In this episode of Planet A, the ‘father’ of the Svalbard Global Seed Vault, Cary Fowler, takes us on an extraordinary journey through his mission to safeguard the world’s agricultural heritage. Placed deep in the Arctic, the Seed Vault stands as a global insurance, protecting millions of seed samples from the growing threats of climate change.
Dr. Fowler shares his thoughts on the connection between food security and climate change, highlighting the importance of increasing diversity in crops to ensure their resilience against the changing climate. A problem which might be eased by what Dr. Fowler calls ‘Adapted Crops and Soils’.
Dive into his perspective, including both optimism and caution, as he acknowledges the gravity of our planetary crisis yet reveals promising advancements that could pave the way to a hopeful, food-secure future.
In this episode of Planet A, the ‘father’ of the Svalbard Global Seed Vault, Cary Fowler, takes us on an extraordinary journey through his mission to safeguard the world’s agricultural heritage. Placed deep in the Arctic, the Seed Vault stands as a global insurance, protecting millions of seed samples from the growing threats of climate change.
Dr. Fowler shares his thoughts on the connection between food security and climate change, highlighting the importance of increasing diversity in crops to ensure their resilience against the changing climate. A problem which might be eased by what Dr. Fowler calls ‘Adapted Crops and Soils’.
Dive into his perspective, including both optimism and caution, as he acknowledges the gravity of our planetary crisis yet reveals promising advancements that could pave the way to a hopeful, food-secure future.
Transskribering – Cary Fowler
Speaker B
Most people understand that we are going to have to adapt to climate change, and we can't adapt unless our agriculture adapts. If our agriculture fails to adapt to climate change, we will fail.
Speaker A
Many developing nations are struggling with the lack of food. That problem, unfortunately, is getting worse day by day, not least because of climate change.
Today, I talk to Dr. Carrie Fowler, the United States of America's Special Envoy for Global Food Security.
Dr. Fowler provides us some visions for how we can remedy that problem in the future. Welcome to Planet A, a podcast on climate change.
My name is Dan Jørgensen. I'm Minister for Development Corporation and Global Climate Policy in Denmark. In a series of conversations, I ask some of the world's
leading experts, policymakers, authors, and activists how to stem climate change.
Speaker B
We, the human species, are confronting a planetary emergency.
Speaker A
For more than 30 years, the science has been crystal clear.
Other speaker
The reason I believe we need to act now is because the facts are staring us in the face.
Speaker B
The time to answer humankind's greatest challenge is now.
Other speaker
Black girl, flip out.
Speaker A
So this gives us the best possible shot to save the one and only. This is the planet we've got. There is no Plan B because we do not have Planet B.
Welcome to Planet A, the podcast where we look into the pressing issues of climate change and sustainable development.
Today, I'm very happy to welcome the United States of America's Special Envoy for Global Food Security, Dr. Carrie Fowler.
He works tirelessly on helping countries around the world produce enough food for their citizens in very difficult circumstances, not least in the climate crisis. Due to the negative effects of global warming.
Among Dr. Fowler's many merits is that he is the father of the Svalbard Global Seed Vault. What is the Global Seed Vault and why is it necessary?
Well, listen to this podcast and you will be educated on that topic. Dr. Fowler, welcome to Copenhagen.
Speaker B
Thank you very much.
Speaker A
Normally, this podcast is one that we tape virtually. So I have people joining me via the World Wide Web from all over the world. But you're actually here in person in Copenhagen.
What brings you to Denmark?
Speaker B
Well, a number of things. You know, obviously Denmark is a country that's a leader in agriculture and also a leader in climate change work. Adaptation in particular interests me.
So we've had a long historic collaboration with Denmark. And I'm here talking with a number of different institutions. People in the government, philanthropy companies.
Speaker A
Fantastic. Now, I think probably you are best known around the world for being the father of the Svalbard Seed Vault.
Yeah, the Svalbard Seed Vault. I actually went to see it myself a few years back. It's quite impressive. But when I say you're known around the world, it's probably mostly by nerds. Like me.
Maybe not all our listeners know what the Svalbard Seed Vault is. So maybe could you try and explain to our listeners what exactly it is and why it's necessary?
Speaker B
There are seed collections of agricultural crops all over the world. And the seed collections are collections of diversity of agricultural crops.
Most people would be shocked to learn that there are more than 150,000 different kinds of seeds. For example, there's a lot of wheat, for example. I think there are 400 breeds of dogs.
So that puts it in perspective. But these seed banks are typically used for plant breeding purposes. It's what plant breeders use. It's where they get the traits for climate adaptation, for example.
The problem is they're in buildings. And buildings are subjected to fire and flood and wars and funding problems. Everything.
So the idea was to create a safety backup because it's easy to duplicate seeds. And you want to put them somewhere where they're safe. And that's where they're put.
Speaker A
Yeah. So this basically means that there's one place on the planet where more or less all the necessary seed are sampled, collected globally.
And that is Svalbard, close to the Arctic. And the reason why I chose that location, I guess, is not a coincidence, right?
Speaker B
No. It's not a coincidence.
Speaker A
So why is it?
Speaker B
Well, to conserve seed for the long term, and this is a long-term project, you freeze it. And so the idea was to put it in a place which provided naturally frozen conditions.
So if anything happened to the mechanical conditions, you would be still safe. The other was to place it far away from the normal dangers of the world and at 78 degrees north.
It's the farthest you can fly in a commercial plane. It's as safe as you can get. Yeah.
Oh, and I think Norway was a trusted country and they volunteered to finance it.
Speaker A
Yes. Okay. That's important also. Yeah. Well, so it's definitely extremely important. And maybe you can elaborate a little bit on that specific point, why it is that it's important.
I mean, most people will probably intuitively think that, okay, so we have something here that's of value to humanity.
And to biodiversity and to our ability to grow food and sustain agriculture all over the planet.
But on the other hand, you would also think, well, it's right out there. I mean, why do we need to preserve it? Why is it in danger?
Climate change probably for most people is now also high on the agenda. And they will understand why that makes this a problem.
It's a topic that has high priority for many governments. But when you got this idea, first of all, when was it? And second, climate change wasn't considered that big a problem.
So either you saw that it would be or it was also for other reasons.
Speaker B
Well, it was climate change related from the very beginning. Yeah. And I think that most people understand that we are going to have to adapt. We have to adapt to climate change.
And we can't adapt unless our agriculture adapts. If our agriculture fails to adapt to climate change, we will fail. Yeah. So what is the mechanism for adaptation for our crops?
And the mechanism is to have diversity. Yeah. Is to have the right traits concentrated in the crop variety.
I admit that most people would think that 150,000 different kinds of wheat is probably more than enough. Yeah. But the point is that it's really a collection of traits.
So it's not only everything that wheat, for example, has seen and experienced in history. It's everything it can be in the future. Sure.
So if we think about climate change, I think what worries me to some extent is that I think we're underestimating. Yeah.
How profoundly challenging climate change is going to be to our agricultural system.
When you think about it, higher temperatures, longer periods of high temperatures, extremes and fluctuations and all the things that go along with climate change, a plant has to adapt to that at all parts of the growing season.
Yeah. And every part of the plant has to adapt. And that's not trivial. So it means in the future, we're going to need to adapt.
We're going to need to use these collections, as I mentioned, to breed new varieties that are adapted to all the different aspects of climate change.
And moreover, one of the new aspects of climate change is that everything is migrating, including human beings. Yeah. But pests and diseases are migrating. Pollinators are migrating.
So we're throwing together.
Historically unprecedented and unique combinations of species all around the world, throwing together wheat or maize or tomatoes with different pests and diseases, potentially new pests and diseases.
It's a huge agricultural experiment, you could say. And I suspect that for the most extent, we'll have the surprises we get will not be positive.
So we need to preserve the options, and that's what we're trying to do.
Speaker A
Yes, because not only are we facing accelerated problems with regards to climate change, and they will definitely be a challenge to many food systems around the world, we are also at the same time experiencing a growth in the world's population, so thereby also a bigger demand for food.
And that, of course, makes the problem bigger, I assume.
Speaker B
Well, yes. I mean, we're focused very much on Africa. It's going to be the largest population continent on Earth by the end of the century.
And we've been looking, doing some climate modeling and projections of what the yield of some of the current staple important crops are in Africa.
And we see that there's a need, there will be a food demand for 50 to 70 percent more food in Africa by 2050.
But we project that maize, one of the main food crops in Africa, will actually decline in yield by 2050.
So that would be a disaster, a humanitarian disaster right now, much less with the added population by 2050.
So what we're trying to do is to focus in particular on improving the productivity of food.
And that's the goal of the traditional and indigenous crops, the native crops of Africa, which have never gotten much investment. And these crops have a high potential to add nutrition to the diet.
There's big nutrition problems with childhood stunting and such in Africa. But they're also, interestingly enough, crops that are mostly grown by women. Huh.
I mean, if you are... I'm a little bit of an amateur agricultural historian. And I will tell you that most of our agricultural crops were actually domesticated by women. How many?
So it should be no accident or it shouldn't come as a surprise that these traditional indigenous crops are today grown by women. Why? They've always been grown by women. Yeah, okay.
But if we can improve the productivity of those crops, we do a couple of things. We empower the women.
Speaker A
Yeah.
Speaker B
But we also have a more direct route to providing better nutrition to the children. Yeah. So that they're not mentally and physically stunted.
In many countries in Africa, the stunting rate, mental, physical, is 20 to 30% or more, and it lasts for life.
So obviously a huge development problem, economic development problem, political problem, humanitarian problem, is to have such a large percentage of children that have this handicap.
And we can overcome it. The only way to overcome it is through nutrition.
Speaker A
That's true.
So when looking at the nexus, food security and climate change, one dimension is the one that we've talked about now, which is the fact that the effects of climate change is a challenge to the food system, and it can lead to a decline in production.
But another dimension is also the paradox that food production is also a challenge. And that's one of the sources of the problem.
Now, so usually people think about the source of climate change as being primarily related to the energy sector and maybe the transport sector.
But actually, around 20% of the world's emissions are connected to food systems and forestry and agriculture.
So my question to you is, how do we deal with that problem? How do we make sure that in the process of making more resistant food systems, we're not going to have a problem?
How do we make sure that we're not going to have a problem with food production, because that's needed in a world that's affected by climate change and with a growing population, that we don't risk making the problem bigger by introducing and maintaining food systems that emit greenhouse gases?
Speaker B
Well, in agriculture, we have a phrase that we use. We call it sustainable intensification. Yeah. Easier said than done.
Speaker A
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Speaker B
But I think that is the game. Yeah. And I think that's the way that we're in. We need to produce more food, but without more inputs, without more water, without more land.
Historically, the way our species has grown more food has been to cut down the rainforest and expand the cropland. We can't do that anymore.
So we do have to have ways of building up our soil health and fertility, I think, so that our crops are growing in better shape.
So, if we have more nutrients in the soil and can be more productive, they will also not be degraded, not erode as fast. They will also hold water more, so we don't have as many drought problems, you know, et cetera, et cetera.
And this will lower the cost of inputs, and it will deal, I think, substantially with this issue of greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture.
But I think, you know, beyond that, we can also engage in more activities. plant breeding for crops that need less of all of these things.
And then finally, we actually waste a lot of food. We lose a lot of food post-harvest.
And I think in that sphere, we certainly need... We do have some tools we know of now that can reduce post-harvest losses.
In some cases, those losses are in 30 to 40% of harvest, particularly if you look at Africa's situation with aflatoxins and mycotoxins, basically poisons that occur in the food after harvest.
We do need to invest more in research and development to try to overcome some of these issues. We focus on the production process and then we lose 30% afterwards. That doesn't make any sense.
Speaker A
Well, you make many good points. One of them is that the food waste is incredible. So in our part of the world, normally when we talk about...
When we talk about food waste, it's mostly that we get too big portions when we are at a restaurant or we buy too many things when we are in the supermarket because we're tempted
and then we don't eat it and we throw it out or whatever, right? As private consumers. And of course, there's also food waste in both retail and in production.
But in many developing countries, the food doesn't even get from the farmer to the market before it's depleted. Yeah.
And I read somewhere a number that I don't know if you can validate that number, but if we had just the possibility to change one thing, which is improving the cooling systems
of the transport and the storage of food in the developing world, if we did that to not
even an optimum, but just even just near to optimum, we would be in a situation where we could save food equal to the need.
100 million people on this planet. That's just by improving cooling. Is that more or less accurate, do you think?
Speaker B
I think it probably is. And if we can help countries, communities to also market food locally.
So for example, if you don't have cooling systems for fruits and vegetables, then shouldn't they be going to the local schools? Sure. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I think that's the problem with these transportation problems.
It was one thing you said a minute ago that I wanted to pick up on again. And that is that in terms of climate change mitigation and agriculture's role in that,
we know that most of the carbon in the world is stored in the oceans, but a significant amount is stored on land. Yeah. Yeah.
And one estimate that I've read recently is that 25% of the carbon that's stored in the ocean, the carbon in the terrestrial systems has been lost since 1850.
So that's a significant amount of carbon. Now that's the bad news. And that contributes to exactly the problem in the universe.
Other speaker
How does it happen?
Speaker A
Is that by drying and growing peatlands, for instance? Is it by...
Speaker B
A whole range of things. It's misuse of soil. It's soil erosion and degradation. So we could cite that figure as an example. It's an example of the problem.
But if we're solution oriented, we can also cite it as an example of potential. That we have the potential to increase carbon sequestration in agricultural systems in the
soil by 25%. And maybe even more if we're smart about it.
Speaker A
Yeah. It's actually a possibility for having negative emissions if you do it really smart. But of course the temptation... Oh, I wouldn't even phrase it as a temptation.
The need and the only possible way for some countries can sometimes be to do things that are not the most rational for the planet and our entire ecosystems and atmosphere.
But for them on the short term, because they need food for their own population today and tomorrow, they might make the wrong choices, right? One of my responsibilities as Minister for Development, Cooperation and Global Climate
Policy in Denmark is to see how we can allocate the funding that we have to support countries. Countries in having more resistant food systems.
See how we can do that in a way that takes all of these things into consideration. Now in your expert's opinion, what would be your best advice?
It's quite substantial amount that we every year use for these purposes. How do we use them best?
Speaker B
Well, I'm not sure how much advice you want from me or how much I would want to give or what it would be worth.
You know, I think we have these tensions in all governments really between short term thinking and long term thinking. And there's always a pressing humanitarian need.
There are people that are undernourished and even starving to death. So what are you doing if you're trying to engage in some long term solution to that problem when there are people dying today?
And that's a moral dilemma and philosophers can talk about that. Yeah. And I guess they do.
I look at...and research and development in agriculture is often put in that category. If you want to say, well, let's engage in some research program to, for example, increase
the production of one of these indigenous vegetables to add to nutrition. Well, that's going to take some years and there are people starving to death now.
The yield of maize in my country has gone up seven fold. And I think that's going to be a very big issue in my lifetime. And one of the things that I note to people is that at no point during my lifetime would
anybody say that it was a rational decision to make to invest in maize breeding for the result that was going to come out next year. No, but over time it makes a huge amount of difference.
And if you think about it for Africa and other places, where would we be if the maize yield around the world was one seventh of what it is now? Mm.
So we do need to, I think, clearly allocate sufficient funding to these kinds of long-term investments because they underpin the sustainability of the systems.
And without that, what we're doing is we're seeing the gap between the humanitarian need, which we know we can't meet.
I mean, what the World Food Program this year, I think, is getting about half the financing that it did last year. So it's cutting rations to people.
Well, we can see what's going to happen in the future if we don't increase agricultural production, particularly closer to the point of consumption, such as in Africa.
So I think, I hate to say there are no easy solutions. There are no ethically perfect solutions, perhaps.
But I think that we need to make the investments to put us on a sustainable path. To put us on a sustainable track and to save as many lives in the long term as possible.
So I'm a great believer in what I think all the agricultural economists would tell you has been the single biggest contributor to food security and economic development, which is in developing countries, which is agricultural research.
And yet, I've seen that over the years, at least internationally.
And even on an inflation-adjusted basis, our agricultural research budgets in many countries' public sector, I'm talking about, has leveled off.
Speaker A
So I would say that one of the reasons why we, as a small country in Denmark, have a quite effective agriculture sector, we produce food to feed around 20 million people, and we are quite a bit less than that in Denmark, obviously.
One of the reasons why it's so efficient is that we have had a lot of economic growth in the last 20 years.
We've had always a very close collaboration between the sector, the farmers and the organizations surrounding them, and the knowledge institutions, and government.
So obviously, those three pillars of the Danish food production system, you could call it, don't always agree on everything.
But when they do, for instance... If they align themselves around the producing in a more environmentally sustainable way, it really makes a difference.
And that's usually the advice that I give in developing countries when asked what we think they could probably do better in the future, is to see if they can have an organization looking like this.
Now, obviously, it also then means that you need the expertise, you need the resources.
You need also to be in a level of your own development where you can actually make decisions that are not only short-term, where you also can afford to invest in longer-term developments.
But I will also say that connected to this, innovation is not just innovation, and there are also dilemmas connected to this.
So again, I think probably many people around the planet would...
Look to Denmark as a good example of how to produce very efficiently and with a low climate footprint and a low negative biodiversity footprint.
But on the other hand, you could also argue that, well, it wouldn't be very sustainable if the rest of the world did exactly like we've done, because we grow two-thirds of our land.
We have almost no original nature. We have a lot of biodiversity left in Denmark. We have huge biodiversity problems.
So there is a bit of a dilemma here. And you could also argue that it's a paradox that many look for us as a guiding in these developments.
But on the same time, they will need to find other paths otherwise, and we will certainly also ourselves need to reform our way of producing. Otherwise, it's not sustainable in the long run.
But the question I wanted to ask you is, what is the solution? We agree we need more efficient agriculture to feed the people of the planet in the future, and we will have a growing population.
We need to eradicate poverty and hunger, and that is something that I think is probably pretty uncontroversial, and that is what we're working for.
At the same time, we need to reduce our negative effects on our climate and on biodiversity. Okay. These things are interlinked, of course.
But this then means that we face some quite difficult discussions, because sometimes there's tradeoffs.
So for instance, a very efficient agriculture sector, you can argue, is one that uses a lot of fertilizer and a lot of GMOs and a lot of pesticides.
But you can also argue that, especially with regards to pesticides, and some would also argue GMOs, and I've changed my own opinion on GMOs.
I see them also as having big possibilities, but nonetheless, I do acknowledge potentially big problems. And certainly fertilizers, we need to fertilize our land, goes without saying.
But too much leads to a surplus in nutrients, which leads to a depletion of biodiversity in especially our lakes and streams and coastal areas.
So how to find this balance?
And coming from a country like Denmark, again, coming back to the paradox that I alluded to earlier, who am I to tell an agriculture minister in a country whose population is starving to not use pesticides?
When one, we've done so ourselves in Denmark for decades, and two, he needs to feed his population tomorrow. And I'm maybe not that concerned about the negative effects.
But I think it's important to think about the effects of the biodiversity in his country in 20 or 30 years.
Speaker B
Well, you mentioned the word trade-offs, and I guess they're always trade-offs.
But I think that Denmark is in something of a luxury situation in the sense that you can ask these questions, and you can struggle with them and try to find your way and try to find what the best path forward is.
Whereas, as you alluded to, some countries don't have that luxury. Yeah. They have a food security problem right now.
But I think that the ways that you are doing that here in Denmark provide some light and some hope for the future and even some technological innovations that can be useful.
Yesterday, I visited with Food Nation, this morning with the Agriculture and Food Council. I've seen Novo Nordisk. There are others.
And I've seen the kind of really innovative, creative technology.
I've seen the kind of technologies that are being developed here in Denmark and used in the farming sector that don't need to just stay in Denmark. They have broader applicability around the world.
And in the future, and with help ministries such as yours, I think some of those technologies can be taken to developing countries, not in the sense of we have a big, prosperous agricultural sector here in Denmark.
And we're here to solve your problems and tell you what to do. That wouldn't be the Danish way to do it anyway. Quite the opposite. But to say, here are some options.
This is a smorgasbord for you to choose from in a way. Yeah. I think that's where we're going to come out.
And I do think we have to realize that we have different agricultural systems around the world. Sure. And each one of those has to be in sync with the local population. And where it is in history.
Speaker A
How do you see the future of the continent of Africa? We've referred to Africa several times in our conversation here.
We know for a fact that the population will grow rapidly within the next years. I just visited Nigeria. For instance, they add 5 million new people to their population every year.
And it'll be the most populous continent in the world at the end of the century, as I think you also mentioned earlier.
If we, and especially they, succeed with many of the development strategies that are being implemented,
hopefully also a larger part of their population will have a different level of income and thereby a higher living standard than today. This is something we all hope for and certainly something they aspire for.
But all of this is dependent, of course, on the possibility to grow more food in a more sustainable way. Maybe even to become a net exporter of food. It's a little bit...
I don't think Africa is that now, in which they should, of course, be looking at all the objective criteria, but they're not. So, long question, but how do you see that in the future?
Speaker B
Well, in fact, most countries in the world are net importers. I think 131 of 196 countries are net importers of food. I think 20 years ago, I would have honestly said I was fairly pessimistic
about that. I would have said, you know, we're not going to develop the future in Africa, both because of climate change and because of lack of capacity and developments on the continent.
And we know that today we face this terrible cycle of conflict and food insecurity. And conflict causes food insecurity, and food insecurity causes conflict.
So, we need to break that in some way. But honestly, I feel a little bit more optimistic now than I ever have. And the reason is... And I've had some Africans even tell me this.
That, in a sense, we feel like maybe this is being naive and maybe there's some hubris involved, but we feel like we know what to do now. We have a much better idea. Maybe it's because we failed in the past.
Speaker A
Famous last words. Yes. We know what to do now. Yes.
Speaker B
Yes. But I think we have learned, and I think we do have some technologies and possibilities that can lead to a brighter future.
Speaker A
So, by technologies, can you elaborate a little bit? Sure.
Speaker B
Well, I think the reason that we have focused at the State Department on this question of soils and adapted crops is because we think those are the most fundamental aspects of building long-term food security.
You can simply think of the opposite. Are we going to have food security with bad soils? Are we going to have it with crops that are not adapted to the climate? Well, no. Obviously not.
But are we positioned right now and are we acting as if we believe that? Or are we acting as if, no, we can have food security without good soil and without adapted crops?
So, I think we want to focus attention, focus investment.
We want to create a new conversation about agricultural development in Africa with Africans. They are saying this to us. We're not really saying it to them. But we are.
But can we make this a new conversation about getting the basics right? I always tell people food systems are incredibly complex.
And if you're a government or a company or a philanthropy or a civil society organization, you can enter the food system and make small changes everywhere along the line.
But what are the most strategic changes to make? Where can you have the most impact? And our point is that we think the strategic impact has to be with food.
We think the strategic impact has to be with improving the soil and improving the crop adaptation because long-term there's no alternative.
Speaker A
Well, so the reason I asked you to expand on it is that on one hand it's almost self-evident.
On the other hand, I would argue it could be seen as a little bit controversial because at least when I look at the food systems, I actually look at that as the sector when talking about mitigation of greenhouse gases where we don't have the solutions.
Because in the energy sector, we know more or less what to do. In the transport sector, it's difficult, but we know more or less what to do.
But in the agriculture sector, I mean, we are struggling with this in Denmark right now how there's no technical fix. A cow is not a machine. It's a living animal.
So I guess my question is, do you see any big technology transitions that are not simply applying the technology that we have now?
Even the methods that we have now because I read somewhere, and again, this is by memory, so I might be having the numbers a little bit wrong, but that if Africa were as efficient in the agriculture sector as Europe was in 1980, they would easily be able to be self-supplying in food now.
So that's just using known technology that's been known for decades and decades. But of course, the interesting question is, do we have new technologies that we don't know now? And connected to this, we've spoken mostly about.
What about crops and land use? What about livestock? And this is because this is where we have the biggest headache in Denmark with regards to our climate policies. How do we mitigate emissions from our livestock?
How do you see these problems?
Speaker B
Well, I think we do have a steeper road to climb on the mitigation side in part, and I come at this from a crop angle. I'm not a livestock expert.
But I'll say that on the crop side. In terms of mitigation, of course, a big part of the problem has to do with chemical fertilizers and production of nitrogen fertilizers.
And that's where I see the biggest possibility for gain as well because I think there are some interesting research initiatives now in a couple of different directions of creating green ammonia, of creating low-emission nitrogen fertilizers, if you will,
and also for ramping up the production of legumes and increasing the nitrogen fixation that legumes and the microorganisms associated with them naturally do.
Livestock, I'm not so sure about. The cows on my own farm would tell you I'm not an expert.
But I know that there are also research possibilities there on forage grasses and things like that and methane digesters and such. But I acknowledge that we have farther to go in that area. Okay.
Speaker A
I think probably experts in livestock would say that they need not a seed vault, but they need a livestock vault because we actually face some of the same problems, right?
I mean, in some African countries, well, I visited Ethiopia where some of the farmers that, or actually more herdsmen, I think would be a more correct way of describing how they made a living.
But they have been herding camels for generations. And the hottest inhabited place on the planet, which is their far region. But now the camels are dying because of the heat.
That's just one, of course, very symbolic example of something that will also influence food production all over the world, which is that also livestock will be influenced by climate change, by the heat, by the lack of food and water, by diseases, and so forth.
Anyway, that's another discussion for another podcast, maybe.
Speaker B
Maybe for another expert. Maybe even.
Other speaker
Maybe. Maybe even.
Speaker A
But Dr. Fowler, thank you so much for this very interesting discussion.
Speaker B
Thank you.
Speaker A
You've listened to Planet A, a podcast on climate change and what to do about it.