The dilemma of implementing in situ conservation and on-farm management
Despite the fact that both the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Inter-national Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA) recognize the importance of the in situ conservation strategy, formal plant genetic resources (PGR) programmes have been slow to implement it. As indicated by Thijs-sen et al. (Chapter 1.1), those programmes face the dilemma of how to incorporate in situ conservation activities into their day-to-day work, or rather, following the termi-nology of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO, 1996), how to contribute to on-farm management. Few are purposely engaged in on-farm management. Dias et al. (Chapter 2.5) describe, for example, how public gene banks associated with the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (Embrapa) promote the reintroduction of accessions to farming communities. Feyissa et al. (Chapter 1.4) outline how, since 1989, the Institute of Biodiversity Conservation in Ethiopia (then known as the Plant Genetic Resources Centre/Ethiopia) has been implementing activities for contributing to on-farm management by supporting the establishment of community seed banks. Other national and international PGR programmes have a strong association with non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The agrobiodiver-sity project in Nepal, described by Subedi et al. (Chapter 1.2), was successful because of the partnerships it fostered between the NGO Local Initiatives for Biodiversity, Research and Development (LI-BIRD) and national (National Agricultural Research Council) and international (Bioversity International) PGR programmes. The PGR programme in Ecuador has developed a strong linkage with a community-based organization (CBO), as illustrated by Tapia and Carrera (Chapter 2.3). Following the reintroduction of gene bank accessions, the national programme supported the CBO through practices such as diversity fairs, diversity blocks and awareness-rais-ing on agrobiodiversity in tourism and education. Kendall and Gras (Chapter 1.7 of) describe how the Maison de la Semence Paysanne of AgroBio Périgord accesses germplasm from the public gene bank in France, though the farmer management of these materials is further sustained through informal structures independent from the public conservation programme. Moreover, most public PGR programmes that contribute to on-farm management are either experimental (e.g. the agrobiodiversity project in Nepal), or depend on specific funding (most other examples). They are
52 Walter Simon de Boef and Marja Thijssen
neither implemented as part of mainstream PGR programmes, nor funded through government resources destined for PGR conservation.
The Second Report on the State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture confirms this observation, indicating that NGOs and associated CBOs have a strong capacity for, and the most experience in, implementing on-farm management (FAO, 2011). The current chapter analyses experiences of public, non-governmental and community-based organizations engaged in conservation and development, as case studies. Our aim is to provide insights into, and experiences on, moving beyond the dilemma of how to implement on-farm management of PGR.
In situ conservation of agrobiodiversity as an oxymoron
While ‘conservation’ implies the halting of change, or the maintenance of PGR in their particular state, when aiming to achieve in situ conservation by farmers, what are targeted are the active dynamics of farmer or community management of local crops and varieties. Accordingly, the term ‘in situ conservation of agrobiodiversity’ emerges as an oxymoron (i.e. it seems contradictory but, surprisingly, expresses a reality). The Global Plan of Action (GPA; FAO, 1996) found a way of dealing with this dilemma, by adopting the term ‘on-farm management’. However, the limited implementation of on-farm management since the GPA was formally adopted remains a drawback to the commitments undertaken by national governments, as set out in both the CBD and the ITPGRFA.
Analytical framework that emphasizes dynamism and interactions in agrobiodiversity
To move beyond the dilemma, we assess the efforts of conservation and develop-ment organizations by using an analytical framework inspired by the work of Harold Brookfield. We have adapted his description of ‘agrodiversity’ (Brookfield, 2001) to define agrobiodiversity as follows.
Agrobiodiversity is a dynamic and constantly changing patchwork of relations between people, plants, animals, other organisms and the environment, which always copes with new problems, and always finds new ways.
We formulated three research questions:
1 If agrobiodiversity constitutes the dynamic and constantly changing patchwork of relations between people, plants, animals, other organ-isms and the environment, how can this dynamism and these relations be maintained?
2 Should ‘in situ conservation of agrobiodiversity’ be treated as an oxymoron?
3 With what approach and practices can conservation and development organizations contribute to the in situ conservation of agrobiodiversity?
In order to characterize the practices aimed at contributing to on-farm manage-ment, we analyse the practices, examine their impact on the dynamics, and assess the approach towards institutionalizing relationships for the maintenance of
agrobiodi-Community biodiversity management and in situ conservation 53 versity by rural communities. We aim to respond to the questions, thereby gradu-ally contributing to the social construction of ‘community biodiversity management’
(CBM) as a methodology for achieving in situ conservation.
Matrices for assessing practices and responding to the questions
For case studies, we primarily use those practices that are shared in several chapters in this volume. The cases are characterized and assessed using three matrices. We characterize the practices in the first matrix for dividing the responsibilities among conservationists, development agents and farming communities using the following criteria: (a) location of the practice; (b) type of material maintained; (c) person respon-sible for maintenance or management; and (d) objective of the practice.
In the second matrix, we disentangle the effect of the practices on dynamics for three domains: (a) genetic and ecological dynamics, assessing the linkage between the material (seed and varieties) and the biotic, abiotic and human environment; (b) social and economic dynamics, assessing the linkage with dynamics, in social and economic structures and values; and (c) cultural dynamics, assessing the linkages with issues such as ethnicity and identity, cosmovision and spirituality. The terms used to describe the dynamics are elaborated in Table 1.8.1.
In the third matrix, we address the effects of the practices on institutional aspects at the farming community level, looking at: (a) whether awareness is raised among farmers and rural communities on the conservation and use of agrobiodiversity;
(b) the type of (community) organization established or required to implement the practice and contribute to a degree of collective action in PGR management; (c) the degree of autonomy of the community in conservation and associated activities; and (d) the degree of recognition that these community efforts gain within wider PGR frameworks.
Table 1.8.1 Characterization of terms used to describe the effect of practices of on-farm management on the dynamics of agrobiodiversity
Typology Characterization within domain
Disconnected The dynamics no longer function; the practice results in ‘freezing’ the
dynamics
Managed for The dynamics are sustained; the practice aims to contribute to
conservation
Managed for use The dynamics are sustained, motivated by the farming communities’
use of agrobiodiversity
Revitalized The dynamics are restored, following their loss or degradation Strengthened The dynamics are strengthened, becoming more vital than before the
practice
Market-supported The dynamics are strengthened; the market supports this process management
Source: De Boef et al. (2012).
54 Walter Simon de Boef and Marja Thijssen Case studies
Wheat gene management zones in Turkey (TU)
A gene management zone was established in the early 1990s in Turkey for the in situ conservation of wild relatives of wheat (Aegilops spp., Tricicum spp.). The zone is managed as a habitat at the Ceylanpinar State Farm, which is run by the national PGR programme. Neighbouring rural communities lost their access to the area with the establishment of the gene management zone. The basic purpose of the zone is to sustain the ecosystems through evolutionary changes and ensure the continuity of the crop’s wild relatives (Ertug Firat and Tan, 1997).
Coffee forest conservation in Ethiopia (ET)
The national PGR programme in Ethiopia uses in situ strategies to conserve wild and semi-wild coffee (Coffea arabica L.) within so-called coffee forests. Feyissa et al. (Chap-ter 3.6) describe how this in situ effort ensures the conservation of the Afromontane forests with their natural coffee populations. Farmers collect forest coffee, but are not allowed to encroach upon the natural forest and damage the coffee stands and shade trees. They sell an increasing amount of their produce in special markets, where forest coffee gets a premium price.
Community seed banks in India (IN)
The M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation (MSSRF) supports community seed banks for maintaining food security in the tribal villages of the Jeypore Tract, in Orissa State. The seed banks conserve local varieties and ensure the provision of quality seed of local varieties in times of emergency. If required, they provide the farmers with grain so that they can maintain their seed for cultivation. The community seed banks are gradually being transformed into CBOs to ensure their sustainability. When the seed banks reach this point of sustainability and autonomy, MSSRF slowly withdraws its support, while maintaining, for security reasons, a repository of the local varieties in a gene bank that is managed under a black box arrangement (see Chapter 2.8).
Diversity platform and Maison de la Semence Paysanne in France (FR)
AgroBio Perigórd is a CBO in France that aims to support farmers in their use of agrobiodiversity, while also contributing to their autonomy. As described by Kendall and Gras (Chapter 1.7), each year the CBO cultivates a wide diversity of local varie-ties of maize, sunflower and several other crops in a diversity platform that functions for awareness-raising and training, experimentation and demonstration. ‘Maison de la Semence Paysanne’ means, loosely translated, small-scale farmer seed bank. More than 250 member farmers and amateur gardeners, from several regions of the coun-try, benefit from, and contribute to, the restoration and use of local varieties.
Community biodiversity management and in situ conservation 55 Diversity theatre in Nepal (NP1)
Diversity theatre has become an important practice for creating awareness of biodi-versity in Nepal. Local actors put on plays based on traditional stories and myths con-cerning local crops and varieties. The practice creates awareness among communities and their members on the importance of these varieties, and motivates CBOs to take control of decision-making and the management of their biodiversity assets. Shrestha et al. (Chapter 2.2) share more details on these practices.
Community biodiversity registers in Nepal (NP2)
Another practice that was further developed by LI-BIRD and partners in this project is that of the community biodiversity register. This practice is vital for actively engag-ing CBOs in biodiversity management. As described by Subedi et al. (Chapter 2.4), the community biodiversity register contains records of PGR. It prevents knowledge erosion, protects against biopiracy and strengthens community decision-making in conservation and development.
(Re-)introduction of local varieties in Brazil (BR1)
The Krahô tribe is an indigenous group that lives in the Brazilian savannah in the state of Tocantins. Following the advice of local extension agencies in the 1970s, the Krahô farmers began to purchase seed instead of maintaining and using their own. When Embrapa started supporting the Krahô in the late 1990s, leaders of the tribe demon-strated an interest in agrobiodiversity. They visited a gene bank to identify maize acces-sions that were comparable to those they had lost in the 1970s. As detailed by Dias et al.
(Chapter 2.5), Embrapa continued to provide support to the Krahô for more than ten years. This support led to the joint organization of an annual seed fair, for celebrating diversity and promoting seed exchange among several indigenous peoples.
Diversity kits for promoting food security in Brazil (BR2)
Farming communities in the municipality of Guaraciaba, in the state of Santa Cata-rina, decided to use diversity kits to restore food security and revive the habit of grow-ing their own food. Community members received a kit containgrow-ing the seed of several maize, rice and pulse varieties. The diversity kit became an instrument for restoring farmers’ autonomy in food, seed and varietal security (see Chapter 1.5).
Community management of faxinais in southern Brazil (BR3)
Farmers in the southern part of the state of Paraná manage, in a collective manner, domesticated landscapes that are referred to as faxinais. They extract pinhão seeds from the araucaria trees (Araucaria angustifolia) and leaves from yerba mate plants (Ilex para-guariensis); both products are primarily commercialized. Farming households associ-ated with the faxinais also rear local breeds of pigs in the communal areas. All prod-ucts obtain premium prices in urban areas. These communities, through their close
56 Walter Simon de Boef and Marja Thijssen
relationship with the forest, are considered traditional people (see Chapter 3.2). Peroni et al. (Chapter 3.4) describe the efforts made to recognize the faxinais as a sustainable development reserve within the Brazilian system for nature conservation, as a step towards guaranteeing the protection of the landscape and supporting the associated livelihood of the faxinalense peoples.
Results: assessment of the case studies
Case characterization
We provide a characterization of the nine case studies in Table 1.8.2. A clear dis-tinction emerges concerning the responsible organizations. The first two case studies (TU and ET) are examples of situations where conservation organizations and their professionals are in control. This is in contrast to the other case studies, where com-munity committees exist or are established within CBOs with an emphasis on agro-biodiversity management. IN and FR are comparable, since both cases address com-munity seed banks. In India, MSSRF takes a livelihood approach, supporting CBOs in reaching seed and varietal security. AgroBio Périgord in France is a CBO in which a national network of farmers form a community of farmers with a shared inter-est in the conservation and use of local varieties. In Nepal, LI-BIRD focuses more on the knowledge and information components related to agrobiodiversity, through diversity theatre and the biodiversity register (NP1 and NP2). The three case studies from Brazil illustrate a wide variation in situations in which conservation activities are embedded within existing CBOs, thus on-farm management strengthens or revital-izes structures and capacities associated with the conservation and use of local crops and varieties (BR1 and BR2) and agricultural landscapes (BR3).
Assessment of dynamics
The assessment of agrobiodiversity dynamics distinguishes the case studies through their contribution to conservation and use (Table 1.8.3). A distinction can be made between the three case studies that focus mainly on habitat conservation (TU, ET and BR3). Forest coffee conservation (ET) and the collective management of the faxinais (BR3) have a strong community or human component, which is strengthened by the niche market for speciality coffee or non-timber forest products. However, for the case study on wheat gene management zones (TU), both the socio-economic and cultural dynamics are frozen; human dynamics are considered a threat. The com-munity seed banks in IN and FR lead to revitalizing and strengthening the dynamics of the three domains. NP1 and NP2 strengthen the social and cultural dynamics asso-ciated with local crops and varieties in particular. BR1 enhances cultural dynamics through the reintroduction and revitalization of ethnic, spiritual and also social and economic (in terms of autonomy) domains of diversity. BR2, the diversity kit, focuses on access to quality seed and on the use of local crops and varieties (genetic and eco-logical dynamics), but also strengthens the socio-economic and cultural dynamics, through supporting awareness-raising and collective actions targeting the sustained use of agrobiodiversity.
Table 1.8.2General characterization of case studies and practices aimed at contributing to on-farm management of agrobiodiversity Case studya General characterization /practice Location Material Responsible Objective Where? What? Who? Why? TU Wheat gene management Fenced reserve Habitats with wild State farms manager/ Continued co-evolution, research reserve relatives of wheat curator ET Coffee forest conservation Denominated Coffee forests Curator/area manager Conservation and use area IN Community seed banks Community Local varieties Community committee Livelihood security and conservation seed bank FR Diversity platform and Maison Community Local varieties Community-based Conservation and use de la Semence Paysanne seed bank organization NP1 Diversity theatre Community Agrobiodiversity Non-governmental Awareness-raising members organization NP2 Community biodiversity Community Information on Community committee Documentation, protection and register members agrobiodiversity monitoring BR1 (Re-)introduction Community Local varieties; gene Curator and community Awareness raising and members bank accessions structures reintroduction BR2 Diversity kit Community Local crops and varieties Community committee Household food security and members conservation BR3 Collectively managed forests Community Landscape with NTFPsbCommunity committee Conservation and use forest and pigs Source: De Boef et al. (2012). a Country codes: TU, Turkey; ET, Ethiopia; IN, India; FR, France; NP, Nepal; BR, Brazil. b NTFPs, non-timber forest products.
Table 1.8.3Case study analysis on the effect of practices aimed at contributing to the on-farm management of agrobiodiversity, on three domains of agrobiodiversity dynamics Case study a/practice Effect of practice on dynamics of agrobiodiversityb Genetic and ecological domain Social and economic domain Cultural domain TU Wheat gene management reserve Managed for conservation Disconnected Disconnected ET Coffee forest conservation Managed for conservation Market-supported management Strengthened IN Community seed banks Managed for use Strengthened Strengthened FR Diversity platform and Maison de la Managed for use, revitalized Strengthened Revitalized and strengthened Semence Paysanne NP1 Diversity theatre — Strengthened Strengthened NP2 Community biodiversity register — Strengthened Strengthened BR1 (Re-)introduction of varieties Revitalized Revitalized Revitalized BR2 Diversity kit Revitalized, strengthened Revitalized, strengthened Revitalized, strengthened BR3 Collectively managed forests Managed for sustainable use Market-supported management Strengthened Source: De Boef et al. (2012). a Country codes: TU, Turkey; ET, Ethiopia; IN, India; FR, France; NP, Nepal; BR, Brazil. b Effects of the practices on the specifi c agrobiodiversity dynamics are characterized in Table 1.8.1.
Community biodiversity management and in situ conservation 59 Assessment of institutional aspects
The institutional assessment demonstrates the embedding of conservation practices within local or community structures (Table 1.8.4). TU, for example, by focusing on wheat gene management, involves no such structures; its conservation intervention is carried out excluding local communities from the conservation effort. In contrast, ET and BR3 address habitat and landscape conservation as a strategy, with strong human influences. In ET, farmers are enabled to market forest coffee. BR3, col-lectively managed forests, forms a basis for the establishment of a conservation unit, with the aim of maintaining all the dynamics, in all domains. The other case stud-ies either support the establishment of conservation-oriented CBOs (IN and FR), or strengthen existing organizations (NP2, BR1, BR2). In both structure and function, these CBOs are or become autonomous, and in the end should operate independ-ently from formal or non-governmental conservation and/or development organiza-tions. IN, FR, NP2, BR1, BR2 and BR3 illustrate how CBOs are increasingly able to make conscious decisions on the conservation and use of agrobiodiversity, by record-ing and maintainrecord-ing diversity. BR1 and BR2 enhance the access to genetic diversity for CBOs and farmers. FR facilitates farmers’ access to local varieties at both local and national level; however, in order to obtain access and bypass seed laws farmers have to become members. NP1, FR, BR1, BR2 and BR3 increase the understanding of, and strengthen local structures for, community (agro-)biodiversity management.
In particular, NP2 contributes to the establishment of community institutions (like the community biodiversity register). BR3 explores ways to establish a formal con-servation unit associated with the traditional livelihood and landscape management system.
Agrobiodiversity conservation strategies, dynamism and relations
The assessment of the case studies shows that when defining what constitutes ‘in situ conservation’, we tend to refer to a situation where farming communities utilize and maintain agrobiodiversity. Consequently, on-farm management of agrobiodiversity should be described as a situation consisting of ‘relations between people, plants, animals, other organisms and the environment’. The practices serve within a process in which relations and dynamism are continued or strengthened. As such, the conclu-sion can be drawn that, as a conservation strategy, ‘in situ conservation’ is indeed an
The assessment of the case studies shows that when defining what constitutes ‘in situ conservation’, we tend to refer to a situation where farming communities utilize and maintain agrobiodiversity. Consequently, on-farm management of agrobiodiversity should be described as a situation consisting of ‘relations between people, plants, animals, other organisms and the environment’. The practices serve within a process in which relations and dynamism are continued or strengthened. As such, the conclu-sion can be drawn that, as a conservation strategy, ‘in situ conservation’ is indeed an