses shared with humans included eight domesticated species: pigs, cattle, horses, sheep, dogs, goats, cats and camels. This is likely a result of our frequent close interactions with these species for centuries. Wild animals that have increased in abundance and adapted well to human-dominated environments also share more viruses with people. This group includes, for example, some rodent, bat and primate species which live among people, close to human settlements and near farms and fields, making them high-risk for ongoing transmission of viruses to people. Bats have often been implicated as a source of “high consequence” pathogens, such as SARS.

At the other end of the spectrum are threatened and endangered species, the study notes. This includes animals whose population declines were connected to hunting, wildlife trade and decreases in habitat quality. These species “were also predicted to host nearly twice as many zoonotic viruses compared to threatened species declining for other reasons,” the authors write. “Anthropogenic activities that have altered the landscape, such as forest fragmentation, development and conversion to cropland, have caused declines in wildlife habitat quality, and, as with exploitation, are likely to also increase the probability of animal-human interactions during and subsequent to land conversion activities.” The scientists warn that human encroachment into biodiverse areas increases the risk of spillover of novel infectious diseases by enabling new contacts between humans and wildlife. “We need to be really attentive to how we interact with wildlife and the activities that bring humans and wildlife together,” Johnson said. “We obviously don’t want pandemics of this scale. We need to find ways to co-exist safely with wildlife, as they have no shortages of viruses to give us.” (ab)

27.03.2020 |

Coronavirus measures could disrupt food chains, FAO warns

Onion
Onions waiting to be harvested (Photo: CC0)

Coronavirus measures imposed by national governments could disrupt food chains around the world, the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) has warned. On March 26, the food agency’s Director-General, QU Dongyu, urged leaders of the G20 countries to take measures in order to ensure that food systems continue to work well, especially in relation to access to food for the world’s poor during the COVID-19 pandemic. “We have to ensure that food value chains are not disrupted and continue to function well and promote the production and availability of diversified, safe and nutritious food for all,” he said in an online address. “The poor and the vulnerable will be the hardest hit, and governments should strengthen social safety mechanisms to maintain their access to food,” he added.

QU Dongyu stressed that the supply of food is functioning well but there is growing concern that protectionist policies and restrictions on movement could disrupt food production, processing, distribution and sales, both nationally and globally. He drew a parallel to the 2007-08 global food price crisis, saying that uncertainty at that time triggered a wave of export restrictions by some countries, while others started importing food aggressively. This contributed to excessive price volatility, with negative consequences for low-income food-deficit countries. The same warnings are issued by Maximo Torero, chief economist at FAO, who underlined that governments must resist calls from some quarters to protect their own food supply by restricting exports. “Trade barriers will create extreme volatility. (…) That’s what we observe in food crises,” he told British newspaper The Guardian.

Torero warned that some countries have already introduced tariffs and export bans. Kazakhstan, for instance, has halted exports of wheat flour, and has imposed restrictions on buckwheat and vegetables including onions, carrots and potatoes, The Guardian reports. According to the newspaper, Vietnam, the world’s third biggest rice exporter, has temporarily suspended rice export contracts. It is suspected that Russia, the world’s biggest wheat exporter, might also threaten to restrict exports, as it has done before, not to mention measures which could be taken by US president Donald Trump. Another problem that could arise quickly in the coming weeks is the shortage of field workers caused by the corona pandemic. As governments close borders, recruiting seasonal workers is becoming impossible. “We need to be careful not to break the food value chain and the logistics or we will be looking at problems with fresh vegetables and fruits soon,” Torero told the Guardian. “Fruit and vegetables are also very labour intensive, if the labour force is threatened because people can’t move then you have a problem.” These types of produce often have short ripening times and are highly perishable, and need skilled pickers to work quickly at the right time. Torero said measures need to be taken to ensure workers can still move around, while preventing the virus from spreading. (ab)

23.03.2020 |

Water plays a key role in climate change adaptation and mitigation, UN

Water
Agricultural water management plays a key role (Photo: CC0)

Climate change will affect the availability, quality and quantity of water for basic human needs, undermining the enjoyment of the human rights to water and sanitation for billions of people, says a new UN report. The alteration of the water cycle will also pose risks for energy production, food security, human health, economic development and poverty reduction, thus seriously jeopardizing the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This is the message of the UN World Water Development Report, published by UNESCO on behalf of UN-Water ahead of World Water Day, which was celebrated on March 22. The authors call on states to make more concrete commitments to address the challenge. According to SDG 6, access to safe drinking water and sanitation must be guaranteed for all by 2030. However, this will be difficult to achieve since 2.2 billion people currently do not have access to safely managed drinking water, and 4.2 billion or 55% of the world population are without safely managed sanitation.

According to the report, water use has increased six-fold over the past 100 years and will continue to grow at a rate of about 1% per year as a result of population growth, economic development and shifting consumption patterns. Climate change, along with the increasing frequency and intensity of extreme events such as storms, floods and droughts, will affect the availability and distribution of water resources. This will aggravate the situation in countries which are already experiencing ‘water stress’ and generate problems in regions where water is still abundant. Changes in water supply will not only hit agriculture but also industry, energy production and fisheries. Water quality will also be affected by increased water temperatures and a decrease in dissolved oxygen, leading to a reduction in the self-purification capacity of freshwater basins, the authors warn. “We will see increased risks of water pollution and pathogen contamination caused by floods or higher concentrations of pollutants during periods of drought. In addition to the impact on food production, the effects on physical and mental health – linked to disease, injury, financial loss and the displacement of people – are therefore likely to be considerable,” they write. Many ecosystems, particularly forests and wetlands, are also under threat. The degradation of ecosystems will not only lead to biodiversity loss, but also affect the provision of water-related ecosystem services.

The report includes a chapter on food and agriculture which highlights where land-water linkages are expected to become apparent in terms of climate impacts and where practical approaches to land and water management offer scope for both climate adaptation and mitigation through agriculture. Agriculture, which accounts for 69% of freshwater withdrawals, still dominates global water use, but competition from other sectors is slowing the growth of freshwater allocations to the agriculture sector. Expansion and intensification of crop production on irrigated land is the most significant driver of agricultural water demand. According to the authors, the specific challenges for agricultural water management are twofold. The first is the need to adapt existing modes of production to deal with higher incidences of water scarcity and water excess. The second is to ‘decarbonize’ agriculture through mitigation measures that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and enhance water availability.

With respect to adaptation, the authors propose approaches to land and water management, soil conservation and agronomic practice that sequester carbon and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These measures are summarized under the umbrella of Climate-Smart Agriculture (CSA), a concept which has also earned criticism from NGOs. The report claims that CSA practices help to retain soil structure, organic matter and moisture under drier conditions, and include agronomic techniques (including irrigation and drainage) to adjust or extend cropping calendars to adapt to seasonal and interannual climate shifts. The authors point out that the role of agricultural water management is central to agriculture’s adaptive response. In rainfed agriculture, adaptation is determined largely by the ability of crop varieties to cope with shifts in temperature, as well as by soil moisture management which is crucial in maintaining soil structure and promoting root growth and plant establishment to sequester carbon. Irrigation would allow cropping calendars to be rescheduled and intensified, thus providing a key adaptation mechanism for land that previously relied solely on precipitation.

In terms of mitigation, the authors mention two paths for reducing emissions: carbon sequestration through organic matter accumulation above and below the ground, and emission reduction through land and water management, including adoption of renewable energy inputs. Increased use of renewable energy in agriculture, such as solar pumping, provides additional opportunities to cut emissions and to support the livelihoods of smallholders, the authors argue. They propose specific agroforestry and agronomic practices targeted at carbon sequestration and emission reduction. One of them is agroforestry, which exists in multiple forms, from productive trees for fruit products to native trees for wind breaks and shade. “Agroforestry can have positive impacts on soil water infiltration, soil water storage, groundwater recharge, runoff and erosion control, soil nutrient cycling, and biodiversity,” the authors highlight. In addition, alternate wet-dry cultivation of rice has been shown to reduce methane emissions, maintain yields and reduce water demand by up to 24% when compared with continuous flooding. In forestry, the best options for mitigation are reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and afforestation to sequester carbon. (ab)

13.03.2020 |

Urgent action is needed to stop insect apocalypse, scientists warn

Wild
Wild bees are in decline (Photo: CC0)

Insect declines lead to the loss of essential, irreplaceable services to humanity, the consequences of which are unpredictable, scientists have warned. They are calling for urgent action to halt population declines and further extinctions. In two papers, published in the February issue of the journal “Biological Conservation”, 30 experts from around the world review what is known about the drivers of insect decline and the consequences, and suggest practical solutions to mitigate the insect apocalypse. First of all, the researchers point to a lack of knowledge: “The current extinction crisis is deeply worrisome. Yet, what we know is only the tip of the iceberg,” they write, arguing that the number of threatened insect species is woefully underestimated because so many species are undescribed. Current estimates suggest that insects may number 5.5 million species. “It is surprising how little we know about biodiversity at a global level, when only about 10 to 20 % of insect and other invertebrate species have been described and named,” said lead author Pedro Cardoso from the Finnish Museum of Natural History Luomus and University of Helsinki, Finland. “However, it is likely that insect extinctions since the industrial era are around 5 to 10%, i.e. 250,000 to 500,000 species,” the authors write. “In total at least one million species are facing extinction in the coming decades, half of them being insects.”

The main drivers of insect extinctions outlined in the paper are habitat loss, pollution, invasive species, climate change, and overexploitation. “Habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation are probably the most relevant threats to biodiversity,” the authors write. “Processes associated with deforestation, agricultural expansion, and urbanization are the proximate drivers of loss of natural or semi-natural habitats and their insect assemblages.” According to recent modelling, agro-economic pressure for land will reduce the currently very restricted natural intact vegetation by a further 50% by 2050 in one third of the world’s biodiversity hotspots. Pollution, including harmful agricultural practice, is another key cause of species extinction. “Pesticides are key drivers of insect declines due to their intensive use, as well as inappropriate risk assessment regulations,” the authors find. “Pesticides impact insect populations via direct toxicity and sub-lethal effects (mainly insecticides), and indirectly through habitat alteration (mainly herbicides).”

The consequences of insect declines and extinction are dire since “the fate of humans and insects intertwine”, the scientists warn. We lose biomass, diversity, unique histories, functions, and interaction networks. “With species loss, we lose not only another piece of the complex puzzle that is our living world, but also biomass, essential for example to feed other animals in the living chain, unique genes and substances that might one day contribute to cure diseases, and ecosystem functions on which humanity depends,” highlights Cardoso. Ecosystem functions include pollination, as most crops depend on insects to survive. Insect pollination may have an economic value of $235–577 billion per year worldwide. “Insect declines can negatively affect the maintenance of food supply and put at risk human well-being,” the authors warn. Other functions are nutrient and energy cycling, pest suppression, seed dispersal, and decomposition of organic matter.

The scientists appeal for urgent action to close key knowledge gaps and curb insect extinctions. An investment in research programs that generate local, regional and global strategies that counter this trend is essential, they say. “Many solutions are now available to support insect populations at sustainable levels, especially through preserving and recovering natural habitats, eliminating deleterious agricultural practices including harmful pesticides, implementing measures for avoiding or eliminating the negative impacts of invasive species, taking aggressive steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and curbing the deleterious effects of overexploitation of many taxa.” In order to maintain insect habitats, “key is to have more expansive sustainable agriculture and forestry, improved regulation and prevention of environmental risks, and greater recognition of protected areas alongside agro-ecology in novel landscapes,” the authors write. In addition, engaging civil society and policy makers is essential. “While small groups of people can impact insect conservation locally, collective consciousness and a globally coordinated effort for species inventorying, monitoring and conservation is required for large-scale recovery” says Michael Samways, Distinguished Professor at Stellenbosch University, South Africa. “Solutions are now available – we must act upon them,” the scientists conclude. (ab)

11.03.2020 |

Locust swarms are threatening harvests in East Africa, FAO

Swarm
Locust swarm (Photo: CC0, bit.ly/Laikaac, bit.ly/ccBY-SA20)

Agricultural droughts and conflicts have aggravated food insecurity in Africa and the desert locust outbreak in East Africa is further threatening the livelihoods and food security of millions of people. 34 countries in Africa are in need of external assistance for food, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). In its latest edition of the quarterly report “Crop Prospects and Food Situation“, the agency writes that the effects of inadequate rainfall on agricultural production added two countries – Namibia and Tanzania – to the list of countries in need of external assistance for food. The list currently comprises 44 countries worldwide. FAO warns that the desert locusts have not yet fully developed their destructive potential, since so far they only had minimal impact on crops in Africa because in late 2019 the main cropping areas were largely outside of the infested areas and harvests had largely been concluded before the scourge arrived. However, there are serious concerns for 2020. In East Africa, where planting of the main 2020 cereal crop will begin in March/April, the widespread outbreak of desert locusts poses a serious risk to crops and pasture resources and the food security of the people. With the current biomass conditions at well above-average levels and weather forecasts pointing to above-average March-May rains, favourable breeding conditions are expected at least until June 2020, raising the risk of outbreaks in other areas.

“Farms in Ethiopia and Somalia can expect substantial crop losses if control measures are not scaled up, with the important seasonal ‘Gu’ harvest in Somalia at risk, which accounts for about 60 percent of the country’s total annual cereal output,” the report warns. “Locusts are already present in Somalia's key sorghum producing areas and are near the main maize growing areas.” According to FAO’s latest “Desert Locust situation update“ published on March 10, the situation remains extremely alarming in East Africa, specifically Kenya, Ethiopia and Somalia where widespread breeding is in progress and new swarms are starting to form. But desert locusts are also present in Eritrea, especially at the northern coast of the Red Sea near the Sudan border. For the period March to June, the number of desert locusts is projected to increase by up to 400-fold in the Horn of Africa. This represents “an unprecedented threat to food security and livelihoods at the beginning of the upcoming cropping season,” FAO warns. Desert locusts are highly mobile and can travel on the wind up to 150 km per day. They feed on large quantities of any kind of green vegetation, including crops, pasture and fodder. A typical swarm can be made up of 150 million locusts per square kilometer. But FAO says that even a very small, 1 km2 locust swarm can eat the same amount of food in one day as about 35 000 people. (ab)

26.02.2020 |

Pesticide giants making billions from highly hazardous products, report

PEsti
A worker sprays pesticides (Photo: CC0)

The world’s biggest pesticide manufacturers earn more than a third of their income from selling products that pose serious hazards to human health, the environment and bees, new research shows. Most of these sales are made in low- and middle-income countries and often with substances which have long been banned in Europe. This was revealed by a joint investigation conducted by Public Eye, a non-governmental organisation based in Switzerland, and “Unearthed”, the investigative unit of Greenpeace UK. It is based on a huge dataset from the leading agribusiness analyst company Phillips McDougall and focuses on pesticide sales of the world’s biggest agrochemical giants BASF, Bayer Crop Science, Corteva Agriscience, FMC and Syngenta. They control 65% of the global pesticide market, estimated at 57.6 billion US dollars in 2018. The data covers $23.3bn in pesticide sales of the top-selling products in the most important markets. Since the data only amounts to 40% of the global pesticide market, the NGOs describe their estimates as “highly conservative”. The organisations analysed the data using the highly hazardous pesticides (HHPs) list compiled by Pesticide Action Network (PAN) International, which is based on assessments performed by regulators.

The results of the analysis show that in 2018, the five agrochemical giants made 13.4 billion dollars in sales with their leading products in the world’s highest-spending pesticide markets. More than a third (35%) of these sales or $4.8bn involved pesticides classified by regulators as “highly hazardous” to people, animals or ecosystems. The companies made around half of their highly hazardous pesticide sales in low- and middle-income countries like Brazil and India. In 2018, the five companies made almost $3bn (22% of sales) from chemicals found by regulators to pose chronic health hazards. Pesticides classified as probable human carcinogens alone constituted 13% of the five CropLife members’ sales that year. Among the top sellers were BASF’s weedkiller glufosinate and Corteva’s fungicide cyproconazole, both classed by EU regulators as damaging to fertility, sexual function or the unborn child.

In addition, the five firms made 4% or 600 million US dollars of sales from pesticides classified as highly toxic. Such substances cause 25 million severe farmer poisonings each year, resulting in 220,000 deaths, mainly in developing countries. These estimates date back to 1990, but according to experts, the situation might now be even worse due to the massive increase in pesticide use in developing countries over the past 30 years. Syngenta is responsible for two-thirds of the sales in this category. Its top seller is an insecticide marketed as lambda-cyhalothrin, which is still permitted in the EU, but it is classified as “fatal if inhaled” by the European chemical agency (ECHA). Second comes Syngenta’s paraquat, a herbicide so toxic that even small amounts can be fatal and which has long been banned in Europe.

The investigation also found that the five companies made 10% of their leading products income ($1.3bn) from chemicals classed as highly toxic to bees. These include neonicotinoids which are adversely affecting bees and other pollinators on a large scale. According to Baskut Tuncak, the United Nations’ special rapporteur on toxic substances and human rights, the threat neonicotinoid pesticides “present to our food security and our biodiversity is a human rights concern, in and of itself”. Syngenta accounted for almost half of CropLife’s bee-toxic pesticide sales. The neonicotinoid thiamethoxam was Syngenta’s best-selling HHP in 2018, while imidacloprid was in Bayer’s top-selling list. Brazil was their main market for these chemicals which in 2018 were permanently banned from outdoor use in the EU. Unearthed and Public Eye identified a further 37 chemicals sold by the CropLife companies that are classed as highly toxic to bees. “This practice of the agrochemical giants is irresponsible and contradicts their public commitment to a more sustainable agricultural model,” said Tuncak.

The companies made the majority of its highly hazardous pesticide sales in low- and middle-income countries like Brazil and India, where experts say the risks posed by using these chemicals are greatest. “We are in the midst of an invisible explosion of pesticide use in low-and middle-income countries that are ill-equipped to manage such hazards,” Tuncak commented. “Governments do not have enough capacity to monitor conditions on countless farms and plantations, analyse food and environmental samples, track the health of seasonal and migrant workers, investigate allegations of gross misconduct on farms and plantations, or verify the integrity of the information being provided by industry-funded scientists.” The two NGOs are calling for an international legally binding treaty to phase out highly hazardous pesticides and replace them with safer alternatives. Given the refusal of the pesticide manufacturers to act voluntarily, countries in which these companies are based should enact strict measures to guarantee that the companies respect human rights and the environment in all the countries where they operate. (ab)

Donors

Donors of globalagriculture Bread for all biovision Bread for the World Misereor Heidehof Stiftung Hilfswerk der Evangelischen Kirchen Schweiz Rapunzel
English versionDeutsche VersionDeutsche Version